Skip to content
December 30, 2011 / itsnobody

How To Advance Scientific Progress

Since the time that atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s, science has been turning into a pseudo-scientific joke. So it’s up to Theists to teach atheists how to advance science and human progress.

Here are my 5 main principles to follow for the advancement of science:

Authority and Incredulity having no value: Scientists and people in general should not value authority or incredulity as atheists do now in modern times. In modern times many people think that an authority figure saying something is equivalent to evidence of something when in reality it isn’t, why can’t atheists understand this?

Evidence that something’s true is actual observations indicating so, not authority figures saying so, or pointing out if an idea does or does not push human incredulity as atheists foolishly believe.

In modern times if someone comes up with a repeatable observation or experiment that pushes human incredulity too far they have a very high chance of being ignored by the scientific community, just on the basis of incredulity alone. For some reason incredulity and authority is all that matters to atheists.

If society as a whole did not value authority or incredulity at all we would just go by what objective observations show and science would be much further ahead.

Experimentation over Mathematical Models: In modern times the atheist scientists who run things now value mathematical models over experimentation. Some how to the atheist mind, having mathematical models that cannot be empirically tested is better than having lots of experiments that give us actual data that reflects reality.

Experimentation is much more important than mathematical models. Eventually any mathematician or group of mathematicians will be able to create mathematical models after what lots of empirical data and experimental results show.

On the other hand having mathematical models that cannot be empirically tested tells us nothing about reality, it’s really just mathematical speculations.

Prior to atheists taking over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s, experimentation had been valued much more highly.

If scientists focused more on gathering lots of repeatable observations and experiments that can be duplicated (eliminating all possibility of error) instead of focusing on mathematical models that cannot be tested, science would be much much further ahead, and much closer to the truth.

Free and Open Criticism Encouraged: For some reason in modern times atheists intentionally discourage criticism and scrutiny labeling any kind of criticism as “trolling”.

It use to be that free and open criticism was considered an extremely important principle in science.

Charles Babbage said “Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed”.

Instead of discouraging criticism, scrutiny, and questioning like atheists do we should be intentionally encouraging these things.

If a statement is actually true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

The more people question, scrutinize, and criticize things the closer we come to the truth.

Belief without evidence, Intuition, and Originality Encouraged: Atheists intentionally discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality in modern times. But why?

History clearly shows us that belief without evidence, intuition, and originality causes scientific advancements.

There’s no harm at all in having lots of crazy hypotheses because empirically testing and observations will tell us what is true. Even if a hypothesis is completely wrong the process of trying to test it will likely give us new data about reality.

On the other hand there’s a great harm in having only beliefs with evidence. If someone only has beliefs with evidence then all they can do is mimic and copy things in science that already have evidence, a person would not be able to come up with new experiment ideas or new hypotheses (that initially have no supporting evidence).

Einstein would not have been able to invent his General Relativity idea if he only had beliefs with evidence. Faraday would not have been able to come up with his Field Theory if he had only beliefs with evidence.

We can clearly see from the history of science that intuition, originality, and beliefs without evidence has always been beneficial to the advancement of science. Imagine how far science would be if atheists hadn’t intentionally discouraged beliefs without evidence, intuition, and originality.

Just look at how much intuition and originality people had prior to atheists taking over in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Society should instead intentionally encourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality.

Contributions valued more than IQ or Prodigy: In modern times now that atheists have taken over society values IQ and prodigy over contributions.

The only people who value IQ highly are atheists or racists (it’s the same thing).

People who make revolutionary contributions are ignored in the media if they are not prodigies. On the other hand people who make no revolutionary contributions but are prodigies are celebrated as great geniuses in the media.

Back when Theists ran science, contributions use to be viewed as the highest achievement, not high IQ or being a prodigy.

The reason why society should value and celebrate contributions over prodigy or IQ is because contributions are what advances science and changes the world, not having a high IQ or being a prodigy alone.

I don’t really understand why atheists have de-valued contributions so much and placed IQ and prodigy above everything.

How can these contributions that forever change the course of history be less significant than a high IQ prodigy who contributes nothing?

If society viewed contributions as being worth more than IQ or prodigy then people would be more encouraged to contribute, and more motivated to advance science and human progress.

Throughout history atheists have always been threatening human progress and holding back science. If people would give up following the way of the atheist, science and human progress would be so much further ahead.

I know that modern science is in a sad state when all that matters is authority and incredulity instead of what is actually valid and true. If atheists hadn’t taken over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s and these 5 principles that I listed were followed we would most likely already be living in a utopia-like society where technology was super-advanced and there was no more disease or sickness.

We live in a world where authority and incredulity is what matters to scientists.

As long as atheists exist scientific progress will always be hindered and blocked. It would just be better for society if atheists stayed far away from science.

It’s almost as if atheists intentionally don’t want science to grow or advance.

The main reason I encourage science is because I know that the closer science comes to the truth the faster atheism will be exterminated. The only form of atheism that will be leftover in the future is impersonalism.

Those are my 5 principles to follow for the advancement of science.



Leave a Comment
  1. James / Aug 11 2012 3:34 am

    You don’t understand the value models have in the current scientific world. The germ theory is a model which predicts the spread of infectious disease. The working memory model predicts that visual-spatial working memory is separate from phonological memory. In short, scientists get a bunch of data and try to explain it with a model. Then they look at the model and use experimentation to refute it. If the model can’t be refuted b experiments then that is evidence that the model is accurate. F it can be refuted, time to rethink the model.

    Models are the entire reason we do science. They allow s to extrapolate data to the real world. Conducting experiments without making a model based on them is like playing connect the dots without connecting any dots

  2. Zak / Feb 6 2012 3:48 pm

    You must inhabit a different world than the rest of us, because what you have written is pure bullshit.

    Right now a person’s contributions make up their value in science. People build their case for tenure, for example, by releasing a large number of publications. The more those publications are cited by others, the stronger the tenure case. If you want to get hired by a company, you need to show a history of accomplishment. Nobody talks about this person’s or that person’s IQ, they talk about publications, patents, projects completed. But you would know this if you ever worked in a scientific field.

    You have built yourself a nice straw man here. Having fun burning him?

  3. Chris P / Feb 5 2012 9:27 pm

    All the theists do is want to take us back to the dark ages. Don’t want stem cell research. Don’t want contraception. Don’t want women to live.

    Tell us how religion makes better cars or aircraft? I mean – if engineers only have to pray to god to make an airplane the Muslims should have the best fighter jets and computers.

    Oh wait – the Russians have the best fighters and the Chinese and Japanese make some of the best computers. You must be praying to the wrong god.

    • itsnobody / Mar 14 2012 1:45 am

      lol…take us back to the non-existent Dark Ages?

      Historians don’t believe in the Dark Ages dumbass, but since you’re an atheist (and therefore gullible) I’m sure you’ll believe any lie you hear in the media.

      As for stem cell research in reality religion has done virtually nothing to stop stem cell research. Religious advocates don’t even oppose any form of stem cell research that doesn’t destroy embryos. If Theists had been running science stem cell research would probably be ahead since Theists would’ve already found efficient methods of gathering embryonic-like stem cells without destroying embryos.

      As for better aircraft, cars, computers, etc…that has to do with physics and higher mathematics which came from studying astronomy which came from religion.

  4. Todd / Jan 23 2012 4:56 pm

    Yes theists certainly know how to lead the way in science:

    Instead of drawing conclusions from evidence, its “Lets see what evidence matches our confirmation bias”. Sort of like you and your quote mining pseudo intellectualism?

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: