I went to a Catholic school for my elementary years, and it was horrid. The things they tried to teach us were just out of the question,ridiculous. (I was baptized a Methodist when I was a baby, though).

I dont go to church now, I actually often only meditate and go on with my day. No praying, thanking the lord for my blessings,etc etc blah blah.

Anyways, I'm going to try and word this question as best as I can for Atheists:



Why can you wholeheartedly prove that there is absolutely no God in terms of science? What makes science so reputable?

Science is yet another thing conjured by humans just like yourselves. Humans who made things up, humans with "theories" and "hypotheses". Instead of putting your faith in something just because you haven't seen it, you are just putting your complete devotion into another human, who, indeniably, has been at fault at one point in his/her life. They were all children once, just like you. What makes their opinion as to whether something happened or not more valid than a Christian who uses God as a support system? Is it because they used scientific equipment to make a guess as to what something is, or has been?

It just doesn't make sense to me that an Atheist can put his entire faith into a human being. All human beings have,generally,the same mindset in terms of functionality and surviving in this world. That same scientist who was telling you that evolution is the key to our existence today could have just as easily been the person who told you a big invisible man in the sky created the population from nothing at all.

But because you cannot see said God, you deny it's existence. If a scientist told you that evolution was how we exist today, but only had a detailed description of why his theory is correct, a few collected ancient writings,and no physical proof of it,would you still believe him?

Now, I believe in evolution and all, but This was just a rant. I was just wondering what Atheists mindset was on that situation.

In summary(if you dont want to read all that):

Why do you put faith in human knowledge, which most definitely may be flawed since the same humans who invented science, invented religion, over faith in an omnipresent being?

Sometimes I believe scientists right away. Just because it will take a long time to understand what there talking about.

But you dont have to believe them blindly. If you want to learn you CAN. Unless your mind just cant grasp science. Mine can, if I give it a chance.

quote:"What makes science so reputable?"

Because it gets shit done, that's why. If you have to ask yourself what that means, take a step back and look at the computer you're using to communicate with us, amoung other things. That is a product of science. Medicines, technology, that's science.

Faith is making shit up or taking what others have made up to be truth without any proof or indication that it works. Science looks to figure shit out without making the fact fit a foregone conclusion born of emotion or ignorance.

Yeah, I get what the OP is saying. Athiests sometimes use science just as religious people use faith: to give themselves a reason to believe that there either is/isn't any almighty force out there (depending on where you stand). Indeed, science cannot prove that "God" doesn't exist, just as religion cannot prove that it does.

quote:Originally posted by Surak:

Because it gets shit done, that's why. If you have to ask yourself what that means, take a step back and look at the computer you're using to communicate with us, amoung other things. That is a product of science. Medicines, technology, that's science.

Faith is making shit up or taking what others have made up to be truth without any proof or indication that it works. Science looks to figure shit out without making the fact fit a foregone conclusion born of emotion or ignorance.

You have a good point here. Science does produce alot of necessary goods,medicines being the most important in my eyes. It just seems as if using science to prove or disprove a God isn't feasible.

quote:Originally posted by YouForgotPoland:

You have a good point here. Science does produce alot of necessary goods,medicines being the most important in my eyes. It just seems as if using science to prove or disprove a God isn't feasible.

You cant disprove a god. Yet. Its the lack of proof wich makes people throw away the belief. Among other logical reasoning on why the gods described in religions is bullshit.

Nobody believed in black holes when einstein first predicted it. It got lots of skepticism . But now that we have proof its a belief.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 02-04-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by YouForgotPoland:

Why do you put faith in human knowledge, which most definitely may be flawed since the same humans who invented science, invented religion, over faith in an omnipresent being?

Simple: Atheists do not believe through faith. There is a huge difference between accepting something tentatively through inductive reasoning, and accepting it through faith.

For instance, say I have a black box. Nobody knows what is in the black box except me. Now two guys approach me, Fred and Barney, and ask me what is in the box. I tell them that an apple is in the box. I also tell them I can provide them with no evidence at all. It's a trivial matter, after all. An apple in a box. Now Barney and Fred are faced with a decision to either believe or disbelieve me. Say they decide to believe me, but each has a different kind of belief.

