Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Sorry Sheldon but we are both expressing our own views and perceptions.
My words are based on my own observations from the discussions in various rooms. I do not wish to waste my time doing research to convince you of anything I stated.
I have learned quickly from the advice and reactions of many here and have roamed many the rooms in silence, in a quest for useful information. One thing I am learning is how to present a topic that will be respectfully challenged without stating an incoherent belief or hypotheses.
I have seen atheists debate among themselves what constitutes "atheism"
I have seen many ask for "proof". They should change that word to "evidence"
Science is a belief system. Even science sometimes starts with a premise that has no evidence to support it and then attempts the experiments that will either give evidence to support THE BELIEF or perhaps it becomes a Maybe if not fully Denied by the experiment. It's the "What if" scenario. In this scenario it starts with an opinion so yes science is also opinion based. Perhaps I am wrong but still willing to learn from anything you have to say Sheldon. I won't assume that my words ended the rebuttal.
You cannot tell me what I have and have not learned from these rooms. Are they truth? Absolutely not something I will claim. They are merely my perceptions.
"Sorry Sheldon but we are both expressing our own views and perceptions."
Indeed, but mine are agreeing with and supported by the best objective method we have, science, and your's are contradicting and misrepresenting that method as some sort of subjective best guess in order for you to dishonestly misrepresent it as no more objectively valid than unevidenced belief in bronze age superstition.
"My words are based on my own observations from the discussions in various rooms. I do not wish to waste my time doing research to convince you of anything I stated."
Quelle surprise, I have yet to encounter a theist who thought otherwise.
"One thing I am learning is how to present a topic that will be respectfully challenged without stating an incoherent belief or hypotheses."
By denying science and avoiding research, I am dubious.
"I have seen atheists debate among themselves what constitutes "atheism""
It''s in the dictionary, and it means a lack or absence of belief in a deity or deities, and that for the record is what I mean when I say atheism, if others which to define ti differently than the dictionary then it does not represent my position. Beyond this concise declaration I have little interest in the semantics theists use all the time to try and misrepresent atheism as a belief or claim and thus carrying a burden of proof.
"Science is a belief system."
Rubbish, you really ought to do some research, try Googling it as a basic start.
"I have seen many ask for "proof". They should change that word to "evidence""
I always use the phrase objective evidence, but it makes me laugh that theists like you expend this amount of energy arguing over peripheral semantics, if you had a any credible objective evidence it would quite obviously be your opener. You're not the only one who has been through these arguments many times.
"Even science sometimes starts with a premise that has no evidence to support it and then attempts the experiments that will either give evidence to support"
Wow, so you;re saying a method for gathering new knowledge starts from a position that accepts we don't know something. I think you need to re-read that and you may see why it's such a facile statement. Science is a method that gathers and tests evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion and then submits that conclusions to the entire scientific world for peer review, if withstands scrutiny and the evidence is sufficient it can reach the pinnacle of scientific thought, a scientific theory.
!. It's the "What if" scenario. In this scenario it starts with an opinion so yes science is also opinion based."
No, the results are not "opinion based" though that may be how the process starts. Nothing accepted as scientific fact is based merely on opinion, accepted scientific theories are based on a weight of objective evidence that puts them beyond any reasonable doubt, but yet they remain tentative and open to revision or even reversal as the method demands. This does not mean that scientific facts like gravity or evolution can or will be entirely reversed, the evidence over 160 years of scrutiny suggest we are as likely to find out the earth is flat and at the centre of the universe, as of course religion like Catholicism insisted was the case before scientific research evidence their error, and their reaction was denial and threats.
"You cannot tell me what I have and have not learned from these rooms. Are they truth? "
I don't recall telling you any such thing, I can't say what is and is not true as you're being too cryptic and vague, what's more I would not present it that way, something is not true or false in an absolute sense, rather I would say either sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated to validate a claim, or it does not.
I have requested for years and despite some very grandiose claims, no theist has even offered even one piece of objective evidence for any deity.
Please do offer your three best pieces of objective evidence for the existence of a deity. if you present arguments then these are not objective evidence by definition, and if they contain known logical fallacies they'll get short shrift.
"They are merely my perceptions."
The world is flat
The world is not flat.
Are you going to tell me these mutually exclusive claims cannot be separated by anything but subjective perception? If so debate is rather pointless, and for fairly obvious reasons I'd have thought.
