Science and religion

[jstrodel]

Science is 0% theistic, scientists on the other hand, may be theists.

You just made a massive claim, that Christianity, which has been the most influential and defining aspect of western civilization, not to mention Aristotle and many Roman philosophers (who believed in God) had zero percent impact on modern science. You asserted your claim with zero evidence.

Do you think that science exists in a vacuum? Do you think that the cultures that surround scientific understanding have any effect on themt

Don't you think this would be a point against your argument? If so many scientists are theists, why haven't they proven god yet? What happened to the "atheist agenda" of science?

The point is that science does not prove God does not exist, not the very different and much more serious claim that science proves that God exists. I never claimed that God doesn't exist, but it is a stretch to say that science proves that God exists when arguably a majority of scientists are religious (one estimate was 55%).

Also, the fact that science, in its present form, cannot prove that God does not exist does not entail the proposition that God's existence cannot be proven, unless first it is demonstrated that science alone is the sole mediator of all knowledge. Obviously this is false and extreme.

The fact that science cannot prove something does not mean that its existence cannot be proven some other way. Science does not have a monopoly on the concept of truth.

So are we finally going to decide whether it is 20-30%, 40-60%, or 80-90% of atheists that are punk rocker Marxist liberal fascists?

Does it matter? Look around you. How many punk rock Marxist liberal fascists do you know? Be honest, if you are honest, you won't split hairs and try and define your terms in a way that obscures the original meaning, you will impartially view the nature of the left wing atheist movement and its youth culture manifestation in the counterculture. If you are honest, you will probably name several.

Your name is "darkstar" after all. How many people have called themselves "darkstar" 100 years ago? Don't you think you are a product of your culture, whether that be punk rock Marxist or technology or computer games or whatever it is? Don't you think there are other ways that people hold the beliefs that they do other than logic and reasoning? Don't you think that is intentional?

All of those things above seem self evident to me, you can trivialize the point and prove you aren't interested in honest inquiry, but if you look at the facts you will see that atheism is a culture that spreads through the culture of atheism. It doesn't spread through PhD studies, primarily. It spreads through non-academic culture and non-academic writing, such as the writing on this message board.

Taken out of context:

---

---

The video you posted proves my point, assuming that you grant the very questionable claim that Richard Dawkins is an authority on anything in life.
1. If abiogenesis can inhibit belief in God, it must be on sound epistemological footing
2. Abiogenisis is not on sound epistemological footing, as demonstrated by Richard Dawkins willingness to accept spores from outer space as possible explanation for an unknown idea
3. Abiogenesis cannot inhibit belief in God (MT 1,2)

Well, not theistic specifically. It could be a deistic god, for instance.

You completely missed the point of what I said.