Science has replaced religion
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 22 Mar 2010 18:35 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in >> religion. > >By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very honest >since probably the 60s. Did you want to bother to back that up?
From: Smiler on 22 Mar 2010 22:43 Free Lunch wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > >> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in >>> religion. >> >> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >> honest since probably the 60s. > > Did you want to bother to back that up? His 'want' and his ability are two different things. -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: Kadaitcha Man on 23 Mar 2010 04:18 "Smiler", thou beef-witted nest of hollow bosoms. Base dunghill villain, I'll have thy head. Ye lectured: > Kadaitcha Man wrote: >> "Virgil", thou bloodsucking periwigpated fellow. Thou art a boil, a >> plague sore, an embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood. Ye prompted: >> >>> Except that every scientifically valid study, and there are many of >>> them, which compares intelligence with faith in god(s) finds a clearly >>> negative correlation between them, meaning that those who believe in >>> in one or more gods are, on average, less intelligent than those who >>> do not believe in any gods. >> >> Lunatic asylums are full of people who assert themselves to be kings. > > Or gods. Nice self-nuke, atheist. What do you do for an encore? -- I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without variation: God = Metaphysical X Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
From: Ste on 23 Mar 2010 05:06 On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote in alt.atheism: > > >> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in > >>> religion. > > >> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very > >> honest since probably the 60s. > > > Did you want to bother to back that up? > > His 'want' and his ability are two different things. That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of ability.
From: Free Lunch on 23 Mar 2010 17:43
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >> Free Lunch wrote: >> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> >> > wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in >> >>> religion. >> >> >> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >> >> honest since probably the 60s. >> >> > Did you want to bother to back that up? >> >> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. > >That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of >ability. So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. |