Why scoff science?

[Modelworks]

From what I understand, there are thousands of observed examples of speciation, not to metion an extensive fossil record supporting evolution. Do you think that our understanding of stellar life has "holes" in it because we can't live billions of years and witness a star be born, burn through its fuel and collapse? The atomic theory of chemistry was settled long before anyone could see an atom in a microscope.

You are missing the point. It isn't that I need proof , it is that people that do not have a background in math and science need proof. You can't just claim something as true and expect people to believe it because you have the title of scientist. They need something they can personally verify on their level. Any wording like possible, maybe, could be, provides room for doubt and with nothing but the word of the scientist there will be skepticism.

You might be partial to a theory, but that holds no water until you provide evidence. Religious people never provide any evidence of anything. That's the primary distinction between science and faith.

What about a theory that has never been proven ? Both require faith in what they believe to be true. One is just willing to wait longer for the proof.

You're asking metaphysical questions at this point, and science usually doesn't get into those.

Sure it does. Science wouldn't even exist without it.

 

[nerp]

Have you sat down with these people and taught them how to use a computer, how to find information online or where these resources are ?

Often it isn't being lazy , some people see learning new things as too big for them to comprehend so they feel overwhelmed. Imagine if someone took you to a hospital operating room and told you, today you are going to do a heart transplant, here are the instruments and the patient, ready ?

You would feel overwhelmed, you don't understand anatomy, medicine or surgery. I have a lot of experience with people that have had no computer experience, mainly seniors. One of them was a college professor who taught theoretical mathematics for 40+ years and had never used a computer. When he got one to email his grand kids he was lost and said he had put it off for years because he didn't know how to work that 'thing' . He wasn't stupid or unwilling to learn, it just seemed like too much .

Reading a book or taking a class is a far cry from heart surgery, dude. Your arguments are insane.

 

[Cogman]

You might be partial to a theory, but that holds no water until you provide evidence...

Please, someone, anyone, actually read up on what a theory is before spouting out stupid crap like this.

Theories aren't wild unsupported accusations. They are tested observations that, for now, seem to be true. The theory of relativity is pretty dang accurate as far as we can tell, but it is still a theory and will never be anything more or less.

You HAVE to have evidence before you can have a theory. Baseless/semi-baseless accusations have another term in the scientific world, they are called "hypotheses".

 

[Cogman]

Reading a book or taking a class is a far cry from heart surgery, dude. Your arguments are insane.

Could you read a math book and just "get it"? Could you take any biology class and understand what is taught there?

His example is valid, for many heart surgery and algebra are equally impossible for them to do. It has nothing to do with a lack of wanting to learn and everything to do with an inability to learn

<- Tutored math in college.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I wonder how may scientists who scoff at religion pray when on their death beds.

 

[Modelworks]

Reading a book or taking a class is a far cry from heart surgery, dude. Your arguments are insane.

And if the person cannot read ? Are you going to teach them or are you going to just call them stupid ? Most people want to learn, the problem is they have nobody to teach them that is willing to take the time to help them overcome the obstacles.

 

[syrillus]

I'm scoffing this thread so hard right now...

 

[nerp]

And if the person cannot read ? Are you going to teach them or are you going to just call them stupid ? Most people want to learn, the problem is they have nobody to teach them that is willing to take the time to help them overcome the obstacles.

For every person not given opportunity I can point out someone more disadvantaged that strived to learn against the odds.

Someone might struggle learning complex calculus, just as they might struggle to understand particle pairs and hawking radiation. But there are plenty of resources out there to help them beyond paying for a teacher or tutor. And one can understand a concept without taking advanced degree classes. For example, I can understand the circulatory system without going to medical school. I can read about it in pop up books, not just college text books.

I don't get why you say "what if they can't read?!?!" If they can't read, they shouldn't be forming judgements on whether scientific theories have validity.