"whether some people here are ready to admit it or not Science also is an opinion, a belief as well,"
Horseshit! If a hypothesis stands up to scientific scrutiny, whose opinion is it?...the originators, or the people that present the multiple different validations of the same hypothesis. I think you do not understand the scientific process, and see rudimentary argument through opposing scrutiny by observational or experimental science, as personal opinion...and ignore outcome. Otherwise, you are being dishonest.
Most scientists worth their salt(exclude bias of most religious scientists), always include the disclaimer that a valid theory is only valid until its not, suggesting partial belief. However, science and religion do not share the same epistemological status. Science has proven powerful in revealing the underlying structure of our universe, and the natural basis of reality and life. Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.
So comparing your type belief, with a scientists, is an apple and orange proposition. The fact that you are attempting to equalize this dichotomy, is a dishonest twist of reason, for strengthening of religiosity, not for search of truth.
Shame on you.
No dishonest twist of reason. Ignorance maybe. I'll grant you that possibility.
I'll buy one of those...it seems a fair price. :P
@In Spirit Re: "...I must warn you to be prepared to be appalled by the reaction of some people here..."
Not-for-nuthin', but people are treated here according to their particular behavior. Granted, I have not been participating in this thread, but I have been somewhat following it. And from what I have seen thus far, Catholicray seems to be conducting himself in a respectable manner. As such, he has been treated with appropriate respect in return as far as I can tell. As it should be.
Re: "Others will make it look like all atheists are on the same page but they are not. They can be as divided as any other group."
Uh, yoo-hoo. Hey, genius. In case you haven't been paying attention, atheists are not a "group" per say, and we are MOST DEFINITELY "divided" on pretty much any topic you can name. The ONLY thing in which we are all definitely "on the same page" is that we do not believe in god(s). Allow me to repeat that slowly... We... Do... Not... Believe... In... God(s). Anything and everything else beyond that is totally up for grabs depending on each individual person. Honestly, dude, it really isn't all that complicated. Sheesh!... *rolling eyes*...
Oh, by the way, Catholicray, welcome to the AR. Hope you enjoy your discussions and are able to learn a few things here and there. We have some good folks here. Enjoy your stay.
I'm fking appalled by Tin Man's response.
"Not-for-nuthin', but people are treated here according to their particular behavior. Granted, I have not been participating in this thread, but I have been somewhat following it. And from what I have seen thus far, Catholicray seems to be conducting himself in a respectable manner. As such, he has been treated with appropriate respect in return as far as I can tell. As it should be."
I totally agree. Was just giving him a heads up.
"...atheists are not a "group" per say,"
I was referring to some atheists among the Atheist Republic debating what constitutes an atheist. You had to be there I guess.
I know little about atheism even though I was one. First a theist, then an atheist and now "Other" where's that checkbox again?...lol
Don't worry Tin Man...I won't put you in a box, I mean group...lol
@In Spirit Re: "...Science also is an opinion, a belief as well, simply because there is no proof."
....Says the guy using a computer and/or smart phone along with the Internet to write your posts and send them out over complex communications systems that utilize a multitude of satellites orbiting the Earth at various altitudes, all of which was developed by the "opinions" of science. Hmmmmm...... Oh, wait.... Maybe you have us all beat on that and you simply PRAY your posts onto the site and into the appropriate forums.
The purpose of science is to control both our own nature and physical nature in order that the human race may survive. It's purpose is to make order prevail over randomness, good over evil, order over chaos and the end result to be the conquest of nature to achieve it's goals. It is not merely looking for evidence for the sake of creating definitions and classifications. It has an exterior purpose and science believes it has the best solutions for mankind perhaps even a utilitarian purpose. That is an opinion hence Science is an opinion/ belief system. Putting your hope in Science to take us into the promised land. That is as scary option. That is the opinion I disagree with... a scientific one.
In Spirit: WOW! Are you going to admit that you just pulled that out of your ass? Does your ignorance know no bounds? ALL YOU HAVE SAID IS DEMONSTRABLY WRONG
SCIENCE: "Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now. Classically, science's main goal has been building knowledge and understanding, regardless of its potential applications — for example, investigating the chemical reactions that an organic compound undergoes in order to learn about its structure."
