Non-Believers who think science has all the answers, riddle me this

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I'm just going to ignore the majority of the text provided because I clearly pointed out that I'm only addressing what you've demonstrated. I do not find the amount of ignorance demonstrated to come from a person who regularly picks up tier-1 scientific journals and I'm only commenting on the idea of religion as you've passingly presented it. Do not fault me for not understanding fully that which you have presented poorly.

Originally posted by AQuestionI don't believe in experts that know the truth and we have to believe them because we cannot understand it with our little minds, that again is blind and arrogant.

...nobody is saying that. We're saying that these people are experts because they spend their time investigating the issues, they spend their time questioning.

I'd toss out the straw man image here, but it's just getting tired to point it out. I'm not saying this and neither is anyone else...except for quite a great many religious folk.

We can understand...the problem is that not a single person on this planet has enough time to devote to fully understand the totality of human knowledge. I have made my choice, I decided to enter into humanities and arts. Into creative endeavors. Sure, I do my best to understand a bit, but to claim that I could provide a proper commentary of any field of science would be truly arrogant.

The issue here is dedication. I decided to dedicate my time to one thing, scientists decide to dedicate it to other things...and they get pretty damn specific in their studies. You are free to dedicate your time as well...but you're clearly not doing that.

Again you have no idea how I dedicate my time. We don't need to understand every aspect, we can still get the larger picture and that doesn't require a lifetime of study. People can understand if you give the major points, you argue that we should only discuss things at the highest level or we are just ignorant, that is arrogance. I do not need to show the formula to explain to the average person the concept of quantum entanglement. In fact one of the best descriptions I have seen was by a scientist that used a Chinese concept of love called the red thread.

Every day I deal with programmers and engineers, I don't have to know every programming language or the advanced formulas used by the engineers to understand what they are doing and why and that is what this is about. People can understand that the rules of physics are not followed the same way on a subatomic level, they don't need to read or understand a tier 1 paper that has been pier reviewed to understand the concept. I did not think we were talking to a roomful of physicists; but, people should know that right now there is a lot of debate and that parallel universes are being considered as a rational answer. There is also talk again within physics of time travel and that is contrary to Einstein and common sense. If it is contrary to common sense then proof needs to be shown first.

Originally posted by Soldier of God

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Sorry guys but the OP is right even if I may not agree with his way of saying it.
All you non-believer, science types take the theories given you as fact. Do any of you conduct your own experiments on creation/time or space??? No you do not but you believe everything you are told and then turn around and slam others for doing the same.
I would venture to say 99% of you are not rocket scientists or physicists but cling to every word that was told as the truth to you.

Yep, you've just been fed some of the same crap that you all dish out.

Do you have ANY idea of scientific systematic methodology whatsoever? Or do you just like black/white positions to the same extent you accuse atheists of.



*****************

And can I please draw your attention to the fact, that AQuestion and I (usually a strong theist-critic) can communicate peacefully and with meaning across our positions.

I consider AQuestion's little 'experiment' here justified, and he has been gracious enough to accomodate me in some ways, demonstrating his good will. Your flailing of arms is rooted in incompetence.

Point me in the direction of any... any, experiments you yourself have conducted on the matter at hand and I will be silenced.

When I referred to AQuestion's 'experiment' I meant this thread.

As to my own experiments; 3 years in the european version of college (hard science/mathematics) with experimeeeeents. Where I learned the systematic methodology of science, and where I learned to trust it. Where I also learned enough to be able to follow the later development of science (I'm a fossil now). But I do not have a particle accelerator in my garden.

Neither do I need to. As Madness and others have explained, objective procedure functions independent of personal interpretation, which you seem unaware of. Doubt, questions, verification...all is available on many levels of understanding and educational background and the control mechanisms are strict.

It's a bit like verifying the existence of Australia (where I've never been). The evidence is uniform, multiple and I COULD go there as a last resort.

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I have noticed that a lot of people who don't have a belief in The LORD often use tactics of ridicule upon Faith.

Why do people who don't believe feel that they have to ridicule people who do have Faith?

I never ridicule anyone for their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Any attempt to ridicule somebody here is really a low form of attempted sabotage of what they are trying to say.

Much better to discuss constructively. Differing opinions are fine but nothing to start getting rude about. That just shows immaturity, a lack of respect and also insecurity.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Revolution9 because: spelling

Dear Revolution9,

There are a dedicated FEW who attack other people's faith. There are many who choose not to have the discussion at all or to have it casually. I think the what ifs presented by many atheists are good questions; but, some people wish to prevent that conversation because they know the truth and that is that. The same could be said for some believers. When a real discussion of the possibilities occurs there are those who would seek to prevent any exchange of understanding.

