Support NeoGAF

[Orayn]

Science tries hard to come up with an answer but fall's flat on it's face. In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against, that's why 80% of science is filled with theories.

Could you give an example of a scientific "theory," that you feel is like a tenet of religious faith? (And perhaps why you think it's inadequate as well?)
I'd like to know where you're coming from with this argument, and I might be able to address some specific concerns in the process.

 

[CornBurrito]

This isn't true, at least not to my knowledge. Humans don't start out with ANY beliefs, they're formulated later on through life. There is no genetic code that says "okay you are of the belief that no gods exist".

Technically if they have no beliefs they are atheists (of the non-gnostic variety) by default.

So, what's the difference between:

A. A militant atheist telling religious people their religion is bogus.
B. A religious person saying that they know their religion is true through faith/Bible, thus implying that every other religion is fictional.

I think it's pretty arrogant either way, really.

There is a difference. I'd read The Dragon In My Garage.

Or you could refer to the Hitchens quote that states what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[ghst]

The point of that statement is that we can keep going on and on and on and on and we will not come to a conclusion because WE DON'T KNOW. Many religious people will tell you that they know but the simple truth is that we don't know. Science tries hard to come up with an answer but fall's flat on it's face. In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against, that's why 80% of science is filled with theories. The things mentioned above leaves us with Faith, we do not know (for sure)but we have strong faith that there is a creator.

your application of the word "theory" lumps you in with every evolution doubting young earth nutjob who tries to weaponise their violent misunderstanding of what that word means.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Could you give an example of a scientific "theory," that you feel is like a tenet of religious faith? (And perhaps why you think it's inadequate as well?)
I'd like to know where you're coming from with this argument, and I might be able to address some specific concerns in the process.

The science that says that says we blew from nothing and came into existence. It's a pretty poor excuse to disregard any religious belief. I will take those kind's of science more seriously if the sentence doesn't say "In the beginning there was nothing and then BANG". It takes faith to believe in such a thing.

 

[JohnTuk]

Well, doing that would require a bit of time, but in the end, unless you have some really fringe beliefs, you'll only find that much of what you believe has ultimately been backed up by a great deal of peer-reviewed experimentation and research.

The only thing I truly believe in is the fact that I know nothing. Or, to quote Socrates: "This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing anything. On the other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe that I know anything."
I simply find that believing in anything (God, Science, Religions, Elvis, etc.) is a leap of faith based on nothing but mirages.

 

[CornBurrito]

The science that says that says will blew from nothing and came into existence. It's a pretty poor excuse to disregard any religious belief. I will take those kind's of science more seriously if the sentence doesn't say "In the beginning there was nothing and then BANG". It takes faith to believe in such a thing.

What scientific theory states that?

You should read up on a scientific theory, and by read up I mean read more than the "for toddlers" explanation.

 

[soul creator]

has there been any polls done on "number of self-professed deists" or something like that?

I'm always curious about how many people actually genuinely "follow" deism. I have noticed some believers who push for deism when they discuss things with atheists (since deism is a harder "target" and it seems more reasonable upon first inspection), but as soon as they're around other believers, their vague deistic god all of a sudden turns into the rather specific god of a specific religion.

I mean, there's more evidence for Harry Potter than Christianity. There, you have at least seven books instead of one.

technically, the Bible is a collection of roughly 66 books!

That said, Harry Potter is probably a more internally consistent story than the one presented in the Holy Bible. Makes sense, since it was created by mainly 1 person in maybe a decade or so, rather than dozens of people over hundreds of years, with other third parties interfering a bunch of times.

 

[Orayn]

This isn't true, at least not to my knowledge. Humans don't start out with ANY beliefs, they're formulated later on through life. There is no genetic code that says "okay you are of the belief that no gods exist".

You're misunderstanding the position held by most atheists. Most of them are not explicit atheists who claim definitively that no gods exist. Rather, they are implicit atheists, who conclude that a universe with gods is not perceptibly different from a universe without them. That is the null hypothesis on the existence of such things.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is... Absence of evidence. An unsupported claim doesn't have to be treated with kid gloves just because people care for it a great deal. If there's no evidence that supports the existence of a particular phenomenon, I don't have that phenomenon on my radar, simple as that.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

What scientific theory states that?

The "Big Bang"
And i made a correction to my post, it's "we" not "will"

 

[soul creator]

The only thing I truly believe in is the fact that I know nothing. Or, to quote Socrates: "This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing anything. On the other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe that I know anything."
I simply find that believing in anything (God, Science, Religions, Elvis, etc.) is a leap of faith based on nothing but mirages.

I think I see what you did there...?

That said, I'm pretty sure when you walk towards a door, you open it first before trying to go through.

 

[CornBurrito]

The "Big Bang"

No it doesn't.

I'd suggest you read up on it, and use peer reviewed sources.

And again, one doesn't need to believe in the Big Bang to be an atheist. One can simply say "I dont know how the universe came to be. Me not being able to explain it is not proof that your religion is correct. I need proof of your god that doesn't stem from my inability to answer a question."

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer not based on faith.

 

[Haly]

Technically if they have no beliefs they are atheists (of the non-gnostic variety) by default.

Depends on your definition of atheism then. I consider it a belief as much as theism, just one that says "There are 0 gods" rather than "There is at least one god".

 

[Korey]

The science that says that says we blew from nothing and came into existence. It's a pretty poor excuse to disregard any religious belief. I will take those kind's of science more seriously if the sentence doesn't say "In the beginning there was nothing and then BANG". It takes faith to believe in such a thing.

I don't think you know how science works.

 

[kunu]

The "Big Bang"
And i made a correction to my post, it's "we" not "will"

What you have stated as being the Big Bang Theory is not actually the Big Bang Theory. According to that model, there actually was something there and it expanded rapidly to form the universe that is here today. A simple glance over Wikipedia confirms what the theory actually is. (Link)

 

[Dr. Malik]

No it doesn't.

I'd suggest you read up on it, and use peer reviewed sources.

Or at least read the wiki page

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

What you have stated as being the Big Bang Theory is not actually the Big Bang Theory. According to that model, there actually was something there and it expanded rapidly to form the universe that is here today. A simple glance over Wikipedia confirms what the theory actually is. (Link)

Where did that something come from? what was there before the "Big Bang"?

 

[ZZMitch]

The science that says that says we blew from nothing and came into existence. It's a pretty poor excuse to disregard any religious belief. I will take those kind's of science more seriously if the sentence doesn't say "In the beginning there was nothing and then BANG". It takes faith to believe in such a thing.

I think you need to do some more research before you make claims like these.

 

[ghst]

The only thing I truly believe in is the fact that I know nothing. Or, to quote Socrates: "This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing anything. On the other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe that I know anything."
I simply find that believing in anything (God, Science, Religions, Elvis, etc.) is a leap of faith based on nothing but mirages.

try reading past the first paragraph of "an idiot's guide to epistemology".

 

[Cyan]

Where did that something come from? what was there before the "Big Bang"?

That's a perfectly good question, but you're now going outside the scope of the Big Bang theory.

 

[CornBurrito]

Depends on your definition of atheism then. I consider it a belief as much as theism, just one that says "There are 0 gods" rather than "There is at least one god".

These semantics debates are so pointless. You'd have to practically live under a rock to not realize that most people describing themselves as atheists are "agnostic" by your definition.

Agnosticism and atheism/theism aren't mutually exclusive. I'd go back a page, it was explained there.

 

[Schmattakopf]

WE DON'T KNOW. Many religious people will tell you that they know but the simple truth is that we don't know. Science tries hard to come up with an answer but fall's flat on it's face.

"Science" tries hard to come up with an answer? Scientists believe all sorts of things and part of the nature of being a scientist is understanding that what you believe is just a theory.

As you said, religious people simply know.

In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against, that's why 80% of science is filled with theories.

Ejection seat.jpg

 

[Stellares]

Depends on your definition of atheism then. I consider it a belief as much as theism, just one that says "There are 0 gods" rather than "There is at least one god".

Hardly. Atheism is a LACK of a belief in a god. Hence a-theism. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Again, not all atheists assert that there is no god.

 

[Monocle]

You seem to have it all figured out, do you?

