Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[lostone]

You deliberately misconstrue and twist what people are telling you.

Nah--I just point out how stupid it is.

We are saying that ten religionists in the same place at the same time will give you ten different interpretations of identical facts.

And where are the reasons and evidence you base this faith on? Let's take ten Christians from various sects and ask them some questions and guess their answers:

1. How many Gods exist? All ten answer one.
2. Did God create the world? All ten answer yes.
3. Is Jesus the Son of God? All ten answer yes.
4. What book or set of books reveals the story of God, His prophecies, and His salvation through Christ? All ten answer that the Bible is.
5. Will Christ return to judge all people and put an end to sin? All ten answer yes.
6. Do those who are saved through Christ live eternally? All ten answer yes.
7. Where was Jesus born? All ten answer that He was born in Bethlehem.

Do you disagree that ten Christians would answer these questions the way I suppose they did?

But you know that. One suspects you are being deliberately obtuse. Your feeble examples all fall flat.

Let me say what I know, please.

ask them is abortion is a sin and see how many answers you get. ask them is being LGBT is a sin and how many answers will you get? Some of them might say he was born in Nazareth. Some might say there are three Gods. Some might say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Some might say the Book of Mormon extends the Bible.

 

[bilby]

What book or set of books reveals the story of God, His prophecies, and His salvation through Christ? All ten answer that the Bible is.

Despite your having set up a loaded arena into which to enact your demonstration, by selecting one religion, and then asking only questions you expect that religion's sects to agree on answers to (which commonalities, of course, are what makes those sects a part of Christianity, and not another religion), you have still failed abysmally with this particular question.

What book or set of books reveals the story of God, His prophecies, and His salvation through Christ? All ten answer that the Bible is - but each choses a different one of the approximately one hundred currently extant English versions of the Bible, or perhaps choses a non-English version as their preferred "inerrant and unchangeable" word of god.

In addition to the hundred or so extant English bible versions used today by various Christian sects, there have been around four hundred versions just in English alone that have fallen out of use over time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Uh--the time of sunrise depends on your location. You know--the earth is a big ball that turns on its axis, and the light from the sun starts to shine on the earth at different times.

Your deliberate obtuseness is quite telling, and I’m sure no one here needs lectures by you on the earth being a ”big ball.”

I'm not so sure based on their being unable to distinguish between weak evidence and no evidence.

I’m sure you know perfectly well that James Brown was referring to LOCAL sunrise.

But astronomers don't normally predict the times of "local" sunrises--astronomers work on scales larger than the surface of the earth, of course. Predicting sunrise is the work of meteorologists. Brown evidently doesn't know the difference between the two. But whoever predicts the time of sunrise, she or he knows well that there is no one answer unless the locality is specified. Brown forgot that too.

If one wishes to know multiple local sunrises, one simply does the math and adjusts the times accordingly.

Tell Brown that just to make sure.

You must know what he meant. Wny do you play this little game? Do you think it’s doing you any good?

I really don't need to cite belief in one sunrise time to point out how dumb the argumentation here has been. Long before Brown's post, their sophistry was already obvious.

 

[bilby]

I really don't need to cite belief in one sunrise time to point out how dumb the argumentation here has been. Long before Brown's post, their sophistry was already obvious.

Indeed. I would go so far as to say that dumb argumentation was pretty obvious from the very first post in this entire thread, and that it's since been supported by little other than sophistry.

 

[pood]

You deliberately misconstrue and twist what people are telling you.

Nah--I just point out how stupid it is.

We are saying that ten religionists in the same place at the same time will give you ten different interpretations of identical facts.

And where are the reasons and evidence you base this faith on? Let's take ten Christians from various sects and ask them some questions and guess their answers:

1. How many Gods exist? All ten answer one.
2. Did God create the world? All ten answer yes.
3. Is Jesus the Son of God? All ten answer yes.
4. What book or set of books reveals the story of God, His prophecies, and His salvation through Christ? All ten answer that the Bible is.
5. Will Christ return to judge all people and put an end to sin? All ten answer yes.
6. Do those who are saved through Christ live eternally? All ten answer yes.
7. Where was Jesus born? All ten answer that He was born in Bethlehem.

Do you disagree that ten Christians would answer these questions the way I suppose they did?

