Happy Atheist Forum

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?

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "pj084527"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.

QuoteAtheists do not believe in an eternal destiny

GENERALIZATION ALERT Some do. Myself included.

Quoteand 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.

Quote from: "Sophus"GENERALIZATION ALERT Some do. Myself included.

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

QuoteI 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?

QuoteHow 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.

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "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?

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

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.

Someone say Newton?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wastedspacez.com%2Fwastedideaz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F05%2Fwayne-newton.jpg&hash=7a1cb256412c674fbb49d2651933673323732b63)

Quote from: "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.

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

Very cool.  

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

Burning in Hell, Will.  Obviously!

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

Was this guy not banned?

Quote from: "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?

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

There are many different branches of Science dealing with different things that involves life on Earth and outside of the Planet Earth. None of the science are defining life but some are enriching life. No more time......

Quote from: "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.

Oh! Bugger! Well you never know who'll read this thread and learn from it  

EDIT. I sent him a PM pointing to my reply.

pj084527 still hasn't picked up his PM  

Quote from: "Tank"pj084527 still hasn't picked up his PM  

Color me not surprised, as that's usually how trolls operate.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Tank"pj084527 still hasn't picked up his PM  

Color me not surprised, as that's usually how trolls operate.

Unfortunately true.

Quote from: "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?

I am replying just to argue, I see that the OP is probably having a hard time grasping the meaning of the term science so no thoughts on their part of checking back with us.
I cannot see how Newton law's were disproved by Einstein. My understanding is that Einstein introduced another variable to take account. That was a step forward imo. Anyways, I have the feeling that newton's laws apply to people outside religion so they not hold true for you..
You claim we base our morals on science.. So the only thing of keeping you away from theft, murder, child molestation, lying, road rage etc etc is god?
If that holds true then I would be really scared to get anywhere near you or your think-alike friends when a church or a bible is not within eye sight..

Quote from: "Albino_Raptor"Big words for someone believing in a religion that once stated the Earth is the center of the universe.

And was only recognized in 1992 (if your catholic).  

pj picked up his PM so he has seen that there are serious discussions about his view taking place.

Quote from: "Achaios"

Quote from: "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?

I am replying just to argue, I see that the OP is probably having a hard time grasping the meaning of the term science so no thoughts on their part of checking back with us.
I cannot see how Newton law's were disproved by Einstein. My understanding is that Einstein introduced another variable to take account. That was a step forward imo. Anyways, I have the feeling that newton's laws apply to people outside religion so they not hold true for you..
You claim we base our morals on science.. So the only thing of keeping you away from theft, murder, child molestation, lying, road rage etc etc is god?
If that holds true then I would be really scared to get anywhere near you or your think-alike friends when a church or a bible is not within eye sight..

DITTO

I know OP isn't gonna read this, I just felt like pointing out that he/she put an emphasis on how long Newtonian physics were considered correct before being proved wrong.  Because, you know, three centuries is such a long time for something to be considOH WAIT.

Looks like he realised his ideas were going to get a beating.

Quote from: "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?

Whats wrong with being willing to reasses your moral views?

Quote from: "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?

 Oh sorry I guess I should listen to the Bible which has a worse track record than science today.

 Plus what other options do we have? We've gotta know how these things work, not go by what some Man in the sky says.

so... if we cant trust science.. is the earth still flat?

Quote from: "MariaEvri"so... if we cant trust science.. is the earth still flat?

Turns out it's kinda burrito shaped.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "MariaEvri"so... if we cant trust science.. is the earth still flat?

Turns out it's kinda burrito shaped.

Hmmmm burrito...

I know that the OP will probably never read this, but Isaac Asimov has a great essay which addresses this exact issue of science being "wrong:"

Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

QuoteWhat actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

(I'm sure that most people here have likely read this, so I apologize for the possible redundancy.  I just cannot resist posting this essay every time that I see a rant about science being "wrong.")