The problem with religion is they all just go with 1 way and never change, or evolve the matters. Its like "just believe man" - don't think about it and question it or you will be damned".

Only the fool believes he knows it all and there is no more to learn.

The world was flat for how many years? Then one morning it became round.

--- and what always bothers me the most - "man" wrote it! No matter "what book" and the common man had no access or funds to have anything written --- only the rich and powerful hired THEIR PEOPLE to write --- hmmmm -- So you all trust the rich and powerful? Any man (and in these cases - many men wrote and "put together" the writings - so errors just possibly even if these guys were honest and open minded and knew all to begin with to interprete "god's words" ----

I am just logical --- I think for myself and one of my many truisms: Most people are wrong most of the time, about most things ---- No matter the subject, I can prove my thesis readily. ------ Now prove me wrong! --smile ----

reply to post by WarmHeartedWorld


Dear WarmHeartedWorld,

What topic do you think you are addressing because the issue is science?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by bogomil

 

bogomil, you know I respect you dearly, but I must disagree with you here.

Please, lay out the plumbing for my house. Seriously, it's a mess and I've got to have someone fix that for me.

Can't? (I'm not going to necessarily say you can't beyond this little example as you may very well be well versed in plumbing)

Ok, I'll call someone who actually spends their life as a plumber and has experience with this sort of thing.

You know, that the respect is reciprocial, so no worries. If my memory serves me, we've never disagreed seriously for the year or more, I've been around, which is so more pleasant because we have different positions and perspectives on some things.

Unfortunately it's late night or rather early morning here, so I will continue tomorrow. In the meantime or tomorrow please specify, WHAT it is you disagree with.

My own support of AQuestions lies in, that 'we' theist-critics ask for evidence constantly, and I found it reasonable that AQuestion would like to smoke out those of his opposition, who rely blindly on 'authority', without any reason to do so.

A blind: "But it's scientifically proved", without knowing what this implies is not good PR.

PS I have 2½ craftsman's educations, though plumbing not being amongst them.

I will have to backtrack to read All the responses to this Thread, but for me, I have to answer with a single word. And I will give a brief explanation.

My answer is Mu.

This can be understood in a number of differing ways, I will use the Discordian View at this time. On Wikipedia's definition of Mu, it is stated..

According to the Jargon File, a collection of hacker jargon and culture, mu is considered by Discordians to be the correct answer to the classic logical fallacy of the loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"[9] Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her. As a result, some Discordians proposed "mu" as the correct answer, which to them means, "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions.

I think that sums it up nicely.
Your question cannot be answered because it depends on Incorrect Assumptions.
So, as my Teacher ask of me over and over again when I make such a Faux Pas.

Unask your Question.

Originally posted by Bonkrh
reply to post by AQuestion

 

ill explain it to you when you provide proof your faith is correct. til then... gtfo

Is "gtfo" your smartest answer? and the other 8 guys who starred your post think your answer deserves an star?

Bad elements in ATS, full of arrogance and no respect for someone faith. He didn't insult you, just challenged you.

Originally posted by AQuestion
I do mean to challenge. If you choose to constantly post on the Faith forum and tell us that we are stupid and that science has all the answers then riddle me this. Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense? Please do, I know the theories quite well.

Maybe you can explain the article in question in simple terms. You claim to know the theories so I'm not really sure what answer you're looking for. I think you're the only one here claiming science has all the answers. Our scientific knowledge continues to shift and grow according to what we find or what new measurement tools we create.

I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy. It is the current state of science so it must make sense, right?

I think the article explains itself very well at the end:

"This is not the kind of paper where somebody does a calculation and confirms that we're correct," says Bousso. "It's the sort of thing that will take a while to digest."

Meaning, even for well trained scientists it's a hugely complex idea, let alone for most everyday people with only a basic understanding of science. From what I understand from reading, this is a hypothesis that will take a long time to prove/disprove. If eventually proven right, then science will state it as fact. If proven wrong, the scientists will have to go back and rethink their conclusions, maybe withdraw them all together. Science doesn't force it's position down anyone's throat. It is a majority consensus on provable, testable theories formed from a hypothesis like in the article you posted.

That's how science works. They aren't afraid to say they were wrong. Science is only a tool to understand our world around us. If how we think something works is incorrect, then we change how we think and over time this builds on itself to become the generally accepted way things are.