In addition to the fact that there are minor and major disagreements among Christians on doctrine, you somehow omit to mention that there are an estimated 4,000 to 10,000 different religions on earth, depending on how one defines “religion.”
How would Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. etc. etc. answer those questions? Quite differently. Is there a comparable situation for scientists? Is there a ”religion” of science that has ”faith” in E=MC2, as opposed to competing scientific “faiths” that reject it for different formulas of their own?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

My view on the forum has been religious are no more or less crazy, stupid, illogical, and gullible than any other individuals or groups.

Soldier, please don't start debating science. You will embarrass yourself.

Within science quantitatively energy is defined in Sysrtems International the international standard for units of measure.

As you claim to be a mathematician. Energy is the capacity to do work. Work = Force * Distance. Focre = Mass * * Acceleration.
W = ʃE·dl where W is work in Neton meters, E energy in Joules, dl incremntal disntce in meters. Being the math exert you are you can solve for energy E.

or E = mc^2. Or energy stored in capacitor E = .5cv^2. Or kinetic ergy .5mv^2;

It ca seem lie smoke and mirros but it is not. Energy is a defintion as are seconds, meters, and kilograms.

What energy 'is' is a philosophical question not a scientifc one. Energy is quantitatively well defined with the units of Joules. You can resurrect the question on a thread I had on philosophy.

You are arguing like a theist. Relgion and science are the same.

I studied physics in college where my instructor told the class that scientists do not know what energy is. All you've posted here are mathematical models of energy--not what energy is. It's analogous to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2. Does this mathematical model tell us what gravity is? No--it's just a model that describes the amount of attraction between two bodies.

 

[bilby]

I studied physics in college where my instructor told the class that scientists do not know what energy is.

You definitely should have gone to a better college, or at least have demanded a competent instructor then.

Energy is the ability to do work. Force, multiplied by distance.

That's no more obscure than: Velocity is the rate at which an object moves in a given direction. Distance, divided by time.

Do you imagine that scientists do not know what velocity is?

Do you unquestioningly believe everything your instructors at college told you? If so, why? Taking someone's word on faith is the antithesis of science, as any decent college physics course should have told you.

Nobody is immune from occasionally talking bollocks. Science is founded on the principle that you can and should doubt anything that anyone tells you.

If someone tells me that "scientists do not know what energy is", my first response is to go and see what scientists have said about this, and to try to determine if they do, in fact, agree on what energy is. And, to my surprise, I found that scientists generally do know what energy is. Thereby exploding the hypothesis that they do not - regardless of the authority of the person claiming that hypothesis to be a fact, and regardless of any prior inclination I might have had to want to believe this claim.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ask eleven scientists what energy is, and they'll tell you they don't know. And don't get me started about their disagreements in cosmology.

since you believe that a ten year old knows a lot about science and I presume you are a little older than that, I’m sure you’re in a good position to educate us about what actual cosmologists believe.

And this whole thread is about you being upset that one group claims to know about what other groups think yet you’ll gladly commit the very offense you’re railing against.

 

[bilby]

Does this mathematical model tell us what gravity is?

It tells us that gravity is the amount of attraction between two bodies, as a consequence of their respective masses and the distance between them.

No--it's just a model that describes the amount of attraction between two bodies.

So, by "No", you mean "Yes", then.

What else does it mean, to "know what X is", if not to "have a model that describes X"?

What part of "know" don't you understand?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We are saying that ten religionists in the same place at the same time will give you ten different interpretations of identical facts.

And where are the reasons and evidence you base this faith on? Let's take ten Christians from various sects and ask them some questions and guess their answers:

1. How many Gods exist? All ten answer one.
2. Did God create the world? All ten answer yes.
3. Is Jesus the Son of God? All ten answer yes.
4. What book or set of books reveals the story of God, His prophecies, and His salvation through Christ? All ten answer that the Bible is.
5. Will Christ return to judge all people and put an end to sin? All ten answer yes.
6. Do those who are saved through Christ live eternally? All ten answer yes.
7. Where was Jesus born? All ten answer that He was born in Bethlehem.