Quote from: "Shine"(I'm sure that most people here have likely read this, so I apologize for the possible redundancy.  I just cannot resist posting this essay every time that I see a rant about science being "wrong.")

Nothing wrong with repeating information if it's relevant.  You never know who's been exposed to what.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Shine"(I'm sure that most people here have likely read this, so I apologize for the possible redundancy.  I just cannot resist posting this essay every time that I see a rant about science being "wrong.")

Nothing wrong with repeating information if it's relevant.  You never know who's been exposed to what.  :)  I guess that I am just always on the defense when posting on the interwebs, although most atheist fora are not populated by the brats that one sees on other more...juvenille boards.  I blame my defensiveness specifically on all the time I spent on World of Warcraft boards, haha.

You people want to know why I didn't reply to your responds here? It is because I I got discouraged debating you atheists.

Although very few of you are nice people, and open to new ideas. But so many of you are rude, condescending, ignorant, and blatanly unable to follow any logical argument. Frustrating!

Quote from: "pj084527"You people want to know why I didn't reply to your responds here? It is because I I got discouraged debating you atheists.

Although very few of you are nice people, and open to new ideas. But so many of you are rude, condescending, ignorant, and blatanly unable to follow any logical argument. Frustrating!

Nice! What a lovely person you are.

Quote from: "pj084527"You people want to know why I didn't reply to your responds here? It is because I I got discouraged debating you atheists.

Although very few of you are nice people, and open to new ideas. But so many of you are rude, condescending, ignorant, and blatanly unable to follow any logical argument. Frustrating!

People tend to react negatively to being insulted.  The sad thing is, you may have found some sympathy here if your posts didn't contain such grossly inaccurate and often insulting assumptions.

Quote from: "pj084527"How can you Atheist claim to base your life on science?

Let me see... I use electricity, drive car, pop pills, have a telephone, watch TV and surf on the Internet. How am I NOT basing my life on science..?

Quote from: "pj084527"You people want to know why I didn't reply to your responds here? It is because I I got discouraged debating you atheists.

Although very few of you are nice people, and open to new ideas. But so many of you are rude, condescending, ignorant, and blatanly unable to follow any logical argument. Frustrating!

Or you could tell the truth and have said it was because you are just a nasty person who was trolling the forum...but you are banned now so your chance to tell the truth here has passed.  If there is a baby jesus you sure have made him cry.

Quote from: "pj084527"You people want to know why I didn't reply to your responds here? It is because I I got discouraged debating you atheists.

Although very few of you are nice people, and open to new ideas. But so many of you are rude, condescending, ignorant, and blatanly unable to follow any logical argument. Frustrating!

Rude, condescending, ignorant? What is it when you post and say, "You atheists"? As if ALL atheists are one entity. Talk about the ignorance and rudeness there. Nothing more ignorant than ignorance demonstrated.

I was a christian. I know what many christian sects believe. You seem to know absolutely nothing about the myriad of non-believers, and thanks for showing it here.

Now, you would be better off demonstrating how a christian acts, wouldn't you? Let's see if you know how to do that. Feel free to demonstrate it in your next post.

Quote from: "Shine"I know that the OP will probably never read this, but Isaac Asimov has a great essay which addresses this exact issue of science being "wrong:"

Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Thank you so much for posting that, Shine ^_^ I've been looking for an article/essay like that for a while now and failing. This is perfect, and so well written. Asimov is too awesome. Thank you thank you thank you.

Quote from: "McQ"Feel free to demonstrate it in your next post.

He can't because he got banned when his sockpuppet got banned.

Quote from: "kelltrill"Thank you so much for posting that, Shine ^_^ I've been looking for an article/essay like that for a while now and failing. This is perfect, and so well written. Asimov is too awesome. Thank you thank you thank you.

Yay, I'm glad that you enjoyed it!  It's one of my favorite essays.