A Simple Question To Atheist

[Guest FaithDefender619]

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

[Astreja]

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

No, but My brother has done those experiments.

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

Yes. I have helped proofread and revise a cancer research paper for publication.

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

No. I have read My brother's peer-reviewed work and watched one of his presentations, and am in weekly contact with someone who is a close observer of global climate disruption and compiles a weekly digest of articles on the subject.

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

I'll say 'yes' here because I do have a science background and over forty years' experience in computing, and can obtain the information if I want to analyze it Myself.

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

No, I can not be 100% sure; however, I do not tend to deal in all-or-nothing scenarios as I find them unrealistic. I'm also not opposed to financial or political involvement because bad science will eventually give way to good science.

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

As has been said before, what makes science science is that it is testable and falsifiable. The point isn't that I haven't performed these experiments myself; it's that I could if I knew each step of the procedures used and had the tools necessary to do it. How, though, would one go about testing the claims made by religion? Please enlighten me if you have any ideas as to how this could be done, because if the claim that there is a god can't be tested, then it has as much (and as little) validity as the untestable claim that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster in a drunken stupor.

[Ouroboros]

That's right. Some million of scientists living right now, writing millions of journals based on their experiments, just can't be true one bit; however, what some unlearned fishermen and herders wrote 2000 years ago, yeah, that must be true. Your math is so simple when you only have two braincells left, isn't it?

 

We have cars, TVs, computers, microwave ovens, and much more. Do you think the inventors of those things prayed and had faith in Jesus to make it work? Did they put Bible pages into the circuitry? Or did they use science? Oh, wait, does quantum mechanics play a role in CPU making? Yup, it does. Intel has reached the edge of how far they can go with the chips. They can't really increase the speed on the computers anymore, unless they come up with quantum computers. But why can't they increase the speed? Because of quantum tunneling. Oh, it's a scientific theory... someone tested it, and said it was like that, and Intel discovered it was true. Damn. They all must be lying. It must be Jesus juice running in those circuits, not electrons.

 

Believe in Jesus because at least that is a proven concept. Just look at all the empty hospitals after Jesus healed them all. And look, there's no hunger or poverty anymore either. Or wars. Everything is peaceful because Jesus answer all billions of people's prayers--finally. And no car, computer, TV, satelite, cellphone, or Sony book reader can really prove that science works. Right?

 

You're a moron. Do you know that? And you seriously need some omega-3. Damn, not again, not nutritional science because that's just a lie too!!!

 

(/mock)

[oddbird1963]

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

Since money and politics have something to do with everything in life, including fundamentalist religions, number five is practically an irrelevant question.

 

The other questions each give rise to the implicit question behind them all, "How can you believe anything science say is true if you haven't performed the same specific science yourself?" I also get the impression that there is an underlying paranoia/conspiracy mindset at play in the question.

 

"doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so" - "science" doesn't say that things are true. The way this question is framed, you make it sound like the wizard on the wizard of oz making pronouncements about scientific fact from behind a curtain.

 

Scientists in a certain field will reach a consensus on the veracity of certain theories while a subset of scientists in that field may have competing theories and conduct research striving to gain acceptance by the scientists in that field. Nobody believes that "science" is 100% true 100% of the time. Science is an ongoing dialogue. It is an ongoing process. There is the expectation and anticipation that current theories will be displaced by theories which better explain things.

 

When I read an article about an particular topic in science whether it be anthropological, paleontological or medical in nature, the framework is like this:

1. Some scientists are adopting a new theory about X based on scientific research.

2. This is the evidence and this is their conclusion.

3. However, other scientists in the same field are skeptical and hold to the currently accepted theory Y.

4. More research needs to be done but the new theory about topic X will be a source of further controversy/dialog among scientists in the field for the foreseeable future.

 

I sometimes get frustrated because this pattern is so common and consistent when I read about a given scientific issue. But it demonstrates the nature of scientific discourse. Accepted theories are subject to being replaced by new theories which better explains the phenomena being researched.

 

It is possible to be informed about the relevant issues pertaining to a certain scientific hypothesis or theory and reach a conclusion about which positions you believe are likely to be true. It is always possible to have a "wait and see" attitude. One could say to themselves, "Right now I believe X to be most likely true, but I will wait until more has been done about Y and see if my initial impressions stand up."

 

I don't see this process as blind faith. It is informed opinion. It's not saying something is true because scientists say it is true. It is saying that something is true because scientists who study in the field have debated the matter and believe it is true and I know the issues behind that debate and how the theories have been confirmed or refuted.

 

It is not Religion because there are no ultimate issues involved. And I lose nothing if the science changes its consensus because I won't go to hell if the Big Bang is replaced by a theory which better explains the origin of the universe.

 

So, it is possible to believe facts in a field that is not of your expertise to be true without being accused of adopting a religion or having blind faith.

[Vigile]

I don't know whether to assign you with a tin foil hat or a dunce cap. I do know I'm tired of trying to reason with uneducated morons, it just makes my head hurt and it makes the wall I butt it up against all bloody.

[ContraBardus]

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

 

Yes. I've done several experiments in a classroom setting, and acted as an assistant/lab hand for several others.

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

 

Yes. I know several people with Scientific backgrounds. I know two Biologists, and I've assisted them before both in the field, and in lab work.

 

I've also done clerical work involving the review process. Typing up handwritten notes and test results, making copies, and sending them out for further review.

 

I also know a couple of Physicist, though I've only done minor clerical work for them on occasion. Nothing permanent or regular, but yes. I am aware of how it works, what's involved, and I've spoken with them directly about their respective fields.

 

Friends of the family and all.

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

 

Yes. Evolution in particular. As I said, I know Biologists, and I've acted as a volunteer research hand for several studies they were involved with. Mostly having to do with collection of specimens and controlling them in the lab. [Large Snakes] I also assisted in a few minor details such as records retention, and other small tasks. I've acted as a photographer and helped carry/maintain equipment in several field experiments as well.

 

I've seen the process first hand from start to finish.

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

 

Yes. It's called a library. You should go there. University libraries are the best sources for this sort of thing. Yes. I know the process in doing the experiments, it's called the Scientific Method, if you mean more specific than that, then also yes. As an assistant, I have.

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

 

There's no such thing as 100% certainty. After all, if you're Christian, even abstinence is effective birth control only 99.999% of the time.

 

I am as certain that I can be that such things are minimal and I'm aware of the safeguards and reasoning of why.

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

Put simply, no.

[Hellbound Alleee]

We have a little problem here.

 

I am sensing a little assumption here on the part of the OP.

 

1. Are you arguing that, because atheists all insist that ALL truths be double-blind studied in order to be established as fact?

2. Are you arguing that ATHEISTS believe that anything that is believed without peer-review study is a religion?

 

3. Are you arguing that peer-reviewed study is not established as fact because of corruption?

 

If so, you are operating under false pretenses, and any answers to your question are meaningless. I do NOT state that all truths must be peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal in order to be considered "true." And overwhelming percentage of facts can be established quite easily and acceptable by us grouchy, scary old brain-boxes.

 

The first scientific experiments that take place in anyone's life--and yes, YOU did them, too, and did not accept everything you saw as truth immediately--are those we do as babies. We constantly evaluate, empirically, inductively and deductively, many facts about our world. Yes, we get MANY things wrong. But we establish that the appendage we see before us is indeed ours, and that we are able to manipulate our environment with it.

 

You're making it too hard for yourself. We all live in this world as default atheists until it is convenient for us to assert that there is a God. Most of us, (and no doubt the babies do) assume that we move by blessing of our own accord through our own means, and that there is no grand puppet master pulling our strings. Yet we can see through experimentation and observation that the puppet moves through the means of the puppet master.

 

Unless you still believe that the dolls move around and talk when you're not there. I guess people can believe anything.