This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".

Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

You haven't met most atheists, and most of the atheists you've met were probably polite enough not to browbeat you with unsolicited disquisitions on their own special modes of unbelief. Atheists don't wear the Mark of the Beast

Spoiler

(or not yet, lol)

, so unless we do or say something to inform you of our position on god, you'll not be able to pick us out from a crowd.

This idea that most atheists are obnoxious or self-important is a child of confirmation bias that is spawned in the same rookery of ignorance as the misconception that most gay men are queeny little flamers. Consider: members from those groups who aren't obnoxious in the first case or effeminate in the the second will pass right under your radar, leading you to assume—wrongly—that only the people who display the characteristics you're looking for are part of the corresponding crew.

Don't let your assumptions carry you too far. You're condemning a lot of good, mild-mannered people with those generalizations of yours.

 

[Zaptruder]

You're misunderstanding the position held by most atheists. Most of them are not explicit atheists who claim definitively that no gods exist. Rather, they are implicit atheists, who conclude that a universe with gods is not perceptibly different from a universe without them. That is the null hypothesis on the existence of such things.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is... Absence of evidence. An unsupported claim doesn't have to be treated with kid gloves just because people care for it a great deal. If there's no evidence that supports the existence of a particular phenomenon, I don't have that phenomenon on my radar, simple as that.

It's a little more complicated than that still...

Most atheists have the tools available to argue strongly for gnostic atheism of subsets of gods.

particularly gods that make contradicting claims and claims of affects on the natural universe that can be contradicted through evidence.

This means the entire pantheon of human worshipped gods (as far as I know, and absolutely the primary abrahamic ones worshipped by the majority of the world), can be ruled out QUITE EASILY.

And many atheists do in fact, recognize this fact.

Even if we also recognize that some ideas and the general overall idea of god (i.e. that he/they were beings that created/caused the universe/existence) is unfalsifiable (on the grounds that we can't actually measure/observe past the boundaries of the ... observable (4 dimensional - time included) universe, where presumably god is able to lie.

 

[kunu]

Where did that something come from? what was there before the "Big Bang"?

This is still a question in the scientific field today, but as others have stated, there are multiple theories about what happens before the Big Bang, and the Big Bang Theory does not address this question. If you're truly interested, read up on them because they are fascinating and there are many of them. Just because there is no single theory that we can pin on what happened before the Big Bang does not mean there is no possible answer.

 

[Stellares]

The reason a lot of atheists have a bad name is because only the obnoxious ones bring up their beliefs at every turn. The rest of us stay quiet until the issue is raised.

 

[Xdrive05]

Just dropping in to add my $0.02. I know I'm probably on the "home team" here on GAF, but I am genuinely interested in the reasons theists give for believing (other than personal experiences or personal revelation please). So I support this thread and I hope we get more light than heat from the discussion.

I'm an atheist. I do not accept the claims that deities exists - any and all deities. No theists have presented me with evidence that convinces me that any deity exists.

The "best" reason for believing that I've heard from theists is personal revelation. And personal revelation is necessarily 1st person, which means it cannot count as evidence - for me.

So lacking a good reason to believe (evidence), and lacking a credible experience of personal revelation, I will continue being an Atheist.

 

[Juicy Bob]

What the hell are atheists to do? Go sit in the corner and STFU?

Everyday, in most western cultures, we are bombarded with religious influences, some would say intrusions, on our everyday lives. Yet, whenever atheists speak up about the subject of non belief they are to be despised for it? Even by other non believers? Really? I mean REALLY?!?

To me, people such as yourself come off as a self hating pricks. It's much like (closet) homosexuals who rail against homosexuality to the point of legislating against it. "Damn faggots, why don't they just stfu!!"

First of all, please don't think of me as a self-hating 'prick'. I love myself. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'm probably my #1 favourite person in the world. Also I don't know about you, but I live in Australia. A place that, from my experience, handles multiculturalism and multi-faith integration in a pretty harmonious and effective manner. So everything I'm about to say stems purely from my own experiences and situation and may differ entirely from your own.

