Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles

[OzmO]

Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.  Except some people don't like to use the word "faith," probably due to its religious connotation. 

such as?

[Dos Equis]

such as?

The origins of life on earth.  Some fact, some opinion, and a whole lot of faith when it comes to day 1 (regardless of the theory). 

[OzmO]

The origins of life on earth.  Some fact, some opinion, and a whole lot of faith when it comes to day 1 (regardless of the theory). 

I think you are confusing faith with theory.

[Dos Equis]

I think you are confusing faith with theory.

Not really.  Some theories involve faith (even if characterized differently).

[Archer77]

Faith isnt the right word.  Faith is belief even in the absence of evidence.  Scientist have hypotheses that are subject to rigorous testing. When all the facts appear to support a hypothesis it becomes an agreed upon consensus called a theory.  This doesnt mean research ends.  With the introduction of new evidence a theory can be dismissed.

[Dos Equis]

Faith isnt the right word.  Faith is belief even in the absence of evidence.  Scientist have hypotheses that are subject to rigorous testing. When all the facts appear to support a hypothesis it becomes an agreed upon consensus called a theory.  This doesnt mean research ends.  With the introduction of new evidence a theory can be dismissed.

It's the right word.  Just an uncomfortable word for some. 

Scientific methods involve:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions. 

Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1.  Cannot be done.     

[Straw Man]

It's the right word.  Just an uncomfortable word for some. 

Scientific methods involve:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions. 

Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1.  Cannot be done.     

Who said life began on "day 1"

[OzmO]

It's the right word.  Just an uncomfortable word for some. 

Scientific methods involve:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions. 

Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1.  Cannot be done.     

incorrect.

this is the scietifics method:



Faith is believing in something with the absence of facts.

Scientific methods sets out to find them.

Now, theories and conclusions have become wrong because new research experimentation proves them incorrect.  But none of that has anything to do with faith.

It seems to me you are trying hard to make science on the same level of religion to lessen the impact of the absence of facts in it.

[Dos Equis]

incorrect.

this is the scietifics method:



Faith is believing in something with the absence of facts.

Scientific methods sets out to find them.

Now, theories and conclusions have become wrong because new research experimentation proves them incorrect.  But none of that has anything to do with faith.

It seems to me you are trying hard to make science on the same level of religion to lessen the impact of the absence of facts in it.

What is the difference between the graphic you posted and the four elements I posted? 

I'm not trying hard to do anything.  I don't believe religion is synonymous with religion.  I don't believe the Bible is a science book.  I believe in the four elements I posted, which come straight from scientists. 

Same question I asked Archer:  can you explain the origin of life on earth using the scientific method, or whatever other facts you think are available?

[OzmO]

What is the difference between the graphic you posted and the four elements I posted?  

I'm not trying hard to do anything.  I don't believe religion is synonymous with religion.  I don't believe the Bible is a science book.  I believe in the four elements I posted, which come straight from scientists.  

Same question I asked Archer:  can you explain the origin of life on earth using the scientific method, or whatever other facts you think are available?

Where in the graphic i posted, from a credible site, does it use or say the word prediction or synonym of?  Also, does the 4 steps you posted cover all the steps in the graphic?  Which scientists do your 4 steps come directly from?

I am not a scientist.  But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts.

What facts are the Bible's account tested on?

Of the two, science and the Bible, which finds their facts more based on faith or more based on facts?

Of the two, which strive to find the truth based on facts or which of them have already accepted as the truth?  And what's that truth based on?  Written word?  Or research and testing using the scientific method i posted above?

Of the two which use detailed explanations and which use parable a vague passages written by primitive bronze age men?

Lets take a look at the word faith:


faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

How is the word FAITH even remotely close to the scientific method i posted above?  .....where the hypothesis is tested for proof?

Nope Faith is far from the right word when it comes to the scientific method.  

[Dos Equis]

Where in the graphic i posted, from a credible site, does it use or say the word prediction or synonym of?  Also, does the 4 steps you posted cover all the steps in the graphic?  Which scientists do your 4 steps come directly from?

I am not a scientist.  But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts.

What facts are the Bible's account tested on?

Of the two, science and the Bible, which finds their facts more based on faith or more based on facts?

Of the two, which strive to find the truth based on facts or which of them have already accepted as the truth?  And what's that truth based on?  Written word?  Or research and testing using the scientific method i posted above?

Of the two which use detailed explanations and which use parable a vague passages written by primitive bronze age men?

Lets take a look at the word faith:


faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

How is the word FAITH even remotely close to the scientific method i posted above?  .....where the hypothesis is tested for proof?

Nope Faith is far from the right word when it comes to the scientific method.  

I don't know what "credible" site you pulled the graph from, but it's no different than what I posted. 

"Do background research" = (1) observation

"Construct a hypothesis" = (2) hypothesis formulation

"test with an experiment" = (3) prediction

"procedure working" = (4) testing of predictions. 

