Why religion is dumb - reason 3 (lightning)

Originally posted by The Chess Express
http://onlypunjab.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-15-newsID-3560.html

Our latest theory is that lightning is caused by cosmic rays from outer space. See the above link.

Perhaps some of this data you refer to is Gods will.

If this is true, then it compliments the theory that charged particles in the clouds cause lightning. It is the cosmic ray which triggers the charged particles in the clouds.

Notice how science works in this example:

1. "Benjamin Franklin flew a kite in a storm in 1752 and showed that it became electrically charged". This empirical observation led to the theory that charge in the clouds causes lightning.

2. More observation led to the knowledge to support this theory that: "...during a storm, ice particles and hailstones collide creating a negative electric charge at the bottom of a cloud that can then discharge dramatically into the positively charged ground."

3. But then measurements of this charge suggested that this theory was incorrect or only a partial explanation, as "researchers could never find an electrical field in a cloud strong enough to create this effect. In fact, the electrical fields were a tenth of the strength required."

4. Thus the theory had to be expanded to explain the phenomena of lightning. "Scientists now believe that cosmic particles from space - which constantly bombard the earth - might kick-start a process called "runaway breakdown" in storm clouds."

5. Finally, more empirical evidence is attempted to be gained to justify the theory: "Scientists in Florida are setting up 32 telescopes to spot telltale X-rays and gamma rays given off just before a lightning strike by the runaway breakdown process."

Compare this cycle of theorising and observing, with the methods of theology.
Religion lacks any of this technique and relies simply on faith and second-hand evidence from thousands of years ago.
Not one person alive today has any objective evidence for the existence of a creator whatsoever.

Originally posted by howardgee
..........Compare this cycle of theorising and observing, with the methods of theology.
Religion lacks any of this technique and relies simply on faith and second-hand evidence from thousands of years ago.
Not one person alive today has any objective evidence for the existence of a creator whatsoever.[/b]

So religion is not science. Ok.

Originally posted by howardgee
If this is true, then it compliments the theory that charged particles in the clouds cause lightning. It is the cosmic ray which triggers the charged particles in the clouds.

.

Ok, I could ask you who created the particles and the cosmic rays and so on, but I guess you would answer that if science doesn't already know, it will in the future. Fair enough.

Since science consideres us a fluke and doubts that we live on after death, why not look at some of the more encouraging evidence? How would you explain somebody flat lining in a hospital, getting resuscitated, and then describing what was happening three floors above them? What about all the near death experiences that the doctors have no rational explanation for, where people claim to have angelic experiences?

Is it easier to describe these things as undetermined brain malfunctions? Even if you do, this explanation cannot account for the types of things that are getting reported.

I guess it just depends on whether you're satisfied with the scientific explanation for why we are here, or if you want to know the truth.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.
(Friedrich Nietzsche)

Yes this week is Nietzsche week, aphorisms going cheap.

Why do you think they do the baptizing thing?🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
So religion is not science. Ok.

Precisely; the former is poppycock, the latter knowledge.

Why live your life based on unsubstantiated claims?

Originally posted by howardgee
Precisely; the former is poppycock, the latter knowledge.

Why live your life based on unsubstantiated claims?

Because life is a series of unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by howardgee
Precisely; the former is poppycock, the latter knowledge.

Why live your life based on unsubstantiated claims?

Science is pretty much a collection of unsubstantiated claims. Most scientists agree that the more they discover, the more they realize how much they don't know. That's why we mostly have scientific theories.

Originally posted by genius
if i remember correctly, david wilkerson claimed that the september the 11th attacks on america were Gods wrath. i believe him. i think i've got the sermon on my computer at home so i'll look for it, and i'm pretty sure i've posted it here already.

I claim its god wrath every time i rip aone that peels the paint from the walls and causes blindness in my enimy... muhahahahhahaaaa

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Science is pretty much a collection of unsubstantiated claims. Most scientists agree that the more they discover, the more they realize how much they don't know. That's why we mostly have scientific theories.

Theories that are always being revised I might add.

Originally posted by RBHILL
How and why do we get rainbows?

it's something i'm not overly knowledgeable on, but apparently it is perfectly feasible for the air to have had more moisture in it than it did before, and with noah's flood this water parted company with the atmosphere (all at once...). this would mean that there would not be rainbows before the flood, and people would live for longer. afterwards, however, there would be rainbows and people would-well-not love for longer...

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Science is pretty much a collection of unsubstantiated claims. Most scientists agree that the more they discover, the more they realize how much they don't know. That's why we mostly have scientific theories.

Theories that are always being revised I might add.

Why we mostly have scientific theories as opposed to what other option?
As for a "collection of unsubstantiated claims," that's just silly. Every theory is substantiated by at least one experiment; not to say "proven," but if there wasn't at least some evidence, it would be a hypothesis.
As for "the more they discover, the more they realize how much they don't know"....don't you find this true in your own life as well? Only by learning, can we understand how much we do not understand. Only by leaving your house can you understand that the world is much larger...and the more you travel, the more you can appreciate its size...
But to circle back, "That's why we mostly have scientific theories"...would you rather we had more hypotheses?

Originally posted by howardgee
Precisely; the former is poppycock, the latter knowledge.

Why live your life based on unsubstantiated claims?

How does science explain love?

Originally posted by Halitose
How does science explain love?

Love is one of the many subjects still being considered by social psychologists, but some theories have been developed off and on. Here's a quick link to an introduction page and some links:
http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa020500a.htm

Originally posted by echecero
Love is one of the many subjects still being considered by social psychologists, but some theories have been developed off and on. Here's a quick link to an introduction page and some links:
http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa020500a.htm

Of the four basic love types: storge, philia, eros, agape I'm particularly interested in how Howard would explain this one from a scientific perspective.

Originally posted by Halitose
Of the four basic love types: storge, philia, eros, agape I'm particularly interested in how Howard would explain this one from a scientific perspective.

What are those in English?