Fred believes through inductive reasoning. Fred's belief is temporal. He is not claiming to be absolutely certain that an apple is in the box, but accepts my word temporarily until more evidence comes into light to either validate or discredit my claim.

Barney believes through faith. His belief is resolute. By applying faith to his belief, he "knows" that there is an apple in the box. Even though he may admit that he is not 100% certain, his faith makes him illogical in the future investigation of my claim.

Now say that I allow both men to smell the box, and the box smells of citrus. How with the different types of beliefs Barney and Fred have affect their response to this new evidence of what may be in the box?

Because Fred holds no faith-based attachment to his belief that an apple is in the box, it is easy for him to call that belief into question and wonder if I am lying. His mind is now open to the possibility of an orange being in the box, and being skeptical, he may even replace his temporal belief in the apple to a temporal belief in an orange, until an explaination arises for the citrus smell.

Barney, on the other hand, approaches the matter through faith. Because he believe a priori that an apple is in the box, his explaination for the citrus smell would probably be along the lines of "Someone is trying to trick me into believing that an orange is in there by spraying citrus sent on the outside of the box". What makes Barney's faith based belief even more sad is that once he has concocted a satisfactory explanation for evidence opposing his belief, it makes his faith in that belief that much stronger. He digs himself into an illogical hole so deep, that at some point if I decide to open the box, and show him that it is actually an orange, he will protest and accuse me of switching amd using a fake box, and go off on an adventure seeking the long lost box containing the apple.

I know I went way out there with Barney, but it is important to remember how powerful faith-based beliefs can become. If you think the idea of a guy going adventuring after a box with fruit in it that doesn't exist is absurd, just remember that we've seen guys hijack planes and fly them into buildings thinking they'll get 72 virgins after they die.

I hope that I have illustrated my point well, but I will summarize with what I said at the beginning. There is a big difference between believing through faith and believing through inductive reasoning. Atheists (at least intellectually honest atheists) believe through inductive reasoning. Most, if not all, theists believe through faith.



[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 02-04-2007).]

What above poster said (yet in a shorter way hopefully :P) Science can be proved or disproved through experiment. In my opinion unless something can be proved through experiment it is still a theory and not scientific fact. Evolution can be proved through scientific experiment.

You cannot prove or disprove a God so i so no reason to believe in one. As much as you cannot prove or diprove an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the universe, including a mountain, trees and a migit. http://tinyurl.com/e3q7w

I think for this thread we need to define faith.

I believe faith is believing in something without evidence, not prove. There is plenty of evidence that suggests a theistic God does not exist (several books show this). I think it's silly to think we need proof for something, otherwise we are requiring faith, since nothing can be proved. e.g. does that mean people believing in gravity require faith? I'd hope the answer would be no.

Even if you answered yes, there is a large difference of faith from believing in God to believing in gravity/evolution etc.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Originally posted by YouForgotPoland:

Why do you put faith in human knowledge, which most definitely may be flawed since the same humans who invented science, invented religion, over faith in an omnipresent being?

Simple: Atheists do not believe through faith. There is a huge difference between accepting something tentatively through inductive reasoning, and accepting it through faith.

For instance, say I have a black box. Nobody knows what is in the black box except me. Now two guys approach me, Fred and Barney, and ask me what is in the box. I tell them that an apple is in the box. I also tell them I can provide them with no evidence at all. It's a trivial matter, after all. An apple in a box. Now Barney and Fred are faced with a decision to either believe or disbelieve me. Say they decide to believe me, but each has a different kind of belief.

Fred believes through inductive reasoning. Fred's belief is temporal. He is not claiming to be absolutely certain that an apple is in the box, but accepts my word temporarily until more evidence comes into light to either validate or discredit my claim.

Barney believes through faith. His belief is resolute. By applying faith to his belief, he "knows" that there is an apple in the box. Even though he may admit that he is not 100% certain, his faith makes him illogical in the future investigation of my claim.