[Shawn Truesdell]

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

 

Yes, having worked several years in academia I can say that I have been involved in many scientific experiments, and science encompasses a lot more than just evolution (biology), big bang theory (physics) and global warming (mixture of sciences). Where do you think we get medicine and medical break throughs, computers and everything that they give us, manned and unmanned flight, etc. They didn't just appear out of thin air. They came from experimentation.

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

 

Again yes, working for a university one is regularly involved.

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

 

Yes, go to the Smithsonian or any other legitimate museum and you can come face to face with the evidence of Evolution. As for big bang, no, that is not my field of research, though I have read and studied the science in depth. As for global warming, yes. I live on this planet, just like you. I have seen my country ravaged by insane weather the likes of which it has never seen before. There is evidence all around for Global Warming and there are many many factors causing it. Some man made, others not and we are learning more about it every day.

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

 

I HAD access to much of it during the time I was working at the University. I still have much of my work in Artificial Intelligence, but the rest belongs to the university and what is released to the public is well published. The problem is people like you, who choose not to believe that science is a reality despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are either too lazy or not educated enough to read it. Can you honestly say you understand the principles of gravity? I doubt it. Few can, but that doesn't make gravity any less real. Do you fully understand the principles of flight, robotics, chemistry, etc? Unless you are trained in those fields then I seriously doubt it, no one human knows it all. Our knowledge is built up over time, and off the learning and break throughs of others. However not understanding such principles doesn't keep planes from flying, robots from being built and chemists from making amazing medical breakthroughs in medicine.

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

 

Good honest question. The science I have been involved I can say yes 100%. HOWEVER, that is not to say that ALL science is that way. However, when someone in the scientific community is caught selling out, that is generally the end of them. And when a new theory proves an old one wrong, then the scientific community, unlike the religious community, moves on and accepts the new found facts.

 

Counter Question: Can you be 100% that religion, in most of its forms now a-days is nothing more than a way to exert control and extort money from the gullible? I think not. Just look at the TV evangelists, the pedophile priests and pastors, the tax dodgers etc. Your community has as much taint on it as any other!

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

This statement is so wrong on so many levels. With science there are published papers that, given the time and desire to learn, anyone can study and recreate the tests and experiments (within reason, some experiments require a lot of money and resources to pull off, but you get my point). Religion however, in MANY ways, requires blind faith, believing that what you are told by your church / mosque / temple / synagog leaders is the truth. And given the VAST contradictions in the teachings of different sects within each religion, and the vast contradictions and out and out LIES of most of the holy texts (many proven to be lies by science like the earth being flat, pie being equal to 3, leprosy being cured by avian blood and spit, heaven being a few miles above our head, the earth being the center of the universe, the sun going around the earth, I could go on and on and on and on) one simply cannot trust what one is told to believe. The Bible, the Qua-ran and the Talmud are nothing more than fairy tales and stories from barbarians and stone age mystics that had no understanding of the world around them.

[Evolution_beyond]

The point is, faithdefender, that there are people who have access to those things, and the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to check it out.

 

And it is the kind of evidence that you can test and measure.

 

Religion however is based on subjective experience and blind belief in miracles from the distant past.

[Roan7995]

Hi, FaithDefender619!

 

1. Have you ever done scientific experiments to prove what you tout as being true?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process? lol

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports not just the existence of a god, but Christianity as the one true religion?

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes from these experiences, do you know the processes used in doing the experiments, have you reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of your religion?

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to your religion is true because your clergy say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

lol

 

Pic related.

[glebealyth]

 

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

 

 

 

 

By way of answer:

 

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us?" -- Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521)

[agnosticator]

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

When you take an aspirin or any medication, do you pray that God will make them effective? Do you have blind faith that your troubled condition will get better if you take the medication?

 

If you need an operation, do you think God told the surgeon how to operate? Scientific knowledge isn't based upon faith. Virtually everything you own and use comes from scientific experimentation, you idiot!

[NonXNonExX]

Mr. Defender,

You are a real fool.

 

Though no one here has directly pointed it out to you yet, religion fails most miserably on question #4, whereas the original reports behind most advances in science are easy to find.

 

Looking at it from another angle, one theory usually wins out over the competing theories that emerge in science, but the flood of new competing religions just seems to grow and grow. Why do you think that is? In case you can't figure it out, it's because none of the claims of conflicting religions can be proved in any reasonable way, including your favorite delusion of Xtianity.

[VirginiaRodriguez]

Hello all,

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

 

 

Yes. In my past life I taught kindergarten and we followed a science curriculum.

 

One of the objectives we had to teach the kids was that some things in our world work in a predictable way. Thus, we used the "vinegar and baking soda" chemical reaction. In three experiments, the children had to observe the chemical reaction of baking soda and vinegar and predict an outcome.

 

They may not be able to completely understand what a chemical reaction is, but they will come to learn that this experiment will produce the same outcome each and every time it is performed.

 

Plus, their vocabulary was enriched: chemical reaction, baking soda, vinegar, mix, bubbles.

 

Lots of fun!

[Snakefoot]

1. Have you ever done the miracles the babble touts believers can do?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the Council of Nicea that established the godhood of Jeebus?

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with any evidence that supposedly supports the claims in the babble?

 

4. Do you have access to the original manuscripts, scribe copying notes, know the processes used in compiling the babble, reviewed the source documents from which the babble is compiled, etc?

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the establishment and maintenance of religion, particularly xtianity?

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to the babble/religion/gawd are true because the babble says so, which in turn equates to a superstition or at the very least blind faith?

[par4dcourse]

Snakefoot got there before I did. Great questions.

OK, FaithPretender, what sayeth thou>?

[Snakefoot]

Snakefoot got there before I did. Great questions.

 

Ha-ha! Beat you! I win!

[par4dcourse]

Snakefoot got there before I did. Great questions.

 

Ha-ha! Beat you! I win!

Double or nothin' on the next christian?

[Snakefoot]

The name "FaithDefender": If The Faith is true, and The Word on which it is based is true, why would it need defending? Shouldn't it and the gawd it proffers be powerful enough to need no defense or to defend themselves on their own merits?

[Snakefoot]

Snakefoot got there before I did. Great questions.

 

Ha-ha! Beat you! I win!

Double or nothin' on the next christian?

 

You're on. I'll put up a post hole against a panful of cornbread.

[ShackledNoMore]

No I am not a Ph.D. in a field related to biology, cosmology, meteorology, etc. doing cutting edge academic research.

 

Short of that, I have done my homework, read, gone to school, and personally done math and performed experiments that while not contributing to state of the art scientific thought on evolution, the origins of the universe, or global warming, at least yielded results that were not consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible.

 

While I cannot be 100% certain of anything, yes, I can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt of those conclusions of science which are well studied, tested, proven, and understood.

 

That means that I am about as certain that life evolved as I am that my hamburger is ground meat taken from the carcass of a dead cow, that the airplane that I last flew in stayed airborne because somebody understood mechanics and avionics and was able to build a working airplane based on their knowledge (as opposed to, say, magic), and that too much exposure to x-rays can make you sick, cause your hair to fall out, and eventually kill you. All this is notwithstanding that I have never inspected a slaughterhouse, designed and built an airplane, or become a doctor and then personally performed experiments on the biological effects of radiation.

[Roan7995]

Snakefoot got there before I did.

 

I beat you both. lol

[chefranden]

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true...

 

I did pray many times for God to restore my failing faith. Does that count?

 

Edit: Perhaps I should add that the prayer experiment ended with me as an atheist. I didn't get the experiment peer reviewed, but on the other hand I didn't receive any special interest monies from the Ancient order of Madiline, the Vatican, or any other special interest group.

[Shyone]

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true...

 

I did pray many times for God to restore my failing faith. Does that count?

 

Edit: Perhaps I should add that the prayer experiment ended with me as an atheist. I didn't get the experiment peer reviewed, but on the other hand I didn't receive any special interest monies from the Ancient order of Madiline, the Vatican, or any other special interest group.

Actually, we are your peer review.

 

And I confirm that prayer accomplishes less than nothing. It wastes time that could be used in solving problems.