My journey into atheism and theories on life

[ekianjo]

Some scientific theories are so well established that arguing against or contesting them without evidence against them or for another competing theory (which still explains everything the mainstream theory does) is a waste of time.

 

I guess it depends what one is talking about but even stuff that was "settled x years ago" my not be true in all situations. We thought we had physics cornered until we discovered we could not explain certain phenomenons leading us to quantic science. We thought we knew the universe very well 20 years ago yet our understanding has been completely reversed in the past 15 years. 

Science is based on challenge and interrogations, and we are now in societies where there is no dialog with science anymore, and its always presented as something tangible, fixed and settled. This is fundamentally wrong, just like when Al Gore showed up in his movie, using fake and pseudo science all the way to prove his point. You'd be almost convinced if you left your brain at home for a couple of hours, or if took everything he said as "well its science so it must be true and theres no debate about the data then".

Again, nothing is settled in science. We know gravity exists but can you explain where gravity comes from? why do masses exert forces on each other? We need to clearly specify that there are so many unknowns, that we should be very humble and do not pretend we have a vast understanding of the world because we don't. That's through questioning that you will spark curosity for new research and let new scientists be born, instead of feeding "its like that and its settled" kind of discourse around.

 

[bzar]

Yes, and in those cases evidence has surfaced to challenge the validity of those theories. I'm talking strictly about cases where no new evidence is being brought forth by the challenger. I agree with you about not considering any theory the ultimate truth; I implied as much earlier. There is a difference in considering something a practical fact since it's proven itself time and time again and regarding it as the final answer.

When challenging long standing and well established science one should bring more than words. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.

I do believe we agree on many things here, I just have a less grim view of the state of science in our time.

Still not touching the climate stuff.

 

[swangdoodles]

​Well... I did not expect to find a topic on religion and science on this forum... But they seem to popup everywhere...

​As for myself, I was raised a Christian until I was 7 years old and didn't like the taste of communion wafers...

I graduated in Ecology, but am now very sorry I've spend so much of my time on that...

To me science is just another form of religion. I have never met Charles Darwin and I have no way to verify that he really wrote the origin of species... Jet many scientists "believe" he did so indeed, and happily base there "evidence" on it...
Well, if that's what they want to believe in, then they are welcome to do so.

Over the years I have traveled much and red many philosophical and religious texts. All those are now combined and form "my believes". I do not remember most of them, and do not feel the need to quote anything that was written in them... As it really doesn't matter, they are just my believes...

Everybody is free to have their own believes. Sadly most people frown at that notion...

Cheers,
Swangdoodles
    

 

[Binky]

I have never met Charles Darwin and I have no way to verify that he really wrote the origin of species.

Who cares who wrote it?

the important thing is that it provides a workable model of the world around us.

Science is about observing the world and generalising our results to form theories that can be used to predict further observations.

For example, Newton observes some objects being accelerated, takes some measurements, thinks about it and says Force is proportional to Mass times Acceleration.

Someone else reads Newton's work and tries it. His results also suggest F = MA.

This happens repeatedly, and eventually, the whole scientific community agrees that F = MA is a good representation of the behaviour of things accelerating.

 

[SNESFAN]

^thats a very good point. The first person to figure out or prove something is important that they were the first but its not like they invented it or if they hadn't written it would it be any less accurate. We would just have recognized someone else as the first when it happened

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

[swangdoodles]

I have never met Charles Darwin and I have no way to verify that he really wrote the origin of species.

Who cares who wrote it?

the important thing is that it provides a workable model of the world around us.

Exactly, it doesn't matter who wrote it.


Same goes for all other scientific and religious writtings.


Each writting (scientific or religious) provides it's own "workable model of the world around us"...


​Just pick the one that makes the most sense to you...

 

[Binky]

Each writting (scientific or religious) provides it's own "workable model of the world around us"...

...and this where I disagree.

 

[WizardStan]

...and this where I disagree.

Indeed. Just because it provides *A* model doesn't mean that it's a good or even workable model.

 

[swangdoodles]

...and this where I disagree.

Indeed. Just because it provides *A* model doesn't mean that it's a good or even workable model.

Offcource nobody said we had to agree on this... ;-)


It just depends on the point of view of the reader/believer.


If the (scientific or religious) text makes enough sense to the reader... Then that "model" might serve him well in his own way through this world.


And luckily we have the freedom to chose whatever "model" we find the most sensible...


Ciao,


Swangdoodles

 

[Binky]

And luckily we have the freedom to chose whatever "model" we find the most sensible...

Yes.

<insert obligatory Voltaire quote here>

 

[comradekingu]

<ironically disagree>

 

[FaeMinx]

I would go so far to say:

If the model you hold onto makes you perceive 'wrongness', discord, or discrepancy in your reality...

Then your model is incomplete or flawed.

So let's be honest here. I believe I have a pretty good take on things, but I know that my model is incomplete and flawed. So I continue to open my mind and expand my horizons.

Can any of you claim you have a perfect model? 

 

[Klumpen]

Can any of you claim you have a perfect model? 

Only hardcore monotheists and those brain washed scientologists seem to do that,

therefore those models seem to be the most flawed ones to me.

 

[PokeParadox]

Can any of you claim you have a perfect model? 

Yes I can claim it. Backing that claim up is a different matter

Seriously it is arrogant to think you have all of lifes answers. I do not claim to have this I only know I am content with my current understanding and explanations.

 

[Trip]

I live my life by very few rules..

• Try not to impact anybody’s life in a negative way.
• Always try to give back more than I receive.

I find that these rules cover 90 percent of what most religions try to teach without being too restrictive.

Life's complicated enough without having tons of crap holding you back

 

[Binky]

I find that these rules cover 90 percent of what most religions try to teach without being too restrictive.

The problem is that most religions can be spun either way.

While religions have often been the cause of good deeds and behaviours, they have also started wars (or been used as an excused for them).

Some religious institutions teach something along the lines of "Be kind, forgiving and generous - but not to <members of some group>"

 

[comradekingu]

Im not content with my current understanding and explanations. Has worked for me thus far, im on a roll.

 

[FaeMinx]

^ Not being content works for you?  :blink:

 

[comradekingu]

Being at status quo is what im not content with, so to speak. (It was a science allegory.) The road is the goal, ignorance is a one way street.

 

[Trip]

I find that these rules cover 90 percent of what most religions try to teach without being too restrictive.

The problem is that most religions can be spun either way.


While religions have often been the cause of good deeds and behaviours, they have also started wars (or been used as an excused for them).


Some religious institutions teach something along the lines of "Be kind, forgiving and generous - but not to <members of some group>"

True, but I don't believe in these because other religions do, I believe in them because they are the only things that make sense.

Can you imagine what life would be like if everybody just did what they could to drag others down all the time. It would be a living hell.

That's why all major religions incorporate these rules in one form or another