movement to atheism

@wolfgang59 said
Miss Using is not here.

I met Miss Using once. What an ordeal that was. 💃 😬

@kellyjay said
If you say it doesn't rule it out so it is possible I'm in agreement.

Just to clarify: "nor" means "also [...] not."

@fmf said
You are applying it to the "knowledge" you claim you obtain from the faith you have in supernatural causality.

You should be simply looking at he best cause for what we are studying, that may
be a undirected process, or a directed one in some topics. If you go into a study
looking for only what you want to see, odds are that is all you are going to see
truth or not isn't then important as much as finding ways to justify your own views.

@wolfgang59 said
Miss Using is not here.

You sure I thought I saw her earlier. 🙁 Sorry!

@wolfgang59 said
Your train of thought is rather fragmented.
Can you please answer questions and then ask one question in response?

Thanks.

I have answered, but maybe not to your liking. Please ask the one question you
want me to respond to I'll try to be concise.

@kellyjay said
If you go into a study
looking for only what you want to see, odds are that is all you are going to see
truth or not isn't then important as much as finding ways to justify your own views.

But you approach this with the predetermined objective of bolstering your faith-based assertions, even to point of trying to hijack the word "science" when what you are really talking about is what your "superstitions" make you want to believe.

@kazetnagorra said
Just to clarify: "nor" means "also [...] not."

I'm not going to go back and try to parse what you said, if you want to clarify it
please do if I'm not following your point.

@kellyjay said
It isn't that God or the possibility of God cannot be explained or found by science
now, it is that those that are in science have redefined science to ignore all there is
about God. Therefore science has rejected the possibility of God, dismisses out of
hand God, and under those conditions it refuses to acknowledge anything that
may point to Him.

Very circular, He is ...[text shortened]... se it is has God attached to it.

Notice truth doesn't matter here only an ideological world view.

Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?

@fmf said
Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?

You think science should bolster your beliefs?

@kellyjay said
You think science should bolster your beliefs?

None of us knows what the origin of the universe was ~ assuming there was an origin. I don't know if there is a creator being.

Those are my beliefs.

Science is investigating the nature of the universe.

Superstitious people - like you - are filling the gap in human knowledge with myriad denominations of conjecture and doctrine that appeal to their imaginations.

Here's another one of my beliefs: the stuff that appeals to your imagination and forms the basis of your religious beliefs creates no peril or dilemma for me. Science neither bolster nor undermines this belief.

@kellyjay said
You think science should bolster your beliefs?

OK, you dodged my question by asking me a question. I answered your question. So here is my question again: Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?

@kellyjay said
If you go into a study
looking for only what you want to see, odds are that is all you are going to see
truth or not isn't then important as much as finding ways to justify your own views.

Judging by your posting here this past decade, I perceive you as going into 'this study' looking only for what you want to see, looking for what fits with your own views, and looking for what you have already decided you see as "truth".

Exhibit A: the deliberately wonky understanding of evolutionary science - a field that you carefully "misunderstand" and misstate over and over and over again.

You've been doing it for as long as I can remember and no amount of discussion with you by people who understand evolutionary science has any impact on the calculatedly wonky understanding you cite.

And to what end, all this? It's done in order to justify ~ and propagate ~ your own views, despite people setting you straight.

@fmf said
OK, you dodged my question by asking me a question. I answered your question. So here is my question again: Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?

Universal truths are not exclusively there for a specific group of people.

@kellyjay said
Universal truths are not exclusively there for a specific group of people.

You alluding to your personal opinions and religious notions as being "universal truths" has no effect on me or our discourse.

@kellyjay said
Universal truths are not exclusively there for a specific group of people.

Once again: Why do you feel the need for "science" to bolster your unscientific faith and religious doctrines?