Science - What is it? Can it be trusted?

[Amaris]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

Looks like we're operating on different definitions of words like "hallucination", then...

We apparently are. I go by the dictionary definition of the word.

Ah yes, the definition like this?

1.
a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2.
the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.
3.
a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion.

Let me ask you this: When a man is in the desert, nothing around him but sand and rock as far as the eye can see, he spots a grove of palm trees, with a small pond in the middle, and he runs to it, yelling with joy and celebration, and when he reaches it, it disappears to reveal nothing but more sand and rock. He has seen a mirage. Is he not hallucinating? Does that definition still stand even though the man would swear by all the fates that he could not only see it, but that it felt real? That it personally impacted him? Is it an insult to say he hallucinated? That he was delusional?

You see, religion is so incorporated into our culture, that the very concept of it all being anything other than believable, that "walking on faith" has as much to do with reality as walking on water, is just unimaginable by so many, that what they're seeing, what they feel they are experiencing as an oasis in the middle of the desert, is just more sand and rock?

 

[Pingfah]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

Only if you are paranoid and believe everyone is out to get you. Dawkins has never expressed any desire to force you to believe anything, neither has anybody else here.

Where you you get off treating people as if they are trying to oppress you just for expressing their own opinion?

 

[TheGodBen]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

That's a bigoted statement.

 

[Pingfah]

^ One directed at many good and reasonable people here.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

That's a bigoted statement.

No more or less so than calling all Christians bigots, or saying that we're all suffering from some sort of mass psychosis.

 

[Amaris]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

That's a bigoted statement.

No more or less so than calling all Christians bigots, or saying that we're all suffering from some sort of mass psychosis.

I don't recall anyone calling all Christians bigots in this thread. You seem to be taking great offense at things no one has said about you.

 

[Pingfah]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

That's a bigoted statement.

No more or less so than calling all Christians bigots, or saying that we're all suffering from some sort of mass psychosis.

So one person makes a statement that you consider bigoted, and you respond by insulting all atheists, and implying that when we get together we become some sort of dangerous force that's out to destroy your faith?

You feel that is the proper way to conduct yourself do you?

 

[TheGodBen]

No more or less so than calling all Christians bigots, or saying that we're all suffering from some sort of mass psychosis.

If you ever see me saying such a thing then feel free to call me out on it.

Until then, try not to accuse people that are standing up for their own rights of trying to take away yours.

 

[FlyingLemons]

No more or less so than calling all Christians bigots, or saying that we're all suffering from some sort of mass psychosis.

Some have said that, but they're not in any position to do anything about it. In secular countries, Christians live perfectly happily with atheists, Jews, Muslims and people of every kind of belief. The idea of Christian persecution and oppression by the majority popping up in the West is ludicrous.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Some have said that, but they're not in any position to do anything about it.

Very true!

No more or less so than calling all Christians bigots, or saying that we're all suffering from some sort of mass psychosis.

If you ever see me saying such a thing then feel free to call me out on it.

And if I ever say that anyone's going to hell for not believing, then you may call me out on that as well.

I do apologize if I insulted anyone personally. That was not my intention. I fully admit that I am quite paranoid - that's a hard habit to break. I'm working on it though.

And since I seem to have fully and irrevocably derailed this thread, I must apologize for that as well. I promise I will keep as silent as I can from now on. Just one last thing before I go: Yes, I do believe that science can be trusted. Thank you and good night.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I feel bad for all those Christian Americans, unfairly persecuted by those nasty atheists. It's amazing how a group that comprises 10% of the population at best manages to be so good at keeping the God-botherers down.

 

[TrickyDickie]

The narrow specifics that some, not all, Christians believe, when there is solid evidence to the contrary, is delusional....in my opinion.

When Christians say that theirs is the only way to reach a blessed afterlife, that is supreme arrogance....in my opinion.

When atheists say that there is no deity of any kind, no afterlife of any kind, and that what we are in the middle of right now is all there is, that is supreme arrogance....in my opinion.

 

[Pingfah]

When atheists say that there is no deity of any kind, no afterlife of any kind, and that what we are in the middle of right now is all there is, that is supreme arrogance....in my opinion.

If they said they knew it for a fact it would be arrogant, but not many people would make that claim.

In the absence of such a claim, all they are doing is not believing in things for which there is no substantial evidence. That's not arrogant in the least.

 

[Amaris]

When atheists say that there is no deity of any kind, no afterlife of any kind, and that what we are in the middle of right now is all there is, that is supreme arrogance....in my opinion.

If they said they knew it for a fact it would be arrogant, but not many people would make that claim.

In the absence of such a claim, all they are doing is not believing in things for which there is no substantial evidence. That's not arrogant in the least.

Exactly.

 

[Jadzia]

In the general context of deities, I agree, we probably should default to group 3 because we can't know that there wasn't some God behind the creation of the universe or the evolution of life on Earth. We shouldn't believe that such a being exists due to the lack of evidence for one, but we shouldn't rule it out entirely.

However, when you get into the specifics you can can claim to know that certain Gods don't exist. For example, I know quite a lot about the Christian God and I would go as far as to say that the God that's described in the Bible does not exist as it is a contradiction in terms. I'm not going to randomly attack Christians for believing in that God, but I'm also not going to say that there's a possibility such a God exists when there's not.

Understood and I agree. But at the same time, we should be careful to separate definitions from descriptions.

Definitions should be handled logically and precisely. Things which meet the definition may exist in multitude, may be unique, or may not exist at all. For example, if the definition is at odds with itself then no examples will exist because it would be a logical impossibility.

