Why does science always upstage God?

[Haipule]

Just to nit pick, biological life is not about breathing in O2 and breathing out CO2.  In fact during first 1/3 of the entire history of life on earth absolutely nothing living breathed in O2.

Biblical life, on the other hand,  is all about not having any clue what biological life really is and still hoping to keep others as close to that state of filthy ignorance marinated in self-serving wishthinking for as long as possible.

What? Or, Whom? Made you such a GOD DAMNED, EXPERT on biblical life? You, my friend are the CHAMPION of biblical BRAINLESSNESS! You couldn't teach "biblical" life to even save your own!
So, shut the hell up!

How can anyone be so smart and be so arrogantly completely stupid as you? Sorry, I forgot, there is Richard Dawkins!

Well, apparently Anomalocaris knows EVERYTHING! God can NOT possibly exist anywhere beyond his completely infinitesimal inventory of stupid man made ideas!

IT must be SO COOL BEING YOU! Can I please worship your omniscience MY LORD? Can you think of a question you cannot answer? In your omnipotence, can you make a rock so big you cannot pick it up?

And don't forget that science and physics are plastic and constantly being molded by better ideas then you have! If you don't realize this your nothing but a hasbeenbrainfart!

[Anomalocaris]

He also has no conception of “preponderance of evidence”, sees no issue with special pleading, is thin skinned, and thinks all these plus his ignorance would count for nothing if he used a didactic tone.

[Huggy Bear]

If anything, this thread really highlights theists' discomfort with "I don't know." They demand all the answers to life, death, and everything in between in a nice, compact (if utterly nonsensical) package. Lack of certainty makes them incredibly uncomfortable, as witnessed by Huggy (either in this thread or another) going so far as implying that science's self-correcting mechanism is a flaw rather than a boon.

That's why they demand we come up with answers to all these things. They see atheism as a competing idea, and if it can't address all the things their religion addresses, then it's incomplete and therefore wrong. But that mentality simply illustrates that they don't really understand atheism at all. What it is, and, more importantly, what it isn't.

"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer. And, frankly, no atheist needs to provide a counter explanation to whatever it is a religion claims. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It itself makes no claims about life or death or morality.

*Emphasis mine*
What are you talking about? What defines faith is fact that one DOESN'T KNOW. It's funny how you guys don't know until you get backed into a corner, you NEVER lead with it. It took 8 pages for someone to admit the 'don't know.

As far as self correction being a boon, if you had clock would you rather it was always correct or would you rather it be self correcting? Assuming you're not stupid I'd like to think you'd go for the clock that wasn't consistently wrong.

The Bible doesn't need self correcting because it isn't wrong, which is why I challenged any of you to debunk it scientifically and none of you could do it.

If you want to continue to maintain that the above isn't true then post a link like I've asked you to do twice already, but you seem come up with every excuse to not do so, yet have no problem finding a UFO video and posting that.

[Haipule]

The idea of a soul or spirit probably goes back to prehistory. After all, when we sleep, we seem to be somewhere else while other observers can testify we didn't go anywhere physically. With little information about neural activity, it's not surprising that a conjecture that we have immaterial and invisible 'spirit bodies' that leave our physical bodies would be compelling to many people.

OBE is a fascinating subject if we separate the physical body from the energy body and include the energy bodies experience with others whom are physical--stories abound. Did you know that a sleepwalker is so weightless that you wouldn't even realize they walked on you? Did Jesus really walk on water? Piece of cake!

---

Keep in mind, Huggy thinks this kind of shit is real:





His grasp of reality (including his understanding of science) may not be as strong as he'd like to think.

Say what you will but the guy produce evidence of his claims, but like I've always said, no amount of evidence would be good enough for you guys.

In case you didn't hear, the REPORTER chose the DAY, TIME, AND PLACE, and a UFO by definition appeared.

So unless you're claiming to know what the object is, or have evidence of foul play, please shut all the way up and go sit Down somewhere.

I'm no genius(I am but that is just a number that tells the world how curious I am) but, I think it is important that this guy "commanded" this occurrence to happen exactly when it did, so that people wouldn't say he was crazy. In fact, he prayed first(very important) This guy laid it all on the line!

From my perspective(I could be wrong a little, or a lot), what this guy did was to command the energy to refract a light beam to a focus point. To me, it is not a light source, or a reflection. Rather, a refraction through an unseen, unseeable bow, or lens.

Light traveling through a vacuum is known as C. When light hits a medium it refracts(slows down), or bends toward the base of a prism. The bow, or lens this light went through is unseen. Visible light is a narrow spectrum which few can see beyond. Beyond is ultraviolet, and beyond, on one end, and infrared, and beyond, on the other. So, there must have been an unseen lens of light refracting the light to a point which moved and is therefore, moveable. The reflection of that refracted light was white orangish. If you could hear it's vibrational tone, it would be very loud and low and make your groan vibrate!

That concentration of light he "commanded" is extremely powerful! I can only imagine the secrets it holds! Thank you for posting that video! It really helped me a lot! Just recently we were discussing the existence of unseen bows able to refract energy. I will tell my Hui(Hawaiian: syndicate) of it. Anything else and I will violate the agreement of non-disclosure.

[KevinM1]

Huggy, a clock is so unlike science (which, again, is a process) that your analogy is nonsensical.