What my biggest problem is, is that some people who label themselves "atheists" don't tend to differentiate between the social benefits and problems that come from people having faith. I know a number of people around my local community and those who stand out in my mind as being the most friendly, the most considerate and the most respectful are all people of faith. My neighbours are a Christian family and they are the nicest people you may ever hope to meet. They live ordinary Australian lives but they're regular church goers and they are extremely active in the community, volunteering for charity service and working with the Salvation Army etc. My Uni friends and I are all non-believers and we don't do anywhere near as much for the community by comparison. Also, while they know I'm a non-believer they've never actively tried to persuade me to join their church or to read the Bible or anything like that. They don't try to force their beliefs on me or anyone else and I wouldn't dream of trying to do the same to them.

That's probably where one of my problems with "atheists" comes from, that some of them complain about religious people trying to force their beliefs on others before doing exactly the same themselves. For example, at Easter one of my sister's Christian friends posted something harmless on Facebook about thanking God for sending his son to sacrifice for us or whatever. Within minutes two of her other friends who are atheists responded by telling her to 'stop believing in fairytales' and flat out told her that she was 'living a lie'. That's not only extremely rude, it's also completely unnecessary. If she had posted something like 'if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to hell', then those lads would've been justified in calling her out for it but she wasn't. She was simply expressing something harmless relating to her own personal beliefs and yet these "atheists" still decided to attack her for it anyway. While I don't doubt for one second that there isn't a God, I don't feel any sense of empathy with "atheists" who act like that.

I'm going to take an guess based on probability and assume that you're American. I apologise if that's an incorrect assumption, but if I'm right, then I want to say that I understand how the 'Christian-Right' conservative movement over there will probably have severely affected your opinion of religious people. Trust me, I get Fox News over here too and I completely understand that, they completely confuse and worry me as well. But that's pretty much my point. There are a number of religious people who really go too far with how they act in the name of their God and I agree, those people are idiots that need standing up to. But at the same time, there are a number of atheists who love to jump down a decent religious person's throat just because they believe in God as they feel that they are somehow a better class of person because they don't. It's that which I have a problem with and that's what I often see when this debate is held online.

Ultimately, while I share the same beliefs as the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (EDIT: And even this guy, who I find far less douchy than the other two) of the world I'd much rather live in a society where we have more people like my neighbours family instead of less. I'm not saying that non-religious people aren't charitable or friendly or all act dickishly, but I do wish some "atheists" would recognise that my friendly Christian neighbours and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church (for instance) aren't the same just because they're both religious people.

 

[Korey]

Where did that something come from? what was there before the "Big Bang"?

We don't know. The Big Bang is the "prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe". Notice that key word. Science is flexible and anything can change if what we know to be true is overturned by observations or tests. There's also thousands of scientists all over the world peer reviewing each other and trying to one-up each other, and all of them agree on at least most truths about our world.

Humans in 2011 don't know everything about the universe. We are actively and continually trying to learn more. Humans hundreds of years ago didn't even understand something as simple as electricity or why a lightning bolt was coming out of that cloud.

I hope you can understand how the above model is preferable to reading an ancient book on Sundays and taking its word for it while trying to make people behave a certain way so their ghosts don't go to a made up place after they die.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

That's a perfectly good question, but you're now going outside the scope of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from. it will take faith on my part to believe the whole thing because their is absolutely no prove. Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

"Science" tries hard to come up with an answer? Scientists believe all sorts of things and part of the nature of being a scientist is understanding that what you believe is just a theory.

As you said, religious people simply know.


Ejection seat.jpg

Oh my goodness, *Sighs*. It's incredible how much you ignored the DON'T in my post.

 

[JohnTuk]

someone never got past the first paragraph of "an idiots guide to epistemology".

Really?
The only logical conclusion of any belief system, when examined and understood correctly, is the destruction of that belief system. Most Atheist put their stock with science in the hope it will improve their life and lead them to the truth. Most Theist do the same, only with God, angels and sparkling lights.

The ONLY thing that you can know for sure is that you exist. Any other true knowledge is impossible.

Most people seem to consider the Physical world as a fact, as a Truth that doesn't need to be examined. But it does need to be examined and, when you do, you realize that it's impossible to prove it exist at all.

