Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 209.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on February 11, 2016, 04:09:52 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 01:04:10 AM

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.

Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses

What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...

You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...

Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...

Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion

When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!

If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit

Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.

Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.

Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.

There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.

You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 01:04:10 AM

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.

Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses

What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...

You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...

Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...

Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion

When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!

If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 05:15:04 PM

One of the requirements for a theory to become law is that nothing in the theory can be proven false. Another is that everything in the theory must be proven true.

Most of the big cosmology theories will never be able to be proven to be true. For example, even if Big Bang Theory advance to the stage that there weren't any holes in it, Big Bang could never be proven as true until a time viewer was invented so that we could actually see what happened back then.

The reason for this is, there might be several different forms of Big Bang Theory. Which one is right? Are there more than one that are right at the same time, depending on the "angle" you might be observing the Big Bang.

Also, depending on other theories that exist, there might be some other theory that was not Big Bang at all, like the theory that suggests that everything existed indefinitely into the past, without a Big Bang at all. If it had no holes at the same time that Big Bang Theory had no holes, which one is the correct one?

We won't know until we go there one way or another.

Well what you're saying has no sense.

Quantum physics is the most proven theory in the world. Nothing is more proven that that, entropy is not proven if quantum physics is not.

It has been proven by experiments countless amount of time with the best precision in the world. If for you that's not enough then NOTHING has EVER been proven. There is no scientific law, none at all. Even cause and consequences is not proven without quantum physics!

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on February 10, 2016, 07:24:40 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 06:38:51 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 10, 2016, 06:29:15 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 05:25:57 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 10, 2016, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 09:33:55 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 10, 2016, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 08:46:13 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 10, 2016, 01:12:27 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 12:30:15 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on February 09, 2016, 11:37:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 09, 2016, 11:06:19 PM

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another.

Gravitation is an observed natural phenomenon...

The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates...

Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity...

And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence...

Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so"

Are you arguing from a position of authority?

Unlike you, I am arguing the position of Consensus Reality

Science operates by consensus... There is no such thing as an objective reality... Reality is subjective, and we come to a consensus on each aspect of it...

Scientists state their claim and evidence thereof, while other scientists "peer review" their evidence, trying to find any problems with the hypothesis, data collected, methods utilized, or conclusion drawn

This is a fundamental difference between science and religion

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.

eon89

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 292

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

And now I'm curious about what he'll answer to this one. It should be something either brilliant or that God is all-powerful and that's it.