Hello & my question.

[ColdBlooded]

Regarding the question of the OP.

We spend no more time fighting Christianity than Christianity spends establishing their faith-driven quests to abolish homosexuality, The Theory of Evolution, or any other portion of society that conflicts with their views.

Personally I think that's where the conflict is.

I don't fight faith, I just try to keep it out of my yard.

 

[Classik]

They are selfish.

You can't leave with a cliff hangar like that!

This is intriguing, and I do really hope you expand upon that accusation.

It means they 'sell' fish

 

[ColdBlooded]

It means they 'sell' fish

How did he know!!

 

[Milk-Drops]

It means they 'sell' fish

Tuna is really hot this year. Not to great on the pike though, maybe I'll fluff out my quota with some fighting fish and make it to the bank.

 

[Classik]

I am new to this forum. I have had a question in the back of my mind all my adult life. Why do athiests spend so much time, energy and money fighting against something they believe not to exist?

They are selfish.

You can't leave with a cliff hangar like that!

This is intriguing, and I do really hope you expand upon that accusation.

It means they 'sell' fish

How did he know!!

His teacher told him: Fishes are coldblooded animals. ;)

 

[Classik]

Tuna is really hot this year. Not to great on the pike though, maybe I'll fluff out my quota with some fighting fish and make it to the bank.

Not a good idea. Fishermen fishing at the bank.... run run run

 

[Atothetheist]

I'm one of the types that firmly believes that if you base your life on a falsehood, and you derive your character from that falsehood, and only from that falsehood, you character is false.

The reason why atheists fight religion is a complicated issue.Maybe they are like me, seeking the truth, and when religion tries to snuff out things like the theory of evolution, Big Bang, Etc, then I feel it is having a negative effect, and should be excluded from the realm of discourse(religious faith, not religious claims). There are some of us who are "Anti-Theists"(I am on the verge of becoming one) where they, like Hitchens, believe Religion is actively harmful, and there are better things to base your life on.

Why are you asking Christians, and not atheists yourself? I was shaking my head at quite a few of theese answers, because some of them answer with the view that Christianity is true.

If you want the truth, ask them yourself, don't get biased misinformation from people on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Some atheists have systematically been fighting, not against religion, but against the fundamentalists who shun scientific truth. They encourage you to trust, and understand science. People, in the old days, fought against many untruths, some have even been hounded by the Church( Catholic) into racanting and not dieing by their hands(Galileo). In order to find truth, we must actively Battle with ideas and notions that are false and, until proven they are indeed true, replace the idea and notion with something more truthful, and improve our view on the world.

 

[Grazer]

I was shaking my head at quite a few of theese answers, because some of them answer with the view that Christianity is true.

I may be mis-understanding your meaning but you're on a Christian forum, what else would you expect?

I agree if you want to know why atheists object to religion then ask them directly because reasons will differ from person to person.

 

[reba]

The science truths that change often?

I can not be the only person remembering the the science scare of the 70s gobal cooling..... 1956 i was taught in public school dinosaurs and man in the same time...not a truth today. Even in the simple things how many time is coffee going to be good for you, bad for you?

Corner them and they say theory yet while talking as if their ever changing thoughts are truth. At the same time i am very thankful for the advances science has made. Joe Public should be grateful for the advances, it does not necessarily follow that all science says is truth.

 

[Atothetheist]

The science truths that change often?

I can not be the only person remembering the the science scare of the 70s gobal cooling..... 1956 i was taught in public school dinosaurs and man in the same time...not a truth today. Even in the simple things how many time is coffee going to be good for you, bad for you?

Corner them and they say theory yet while talking as if their ever changing thoughts are truth. At the same time i am very thankful for the advances science has made. Joe Public should be grateful for the advances, it does not necessarily follow that all science says is truth.

:bigfrown Science improves. Science is allowed to gather new EVIDENCE and CHANGE based on what they find. Just because it changes doesn't mean its not reliable. The sentence about theory shows me how little you understand of the scientific method, and how reliable science is.

In the old old old old days, we thought many STUPID things, but now that we have new methods to gather new amounts of evidence we weren't able to in the past, we can, depending on the evidence, change our views on things.

You keep going on about how back in your days science was "Wrong" about such and such... You right, they were, but only because they have found new methods of dicerning things like these, science is self correcting.

Theory in science means a different thing than theory in normal, casual talk. Am I right in assuming you don't know what the scientific word theory is compared to the casual use of the same word?

