[Cooliorob]

I am a scientist and a christian!  It's not a big deal. Religion is a set of personal beliefs that shouldn't get in the way of science. (thus back to the original topic... sort of)

[Madidus_Scientia]

An athiest cannot prove there is no god, as a religious person cannot prove there is a god. But an atheist believes there is no god based on the fact that to them it seems incredibly unlikely there is a god considering the evidence they have observed.

Why should you be suprised that atheists use science to support their beliefs, since it is science that provides the evidence they have observed to decide they do not believe there is a god in the first place???

[GBSB]

... Why should you be suprised that atheists use science to support their beliefs,...

In first place, the purpose of science isn’t to prove or disprove existence of God. On one side the atheists and on the other side the monotheists and polytheists misusing science to misled people.

By the way, I really can’t comprehend why someone trying to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Copernicus and Galileo have not proved that God doesn’t exist (it wasn’t their intention to prove or to disprove the existence of God) but they have proved that the church teaching about solar system is wrong.

If God exists, I believe, he isn’t angry on Copernicus and Galileo but I think that even today, many religious professionals are still angry on Copernicus and Galileo.


“I'm an atheist and I thank God for it.”    ( George Bernard Shaw )

[Madidus_Scientia]

Religion offers one explanation of life, that god created the universe and the life in it and makes everything the way it is. Science offers alternative explanations, for example big bang theory and darwin's theory of evolution. An atheist essentially decides that science offers the more plausable explanations, so of course an atheist will use science to support his beliefs, why would you expect otherwise?

One might as well say the bible or the koran is unfairly used to support religious beliefs

[Andrew K Fletcher]

For the record

I believe that the Earth provides sustenance, the force from the Earth drives all living things, powers the Worlds Ocean Currents, drives the weather and takes care of our corpses when we die. I also believe that it is highly probable that the atoms that composed our body will decompose and recompose many countless billions of times, some of which will eventually end up on another planet and may even end up as part of another humanoid who will be typing these exact same words on a keyboard exactly the same as my own on a forum with the equivalent title to ours in some unknown or maybe identical tongue to ours here on this amazing planet.  Let Me Hear You Say Yeah

Andrew K Fletcher

[Madidus_Scientia]

I would say the sun provides all sustenance.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

You could be correct, however a more accurate interpretation would be that the sun provides the energy that helps the Earth to Provide Sustenance

[johnbrandy]

Atheism is merely a point of view. Science is a point of view. There is good science and bad science. An atheist or a scientist can draw upon either. What is good science or bad science is a matter of opinion. Therefore the substance of either position or argument is the key. Yet the "science" of God, is clearly subjective and the science of physics, biology, geology, chemistry, and so forth is objective. Science does not necessitate a belief in a God, nor does science, of necessity, discount a belief in God. Similarly, atheism does not,of necessity, draw upon scientific knowledge to justify its claims. Atheism cannot diminish scientific understanding because atheism is categorically distinct. All science is provisional, therefore atheism, grounded is science, is provisional, and subject to the purview of science. As such, atheism cannot threaten legitimate  science.   

[Bored chemist]

is "bad science" science?

[Cooliorob]

There is something more to humans, however, than just atoms randomly configured due to certain properties!  I agree that the earth is amazing, but for a different reason than you think, Andrew.  I think of it as art... friggin huge art...

[Madidus_Scientia]

what's random about it?

[Cooliorob]

bad word, sorry... but still!

[johnbrandy]

Re: Bored chemist, "is 'bad science' science?" The answer depends upon your point of view; your qualifications to evaluate what is presented, whether the material, premises and conclusions are consistent with established scientific principles, concepts, or theories, or if the methods used are correct, and properly applied, verifiable and repeatable. If sound and established methods are incorrectly applied, such that the experiment or study lack internal coherence, that might constitute bad science. Certain distinctions must be addressed. Bad science can be a sincere attempt, fraught with unintentional mistakes, incomplete or obsolete data. Conversely, bad science, employing establishes principles, concepts, methods, or theories, can be deliberately misapplies in order to deceive, so as to "produce" a particular, and favorable result. Therefore the question, "is 'bad science', science", appears to me to be conditional. Differently stated, "is 'bad science' science", depends upon the particular scientific experiment, principle, concept, or theory, and how each is applied or interpreted, and whether they conform with established scientific and experimental methodology. Perhaps the best question should be, "what is good science?" Thank you for allowing me to participate.       

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Have to agree with BC on this, there is no such thing as bad science. Limited knowledge for the times is understandable as this drives progress. To call this bad science is not gracious. To accept that this was the best description and understanding at the time is more appropriate. However, to continue accepting a paradigm that has been invalidated simply because you cannot accept that you were wrong to begin with is not science either and you are no longer a scientists should you choose to ignore more compelling evidence.

RE: Coolio and Art.
Are you an artist or a scientist? Art tends to draw the eye away from the details and look at the whole picture, whereas science tends to draw the eye closer to the details. Finding a happy medium somewhere between the two is a perfect marriage.

is "bad science" science?

There is something more to humans, however, than just atoms randomly configured due to certain properties!  I agree that the earth is amazing, but for a different reason than you think, Andrew.  I think of it as art... friggin huge art...

[SFMA]

While science is ever developing we haven't reach the end yet. Until
we do so the final discovery is unknown. So there is unknown fact. Therefore
we can't say that we know everything. God being the Creator of everything how
can we finalise His existence in relation to the creation when there is a lot of unknown things. 

We cannot be definite about God in either way this proposition is consistent with science. We can believe about Him. Religion is about believe.   

What we don't know is seems more real then what we know.
No one knew about Internet just a few century ago. 

[SFMA]

We cannot discover God unless He allows it to happen. It's His credit.
He is in total cntrol of His identity!

[BenV]

We cannot discover God unless He allows it to happen. It's His credit.
He is in total cntrol of His identity!

How convenient.

[SFMA]

We cannot discover God unless He allows it to happen. It's His credit.
He is in total cntrol of His identity!

How convenient.

This is my belief.

[Madidus_Scientia]

We cannot discover God unless He allows it to happen. It's His credit.
He is in total cntrol of His identity!

How convenient.

This is my belief.

If that's the kind of thing that convinces you then you're welcome to it. I would rather believe or not believe in things based on evidence and reason.

[SFMA]

We cannot discover God unless He allows it to happen. It's His credit.
He is in total cntrol of His identity!

How convenient.

This is my belief.

If that's the kind of thing that convinces you then you're welcome to it. I would rather believe or not believe in things based on evidence and reason.

There is more than enough evidence that we do not know everything. While we are trying to digest atoms now we discovered dark matter. That's yet to be learned. When can you make sure that there won't be any other dark matter at the end of it? It's clear the truth is unfolding gradually. What is keeping the ballance these all are signs of a very well capable superior Being who is beoynd any given space and time. But present in it as well as we go along and learn more.