 

[Falcs]

In my experience I've found that most Atheists simply accept all science to be 100% fact.
Evolution, age of rocks and earth, the big bang... all = no god.

Science is our human explanation of what is observed, it is not LAW. "Science" has been wrong in certain aspects countless times in the past and will continue to be proven wrong or corrected in the future. Why? Because it is a product of imperfect humans.
Most Atheists (not all) cannot accept this.

My point here is that not all Science is 100% fact.

This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".

I can totally understand where you're coming from. You can't really have these kinds of discussions with most Atheists because they've already made up their minds to accept all that they've heard or read about in textbooks as truth and fact without doing any of their own research, and they simply will not have it any other way. The best people to have these kinds of discussions with are those who have an open mind rather than those who simply just accept what is in textbooks as fact.
Although the same goes for creationists or religious people.

I mean, there's more evidence for Harry Potter than Christianity. There, you have at least seven books instead of one.

See here's a perfect example. There actually is a lot of credible evidence for Christianity out there (As well as other religions).
Scientific evidence for the existence of a god on the other hand... that's a different story.

 

[Monocle]

Really?
The only logical conclusion of any belief system, when examined and understood correctly, is the destruction of that belief system. Most Atheist put their stock with science in the hope it will improve their life and lead them to the truth. Most Theist do the same, only with God, angels and sparkling lights.

Who are these "most atheists" you constantly mention? How in the world do you know what "most atheists" think? Have you spoken to them? Do you subscribe to our secret newsletter?

The ONLY thing that you can know for sure is that you exist. Any other true knowledge is impossible.

That is by no means a settled issue. Or if it is, you should notify the academic community.

Most people seem to consider the Physical world as a fact, as a Truth that doesn't need to be examined. But it does need to be examined and, when you do, you realize that it's impossible to prove it exist at all.

Do these "most people" come from the same place as "most atheists"?

 

[Kalnos]

There is a difference. I'd read The Dragon In My Garage.

Or you could refer to the Hitchens quote that states what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I agree with you, I was just trying to make a point that religion seems inherently arrogant to me.

 

[JohnTuk]

You haven't met most atheists, and most of the atheists you've met were probably polite enough not to browbeat you with unsolicited disquisitions on their own special modes of unbelief. Atheists don't wear the Mark of the Beast

Spoiler

(or not yet, lol)

, so unless we do or say something to inform you of our position on god, you'll not be able to pick us out from a crowd.

This idea that most atheists are obnoxious or self-important is a child of confirmation bias that is spawned in the same rookery of ignorance as the misconception that most gay men are queeny little flamers. Consider: members from those groups who aren't obnoxious in the first case or effeminate in the the second will pass right under your radar, leading you to assume—wrongly—that only the people who display the characteristics you're looking for are part of the corresponding crew.

Don't let your assumptions carry you too far. You're condemning a lot of good, mild-mannered people with those generalizations of yours.

You're right.

 

[Orayn]

Where did that something come from? what was there before the "Big Bang"?

"What was there before?" isn't exactly the right question to be asking, because the Big Bang itself marks the beginning of "time" as a meaningful unit of measure. What were things like pre-expansion? We're not entirely sure yet, but we're working every day to learn more.

 

[Zaptruder]

The reason a lot of atheists have a bad name is because only the obnoxious ones bring up their beliefs at every turn. The rest of us stay quiet until the issue is raised.

No... that's not it. It's probably just because religion is pretty fucking important to most people that practice it - even if not in their daily lives, as an idea that underpins the 'fabric of their reality'.

If you're going around tearing that shit down, no matter the manner you do it in, you're going to be accused of been rude.

As evidenced by frequent attacks on Richard Dawkins.

 

[JohnTuk]

Who are these "most atheists" you constantly mention? How in the world do you know what "most atheists" think? Have you spoken to them? Do you subscribe to our secret newsletter?

You're right, I should have written ALL atheist (Unless they have dropped the belief in the physical world when I wasn't looking)

You seem to criticize my terminology instead of my viewpoint. Do you have anything to add other than your impeccable grammar skills?

