Science and religion

[Darkstar]

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.

You clearly did not understand what I meant at all. I did not say that theists were not significant to science, I said that theism was not important to science. There is a significant difference. What I mean is that the fact that these people believed in god did not bolster their scientific efforts. Unless you are trying to argue that science is done via divine revelation...

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

They might. Some scientists have allowed their personal feelings corrupt their work...which is why there is a peer review process. Now, you argued that many scientists were theists, and that cultural values (Christianity has some of those attached to it) influence science. So, by that logic, those scientists should be biased towards a god, and yet no one has ever found any empirical evidence for such a being, or even its influence.

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%).

I'm confused. This sounds reasonable. Did you make a mistake? (I'm serious, though, not trying to be mean...)

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.

Science deals with physical reality. Take art, for example. Art is not really something that is scientific (although it may be somewhat), but god is an actual being, something that is presumed to exist as more than a concept but as an actual thing. Something like science should be able to find him, and if not, at least find areas in which he must have directly influenced reality.

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.

While this is true, I do not think the idea of truth you have here is something that can prove god. Of course, many will simply claim god is non-physical to put him outside the domain of science, but even then there should be solid evidence of direct interference.

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?

None...though I don't know that many people.

Your name is "darkstar" after all. How many people have called themselves "darkstar" 100 years ago?

How many people called themselves jstrodel a hundered 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?

I just sounded cool...it wasn't based off anything in particular. Though I do like the night sky, which is dark, and has stars in it, but that isn't important.

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?

There are definitely ways in which people hold beliefs other than rational thought. When I was a theist, I didn't believe because I had thought it over, but just...because. When I did get around to thinking it over, I changed my beliefs accordingly.

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.

He's a biologist with a specialty in evolution. Why is it questionable to think he knows what he's talking about? Is it because he's an atheist?

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)

What? I don't follow. Are you saying that the fact that someone could hypothetically propose another mechanism for life means abiogenesis is useless? Did you miss the part where he said that the aliens who seeded the life would themselves had to have come from abiogenesis (or another as of yet unproposed mechanism) to avoid infinite regress?