I personally can't explain the ideas in the article. I hope the scientists who have spent years and thousands of dollars on their education know what they are talking about, but I don't blindly believe what they say. If I want to educate myself on the topic and form my own opinion then I will but that's a lot of very dry reading.

I haven't read through the whole thread, so if this has already been stated then move on.

reply to post by thov420


Dear thov420,

Asked and answered a hundred times in different ways on the thread.

Originally posted by AQuestion
Dear InfaRedMan,
Your first sentence says so much about you, like the fact that you do not understand how to begin a correspondence. It is called a salutation and is quite standard for people that knew how to write letters, it is not a term of endearment. Move on. It is not patronizing, it is courtesy,

I told you to stop calling me dear. Don't give me rubbish about correspondence, this is no such thing. We aren't writing letters to each other. We are on a forum. The term 'dear' also suggests a familiarity between us that does not exist. Plain IRM will do just fine thanks. The fact that you can't respect peoples wishes and used the term toward me again speaks volumes about you! Furthermore, If letter writing etiquette was so important to you, why don't you sign off on all your 'correspondence' with 'love', 'from' or 'regards AQuestion'?

Originally posted by AQuestion
As for you lack of an answer, I asked a question it was on science, if you cannot answer it, why do you bother talking to be on this thread about religion? This is not that hard, it is a question about science, your answer is that you don't know and you trust on faith, okay and I didn't ask and you are off topic and rather rude.

I answered your questions very clearly and concisely. May I suggest you don't start topics with subject matter you clearly have problems comprehending, or topics where people will have opinions that conflict with your own.

IRM :shk:

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I'm sorry, but your idea of religion runs contrary to its practice for...oh...I dunno...tens of thousands of years. Furthermore, reading popular science articles if a far cry from reading proper published scientific papers.

Your idea of religion, even though it is not representative of any majority of its practice, still basically amounts to 'let's make up answers to questions without method or reason'. Question all you want, but you're still accepting the general premise of a deity without justification. You're not basing anything on a reasonable standard of evidence. You're not even worrying about internal consistency.

Science has a method, learn from how damn effective that's turned out to be.

Dear madnessinmysoul,

You make so many assumptions about my idea of religion when you have absolutely no idea what I do believe because I haven't posted it here. You also have no idea of why I believe, what makes you think you do, are you a mind reader if so get out of my head, if not then don't speak for me, I can do that quite well myself. In addition, you have absolutely no idea of what I do and do not read and it wouldn't matter because the question stands on its own and we should all question it. I don't believe in experts that know the truth and we have to believe them because we cannot understand it with our little minds, that again is blind and arrogant.

why take it so personaly, how is someone to know whether you believe what you posted or not, but when you take a side in the argument why not just take that side and stick with for the agrument.

You can agrue any side you don't have to believe in it, but why would you not think people would assume you blieve in this idea. we don't know you we have to take the idea as your believe.

The scientist can not be trusted. Scientists themselves mean well but they are funded by the government. Science 'facts' are used to control the people and are presented to the people and cause fear the same as organized religions do.
We are supposed to believe in 'Global warming'. We are told that vaccinations are good for us. Pharmaceutical companies are the richest corporations in the world. Anyone seen 'the constant gardener'? There are people on drugs for the rest of their lives. Countries (taxes) hand their money to the government to go to space, for what? Money is being wasted on research, when there are people starving. I don't trust GM, do you? The food cows eat is supplied by the government that was made in a lab and that put mad cow disease on the map.
This planet naturally provides all that is needed, in plant form. But pharmaceutical companies synthesize everything so the can charge ridiculous prices. It's all about money and control.
Science itself is an interesting subject, like God.
However, each can be used as a weapon.

Science does not supply answers, it makes more questions.
The answer is already here.
The answer is god.

Science can only ever ask questions, it is looking, searching for an answer.
But what is the question?

reply to post by Itisnowagain




Ignorance can be cured.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Thank you for that awake, it was very nice.
Science does indeed look rather attractive when looking at it like that.
Go to Africa though and see the other side of science. Innocent people are being experimented on. See what science is doing to your food, what they put in it to control us. Fluoride, heavy metals in vaccines, monsanto.
Science is used to control population which is fine i suppose if you are one of the lucky ones.
I am not saying that science is evil and should be banished from the earth (however, it is funded by the government (govern-mind)), it is believed unquestionably by many.
It's discoveries are used to control us the same as any system, it is part of the system.
'The system' is there to make good slaves out of us, we are no more than batteries for the machine.

