Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist

[GrandizerII]

Drich is now arguing physics? Dude, go back to your fucking Bible.

[Asmodee]

That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy.

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

[Whateverist]

Drich is now arguing physics? Dude, go back to your fucking Bible.

Oh he does, always, to find whichever bits support where he wants to go.  That way, when he turns it all over to the lord, he is sure of getting where he wants to go anyhow.  We're so lucky to have regular access to his brand of spiritual guidance.[/s]

[GrandizerII]

That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy.

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

In addition, it's not even true that what Drich is referring to is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would the predictions be tested at all if that was the case? Might as well just formulate a "hypothesis" and then look for whatever "evidence" to confirm it.

[Drich]

It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave.

I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

I did that.  Did you actually read the results of your 'fraud' search?  I rather doubt it.  The results included one story about a group of scientists who had an alternate theory to explain the Higgs data.  That story was repeated multiple times.  The rest of the hits are from crackpots and people criticizing things not directly relevant to the physics.  In short, your implied claim that the Higgs boson discovery was a fraud is based on pretty much crap.  One alternative theory and a bunch of bullshit.  So your rant below is just that: a rant, containing no substance.  Care to try again to document this 'fraud'?

I always look forward to you posts as you truly put in a semi valid effort. much respect for that..
Here's the thing you failed to do. You failed to watch the documentary.

It is the documentary that makes that one single story so damning (which I did indeed explain in the post you quoted from.) In that in the documentary the cern scientists themselves explain the evidence they had used to get funding to build the supercolider. Which is explain in great detail and has even been animated digitally so someone like you or me can easily grasp what they found and what they were looking for.

Even though they did not find evidence directly supporting the H/B, they simply realigned the theory to fit the evidence they had found. Which can also be used to validate several other competing theories, yet who got the Nobel prize?

How do you not see this as a problem? how can you argue that fact that a nobel prize was issued for the H/B particle theory based on the faith the Nobel commity had on the proclimation from the cern scientists that they found it?

NOT To Mention The Fact that there is only one real source that challenges the Higgs discovery only furthers my initial point. In that On this level of fringe science fact, raw data, and the people quilified to intrepret said data bottle necks. The fact that the Nobel commity was fooled and it took over a year for anyone too openly challenge the cern data only prooves the point I make it does not detract from it as you would like it to.

IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

Unsupported rant is unsupported.

Not true. what i just said about the nobel committee being fooled by cern, the fact that cern has further funding, and the fact that it took over a year for anyone else to legitimately challenge the cern findings supports everything I said here.

You are getting lazy with your sweeping dismissals.

That my naive friend is how your precious 'science/religion' works.

Or it's just a groundless story that you happen to believe.

That is why it was over a year later that the higgs boson discovery was debunked.

Citation needed.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/...415399496/
The story identifies the claim from cern that the H/B was discovered, then they also put forth several competing theory that state the H/B was not found, but rather the decay rates that point to the H/B (which again if you watch the video is what they initally had) which accoding to this paper lends it self to at least two different competing theories:
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.....90.035012

I think that's the bottom line.  We have a bible idolizing crackpot who is misrepresenting the physics and the facts.

Actually the bible has nothing to do with anything I said here. I am disappointed that you too want to default to a character assassination attempt rather than have a purely topical discussion.

Where's your evidence that the Higgs discovery was debunked?  I see a lot of ranting with no actual support.

You didn't do your due dillegence did you. You of all people should know not to ask me a question you are not 1000% sure that you know the answer of.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Scientists were quite excited when researchers last year announced they had observed the Higgs particle in the CERN particle accelerator known as the Large Hadron Collider. Prior to this discovery, the Higgs boson was a subatomic particle whose existence was predicated solely on theory, not direct evidence.

Now, a new study casts some doubt on the certainty of that discovery, suggesting the data collected with the LHC may explain a different type of subatomic particle, not the Higgs boson.
"The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particle is the Higgs particle," particle physicist Mads Toudal Frandsen explained in a recent press release. "It is true that the Higgs particle can explain the data but there can be other explanations, we would also get this data from other particles."

Frandsen was part of a team of scientists from the University of Southern Denmark who recently called into question the conclusiveness of the LHC data. Their hypothesis was detailed this week in the journal Physical Review D.

Frandsen and his colleagues say the data may explain the Higgs particle, but it also works for a theoretical type of particle known as the techni-higgs.

From the link posted above.

Again, the Nobel committee was fooled into handing out what is arguably the highest achievement/award one can receive for scientific discovery, Based on what the cern scientist discovered. Which it took over a year for anyone to challenge the findings/to break through the red tape/scientific beucracy to openly challenge the statement that what was found is proof to the H/B throey.

Again that is what is being discussed. The corruption in science and the faith one has to have to blindly accept it as the Nobel Committee did.

