Has science proved there is no God?

[Boss]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

Sorry but you're not qualified to ban people from science or determine qualifications. Who the fuck do you think you are, assclown? You sure as hell don't have the market cornered on science, you can barely form coherent thoughts.

Let's get straight how people like you, Hollie and Ed view science. Theories which defy physics and nature are only allowable when they come from other atheist scientists. Those unsupported theories are trotted around as TRUTHS that can't be questioned. Any theory from someone religious is rejected on face value because someone religious proposed it. You don't care about evidence, only "peer review" from other like-minded atheists. Once that is in place, the atheist theory becomes a fact in your mind that can't ever be questioned or investigated further. If a religious person happens to get a theory peer reviewed, you still reject it because it came from a religious person and the theory is invalidated on that basis alone.

You defend your arguments by trying to claim atheist science theories are really not theories but "proven science" and it has been established as fact, while theories from religious people are just unprovable hypothesis. So-- Science exists, in your mind, to prop up and support anything that conforms to your disbelief in God and to categorically reject anything that might threaten that faith.

Pontificating as usual. You're a stereotype for the anti-science, ICR wannabe. Did the Pat Robertson madrassah let you out early today?

Jeesh.. Have you taken a break from posting your paragraph non-stop today? I first saw you on here at like 6 a.m. and here it is 9 p.m.and you're still posting! What a nutbag! And over something you vehemently insist is not real and doesn't exist? Weird man, really weird!

 

[TheOldSchool]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

What part of my comment do you have an issue with?

 

[Boss]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

Sorry but you're not qualified to ban people from science or determine qualifications. Who the fuck do you think you are, assclown? You sure as hell don't have the market cornered on science, you can barely form coherent thoughts.

Let's get straight how people like you, Hollie and Ed view science. Theories which defy physics and nature are only allowable when they come from other atheist scientists. Those unsupported theories are trotted around as TRUTHS that can't be questioned. Any theory from someone religious is rejected on face value because someone religious proposed it. You don't care about evidence, only "peer review" from other like-minded atheists. Once that is in place, the atheist theory becomes a fact in your mind that can't ever be questioned or investigated further. If a religious person happens to get a theory peer reviewed, you still reject it because it came from a religious person and the theory is invalidated on that basis alone.

You defend your arguments by trying to claim atheist science theories are really not theories but "proven science" and it has been established as fact, while theories from religious people are just unprovable hypothesis. So-- Science exists, in your mind, to prop up and support anything that conforms to your disbelief in God and to categorically reject anything that might threaten that faith.

I'm sorry if your theories dont stand up to peer review. Some people are even qualified to tell you exactly why you are wrong. We call them scientists.

I'm all ears. I like your god a lot more than the christian or Muslim god. I think if there is a creator he doesnt care. I love talking about this with theists that have dropped the god visited stories. Bout time.

Anyway you forget I told you I used to believe in god but didn't believe any organized religion. So trust me if I didnt really really really not believe in god I wouldnt have made the leap to athiest. Because even if there is a god all that matters is being good not believing in something without any good evidence just because boss thinks so.

What's "good evidence" if you will not accept spiritual evidence?

"Peer review" does not mean a theory is correct or true. It simply means other scientists have looked at the theory as a whole and don't find anything objectionable regarding the validity of the hypothesis or evidence. Lot's of religious people have had scientific theories peer reviewed, including the man who is responsible for modern science, Sir Isaac Newton.

Had you been around back in Newton's day, you'd have found Newton's family were very devoutly religious and he was raised with a strong religious background. In fact, his higher schooling was paid for and provided by the Church, who also gave him his first appointment studying "natural philosophy" (what they called science back then).

When Robert Locke refused Newton a positive review on his Theory of Light and Color, we would have seen people like you and Hollie chortling the praises of science and dear Mr. Locke for putting the "religious zealot" in his place. See... everyone in "science" just KNEW that white light was pure! This was science buddy, you can't refute science! BUT... Newton DID! Over and over again, he challenged science of the day. Most profoundly, when he challenged 2,000 year-old scientific theories on motion and gravity established by Aristotle. Can you imagine the Atheist pinheads exploding as "religious fanatic" Newton dared to challenge fucking Aristotle?

