If you cannot show that there are no gods, then you are mentally ill, by your own definition.



How can it be demonstrated? You can't use the scientific method, because they scientific method can't be demonstrated to be true.

Bushidobillyclub,

How can you prove the scientific method is valid?

How can you prove that light travels in a straight line at a constant speed as Einstein assumed?

You are so funny!

You actually think this is an intellectual proposition. That makes me laugh.

Claims require proof, lack of proof for a claim is plenty of a reason to not regard that claim as true.
Did you get this dribble from a creationist website?

In fact I am starting to think maybe you are not trolling me. Maybe you suffer from dogma indoctrination to such a degree that you cannot understand how one knows anything, perhaps you have suffered from the abuse of being indoctrinated to such a great degree that you cannot understand the burden of proof, perhaps you cannot understand how to form an argument becuase you have always been told what to think.

Science demonstrates its correctness every-time it works to solve problems. Its repeatability is the standard. The fact that theories can be formed which explain phenomena, and then allow robust predictions and possible falsification. Methods prove themselves in there ability to successfully solve problems.

Not according to you, "The difference of course is when a belief is demonstrated to be true vs a belief that cannot be demonstrated to be true. This should be pretty clear at this point in this thread. I mean given the examples, and all. "

You stated that if a belief cannot be demonstrated to be true, it should be taken as a mental disorder. Those are your words my friend, not mine.



The source doesn't matter, if it's true, it's true.

I'm surprised you don't understand this argument. Nothing in science is proven, the most likely theory is accepted as the truth until another theory becomes more likely. The scientific method is used because is produces the most consistent and reliable results, not because it has been "demonstrated to the true". According to science, nothing is settled and nothing is accepted as the absolute truth. Tomorrow, a new theory could come along and change our perceptions of reality. It's you who are being unscientific by saying "demonstrated to be true". For all you know, God will show up tomorrow and prove that he exists or we'll discover that our universe is in the test tube of some unimaginably gigantic alien.

I could report you for making disparaging remarks about my mental health and accusing my parents of child abuse, but I won't. I'm better than that. I don't have to run crying to my parents whenever someone says something that they intend to be offensive to me. I'm a big boy and I only give respect to the opinions of people whom I respect.



The only truth in science is that there is no truth. Theories are accepted science today and on the trash heap tomorrow. There is no "demonstrated to be true", there is only "demonstrated to be most correct", that's how science works.

But I lack a belief . . .

LOL

You love to argue anything you can even if it has nothing to do with the topic.

If a given scientific method allows you to calculate momentum of a given particle to 5 decimal places, and you can repeat the experiment a thousand times, and always get accuracy out to 5 decimal places then that theory is as true as it is accurate.

Because it works, it is demonstrably true, but only as true as it is accurate. No one here is appealing to any absolutes, except you to try to muddy the waters.

It's a lack of belief to say "I don't worship the Christian God", it's a belief to say "The Christian God doesn't exist" or "There are no gods".

I just thought of a good analogy.

Back when I was a superintendent for a construction company paying my way through college I used to take great care in finding lumber that was true.

By true we mean straight. Now lumber is never completely straight. However there are ways to determine how strait it is even when you do not have a straight edge, or square. That is really not he point however.

The point is that science like lumber is never completely true, but it can be practically true, and it can be functionally true, and it can be true enough to answer questions that you want to know, or true enough to build a house.

Science is as true as it is functional, being that science is highly functional, science is highly true.

Knowing why it is true is were theory comes in . . .

Arguing against science in the way you are is like arguing lumber cannot be used to build houses becuase no lumber is perfectly true.

I've never argued against science, if you had followed my posts, you would know that. I've argued against your statements, which are non-scientific. Your cries for "truth" make you sound more like an evangelist than someone who claims to love science.

Oh yea . . . only truth in science . . . is that there is no truth, that sure does sound like a dismissal of sciences ability to discovery truth.

Then when you place it in context with this thread, which is about religious fundamentalism/extremism were the important truths that distinguish that subset of the religious from more moderate religious or non religious people is called revealed wisdom, then it starts to make sense.

