Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 18. (Read 901357 times)

Let me repeat something that I haven't had to for a long time. The gist of what we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the perfect wording of what we are talking about.

If we have to state all the meanings of each little section of wording all the time, our posts would be miles deep.

There is nothing wrong with what I said. There is wrongness in the ways you twist what I say into things that we are not talking about.

Evolution is not known to be factual because it has never been found that we know of. Gravity is factual because we use it everyday all the time.

Atheists hate religion because they can't get away from the fact that people are religious beings. People are slaves to religion, and nobody likes being a slave... except for the slave who is treated well.

Why Has The West Been So Successful?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVD0xik-_FM

Let me repeat what you said, for you. You said that evolution is not known to be true/factual because it doesn't have a law, gravity on the other hand, you said, it has a law and therefore it's true/factual. My point here was that you yourself admitted that laws aren't 100% factual so why would you base your conclusion that gravity is a fact on its law when you don't know if that law is factual?

Simply your argument is wrong. You can't say evolution is not real because it doesn't have a law, nowhere in science does it say that scientific theories need laws, not to mention that evolution theory does actually use laws to explain evolution, also facts and other observations.

True changes when the parameters of true change.

Gravity law true parameters haven't changed.

Evolution law true parameters never existed.

Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law.

Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution.

Probably a mix of both to be honest. I agree we are all human and most of us think about the same things deep down, death, life, meaning.

Personally I have always been very interested in the last of these meaning. When I was a teenager I rejected Christianity. I was surrounded at the time by Christians who were not very logical and unable to defend their beliefs on logical grounds. I was a smart guy and I decided I would find a true worldview grounded in science not emotion and unrealistic hope and myths.

I knew immediately, however, that in rejecting Christianity I had ripped up the foundation under my feet and it had to be replaced. I scoured the classics Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hume all in a search for meaning looking to build a new and more rational world view for myself. Eventually I found Bentham and celebrated my discovery of a truly rational philosophy one based on calculations and determination of the greatest good for the greatest number. Satisfied that I had solved the question to my satisfaction I went on my merry way certain I had found the answer.

For the next 15 years I kept Christians at arms length. I knew from experience that their beliefs by and large made them happy and my own views demanded I not purposely disrupt that happiness so I simply avoided the topic preferring to let them live in what I perceived at the time to be a happy but mistaken delusion.

I had rejected religion on the bases of tradition and rejected God via logical inference. The only path forward for me was to embrace and live out some philosophy of life not grounded in God and observe how it played out. In my case that was utilitarianism and the process of living it out took 15 years.

Eventually I realized that utilitarianism failed me as a practical philosophy. Even more ironically I eventually came to the conclusion that I should reject utilitarianism on utilitarian grounds which is about as profound of an invalidation as one can get. That required me to again rebuild my philosophical foundation. This time I was older and wiser and really dug into the question to the best of my ability. The result is what I shared with you earlier in An Argument for God.

I don’t claim that to be some all important insight or even particularly useful for anyone except me but it was my answer to the question. The honest output of my wholehearted and genuine attempt to address the question comprehensively and logically. I came to the conclusion that I was mistaken all those years ago and the happy simpletons who I had held in such contempt were right all along. My arrogant younger self would have been shocked.

I agree with you that we live in a universe that allows us to choose our truth. One can choose to believe that the universe doesn't care, that no one cares, that everything is meaningless universally and we are all going to die and that's it. I like you find that prospect unappealing.

If the universe was like that then our duty would be clear. We would need to fix it. How does one fix an uncaring universe? Simple we start by fixing ourselves. We find meaning and caring within ourselves and then spread that healing and meaning to our neighbors our offspring and eventually throughout the universe. With time effort and sacrifice all things are possible.

P.S. I watched Heaven Sent an episode of Dr. Who on television yesterday. It’s available for free on amazon prime. It was one of the most inspirational things I have ever seen on television. Totally religion free but it really drives home the message that no goal is impossible. I highly recommend it if you have not seen it. It can stand on its own you don’t have to have watched the other episodes in the series.

'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?

Gravity is a law because of the overwhelming experience of it by people. It definitely exists. But if we find that we are all part of a simulation where nothing that seems to be real exists, then the law of gravity might not exist. If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.

The point about ST is that STs can change. So they aren't known to be true simply from their definition.

''So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.''

''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real''

But you said that laws are always true, in fact you used that as an argument to ''prove'' why gravity is real and why evolution is not, simply because there is a law of gravity you implied that, that's what makes it true but now you are saying that a law might be wrong so how do you know gravity is true then?

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. ''

''Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.''

There are in fact many laws that are directly related to evolution and are used to prove it. You are wrong again. Also there are a ton scientific theories that have no laws.

For your peanut brain, A SCIENTIFIC THEORY DOESN'T NEED TO BE A LAW TO BE TRUE.

''it is still not known to be factual or true..'' Your god is not know to be factual or true and yet you still believe  in him.

Why do you think I don't understand this? The part you left out was that no matter how many facts/laws/pieces-of-reality a science theory has, it is still not known to be factual or true... except that it is a theory, of course.

The law of gravity is the observation that gravity is real. The theory of gravity is the observation that we don't know why gravity works in the ways it does, but that we are trying to figure these ways out.

There isn't any law of ETE (evolution theory evolution). This is because ETE is not known to be real. In this case evolution theory is trying to prove that evolution is real by finding some of it. So far none of it has been found that does not fit other things better, and should be called one of those other things rather than "evolution." Why? Because the evolution that we are searching for and talking about is ETE, which hasn't been proven.

We know that what we are observing is gravity. We don't know that what we are observing is ETE.

Why do I say ETE? Because the word "evolution" fits all kinds of things, like how the Model T became the many lines of Ford cars that are out there. If ETE isn't clear enough, then maybe we should start saying "the ETE regarding Darwin's survival of the fittest, or regarding his tree of life" or something similar, so that we are on the same page.

ETE isn't known to exist. Most deep-thinking students and teachers of ETE know this, or at least suspect it. When they suggest or imply that ETE is known to be factual evolution by proof, that's when evolution is a hoax.

Since much of science acts like this, it's time to look at the fact that God exists.

You said: ''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.'' Directly implying that if something is not a law, it means it's not know to be true which is simply false and wrong as shown in my post.

A law and a scientific theory are two different things and  one is not better than the other. A scientific theory can and will use, laws, facts and hypothesis to explain certain phenomena, you simply don't understand this, again, you are proven wrong.

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

And THAT is why atheists hate religion.