Why do atheists trust science?

[thedistillers]

I trust science because of the scientific method, evidence is abound. I reject claims about god(s) because they sound like a load of made up toss, no evidence.

Why do you trust that the scientific method will say anything meaningful about the future?

[virphen]

Why do you assume it will work in the future? If atheism is true, there is no rational reason to believe that.

Answer supplied, if you're too delusional to cope with it that isn't my problem.

So let's say we have the following numbers: 2,4,6,8,10,13.

What you're doing is stopping at the number 10 and protesting that the next number MUST be 12, because why? IT WORKS!!! IT WORKS!!! + 2, +2, +2. IT WORKS!!! The next number is 12, because it works!!!

You can protest all night long, but the next number in the serie is 13.

If you're going to be a rational person, you just can't say "it works!".

But what happens here is that if you have 2,4,6,8,10 and no information about the next number in the sequence, your best estimate of the next number is 12.

Then when you get the next number and it's 13, you have to adjust your theory on the nature of the sequence to take the new number into account. Noone insists it must match the earlier predicted value.

That is exactly how science works.

The type of person insising "no, it's 12, it has to be 12" is the theist.

[95Theses]

I've spoken to you before about collecting pets, Virphen

Awww, but Blip, this one is so cute!

OK, Virphen, but you are going to have to feed him and take him to the vet.

and neuter it, one is far more than enough. Lets not have it breeding please.

[Don't Panic]

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5? ....is that what you are saying you silly billy?

In base 4 math 2+2=10

[feign_ignorence]

Scientists make observations about the way things behave in the real world, and then set out to show why they happen like that and how they will behave in the future.

What is the rational reason to assume that the future will behave like a past? If matter is not controlled by a Person, then at any moment it can start to behave a different way.

That would be a good proposition if it were not for the fact that things act in a predictable way with respect to time.

Basically, for most conceptually intuitive stuff, the underlying fundamental physical behaviour of that stuff remains constant with respect to time. (i.e. F=Gm1m2/r^2, the gravitational force that objects exert on each other doesn't change (in the ordinary sense; newtonian, things much less than the speed of light, ideal analysis, etc) over a time interval when you compare how the force acts on and between things in different settings.. thats why there is the constant, G)

And obviously this was a waste of time, because you're either a troll or a moron for posing such questions in the first place.

[95Theses]

And to the OP, I suggest you start your education by discovering what is meant by a 'Scientific Theory'

[virphen]

OK, Virphen, but you are going to have to feed him and take him to the vet.

I know, a chew toy is not just for Christmas.

[thedistillers]

That would be a good proposition if it were not for the fact that things act in a predictable way with respect to time.

There is no reason to assume that if atheism is true.

[Rum]

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5? ....is that what you are saying you silly billy?

In base 4 math 2+2=10

Please don't go all complicated on us!

[thedistillers]

And to the OP, I suggest you start your education by discovering what is meant by a 'Scientific Theory'

What we're talking about here is philosophy of science, ie, if the atheist is rational to trust that science will say anything meaningful about the future. As far as I can see, there is no reason to think that, unless the atheist relies on blind, irrational faith.

[AshtonBlack]

I trust science because of the scientific method, evidence is abound. I reject claims about god(s) because they sound like a load of made up toss, no evidence.

Why do you trust that the scientific method will say anything meaningful about the future?

What do you mean by "meaningful"?
The scientific method is a way to understand the world as it is. It has nothing to "say" about anything.
The question, I believe, you are asking is, will "Scientists" say anything meaningful about the future. Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no-one is entitled to their own facts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I trust science because of the scientific method, evidence is abound. I reject claims about god(s) because they sound like a load of made up toss, no evidence.

Why do you trust that the scientific method will say anything meaningful about the future?

All the scientists I know have crystal balls. So they can foretell the future. (Mostly it says they will have low sperm count.)

[Don't Panic]

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5? ....is that what you are saying you silly billy?

In base 4 math 2+2=10

Please don't go all complicated on us!

It makes more sense than the OP.

[virphen]

There is no reason to assume that if atheism is true.

This might be a hard concept to grasp for you, but atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It makes no positive claims, scientific or otherwise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And to the OP, I suggest you start your education by discovering what is meant by a 'Scientific Theory'

What we're talking about here is philosophy of science, ie, if the atheist is rational to trust that science will say anything meaningful about the future. As far as I can see, there is no reason to think that, unless the atheist relies on blind, irrational faith.

Ah, "faith", the long word that starts with "F".