Do you disagree that ten Christians would answer these questions the way I suppose they did?

ask them is abortion is a sin and see how many answers you get. ask them is being LGBT is a sin and how many answers will you get? Some of them might say he was born in Nazareth. Some might say there are three Gods. Some might say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Some might say the Book of Mormon extends the Bible.

If we ask atheists a set of questions, will they all provide the same answers?

 

[lostone]

Ask eleven scientists what energy is, and they'll tell you they don't know. And don't get me started about their disagreements in cosmology.

since you believe that a ten year old knows a lot about science and I presume you are a little older than that, I’m sure you’re in a good position to educate us about what actual cosmologists believe.

And this whole thread is about you being upset that one group claims to know about what other groups think yet you’ll gladly commit the very offense you’re railing against.

All cosmologists will base their arguments on data observed in this universe; if they do not, their reputation in their field will be ruined. Their ideas will then stand or fall based on how well those ideas fit existing data.

 

[pood]

I studied physics in college where my instructor told the class that scientists do not know what energy is. All you've posted here are mathematical models of energy--not what energy is. It's analogous to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2. Does this mathematical model tell us what gravity is? No--it's just a model that describes the amount of attraction between two bodies.

I could point out that Einstein’s general relativity has superseded Newton and gravity is now modeled as objects following geodesics through spacetime warped by the masses of other objects, and that this model answers Newton’s worry about how a gravitational “force” could reach across space to affect other bodies, because gravity isn’t a force at all, but why bother? ALL science consists of models. Models that show predictive value are retained and those that don’t are discarded. So what? This raises another point: Many faith-based religions claim CERTAINTY of their conclusions. Science does not. All models are provisional, and all conclusions are probability-based. The pessimistic meta-induction counsels that we should regard all our current theories as strictly false because all past theories have been strictly false, even Newton’s, in the sense that his descriptions of nature have been superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics. The pessimistic induction is a STRENGTH of science and not a weakness, and is the exact opposite of faith. I’ve never heard any Christian, at least not any hard-core Christian, saying that the resurrection of Jesus to atone for Adam’s sin is the best religious model we have to date, and is subject to revision or disconfirmation based on future discoveries.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In addition to the fact that there are minor and major disagreements among Christians on doctrine, you somehow omit to mention that there are an estimated 4,000 to 10,000 different religions on earth, depending on how one defines “religion.”

There are many Christian sects. Their differences, though, aren't always doctrinal.

How would Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. etc. etc. answer those questions? Quite differently.

You can always adjust the types of religious groups to get the level of disagreement you're looking for.

Is there a comparable situation for scientists? Is there a ”religion” of science that has ”faith” in E=MC2, as opposed to competing scientific “faiths” that reject it for different formulas of their own?

Scientists often disagree, of course.

 

[steve_bank]

their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

My view on the forum has been religious are no more or less crazy, stupid, illogical, and gullible than any other individuals or groups.

Soldier, please don't start debating science. You will embarrass yourself.

Within science quantitatively energy is defined in Sysrtems International the international standard for units of measure.

As you claim to be a mathematician. Energy is the capacity to do work. Work = Force * Distance. Focre = Mass * * Acceleration.
W = ʃE·dl where W is work in Neton meters, E energy in Joules, dl incremntal disntce in meters. Being the math exert you are you can solve for energy E.

or E = mc^2. Or energy stored in capacitor E = .5cv^2. Or kinetic ergy .5mv^2;

It ca seem lie smoke and mirros but it is not. Energy is a defintion as are seconds, meters, and kilograms.

What energy 'is' is a philosophical question not a scientifc one. Energy is quantitatively well defined with the units of Joules. You can resurrect the question on a thread I had on philosophy.

You are arguing like a theist. Relgion and science are the same.

I studied physics in college where my instructor told the class that scientists do not know what energy is. All you've posted here are mathematical models of energy--not what energy is. It's analogous to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2. Does this mathematical model tell us what gravity is?

As usual you miss the point.

Ask a roomful of astrophysicists what energy is and they might say they don't know.

Ask a room full of astrophysicists what the energy output of the sun is per second and they will give you an answer in Joules.

Do you ork the distbction?

What is energy, what are seconds, what is gravity, what are kilograms to me philosophically are meaningless questionnaires.

Energy, meters, kilograms, and seconds are units of measure. All are arbitrary.

It leads to the unanswerable question 'What is reality?'. Science models reality. Energy is part of the model.

As I said before, the philosophizing of someone with science credentials is just that, phuliso[phizng.

Objective physical science is expressed quantitatively. Relgious theory is not and is untestable.

You are grasping at straws in a hopeless attempt to equate religion with science.

You seem desparte to make basic things into profound revelations. We know the relgious offer evidence, and again not profound. It is the nature of the evidence. Yet you keep repeating your one track mantra as if we don't get it.

You had a class in scence, I had an undegra's foundation in sceince and applied it for 30 years.

 

[steve_bank]

In addition to the fact that there are minor and major disagreements among Christians on doctrine, you somehow omit to mention that there are an estimated 4,000 to 10,000 different religions on earth, depending on how one defines “religion.”

There are many Christian sects. Their differences, though, aren't always doctrinal.

How would Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. etc. etc. answer those questions? Quite differently.

You can always adjust the types of religious groups to get the level of disagreement you're looking for.

Is there a comparable situation for scientists? Is there a ”religion” of science that has ”faith” in E=MC2, as opposed to competing scientific “faiths” that reject it for different formulas of their own?

Scientists often disagree, of course.

There s no disagreement on a repeatable experiment. Speculation on what experiment may imply can differ.

That cloks will have different elapsed times based on relative acceleration, time dilation, is an established experimental fact. What that infers on the nature of reality is speculation. Time dilation is the source of many scifi speculations.

 

[bilby]

Scientists often disagree, of course.

But rarely about the fundamentals. Einstein disagreed with Newton, but he didn't claim that rocks really fall upwards.

 

[Shadowy Man]

their argument is that religious people are too stupid and crazy to have good evidence for what they believe, so their evidence is no evidence.

My view on the forum has been religious are no more or less crazy, stupid, illogical, and gullible than any other individuals or groups.

Soldier, please don't start debating science. You will embarrass yourself.

Within science quantitatively energy is defined in Sysrtems International the international standard for units of measure.

As you claim to be a mathematician. Energy is the capacity to do work. Work = Force * Distance. Focre = Mass * * Acceleration.
W = ʃE·dl where W is work in Neton meters, E energy in Joules, dl incremntal disntce in meters. Being the math exert you are you can solve for energy E.

or E = mc^2. Or energy stored in capacitor E = .5cv^2. Or kinetic ergy .5mv^2;

It ca seem lie smoke and mirros but it is not. Energy is a defintion as are seconds, meters, and kilograms.

What energy 'is' is a philosophical question not a scientifc one. Energy is quantitatively well defined with the units of Joules. You can resurrect the question on a thread I had on philosophy.

You are arguing like a theist. Relgion and science are the same.

I studied physics in college where my instructor told the class that scientists do not know what energy is.

Not every physics instructor is a good one.

All you've posted here are mathematical models of energy--not what energy is.

What do you mean by “is”? You seem to want physics to answer questions of philosophy. Energy is very well defined in physics and physics works. *Why* it works is a philosophical question. Maybe your religious friends have a good answer for that.

It's analogous to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2. Does this mathematical model tell us what gravity is? No--it's just a model that describes the amount of attraction between two bodies.

That’s what physics is! A bunch of models. I’m assuming you didn’t major in physics, just took a course in college? When you say you “studied” it in college that implies more in depth curriculum but maybe you just had it come up in a course. Don’t know.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Scientists often disagree, of course.

But rarely about the fundamentals. Einstein disagreed with Newton, but he didn't claim that rocks really fall upwards.

Quite the contrary! Einstein made sure that his general relativity reduced to Newton’s formulae in the non-relativistic regime. If it hadn’t he would have considered his new theory incorrect.

 

[bilby]

Scientists often disagree, of course.

But rarely about the fundamentals. Einstein disagreed with Newton, but he didn't claim that rocks really fall upwards.

Quite the contrary! Einstein made sure that his general relativity reduced to Newton’s formulae in the non-relativistic regime. If it hadn’t he would have considered his new theory incorrect.

That's what I just said. Rocks really don't fall upwards; If Relativity had predicted that they would, it would have been wrong.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It’s not like the religious say what God “is”. Most atheists find the answers to that question as unsatisfying as you are finding the answers to what energy “is” from your physics instructors.