Regarding the UFO video, lmao.  It was a publicity stunt.  Do you really think that the reporter providing the date, time, and location ahead of time makes it more plausible?  If anything, it just gave the guy time to prepare his BS.  The object itself seems to be a pretty common balloon (do a Google image search and you'll see a lot that look like what that object was).  The complete lack of hysteria surrounding the object - no extra phone calls to the police or other panic - is also noticeable given that southern California lost its collective shit a few days ago due to a SpaceX launch.  You'd think a UFO-angel thing would garner some response from the local community and multiple media outlets, if not law enforcement (if this guy really could summon angels, he would've been whisked away to a black ops site, not left to die essentially homeless).  That you think there's anything legitimate about that report only proves the old adage "There's a sucker born every minute."  I bet you think the news reports of NORAD tracking Santa Claus are real, too.

Finally, regarding your "No one can refute the Bible" claim, like I said before, there were 15 pages worth of refutations after you made that claim in that other thread.  It's not my fault that you're either too dishonest to accept them or too ignorant to understand them.  And given your quote mining expertise (and my refusal to play that game with you) it should be trivial for you to go back and read through them.

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy, a clock is so unlike science (which, again, is a process) that your analogy is nonsensical.

Regarding the UFO video, lmao.  It was a publicity stunt.  Do you really think that the reporter providing the date, time, and location ahead of time makes it more plausible?  If anything, it just gave the guy time to prepare his BS.  The object itself seems to be a pretty common balloon (do a Google image search and you'll see a lot that look like what that object was).  The complete lack of hysteria surrounding the object - no extra phone calls to the police or other panic - is also noticeable given that southern California lost its collective shit a few days ago due to a SpaceX launch.  You'd think a UFO-angel thing would garner some response from the local community and multiple media outlets, if not law enforcement (if this guy really could summon angels, he would've been whisked away to a black ops site, not left to die essentially homeless).  That you think there's anything legitimate about that report only proves the old adage "There's a sucker born every minute."  I bet you think the news reports of NORAD tracking Santa Claus are real, too.

I said the object was unidentified, but apparently you know better than the reporter who was actually there... smh

Your quote from earlier:

If anything, this thread really highlights theists' discomfort with "I don't know."  They demand all the answers to life, death, and everything in between in a nice, compact (if utterly nonsensical) package.  Lack of certainty makes them incredibly uncomfortable, as witnessed by Huggy (either in this thread or another) going so far as implying that science's self-correcting mechanism is a flaw rather than a boon.

*emphasis mine*
Here I am literally saying 'I don't know' what the object is, hence why I refer to it as a UFO, but apparently YOUR wild speculations know no bounds (you refer to it as a "UFO-angel thing", really?). So who really is the one uncomfortable with "I don't?

Finally, regarding your "No one can refute the Bible" claim, like I said before, there were 15 pages worth of refutations after you made that claim in that other thread.  It's not my fault that you're either too dishonest to accept them or too ignorant to understand them.  And given your quote mining expertise (and my refusal to play that game with you) it should be trivial for you to go back and read through them.

*emphasis mine*

If I wasn't clear before let me rectify that now.

I am calling you a bald faced liar, and that these 15 pages of supposed scientific refutation of the Bible don't exist, but never mind all that, link just one example of science debunking the Bible from that thread, I'll make it easy for you, here's the link to the thread: https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1641081

You had no problem finding and posting the UFO video on your own (so quit acting like you're trying to take the high road), surely you can pull one quote...

[Whateverist]

I haven't actually watched the video (because, you know, life is short with no after life), but whatever it may show I don't know how you can be so sure it isn't contrived. You know advertisers on commercials put white coats on actors who play scientists, right? I don't know why you buy the 'reporter' being legitimate. Oh well, that's all the time I can make available for something this trivial. Carry on.

[Huggy Bear]

I haven't actually watched the video (because, you know, life is short with no after life), but whatever it may show I don't know how you can be so sure it isn't contrived.  You know advertisers on commercials put white coats on actors who play scientists, right?  I don't know why you buy the 'reporter' being legitimate.  Oh well, that's all the time I can make available for something this trivial.  Carry on.

My question to you is how can you make any judgements on something you haven't even watched?

[Whateverist]

I haven't actually watched the video (because, you know, life is short with no after life), but whatever it may show I don't know how you can be so sure it isn't contrived.  You know advertisers on commercials put white coats on actors who play scientists, right?  I don't know why you buy the 'reporter' being legitimate.  Oh well, that's all the time I can make available for something this trivial.  Carry on.

My question to you is how can you make any judgements on something you haven't even watched?

Well, suppose I told you there were fairies at the bottom of my garden.  Really.  All you need to do is drive out to Berkeley and see them for yourself.  Are you coming?

UFO's, bigfoot, gods, fairies .. I'm just not interested.  An imagination is a wonderful thing, confusing that with empirical data?  Not so much.

[shadow]

What are you talking about? What defines faith is fact that one DOESN'T KNOW. It's funny how you guys don't know until you get backed into a corner, you NEVER lead with it. It took 8 pages for someone to admit the 'don't know.

There are many things to which science does present an answer that one can rely upon with a high level of certainty. Other questions, not so much. Science isn't about declaring that you always know or always don't know: it's about knowing when you know and knowing when you don't. So one wouldn't necessarily lead by saying they don't know something if they do, but perhaps on page 8 if they realize they have a knowledge deficit then they will. Does that make sense?

The Bible doesn't need self correcting because it isn't wrong, which is why I challenged any of you to debunk it scientifically and none of you could do it.

Off the top of my head: isn't Adam and Eve a bible story? That there makes ZERO sense from a genetics front. You need more than 2 organisms to establish a population, or else it would be extremely inbred.