Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[ajbrun]

Malfunction mate,


The animus:


That was where the whole emotion thing came from the fact that although somebody loves you, science cannot prove it, thus science cannot prove all - but again, we're going round in circles.

The real question is:
Would an airplane on a treadmill take off if the treadmill was powered by Atheist's and Christian's arguments?

Watching New Love as It Sears the Brain - New York Times
'The brain can't lie' | Science | The Guardian

I know you'll probably say that this only proves that this part of the brain is 'more awake' only in the situations that's been tested, but this is how science works. We're only certain the apple has fallen to the ground only on the times it's been observed. For those other times, we must assume the same thing has happened.

Next, I believe it was you who was talking about unicorns, and the fact that you're not discounting them from existing in a universe which is so large. Whilst I see your logic, this is not the way that science works.

I can't remember if you said it directly, but you seem to be hinting at least that just because you can't disprove the fact that god exists, then you must agree that there's a real possibility that he does. This makes no logical sense at all (if this is what's being said).

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've said this before. It's similar to a policeman accusing you of speeding, without providing you with any evidence. Instead, when it goes to court, he simply asks for proof that you weren't speeding. This of course is impossible.

Remember: If someone makes a claim, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence to support their claim, not for others to disprove it.

[Bazzlad]

I know you'll probably say that this only proves that this part of the brain is 'more awake' only in the situations that's been tested, but this is how science works. We're only certain the apple has fallen to the ground only on the times it's been observed. For those other times, we must assume the same thing has happened.

Funny how accurate the Merovingian was in the matrix:

New love can look for all the world like mental illness

And didn't he say the pattern of love was remarkably similar to the pattern of insanity?

Still the point I made stands (although out of context) Science cannot be used to prove everything and anything.

Next, I believe it was you who was talking about unicorns, and the fact that you're not discounting them from existing in a universe which is so large. Whilst I see your logic, this is not the way that science works.

Not quite I wasn't the person who bought up Unicorns it was G4z! Don't pin that on me!

I can't remember if you said it directly, but you seem to be hinting at least that just because you can't disprove the fact that god exists, then you must agree that there's a real possibility that he does. This makes no logical sense at all (if this is what's being said).

Again, not guilty - although I can't disprove this That's a joke.

Remember: If someone makes a claim, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence to support their claim, not for others to disprove it.

Oh I agree, however I do not feel that my belief requires proof, I believe that, if proof existed, everyone would become a Christian thus the logic (or lack thereof) of faith would disappear and to an extent free will and choice would disappear.

[kasavien]

Science cannot be used to prove everything and anything.

I'm more of the opinion that there should be a "yet" on the end of that sentence. Although something like P = NP problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia may take a while

[Bazzlad]

I tend to agree to an extent, but as earlier stated, the unified field theory isn't here yet, when that is, I'm onboard