…or solipsism…
HUH? I’m sorry, did I hear that question correctly? Are you communicating to the atheists via a computer or are you sending up smoke signals? Rely on science??? Really? Please do tell, what other method can be used to explain the world around us as accurately? Please demonstrate anything at all that can work as well as the scientific method for exploring, evaluating, and explaining all we see. Any method at all,’’
WTF? If you cut a hole in your head, remove a bit of skull and reveal the brain, it is the brain you are seeing. That is how we can do surgeries, repair aneurisms, or remove foreign objects. The image I see in my brain has a direct correlation to the external experience and since this is the case, I am able to use my brain and body to manipulate the world around me. Including someone else’s or even my own brain.
You are attempting to confuse “Absolute Knowledge” with working knowledge. No one needs absolute knowledge of the brain or the world around us to influence it. This is the world we live in, you would be an utter and complete moron to imagine and then act as if it were imperceptible. I doubt you would live 24 hours.
Playing philosophical solipsism does not get you anyplace.
3 Likes
Atheists do not rely on science, heavily or otherwise.
Being an atheist simply means refusing to believe in God, or gods, without evidence. There is no need to bring science into it at all. Once that point is established, many atheists, but by no means all, prefer to use science to understand the natural world, rather than the assertions of holy books which are generally nonsense on such issues.
As a counterpoint, I would ask, why do so many religious apologists try to use science to prove God? The answer, of course, is that they can no longer rely upon authority. The days of religions relying upon ignorant people simply believing the lies and unsubstantiated assertions spread from the pulpit are, thankfully, behind us in most of the world. Only in parts of the US and in Islamic states are people still hoodwinked in this fashion.
The truth is, religious apologists are desperate. Their power has largely been eroded and they must seek to convince rather than simply proclaim. Unfortunately, for them but not for the rest of us, they fail miserably each and every time.
Religious claims about creation and the existence of any god, let alone one who loves us and cares what we do and think, cannot be proven. That is why it is called faith; belief without evidence.
Atheists, by comparison, don’t need science because we are not trying to prove anything. That is the responsibility of believers who make extravagant claims. It is a responsibility they never fulfill.
5 Likes
The human brain is protected by a hard shell and does not interact directly with the outside world. For input it has the senses like the eyes and ears. For output we have speech, other methods of communication, and our muscles to move our body.
This is a viable model for animal survival, to protect the absolutely critical part (the brain) and use other expendable organs to interact with the outside world. I state that it is viable because it has produced many species that follow this model and are very successful in survival and procreation. It works.
I trust my senses because they have always delivered consistent and reliable information.
I trust the scientific method because it has proven to be the most reliable and effective tool in discovering the truth. If there was something better I would switch to that method.
@The_matrix I have laid out simple facts. Can we all agree that our brains do not interact directly with the outside world? If so, then what is your point in this thread?
1 Like
Quite the opposite. The detachment of the brain from direct inputs does not remove it from reality. The feedback the brain experiences and the fact that this feedback influences future actions proves this method works very well. It has kept me alive for 70 years.
If that was not true, I would have walked in front of a bus decades ago. The fact that my brain inputs and offers back viable solutions for my existence and pleasure proves (since I have survived many decades) that this system works. It does not fail. Just the opposite, it succeeds. Because billions of species use that very model.
In fact, look down at your computer and/or cell phone. It is constructed in a very similar manner to how our bodies work. There are inputs (keyboard, mouse, internet), outputs (monitor display, output to internet, printer, etc.) and a central processor deep within the structure, the most protected part of the entity.
You are using such a device.
That is such a controversial statement. I was kind of hoping they would go further with it, or give some example.
Hmmm, our eyes focus light on our retinas, our optic nerves send messages to our brains, and our brains interpret these.
Say what now? What scientific logic?
1 Like
That was the part that captured my attention (and I was disappointed there was nothing else presented on it). This is a very strange metric.
1 Like
Explenation (sic), oh ffs, this is painful.
Nope, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, beyond that an atheist can believe pixies created everything.
Science is simply a method for gathering and testing data, to study and explain the natural physical world and universe, its efficacy is demonstrable and measurable.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
If you’re going to posit a deity as an explanation for anything, you’ll need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for that deity first. Or else I’ve no reason to believe your explanations, which will be naught but unevidenced assumption.
A rather idiotic and sweeping generalisation about atheists, from a theist, well I’m shocked, anyone else?
I can Google the definition of science, and the simplest broadest definition shows a far better grasp of what it does than your opening post, which quite frankly is an absurd disjointed string of unevidenced assumptions.
