Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[RiversideRedneck]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Lmfao an old Man's blindness doh! It's ok Christholes jump on the iPhone auto spelling error, that's about all you got.
<quoted text>

lol

I was gonna ask what's the difference between a Nan & an old Nan, but......

[RiversideRedneck]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>I mean, not really. Religion is basically belief without evidence, science is an evidence based system of gaining knowledge. Modern christianity has attempted to assimilate science into it's teachings, but only because not doing so would be dishonest to the point of absurdity.
I agree that maybe science is not the cure for faith, at least not in it's general form. Psychiatry is the cure for faith (just a joke, don't throw a fit).

Well..... Kinda, sorta, a lil bit.

Religion is a pursuit or interest that someone ascribes a lot if importance to. Evidence is not a driving factor or motivator, which is why religion requires faith.

Your description of science is close enough. It seems though, that many atheists kinda have a "belief system" instilled in their minds. Like science is a perfect & flawless system to have faith in.

I won't throw a fit, maybe shit, but not a fit.

[RiversideRedneck]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
The scientific method is the exact opposite of the faith-based beliefs of religion. Science is based on skepticism.

I know that, but don't you know that many religious people are skeptics, too? I'm one of them. I want answers, I want truth.

Science can not provide answers to all if our questions. It's a bug part yes, but it's not the whole.

There can be no scientific method applied to any non-scientific topic.

[Mr Smartypants]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Science is also based on unprovable assumptions.

Wrong. Real science is empirical in nature and based on *avoiding* unprovable assumptions.

[Jeff]

Mr Smartypants wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Real science is empirical in nature and based on *avoiding* unprovable assumptions.

What you described is what science seeks to do. The assumptions of science such as the laws of nature being the same throughout the universe at all times and places is an unproved assumption.

[timn17]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Well..... Kinda, sorta, a lil bit.
Religion is a pursuit or interest that someone ascribes a lot if importance to. Evidence is not a driving factor or motivator, which is why religion requires faith.
Your description of science is close enough. It seems though, that many atheists kinda have a "belief system" instilled in their minds. Like science is a perfect & flawless system to have faith in.
I won't throw a fit, maybe shit, but not a fit.

I'm sure that some do, but if there is one system that I couldn't fault someone for "believing in," it would be the scientific method, or more accurately/generally, rationalism. It has proven itself to be very effective at getting results. Nothing if flawless though, so it helps to always be skeptical, even of proven methods. For example, remember the faster than light neutrino thing? Most scientists who heard about it did not immediately go "well, that settles it. They used the scientific method to get these results, so they must be right." Rather, everyone was skeptical, and said that much more testing needed to be done, and as it turned out, the original experiment was flawed.

[Mr Smartypants]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
What you described is what science seeks to do. The assumptions of science such as the laws of nature being the same throughout the universe at all times and places is an unproved assumption.

Hell, everything is an unproved assumption if you dig deeply enough. For practical purposes, though, inductive logic seems to work pretty well. Since my red carpet hasn't turned to lava the last 1000 times I got out of bed, it's very unlikely that it will ever happen. Likewise, the laws of nature seem to be pretty darned rigid and unchanging so, by inductive logic, it's a safe assumption that they're unchanging. If a basic law did change, like the speed of light increasing by 10%, it would pretty much rattle the scientific community to its core.

[RiversideRedneck]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>I'm sure that some do, but if there is one system that I couldn't fault someone for "believing in," it would be the scientific method, or more accurately/generally, rationalism. It has proven itself to be very effective at getting results. Nothing if flawless though, so it helps to always be skeptical, even of proven methods. For example, remember the faster than light neutrino thing? Most scientists who heard about it did not immediately go "well, that settles it. They used the scientific method to get these results, so they must be right." Rather, everyone was skeptical, and said that much more testing needed to be done, and as it turned out, the original experiment was flawed.

That's a perfect example that as good as the scientific method works, it can result in flawed "findings".

I'd say that generally, the flaw is the human error in interpreting the data.

[KittenKoder]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell that to Koder

You are really dishonest to the core, and you take pride in that. One day you will wake up and feel bad for being such a liar and a phony, until that day, thanks for the laughs, we know your idiotic game already.