Descriptions differ in that they may have incomplete or inaccurate detail. When police seek eye-witness descriptions of an attacker, the data/evidence is handled with an expectation of error, which is sought to be minimized through corroboration. Likewise, if a description of a deity appears illogical that does not mean the deity does not exist, only that it was described erroneously.

Sacred texts (and almost everything outside of mathematical logic) consists of descriptions, not definitions.

 

[TrickyDickie]

When atheists say that there is no deity of any kind, no afterlife of any kind, and that what we are in the middle of right now is all there is, that is supreme arrogance....in my opinion.

If they said they knew it for a fact it would be arrogant, but not many people would make that claim.

In the absence of such a claim, all they are doing is not believing in things for which there is no substantial evidence. That's not arrogant in the least.

There are a lot who take things in the area of unexplained phenomena and try to force square pegs into round holes in an attempt to reinforce their positions, to the point of absolutely ludicrous explanations.

Sometimes you wonder if weather balloons on this planet are more numerous than automobiles.

 

[TheGodBen]

And if I ever say that anyone's going to hell for not believing, then you may call me out on that as well.

I do apologize if I insulted anyone personally. That was not my intention. I fully admit that I am quite paranoid - that's a hard habit to break. I'm working on it though.

Apology accepted, and I apologise if I came across as rude.

It's just that in my country, most schools are own by the Catholic church and in some cases they have denied non-Catholic children from being admitted in favour of Catholic children. If I ever have kids and I wanted them to join a good school I may have to have them baptised to try and secure a place, and that disgusts me as I don't think children that cannot make decisions for themselves should be forced into a religion. I don't think things should be that way, and not just for atheist kids, but kids of all faiths shouldn't be discriminated against like that. The state should step in and take over most of these schools, but the government refuses to do that for fear that it will upset older Catholics that are more likely to vote. So if I join an atheist group, it's not because I want to bring down Christianity, it's because I don't want myself or others to be persecuted by the religion of the majority.

There's a church 10 minutes away from me where Christians gather every Sunday, but I don't feel that they're out to get me, in some ways I think it's nice that they bring a sense of community to an area. But perhaps that's because I used to go there every Sunday for years and I know that they're neither inclined to, nor capable of, changing my beliefs. Perhaps it would do you some good if you attended an atheist meeting to see what they talk about. You might come across one or two militant atheists (just as you're likely to come across one or two militant Christians in a church), but hopefully most of them will be polite and try to express their opinions without trying to convert you.

 

[Amaris]

There are a lot who take things in the area of unexplained phenomena and try to force square pegs into round holes in an attempt to reinforce their positions, to the point of absolutely ludicrous explanations.

Sometimes you wonder if weather balloons on this planet are more numerous than automobiles.

Actually (link):

Weather balloons are launched around the world for observations used to diagnose current conditions as well as by human forecasters and computer models for weather forecasting. About 800[1] locations around the globe do routine releases, twice daily, usually at 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC. Some facilities will also do occasional supplementary "special" releases when meteorologists determine there is a need for additional data between the 12 hour routine launches in which time much can change in the atmosphere. Military and civilian government meteorological agencies such as the National Weather Service in the US typically launch balloons, and by international agreements almost all the data is shared with all nations.
Specialized uses also exist, such as for aviation interests, pollution monitoring, photography or videography and research. Examples include pilot balloons (Pibal). Field research programs often use mobile launchers from land vehicles as well as ships and aircraft (usually dropsondes in this case).

1600 weather balloons (assuming one at each site) launched per day, worldwide, not counting specialized usage by civilians. That's a lot of weather balloons.

 

[TrickyDickie]

There are a lot who take things in the area of unexplained phenomena and try to force square pegs into round holes in an attempt to reinforce their positions, to the point of absolutely ludicrous explanations.

Sometimes you wonder if weather balloons on this planet are more numerous than automobiles.

Actually (link):

Weather balloons are launched around the world for observations used to diagnose current conditions as well as by human forecasters and computer models for weather forecasting. About 800[1] locations around the globe do routine releases, twice daily, usually at 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC. Some facilities will also do occasional supplementary "special" releases when meteorologists determine there is a need for additional data between the 12 hour routine launches in which time much can change in the atmosphere. Military and civilian government meteorological agencies such as the National Weather Service in the US typically launch balloons, and by international agreements almost all the data is shared with all nations.
Specialized uses also exist, such as for aviation interests, pollution monitoring, photography or videography and research. Examples include pilot balloons (Pibal). Field research programs often use mobile launchers from land vehicles as well as ships and aircraft (usually dropsondes in this case).

1600 weather balloons (assuming one at each site) launched per day, worldwide, not counting specialized usage by civilians. That's a lot of weather balloons.

Well, I was making a joke, but....

Sure, there are a lot. But when someone describes all kinds of lights, wild aerial maneuvers, and much more and someone else says it was just a weather balloon, that explanation is rather a bit much to expect everyone to swallow.

For the record, I'm not saying that all atheists are arrogant. If they leave open the possibility of something being able to change their mind, then that is not arrogance.

 

[ThankQ]

For the record, I'm not saying that all atheists are arrogant. If they leave open the possibility of something being able to change their mind, then that is not arrogance.

I would say, then, there are very few arrogant atheists.

I wish I could count the times I've heard christians say "god does exist and nothing anyone says or does can ever change my mind". I've heard that A LOT!

If the sky parted, god decended and said, "Dave! I exist! See? Catch ya later. Oh, and that thing you did with the guy at the place? Yeah, no more of that, hmmm? Peace out." And there were hundreds of witnesses?

Yeah, my mind can be changed.

On the whole, christians are far more arrogant than atheists.