 

[nerp]

Could you read a math book and just "get it"? Could you take any biology class and understand what is taught there?

His example is valid, for many heart surgery and algebra are equally impossible for them to do. It has nothing to do with a lack of wanting to learn and everything to do with an inability to learn

<- Tutored math in college.

Some people have trouble learning certian subjects, of course. That just means that person might want to think twice before they make sweeping declarations about the composition and structure of the universe.

 

[sandorski]

I wonder how may scientists who scoff at religion pray when on their death beds.

I'll go with None, but even if they did it doesn't matter cause Isis would still not be around to hear it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Please, someone, anyone, actually read up on what a theory is before spouting out stupid crap like this.

Theories aren't wild unsupported accusations. They are tested observations that, for now, seem to be true. The theory of relativity is pretty dang accurate as far as we can tell, but it is still a theory and will never be anything more or less.

You HAVE to have evidence before you can have a theory. Baseless/semi-baseless accusations have another term in the scientific world, they are called "hypotheses".

I'm using the term theory as a layman, not a scientist champ. And as long as we're being technical, "hypotheses" are not baseless or they would have no value. They are educated guesses and speculation based on our observations. So turn on your brain before spouting crap please.

 

[Blackjack200]

I wonder how may scientists who scoff at religion pray when on their death beds.

There are no atheists in fox holes, but that doesn't mean their prayers are going anywhere.

 

[destrekor]

Jolt, Doritos, and Snickers. Thank Science!

Sweet, I do Science! I like doing science, it's all sciencey and stuff.

 

[Gibsons]

You are missing the point. It isn't that I need proof , it is that people that do not have a background in math and science need proof. You can't just claim something as true and expect people to believe it because you have the title of preacher. They need something they can personally verify on their level. Any wording like possible, maybe, could be, provides room for doubt and with nothing but the word of the scientist there will be skepticism.

and yet, people do.

As for skepticism, it's science that demands proof. Skepticism is kind of fundamental to the whole process, and why the wording is so often qualified very carefully. You need to be skeptical of your own data.

You're praising people with no understanding of a subject for being skeptical, and criticizing those with expertise for the same quality.

 

[Cogman]

I'm using the term theory as a layman, not a scientist champ. And as long as we're being technical, "hypotheses" are not baseless or they would have no value. They are educated guesses and speculation based on our observations. So turn on your brain before spouting crap please.

And Modelworks was using the word as a scientist, not the layman "champ". Your were criticizing him using the laymans interpretation vs the scientific one that he was clearly using.

Hypotheses don't have to be "educated" guesses they can be uneducated. Yes, they are based of of observation, but they aren't based off of any sort of data. Anyone can form a hypothesis in 2 seconds, and it can be really quite wild, but it is still a hypothesis. If I get better from an illness, I could form the hypothesis that god healed me. I would not, however, ever claim that to be a theory.

 

[Gibsons]

I'll go with None, but even if they did it doesn't matter cause Isis would still not be around to hear it.

I hope ISIS is around at my deathbed, maybe they could play Hall of the Dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aArJelONTXg

 

[destrekor]

There are no atheists in fox holes, but that doesn't mean their prayers are going anywhere.

I find this concept bullshit, but not for everyone.
Unless I'm drugged, then my mind throws out rationality. Then again, near death brings about a series of insane neurochemical levels that well, make you behave as if drugged. And do druggy things, like believe.


But seriously, quite a few people who are insanely against faith (for their own mind, not necessarily against the freedom of personal choice), still wind up feeling odd when on their death bed. It's all about being the last moment you have alive, and it comes down to whether you die with an open mind, or completely blank and holding onto what you previously believed.
Also, it is rooted in the concept of dying alone.

When dying, some atheists might open up a bit, and kind of say "well, alright if there is a god, listen up. if there isn't, fuck it I'm talking to myself ...". Just boils down to a fear of no longer existing, because while completely logical, it might be hard to accept for us special, complicated humans with all these emotions and conscience concepts, to just cease existing once the eyes close for the last time. Because it relates to our desire to be immortal. After like, we want to live on in the memories of others. And more importantly, quite a few want to still have something after death.

