Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist

[Drich]

What your entire thing boils down to is you do not understand science.I did a long post refuting you point by point but lost it in a windows related accident.

Tell me again how your use of this of this ad hom is not a kneejerk ritualistic act. Rather than show a descrepency in my understanding of science you just make the accusation. (watch how this next part is done sport I challenged you to go line by line, even if you did have an accident you could have at least supported any assertion you made with some kind of evidence breaking my definition of faith in science being it's own religion.

So let me summarize what I wrote.

Science is a method that goes out of its way to lessen the effect of the prejudices that we all have. If facts do not fit a theory then the theory is either modified or rejected.

It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave.

I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

That my naive friend is how your precious 'science/religion' works.

Religions, on the other hand, reject any evidence that does not fit their own narrative.

Some religions do indeed. Science or the religious following behind 'science' are no different.

Science can absolutely explain love.

no, science can identify some of the physical aspects of eros (passionate love) but not what makes a person love meaning all aspects of love is lost on them.

Now I ask you honestly, who has a better understanding of science? they guy who holds up an idealistic pie in the sky example with no proof or did not bother to refute what was used to topple his argument. Or the person who has cited several sources that shows scientists on the highest level selling their scientific integrity to secure more funding?

I know you in your mind wants to call me a name, or attack me personally so you can dismiss what I said without doing your due diligence/looking at the topic any more closely than you did when you put your two cents in to begin with. But, again I challenge you to open your mind a little and consider what i have said. to the point rather than move to dismiss with some trivial stereotypical atheist insult, watch the video, read the articles and form a conclusion based on the EVIDENCE rather than "reject any evidence that does not fit their/your own narrative."

Do you not see your own blind faith in the purity of science makes you a devout religious nut job?