Atheists say they worship the scientific method, so why do they ignore the scientific evidence for climate change?

Atheists say they worship the scientific method, so why do they ignore the scientific evidence for climate change?

GET CANCER IN YOUR HEAD PLEASE

wait, what?

why cant atheists get dubs?

Are you just making stuff up now?

Ok, I want to play too.

Religious people say they worship clouds. So why do they ignore the fact that bananas are made of towels?

QUAD DUBS

...

Ayyy, quaddubs

Call my name, Bastian!

Fuck it, I'll take the b8. Is a religious person seriously preaching science? Also, atheists don't "worship" anything. Kinda the point.

What does climate change have to do with atheism?

Because it's fake. Here, I'll prove why.

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. Sometimes one must molest a cucumber to feel at one with the earth. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." Manly men wear panties on their heads and don't allow yiffing in the hot tub. "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003) said in 2005 evidence given to a select committee: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future."

Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre said in his 2009 book: "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said in a 2007 opinion piece: "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. A goat is the only animal you can legally molest in the eyes of the God Almighty. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview with a large bowl of naurto and curry: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[19]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change." Angels only appear when a young child is molested for the first time. "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun of our moon known as nibru] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Childhood tv star and best friend to Marky Mark, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[23]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric and much after Mommy touched lil pepe that one time, CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. Worse than chicken nuggets being made from chickens and not genetically altered hermaphrodite poultry"
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide. In fact we have plenty of data suggesting it was ancient astronauts."
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology who was also abducted by kiwis wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."
David Legates, associate professor of geography and crayon drawings was director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability playstation 3 accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. It's all caused by overpopulation of monkeys with lazers for eyeballs. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

it's a shame that not many other people will notice the effort you put into this,

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over nine thousand times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago before goku's arrival, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. Then cat-girls were formed with busty chesticles which brought men to their knees. It was the sweetest loving anyone ever felt. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".

nothing, its b8

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Meth Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. At times we suspect Harry Potter's enemy, He who must not be spoken of, is the culprit. Or perhaps Doctor Doom. But a climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[33][34]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, like all women who leave the kitchen, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"

Because climate change happens naturally, we're just speeding it up a little with carbon emissions.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and long standing anal ping pong champion said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." Also in a 2006 television program Pee Wee's Playhouse: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, Willie Soon sees it, they don't think it be like it is but it do, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. It be like eating the melon before the chicken, shit ain't kosher yo. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. But not without the proper tunes. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

It's alright, I got banned from LiveScience forums for presenting it also.

Please stop posting this, you're making us religious people look retarded.
>inb4 you don't need his help

>Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. It's all caused by overpopulation of monkeys with lazers for eyeballs. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"
Yes sir. Its a tax scam.

Die

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor. Much like the intelligence of women.".
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that he's the god damn batman, but concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Although it has been dismissed as a ploy of the Joker, he was last seen vacationing in Metropolis. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. Even Mr. Fantastic has been baffled. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."

A volcano in iceland released more Co2 than europe did in 20 years

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Candada in 2005: "At this stage, three scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, (2) We kill the Batman and (3) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climax driver. The three scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. But hiring deadpool might be cheaper. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celery phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but Tim will be the final judge."

>itt internet trolls know better than scientist

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who has trouble pronouncing his own name is a retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Attic Neckbeard Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a 2007 blog post:"[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Chucke Cheese (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, with bland sauces, and unrelenting cheeses resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in boobally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th centurian maxium meridas is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropomorphic greenpony gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the pony effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, ponies are too cute, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'moist' in their conclusion is baseless."

>atheism
>worship


>hair color
>bald

Jean Claude Van Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris) said in a 2006 newspaper article:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly nothing more than pokemon for alien beings. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful if you're overweight and bothered by the tropics, but its exact role in the climate is less clear that's why visine should be offered with universal healthcare. Various parameters appear more important than CO2, peanut butter as example, and astroglide lubricatin. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, despite him defeating sephiroth, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural on tifa's dusty vagina. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the lard retardiation on anal and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University said in a 2003 essay for the George C. Marshall Institute:"[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in boobal surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from a babbling bitch in heat. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, no man wants to touch the moon blood, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in like a man's cock in a stripclub. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models and new age psychics."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville ( who we suspect is Jesus as a redneck), contributor to several IPCC said in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper with David Douglass: "...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. ... This reminds us of a homosexual who can't find a date for his family reunion, to prove he's not gay. The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest what even Cookie Monster knows, that the values of g is much smaller than the values of h, but not as great as the powers of a, nor as important as the letter b, sometimes with the aide of justice league the g can become something more." Also in a 2009 opinion piece where he stated that he was out playing b ball when some guys who were up to no good started making trouble in his neighborhood: "...I see neither the developing catastrophe of nigger induced rage nor the smoking gun proving that human activity, let alone muppets, is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on primate models in drag (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dinoxuared and global temperatures have loosey goosey tendencies, with similarity over time."