 

[sealybobo]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

Sorry but you're not qualified to ban people from science or determine qualifications. Who the fuck do you think you are, assclown? You sure as hell don't have the market cornered on science, you can barely form coherent thoughts.

Let's get straight how people like you, Hollie and Ed view science. Theories which defy physics and nature are only allowable when they come from other atheist scientists. Those unsupported theories are trotted around as TRUTHS that can't be questioned. Any theory from someone religious is rejected on face value because someone religious proposed it. You don't care about evidence, only "peer review" from other like-minded atheists. Once that is in place, the atheist theory becomes a fact in your mind that can't ever be questioned or investigated further. If a religious person happens to get a theory peer reviewed, you still reject it because it came from a religious person and the theory is invalidated on that basis alone.

You defend your arguments by trying to claim atheist science theories are really not theories but "proven science" and it has been established as fact, while theories from religious people are just unprovable hypothesis. So-- Science exists, in your mind, to prop up and support anything that conforms to your disbelief in God and to categorically reject anything that might threaten that faith.

Pontificating as usual. You're a stereotype for the anti-science, ICR wannabe. Did the Pat Robertson madrassah let you out early today?

Jeesh.. Have you taken a break from posting your paragraph non-stop today? I first saw you on here at like 6 a.m. and here it is 9 p.m.and you're still posting! What a nutbag! And over something you vehemently insist is not real and doesn't exist? Weird man, really weird!

Its like being one of the only sane people in a society full of idiots.

And we know more and more people are waking up. Evolving.

 

[Boss]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

 

[sealybobo]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

Sorry but you're not qualified to ban people from science or determine qualifications. Who the fuck do you think you are, assclown? You sure as hell don't have the market cornered on science, you can barely form coherent thoughts.

Let's get straight how people like you, Hollie and Ed view science. Theories which defy physics and nature are only allowable when they come from other atheist scientists. Those unsupported theories are trotted around as TRUTHS that can't be questioned. Any theory from someone religious is rejected on face value because someone religious proposed it. You don't care about evidence, only "peer review" from other like-minded atheists. Once that is in place, the atheist theory becomes a fact in your mind that can't ever be questioned or investigated further. If a religious person happens to get a theory peer reviewed, you still reject it because it came from a religious person and the theory is invalidated on that basis alone.

You defend your arguments by trying to claim atheist science theories are really not theories but "proven science" and it has been established as fact, while theories from religious people are just unprovable hypothesis. So-- Science exists, in your mind, to prop up and support anything that conforms to your disbelief in God and to categorically reject anything that might threaten that faith.

I'm sorry if your theories dont stand up to peer review. Some people are even qualified to tell you exactly why you are wrong. We call them scientists.

I'm all ears. I like your god a lot more than the christian or Muslim god. I think if there is a creator he doesnt care. I love talking about this with theists that have dropped the god visited stories. Bout time.

Anyway you forget I told you I used to believe in god but didn't believe any organized religion. So trust me if I didnt really really really not believe in god I wouldnt have made the leap to athiest. Because even if there is a god all that matters is being good not believing in something without any good evidence just because boss thinks so.

What's "good evidence" if you will not accept spiritual evidence?

"Peer review" does not mean a theory is correct or true. It simply means other scientists have looked at the theory as a whole and don't find anything objectionable regarding the validity of the hypothesis or evidence. Lot's of religious people have had scientific theories peer reviewed, including the man who is responsible for modern science, Sir Isaac Newton.

Had you been around back in Newton's day, you'd have found Newton's family were very devoutly religious and he was raised with a strong religious background. In fact, his higher schooling was paid for and provided by the Church, who also gave him his first appointment studying "natural philosophy" (what they called science back then).

When Robert Locke refused Newton a positive review on his Theory of Light and Color, we would have seen people like you and Hollie chortling the praises of science and dear Mr. Locke for putting the "religious zealot" in his place. See... everyone in "science" just KNEW that white light was pure! This was science buddy, you can't refute science! BUT... Newton DID! Over and over again, he challenged science of the day. Most profoundly, when he challenged 2,000 year-old scientific theories on motion and gravity established by Aristotle. Can you imagine the Atheist pinheads exploding as "religious fanatic" Newton dared to challenge fucking Aristotle?

