Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.

And also untestable. They do not have workable theories which can be tested for evidence of their validity, nor any way that they can be falsified. And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science.

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do.

The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans.

It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?
No

No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how.

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? And you can keep the disrespect in, for all I care.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief!

The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

Yes, it does!
"Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter."
and
"Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation."
and
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world."
and, most telling,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,"

Theological claims may be classified as philosophical theories, but not scientific theories.

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

[denuseri]

And also untestable.

Just as untestable as atheist assumptions and theories.

They do not have workable theories (actually a good number of them do) which can be tested for evidence of their validity, (yet) nor any way that they can be falsified (oh lots of things can be falsified). And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. That was an assumption only made by some. not all Christians...not too mention all the other theists your leaving out of the equation in your crsade against the chirstians...and there is nothing wrong with them believing it if they wish.The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science. Apparently you havnt been keeping up with the ID theories.


The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans. Again your deliberatly trying to paint things differently...most creationsist theories say that the creator made the laws of physics to begin with...made in fact everything, so in essence science is only showing us how it was maby made and how what was made works.


Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant. Only they are not all nessesarally "inane". At least not any more or less inane than the theory of atheism.


No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how. Ive allready covered the field of noetics a long time ago in a thread far far away...additonally, since I believe that the laws of physics are part of creation, the thing is tested every day, but thats not what you said...you said outside of science...where as I say what science cant prove today doesnt mean it may not be able to prove tomarrow.


I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? Well now perhaps we are finally getting somewhere...you see, every single class Ive taken on a religion, or philosophy (even the ones held by thesists) have done that very thing. So why shouldnt science do it as well.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief! So atheism is equally out then...since it has zero evidence to support its claims?

The theory of atheism is just as much a philosophical claim as any other. Not a scientific hypotheisis. So science by your line of thought as no place whatsoever in any discussion about it...so why keep bringing it up?




Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

Points to the clouds above those flames and then down to my virginia...oh darling...why not both?