[Drich]

I notice the more time I spend on AF the more theists avoid me.

I'm clearly scary to those with poor reasoning.

We 'avoid' you because your posts are typically constructed on the 'Yah-huh/nut-huh' debate structure. Or you just snipe comments.. meaning there is nothing to say to a snarky passing quip.

Look at this post.

The discussion is about faith in science, or a broader topic atheism is a type of religious belief...

Now look at the quoted bit from you..

Out of all the things you could have said you choose to celebrate yourself and your perceived debating skill.. (Rather than show it by speaking topically)

Outside of calling you out and making fun of you for your "skill" i ask you what are theist supposed to say if your not speaking topically?

If you can't come up with anything we are supposed to say, then know you are where we normally are after reading one of your posts..

so know, it is more out of mercy that we let you say what you will, not fear.

I mean seriously look at the line of your peers and the end parade of insults they offer. what is one more clown in the circus?

[Drich]

Drich is now arguing physics? Dude, go back to your fucking Bible.

I'm arguing articles and news headlines while pointing out facts a child could see, that you all seem to be missing. which makes 'smart guys' look not so 'smart.'

No wonder you want me off topic.

[Drich]

That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy.

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

Oh, my glob...

Ok I get peer review. Let's for the sake of argument, that just for this one post, you elevate me to someone as smart as you.. Now assume i understand the scientific method as well as you do/explain it here.

Now if you have such an open mind ask yourself now, what am I still 'on' about, if I understand and accept what you had to say here...

In a nut shell what I am saying is there is common everyday scientific 'stuff' that high schoolers can muddle around with in class. Then there is highly technical stuff that makes modern life possible, that makes your cell phone work that connects the interwebs and puts rockets on mars, ect.. Finally there is the fringe science stuff/top shelf theoretical science stuff that one a hand full of people on the planet understand. What worse this process of peer review is further reduced because the equipment needed to generate the raw data needed to support these theories are literally one of a kinda. Meaning there is only one Hadrian supercolider on the planet. There is only one telescope designed to locate black holes on the edge of our universe there is only one mars probe currently able to scan for evidence of life.

All of that means we only have one data point to explain the origins of the universe. All that it is, and all that it is made of. That is the big picture of what you are doing when you say the big bang is the origins of Bla bla bla..

So here is a Review on what we have so far: you have a single point of data collection/one super colider, one black hole telescope ect.. (which is insane as No other industry can make claims to their theories from one singular perspective yet make a universal claim that the whole world will believe without question)

You have a hand full of people on the planet who can interpret the data

You have examples of corruption in the claims made from CERN that were a year latter refuted

yet you think you are getting the same level or type of 'peer review' as you do with a high school level experiment?

Seriously?!!?

The whole scientific process bottle necks when the equipment used to formulate and verify theory becomes a billion dollar venture.

Meaning little to no peer review.

Which leads us to the second half of the discussion with the CERN scientists claiming to have found the Higgs Boson particle and it took a year for a 'peer' to object to their findings.. Long enough for the people who came up with the H/B theory to win a nobel prize...

Do you see it yet? can you see what I am 'on' about?

Science on the fringe level is so easily corruptible.
no or very little over sight, and is money/billions upon billions of dollars driven. Never a good combination.

Which brings up back to my statement that it takes as much faith to believe in 'fringe science' as it does to believe in God, if not more, when corruption is found on the higher levels/at the source of the data that supports theories like the big bang.

[Edwardo Piet]

Drich... why are you here? Why do you post on AF?

[Drich]

That would kind of make sense, maybe, IF you weren't leaving out the final step, peer review.  That's the step where you release your theory to the world and a bunch of people who can make a name for themselves by tearing yours to shreds go over it for validity.  There's no glory for the scientist who says, "Yep.  He was right.  Wish I'd thought of it."  There IS, however, incentive to say, "That guy is stupid.  I checked his results and they aren't right, making me smarter than him."

In addition, it's not even true that what Drich is referring to is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would the predictions be tested at all if that was the case? Might as well just formulate a "hypothesis" and then look for whatever "evidence" to confirm it.

the higgs/boson theroy was formulated in the 1960s fast forward nearly 50 years of doing that very thing (searching for anything they could use to support it) several billion dollars was spent building the hadron colider and a billion more will be spent to keep chasing this pig in a poke particle.

Not to mention after the accelerator was built, the Cern 'scientist' took took a phenoma that could be used to verify the H/B but also several other theories of other particles and out right lied it was definitive proof of the H/B to further their research. they even fooled the Nobel Prize committee into issuing a Nobel prize to the guys from the 1960s who came up with the theory, based on what the Cern scientists claimed they found!!!

What You mocking said in your quoted post, was in real life fleshed out by the scientist who are supposedly providing evidence to support the big bang...

They literally had a theory and collected evidence to support it, and tried to play down the fact that said evidence could be used to support several others.