'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[TheBear]

Read this and weep, atheists :

http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/08/10/its-easy-to-be-an-atheist-if-you-ignore-science/

Amazing

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists, this is what happens when you agnore science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Michael]

It's evidence of ideas, stories and beliefs in God. Countless people have written about dog-men, fairies, elves, spirits, superhuman heroes, animism, etc. For god beliefs, polytheism was the the norm until relatively recently (late Bronze Age).

Likewise "scientists" claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and eventually "science" evolved over time. Why is that atheists seem to think that evolution of religion is "wrong", whereas changes in the realm of a"science" are acceptable? The fact of the matter is that monotheism has eventually come to replace polytheism and most of the rest of the stuff on your list was intended as *fiction* from it's "conception".

Even as an appeal to tradition/antiquity and/or an appeal to the masses (both fallacious) it's poor.

Well, how is any less "poor" that claiming 'gravitons did it" with respect to gravity?

Ah, OK; you're just using this to crowbar in your obsession with LCDM. Not interested.

Shall we stick to QM or SUSY theory then? The fact of the matter is that "science" contemplates and hasn't ruled out concepts like multiple extra dimensions of spacetime (M-theory/SUSY theory), and all sorts of things which defy empirical justification at the microscopic scale, or in any empirical manner in terms of the actual cause/effect relationships. Science as a whole does *not* require the *cause* to be directly (in the lab) linked to the "effect", and often times the "effect" is simply assumed. In the case of historical accounts of the effect of God on humans, you have countless human testimonies to choose from, from conscious beings which describe the effect on them in detail. No chair even claimed "gravitons did it" with respect to holding you in your seat.

Forget LCDM then. It really doesn't matter. If we look exclusively at particle physics, LHC continues to look for, and "hope" for extensions to the standard particle physics model. They don't "give up" on the concept of exotic forms of matter simply because they haven't seen empirical evidence in the lab.

QM theories of gravity rely upon theoretical concepts galore. Science has never limited itself to empirical physics, whereas atheists require God (and usually only the topic of God) to be empirically demonstrated in the lab in terms of cause/effect relationships. Atheists typically deviate from the "scientific method" with respect to only one topic, typically the topic of God.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, how is any less "poor" that claiming 'gravitons did it" with respect to gravity?

Have you got a problem with the quantization of gravity? In any case, nobody is pretending that gravitons are anything other than a hypothesis for the moment.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Likewise "scientists" claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and eventually "science" evolved over time. Why is that atheists seem to think that evolution of religion is "wrong", whereas changes in the realm of a"science" are acceptable?

Who said evolution of religion is 'wrong'? I think that's a straw man.

The fact of the matter is that monotheism has eventually come to replace polytheism...

Exactly - theist beliefs change over time; none of them are evidence of the existence of a god or gods, only of a variety of ideas, concepts, and beliefs about a god or gods.

... most of the rest of the stuff on your list was intended as *fiction* from it's "conception".

Not at all - dog-men were widely believed to exist in ancient Greece, Egypt, and medieval times. Belief in fairies and elves has been around since medieval times (probably earlier) all over the world - notably Ireland, where it persists in some rural communities, and Iceland, where belief in elves is still fairly common and even influences infrastructure projects (e.g. roads). Beliefs in the spirit world and spirits is global (not least in America) and documented since records began. Beliefs in heroes with wonderful superhuman or God-given powers are documented in Norse mythology, ancient Greece, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc.; stories may have been told of their exploits, but for many, they were revered historical heroes - many based on exaggerations of the exploits of real individuals (it wasn't just Jesus).

The fact of the matter is that "science" contemplates and hasn't ruled out concepts like multiple extra dimensions of spacetime (M-theory/SUSY theory), and all sorts of things which defy empirical justification at the microscopic scale, or in any empirical manner in terms of the actual cause/effect relationships.

These are speculative hypotheses, under consideration as potential explanations because they share a mathematical framework with established theory. They're not ruled out because they're plausible extensions or extrapolations that have yet to be tested.

If we look exclusively at particle physics, LHC continues to look for, and "hope" for extensions to the standard particle physics model. They don't "give up" on the concept of exotic forms of matter simply because they haven't seen empirical evidence in the lab.

OK, I see what you mean - science looks for evidence and tests hypotheses. Duh.

QM theories of gravity rely upon theoretical concepts galore.

In scientific terms these are hypotheses, not theories. They can only become scientific theories once they have been tested and verified repeatedly. But you knew that.