[RiversideRedneck]

Mr Smartypants wrote:

<quoted text>
Hell, everything is an unproved assumption if you dig deeply enough. For practical purposes, though, inductive logic seems to work pretty well. Since my red carpet hasn't turned to lava the last 1000 times I got out of bed, it's very unlikely that it will ever happen. Likewise, the laws of nature seem to be pretty darned rigid and unchanging so, by inductive logic, it's a safe assumption that they're unchanging. If a basic law did change, like the speed of light increasing by 10%, it would pretty much rattle the scientific community to its core.

Humans wrote the laws of nature, well technically "discovered" them & named them. That doesn't mean they're flawless.

Remember reading about the "law" that said the universe is infinite? Now they're thinking its finite.

Remember the "law" that said the Milky Way is the universe?

Don't trust & follow science so blindly.

[Aura Mytha]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Science is also based on unprovable assumptions.

Oh explain what science is based on such.

[timn17]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a perfect example that as good as the scientific method works, it can result in flawed "findings".
I'd say that generally, the flaw is the human error in interpreting the data.

And it's a perfect example of it's self correcting nature.

[timn17]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a perfect example that as good as the scientific method works, it can result in flawed "findings".
I'd say that generally, the flaw is the human error in interpreting the data.

And sometimes it is human error, which is why findings aren't really taken seriously until they can be replicated by other people.

[Jeff]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh explain what science is based on such.

Here are a couple more: the orderliness of the universe and our theories match what we observe.

[timn17]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I know that, but don't you know that many religious people are skeptics, too? I'm one of them. I want answers, I want truth.
Science can not provide answers to all if our questions. It's a bug part yes, but it's not the whole.
There can be no scientific method applied to any non-scientific topic.

I don't think any religious person can claim to be a true skeptic. If they were, they wouldn't be religious. You may be interested in science, but I don't think you are a skeptic.

[KittenKoder]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Humans wrote the laws of nature, well technically "discovered" them & named them. That doesn't mean they're flawless.
Remember reading about the "law" that said the universe is infinite? Now they're thinking its finite.
Remember the "law" that said the Milky Way is the universe?
Don't trust & follow science so blindly.

Argh, the cro-magnum level of study ... it hurts my head.

No, we first thought it was finite, then we thought it was infinite .... the Hawking proposed that it was finite, which pretty much everyone agrees now ... however now we have this concept of a lot of, possibly infinite in number, universes all over the place just like ours, or perhaps ours is part of another. Do you read anything that is printed after 1930?

[Aura Mytha]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Here are a couple more: the orderliness of the universe and our theories match what we observe.

Theory does not match observation, it explains them.
But that doesn't explain what you wrote.

"Science is also based on unprovable assumptions."

Science is based on empirical evidence of observable phenomenon.

Only theoretical physics deals with abstract ideas , but they are ones that can be tested eventually , or are based on math models.
Nothing about the scientific method can be based on unprovable assumptions, that isn't science ..that's pseudoscience.
Learn to understand the difference.

[Eagle12]

The Supreme Court of the United States is going to take up the case of same sex marriage. What does this have to do with atheism? Apparently a lot since most if not all the topix atheist are liberals. The Supreme Court could swing the pendulum in either direction.

When the Supreme Court rules it’s going to set a precedence. It will become law of the land until the Supreme Court takes it up again in a few years. Something tells me there’s going to be a lot of unhappy campers after their ruling.

[Catcher1]

Eagle12 wrote:

The Supreme Court of the United States is going to take up the case of same sex marriage. What does this have to do with atheism? Apparently a lot since most if not all the topix atheist are liberals. The Supreme Court could swing the pendulum in either direction.
When the Supreme Court rules it’s going to set a precedence. It will become law of the land until the Supreme Court takes it up again in a few years. Something tells me there’s going to be a lot of unhappy campers after their ruling.

Precedent, Eagle.

When the Supreme Court rules, it will set precedent.

Not precedence--precedent.

You'll have to hold your breath for the result..

[Eagle12]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Precedent, Eagle.
When the Supreme Court rules, it will set precedent.
Not precedence--precedent.
You'll have to hold your breath for the result..

Which way do you predict it's going to fall?