Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Well, all our science works extremely well. Which means it's all a reliable fact?

It is a fact that science theory works well as science theory. If it didn't work well as science theory, it would be removed from the designation as theory. Much of science theory has been so removed.

   

Soooooooooooooo... Why shouldn't we let teachers tech science in school?

Are you asking me? Why do you bring this up like this? Just full of questions aren't you?

Don't you think we should let teachers teach science in school? Personally I think that we should instruct teachers to teach science in the schools. What do you think?

[1714241678]

1714241678

[1714241678]

1714241678

[mOgliE]

Well, all our science works extremely well. Which means it's all a reliable fact?

It is a fact that science theory works well as science theory. If it didn't work well as science theory, it would be removed from the designation as theory. Much of science theory has been so removed.

   

Soooooooooooooo... Why shouldn't we let teachers tech science in school?

Are you asking me? Why do you bring this up like this? Just full of questions aren't you?

Don't you think we should let teachers teach science in school? Personally I think that we should instruct teachers to teach science in the schools. What do you think?

Well that's what you said:

Most of the atheists are men of reason, they have logical explanations on how things work. Religion gives you a way to identify unexplainable things or events or at least unexplainable for you or your family. It's like magic of old is science of today. Unexplainable things before are now being expounded by science so as unexplainable or intangible things are being covered by religion whilst atheist have their own reasoning behind everything.

But the religion of science theory and atheism is worse than the bad parts of formal religions... except for violent Islam, that is.

So you want back to the days with no evil science or what the rest of us call the dark ages.

Rather, let's go back to the days when science fact was the thing that was advertised as truth... not science theory, which might be fact or might not... and shouldn't be considered truth until it is proven.

Or maybe you're talking about something else but that's not clear. You're talking about "science theory which is not the truth". What are you talking about?

[BADecker]

Well, all our science works extremely well. Which means it's all a reliable fact?

It is a fact that science theory works well as science theory. If it didn't work well as science theory, it would be removed from the designation as theory. Much of science theory has been so removed.

   

Soooooooooooooo... Why shouldn't we let teachers tech science in school?

Are you asking me? Why do you bring this up like this? Just full of questions aren't you?

Don't you think we should let teachers teach science in school? Personally I think that we should instruct teachers to teach science in the schools. What do you think?

Well that's what you said:

Most of the atheists are men of reason, they have logical explanations on how things work. Religion gives you a way to identify unexplainable things or events or at least unexplainable for you or your family. It's like magic of old is science of today. Unexplainable things before are now being expounded by science so as unexplainable or intangible things are being covered by religion whilst atheist have their own reasoning behind everything.

But the religion of science theory and atheism is worse than the bad parts of formal religions... except for violent Islam, that is.

So you want back to the days with no evil science or what the rest of us call the dark ages.

Rather, let's go back to the days when science fact was the thing that was advertised as truth... not science theory, which might be fact or might not... and shouldn't be considered truth until it is proven.

Or maybe you're talking about something else but that's not clear. You're talking about "science theory which is not the truth". What are you talking about?

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

[mOgliE]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

[BADecker]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

[mOgliE]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

Well then... We already teach them as theories. I don't see why you're saying we should teach them this way, it's already the case then no?

And by the way, I see what you mean but they're reaaaaaaaaaaaaally closed to being pure facts. Most of these theories (especially quantum ones) are the closest as it's possible to "fact" for theories.

[BADecker]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

Well then... We already teach them as theories. I don't see why you're saying we should teach them this way, it's already the case then no?

Schools might formally teach them as theories, but they teach them in such a way that people think that they are fact... at least much of the time.

The media often teaches the general public that theories are fact.

The NASA example that I gave in a previous post, does not see NASA reproving the NASA guy who expressed theory to be fact directly, when there is probably no way anyone will ever know that the theory talked about is fact or fiction.

Poor Steven Hawking. He makes up a theory. The media sways everyone into thinking that it is fact. Then even Hawking gets confused and starts believing it is fact.

And by the way, I see what you mean but they're reaaaaaaaaaaaaally closed to being pure facts.

There is no difference between a fact and a pure fact.

If a theory is not a fact, it cannot be close to being a fact, no matter how hard one tries to make it a fact. It will always be fiction.

Most of these theories (especially quantum ones) are the closest as it's possible to "fact" for theories.

Quantum is probability. Quantum this or that will always need something else to prove whether or not it is fact. Quantum is simply a "trick" that scientists use to help them clarify ideas.

[mOgliE]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

Well then... We already teach them as theories. I don't see why you're saying we should teach them this way, it's already the case then no?

Schools might formally teach them as theories, but they teach them in such a way that people think that they are fact.

And by the way, I see what you mean but they're reaaaaaaaaaaaaally closed to being pure facts.

There is no difference between a fact and a pure fact.

If a theory is not a fact, it cannot be close to being a fact, no matter how hard one tries to make it a fact. It will always be fiction.

Most of these theories (especially quantum ones) are the closest as it's possible to "fact" for theories.

Quantum is probability. Quantum this or that will always need something else to prove whether or not it is fact. Quantum is simply a "trick" that scientists use to help them clarify ideas.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

That's why I wanted to go deeper, cause I was more or less sure you were confusing things 

What's a fact?

[BADecker]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

Well then... We already teach them as theories. I don't see why you're saying we should teach them this way, it's already the case then no?

Schools might formally teach them as theories, but they teach them in such a way that people think that they are fact.

And by the way, I see what you mean but they're reaaaaaaaaaaaaally closed to being pure facts.

There is no difference between a fact and a pure fact.

If a theory is not a fact, it cannot be close to being a fact, no matter how hard one tries to make it a fact. It will always be fiction.

Most of these theories (especially quantum ones) are the closest as it's possible to "fact" for theories.

Quantum is probability. Quantum this or that will always need something else to prove whether or not it is fact. Quantum is simply a "trick" that scientists use to help them clarify ideas.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

That's why I wanted to go deeper, cause I was more or less sure you were confusing things 

What's a fact?

Giving your ability to navigate Bitcointalk, I should think that you can look it up in an online dictionary or encyclopedia. Can't you?

[mOgliE]

Okay. I'll clarify it so that even you can understand. But that doesn't mean that you have to understand, or that you will, or that you will admit that you understand even if you do. You can ignore what I say, as usual, and throw all kinds of false understandings on it as usual. Bit here it is spelled out. It isn't difficult...



Science fact is fact.
Science theory may be fact, or it may be fiction. We just don't know.

Science fact should be taught as fact. Why would we teach fact as fiction?

Science theory should be taught as it is, unknown. Therefore we should treat it as fiction until we know that it is fact. Why would we teach the unknown as fact when it could just as easily be fiction?

Science should be taught to all who are interested in science. Why not? We teach all kinds of things. Why not science?



Now here is the part that you are attempting to mix up.

All I said (albeit in different words) was that we should be teaching science theory/fiction for what it is... fiction and unknown... not as science fact.

The thing that is happening is, theory is being taught as fact... if only by implication. It would be better to not teach theory at all than to teach it as fact.



There is not a whole lot clearer that this can be made. If you are going to misconstrue what I have said because you are playing with the language, and trying to trip me up somehow, that shows that you are a deceiver.

If you truly cannot understand the point of it from what I have said, you need to go back to school. My job isn't that of holding your hand and straightening our your mind on understanding things like this. However, if you pay me enough... in advance... Bitcoin...

Great but that was not really my question. I understood the distinction you made between science facts and science theory. Problem being I'm not sure I agree with it. Can you give an example of what you consider a science fact and what you consider a science theory?

And to think I wasted all that time on writing that whole thing.    

I consider to be science theory, those things that the science papers say are science theory. Have you ever heard of the "Theory of Relativity?" Or the "Big Bang Theory?" It isn't my idea. It doesn't have anything to do with what  I "consider a science fact and what" I "consider a science theory." the scientists themselves, being rather honest about their science occupation and calling, say it themselves.

Well then... We already teach them as theories. I don't see why you're saying we should teach them this way, it's already the case then no?

Schools might formally teach them as theories, but they teach them in such a way that people think that they are fact.

And by the way, I see what you mean but they're reaaaaaaaaaaaaally closed to being pure facts.

There is no difference between a fact and a pure fact.

If a theory is not a fact, it cannot be close to being a fact, no matter how hard one tries to make it a fact. It will always be fiction.

Most of these theories (especially quantum ones) are the closest as it's possible to "fact" for theories.

