Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[TheGreatGatsby]

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. And you can't cloak it in science. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

As hard as you try to make that claim it simply isn't true. Atheists don't
run around imagining fairy tales are real. They don't need an imaginary super being to justify their existence. Atheism is just a mindset that what is real is real and what isn't isn't. It is a recognition of fact and a rejection of fantasy. It is no more or less complicated than that. When I look at my dog I don't have faith it is a dog. When I read your posts I don't have faith you are smarter than my dog.

I don't care about your shameful attempts of denigration. If you believe in something that you don't know to be true, then you're exercising faith. That's the definition of faith. Personally, I think atheists are liars anyhow. They want to deny a deity to not have accountability. But whatever to that; I'm no their mom. My main point is atheism is faith. You've made up your own so-called fairy tale to soothe your psyche.

Solly Chawlie. Believing in something you don't know to be true is stupid and AKA lying to yourself.

Well then, you're stupid AKA lying to yourself (like I said); cos you don't know that God doesn't exist. Yet, you profess it.

I don't give a rat shit about your sky fairy. All that I profess is that I wish people would stop wasting their time and money on such nonsense. This would be a better world if we focused on what is real and right in front of our noses. There is plenty to do. Religion is purely a waste of resources.

You can go on the warpath all you want. You've created a faith to suit your self centeredness though.

 

[orogenicman]

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be a moral person, to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be amoral person to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist. If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers? And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

But again, like TJ said, God's handiwork is self evident; and the default is belief; even if that belief is buried well below a psychosis, it is the default.

"You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person." - No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness (in fact, Einstein purportedly preferred the label agnostic to retain a certain humility and to acknowledge man's lack of understanding the supernatural); and that profession of unbelief ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

 

[hipeter924]

Well he dropped out of college and slashes education funding every chance he gets. No one should be the least bit surprised that someone so anti-learning doesn't believe in evolution.

Yep, a lot of those types that want America to lose out to China, and see all the high paying jobs in science and development go offshore: China goes back to basics on research funding Nature News Comment

The central government’s expenditure on science and technology this year was set at US$43.6 billion (267.4 billion yuan renminbi), an 8.9% rise on last year, which slightly trails the overall projected budget increase of 9.3%. The biggest winners are 16 ‘megaprojects’ with an emphasis on engineering and applied research in areas such as transgenic crops, nuclear power plants and lunar exploration, which together will receive a whopping $8.1 billion.

 

[orogenicman]

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be amoral person to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be amoral person to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response. Almost like they get to this part of the argument, and they kick in a testament of their benevolence even if its not true or otherwise overstated. Really, that clique means nothing to me is my outlook though to recap.
But perhaps you do have a strong moral compass or sense of humanity; none of that erases that claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act. You simply don't know, but you do get to trick yourself into erasing accountability. Sorry, them's the rules. If you want to be unselfish or rather less selfish, then call yourself an agnostic.

 

[orogenicman]

d

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be amoral person to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am not voting for someone that isn't pro-science!!! Science and r&d investment are the reasons why we're the most powerful country on earth. I wish for us to remain near the top!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

d

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be amoral person to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

 

[AntiParty]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

"Credibility"?

We evolve on a daily basis. It's a basic fact. Not a theory. It's also a fact that some CAN NOT change. I do believe this is the documentary I saw on that topic



^A VERY POLITICAL MOVIE...... AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ON TOPIC, AN EVOLUTIONARY POINT MANY FAMILIES ARE GOING THROUGH TODAY.

 

[AntiParty]

I am not voting for someone that isn't pro-science!!! Science and r&d investment are the reasons why we're the most powerful country on earth. I wish for us to remain near the top!

You do understand that the Right Wing Christians use force to take over the house science and technology committee because they think Science might challenge Christianity..

I tend to think God might know something about science if he created the complexities of the human body.

 

[orogenicman]

d

If you believe that atheism is faith, you don't know the first thing about faith or atheism. You don't know that it does exist. There is no evidence of its existence. and yet you believe. The default setting here is nonbelief. You were not born with a belief in a deity. It was taught to you. I would truly love to believe that your god parted the dead sea - but I have thoughts. And we all know how thoughts can ruin one's faith. Ask any Catholic priest.

You say that when a man denies god, he frees himself from a certain accountability. This presumes that an atheist is not a moral person. This is untrue. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Some of the most moral, accountable people I know do not believe. When a person realizes that he is free from all the bullshit and can now concentrate on what is truly important.

As Einstein once said:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."

You don't need to believe in a deity to be amoral person to strive for this wider circle of compassion. After all, all we have is each other on this pale blue dot we call the Earth, and so we need to try to be more compassionate to one's fellow man and all of nature. And that's not such a bad thing.

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

Resorting to insults isn't helping your argument. Do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? Hera? Shiva? If not, why not? The only difference between you and I is that I disbelieve in one less god.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

d

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

Resorting to insults isn't helping your argument. Do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? Hera? Shiva? If not, why not? The only difference between you and I is that I disbelieve in one less god.

I didn't insult you; at least that was not my intent, so I was hardly 'resorting' in any event.
You can try an minimize it into you only believe in one less god; and in your mind maybe it is minimal; but you are really showing that you are out of rational arguments as you speak in a cavalier manner about these things now; and you frankly are not providing any justification for claiming there is no god because you can't. And we've established that by scientific standards an absence of evidence is not a basis for a valid conclusion. So, what are we left with? You 'resorting' to tongue and cheek statements because you have no justification for your selfishness.

 

[orogenicman]

d

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Why?

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

Resorting to insults isn't helping your argument. Do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? Hera? Shiva? If not, why not? The only difference between you and I is that I disbelieve in one less god.

I didn't insult you; at least that was not my intent, so I was hardly 'resorting' in any event.
You can try an minimize it into you only believe in one less god; and in your mind maybe it is minimal; but you are really showing that you are out of rational arguments as you speak in a cavalier manner about these things now; and you frankly are not providing any justification for claiming there is no god because you can't. And we've established that by scientific standards an absence of evidence is not a basis for a valid conclusion. So, what are we left with? You 'resorting' to tongue and cheek statements because you have no justification for your selfishness.

You didn't answer my questions. I'm not surprised. You are arrogant because you not only believe in god, you believe that yours is the right one, perhaps the only one. When what you actually believe is a myth, no more or less mythical than what the Romans or the Greeks believed, but a myth nonetheless. And that's just sad.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm just crushing you're illusion that you're big shot cool enlightened guy that knows better than those brainwashed minions. Yep, it helps to come down a peg.

d

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

Resorting to insults isn't helping your argument. Do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? Hera? Shiva? If not, why not? The only difference between you and I is that I disbelieve in one less god.

I didn't insult you; at least that was not my intent, so I was hardly 'resorting' in any event.
You can try an minimize it into you only believe in one less god; and in your mind maybe it is minimal; but you are really showing that you are out of rational arguments as you speak in a cavalier manner about these things now; and you frankly are not providing any justification for claiming there is no god because you can't. And we've established that by scientific standards an absence of evidence is not a basis for a valid conclusion. So, what are we left with? You 'resorting' to tongue and cheek statements because you have no justification for your selfishness.

You didn't answer my questions. I'm not surprised. You are arrogant because you not only believe in god, you believe that yours is the right one, perhaps the only one. When what you actually believe is a myth, no more or less mythical than what the Romans or the Greeks believed, but a myth nonetheless. And that's just sad.

I wouldn't say I'm not arrogant in some fashion or another. When one wades through a lot of crap, one can get a little uppity if not arrogant....
When did I ever say anything remotely close to this: "You are arrogant because you not only believe in god, you believe that yours is the right one, perhaps the only one." This shows the chip on your shoulder that you bring into these types of debates though.
You can believe that I believe in a myth because that's your faith. But don't pretend that your atheism is backed by science; because you know it's not.

 

[Judicial review]

Stephen Hawking who may be the smartest science man of all time on the universe right up their with Einstein doesn't deny God and talks as if God exists,

 

[Kosh]

I am not voting for someone that isn't pro-science!!! Science and r&d investment are the reasons why we're the most powerful country on earth. I wish for us to remain near the top!

You do understand that the Right Wing Christians use force to take over the house science and technology committee because they think Science might challenge Christianity..

I tend to think God might know something about science if he created the complexities of the human body.

Wow talk about propaganda!

 

[orogenicman]

I'm just crushing you're illusion that you're big shot cool enlightened guy that knows better than those brainwashed minions. Yep, it helps to come down a peg.

Speaking of having a big ego...

 

[orogenicman]

Stephen Hawking who may be the smartest science man of all time on the universe right up their with Einstein doesn't deny God and talks as if God exists,

As if?

Stephen Hawking makes it clear There is no God - CNET

Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

Try again.

 

[peach174]

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.