• 1 in 5 Americans Has No Religion
    113 replies, posted
but the scientific method doesn't always work so even if something is established as scientific fact it can be proven false in the future. There are many cases in history where science establishes a "fact" that is later discovered to be incorrect. [url]http://www.icr.org/article/exploring-limitations-scientific-method/[/url] "Conclusion In summary, science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own biases and personal preferences to shortcircuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process."
[QUOTE=geel9;37976190]My hope is that that number naturally becomes 5 out of 5. I'd never try to take someone's religion away and I don't care if someone is religious, but I believe the world would be better if people simply weren't religious.[/QUOTE] War, intolerance, and oppression are a basic of human nature. The world won't simply become perfect thanks to religion dying out, and in fact, it may get worse with the loss of certain morals exclusive to certain religions.
[QUOTE=Naaz;37977358]I'm a Jedi Knight dammit[/QUOTE]My parents actually entered that under "religion" in the 2010 census.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37977555]Fuck this, I'm out.[/QUOTE] You do remember that nothing is "proven" in science. They're are only theories, disproved theories, and established facts.
in example, at one time it was an "established fact" that the world was flat, which we now know it isn't, or that the sun revolved around the earth. Facts that are still accepted today like "a minute lasts just as long no matter where you are" have already been disproven as well.
Religious people don't bother me as long as they don't preach to me about their religion. Sometimes they can be nicer people because of their religious high, why should I complain? As long as they keep to their shit I'll keep to mine.
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37977758]in example, at one time it was an "established fact" that the world was flat, which we now know it isn't, or that the sun revolved around the earth. Facts that are still accepted today like "a minute lasts just as long no matter where you are" have already been disproven as well.[/QUOTE] The "established fact" that the world was flat was already pretty much disproven 500 years BCE. The ancient Greeks figured it out, and even calculated a fairly accurate circumference for the Earth. Even during the Middle Ages, it was known, and there were globes made before Columbus that had the Earth as a complete sphere (just missing the Americas). The Chinese, however, held onto the flat Earth belief for a very long time (until the 17th century). The sun revolving around the Earth was also predicted early on, but it didn't catch on.
And? It was still, at one point in time, a fact, and obviously that was a very elementary example. Are the "facts" that time is not linear and that parallel lines can intersect too difficult to tackle, or did you just miss the point? [editline]10th October 2012[/editline] in your own post you say that the chinese [i]believed[/i] that the world was flat, something thing firmly [i]believed[/i] to be a fact at the time. I don't know what you're trying to prove here.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;37974161]To quote Flight of the Phoenix:[/QUOTE] To be honest - that's a mostly US view which is more of a result of a patchwork of religions you folks have.
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37979027]And? It was still, at one point in time, a fact, and obviously that was a very elementary example. Are the "facts" that time is not linear and that parallel lines can intersect too difficult to tackle, or did you just miss the point? [editline]10th October 2012[/editline] in your own post you say that the chinese [i]believed[/i] that the world was flat, something thing firmly [i]believed[/i] to be a fact at the time. I don't know what you're trying to prove here.[/QUOTE] First off, parallel lines cannot intersect in a Euclidean space. That's the very definition of both those concepts, and it's a tautology. Non-Eucidian geometry is not necessarily held to that definition. The thing with science is that it has specific definitions of fact and theory that change everything here. Geocentrism and the flat Earth were never scientific facts. They were never verifiable, as any experiment or additional observation would falsify them. In other words, they were nothing more than false beliefs.