Science has never limited itself to empirical physics, whereas atheists require God (and usually only the topic of God) to be empirically demonstrated in the lab in terms of cause/effect relationships. Atheists typically deviate from the "scientific method" with respect to only one topic, typically the topic of God.

No; they're treated the same, as untested hypotheses. When people ask for evidence of God, they're asking for the observations on which the God hypothesis is based so they can be verified and the hypothesis can be tested, just like any other hypothesis, (QM theories of gravity, M-theory, extensions to the Core Model, etc). But I suspect you know this too...

 

[AirPo]

Likewise "scientists" claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and eventually "science" evolved over time. Why is that atheists seem to think that evolution of religion is "wrong", whereas changes in the realm of a"science" are acceptable?

Because they have the critical thinking skills that allow them to see the change in science came through new evidence whereas the change in religion had nothing to do with new evidence.

 

[Michael]

Who said evolution of religion is 'wrong'? I think that's a straw man.

Not really. You acted as though the fact that monotheism *replaced* polytheism, it somehow undermines the validity of religion. That's like claiming that since a big bang theory replaced an Earth centric view of the cosmos in "science" over past few thousand years, that "science" is somehow invalid or untrustworthy.

Exactly - theist beliefs change over time; none of them are evidence of the existence of a god or gods, only of a variety of ideas, concepts, and beliefs about a god or gods.

Likewise ideas about gravity change over time, but that doesn't negate gravity as being 'real', even when the mathematical models to describe it change from time to time. Our understanding of gravity changed between Newton and Einstein, and maybe it will change again due to a QM concept of gravity. Gravity itself never changed however.

Not at all - dog-men were widely believed to exist in ancient Greece, Egypt, and medieval times.

Widely? Define "widely" in terms of the planetary population at that time. You're comparing a *massively popular* idea to beliefs that were typically related to one or two cultures or small percentages of people.

Belief in fairies and elves has been around since medieval times (probably earlier) all over the world - notably Ireland, where it persists in some rural communities, and Iceland, where belief in elves is still fairly common and even influences infrastructure projects (e.g. roads).

Really? Roads are built around faerie communities now? Care to cite a scenario for us? Again, you're comparing *small numbers* to *huge numbers*. Why?

Beliefs in the spirit world and spirits is global (not least in America) and documented since records began.

I also believe in life after death if that's what you mean. I don't believe in "ghosts" however.

Beliefs in heroes with wonderful superhuman or God-given powers are documented in Norse mythology, ancient Greece, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc.; stories may have been told of their exploits, but for many, they were revered historical heroes - many based on exaggerations of the exploits of real individuals (it wasn't just Jesus).

Well, be that as it may, all that demonstrates is that humans remain open to that concept and they've "narrowed down" their list of choices, or "come up with a consensus" as to who's worth revering and who's not over the last few millennium. Jesus/Muhammad/Krishna seem to be the "most revered" such historical figures in the 21st century.

These are speculative hypotheses, under consideration as potential explanations because they share a mathematical framework with established theory. They're not ruled out because they're plausible extensions or extrapolations that have yet to be tested.

How did you intent to "test" for additional dimensions of spacetime? M-theory has become pretty popular among astronomers these days in spite of any lack of empirical support, and that applies to the most 'popular' astronomy theory too. None of them enjoy a shred of empirical cause/effect justification in the lab, and there is no such requirement in "science".

OK, I see what you mean - science looks for evidence and tests hypotheses. Duh.

The failed "tests" apparently don't matter to "scientists". Their beliefs are often held *in spite of* a slew of negative results of various "tests".

In scientific terms these are hypotheses, not theories. They can only become scientific theories once they have been tested and verified repeatedly. But you knew that.

Ya, except they actually call it "M-theory". So much for "scientists" sticking to proper "scientific" terms. GR is more of a "theory", whereas LCDM and M-theory are more "hypothetical" in nature. Science tends to be cavalier in it's use of terms by the way.

No; they're treated the same, as untested hypotheses.

Is dark energy or dark matter a "tested" or "untested" hypothesis in your opinion? How does one "test" those concepts?

When people ask for evidence of God, they're asking for the observations on which the God hypothesis is based so they can be verified and the hypothesis can be tested, just like any other hypothesis, (QM theories of gravity, M-theory, extensions to the Core Model, etc). But I suspect you know this too...