The aim of science,” wrote Karl Pearson, “is nothing short of the complete interpretation of the universe.” Thus the goal of science is to understand and explain every aspect of the universe. This is to be accomplished by adopting the scientific methodology. By the universe one means directly or indirectly perceived physical reality. The working scientist seldom thinks in these terms explicitly, but this is what the scientific community as a whole hopes to accomplish in the long run. This is an enormously ambitious program.
Why would any scientist want to define our natural surrounding and our biological makeup if they had no intentions other than to classify and define knowledge of our natural world? What good does seeking knowledge do if they have no intentions for that knowledge? That would be a waste of money for those who are supporting them. Let us throw all this money into this pie just to see what answers we can come up with. Do you see the fault in your argument?
You are correct in saying that science seeks knowledge and understanding but if that’s where you think the end all of science is you are missing the big picture. Although the aim of science is nothing short of the complete interpretation of the universe, then what Cognostic? What do we do with all that knowledge? Do you not see the power? Will science not use that power?
Already while science advances they use it to manipulate and change nature for a version they deem to be better for all of mankind. Is that not the ultimate accomplishment science seeks to achieve. Refuting this will only reveal your own ignorance and denial of this fact.
Nowhere in your remarks did you show me where I went wrong, besides asserting your snotty remark.
“Are you going to admit that you just pulled that out of your ass? Does your ignorance know no bounds? ALL YOU HAVE SAID IS DEMONSTRABLY WRONG”
What you stated is merely the foundation for what I have stated, which already was in my comment. “Science is not merely about creating definitions and classifications.”
Science is not merely a curious field as you suggest. It is a field that has a plan to use all that knowledge to manipulate all that is in nature. To eliminate what they deem as bad and to enhance or create what they deem as good.
Nature worked out just fine on its own. Science disagrees with that. That is an opinion…a belief system!! That is the end goal of science!! To manipulate nature into becoming what science deems perfection.
Science will become Godlike. It will say what is good for you and what is not.
Science will become the deity that you must obey.
Try to contaminate the lab and see what happens to you. Evidence is already supporting this idea.
That is our future with Science.
Science is an opinion ...a belief system!
@In Spirit Re: "Putting your hope in Science to take us into the promised land."
...*eyes blinking rapidly*.... *shaking head to reset eyes*... Huh?... Who-what-where?.... Uhhhhhh... WHAT??? What does that even mean??? What "promise land"???.... Would that be anything like Santa's Workshop at the North Pole? Valhalla, maybe? The Big Rock Candy Mountain? The Underworld?... *scratching head in confusion*... Hmmm... Did I read that wrong or something?... *reading post again*... Dang. Nope. Read it right the first time. Soooooo.... What you are saying is that I ("we atheists") put hope in science to take us to a place we do not believe exists??? Somebody please help me out here. Did I miss something???
Lol...sorry if I put you on a spin there.
All I meant by Science taking us to the promised land is that the end goal for science is to manipulate the nature of mankind including our physical world to what they deem Perfection
Actually, the goal of science is to understand the nature of the physical world/universe and everything in it.
I was strongly tempted to put you on the podium and ask you to demonstrate your claim as to the "end goal" of science but I am going to spare you that because, quite frankly and no direct offense intended, you've shown yourself to be really bad at demonstrating your claims.
I implore you to think about what you're saying and do some research before you let your fingers do the talking. I promise it will save you from the "barbs" you were warning catholicray about.
I have already admitted and agreed to what you claim the goal of science is. I have merely expanded on that with scientific research as well.
Perhaps if you extended your research you might find that what I am claiming comes from scientific minds as well.
Unless of course you are more inclined to accept one belief system over the other. They both exist: the ones you claim and the ones I claim.
Are you talking about THIS drivel?
Or this nonsense?
Or, perhaps, this mindless diarrhea of words?
Because that's flat wrong.
Science doesn't change anything. Science doesn't set out to change anything. Science is only interesting in learning and understanding; In finding facts and explaining mysteries; In coming up with theories that help to explain the universe in which we live.
@Cog said this:
And he is entirely correct. Your assertions about science and its purpose are demonstrably W-R-O-N-G. Not only are they demonstrably wrong but Cog demonstrated it, right there in his post. You don't get to relabel or redefine something based on your faulty understanding of what that thing is.