Newton was a bit of a nut.

And just because everyone believes something doesnt make it true. Stick that up your peer review.

 

[Boss]

And we know more and more people are waking up. Evolving.

But they aren't and you are lying to yourself. Most humans are spiritual, that is undeniable. It is estimated to be about 95% of the species, as every poll ever conducted only indicates approximately 5% who profess Nihilistic belief. ("we believe in nussing, Lebowski, nussing! And tomorrow, we cut off your johnson!")

Some religions are waning, others are growing. In Africa, Christianity is growing faster than any time in human history. In America, Catholicism is declining, Mormonism is growing and Christianity is holding the line. Many people are moving away from organized denominational religions and towards universal spiritualism. What is clearly NOT happening is more people becoming non-spiritual. I challenge you to present ANY evidence to support your claim on a worldwide scale.

 

[Boss]

Newton was a bit of a nut.

Spoken like a true Atheist Science Denier!

As I have correctly predicted before...Atheists will throw science and the most brilliant scientific minds completely under the bus to maintain their disbeliefs in God. Science is only useful as a tool to support your atheist disbelief. Whenever any of it presents a possibility that doesn't coincide with your dogma, it is rejected outright... even when it comes from Newton. You have zero shame!

 

[Mr.Right]

Those scientists are assuming that afterlife bodies will be made of particles, which is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches that God is a spirit and that we will have spiritual bodies, not physical ones. They cannot prove there is no God and we cannot prove there is one. It's a personal choice to believe or not believe.

I believe that the Bible states that we will have physical bodies in Heaven. Just saying.

 

[Mr.Right]

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. The supernatural is outside the realm of science, as is the theory of evolution. You cannot use the scientific method on either one.

 

[onefour1]

Today science has been promoted as the ultimate source of all truth. But many are using science to promote false agenda's and doctrines such as global warming and evolution. Don't fall into the trap of believing every statement that begins with, "Scientists have found that ....."

 

[Hollie]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

Sorry but you're not qualified to ban people from science or determine qualifications. Who the fuck do you think you are, assclown? You sure as hell don't have the market cornered on science, you can barely form coherent thoughts.

Let's get straight how people like you, Hollie and Ed view science. Theories which defy physics and nature are only allowable when they come from other atheist scientists. Those unsupported theories are trotted around as TRUTHS that can't be questioned. Any theory from someone religious is rejected on face value because someone religious proposed it. You don't care about evidence, only "peer review" from other like-minded atheists. Once that is in place, the atheist theory becomes a fact in your mind that can't ever be questioned or investigated further. If a religious person happens to get a theory peer reviewed, you still reject it because it came from a religious person and the theory is invalidated on that basis alone.

You defend your arguments by trying to claim atheist science theories are really not theories but "proven science" and it has been established as fact, while theories from religious people are just unprovable hypothesis. So-- Science exists, in your mind, to prop up and support anything that conforms to your disbelief in God and to categorically reject anything that might threaten that faith.

Pontificating as usual. You're a stereotype for the anti-science, ICR wannabe. Did the Pat Robertson madrassah let you out early today?

Jeesh.. Have you taken a break from posting your paragraph non-stop today? I first saw you on here at like 6 a.m. and here it is 9 p.m.and you're still posting! What a nutbag! And over something you vehemently insist is not real and doesn't exist? Weird man, really weird!

A woman's work is never done.

Aside from that, I think it's worthwhile to counter the agenda of lies and falsehoods that typically accompany the likes of you ICR cultists.

 

[Boss]

Well, whenever you get ready to counter something I've said, let me know.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Science doesn't spend its' time proving things don't exist, but rather things do exist. Why would we spend a single minute proving something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

 

[pinqy]

If there's one things humans have proven time and again it's that there is always more to science that what they happen to believe during their lifetimes.

When asking how the universe came to be you can go with ancient stories while humans evolve to not let cults rule our lives. We look to science because it doesnt claim their unbelievable stories and hypothesis is a fact that shouldn't be wuestioned.

You are banned from science. Not qualified. You can only think biblically. Including being subservant to your men ladies.

Sorry but you're not qualified to ban people from science or determine qualifications. Who the fuck do you think you are, assclown? You sure as hell don't have the market cornered on science, you can barely form coherent thoughts.

Let's get straight how people like you, Hollie and Ed view science. Theories which defy physics and nature are only allowable when they come from other atheist scientists. Those unsupported theories are trotted around as TRUTHS that can't be questioned. Any theory from someone religious is rejected on face value because someone religious proposed it. You don't care about evidence, only "peer review" from other like-minded atheists. Once that is in place, the atheist theory becomes a fact in your mind that can't ever be questioned or investigated further. If a religious person happens to get a theory peer reviewed, you still reject it because it came from a religious person and the theory is invalidated on that basis alone.

You defend your arguments by trying to claim atheist science theories are really not theories but "proven science" and it has been established as fact, while theories from religious people are just unprovable hypothesis. So-- Science exists, in your mind, to prop up and support anything that conforms to your disbelief in God and to categorically reject anything that might threaten that faith.

I'm sorry if your theories dont stand up to peer review. Some people are even qualified to tell you exactly why you are wrong. We call them scientists.

I'm all ears. I like your god a lot more than the christian or Muslim god. I think if there is a creator he doesnt care. I love talking about this with theists that have dropped the god visited stories. Bout time.

Anyway you forget I told you I used to believe in god but didn't believe any organized religion. So trust me if I didnt really really really not believe in god I wouldnt have made the leap to athiest. Because even if there is a god all that matters is being good not believing in something without any good evidence just because boss thinks so.

What's "good evidence" if you will not accept spiritual evidence?

"Peer review" does not mean a theory is correct or true. It simply means other scientists have looked at the theory as a whole and don't find anything objectionable regarding the validity of the hypothesis or evidence. Lot's of religious people have had scientific theories peer reviewed, including the man who is responsible for modern science, Sir Isaac Newton.

Had you been around back in Newton's day, you'd have found Newton's family were very devoutly religious and he was raised with a strong religious background. In fact, his higher schooling was paid for and provided by the Church, who also gave him his first appointment studying "natural philosophy" (what they called science back then).

But what in his work relied on divine intervention or the supernatural.

When Robert Locke refused Newton a positive review on his Theory of Light and Color, we would have seen people like you and Hollie chortling the praises of science and dear Mr. Locke for putting the "religious zealot" in his place.

Was Locke's criticism based on Newton' s religious beliefs or claims of divine influence?

The only attacks I've ever heard on religious scientists has been when their claims were supernatural. I've never heard dvoutly religious scientists' works criticized just because the scientists were religious.

See... everyone in "science" just KNEW that white light was pure! This was science buddy, you can't refute science! BUT... Newton DID!

With science, not religion.

Over and over again, he challenged science of the day. Most profoundly, when he challenged 2,000 year-old scientific theories on motion and gravity established by Aristotle. Can you imagine the Atheist pinheads exploding as "religious fanatic" Newton dared to challenge fucking Aristotle?

Can you show anyone criticizing him for being a "religious fanatic."

 

[Steven_R]

The Bible also says ritually killing birds will cure leprosy. Do you take that part as the literal truth as well?

Where does it say that in the Bible? Can you quote it, please?

Sure can. Leviticus 14:1-7
1 The Lord said to Moses,
2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest
3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,
4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed.
5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot.
6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.
7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.

 

[Steven_R]

The Bible also says ritually killing birds will cure leprosy. Do you take that part as the literal truth as well?

Chapter and verse!

Leviticus 14:1-7

 

[Votto]

Upon further magnification and audio scientists just obtained this confession.

"Hi, I am a Higgs particle. My name is Ed and I can all confidently tell you that there is no God, that's cause Higgs told me as much and I believe everything he says."

 

[Boss]

I guess Higgs is the bos-on him! Get it? Get it?

 

[Hollie]

Well, whenever you get ready to counter something I've said, let me know.

I've done that consistently by holding you accountable for your claims to spirit realms and magical gawds. I hold you accountable for your supernaturalism, yet you insist that your gawds are exempt from the same standards that science is held to.