How did you intend to 'test" M-theory and/or falsify the idea? You seem to be overlooking the key point that in many cases "science" simply uses the 'observation' as 'evidence' of something new. We observe "gravity". Whether or not that actually necessitates a "graviton" depends on which mathematical model you put your faith in. We *experience* gravity, but we don't technically know what 'causes' it with absolute certainty. The "cause" of gravity depends on one beliefs about gravity.

 

[Michael]

Have you got a problem with the quantization of gravity? In any case, nobody is pretending that gravitons are anything other than a hypothesis for the moment.

Yet the also "pretend" that WIMPS and other such exotic particles are a valid hypothesis for the moment, *despite* every failed "test" done to date. Why should gravitons be "ruled out" by default, when other hypothetical particles are simply "handwaved in" by default, *without* lab support.

 

[Michael]

Because they have the critical thinking skills that allow them to see the change in science came through new evidence whereas the change in religion had nothing to do with new evidence.

Meh. I'd say that the spiritual teachings of Jesus acted as "new evidence" which ultimately caused people to change their opinions about "religion" and embrace "Christianity" over time. Ditto for Muhammad and Islam.

Even what you're calling "evidence" becomes highly subjective in "science". There's plenty of observations of photon redshift, and numerous observations from the lab to explain that physical redshift process too. On the other hand, there is however absolutely *zero* empirical support for the claim that "space expansion did it" with respect to photon redshift and cause/effect justification of that claim.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yet the also "pretend" that WIMPS and other such exotic particles are a valid hypothesis for the moment, *despite* every failed "test" done to date. Why should gravitons be "ruled out" by default, when other hypothetical particles are simply "handwaved in" by default, *without* lab support.

Nobody has ever observed an electron in your famed "lab", but they are believed to exist, because their existence makes sense of what can be observed. If you say gravitons don't exist, you are essentially saying that quantum theory cannot be reconciled with General Relativity, which is unlikely to be something any physicist would want to contemplate, without very good reason.

 

[SteveB28]

Just keep searching, and knocking brother. You will find it, and then all you have to do is open the door.

There is no such word. An honest person of integrity would simply admit their error and move on. Your continued obstinate denial says much.



.

 

[Armoured]

Likewise "scientists" claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe,

When did "scientists" ever claim this?

 

[Goonie]

 

[SteveB28]

Since your other posts were just more of this, I'll only answer this one, and let others decide if I'm a cop out on the others or just have no desire to waste my time.

All I ask is the reader take a look at the post you are referring to, see if I was clear or gibberish.

USI, if you want to play dumb because you don't want to bring the incident out into the open again, that's up to you, and maybe you can hide your reluctance behind your nastiness towards me in you last several posts, but if I were you, I think I'd a just said no. See, there are those who might actually look into your accusations.

On a more personal note, might want to take a break and calm down a bit. I mean you can do what you want but if you do have any good points, I'm afraid with your present attitude, they might not be taken seriously.

Oh, others should decide.....?

Very well. You're a cop-out........




.

 

[AirPo]

Meh. I'd say that the spiritual teachings of Jesus acted as "new evidence" which ultimately caused people to change their opinions about "religion" and embrace "Christianity" over time. Ditto for Muhammad and Islam.

Even what you're calling "evidence" becomes highly subjective in "science". There's plenty of observations of photon redshift, and numerous observations from the lab to explain that physical redshift process too. On the other hand, there is however absolutely *zero* empirical support for the claim that "space expansion did it" with respect to photon redshift and cause/effect justification of that claim.

Good for you. But "teachings" are not evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

When did "scientists" ever claim this?

I suppose it all depends on your definition of scientist. During the Renaissance people fell in love with Greeks, and, if they had believed something, that was the apogee of human wisdom. But then Copernicus came along, and upset the applecart.

Were the ancient Greeks scientists? Insofar as their ideas arose from an attempt to explain what they observed, maybe. Even if those ideas seem wildly inaccurate to us today.

 

[Michael]

Nobody has ever observed an electron in your famed "lab", but they are believed to exist, because their existence makes sense of what can be observed.

If you say gravitons don't exist, you are essentially saying that quantum theory cannot be reconciled with General Relativity, which is unlikely to be something any physicist would want to contemplate, without very good reason.

I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying they lack empirical support in the lab, that's all.

 

[Michael]

When did "scientists" ever claim this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

 

[Michael]

Good for you. But "teachings" are not evidence.

Define the term "evidence" for me. How is gravity "evidence" of the graviton? Where's the "evidence" that exotic particles which deviate from the standard particle physics model, exist in nature?

 

[AirPo]

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"