Now say that I allow both men to smell the box, and the box smells of citrus. How with the different types of beliefs Barney and Fred have affect their response to this new evidence of what may be in the box?

Because Fred holds no faith-based attachment to his belief that an apple is in the box, it is easy for him to call that belief into question and wonder if I am lying. His mind is now open to the possibility of an orange being in the box, and being skeptical, he may even replace his temporal belief in the apple to a temporal belief in an orange, until an explaination arises for the citrus smell.

Barney, on the other hand, approaches the matter through faith. Because he believe a priori that an apple is in the box, his explaination for the citrus smell would probably be along the lines of "Someone is trying to trick me into believing that an orange is in there by spraying citrus sent on the outside of the box". What makes Barney's faith based belief even more sad is that once he has concocted a satisfactory explanation for evidence opposing his belief, it makes his faith in that belief that much stronger. He digs himself into an illogical hole so deep, that at some point if I decide to open the box, and show him that it is actually an orange, he will protest and accuse me of switching amd using a fake box, and go off on an adventure seeking the long lost box containing the apple.

I know I went way out there with Barney, but it is important to remember how powerful faith-based beliefs can become. If you think the idea of a guy going adventuring after a box with fruit in it that doesn't exist is absurd, just remember that we've seen guys hijack planes and fly them into buildings thinking they'll get 72 virgins after they die.

I hope that I have illustrated my point well, but I will summarize with what I said at the beginning. There is a big difference between believing through faith and believing through inductive reasoning. Atheists (at least intellectually honest atheists) believe through inductive reasoning. Most, if not all, theists believe through faith.



I think you've got something good here, nicely worded. Thanks for your response, I just wanted to hear an Atheists whole view on the subject of putting science over faith.

quote:Originally posted by YouForgotPoland:

...

Why can you wholeheartedly prove that there is absolutely no God in terms of science? What makes science so reputable?

Science is yet another thing conjured by humans just like yourselves. Humans who made things up, humans with "theories" and "hypotheses". Instead of putting your faith in something just because you haven't seen it, you are just putting your complete devotion into another human, who, indeniably, has been at fault at one point in his/her life. They were all children once, just like you. What makes their opinion as to whether something happened or not more valid than a Christian who uses God as a support system? Is it because they used scientific equipment to make a guess as to what something is, or has been?

Science is made reputable because it has one general goal - the pursuit of knowledge. Science uses evidence to achieve it's goal, which makes it very reliable. The peer review process and scientific method ensure that all theories are reviewed numerous times and every experiment can be falsifiable. Science welcomes everyone to disprove a theory in order to make a better one.

Christians on the other hand have but one goal - go to heaven without using any kind of evidence to prove god, heaven, methods of getting there etc... They are fundamentalists - there is a fundamental assumption and everything that contradicts this assumption is wrong and is thrown out. Challenging a Christian doctrine will land you either in a back alley with a slit throat or in quiet rejection depending on where you try to do so.

Science can be applied for practical purposes, just look at modern technology - medicine, transportation, hygiene, communications etc.. Science makes life easier and more enjoyable for everyone because it welcomes innovation in order to improve the quality of life. Christians reject and deny innovation often with sword in hand.

Science has a fundamental principle - the scientific method. This is a bulletproof method to derive answers and truths without being biased, and if wrong it allows it to correct itself.

quote:

Why do you put faith in human knowledge, which most definitely may be flawed since the same humans who invented science, invented religion, over faith in an omnipresent being?

You seem to mistake logical reasoning with blind faith. Even if a person is wrong, peer review according to the scientific process will definitely show if something is wrong. Falsifiability will allow any skeptic to retest science.

Try testing religion. Try testing god. You can assert "God is a man" or "god is a woman" but you can never find the truth out. In science you can never assert without evidence in the first place. You cannot start with a cast in stone statement like you can in religion. In short science demands evidence, which makes it easy to sort truth from lie, religion takes "faith" which makes everything equally possible. I'd rather not have my doctor prescribe me holy water for a viral infection, no matter how much faith he has in it, would you?