"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Comments
6,081 - 6,100 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6281
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wow, falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Gorsh, one never knew right and wrong could mean so much. It must be the idiots need big words, so they can feel like they are thumbody, as they have nothing of their own to offer.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6282
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
You are using double speak and ignoring all points made against you, anything that challenged you is skipped and then you fill in the blanks with whatever fanciful and egotistical nonsense you can dream up simply to attempt to claim victory when all you have truly done is kept yourself a complete and utter moron. What you need to do is learn something, and actually study it, as it is clear you have done no actual study or work to understand even the most basic and simplest concepts that require nothing more than a third grade education to comprehend. Your total lack of honesty is plain to see as you lead the poor saps in this thread in circles over many posts simply to make one fallacy that is not even solid enough to warrant a name for.
You are dishonest, and a complete and total idiot.
You speak like an angry religious person. Why are you constantly babbling nonsense?

If you are able to prove me wrong then I will humbly change my view.
I made a very specific claim about falsifiability in natural science. Are you able to prove me wrong???

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6283
May 25, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
Wow, falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Gorsh, one never knew right and wrong could mean so much. It must be the idiots need big words, so they can feel like they are thumbody, as they have nothing of their own to offer.
Has your dog come forward to testify you molesting it yet?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6284
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak like an angry religious person. Why are you constantly babbling nonsense?
If you are able to prove me wrong then I will humbly change my view.
I made a very specific claim about falsifiability in natural science. Are you able to prove me wrong???
No, you made an assertion using your own personal definitions of words and concepts for which you set unreasonable limitations and specifications on.

Stop playing around NephilimFree ... oh wait, ShockofGod I mean.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6285
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
There is no evidence that falsifiability has any merit.
Absolutely nobody can come up with any hypothesis of the natural that is unfalsifiable.
Falsifiability has failed.
Sure it works , there are many hypothesis and theory that have failed
by falsification.

One was the "spontaneous generation" of life .
Others include

The Geocentric model of the solar system.
Luminiferous aether.
The Rutherford model of the atom.
The Steady State Theory.

there are many many more.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6286
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
No, you made an assertion using your own personal definitions of words and concepts for which you set unreasonable limitations and specifications on.
Karl Popper's definition which is adopted by science is fine by me. You can use it. You will still be empty handed. Please do try.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6287
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you made an assertion using your own personal definitions of words and concepts for which you set unreasonable limitations and specifications on.
Stop playing around NephilimFree ... oh wait, ShockofGod I mean.
The pet whisperer and humble brother are a brain free zone.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6288
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
Sure it works , there are many hypothesis and theory that have failed
by falsification.
One was the "spontaneous generation" of life .
Others include
The Geocentric model of the solar system.
Luminiferous aether.
The Rutherford model of the atom.
The Steady State Theory.
there are many many more.
Of course. That's not the issue here. The issue is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist, it is an impossibility.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6290
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That's not the issue here. The issue is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist, it is an impossibility.
You were the one asking for one, so if you are making the assertion yet cannot find one, then you are either completely brain dead or lying through your cyberteeth.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6291
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
You were the one asking for one, so if you are making the assertion yet cannot find one, then you are either completely brain dead or lying through your cyberteeth.
So you give up? You accept that you can not come up with one?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6292
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So you give up? You accept that you can not come up with one?
All scientific theories can be falsified. You said that they can't, not I, not anyone on here with half a brain, you said it. It is up to you to prove your assertion, I succeed by not proving it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6293
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That's not the issue here. The issue is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist, it is an impossibility.
Now you are constructing word salads.
A unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific period.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6294
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
There is no evidence that falsifiability has any merit.
Absolutely nobody can come up with any hypothesis of the natural that is unfalsifiable.
Falsifiability has failed.
I'm sure Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave. Putz.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6295
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
All scientific theories can be falsified. You said that they can't, not I, not anyone on here with half a brain, you said it. It is up to you to prove your assertion, I succeed by not proving it.
So in your desperation you cling to the straw man. I have not said that the scientific theories can not be falsified. I have said just the opposite.