So, now I'm going to spell it out for you:
Scientists STUDY and GATHER INFORMATION
Engineers use that information to design things
Medicinal chemists use that information to design drugs to cure disease
Medical Doctors use that information to heal people
Scientists put together a whole bunch of information about fire. Do scientists put out fires? NO! Firemen do!
Firemen are not, by default, scientists. Engineers are not, by default, scientists. Medicinal chemists and Medical doctors are not, by default, scientists. Are some of them ALSO scientists? Yes, just like theists/deists are not, by default, stupid and atheists are not, by default, smart. Some are, some aren't but the default position is that they are not linked.
Here's the dictionary definition of "science"
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
I will include the etymology of the word as an image attachment, as well. You'll see that the word's root is "KNOW", not "CHANGE".
Every time we come up against each other, I wear you clean out, dude. I've explained to you, in the past, how to better approach these topics. I've suggested you do your research. I've advised you to put your thoughts together with demonstrable evidence. You continue to fail to do so and so long as you keep up that behavior, people in this forum will continue to use you as toilet paper.
Now, I'm going to demand that you demonstrate your assertion that the goal of science is "to manipulate all that is in nature. To eliminate what they deem as bad and to enhance or create what they deem as good."
If you can't, you're done here.
and 10,000 agrees to you sir.......brilliant reply.
Thank you for the kind words, sir.
Have my applause too Terraphon...
In Spirit: Where in the hell are you pulling this crap from? Do you know how to use google search?
In Spirit: "The purpose of science is to control both our own nature and physical nature in order that the human race may survive. It's purpose is to make order prevail over randomness, good over evil, order over chaos and the end result to be the conquest of nature to achieve it's goals. It is not merely looking for evidence for the sake of creating definitions and classifications. It has an exterior purpose and science believes it has the best solutions for mankind perhaps even a utilitarian purpose. That is an opinion hence Science is an opinion/ belief system. Putting your hope in Science to take us into the promised land. That is as scary option. That is the opinion I disagree with... a scientific one."
Still confused about science and the Scientific Method. Science is NOT about "control both our own nature and physical nature in order that the human race may survive." Science is about discovering how things work. Science does NOT "make order prevail over randomness, good over evil, order over chaos and the end result to be the conquest of nature"
Science is nothing more than pursuit of knowledge. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Science is NOT a belief system. Science only pursuits knowledge. Truth. Facts.
Religion is a belief system. Religion never pursuits knowledge, truth, facts. Religion REQUIRES one to believe in lies and to have faith in something that cannot be proven.
"whether some people here are ready to admit it or not Science also is an opinion, a belief as well"
Science is just a method. It is the most consistent and reliable method in determining the truth.
Science is not a lifestyle, a dogma, a belief, or "something to believe in". It is just a method.
"Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"
I am not smart enough to come up with this on my own. My words are based on research and from scientific minds.
Your argument is with them. Not with me.
I understand the definition of science that everyone is repeating. If you expect my statements to hold water on your definition it falls apart but they do not when the big picture and intent of science is applied. At that level science has another definition, another goal, another purpose, an opinion.... a belief.
@ In Spirit
This is how words work: this is the paragraph you wrote warning Catholicray about correspondents on this forum. I substituted one word....
"Unfortunately the words used to describe "SCIENCE" have been hijacked by those who know little, nothing or by the manipulative and there are too many negative connotations attached to them. Good decision in using a different term."
Fits, cap, it, wear.
@In Spirit: Now you have been told about 5 times that your definition of science is incorrect. Why don't you show some real ability to THINK and simply admit you were wrong.
That's check, and mate, I believe.
Good catch, on that one.
Old man shouts ...: 'CLASSIC" Almost spilled my coffee.
In Spirit, science is a tool. How that tool is used by those in power or funding the research is a completely different conversation. Yes, there are some projects that used science to achieve goals. And yes, the Manhattan Project is valid example, where by throwing a lot of money and people and using science a horrific weapon was created. But I can also reference other scientific projects (such as the cure for diabetes) where the original intent of the scientists was for the better good.
Science in itself can not be defined as either good or evil, it is just a tool. In Spirit, you are implying that science is an entity, which it is not. That is why others are countering your assertion.
Unfortunately the words used to describe "God" have been hijacked by those who know little, nothing or by the manipulative and there are too many negative connotations attached to them. Good decision in using a different term.