 

[kunu]

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from. it will take faith on my part to believe the whole thing because their is absolutely no prove. Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

Why should the Big Bang Theory cover that scope, when there are many other theories covering the very question you asked? The Big Bang Theory solely deals with...the Big Bang, and what comes afterwards. If you're looking for what came before, there are theories to look up.

That's probably where one of my problems with "atheists" comes from, that some of them complain about religious people trying to force their beliefs on others before doing exactly the same themselves. For example, at Easter one of my sister's Christian friends posted something harmless on Facebook about thanking God for sending his son to sacrifice for us or whatever. Within minutes two of her other friends who are atheists responded by telling her to 'stop believing in fairytales' and flat out told her that she was 'living a lie'. That's not only extremely rude, it's also completely unnecessary. If she had posted something like 'if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to hell', then those lads would've been justified in calling her out for it but she wasn't. She was simply expressing something harmless relating to her own personal beliefs and yet these "atheists" still decided to attack her for it anyway. While I don't doubt for one second that there isn't a God, I don't feel any sense of empathy with "atheists" who act like that.

This. I too am a self-proclaimed atheists but when I hear about people doing this, it frankly makes me ashamed. It's because of people like this that atheists in the common view are pessimistic and rude. But it's important to know that most atheists aren't the ones that speak out on their views all the time...most of the ones I know are respectful and only talk about this when the topic is brought up.

 

[Dr. Malik]

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from. it will take faith on my part to believe the whole thing because their is absolutely no prove. Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

So you are telling me that scientist were able to change their perspective due to new evidence instead of throwing their hands in the air and say God did it, imagine that.

 

[Xdrive05]

In my experience I've found that most Atheists simply accept all science to be 100% fact.
Evolution, age of rocks and earth, the big bang... all = no god.

I don't see much value in anecdotes like this one. You do not know most Atheists. And I have a hard time believing that [most Atheists you know] is anything like [most Atheists]. My experience has been quite different. Most Atheists I know have not come to the position of Atheism based on any one - or any - field of science. Evolution, etc., are not reasons for rejecting claims that deities exists. And most Atheists I know understand that. So that's all I wanted to say here - this is just an anecdote (yours and mine). I don't see the point in pursuing it.

 

[DarthWoo]

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from. it will take faith on my part to believe the whole thing because their is absolutely no prove. Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

Wow, and you claim to have any grounds to question science when you're willing to just making things up like that?

 

[Stellares]

In my experience I've found that most Atheists simply accept all science to be 100% fact.
Evolution, age of rocks and earth, the big bang... all = no god.

Science is our human explanation of what is observed, it is not LAW. "Science" has been wrong in certain aspects countless times in the past and will continue to be proven wrong or corrected in the future. Why? Because it is a product of imperfect humans.
Most Atheists (not all) cannot accept this.

My point here is that not all Science is 100% fact.

The point being that the beliefs we hold are supported by evidence. I'm not about to support a theory without evidence. If it doesn't have evidence, it is without a doubt a faith based claim and is NOT a scientific theory. Scientific theories are tested and revised and tested again and critiqued and improved. It is not simply a "what if", but a solid foundation.
It is true that beliefs once believed were disproved. However, that's the best part of science. If a claim is disproved, science works to correct the current theories and work in the future to get closer to the truth, without sweeping it under the rug and still holding on to the belief. We are humans and we do make mistakes, but the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the universe.

 

[CornBurrito]

You're right, I should have written ALL atheist (Unless they have dropped the belief in the physical world when I wasn't looking)

You can be an atheist and hold the belief that the world is an illusion and that only your mind exists.

Atheism isn't a complete philosophy. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god.

You are quite the arrogant person.

 

[Orayn]

In my experience I've found that most Atheists simply accept all science to be 100% fact.
Evolution, age of rocks and earth, the big bang... all = no god.

Science is our human explanation of what is observed, it is not LAW. "Science" has been wrong in certain aspects countless times in the past and will continue to be proven wrong or corrected in the future. Why? Because it is a product of imperfect humans.
Most Atheists (not all) cannot accept this.

My point here is that not all Science is 100% fact.

