Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 70047810" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Really? Roads are built around faerie communities now? Care to cite a scenario for us? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Again, you're comparing *small numbers* to *huge numbers*. Why?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I also believe in life after death if that's what you mean. I don't believe in "ghosts" however.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ya, except they actually call it "M-theory". So much for "scientists" sticking to proper "scientific" terms. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> 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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is dark energy or dark matter a "tested" or "untested" hypothesis in your opinion? How does one "test" those concepts?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 70047810, member: 627"] 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. 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. :) 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. 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? I also believe in life after death if that's what you mean. I don't believe in "ghosts" however. 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. 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". 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". 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. Is dark energy or dark matter a "tested" or "untested" hypothesis in your opinion? How does one "test" those concepts? 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]
Top
Bottom