Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
If it doesn't mean that much to them?
I think it's evident that it means everything to them.

Who is them?

The "them" I am talking about are people who will repeat what they say on tv and never even bother to see if it is correct. Those people don't care. Most people are like that.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.

you mean like the bible and the parachute are the same? how about a crucifix necklace and a bottle of penicillin? i suppose i cant really make my point without giving you a crippling infection or dropping you out of the sky, but perhaps imagination will suffice. unless you are too skeptical to entertain such scenarios.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.

you mean like the bible and the parachute are the same? how about a crucifix necklace and a bottle of penicillin? i suppose i cant really make my point without giving you a crippling infection or dropping you out of the sky, but perhaps imagination will suffice. unless you are too skeptical to entertain such scenarios.

No they're not the same.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
If it doesn't mean that much to them?
I think it's evident that it means everything to them.

Who is them?

The "them" I am talking about are people who will repeat what they say on tv and never even bother to see if it is correct. Those people don't care. Most people are like that.

How do you know they don't care?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

Nice one

At the heart of your argument is an acknowledgement that faith in science and faith in deities are very different. It's true that some people do hit up the Google when their subject knowledge is not so hot. Yes, they could stand the accusation of being faith-based. On the other hand, there are a good dozen (at least) regular members who are science literate in a meaningful way and don't need to refer to Google to speak with authority.

FWIW I don't include myself in the 'good dozen' as I frequently refer to academic sources rather than be inaccurate and look foolish.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

again, that is petty. trivial. trifling. it is literally insane (by einsteins definition) to test fire every day to confirm that it is still hot. or to verify that water continues to be wet, gravity continues to pull things to the ground, and that hydrogen continues to have one proton and one electron. your expectations are unreasonable and intentionally so. you accuse me of misrepresenting your point...you sir are misrepresenting science by imposing irrational standards on the scientific method with the pretense that without such irrational standards, science is irrational. no, YOU are irrational.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.

you mean like the bible and the parachute are the same? how about a crucifix necklace and a bottle of penicillin? i suppose i cant really make my point without giving you a crippling infection or dropping you out of the sky, but perhaps imagination will suffice. unless you are too skeptical to entertain such scenarios.

No they're not the same.

perfect. then you concede the point: faith in a higher power is not the same as trust in scientific authorities. good on you for admitting it.

once again, ATS fails to prove that science is a religion. what a surprise.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

If they don't care enough to research a topic, let alone test a claim, then it pretty much says it all.

Just like the person who says they are [insert religion here] because their parents were that but they have not attended a service in years. Obviously, they don't care.

That is the "them" I was talking about. You might be talking about some other group but odds are the group I mean is the larger one.

a reply to: TzarChasm
If you use the Homology argument you can see the similarities between Bill and and the head of any faith based program (priest, preacher,) and conclude they all originate from a religious mind set.

I know Bill is a red herring here, sorry. Carry on.

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm
If you use the Homology argument you can see the similarities between Bill and and the head of any faith based program (priest, preacher,) and conclude they all originate from a religious mind set.

I know Bill is a red herring here, sorry. Carry on.

bill nye asserts no facts that cannot be confirmed. you are welcome to conclusively prove him wrong on any point...if you can.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept any findings.
I didn't even say it was unreasonable to accept them without testing for yourself.

Just that people do.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept any findings.
I didn't even say it was unreasonable to accept them without testing for yourself.

Just that people do.

you interpret it as faith on par with that of an unthinking zealot. but you are slowly beginning to see the difference, perhaps?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept any findings.
I didn't even say it was unreasonable to accept them without testing for yourself.

Just that people do.

In that light, is it possible we're all arguing at cross-purposes and actually have common ground here?

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept any findings.
I didn't even say it was unreasonable to accept them without testing for yourself.

Just that people do.

In that light, is it possible we're all arguing at cross-purposes and actually have common ground here?

the common ground is that we all have good hearts and staunch beliefs.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

again, that is petty. trivial. trifling. it is literally insane (by einsteins definition) to test fire every day to confirm that it is still hot. or to verify that water continues to be wet, gravity continues to pull things to the ground, and that hydrogen continues to have one proton and one electron. your expectations are unreasonable and intentionally so. you accuse me of misrepresenting your point...you sir are misrepresenting science by imposing irrational standards on the scientific method with the pretense that without such irrational standards, science is irrational. no, YOU are irrational.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.

you mean like the bible and the parachute are the same? how about a crucifix necklace and a bottle of penicillin? i suppose i cant really make my point without giving you a crippling infection or dropping you out of the sky, but perhaps imagination will suffice. unless you are too skeptical to entertain such scenarios.

No they're not the same.

perfect. then you concede the point: faith in a higher power is not the same as trust in scientific authorities. good on you for admitting it.

once again, ATS fails to prove that science is a religion. what a surprise.

You misrepresent the point again.
I've explained numerous times exactly what the similarity is.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept any findings.
I didn't even say it was unreasonable to accept them without testing for yourself.

Just that people do.

you interpret it as faith on par with that of an unthinking zealot. but you are slowly beginning to see the difference, perhaps?

Sometime yes.
People do regurgitate scientific facts without knowing why they know they're facts, do they not?
Is that not the same principle?