Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[PaulConventionWV]

"No" is the correct answer to whether I have a belief that you have a nickel in your pocket, because I have no such belief.

That's the problem, though. You don't know whether it's true or not, so saying you don't believe there is a nickel in my pocket is making a positive statement of fact, that you don't believe there is a nickel in my pocket, when you have no reason to believe one way or the other.

To clarify, if someone walks up to you on the street and asks if you believe he has a nickel in his pocket, it would be more reasonable to say "I don't know whether to believe that or not" than to say "I do not hold that belief" because saying you don't hold a belief is the same as claiming disbelief.

No, agnosticism is the belief that God's existence or nonexistence is unknowable. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God, but it doesn't denote a belief that God doesn't exist. The word comes from a-theism, meaning not theism, meaning a lack of a theistic belief. Unfortunately, the word has come to connote a belief that God doesn't exist, but that's not how I use the word.

We have differing definitions. I do believe erowe1 demonstrated that the leading dictionaries will disagree with you.

Because it isn't science. For the same reason, I wouldn't want a science teacher to start discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry.

How do you know it's not science? You were told? How do you know evolution is science? What you are doing is using the idea that evolution is true and is therefore science, to disqualify the alternatives from also being science. This is known as the 'No true scotsman' logical fallacy.

Would you favor the passing of legislation that prevented a science teacher from discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry? That's what this is all about.

Of course it is.

It is not observable, testable, or repeatable. Tell me what part of that is scientific.

And instead of believing the scientific community I'm supposed to believe a preacher who says it isn't?

The "scientific community" have become propagandists for the government. I hold them in lower esteem than preachers. Do you not realize just how much propaganda about evolution we are being bombarded with? When is the last time you have ever seen creation discussed in a favorable fashion on any TV show or news program? Why is it that our government says it's the only thing we are allowed to discuss in science class? Even if you believe it to be true, it should make you at least a little suspicious that our government is pushing it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The "scientific community" have become propagandists for the government. I hold them in lower esteem than preachers. Do you not realize just how much propaganda about evolution we are being bombarded with? When is the last time you have ever seen creation discussed in a favorable fashion on any TV show or news program? Why is it that our government says it's the only thing we are allowed to discuss in science class? Even if you believe it to be true, it should make you at least a little suspicious that our government is pushing it.

Truth. A lot of scientists nurse at the government teat (grants, etc). Kind of a conflict of interest if one is searching for empirical proofs.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A lot of scientists nurse at the government teat (grants, etc). Kind of a conflict of interest if one is searching for empirical proofs.

These are the brood who scribble up the scientific narrative for corporate interests who lobby politicians. They exist unfortunately. Too often folks throw the term government around without recognizing the merge of corporation and state that we have going on. And so government in it's traditional sense (meaning of, by and for living, breathing people) is lost through the spin. I got to chuckling when the other poster kept mentioning free markets. What we have had causing issues are these in the field of the sciences that direct their work in favor of the corporate lobby who reserve the gift of 1st amendment and use it via businessmen in political office. As such these are government controlled markets. So I only half way agree with you in the context in which you placed it but completely disagree in scope. I think some of the representaives who pimp the H1-B on behalf of these corporations who get their snausages into the lab via representation from them should be scrutinized much more instead of giving them a free pass. It's a crying shame that these corporatists would blatantly use their patently artificial gift of constitution to place a roadblock in front of Americas youth who could otherwise benefit from infrastructural education that comes from curriculum like S.T.E.M. just because they have a vested business intrerest with foreign corporations as well as their own person. This is treason. It's undermining American progress. It's telling America's youth that we don't want you to learn the value of these sciences because we want to make money by shipping business overseas and allow these foreign students to come in provide that mechanism.

So not practical to think of it in terms of a grant knowing that this merge is happening right under noses. Is more of a purchase. Dictating science with your pocketbook for personal/investment gain.

 

[Natural Citizen]

PASADENA, Calif. — Our universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being, famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking told a packed house here at the California Institute of Technology Tuesday night.

Many people had begun queuing up for free tickets to Hawking's 8:00 p.m lecture, titled "The Origin of the Universe," 12 hours earlier. By 6:00 p.m. local time, the line was about a quarter-mile long.

The Expanding Universe: From the Big Bang to Today

Looks like mainstream media is picking up on it too. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/20...awking-lays-out-case-for-big-bang-without-god

 

[Origanalist]

I read his book A Brief History of Time years back. While he is undeniably a brilliant man, I believe it's still a bit above his paygrade to rule God out.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No theory is EVER proven. The best a theory can do is be stated in a form that can be falsified but successfully resists being falsified. "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement that successfully resisted falsification for a long time. Until a black swan was discovered. Then it was falsified.

Yes. This is why science fails as a means to know truth. No theory can ever be proven because every scientific experiment asserts the consequent and engages in the inductive fallacy. No amount of religious faith is going to make science able to yield a statement of truth. Science cannot do that.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Karl Popper would disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

Danan, great link. Popper was right and I absolutely agree with you. I love your posts because I think you are right on the edge of understanding the irrationality of atheistic worldviews.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Science is not a democracy nor a belief; it will be a fact untill it is scientifically discredited. PERIOD. [emphasis mine]

I think you need to look up the Wikipedia articles about burden of proof. Also, if something is discredited it never was a fact, it was only a belief. There's nothing wrong with believing things that may later be proven wrong, but don't act like you're above it all.

But you know, I'm not forcing you to understand, you can believe i fairies for all I care.

We agree.