Old science is based on matter and this reduces everything to the mechanical.
We live in a material world because science tells us it is a material world.
We believe this without question because science says so.

When it is seen that this is untrue, that in fact it is not material.
It is nothing but spirit.
The answer is found and it all falls into place.
Freedom from all confusion and fear.
Peace.

What answer are we really looking for? The scientist, what is the question?
Everything on the video was about more and more comfort, science has made it more comfortable for humans (some privelidged humans!!).
If the answer we are looking for is comfort, then science can and does make the prison cell more bearable.

Only the 'truth' about what 'you' are, will free you from the prison cell.
Science will get us there in the end because it is now looking for the truth in the only place there is.
This placeless place.
Some know this placeless place already.
Those that do, know heaven.

reply to post by AQuestion

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I will make it easy for you, cut and paste the statement in my OP that said what I believed rather than say that I should be able to know what you are thinking, I am not a mind reader either.

...you didn't mention what you believed in your OP. I responded to the whole damn thing, you can double check my initial reply to you. You never once put forward your beliefs, only ignorant attacks.

As for understanding physics, there is a math answer and a philosophy answer, we are not playing a math game.

I love it when people bring up philosophy, seeing as I actually study the damn subject. I also love it when people bring up physics, because my dad is an expert in that damn subject, so I've learned quite a bit about it in my life. How the hell is there a philosophy answer to physics?

The issue I addressed was the philosophical question behind the math and that can be explained without endless formulas, those are just a way of representing what is in essence a question.

No, there was no question. There was an ignorant request for people to turn an already colloquial explanation of a scientific hypothesis into an even more simplified version of it, as if that would somehow make it more valid.

The question is about the nature of reality, about the nature of this universe and why it works the way it does.

Yes, and instead of addressing the scientific consensus on the issue you decided to go for a hypothesis that has yet to work its way into the aforementioned consensus. Instead of addressing what physicists are quite certain or at least fairly confident in, you decided to discuss a hypothesis that is yet to be validated.

Guess what everybody can understand it if presented in those terms.

..no, not really. Because the nature of reality, even at its most simple levels, is already a very, very complicated thing. Newtonian physics, as simple as they, don't often make sense.

You can obfuscate all you want to pretend that only your genius can understand higher physics

...wow, yet another straw man. I should really create an awards show for the use of logical fallacies for ATS. I've repeatedly said that higher physics can be understood on a basic level by anyone, but that a basic understanding is magnitudes removed from a proper understanding. What's more, I've also stated that anyone can bother to try to learn the full breadth of the subjects if they take the time and read the scientific literature.

Also, I compared my understanding of physics with yours. I actually said that my understanding of physics was pitiful. In fact, there isn't a single science where I have anything but a pitiful understanding.

I don't claim to be quite familiar with any science, except maybe evolutionary biology...but evolutionary biology is something I've spent the last 5+ years having to respond to ignorant attacks upon it.

or discuss it like Dr. Michio Kaku does in its most fundamental terms, there is no need to get into the endless minutia.

True, Kaku does discuss it in its fundamental terms, but he does that so he can try to help people understand things slightly better and hopefully encourage them to get into the minutia themselves. You, on the other hand, are launching an attack from the endless ignorance of the vast breadth of a subject.

Kaku also happens to participate in real science. He writes textbooks too.

You are attempting to strike out against scientific explanations without bothering to address the people, like Kaku, who actually know something about it. My request was for you to e-mail professors, not random people on ATS.

reply to post by AQuestion


Newtonian physics is contrary to 'common sense'. What's so common sense about the idea that all objects exert an invisible attractive force upon each other?

Of course, you seem to have an odd 'common sense' fetish, something that has no place in science. And there is proof of quantum physics...and it's found in tier-1 journals. Of course, you could just bother to google basic explanations, but instead you're asking lay people who don't bother with quantum physics.

reply to post by Soldier of God

Originally posted by Soldier of God
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

There is a big difference between book knowledge and working knowledge which I'm sure you are unfamiliar with but thank you for your wonderfully worded response.

When it refers to scientific understanding, there really isn't. You don't gain a greater understanding of anything in science by running the experiments yourself.

Now, when it comes to other fields...like practical fields...yes, there is quite a difference. But science is a field of explanation of the workings of the universe. Engineering is where you get into the application of science.

reply to post by AQuestion


Hawking has to communicate to the world by twitching a muscle in his cheek, I doubt his economy of language can be described as anything but direct. And he has never said those things you've said he's said.