How can you Atheist claim to base your life on science?

[pj084527]

The Atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.

Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton's theories were proven wrong. There's very little scientific "truth" which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny and morals on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

[philosoraptor]

The Atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.

Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton's theories were proven wrong. There's very little scientific "truth" which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny and morals on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

Still you, I'd wager.  I'd even bet my life on it.  Some scientific findings being overturned is a lot better than holding mystical beliefs that are neither logical nor rational.  I don't need science to prove to me that God doesn't exist; common sense will do the job just fine.

[Logikos]

Yet you base your eternal destiny and morals on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

Atheists do not believe in an eternal destiny, and the majority (who understand the is-ought problem at least intuitively) do not think that morality can be grounded in scientific knowledge.  Add to that the fact you do not understand the scientific method (which pretty much guarantees an asymptotic approach to the absolute truth about the nature of the physical world) and it should be clear is you who sounds very silly indeed.  Falsifiability is in fact an epistemological strength, not a weakness.

[Sophus]

Atheists do not believe in an eternal destiny

GENERALIZATION ALERT Some do. Myself included.

and the majority (who understand the is-ought problem at least intuitively) do not think that morality can be grounded in scientific knowledge.

I would say neuroscience and psychology prove there are no absolutes and that one's morality is the product of a number of factors, causing it to vary. You are right if you mean that science cannot tell us what we should do. Only what we do and how.

[Logikos]

GENERALIZATION ALERT Some do. Myself included.

You're right, I withdraw that comment, my bad.  Many nontheistic Buddhists would be examples.  

I would say neuroscience and psychology prove there are no absolutes and that one's morality is the product of a number of factors, causing it to vary. You are right if you mean that science cannot tell us what we should do. Only what we do and how.

How are you defining "absolutes" here?

[Sophus]

How are you defining "absolutes" here?

Sorry, I should have been more clear.    What I mean is through studies it has been demonstrated that not everyone knows this is wrong or that is the right way to respond. Our consciouses are not the same and in fact some of us don't have one at all.

I'll also expound upon what I meant by eternal destination before people start to look at me funny. First and foremost, I don't believe in it with absolute confidence. Like all my other beliefs, it's not an actual belief. Only what I think is most likely. Furthermore by destiny, I mean I'm a Determinist. By eternal, I don't necessarily mean time without end. I do. But I also mean that time is an illusion, an eternity is the Now.

@pj084527 All you're really saying is science has an open mind and religion has a shut one. Science corrects itself overtime. Religion evolves too, but not in a light that helps support its validity.

[i_am_i]

The Atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.

Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton's theories were proven wrong. There's very little scientific "truth" which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny and morals on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever seen posted anywhere on the internet. But by all means keep up the good work of representing the Christian intelligentsia.

[McQ]

The Atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.

Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton's theories were proven wrong. There's very little scientific "truth" which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny and morals on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

The person who sounds silly is the one who doesn't know what science is and makes ridiculous generalizations on his lack of knowledge.

[Whitney]

Hey all, check the OP's history of posting then never coming back to respond...don't waste your energy unless you just like to hear yourself type.

[Squid]

Someone say Newton?

[Will]

The Atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.

Yes, science is improving every day. Imagine where we'll be in 300 years. Or 3,000.

Very cool.  

[philosoraptor]

Yes, science is improving every day. Imagine where we'll be in 300 years. Or 3,000.

Burning in Hell, Will.  Obviously!

[Albino_Raptor]

Big words for someone believing in a religion that once stated the Earth is the center of the universe.

[karadan]

Was this guy not banned?

[Tank]

The Atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein's discoveries.

Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton's theories were proven wrong. There's very little scientific "truth" which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny and morals on "science"? Now who sounds silly?

Hi pj

You are begging the question here. You are implying a linkage between atheism (a lack of belief in the existance of a deity based on a lack of evidence for said deity) and a belief in science as a moral guide, which it is not. I am an atheist because no theist has yet to present me with a reasonable evidence based argument to support the existance of a deity, let alone one that supports a dogmatic theistic world view that said deity cares one iota about the behaviour of an obscure organism on an obscure planet in one of hundreds of millions of solar systems in one of billions of galaxies in the universe. So I am an atheist until given a good reason to be otherwise.

Morality is a human construct, it has no absolute root or cause. We can see this because there are as many moral views as there are societies that enshrine them. Scientific investigation can inform morality but it's not a moral construct in it's own right. One example of science informing one's moral perspective would be epilepsy. Before the causes of this affliction were known a person suffering would have been considered (and in some place still would be) to be possessed by evil spirits and treated as such, normally in a relatively harsh manner. So scientific investigation can provide information that can change one's world view e.g. the non-existance of evil spirits as the cause of epilepsy. So where, as an atheist, do I take my morality from? Well primarily from my parents and social group, just like you did as a child. My wife and children are all atheists. The difference between my upbringing and that of my children is that what I told my children was not based on ancient superstition. Morality does not require superstition or science, just respect for one's fellow human beings.

Regards the inaccuracy of Newton. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong at all, what he did was suggest a mechanism, space-time, that was the cause of the effects observed by Newton. Einstein compliments Newton, he does not contradict him. Science continually refines itself. When fundamental discoveries are made and expounded, such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution they get refined by subsequent research. Sometime science has to create a 'place holder' hypothesis which they then proceed to try and disprove. One example of such a place holder is dark matter. The existance of this substance is far from confirmed but the process of finding or dismissing its existance is what scientific discovery is all about.

I have no problem living in a godless world, god just hides reality to me.

Tank