Login or register
Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
12 comments displayed.
#633 - anon
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
Riddle me this batman:
Atheists argue with theists because they believe in things without proof. But what proof do you have that Africa exists, or that your birthday is really your birthday, or that the world behind ceases to exist until you come into contact with it? Theists believe old men with long beards are always right, we believe old men with white coats are always right. Either way, all humanity knows nothing, about anything. Get over it.
#647 to #633 - therealmethlab
Reply +1
(07/01/2012) [-]
If you guys didn't get this, he's saying "Since 14 and 312 are both numbers, they're equal"....
#636 to #633 - hybridboxll [OP]
Comment deleted by hybridboxll [-]
#635 to #633 - hybridboxll [OP]
Reply +1
(06/29/2012) [-]
Conservation of matter? Things don't cease to exist the moment you're not looking at them.

Let's say a meteor strikes the Earth and throws a ******** of debris into the atmosphere. Such a big amount that we can't see the Sun; everything is total darkness. No living thing that we know of is watching the Sun, but that doesn't mean planets will just fling out of their orbits because the Sun isn't there anymore.

The Sun is there and will still be there whether there's someone to observe it.
#634 to #633 - satirev
Reply 0
(06/29/2012) [-]
Your saying that there is no way to prove that what we sense is real, and that we can't prove that we know anything. But humanity still claims that it does becuase everyting comes down to faith that there is something constant like a common course of nature to study.

Science uses as much faith and logic as religion.
#637 to #634 - hybridboxll [OP]
Reply 0
(06/29/2012) [-]
Science does not use faith.

Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
Give me examples of science (NOT pseudo-science) that uses faith, now that you know what it actually means.
#638 to #637 - satirev
Reply -1
(06/29/2012) [-]
how can we trust our eyes are really seeing these laws of nature or the numbers on a dial? And the only way to truly prove theories such as the big bang and evolution is by traviling in time which is of course imposible, so at a point after all the evedince you take it on faith. St. Augustine said that faith and reason bulster eachother coopertivly to come to an understanding of nature, and I agree.
#639 to #638 - hybridboxll [OP]
Reply 0
(06/29/2012) [-]
Theories are based on evidence, not faith.
#641 to #639 - satirev
Reply -1
(06/29/2012) [-]
By definition theories are unprovable, so at a certain point the kind of are, and to claim that there is no God requires a leap of faith.
#643 to #641 - hybridboxll [OP]
Reply 0
(06/30/2012) [-]
You have never opened a dictionary, have you?
Theory: "The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"

If we go one level further:
Scientific Theory: "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"

If you have NO IDEA what you're talking about I'll politely ask you not to reply again.
#645 to #643 - satirev
Reply -1
(06/30/2012) [-]
I don't know were you got those definitions, but here some I found online.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact

you never hear of the theory of gravity or the big bang law

Look I'm not disagreeing with you that some theories are very well thought out and can very well be the truth; it's that they are theories and subject to being not completly true or false.

Take for example Galileo's theory on planetary motion, it seemed correct but he said the planets move in circular(a reason why he couldn't prove it to the church concil and adopded by the church) rather than the now proven eliptical paterns. In a few years this might happen to some theories we hold now.

Just take it as an intellectual exercise to hold theories as what they are: possiblities.

and you shouldn't end a post on asking someone to not reply, makes you look dense.
#646 to #645 - hybridboxll [OP]
Reply +1
(06/30/2012) [-]
Saying that science uses faith makes you sound even more dense. Just saying.

These are my sources for the definitions:
Advancing Science, Serving Community - [url deleted]
The National Academies Press - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

(This underlining thing is awesome)

The problem is; some theories shouldn't be called theories. They should be called hypothesis. THAT is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.

[I have no idea how any of this is coming off; I'm really drunk. Sorry if it's too aggressive. I'm trying my best to keep it neutral.]

Galileo had no true evidence or experiments. His' shouldn't have been called a theory. It's a really old problem that has carried on towards our present day and time. It's a ghost that has haunted science for decades. Theories are really, really close to being laws.

I agree; they are not absolute, but they can describe and predict stuff well enough.

I'm off. Good night :)