lol i can hear all the atheists rubbing their hands and going yess yesss
I believe in Science, time and Karma, though I just carry the tag Atheist when I'm asked what I believe in.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;37979300]First off, parallel lines cannot intersect in a Euclidean space. That's the very definition of both those concepts, and it's a tautology. Non-Eucidian geometry is not necessarily held to that definition. The thing with science is that it has specific definitions of fact and theory that change everything here. Geocentrism and the flat Earth were never scientific facts. They were never verifiable, as any experiment or additional observation would falsify them. In other words, they were nothing more than false beliefs.[/QUOTE] they can intersect in relative space, flat earth was accepted by the scientific community at the time, as was universal gravitation and various newtonian mechanics what we know as facts are just as well accepted by our current scientific community as they have been "proven" through the scientific method, and though the scientific method has certainly improved on past methods, it cannot be accepted as being infallible. Geocentrism was "in fact" in its time "scientific fact" as there were no methods by which to prove them false at the time. You can say "any experiment... ...would falsify them" but if you do not have the methods by which you could do just that, it is accepted as fact. Who is to say that we will not in time create technologies that will allow us to examine more once unobservable phenomena that disproves previous accepted "facts," as you could say the discovering of quantum physics has general relativity (or in this case made inconsistent/challenged)
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37979682]they can intersect in relative space, flat earth was accepted by the scientific community at the time, as was universal gravitation and various newtonian mechanics[/QUOTE] What are you talking about when you mention "relative space"? If it's non-Euclidean, then Euclid's axioms (and the postulate that defines parallel lines) do not apply, unless they are explicitly stated to. If it's Euclidian, then parallel lines still cannot intersect ever, since that's kinda their thing. [QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37979682] what we know as facts are just as well accepted by our current scientific community as they have been "proven" through the scientific method, and though the scientific method has certainly improved on past methods, it cannot be accepted as being infallible. Geocentrism was "in fact" in its time "scientific fact" as there were no methods by which to prove them false at the time. You can say "any experiment... ...would falsify them" but if you do not have the methods by which you could do just that, it is accepted as fact. Who is to say that we will not in time create technologies that will allow us to examine more once unobservable phenomena that disproves previous accepted "facts," as you could say the discovering of quantum physics has general relativity (or in this case made inconsistent/challenged)[/QUOTE] You're still missing out on a big part of the basic concept of what a scientific theory is. It's a set of falsifiable claims, and if they're proven wrong, they're replaced, and science marches on with a newer, more precise theory to work from. Some claims in the past have been falsified, but, to use your example, quantum physics has not made all of relativity suddenly become obsolete. Certain parts of relativity had to change, sure, but at large it's still around.
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37979682]they can intersect in relative space, flat earth was accepted by the scientific community at the time, as was universal gravitation and various newtonian mechanics what we know as facts are just as well accepted by our current scientific community as they have been "proven" through the scientific method, and though the scientific method has certainly improved on past methods, it cannot be accepted as being infallible. Geocentrism was "in fact" in its time "scientific fact" as there were no methods by which to prove them false at the time. You can say "any experiment... ...would falsify them" but if you do not have the methods by which you could do just that, it is accepted as fact. Who is to say that we will not in time create technologies that will allow us to examine more once unobservable phenomena that disproves previous accepted "facts," as you could say the discovering of quantum physics has general relativity (or in this case made inconsistent/challenged)[/QUOTE] No one has claimed that it is infallible, simply that compared to religious faith as a basis for believing something to be true, it is of far greater value by virtue of its method. You have a better justification for 'believing' something based on observable, testable, and verifiable phenomena than you do for believing something purely out of your own conviction.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;37979857]What are you talking about when you mention "relative space"? If it's non-Euclidean, then Euclid's axioms (and the postulate that defines parallel lines) do not apply, unless they are explicitly stated to. If it's Euclidian, then parallel lines still cannot intersect ever, since that's kinda their thing. You're still missing out on a big part of the basic concept of what a scientific theory is. It's a set of falsifiable claims, and if they're proven wrong, they're replaced, and science marches on with a newer, more precise theory to work from. Some claims in the past have been falsified, but, to use your example, quantum physics has not made all of relativity suddenly become obsolete. Certain parts of relativity had to change, sure, but at large it's still around.