Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Science gets things done.
Hitchens nailed it on top best: "I'm not an atheist because it is cool. I'm not an atheist because religious extremism or oppression in some depraved corners of the world. I'm not an atheist because I don'T think evil can exist in a world with a god. I am not an atheist because I think science can disprove god. I am an atheist because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you."
And Dawkins said this: "What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing. (...) Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.
|
This is exactly why I do not like either Hitchens or Dawkins, not only are they so blind and arrogant to see that their positions are also faith based. They don't even understand
basic scientific principles.
You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something. The concept that you need evidence to prove something is utter hogwash in science, I can propose any scientific hypothesis I like so long as it remains scientific, in that it is refutable or that there is a way of showing that my hypothesis is wrong. So no the burden of proof does not rest with religion, the burden of disproof lies with atheists. Or it would anyhow if either was a scientific hypothesis/theory which neither is.
Just as much as the theists have no proof that god exists, atheists have no proof god does not exist either. Both positions are faith based, both sides believe something is true and neither has any evidence to show the other side is incorrect. The only logical answer to the question if you really want to be scientific is "I do not know" aka Agnosticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybermat47
Hypothesizing, actually. A theory requires some proof.
Sorry for being pedantic...
|
Well that is quite debatable, as again, proof does not exist. As I said above, evidence does not prove things, it just fails to show a theory/hypothesis to be wrong. Same goes for testing theories. This is how science progresses, as it refutes old theories with new evidence, and is forced to come up with a new theory.
It would be more accurate to say, that a theory requires some testing that does not disprove it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat
You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.
The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.
|
I am well aware of that yes
I also have zero doubt that the big bang theory will be refuted as it is too seriously flawed in my opinion. I fully expect all our scientific theories to eventually be refuted as none of them are "the truth".