Quantum is probability. Quantum this or that will always need something else to prove whether or not it is fact. Quantum is simply a "trick" that scientists use to help them clarify ideas.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

That's why I wanted to go deeper, cause I was more or less sure you were confusing things 

What's a fact?

Giving your ability to navigate Bitcointalk, I should think that you can look it up in an online dictionary or encyclopedia. Can't you?

Well I would have loved to hear your definition...

You see the problem is Oxfor definition is: "A thing that is known or proved to be true"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/fr/definition/anglais/fact

So proved by what? A theory? But then what proves the theory?

My point is that there is NOTHING in science that can be considered as a "fact". They are only deduction of theories, theories being based on assumption.

So there is no "science theory" and "science fact". Only science. And that's what it taught in schools.

[Anddos]

What do you mean - there are a lot of things in science that haven't been proven, but logic says that they are real: cold fusion, black
holes. These are theories. But just because science hasn't gained up with the reality it doesn't mean they are nor real.

[eon89]

Still, in this day of age people cling to religion to have all the facts? Jeez...

[BitNow]

What do you mean - there are a lot of things in science that haven't been proven, but logic says that they are real: cold fusion, black
holes. These are theories. But just because science hasn't gained up with the reality it doesn't mean they are nor real.

I quote that.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

That's why I wanted to go deeper, cause I was more or less sure you were confusing things  

What's a fact?

Giving your ability to navigate Bitcointalk, I should think that you can look it up in an online dictionary or encyclopedia. Can't you?

Well I would have loved to hear your definition...

You see the problem is Oxfor definition is: "A thing that is known or proved to be true"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/fr/definition/anglais/fact

So proved by what? A theory? But then what proves the theory?

My point is that there is NOTHING in science that can be considered as a "fact". They are only deduction of theories, theories being based on assumption.

So there is no "science theory" and "science fact". Only science. And that's what it taught in schools.

You contradict the Oxford theory definition.

A theory is in fact a theory, because it is proven to be a theory because it is potential logical while at the same time not proven to be fact.

Theories are factually theories, and facts are factually facts.

[BADecker]

What do you mean - there are a lot of things in science that haven't been proven, but logic says that they are real: cold fusion, black
holes. These are theories. But just because science hasn't gained up with the reality it doesn't mean they are nor real.

If logic said that the theories were real, then they would not be theories. They would be facts.

Just because a theory is made up of a conglomeration of facts that have not been proven to be true in that kind of configuration, does not stop the facts from being facts individually. Nor does it make the theory to be factual in the way that the facts are combined to form the theory.

[BADecker]

Still, in this day of age people cling to religion to have all the facts? Jeez...

Not true. Most (all?) religions are upheld through some form of faith. Faith has to do with not knowing facts, but believing that some ideas are facts, even when it has not been proven that they are facts.

This is why science is religion. Many people believe some of the theories of science to be true, even though these theories have not been proven factual. They have a science religion going for themselves.

[Tyrantt]

21st century, people have sent robots to other planets, made virtual reality, found a way to use solar energy, made prosthetic arm that can feel, gave the sight to the blind and much, much more every single day... and yet some people still believe in something that sand gypsies wrote thousands of years ago.

[BADecker]

21st century, people have sent robots to other planets, made virtual reality, found a way to use solar energy, made prosthetic arm that can feel, gave the sight to the blind and much, much more every single day... and yet some people still believe in something that sand gypsies wrote thousands of years ago.

Yes, but...

People still live to, usually, under 100 years old. All the fun gadgets we have are there only to distract people from the importance of planning for life after death.

[eon89]

"planning for life after death."??
Dude, that's just... I mean... Know what? You plan for life after death. I'll stick to my gadgets.
We'll leave you alone with your "religious science" and just hope that you'll do the same.
I'm sick of Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door at 7 in the morning on saturdays - that's the real sin.

[mOgliE]

"planning for life after death."??
Dude, that's just... I mean... Know what? You plan for life after death. I'll stick to my gadgets.
We'll leave you alone with your "religious science" and just hope that you'll do the same.
I'm sick of Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door at 7 in the morning on saturdays - that's the real sin.

Ahah! At least in France Jehova's Witnesses are not a thing 

Religion lost the majority of its power with science development. Only idiots think the Bible is anything more than a text to interpret. ^^