Why do atheists trust science?

[Valden]

As far as I can see, there is no rational reason for the atheist to trust that science will make accurate predictions about the future.

Science in itself, does not make predictions of the future.
That's what Woo is for.

Science is what we use to study our world and the Universe. Got nothing to do with making predictions.

Why assuming that the future will be like the past?

Who is assuming that?

If atheism is true, then the universe is not rational; it is not sustained by a Person.

Atheism has nothing to do with the Universe, so your last statement is not even rational.

The answer, "it works so far" is not a rational answer.

What does that have to do with anything?

For example, we could have an infinite list of numbers generated by a formula and assume that all numbers generated are prime, but as long as we haven't proved that it only generates prime numbers, we can't assume that all numbers are prime just because the first 1000, or 100 000 numbers are prime.

What does that have to do with Science not actually making predictions of the future?
Nothing.

In short, atheists are irrational to trust science,

You do realize that you just used science to make this thread, right?
Atheism and science do not automatically go together.

for there is no good reason to assume the future will be like the past. Atheism is based on blind faith. Atheism is irrational.

I have forgotten how funny you are.

[Feck]

" Atheists want to be rational " I don't your boogey man has no place in my life and neither do your silly assumptions .

[rachelbean]

Just because you keep repeating yourself, doesn't make what you are saying any more valid

[Bella Fortuna]

Just because you keep repeating yourself, doesn't make what you are saying any more valid

Clearly then the next resort is volume.

[hackenslash]

Whoah! Déjà vu!

Oh, and...

Rational

[Rob]

I'm assuming that the atheist wants to be rational. That is to say, he wants to have a rational reason to believe what he believes.

But what rational reason does the atheist have to assume that the future will be like the past? None. So the atheist is irrational to assume that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow.

The theist, however, has a perfectly rational reason to believe that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow; God created the laws of the universe, and sustains them at any moment. Under atheism, the universe is irrational, without purpose, so tomorrow all atoms could start to jump around randomly, for no reason, just like a godless universe happens to exist for no reason.

Through reason and critical thinking on can use deduction and induction the rationalist may use the scientific method to find out more about the world. The problem with your thought pattern, thedistillers, is that you are forced to be even more irrational than you claim the atheist is. For a brief second, i will grant you that your proposition is true, that the atheist irrationally assumes the laws of physics are true(this is not even close to the truth). How is the theist is a more rational position than the theist? The theist must also irrationally assume many things, more than the atheist in fact. You must believe that your doctorine of choice as inspired by a deity of your choosing, that it was translated throughout the ages correctly etc. Even more to the point, how can you claim that it is irrational to use induction/deduction to make claims about the physical world yet it is rational for the theist to make the same claims about a spiritual one.

Despite the way you are presenting it I think I understand what you are trying to do here. Are you attempting to claim that atheists have no way to logically conclude the universe exists the way it does while theists can logically claim it does simply becuase 'god did it'? If that is your claim I will argue that.

[orpheus]

I'm assuming that the atheist wants to be rational. That is to say, he wants to have a rational reason to believe what he believes.

But what rational reason does the atheist have to assume that the future will be like the past? None. So the atheist is irrational to assume that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow.

The theist, however, has a perfectly rational reason to believe that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow; God created the laws of the universe, and sustains them at any moment. Under atheism, the universe is irrational, without purpose, so tomorrow all atoms could start to jump around randomly, for no reason, just like a godless universe happens to exist for no reason.

You pretty much lost your argument by assuming anything about the people here. Most of us only care about cheese and tits.

and legs, and asses, and eyes, and hands. Never was much of a breast man, myself.

Oh, and popcorn. You gotta have more popcorn.


(Uncle Orph's patented "Asymptotic approaches to truth"TM flavor)

[MrFungus420]

Science is about making predictions about the future, as it assumes the universe will continue to behave like the past. But there is no reason to assume that, given atheism.

There is no reason to assume otherwise.

Atheists do not believe in a super-being that could magically change everything.

It is theists that have no reason to think that everything will remain the same because it is theists who believe in a super-being that could magically change everything, in fact, many of them believe that it does happen. They call the times when God supposedly decides to change the laws of the universe, albeit temporarily, miracles.

[MrFungus420]

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.

Because it is NOT controlled by a "person" that could change matter's behavior at any time.

[MrFungus420]

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.

Thank you for admitting that your entire position is nothing more than a logical fallacy: an argument from incredulity.

[MrFungus420]

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.

If there is no God, then the universe is not controlled by a powerful, external force. So there are a lot of consequences if atheism is true. One of them is that we have no reason to trust science. Only the theist can assume that the universe will continue to behave the same way it has so far.

Your B does follow from your A. That has a fancy name, which I've never bothered to remember.

Assuming that you meant, "Your B does not follow from your A", its a Non sequitur.

[MrFungus420]

I'm afraid it will be the million-cocked penis demon who is in charge of everything. Luckily he only rapes his believers

Where do I sign up?

Well, I've only got the one, but you can sign up with me. I do have some other advantages.

[Bella Fortuna]

What to do then if you had two interested believers...

[Chinaski]

I'm assuming that the atheist wants to be rational. That is to say, he wants to have a rational reason to believe what he believes.

But what rational reason does the atheist have to assume that the future will be like the past? None. So the atheist is irrational to assume that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow.

The theist, however, has a perfectly rational reason to believe that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow; God created the laws of the universe, and sustains them at any moment. Under atheism, the universe is irrational, without purpose, so tomorrow all atoms could start to jump around randomly, for no reason, just like a godless universe happens to exist for no reason.

I answered this already. Go back and read my posts before trolling any further.

[Valden]

I'm assuming that the atheist wants to be rational. That is to say, he wants to have a rational reason to believe what he believes.

But what rational reason does the atheist have to assume that the future will be like the past? None. So the atheist is irrational to assume that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow.

The theist, however, has a perfectly rational reason to believe that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow; God created the laws of the universe, and sustains them at any moment. Under atheism, the universe is irrational, without purpose, so tomorrow all atoms could start to jump around randomly, for no reason, just like a godless universe happens to exist for no reason.

I answered this already. Go back and read my posts before trolling any further.

He's not interested in holding a rational, logical debate.