Talk:Atheistic science

First, what are "non-materialistic phenomena"? Second, black holes most certainly exist. Cygnus X-1 and Sagittarius A* are examples. QuantumDude (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Black holes are an implausible fiction of atheistic science. They help sell atheistic pseudo-scientific magazines to the public. They are contrary to quantum mechanics and are one of the Counterexamples to Relativity.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Black holes are demonstrated to exist though, Cygnus X-1 is a known black hole, along with many others, and relativity is known to be more accurate for celestial bodies than Newtonian physics. I don't understand where "atheism" comes into the picture for any of this? QuantumDude (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2016 (EST)

QuantumDude, "Last week, famed physicist Stephen Hawking made headlines with this bold statement: 'there are no black holes.'". - PBS, 2014[1]

Second, you wrote: "First, what are 'non-materialistic phenomena'?" I believe you know what was meant by this phrase and you are just being difficult.

Lastly, I am not going to comment on other matters related to this article or talk page and merely wanted to make these two points. Conservative (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Saying that he is not going to say any more on a specific subject (or anything at all), and coming back very shortly thereafter, is something Cons does quite frequently. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (EST)

I genuinely do NOT know what "non-materialistic phenomena" are, as I've never actually heard the term before, jeez. QuantumDude (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Also, if you read the article which you just linked it specifically says black holes have been observed for decades and that Hawking is NOT saying black holes do not exist. QuantumDude (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2016 (EST)

QuantumDude, you continue to be purposefully difficult. Non-materialistic phenomena are phenomena which are not materialistic/natural. Not exactly rocket science. Are you going to tell me next that you never heard the words miracle/supernatural?

Actually, it is quite possible, though unlikely, that QuantumDude really has never heard the words "miracle" or "supernatural". Very unlikely, since they are part of the English language in general. But one could conceivably discuss science without ever having heard those words. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (EST)

The point in citing the quote/article was to point out that how you define a black hole is an issue. Conservative (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2016 (EST)

See points 1 and 6 in Counterexamples to Relativity. Also, "non-materialistic phenomena" are the very real things that cannot be explained by material science, such as migration.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2016 (EST)

By the way, QunatumDude, if you are an atheist, I have a question for you: "Why don't you join a barter exchange and ask members of the barter exchange if they want to barter with you and you will give them "dark matter" in exchange for various goods/services. :) Conservative (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Challenging people on whether they are atheists is something that Cons does quite frequently. You can ignore him when discussing topics, such as science, that are not related to religion.

Also, saying that dark matter probably exists is not the same as saying that you have some available for sale or barter. Or are you saying that you have some red top quarks for sale? SamHB (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Well, QD, you've really stepped into a hornet's nest, haven't you? Congratulations. SamHB (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Well I had hoped them to be SOMEWHAT reasonable :/ QuantumDude (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2016 (EST)

"whole generations of cosmologists have invested such time, energy, and vast sums of money into identifying this elusive matter that dreams of its existence are likely to die hard." - New Doubt About Dark Matter, Forbes 2014.

Of course, young earth creation scientists didn't spend a dime on this foolish boondoggle. Young earth creationist scientists base their science on evidence/experiments and not desperate and foolhardy dreams. Conservative (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2016 (EST)

I didn't even mention dark matter lol. QuantumDude (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2016 (EST)

I don't blame you for not mentioning dark matter given the embarrassing state of affairs for atheists.

Millions of missing link fossils with round after round of handfuls of controversial "missing links" being debunked is another great embarrassment to atheists/evolutionists.[2][3]

Another favorite of mine is the supposed cow like creatures evolving into whales. How many cows or cow like creatures have you ever seen on the beach? :) Conservative (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (EST)

Conservative you are going off on a complete tangent totally unrelated to anything I was talking about. Can we stay on topic please? Or is thinking about that too hard for you? QuantumDude (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2016 (EST)

The article would highly benefit from more citations, including the reference to the current official position of the Church. Some research works brought intermediate, still questionable conclusions with potentially so nasty social consequences, that asking to interpret with care may be reasonable. But this probably more applies to various forms of scientific racism, abortion and things the like. It is really an explanation required why black holes, wormholes, aliens, dark matter and magnetic butterflies are selected as examples instead or why and how do these theories promote atheism in any way. Most of them belong to pseudoscience; serious scientists do not accept them as proven because of the lack of experimental evidence. Hence while the article may address a real thing, it seems currently completely out of focus. H22 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

"But atheistic science is a futile exercise in circular reasoning, as atheistic assumptions dominate the process." Actually, it is creationist "science" that is based off of the assumption that the Bible, a 4,000 year old fairy tale, is true. "Atheistic" (actually not atheistic, since it doesn't start with any assumptions about the existence of gods) science doesn't start with any such assumptions. ActualSmartPerson (talk) 13:55, September 20, 2021 (EDT)

Atheistic science claims that writing was not invented until about 3200 B.C.? Why? Because that is when the oldest writing can be found. That's an example of the circular reasoning used by atheistic science, as it clings to its fictional assumption that mankind is somehow 100,000 years old. Also, quit with the profanity on other talk pages because it will take too long to clean it up. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:01, September 20, 2021 (EDT)

That's not a fucking assumption, there is fossil, DNA, and archeological evidence showing that humanity is that old (and hominids are even older). ActualSmartPerson (talk) 14:05, September 20, 2021 (EDT)