You are arguing against the concept that faith based thinking, that accepting revealed wisdom/knowledge, that accepting religious authorities is dangerous.

You have tried to attack the alternative: which is accepting truth not based on faith, but based on science, based on methodological analysis of the world ect.

Then when shown the error of your ways you respond with either a false accusation of fallacy or you try to discount the alternatives to make the faith based reasoning seem more palatable.

Round and round he goes, were spider stops no one knows!

Fine, I'll accept your analogy.

So you admit that there is always uncertainty in science, correct? If there is uncertainty in science, then why declare those who have beliefs that haven't "been demonstrated to be true" insane or mentally ill? That's a moving goal post my friend. Depending on scientific progress, a person can go from being considered insane to being the model of mental health.

If a scientist in 1847 believed that a clean operating room prevented illness in birthing women, was he insane until he was proven correct in 1859?

Let me turn this around for a moment. Spider what do you consider to be unbelievable? Why?

Is there a method for determining if it is believable? Does repeatability matter? Does falsification ever become a factor?

Would you consider the belief that water is poison to be a dangerous belief (yes I know of water toxicity, but if you actually believed that any amount of water was bad . .)

Rabies can cause a change in the brain of those infected that causes hydrophobia, and can lead to death becuase the person afflicted will not drink water.

I don't believe that science has the ability to determine absolute truth. Science has the ability to falsify and to determine the most likely scenario, but it doesn't have the ability to determine the absolute truth.



The context of this disgusting thread is to insult people who disagree with Ridykulous. That's it. It also took a nasty swipe at the parents of the mentally challenged, which you have yet to denounce.



1) Accepting authority from any source can be dangerous. "Just following orders" bring any political movements to mind?

2) A few isolated people who did stupid things in the name of religion doesn't indicate that "accepting religious authorities is dangerous". You have yet to prove that any of these things were done at the behest of a "religious authority".

3) WTF do you mean by "faith based thinking"?



No, I haven't. It's not my fault if you haven't understood my arguments, I've written them very clearly. I haven't attacked science at all. I haven't tried to support faith over science at all. You are unwilling to admit that science includes uncertainties and assumptions, which are taken at faith. If you can't prove that light always travels in a straight line at a constant rate of speed, then you are crazy, by your own words. Since you can't prove it, you must believe that you are crazy. I think it's perfectly sane to think that Einstein was correct and the that rate of speed of light is constant on a straight line, but I'm the loony Christian, right?



A truly rational person would know that I am sitting still while you whirl and gyrate around like a man man.

Hey at least you can stay on message.

The goal posts only move when you respond to the imaginary straw man you have created.

Bushidobillyclub,

I need you to reset your brain. I believe in science. I trust science. Okay? Get this idea that "spider hates science" out of your brain, it doesn't belong there.

Science is used to understand the physical universe, not the spiritual. If the spiritual exists, it cannot be measured or tested by science. So I have no problem believing in the spiritual and in science. The problem up to this point is that you take my attacks on your poor thinking and illogical statements to be attacks on science. Your statement that a belief that can't be "demonstrated to be true" should serve as a diagnoses that the those who hold that belief are insane is NOT SCIENCE. It's your opinion and a fairly elitist one at that.



To that person? Yes. It's also easily proved to be delusional.



Rabies causes a painful sore throat and throat spasms when water is drank. Rabies doesn't cause hydrophobia directly, it's a learned response due to the pain caused.

This was all that was needed.

What do you use to support the belief that the spiritual exists?
Actually forget that, what do you use to determine if a given belief should be a spiritual belief, or a scientific belief?

Some people believe condom use is against god. How did they come to that knowledge of gods will?

Why don't you create a new thread. This thread is disgusting and I would prefer to not bump it any more.

You can demonstrate to your hearts content but if you fail to get agreement of the observers you have not accomplished anything.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE AGREEMENT.

One person can demonstrate why he believes a thing is true, but if no one agrees with him it is useless.