Science is inherently atheistic

131 posts / 0 new

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 16:01

Blue Grey Brain

SCIENCE IS A PROCESS / TECHNIQUE: When I reported atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities, as I underline here, IT HAS NO ABILITY TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE.

How hard is this to understand.. "SCIENCE " can not, not believe in God or God's.

Processes are not excluded from possessing properties, including atheistic ones.

Crucially, adjectives are not constrained to humans:

Example_1: See an "agnostic process" in section 3.4 of this paper: Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation

....

Example_2: As an example, consider "retarded kernels". Unfortunately, some humans are born with mental challenges, and that word may be applicable to those medically challenged persons. However, the adjective is also applicable to models in physics, such as the kernels I earlier mentioned.

See Fokker–Planck equations for simple non‐Markovian systems, including "retarded kernels".

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 16:26

(Reply to #122) #123

Cognostic

I gotta agree with your

I gotta agree with your second item. "RETARDED KERNELS" absolutely can be applied to some humans born with medical, and even mental in at least one case I know of, challenges.

There is nothing in anything you have citified that proves the Fokker–Planck equation is atheistic. Science is descriptive not prescriptive. All science is doing in this case is describing the time evolution of the probability density function of the velocity of a particle under the influence of drag forces and random forces, PLEASE DEMONSTRATE HOW THIS IS NOT BELIEVING IN A GOD OR GODS/

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 16:37

(Reply to #123) #124

Blue Grey Brain

There is nothing in anything

There is nothing in anything you have citified that proves the Fokker–Planck equation is atheistic. Science is descriptive not prescriptive. All science is doing in this case is describing the time evolution of the probability density function of the velocity of a particle under the influence of drag forces and random forces, PLEASE DEMONSTRATE HOW THIS IS NOT BELIEVING IN A GOD OR GODS/

1. Science demonstrably rejects unfalsifiable things, such as deities. Before those particles were empirically observed, Science accepted or enabled the exploration of particle theories, as for example, they were falsifiable. [Alternatively, unfalsifiable things fall in the regime of Pseudoscience]

In particular, scientific theories of particles were amenable to falsifiability, which unfalsiable models encompassing Gods, aren't.

-------------------------
2. Side-note: Science can be prescriptive.

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:01

(Reply to #124) #125

arakish

Still proselytizing. And

Still proselytizing. And with the same bullshit. When are you going to find new sources?

rmfr

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 19:26

(Reply to #125) #126

Blue Grey Brain

Still proselytizing. And with

Still proselytizing. And with the same bullshit. When are you going to find new sources?

rmfr

What am I, an atheist, supposedly proselytizing?

When is the last time you invented something?

Sun, 12/09/2018 - 20:00

(Reply to #126) #127

arakish

You are proselytizing your

You are proselytizing your religion of "the coming of the new god AI." You have turned your bullshit into a religion. You come here spewing preposterous claims like all the other Religious Absolutists and cannot prove those claims.

I say I do not believe your crap about your deity.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

I invent new things all the time. That is all I do.

rmfr

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 15:07

(Reply to #127) #128

Blue Grey Brain

You are proselytizing your

You are proselytizing your religion of "the coming of the new god AI." You have turned your bullshit into a religion. You come here spewing preposterous claims like all the other Religious Absolutists and cannot prove those claims.

I say I do not believe your crap about your deity.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

I invent new things all the time. That is all I do.

rmfr

Any citations, of the scientific work you invent?

Mon, 12/10/2018 - 17:08

(Reply to #128) #129

arakish

Boy that last sentence of

Boy that last sentence of mine you quoted didn't just do a 747. Hell, its out there further than Voyager...

And you have yet to answer my question as to whether you know what this means:

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

I already know "No non-English posts" but I have already said I will give the translation as soon as YOU answer the question Mr. Brown.

rmfr

Wed, 12/12/2018 - 11:02

#130

Stare

Science can't "believe" in

Science can't "believe" in anything.
So sciences can't be an atheist.
Science is just a process, so it is neutral.

Wed, 12/12/2018 - 17:56

#131

Stare

Example_1: See an "agnostic

Example_1: See an "agnostic process" in section 3.4 of this paper: Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation

Hmm. I didn't know processes could be "agnostic".

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages