Why do atheists trust science?

[jd]

The last 300 (approx) years of scientific research can be viewed as a giant "meta-experiment" into the effectiveness of the scientific method, and it has been wildly successful. Every year that naturalistic science adds to our knowledge and success makes the practice of science itself yet more reliable, approaching (but never reaching, since all knowledge is provisional) 100%.

Because "science works, bitches" everyone, both rational and dogmatic, are capable of heavier-than-air-flight, telephone communications over great distances, have labour-saving devices unimaginable to previous superstitious peoples, and some of them can choose to spout wilfully ignorant theistic gibberish on public message boards so that everyone can see the vacuity of their "argument".

[Chinaski]

thedistillers argument is not that science doesn't work- his argument is that without belief in God, trusting the scientific method is irrational, due to its inductive nature, hence atheists are irrational to trust the scientific method.

[MissingNo.]

thedistillers argument is not that science doesn't work- his argument is that without belief in God, trusting the scientific method is irrational, due to its inductive nature, hence atheists are irrational to trust the scientific method.

Maybe thedistillers should make an effort to learn what irrational means, then.

[JimC]

thedistillers argument is not that science doesn't work- his argument is that without belief in God, trusting the scientific method is irrational, due to its inductive nature, hence atheists are irrational to trust the scientific method.

Maybe thedistillers should make an effort to learn what irrational means, then.

Before he can manage that, he has to make the leap from imaginary to real...

(maths joke...)

[Chinaski]

thedistillers argument is not that science doesn't work- his argument is that without belief in God, trusting the scientific method is irrational, due to its inductive nature, hence atheists are irrational to trust the scientific method.

Maybe thedistillers should make an effort to learn what irrational means, then.

Actually, if his premise- that the scientific method makes no sense without the existence of a divine being- were correct, he'd be right. Problem is, thedistillers has no idea what the epistemic subtleties of his argument are.

[MissingNo.]

But it isn't.

[Valden]

I read the first page of this thread and the last page. I didn't read the inbetweeny pages but I use the power of science to predict that thedistillers "argument" did not move on one iota.

Hail Science!

Your prediction would be spot on good sir.

[Feck]

But without God there could be no science because created everything and he made your brain .

[Elessarina]

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.

1+1 =2
1+1=2 yesterday
1+1=2 today
1+1=2 tomorrow

Nothing can change that. Water will still be H2O tomorrow

[Clinton Huxley]

If there is no God, then the universe is not controlled by a powerful, external force.

There you see the theistic mindset in a nutshell - unless Sky Cop is watching, everything will go wrong.....No rationale is offered for this assumption, of course, it "just is". I think this terribly revealing sentence speaks more for the shify morals of the theist than it does for the machinations of the universe

So there are a lot of consequences if atheism is true. One of them is that we have no reason to trust science.

When the next solar eclipse fails to occur precisely on time, you might have an argument.

Only the theist can assume that the universe will continue to behave the same way it has so far.

Nonsense. The theist absolutely cannot assume that the universe will continue to behave in a predictable way, for the theist must factor in that God may intervene at any moment.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

I keep forgetting to be negative.

It's a brain-damage thing.

And I should be respected for that!!!!!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

1+1 =2
1+1=2 yesterday
1+1=2 today
1+1=2 tomorrow

Nothing can change that. Water will still be H2O tomorrow

Wrong, bucko! It was water yesterday, and WINE today? Doncha read yer bibble?

[Feck]

@ Gawdzilla: Brain damage can cause theism ...if it wasn't true it wouldn't be so

[hackenslash]

Standing on the shoulders of pygmies whilst wearing Bible-blinkers shortens one's horizon markedly.

Have an Orson!



And sigged.

[MrFungus420]

this thread needed more pretty and less idiot .

I love Liz Viscious!