[/QUOTE] well I just said it's relative space and thus not euclidian, clearly. That's exactly what I'm saying lol. Quantum physics have not made relativity obsolete, but it has shown that parts of it which were once accepted as fact are not correct (or compatible at the very least!). So how can you say any part of it is fact when ultimately this process could theoretically eliminate every part of these theories (or "facts"). I'm not refuting that scientific method is the best we've got and is so to speak the closest thing we can come to "fact," but in the end it is no more likely to be a fact (in the grand scheme of things) than any lofty belief. My point in all of this that you believe this set of things to be true, but when looking at the big picture, every scientific theory could be incorrect. Your choice to believe that they are fact despite this is a personal decision in the same way that one chooses to believe in a god. It is really as simple as that. As nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations, ie beliefs. [editline]10th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;37979879]No one has claimed that it is infallible, simply that compared to religious faith as a basis for believing something to be true, it is of far greater value by virtue of its method. You have a better justification for 'believing' something based on observable, testable, and verifiable phenomena than you do for believing something purely out of your own conviction.[/QUOTE] There is still only a certain extent to which something can be verifiable. Thus you have to fill that gap with your own personal belief in the methods by which phenomena was "verified." It's a belief system in the same way religion is. You can certainly say that stories told in the bible can be to a great extent proven false, but there is still a fair chance all in all that we are simply living in a computer simulation, etc. The possibilities are endless. [editline]10th October 2012[/editline] I'm only responding to people above saying "gravity isn't a belief" when that is the furthest thing from the truth [editline]10th October 2012[/editline] Well, it is a theory, not a belief, but people believe the theory to be the correct explanation of the phenomena, thus making it a part of a set of beliefs etc blah blah blah
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37980022]well I just said it's relative space and thus not euclidian, clearly.[/QUOTE] Then why bring it up? [QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37980022]That's exactly what I'm saying lol. Quantum physics have not made relativity obsolete, but it has shown that parts of it which were once accepted as fact are not correct (or compatible at the very least!). So how can you say any part of it is fact when ultimately this process could theoretically eliminate every part of these theories (or "facts"). I'm not refuting that scientific method is the best we've got and is so to speak the closest thing we can come to "fact," but in the end it is no more likely to be a fact (in the grand scheme of things) than any lofty belief. My point in all of this that you believe this set of things to be true, but when looking at the big picture, every scientific theory could be incorrect. Your choice to believe that they are fact despite this is a personal decision in the same way that one chooses to believe in a god. It is really as simple as that. As nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations, ie beliefs.[/QUOTE] A belief is "acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof." For something to become scientific theory, it needs verifiable evidence, which serves as proof.
You're the one that brought up euclidian space? There is no true positive knowledge or absolute proof for anything in our world as a whole. A theory is nothing more than an alleged body of facts as anything else is, they both have "evidence" which you could certainly say serves as proof but outside of the theory there is no greater proof making it a true irrefutable fact, or in this case "positive knowledge." In short you "believe in facts (facts here being what is commonly accepted as fact, which is not necessarily a fact by its actual definition)." [editline]10th October 2012[/editline] Or, in other words, regardless of how much empirical proof you have amounted, a belief is a belief, as even empirical evidence can be distorted or flat out wrong. You could certainly argue one belief is more logical and tangible, but it is no more less a belief because of that.
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37980314]You're the one that brought up euclidian space?[/QUOTE] You pretty much brought it up. [QUOTE=RoadOfGirl (emphasis mine)] Are the "facts" that time is not linear and [b]that parallel lines can intersect[/b] too difficult to tackle, or did you just miss the point?[/QUOTE] I was assuming, by your tone and that you were comparing it to theories that have been disproven (along with something that isn't even a theory), that you think parallel lines intersect. Then I point out that parallel lines only have meaning in Euclidian space, then you bring up a non-Euclidean space, and call it a rebuttal, I guess. [QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;37980314]There is no true positive knowledge or absolute proof for anything in our world as a whole. A theory is nothing more than an alleged body of facts as anything else is, they both have "evidence" which you could certainly say serves as proof but outside of the theory there is no greater proof making it a true irrefutable fact, or in this case "positive knowledge." In short you "believe in facts (facts here being what is commonly accepted as fact, which is not necessarily a fact by its actual definition)."[/QUOTE] Religion doesn't have verifiable evidence behind it. That's why it's faith and not science. Proof denies faith. And again, a scientific theory is not as simple as an "alleged body of facts". It's a set of falsifiable claims established through verifiable means, which provide an explanation for a phenomenon in observations. There's more to it than putting a bunch of statements together and slapping "fact" on the side.
goddarn obongo is ruining americuh by letting these blasphemists run around. everyone's so adamant about arguing about religion here that they should just find a place to do it irl so they could really affect people's opinions. go challenge your religious aunt or something, for internet arguments only make people entrench further into their own opinion.