 

[Atothetheist]

I was shaking my head at quite a few of theese answers, because some of them answer with the view that Christianity is true.

I may be mis-understanding your meaning but you're on a Christian forum, what else would you expect?

I agree if you want to know why atheists object to religion then ask them directly because reasons will differ from person to person.

I was shaking my head to confirm that there was bias in these answers. I know where I am on, and I expected bias.

 

[reba]

:bigfrown Science improves. Science is allowed to gather new EVIDENCE and CHANGE based on what they find. Just because it changes doesn't mean its not reliable. The sentence about theory shows me how little you understand of the scientific method, and how reliable science is.

In the old old old old days, we thought many STUPID things, but now that we have new methods to gather new amounts of evidence we weren't able to in the past, we can, depending on the evidence, change our views on things.

You keep going on about how back in your days science was "Wrong" about such and such... You right, they were, but only because they have found new methods of dicerning things like these, science is self correcting.

Theory in science means a different thing than theory in normal, casual talk. Am I right in assuming you don't know what the scientific word theory is compared to the casual use of the same word?

I am no scientist one quick read and you see .. i dont have a lot of education. You spoke of truths

.but against the fundamentalists who shun scientific truth.

. does truth change? I dont think so does learning yes.

In your rebuttal you have better stated my point...

 

[Atothetheist]

I am no scientist one quick read and you see .. i dont have a lot of education. You spoke of truths . does truth change? I dont think so does learning yes.

In your rebuttal you have better stated my point...

Ok, I was talking about about truths such as evolution and other such evident things.

 

[Grazer]

Scientific theory as it was put to me:

One never "proves" anything in science in the sense of 100% mathematical certainty. But one can get to a standard that might be described as "beyond a reasonable doubt". And other conclusions of science might be less certain than that. I think that is one of the hardest things for non-scientists to appreciate -- the spectrum of certainty of different scientific results. Some things are really beyond any reasonable doubt (like the vast age of the Earth, and common ancestry among species, and smoking causing cancer), others are pretty clear at maybe the 99% level but still maybe a little room for doubt (like global warming and HIV as the cause of AIDS), and others are more in the "best guess" category where the degree of certainty might be more like 50% (like some theories about the early stages of the development of life).

So that word "theory" simply means somebody's proposed explanation for how something happens, how different things in nature fit together, etc. An equivalent word would be "hypothesis". Usually it would have its origin in some puzzle in nature where there is a gap in understanding, or some observed set of facts that hasn't been explained, or somebody looking at two separate things and looking for a connection. So a scientist would come up with a proposed explanation (maybe after a lot of work and false starts), and if it seems like it could be right it could be called a theory. Theories get tested (by, among other things, making new observations of nature and seeing if they are consistent with the theory) and maybe they seem to work and move closer to certainty (as has been the case with evolution as new genetic evidence has been studied, or the Big Bang theory with advances in astronomy), or maybe further study reveals that it is wrong (like the now-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism), or maybe it is not totally overthrown but just needs to be adjusted (like evolutionary theory today isn't really the same as in Darwin's day since it needed adjustments to account for genetics).

 

[Atothetheist]

Scientific theory as it was put to me:

One never "proves" anything in science in the sense of 100% mathematical certainty. But one can get to a standard that might be described as "beyond a reasonable doubt". And other conclusions of science might be less certain than that. I think that is one of the hardest things for non-scientists to appreciate -- the spectrum of certainty of different scientific results. Some things are really beyond any reasonable doubt (like the vast age of the Earth, and common ancestry among species, and smoking causing cancer), others are pretty clear at maybe the 99% level but still maybe a little room for doubt (like global warming and HIV as the cause of AIDS), and others are more in the "best guess" category where the degree of certainty might be more like 50% (like some theories about the early stages of the development of life).

So that word "theory" simply means somebody's proposed explanation for how something happens, how different things in nature fit together, etc. An equivalent word would be "hypothesis". Usually it would have its origin in some puzzle in nature where there is a gap in understanding, or some observed set of facts that hasn't been explained, or somebody looking at two separate things and looking for a connection. So a scientist would come up with a proposed explanation (maybe after a lot of work and false starts), and if it seems like it could be right it could be called a theory. Theories get tested (by, among other things, making new observations of nature and seeing if they are consistent with the theory) and maybe they seem to work and move closer to certainty (as has been the case with evolution as new genetic evidence has been studied, or the Big Bang theory with advances in astronomy), or maybe further study reveals that it is wrong (like the now-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism), or maybe it is not totally overthrown but just needs to be adjusted (like evolutionary theory today isn't really the same as in Darwin's day since it needed adjustments to account for genetics).

