Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

So you believe.


Yours, if you believe science is no different from atheism.


Um.
You're the one talking about "creation myths".

///
No 1 tried to equate science & atheism.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

SIASL:

You might want to consider leaving the ad hominems out of your posts. They don't help your argument.

///
Any better? :
That is absurd. As usual.
There are no tenets of not being a theist.

<>

 

[Capracus]

Yours, if you believe science is no different from atheism.

When it comes to justifying religious doctrine there is no difference as far as my atheism is concerned.

Um.
You're the one talking about "creation myths".

I assumed we both were, unless you don’t consider such creation accounts to be myth.

 

[Musika]

When it comes to justifying religious doctrine there is no difference as far as my atheism is concerned.

Hence the point where science distinct from science hijacked by atheism for false airs of superiority becomes apparent.

I assumed we both were, unless you don’t consider such creation accounts to be myth.

If you consider they all are, you are not talking about science

 

[Musika]

///
No 1 tried to equate science & atheism.

<>

Take it to Capracus :

But it is the gift that keeps on giving in regards to justifying a position of atheism.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Take it to Capracus :

But it is the gift that keeps on giving in regards to justifying a position of atheism.

///
No 1 tried to equate science & atheism.

<>

 

[Write4U]

I am. At the moment I am pointing out the circular usage of the term "abrahamic" and that despite links to wiki pages, most in present company are not even vaguely familiar with "all religions" so their subsequent opinions never leave the realm of values and beliefs.

Nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

Contrary to popular (atheistic) belief, anthropology is not a sub branch of atheism.
It's simply another hijackef label from the discipline of science that atheists utilize to bolster their position with false airs of superiority.

Nonsense

As already mentioned, such ideas have no value outside of the beliefs of atheism.

Nonsense.

 

[Capracus]

Hence the point where science distinct from science hijacked by atheism for false airs of superiority becomes apparent.

How have I hijacked science to support my beliefs about religion?

If you consider they all are, you are not talking about science

Which creation accounts have been substantiated by science?

This is the only creation story backed by science that I'm aware of.

 

[Write4U]

Yours, if you believe science is no different from atheism

That is a nonsensical answer.
Science is the discipline which studies the fundamental properties of the universe including theism and found that the concept of a God as presented in scripture is wanting in logic and evidence. To such an extend, that science even refuses to consider Theism as a viable belief system altogether.

Which is the (scientific) foundation of the atheist's (my) perspective that God does not exist, i.e. atheism (I) agrees with science on the concept that the Universe was created by other means than by a God.

 

[Write4U]

This is the only creation story backed by science that I'm aware of.

Dianetics?

Dianetics (from Greek dia, meaning "through", and nous, meaning "mind") is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

ROFL

(highlight mine)

 

[Musika]

How have I hijacked science to support my beliefs about religion?

You bring science to a subject where its authority ranges from none to very minimal .... depending on how rigorously one applies the scientific process and the specifics of what one is looking at.

Which creation accounts have been substantiated by science?

Zero.
Either religious accounts or scientific accounts.
There is even mainstream (scientific) contention regarding the degree one can even declare cosmogony a science.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

In this regard, we are talking about people leveling claims of a connection between trinitarianism and egyptian polytheism, with an apparent ignorance of at least the first 500 (possibly even 1500) years of the jesus movement/christianity.

When I talk about "getting an education" I mean "familiarize yourself with at least mainstream notions before you grant yourself radical historiographical departures".

///
Did you very recently say "The bible is not my forte"?

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

There is even mainstream (scientific) contention regarding the degree one can even declare cosmogyny a science.

///
What is cosmogyny?

<>

 

[Musika]

///
Did you very recently say "The bible is not my forte"?

<>

Yes I did.

My knowledge of it is very rudimentary.

 

[Musika]

///
What is cosmogyny?

<>

Cosmogony.
My bad.

 

[Write4U]

Capracus said: ↑
How have I hijacked science to support my beliefs about religion?

You bring science to a subject where its authority ranges from none to very minimal .... depending on how rigorously one applies the scientific process and the specifics of what one is looking at.

Capracus said,
Which creation accounts have been substantiated by science?

Zero.
Either religious accounts or scientific accounts.
There is even mainstream (scientific) contention regarding the degree one can even declare cosmogyny a science.

Thank you Musika, you finally have adopted the atheist stance that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a Scriptural God, both by theist's beliefs and accounts or atheist's scientifically available evidence. Zero................

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

There is even mainstream (scientific) contention regarding the degree one can even declare cosmogony a science.

///
Where is that contention?

<>

 

[Musika]

///
Where is that contention?

<>

A person with a proven aptitude with search engines, such as yourself, should be able to find a few hits.

 

[Musika]

Thank you Musika, you finally have adopted the atheist stance that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a Scriptural God, both by theist's beliefs and accounts or atheist's scientifically

Well, we were talking about science, not evidence.
And we were talking about models for universal creation, not scriptural notions of godhood.