This is the exact opposite of how it is here in the Netherlands.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;37980458]You pretty much brought it up. I was assuming, by your tone and that you were comparing it to theories that have been disproven (along with something that isn't even a theory), that you think parallel lines intersect. Then I point out that parallel lines only have meaning in Euclidian space, then you bring up a non-Euclidean space, and call it a rebuttal, I guess. Religion doesn't have verifiable evidence behind it. That's why it's faith and not science. Proof denies faith. And again, a scientific theory is not as simple as an "alleged body of facts". It's a set of falsifiable claims established through verifiable means, which provide an explanation for a phenomenon in observations. There's more to it than putting a bunch of statements together and slapping "fact" on the side.[/QUOTE] i was referring to non-euclidean space in the first place... You are very stubborn about all of this. I'm not saying anything that you are implying that I am. All I am saying is that ultimately you have a set of beliefs the same way a religious person does, the basis and decisions behind those beliefs obviously being the big difference. You're mistaking faith and belief for being the same thing.
[QUOTE=Overwatch 7;37974953]Religion is not necessarily a bad thing unless it outright advocates violence or actions of that nature. I don't believe that its primary purpose is to cause mayhem and destruction wherever its followers may reside. It's there to answer questions, give us some structure to place our world in. It's just that people can be idiots and start doing idiotic things in the name of their beliefs. In other words, It's not religions that kill people. It's idiots that kill people. That's not to say that some religions don't have their flaws. Take the Hindu caste system for instance with the belief in a 'non-existent' untouchable class. That's just awful and is not beneficial for the progression of humanity in any way. Fortunately, with time systems like these begin to erode and crumble when people realize just how harmful it is.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Religion is just one more thing on the list of reasons why we kill each other. Eliminating it doesn't change much; people will find plenty of other things to be fanatical and extremist about. As a "spiritualist" I follow a Christian mindset and the Bible, however I keep it to myself. It's personal. Does it matter if I'm right or wrong? Absolutely not, because if I'm wrong, I won't really be thinking about it much in the end. If only the rest of the religious could see it in that light... However, the problem lies in extremism, not necessarily religion. While religion does indeed have many flaws, I think the same flaws can be found in some political ideologies, or lifestyles. The issue lies in the control-freaks who use something as a medium to gain control of an almost cultist natue over people, along with those gullible to blindly accept what others say as truth without thinking for themselves. I follow my beliefs because I choose to, however I would never let them become anything more than personal conviction. Sure, I might share it with close friends who share closely similar beliefs, but it's never more than conversation or advice.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37970417]1 in 5 Americans has no religion. 1 in 3 under the age of 30 have no religious affiliation.[/QUOTE] CNN is the communist news. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Pointless bump" - Megafan))[/highlight]
In other words: 1 in 5 Americans are starting to use their common sense.
With no fear of heaven and hell, imagine what sick things people would do. Don't be so happy about atheism, it's as bad as religion. Both shoving down their ideals through your throat.
I'm happy without religion. Is that so bad?
Nope dude. It's fine. Just don't limit challenging authority to the pretend variety of authority ;) I'd much rather be happy because of something real and tangible than because I'd convinced myself to adopt a fairytale world view.
[QUOTE=MoarFunz;38882057]With no fear of heaven and hell, imagine what sick things people would do. Don't be so happy about atheism, it's as bad as religion. Both shoving down their ideals through your throat.[/QUOTE] 1) People can have morals without religion and religious people can do as many sick things as atheists. 2) The majority of religious people aren't shoving their beliefs down your throat. The same goes for atheists. (but I hope you were just trolling)
There is nothing wrong with having a religion. Just don't force beliefs on others.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.