Hypothesis and theory are not equivilent at all. Gravity is also a theory.

 

[Grazer]

Hypothesis and theory are not equivilent at all. Gravity is also a theory.

In that specific example possibly not but looking at the history the link is very much there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory

In the context within which they were describing though, theory and hypothesis are linked/equivalent.

 

[Atothetheist]

In that specific example no it's not but in the context within which he was describing, theory and hypothesis are linked/equivalent.

No, In scientific terms, Theory and Hypothesis are completely different, and untested idea behind an observation is a hypothesis, and tested, tested, re tested, hypothesis that explains certain phenomona is granted the Title of theory.

Unless you are talking in Casual manner,then yes, they would be equivilent.

They are linked, but they do not mean the same as in the way scientists mean it. This is why I face palm whenever somebody says "Its just a theory" If they sincerely think that when scientists say theory like its a guess, they are seriously wrong and are seriously uneducated in science.

If they say "its just a Hypothesis then I will grant them that, but the Theory of evolution through natural selection isn't a hypothesis, it's been observed, tested, and re tested. The only thing that is uncertain about evolution, is the HOW it happen, not IF it did.

Please, never say " its just a Theory" because I will never give any time when we are talking about science.

 

[reba]

In my life time the truth of evolution has changed from evolving from monkeys to evolving from fish. Theory yes truth no.. All scientist do not agree on all topics... I guess i expect to 'see' science 'truths' as facts....

The science world cannot convince me their differing views of evolution are a 'truth'. To offer different theories as theories is way different than offering theories as facts.

I believe in the Lord by faith.
I do believe some science to be facts. A extremely simple example would be it is a fact there is a sun, moon, planets.
Most of this is way over my head so i will move on....

 

[Milk-Drops]

The science truths that change often?

Science gathers new information but mile stones that shake up an entire field are drastically rare.

I can not be the only person remembering the the science scare of the 70s global cooling.....

You mean media scare. In the 1970s climate scientists pointed out that the Earth was going into a cooling period. The media ran with it. What happened though is that due to deforestation and Man kind's massive use of land and fossil fuels, we have managed to aid in a warming trend when we should be in a cooling trend.

1956 i was taught in public school dinosaurs and man in the same time...not a truth today.

Nor would it have been a truth back then considering that the Age of the Earth and strata dating was being done in the 19th century. Technically we still live with dinosaurs. Birds are direct descendants of Dinosaurs.

Even in the simple things how many time is coffee going to be good for you, bad for you?

This is more of the media. A lab for a company that sells company runs tests on the coffee and then a report is filed. Usually before the paper has time to even hit peer review a news station has already jumped up to yell the results as fact. In short, they want ratings.

Corner them and they say theory yet while talking as if their ever changing thoughts are truth.

I don't know you these them are, but a theory is a model of the most current understanding of the subject at hand and the only changes that usually happen are the changes that are found after rigorous peer review.

At the same time i am very thankful for the advances science has made. Joe Public should be grateful for the advances, it does not necessarily follow that all science says is truth.

You are free to do what you want.

 

[Grazer]

No, In scientific terms, Theory and Hypothesis are completely different, and untested idea behind an observation is a hypothesis, and tested, tested, re tested, hypothesis that explains certain phenomona is granted the Title of theory.

Unless you are talking in Casual manner,then yes, they would be equivilent.

They are linked, but they do not mean the same as in the way scientists mean it. This is why I face palm whenever somebody says "Its just a theory" If they sincerely think that when scientists say theory like its a guess, they are seriously wrong and are seriously uneducated in science.

If they say "its just a Hypothesis then I will grant them that, but the Theory of evolution through natural selection isn't a hypothesis, it's been observed, tested, and re tested. The only thing that is uncertain about evolution, is the HOW it happen, not IF it did.

Please, never say " its just a Theory" because I will never give any time when we are talking about science.

So a scientist would come up with a proposed explanation (maybe after a lot of work and false starts), and if it seems like it could be right it could be called a theory. Theories get tested (by, among other things, making new observations of nature and seeing if they are consistent with the theory)

Think the bit before the above is not clear but I think the above is essentially what you're saying.

I never say "it's just a theory"