Petr Chylek, a man with no full name, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, yes he believes in psychics and nachoes in the shape of jesus, Los Alamos National Laboratory said in a 2002 magazine article: "Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warmongering...how much of the [templar] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain, like your sex life"
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma said in 2006 testimony to a US Senate committee:"The amount of clown warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future clown change with any degree of certainty. If a clown does wear high heels, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria about clowns with boobs."
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna (I honestly didn't change this one) and president of the World Wrestling Federation of Scientists, was reported to have said at a 2007 Vatican Seminar, between molesting young altar boys, on Climate Change: "it is not possible to exclude the idea that God did it, God made it, God is the climates changes can be due to natural causes done by God, Jesus, and sweet young ass".

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said in a 2011 email explaining his failure to renew his membership of the American Physical Society: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton torpedo changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The Vulcans or Klingons should not rule our scientific community, despite their advances in technology. The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 light years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.
Craig D. Idontknowsoda, faculty researcher, in other words sectary to Office of Climatology, Arizona State University, that college that murders mexicans for their beans and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who really isn't in it for the monies, said in a 2007 paper in response to Al Gore's Senate testimony: "The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, weed, breast sizes, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."

Sherwood's own Idso, formerly known as Robin Hood research physicist, greedy englishmen, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, Olympican Dance Dance Revolution Gold Medalist and adjunct professor, Arizona State University, said in a 2003 report (co-authored with Craig and Keith Idso, not related of course) for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change :"[]Arming has been shown to positively impact human health, the right to bear arms is benefical to all mankind, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, or fuck in some cases, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."

Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cat-lol Institute of Cheeseburgers and retired research professor of environmental sammiches at the University of Vagina, said in a 2003 article for The Washington Times:"Penistists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreskin's future, a modest three-quarters of a inch (Cellulite), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit to all engorged cocks... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very hard dry humping, such as in the movie Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."

...

The scientific method shows there is a God too but atheists will deny it, question it "ohh what what then how does it do that" you tell them and they call it bullshit without giving any science to show it is bullshit. They just are a bunch of degenerate fucks really. Caught up in their own pride and ignorance. Fuck them.

Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, the X-men's own Gambit, Université Jean Moulin, said in his 2005 book that he believed global mutanting was primarily caused by natural orgasms: "The possible causes, then, of mate change are: well-established boobital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... sonar activity, ...; vulcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect ( the act of farting while having anal sex), and in particular that caused by water vapore, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor of a willing woman, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former wwsf champ of the National Academy of Sciences said in a 2001 article for The Heart Institute that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that Vince screwed Brett, all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities. But rather by Vince's inflated ego."
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor Augie of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, Augie reported to have said in 2006: "the global warming argument, by me Augie, particularly with all the disastrous consequences that I Augie, are being promulgated ... this is all a non-sustainable argument. In other words, Augie will state the facts, in time, Augie will prove them to be wrong."

And thats all the science you need to debunk man driven climate change.

Clickbait. I've pointed out several times before that it's not atheists, rather *some* extreme religious fanatics who ignore scientific evidence for climate change. I suspect OP isn't even here.

...

Who is this?

what part of the scientific method proves god?

Not my fault you don't understand science.

Here's the only scientific fact I need to know: When I masturbate I believe it's Jesus' hand.

Occam's Razor proves God.
Look how much bs science has to make up to come up with an answer for everything.
Verus
God did it.
Occam's razor proves God is real.

I've googled most of these peoples names and they are all retired now. Why the fuck would we take anything they say serious?

That assumes two things: one, that Occam's Razor is correct in every application, and two, that it can be applied to this philosophy.

Neither is certain. Neither is your argument.

>public education at its finest
Okay so when the scientific method works against you, you claim it just doesn't always work.

It's simple.
God said you'll never be able to prove his existence. Everything we learn and develop is beneath his power. That is why you have belief and prayer.

Scientific method requires demonstrable evidence. God has free will, and can choose to make something happen or not. God is not governed by scientific method. There is no scientific method that can prove God's existence. Believing in God does not preclude the scientific method. Trusting the scientific method does not preclude the existence of God. The two are unrelated, except that the universe appears to have been created with physical laws that are repeatedly are shown to be consistent.

Butthurt liberal detected. Sorry cuck, governments will never convince the population to run every aspect of our lives. Kys you piece of shit neet.

Occam's Razor is not a scientific method. It's a guiding principle when searching for answers and methods. That's all.

And I agree - Belief is completely outside of science and neither excludes the other.

>Why the fuck would we take anything they say serious?

Well... they *were* respected scientists in their day. It means they have access to data and the smarts to analyze data on their own.

It does not mean they are right. For instance, Stephen Hawking couldn't accept the existence of black holes for quite a while. He eventually came around. Had he died or stopped writing before that, he would have gone down in history as a disbeliever. But more evidence came out and he's all better now.

So Hawkings is a hack who lets his own personal herp da derps interfere with his science. What a tool.

Speaking of which we should do a RIP thread for Hawking and see if it'll catch on.