@August Heim: Could you be more specific about vitriol? There's plenty of disagreement, but I don't really see much in the way of vitriolic comments.
(of course there are over 90 pages and I haven't read them all)
Also what does carbon nanotubes to the moon have to do with anything?
He is referring to the theoretical , but reachable scientific goal of a space elevator using carbon nanotubes to make up the tether the elevator would climb. I think, but do not know, that his contentions are that science as well as religion is fanciful.
@ August Heim: I disagree with you when you degrade science. You are not being accurate. What is your goal with such a vitriolic statement?
Omniscience is impossible. Not probably, certainly. And if you think that I cannot properly be certain of this, then that is evidence that you don't understand these issues. I know how reality and cognition work well enough to know that I can have knowledge, science helps with this, and that reason is the only path to knowledge. No reason to attack the concept of god? Ridiculous, considering all of the evil in this world perpetrated on behalf of and on the basis of mysticism and other forms of the denial of reality. By any measure, reason and logic have proven wrong what the ancients just made up. And by that same measure, we live our lives, learn more about the world and live or die by our understanding of our world with the knowledge we gain from this process. People who believe in god are willfully ignoring the same process that they would use to verify anything with validity. Everyone knows that feelings are not a sufficient criteria for knowledge. You must check what you think against reason. And the impossible just doesn't cut it. Reason and logic have never made this world worse, only when people don't use them or use them incorrectly does it have a negative effect. People are strong and happy, in the long run, because of their reason, despite their superstition and mysticism. And the scientific method is hardly made up to make someone feel better about their life and death, it is a rigorous method of repeated measurement and verification using reason and logic. How dare you compare it to just making shit up. If you think that plate tectonic isn't a good theory, then you must use reason and logic to show that it isn't. And if you have a problem with someone's opinion about nanotubes, then find out where there science is faulty. Don't blame people who know that god is impossible. Whichever claim is made, it is always reason and logic that must be used to verify it. What vitriol are you referring to? I call what is on this thread a debate about certainty. Sure there are ad hominems, but I don't see lots of mudslinging. Would you prefer everyone just be nice to each other and agree while blowing smoke up each others' asses?
"Humans make up things to explain what they don't understand. That is the same thing as the scientific method."
It is shocking that anybody on Atheist Nexus would make such a claim. August, if you think there's no difference between scientific explanations and religious explanations, what in the world are you doing here? If you don't understand that the attacks on plate tectonics were overcome with evidence and reason, then you don't understand the scientific method. Your comment just insults the intelligence of those who understand and value the scientific method.
Considering how much damage it has done to civilization and to the planet as a whole, there is every reason to attack the concept of god. Again, what in the world are you doing here if you think the concept of god is benign?
As far as I can tell, nobody on this thread is suggesting that science has discovered all there is to discover, or that anybody knows everything, or that theists should be treated disrespectfully. But ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. Ridicule is a perfectly valid and useful tool against the ridiculous. There is a huge difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person. Ideas are absolutely fair game (else debate is stifled), and if people are so emotionally invested in their ideas that they perceive attacks on their ideas as attacks on their person, then the delusion runs pretty damn deep. Even where that is the case, there is no reason to accord any deference whatsoever to ludicrous (or indeed, impossible) concepts. There is reason to have some sympathy for the afflicted, but respecting bad ideas to spare hurt feelings is a recipe for intellectual suicide.
Very well put and accurate.
Science is the best tool we have to give us true descriptions of reality. That tool is by far not infallible, but again it is the best we have. For evidence how good it is, compare the life of a person living in the 1800s and early 1900s to someone today.
You cannot reach the enlightenment we have today with just reason or logic, or should I say it would take many millennia because reason and logic did not prevent us from entering the Dark Ages.
I agree that improper use of anything can be detrimental and should be attacked, but there somethings that should be put in the correct light of science even if it means war. I think getting rid of religion is that important.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge evidence contrary to his beliefs, is a religious person.
Jesus Cane! Something existing outside existence? Really? Like what? And then wouldn't that also be part of existence?
Definitions are verbal representations of concepts, which are formed way before the scientific method, any way you look at it. Science is nothing more than a measurement and verification tool. It can only tell us about the metaphysical structure of existence. It does not tell us about its own epistemological foundation.
Belief in the presence of contradictory evidence or the absence of evidence is religious. I do nothing religious. Nothing.
Yes, you need to learn about epistemology. And epistemology doesn't have beliefs. Proper epistemology is an objective description of the way knowledge is formed. It is not subject to whim or fancy. It is dictated by the nature of this one universe, its causally dependent noncontradictory nature. Maybe if you understood how this process works, you would see we use science to learn about what is here, not to attempt to negate itself by evaluating something that is impossible.
You keep leaving open for some possibility of magic. Why? Will you not at least agree that the impossible is impossible? Or no, because it can't be proven? You really are simply lost on a very simple concept and I'm guessing its because of some prior erroneously integrated concept that you do not recognize or are unwilling to part with. Likely, it stems from you thinking that the universe is not subject to human intelligibility and that underneath the quantum soup lies magic!
And my god, you keep demanding proof! That is showing just how much you don't get this. One more time: proof necessitates reduction by reason and logic to perceptual evidence. God has qualities that are acausal and therefore, one, cannot exist, and two, cannot be subject to proof. Something that, by its nature, cannot be subject to proof or is supernatural, does not exist, lest reason, logic and cognition would be invalid, which since they are the means of validation, makes no sense what-so-ever.