What I have said in this thread is:
- no one here seems to know the difference between a nested hierarchy change that falsifies and a nested hierarchy change that does not falsify the theory of evolution
- an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural DOES NOT EXIST, you can not come up with one
- the falsification requirement of science is redundant due to the above
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6296
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
Now you are constructing word salads.
A unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific period.
An unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist. Period. There is no such thing. Any hypothesis of the natural you come up with is falsifiable. Period.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6297
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So in your desperation you cling to the straw man. I have not said that the scientific theories can not be falsified. I have said just the opposite.
What I have said in this thread is:
- no one here seems to know the difference between a nested hierarchy change that falsifies and a nested hierarchy change that does not falsify the theory of evolution
- an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural DOES NOT EXIST, you can not come up with one
- the falsification requirement of science is redundant due to the above
No, you tried to goad people into another pointless argument, so I just played your game, by your own rules. You are using double speak, so I shall use fallacy until you stop using double speak.

An unfalsifiable claim is one like "god did it." Also any claim made without evidence to support it. These are not hypothesis because they are not falsifiable. Thus the requirement that all scientific claims must be falsifiable, they have to be testable by others, or verifiable. To be verifiable the evidence must be supported by facts. Facts themselves are not always the evidence though.

Are you still keeping up? If a claim is made with no evidence that can be tested or verified by outside sources and opponents, then it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific. If you want a non-falsifiable claim, creationism is the perfect example, if you want a non-falsifiable hypothesis, you won't get one.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6298
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
No, you tried to goad people into another pointless argument, so I just played your game, by your own rules. You are using double speak, so I shall use fallacy until you stop using double speak.
An unfalsifiable claim is one like "god did it." Also any claim made without evidence to support it. These are not hypothesis because they are not falsifiable. Thus the requirement that all scientific claims must be falsifiable, they have to be testable by others, or verifiable. To be verifiable the evidence must be supported by facts. Facts themselves are not always the evidence though.
Are you still keeping up? If a claim is made with no evidence that can be tested or verified by outside sources and opponents, then it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific. If you want a non-falsifiable claim, creationism is the perfect example, if you want a non-falsifiable hypothesis, you won't get one.
I find it quite funny that you always revert to babbling all sorts of things without really making an actual argument. As stated before, science deals with the natural not supernatural.

Do you believe that it is possible to create an hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable? Yes or no?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6300
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
An unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist. Period. There is no such thing. Any hypothesis of the natural you come up with is falsifiable. Period.
....and therein lies the beauty of science. Now all you have to do is identify a scientific theory that predicts something will occur and demonstrate that it will not occur.

Loved your corpuscular theory of light and your bubble chamber theory. Your exponential decay of knowledge theory was also a beauty. Too bad they all turned out to be cráp. Back to the drawing board, as they say.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6301
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop with your stupid babbling and present an hypothesis of the natural that would not be falsifiable!
Claim:
No one can come up with an hypothesis of the natural that would not be falsifiable.
If you want to prove me wrong. Please present your unfalsifiable hypothesis.
An unfalsifiable hyptothesis? How about that there is an undetectable spaceship that is controlling my cats? How about that the universe came into existence last Thursday with all of our memories?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6302
May 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it quite funny that you always revert to babbling all sorts of things without really making an actual argument. As stated before, science deals with the natural not supernatural.
Do you believe that it is possible to create an hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable? Yes or no?
Did you finally admit that you're having sex with a donkey? YES or NO

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 58 min Mugwump 172,452
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr positronium 5,218
Secret of herding sheep discovered 6 hr not so religious 1
5 Things eBay's Management Wants You to Know 9 hr Philip Cohen 1
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 9 hr SpaceBlues 26,999
OinkSM Secret Sauce Patent Issued 18 hr JasonTT 1
Space Agency study looks at benefits of Canadia... 20 hr Woops 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Science / Technology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••