Do you even know what peer review is, or falsifiability? These are essential and minimal requirements for validating scientific ideas.
And I’m telling you, it’s not.
My atheism doesn’t “rely on science”, that’s a common misconception theists often hold, and what you stated is not a fact.
I’ll bet anything you like, that you can’t even define the word fact without looking up its definition.
The irony of you calling cog an idiot is hilarious. Nothing you’ve claimed approaches scientific rigour, and claiming science is a religion only shows definitively that you don’t understand what either term means.
I’m now leaning towards the inevitable conclusion you’re trolling.
No claim can satisfy the scientific method without peer review, you’re embarrassing yourself.
If it’s your brain then I’m not yet convinced it exists and is fully functioning.
The needle just hit 60% on the troll meter.
Oh I think we’re all in agreement your claims are crap, but you’re embarrassing yourself if you think any of it represents a scientific model.
Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s the lack of one particular belief. If you can’t even get a simple word definition right, then debate is going to be way out of your reach, as indeed it clearly is.
Caught is past participle of catch, there’s no such word as catched (sic).
Oh dear…
I can think of one organ of yours that is much much slower.
I don’t think we can measure embarrassment of anything, after that display of truly woeful grammar.
Priceless, science only deals with reality, and you’re using the knowledge it’s attained everytime you offer one of your asinine diatribes.
1 Like
Indeed.
The farce is strong with this one, so confident in and proud of his appalling ignorance…
I guess I need to remind myself that his ilk are deeply anti science, anti reason and anti intellectual.
I’ve never quite understood why they try to use science and/or reason to try to prove a case when it’s obvious they lack the most basic understanding of each term.
They apply the very same technique in reading their bible. They pick and choose what is convenient for them or makes them feel good. Everything else that is in any conflict is rejected as false or “just a parable”.
How many times have you run across the “I will use science (or the bible) to prove something, and if there is anything within science (or the bible) that is in conflict with my proposition, I will reject it”?
2 Likes
That has been the position of the catholic church as long as since the notion of science has existed.
The church has always attacked any and all science which contradicts dogma. Galileo’s heliocentric solar system is the first case I think of, but there were many, many more.
It’s worth taking a look at the tragic case (they burned him) of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
I read a pretty good biography a few years ago
" Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno’s pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[4] nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul and reincarnation. The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome’s Campo de’ Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious views.[5][6][7][8][9] However some recent research[10] suggests that main reason for Bruno’s death indeed was his cosmological views. Bruno’s case is still considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the emerging sciences.[11][12]"
And also exhibit contempt for those methods. The apologist’s innate ability to ignore irony, when they attack methods like science, and logic, even while simultaneously (but falsely) citing those methods as validating their superstitious wares, is impressive in it’s own way I suppose.
Just like @The_matrix questioning anyone’s intellect, with words like explenation (sic) in their post.
@The_matrix’s inability to spell check, is almost as profoundly stupid, as his inability to consult a dictionary before making a complete cunt of himself.
Sometimes one is confronted with willful ignorance that is so jaw dropping, you find yourself wondering if they’re deliberately trying to embarrass themselves, sort of the internet equivalent of self flagellation.
It’s scary he thinks he’s spell checked his posts, though of course perfect spelling and grammar wouldn’t render his claims any less idiotic.
1 Like
" Why do atheïsts put there trust in the scientific model for reality when it seems to be retarded from the get go."
Well, let me just jump directly at this specific point…
I’m able to reply, because science works, leave your keyboard alone and pray for God to respond…
I’m going to have a vaccine to protect from covid, because science works, look at what happened in the past when vaccines weren’t used for pandemics/plagues etc… also, try praying it away.
Evolution is empirical and demomstrable, religion is not.
Science knows what it knows and knows what it doesn’t know yet! In religion, theists will not do likewise, but will make any old bollocks like, “oh, god did it!”
Science has proven the shape of the earth, what surrounds our planet, where we are in the solar system and within the milkyway.
Science has allowed to travel into space, take photos of our own planet.
Science is responsible for every forward step in humanities existence.
Religion is simply the utterances of mentally defective skidmarks that don’t know their arse from their elbows.
That are happy with the explanation “but in meh’ Holy book…” to answer key questions.
Sceince gets shit done.
3 Likes
In point of fact, the thread author couldn’t have posted his particularly stupid question were it not for science…
So a double edged sword to be sure…
@Nogba I fully agree, one can not use reason to believe in a god.
That is why I am an atheist. I need a rational and well supported reason.
What methods do you use for your theist beliefs?
Isaac Newton wasn’t a christian…