It makes no sense right now, because one is alive, but once your dying your brain starts doing some crazy shit.

But as for the no atheists in foxholes comment, it is truly ridiculous. If a foxhole is your deathbed, okay that will change things as argued above. But if it's just another fighting position, faith for the previously non-believers just becomes a coping tool. More importantly, it becomes a way to push blame up above. If you die, it's because god let you down. If you live, god personally touched you. It's mostly a method to cope with the situation, a way to hope and beg to be spared, allowed to live.

More importantly, we need to make a true Faith drug. Find out the exact mechanisms a person with strong Faith achieves well-being even in extreme distress. When your conscious mind seeks "divine assistance", and you think you are indeed getting that, it is the brain releasing various neurochemicals. It's the most grand version of the placebo effect, which like the true placebo effect, isn't fake. The body is doing things with the "knowledge" something else is doing something.

 

[Blackjack200]

You are missing the point. It isn't that I need proof , it is that people that do not have a background in math and science need proof. You can't just claim something as true and expect people to believe it because you have the title of scientist. They need something they can personally verify on their level. Any wording like possible, maybe, could be, provides room for doubt and with nothing but the word of the scientist there will be skepticism.

OK, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. Creationists seem to have no reservation making practical use of western medicine even if the scientific basis for that medicine is far beyond their grasp. I don't agree that's it's because they can't understand it. I believe it's because they don't want to understand it.

Evolution is a scientific rarity, a revolutionary theory that is both elegant and conceptually simple to understand. It is the fundamental theory of all the life sciences.

What about a theory that has never been proven ? Both require faith in what they believe to be true. One is just willing to wait longer for the proof.

All theories have been tested. There is no test for the existance of God. Actually, when they have tested for God (prayer studies etc.) they've found no effects, which is arguably evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

[FelixDeCat]

There are no atheists in fox holes, but that doesn't mean their prayers are going anywhere.

I dont think a deathbed confession is going to help much. Atheists will still rot in their graves while Christians live on in heaven. Poor atheists. :'(

 

[Blackjack200]

And Modelworks was using the word as a scientist, not the layman "champ". Your were criticizing him using the laymans interpretation vs the scientific one that he was clearly using.

Hypotheses don't have to be "educated" guesses they can be uneducated. Yes, they are based of of observation, but they aren't based off of any sort of data. Anyone can form a hypothesis in 2 seconds, and it can be really quite wild, but it is still a hypothesis. If I get better from an illness, I could form the hypothesis that god healed me. I would not, however, ever claim that to be a theory.

Whatever. The meaning of my post was clear, and if you want to play symmantic games all day, have fun.

 

[totalnoob]

Maybe if the 'smart' people considered sharing and teaching the 'stupid' people and stopped acting as if they were superior things would change.

Here...Evolution explained in 10 minutes by a smart (and sexy) woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTnjx-JRzE

 

[surfsatwerk]

I dont think a deathbed confession is going to help much. Atheists will still rot in their graves while Christians live on in heaven. Poor atheists. :'(

Sorry only the Mormons go to heaven, personally I'd rather rot.

 

[Blackjack200]

I dont think a deathbed confession is going to help much. Atheists will still rot in their graves while Christians live on in heaven. Poor atheists. :'(

Honestly, when I compare atheists to most Christians, I'd far rather chill in hell with the atheists.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Sorry only the Mormons go to heaven, personally I'd rather rot.

There are no atheists in heaven. They have to pay for all those years of talking crap.

 

[totalnoob]

Honestly, when I compare atheists to most Christians, I'd far rather chill in hell with the atheists.

Exactly. See 2:00 for proof that hell is a kickass place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMH3MABXCzc