Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 239. (Read 901367 times)

What do you mean - there are a lot of things in science that haven't been proven, but logic says that they are real: cold fusion, black
holes. These are theories. But just because science hasn't gained up with the reality it doesn't mean they are nor real.

Well I would have loved to hear your definition...

You see the problem is Oxfor definition is: "A thing that is known or proved to be true"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/fr/definition/anglais/fact

So proved by what? A theory? But then what proves the theory?

My point is that there is NOTHING in science that can be considered as a "fact". They are only deduction of theories, theories being based on assumption.

So there is no "science theory" and "science fact". Only science. And that's what it taught in schools.

Giving your ability to navigate Bitcointalk, I should think that you can look it up in an online dictionary or encyclopedia. Can't you?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

That's why I wanted to go deeper, cause I was more or less sure you were confusing things 

What's a fact?

Schools might formally teach them as theories, but they teach them in such a way that people think that they are fact... at least much of the time.

The media often teaches the general public that theories are fact.

The NASA example that I gave in a previous post, does not see NASA reproving the NASA guy who expressed theory to be fact directly, when there is probably no way anyone will ever know that the theory talked about is fact or fiction.

Poor Steven Hawking. He makes up a theory. The media sways everyone into thinking that it is fact. Then even Hawking gets confused and starts believing it is fact.


There is no difference between a fact and a pure fact.

If a theory is not a fact, it cannot be close to being a fact, no matter how hard one tries to make it a fact. It will always be fiction.



Quantum is probability. Quantum this or that will always need something else to prove whether or not it is fact. Quantum is simply a "trick" that scientists use to help them clarify ideas.

Well then... We already teach them as theories. I don't see why you're saying we should teach them this way, it's already the case then no?

And by the way, I see what you mean but they're reaaaaaaaaaaaaally closed to being pure facts. Most of these theories (especially quantum ones) are the closest as it's possible to "fact" for theories.

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Well that's what you said:


Or maybe you're talking about something else but that's not clear. You're talking about "science theory which is not the truth". What are you talking about?

Are you asking me? Why do you bring this up like this? Just full of questions aren't you?

Don't you think we should let teachers teach science in school? Personally I think that we should instruct teachers to teach science in the schools. What do you think?

Soooooooooooooo... Why shouldn't we let teachers tech science in school?

It is a fact that science theory works well as science theory. If it didn't work well as science theory, it would be removed from the designation as theory. Much of science theory has been so removed.

   

Well, all our science works extremely well. Which means it's all a reliable fact?

You'll know it when it works... or when you have so much pain or pleasure that you can't stand it.

So where is the limit between fact and theory? What do you call a true and reliable fact, and a theory?

You are particularly dumb today... but it might be usual for you.   

Neither fact nor theory are religion, be they science or anything else. Religion is when somebody takes something fictional or potentially fictional, and treats it as though it were truth.

Science theory might not be fictional; but it might be. We don't know. That's why we call it theory. When people treat science theory as fact, they are making a religion for themselves. They are increasing cosmological theory as religion in light of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA.

How shameless you are. I can show you so easily the stupidity of your thinking. But you don't even get embarrassed. You simply go on to the next stupid, unthinking thing you have to blabber about.

Ok problem is that I can't let you alone, I still have to check your stupid comments otherwise I feel sick thinking that you're allowed to talk.

So science is another religion then? And if science is wrong how did we make computers? The internet? How the fuck are we communicating then?

My desire exactly. Quit forcing kids in school, and adults in college, to learn the science theory religion as truth, just so they can get an education to get a job.

Religion is like a dick. It's fine to have one, but don't show it publicly and don't shove it in our children throats