{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
8/8/2013 4:50:02 AM
34
Just look at the internet and how Atheists worship every word some famous scientist says without question, WITHOUT EVEN TRULY UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENTIST'S PAPER. And then you turn to some Christian/theist doing the same thing to his Pope/religious text and say he's a moron.
Most Atheists tend to do this and it pisses me the -blam!- off.
[spoiler]Now if you're scientifically literate and can actually understand what the scientists are talking about, GOOD FOR YOU! I just hate it when somebody takes their word for it just like any theist does to their religion and spout "Atheists are smarter than theists hur dur!"[/spoiler]
English
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 8/9/2013 8:35:28 AMI'd love to see proof for your statement that "most atheists do this," because that has not at all been my observation, nor do I think it likely that evidence exists to support such a claim.
-
See the capital "A" in the word Atheist? I specifically used it cause they're the outspoken ones. The atheists are usually more humble about it.
-
Once again, you just aren't making any sense.
-
... Let's just drop it. k? k.
-
see, Richard Dawkins = gramatically incorrect Atheist. You = atheist. Dondi = Pudge
-
Have you ever built a hadron collidor so you could confirm that what scientists say is true? Not saying that scientists lie to us, but technically unless we test these things out first hand for ourselves, we are believing them based on faith.
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 8/9/2013 11:37:36 PMNot at all, thanks to the peer review process. Any scientific finding of any individual scientist or a group of scientists is mercilessly scrutinized and picked apart by other unaffiliated scientists all over the world. Only if the finding makes it through this process does it begin to be accepted as a scientific truth, but even then it is constantly subject to any new evidence that is discovered at any point in the future. This process allows us to have a massive degree of confidence in any findings that continually fail to be proved incorrect by it, which grows stronger as the amount of time the finding survives increases. Faith is in no way a component.
-
Edited by DocSmurf: 8/8/2013 11:00:18 AM> Implying i don't have an above average understanding of String, quantum physics. and Nth dimensional space theories. Am i an expert. no.
-
Edited by Seggi: 8/8/2013 10:59:24 AMMaybe you should read what he said in the spoiler tag. Also: lol.
-
well then apparently i'm not seeing spoiler tags in mobile :/
-
Oh, ok, I'll copy it over for you: Now if you're scientifically literate and can actually understand what the scientists are talking about, GOOD FOR YOU! I just hate it when somebody takes their word for it just like any theist does to their religion and spout "Atheists are smarter than theists hur dur!"
-
Fair enough i suppose.
-
Edited by Seggi: 8/8/2013 10:48:34 AMYou don't have to understand what a scientist is saying to recognise that it's the consensus opinion among scientists in the field. From there, it's perfectly reasonable to think their conclusion's pretty accurate - science has a very good record of, you know, being right. The Pope, on the other hand, does not.
-
But you understand what I'm getting at right? People who don't understand the science and "taking their word for it" are using the same train of thought a Christian would use when he's "taking the Pope's word for it". Except the Atheists turn around and say theists are dumb for doing it, and Atheists aren't. It's just hypocrisy.
-
I understand perfectly what you're saying, and it's not valid for the reason I already outlined.
-
The Pope seems to be quite okay when he stays out of Science. And Science seems to be doing quite well when they stay out of the subject of morality. One is subjective and the other is objective. And most of the time the masses just take the heads' of the Church/Scientific-communities words for it. On THIS ground I feel like my statement is valid. Now if it's a Church vs. Science on the how old the Earth [i]really[/i] is...well, that's a one sided match lol.
-
You didn't actually say anything different.
-
The difference is that we respect the word of scientists because they're experts in the field. If we wanted to, we could recreate the tests to achieve the same results they did. The same cannot be said about religious faith.
-
>If we wanted to, we could recreate the tests to achieve the same results they did Yeah, let me know when we can make our own large hadron collider.
-
[quote]The difference is that we respect the word of scientists because they're experts in the field.[/quote] Not every scientist is an expert in their field.
-
How do you figure? That's the whole point in being a scientist...
-
Wow. Just wow.
-
Great answer... Instead of being condescending, how about you explain your position.
-
Science is a broad and abstract field. By definition, anyone who can use the scientific method or use some system of observation to come to conclusions/gain knowledge is a scientist. Just engaging in the act of science doesn't make you an expert. Just like how scribbling Crayolas on a piece of paper doesn't make you an expert artist. It's just makes you an artist. Sorry if I came off as condescending.
-
I would hardly consider a science enthusiast or amateur scientist an actual scientist. An actual scientist is extremely well-studied in their field.