I'd like to meet these people. Anyone with even a basic understanding of science should know that all scientific theories are tentative, and subject to being replaced or improved upon.

I can totally understand where you're coming from. You can't really have these kinds of discussions with most Atheists because they've already made up their minds to accept all that they've heard or read about in textbooks as truth and fact without doing any of their own research, and they simply will not have it any other way. The best people to have these kinds of discussions with are those who have an open mind rather than those who simply just accept what is in textbooks as fact.
Although the same goes for creationists or religious people.

As a skeptically-minded person, I walk that talk. We should always be asking why, and questioning authority, but we should also not be so conceited as to pass off great volumes of knowledge as worthless because we have a problem with them. I see the world the way I do because I look toward the explanations that are the most powerful, consistent, and predictive, rather than the ones I like best.

See here's a perfect example. There actually is a lot of credible evidence for Christianity out there (As well as other religions).
Scientific evidence for the existence of a god on the other hand... that's a different story.

Scientific evidence for what about Christianity? That people believe in it? That a man named Jesus was the son of a god named Yahweh? I don't mean to browbeat you, but I want some specifics.

 

[Cyan]

The Big Bang should cover that Scope, you can't tell me that there was something there before the Big bang and not be able to explain to me what the fuck that thing is and where it came from.

But... it doesn't. It covers what there's actually evidence for. That's how science works.

Just thirty years ago we thought our galaxy was the only thing out there, scientist thought that outside of our galaxy is an empty vacuum of space. Now scientists claim the universe is actually flat, they just never learn.

You just showed earlier in that same sentence that that's exactly what they do. Learning and improving our understanding of the world and the universe is sort of the entire point of science. (as a side note, the existence of other galaxies as we understand them today was proven nearly a hundred years ago)


P.S. You said earlier:

I will take those kind's of science more seriously if the sentence doesn't say "In the beginning there was nothing and then BANG".

Since it doesn't say that, you'll take the Big Bang theory more seriously now, right?

 

[Monocle]

You're right, I should have written ALL atheist (Unless they have dropped the belief in the physical world when I wasn't looking)

My point is that you can't possibly justify your claim to know what most, much less all, atheists think. You can't even know for certain what your closest family members think, since the unmediated contents of their minds are not available to you in the same way your own thoughts are.

The one and only thing you can say about an atheist with no additional information and without making an inferential leap is that he or she disbelieves in at least one god.

Generalizations are powerful. When you say "all cats have fur," contained in that dainty parcel of four words is millions of individual statements, one for each cat that exists, to the effect of "Whiskers has fur," "Pete has fur," "Jojo has fur," and so on. If just one of these implied statements is false, the whole generalization has to be scuttled.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

We don't know. The Big Bang is the "prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe". Notice that key word. Science is flexible and anything can change if what we know to be true is overturned by observations or tests. There's also thousands of scientists all over the world peer reviewing each other and trying to one-up each other, and all of them agree on at least most truths about our world.

Humans in 2011 don't know everything about the universe. We are actively and continually trying to learn more. Humans hundreds of years ago didn't even understand something as simple as electricity or why a lightning bolt was coming out of that cloud.

I hope you can understand how the above model is preferable to reading an ancient book on Sundays and taking its word for it while trying to make people behave a certain way so their ghosts don't go to a made up place after they die.

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

 

[JohnTuk]

You can be an atheist and hold the belief that the world is an illusion and that only your mind exists.

Atheism isn't a complete philosophy. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god.

You are quite the arrogant person.

There is no arrogance in stating facts.

 

[CornBurrito]

In my experience I've found that most Atheists simply accept all science to be 100% fact.
Evolution, age of rocks and earth, the big bang... all = no god.

It isn't so much as "Evolution + CD + BB = no god" and more "E + CD + BB = debunks many many many many claims made by certain religions."

There is no arrogance in stating facts.

And I pointed out how what you said wasn't a fact.

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

Maybe because all the evidence we currently have suggests that it is true. It wastes valuable time if you have to give the "THIS IS A THEORY, SO FAR ALL THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS IT IS TRUE, BUT OUR UNDERSTANDINGS MAY CHANGE SOMEDAY" lecture whenever mentioning scientific theories.