Why do people deny evolution?

Because he wants to live good old memories for forever ..may be thats why ..

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

In the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...anything that is eliminated (or included) based just on guesswork and faith...is counter scientific.

Anything that is included based on guesswork or faith would also be counter scientific. While you can't discount the idea of a god, there is no evidence to include them.

There is a big difference from doing research and reaching conclusions based on the research as compared to reaching a conclusion and then researching trying to confirm that conclusion reached before hand.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

In the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...anything that is eliminated (or included) based just on guesswork and faith...is counter scientific.

Anything that is included based on guesswork or faith would also be counter scientific. While you can't discount the idea of a god, there is no evidence to include them.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest five stars to Sol...

...so are you suggesting that we should simply discount the idea of any beings living there?

I am not suggesting that an investigation be made into this. This entire line was brought up in response to my comment about atheists using reason, logic and science as am impetus for their atheism. I am offering a counter to that nonsense.

Reason does not lead to "there are no gods" or to "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

Logic does not lead to "there are no gods" or to "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

Science does not lead to "there are no gods" or to "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

Deal with that if you want to deal with something.

Quote:

There is a big difference from doing research and reaching conclusions based on the research as compared to reaching a conclusion and then researching trying to confirm that conclusion reached before hand.

See response above.

1 Reply

I can see it now. A scientist does his day's work, based in the observable facts, and as he prepares to close up for the day, he is obligated to say, "Oh. And I guess there may or may not be gods." I give up.

4 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I can see it now. A scientist does his day's work, based in the observable facts, and as he prepares to close up for the day, he is obligated to say, "Oh. And I guess there may or may not be gods." I give up.

Oh, nonsense. I have never suggested anything like that.

Grow some stones, Edgar...and actually deal with what I have said about atheists who claim that logic, reason, and science lead them to their atheism...which, of course, is a crock!

Deal with that...rather than pretending I said something I didn't.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

And one of the things you do not do...if you are a scientist or someone with a brain...is to say, "Well, I do not see any god...therefore no gods exist."

Some people do that ya know, Edgar. And the ones that do should never claim to be scientists...or persons using reason or logic.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest five stars to Sol...

...so are you suggesting that we should simply discount the idea of any beings living there?

You start with sentient beings then proceed to a conclusion of all life. Not all life is sentient so your conclusion is not logical.

As a matter of fact we at present have no conclusive evidence of any planets circling the five stars closest to Sol so to argue their is life on a planet that we don't know even exists certainly doesn't come from any logical starting point.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest five stars to Sol...

...so are you suggesting that we should simply discount the idea of any beings living there?

You start with sentient beings then proceed to a conclusion of all life. Not all life is sentient so your conclusion is not logical.

Wake up, Parados. So I left the "sentient" out before the last "beings."

It was obvious...and your reaching for something to disagree with is pathetic.

But since you actually may not have been able to make the intellectual leap required, allow me to correct the sentence and add the missing word:

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest five stars to Sol...

...so are you suggesting that we should simply discount the idea of any SENTIENT beings living there?

Better?

Glad to be of help.

Quote:

As a matter of fact we at present have no conclusive evidence of any planets circling the five stars closest to Sol...

No, we don't. So are scientists supposed to discount the possibility of any planets being there.

Anyway, science, logic, and reason do not lead to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

I hope one atheist here eventually grows the stones to finally deal with that comment...and show me why it is inaccurate...rather than trying to detour around that.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Work sets you free.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyway, science, logic, and reason do not lead to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

You place too much on your perception of the word 'science'.
Even the most exacting science bases it's conclusions on statistical relevance. None that I know of ever reaches 100%.
So, you can never be 'certain'
Yet, you will freely spend your hard earned cash on TVs, Cars, computers, etc.
All which come to you through the miracle of science.

Go figure!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, we should discount the idea that there is sentient life on planets on the five nearest stars.

Why is that?
Because it is more likely there are not sentient beings on planets near those five stars than it is likely there are.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank wrote:
]Existence is a mystery...and science solves mysteries.

But by your assertion science cannot solve the mystery of the existence of gods, so that's one mystery that is irrelevant to science.

Science cannot solve the mystery of the existence of life on planets circling the nearest stars to our Sol...but that question sure as hell is not irrelevant to science. The fact that a mystery is difficult to solve does not make it irrelevant to science...it makes it more interesting...more compelling.

This argument of yours makes very little sense, Blue...whether you can see that it makes little sense or not.[/quote]

One thing is "the mystery of the existence of life on planets circling the nearest stars to our Sol," another entirely thing is "the mystery of the existence of gods" because life on those planets would be natural phenomena that would be investigatable through scientific methods if it were possible to apply them. Gods aren't natural phenomena--unless you're operating under some other definition of the word "gods"--so their possible existence is irrelevant to science.

Frank wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

One thing is what you assert that atheists claim; another thing is claiming that knowing that we do not know if there is a god or not is of extreme interest and relevance to science especially when you say that "the best that reason, logic and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not." If we can't know whether there are gods or not through science then the question of whether there are gods or not is irrelevant to science.

I'm not trying to be difficult, Blue...but could you give that another shot in English?

You're not being difficult, you're just being snipy. Got it.

Frank wrote:

And if you are actually trying to sell the idea that the question "what is the true nature of existence?" is irrelevant to science...think it out again before translating into English.[/b]

You didn't say, nor was I referring to anything about "what is the true nature of existence." I directly addressed the assertion you had made.

You're having trouble keeping up with the assertions you're making.

Frank wrote:

The best that reason, logic, and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not.

If you disagree with any part of that...I'd be interested to hear it.

That's reasonable enough. What I don't agree with is your assertion that that statement is relevant to science.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I can see it now. A scientist does his day's work, based in the observable facts, and as he prepares to close up for the day, he is obligated to say, "Oh. And I guess there may or may not be gods." I give up.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

1 Reply

Frank is conflating atheists with scientists.

They are not one and the same.

As it's been pointed out earlier in this thread, there are theistic scientists as well as atheistic ones.

The question of the existence of gods isn't relevant to what they do because science doesn't deal with that question.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Exactly. But you will never convince these people they are beating the brush for quarry that's not there.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

If he took the words right out of your mouth...my response is the same as it was to him:

Quote:

Oh, nonsense. I have never suggested anything like that.

Grow some stones, Edgar...and actually deal with what I have said about atheists who claim that logic, reason, and science lead them to their atheism...which, of course, is a crock!

Feel free to substitute "grow some spine" for "grow some stones" if you prefer.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

I am not conflating scientists with atheists...and I understand that there are theistic scientists and atheistic scientists...and probably lots and lots of agnostic scientists.

The point is that science, logic, and reason do not point to "there are no gods" nor to "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

That's what I have been saying.

Nice to see you guys dodging it, though. Wink

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

If you think Blue was "exactly" correct...my comment to her applies also to you.

0 Replies

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dd/9d/16/dd9d16c4d4a985855a775b1cbef209df.jpg

2 Replies

@hingehead,

I say that to atheists all the time!

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know