Some claim what is the use. Well one is that others who are not too far gone may read it and see that we are right. Most of the time you will go without knowing whom you pulled out of their delusion, that road often takes a long time for most, and by the time they realize it, you have no connection with them.

But, the other reason I do it is the comedy of errors and word salad they use to avoid facing the fact their logic is bad.

I am sure many here have run into "science doesn't know everything" or "science cant answer everything". And they respond ignoring that they are using a product of science to type their response.

Ok so just now on twitter I got a loony who railed against science, and I mean they thought it was evil, which is beyond simply saying "science doesn't know everything". The same false assumption that those who value it are suggesting we be emotionless robots. 

Ok so this time the word game was trying to separate science from the word "technology". He tried to square his paranoia with the fact he was using a product of science. I have to admit, that was the first time I saw that dodge. HELLO MCFLY, "technology" isn't separate from science, it is the end result of using scientific method. Even with inventors who are not in a lab, they tinker and tinker and tinker, sometimes not realizing that the act of tinkering and revising is basically observing and testing and falsifying until they get to something that works.

Nobody thinks widely of car mechanics as scientists, but they really are. They have to know the parts of the engine down the the millimeter or inch. They have to have a basic understanding of the scientific reason a combustion engine works. They have to know all the complex parts and where they go, and morso today, they even have to have a working knowledge of computers and even programming.

Even with mechanics they have a standard they should go buy if ethical, and if a car doesn't start, they start the problem solving by trying to plug the least complicated possibility as to why the car wont start, IE, the battery cable, if not that, then the juice in the battery, if not that, then maybe a fuse or the starter or the ignition. What they don't do, or should not do if ethical, is tell you off the bat it is your transmission. 

"I don't hate technology, I hate science"............ DERP!

Now don't get me wrong, scientific method is not a moral code. Products of science have been used for very horrible things. But the tool itself is not a religion, it is a process. Religious theocracies and one party states we consider immoral also use method to obtain their weapons. 

But to call a process a moral code and claim nobody ever should use it is nuts, especially when you are using it to say such stupid shit. And why did this person jump on me? Not because the conversation was about computers, but because I mentioned the evil word "evolution". I only brought up computers because the idea of testing and falsifying is both how we make discoveries in biology and in technology.

Quote:Some claim what is the use.

Don't forget "personal entertainment."

(January 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Some claim what is the use.

Don't forget "personal entertainment."

Some people get burnt out or board, I have been at this 15 years and while much of it is redundant, sometimes I do run into new arrangements of word salad dodging the same old errors in logic.

Yea, but if it also helps other atheists learn the tactics and fallacies and errors of believers, that helps too. The more humans who think for themselves, the harder it becomes for superstition to lead to atrocities. Again, it isn't that atheists can create a godless utopia, but having the ability to question, blaspheme and ridicule keeps religion to a more manageable and civil degree.

Indeed, everyone generally follows the scientific method for much of the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to function.

Science is woefully misunderstood I think, and it's no accident, thanks to ignorant propaganda. It's a method, it's doing what works, essentially. Agreed, science does not tell us about morality. I entirely disagree with Harris' attempts here, or at least the way he frames it. Science helps us achieve goals, but it does not tell us what those goals should be.

(January 19, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Don't forget "personal entertainment."

Some people get burnt out or board[...]

I got burnt out after my first few years here... I got tired of asking for evidence after about the 400 thousandth time, I think.

The problem there is that non-sceptics have a very different idea about what "evidence" is. At least, when talking about their pet superstition. I notice they're plenty sceptical about other things, and especially any idea which may challenge their superstition. So it's really selective standards.

(January 20, 2016 at 2:45 am)robvalue Wrote: The problem there is that non-sceptics have a very different idea about what "evidence" is. At least, when talking about their pet superstition. I notice they're plenty sceptical about other things, and especially any idea which may challenge their superstition. So it's really selective standards.

Their version of evidence is whatever you have yet to produce.

I cant do a fraction to save my life. But scientific method is an idea, it isnt a complex idea to understand. I think people freak out when they hear just the word "science" which are fields of study, and some are more complex than others. If anyone has gone to middle school or highschool, then they have taken a science class.

And we participate in science without realizing it every day. Cooking, thermodynamics, bicycle riding, potential energy vs kinetic energy, cell phone, radio waves, being alive, evolution, ect ect ect ect ect. There is no way not to participate in it outside of being dead.

Yeah, it's one of many words that has unfortunately become stigmatised and the meaning has been warped. I suppose education is the key again, to show people that "science" is something we all do to a greater or lesser extent.

(January 19, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Don't forget "personal entertainment."

.

PYea, but if it also helps other atheists learn the tactics and fallacies and errors of believers, that helps too.

YES! THIS! For those veterans who feel burned out from time to time: I (as an atheist) have learned SO MUCH from you guys about reason and logic, and a whole host of other topics since joining this forum. This place challenges me intellectually and it has challenged the way I think about the world on a number of levels. What I have gained from all of you is INVALUABLE.

So, even if you can't convince a single Theist they are delusional, that doesn't mean the opportunities for learning you have created are in vain. At least I can say I am doing my best to take advantage of the incredible intellect that lives here at AF. So...thanks! [HEAVY BLACK HEART]️