Your Bible argument is a straw man.  I specifically said the Bible is not a science book.  Why are you trying to apply a scientific method to the Bible?

Regarding the definition of faith, from your own definition:  "belief that is not based on proof."

Do you have a scientific belief based on proof about how life began on day 1? 

[OzmO]

"Do background research" = (1) observation

"Construct a hypothesis" = (2) hypothesis formulation

"test with an experiment" = (3) prediction

"procedure working" = (4) testing of predictions. 

Prediction is not "test with experipment"

Let's take a look at the definition of prediction:


prediction
[pri-dik-shuhn]
noun
1. an act of predicting.
2.an instance of this; prophecy.


predict
[pri-dikt]
verb (used with object)
1.to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2.to foretell the future; make a prediction.

That is definitely NOT rest with experiment

You might say its hypothesis, however that doesn't come until asking a question and back ground research, then after the hypothesis its tested.

The difference is, religeon is never "tested" and doesn't base facts on faith while religion does. 

I don't know what "credible" site you pulled the graph from, but it's no different than what I posted. 

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml   First google hit.

Your Bible argument is a straw man.  I specifically said the Bible is not a science book.  Why are you trying to apply a scientific method to the Bible?

Because it relates to you incorrect charge of faith and how its related to science.  You said:

Not really.  Some theories involve faith (even if characterized differently).

Theories don't involve faith, they involve fact.

Belief as it relates to the bible or religion in general does:

Regarding the definition of faith, from your own definition:  "belief that is not based on proof."

I asked you earlier, to list some scientific theories that are based on faith.  Can you do this or not?

Can you list some scientific theories that are partially based on faith?

Can you list some scientific theories that are 100% based on faith?

Do you have a scientific belief based on proof about how life began on day 1? 

I told you, i am not a scientist.  Nor have I seriously researched the scientific explanation of life's beginnings on earth.

[OzmO]

here's a link that comes close to the scientific method you sited:

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

[OzmO]

So the question becomes:  where is faith in either of those 2 scientific explanations?

understanding: 


faith
[feyth]
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

[Dos Equis]

Where in the graphic i posted, from a credible site, does it use or say the word prediction or synonym of?  Also, does the 4 steps you posted cover all the steps in the graphic?  Which scientists do your 4 steps come directly from?

I am not a scientist.  But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts.

What facts are the Bible's account tested on?

Of the two, science and the Bible, which finds their facts more based on faith or more based on facts?

Of the two, which strive to find the truth based on facts or which of them have already accepted as the truth?  And what's that truth based on?  Written word?  Or research and testing using the scientific method i posted above?

Of the two which use detailed explanations and which use parable a vague passages written by primitive bronze age men?

Lets take a look at the word faith:


faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

How is the word FAITH even remotely close to the scientific method i posted above?  .....where the hypothesis is tested for proof?

Nope Faith is far from the right word when it comes to the scientific method.  

I read the four items I posted in a book.  Also, here is that highly reliable and prestigious source--wikipedia--that supports it.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Seriously, if you plug in those four items, you'll come up with numerous cites.  For example:  http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Why do you keep bringing up the Bible?  I've said twice (three times now) that the Bible is not a science book.  I'm not talking about the Bible.

You say this:  "I am not a scientist.  But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts."

So I have two questions:

1.  What is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

2.  What theories are out there "based on researched and tested facts" about the origin of life on day 1?  I'm unaware of any. 

[Straw Man]

I read the four items I posted in a book.  Also, here is that highly reliable and prestigious source--wikipedia--that supports it.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Seriously, if you plug in those four items, you'll come up with numerous cites.  For example:  http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Why do you keep bringing up the Bible?  I've said twice (three times now) that the Bible is not a science book.  I'm not talking about the Bible.

You say this:  "I am not a scientist.  But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts."

So I have two questions:

1.  What is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

2.  What theories are out there "based on researched and tested facts" about the origin of life on day 1?  I'm unaware of any. 

what is "day 1" and what scientist (or anyone) ever made a claim about being able to prove that "life" began on "day 1" ?

[24KT]

Reminds me of this.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=289547.0

More evidence that atheists proselytize. 

It has been my experience that atheists for the most part are not big on the proselytizing, ...but I have one atheist acquaintance whose whole life is was all about proselytizing. Oh the battles we would have!!!

I realized it was in reaction to his having been raised in a part of the USA that is heavily repressed with 'religiosity' but he was ridiculous! I finally had to tear him a new one, and make him realize he was the flip side of the coin he detested so much!!!

A few years back while seething with anger, I once said I hated evangelicals. What I meant to say at the time, and should have instead expressed, was my displeasure with proselytizers. Pent up anger & resentment sure can discombobulated the brain.   

[24KT]

Chrisians shouldn't be upset by this ruling.  It seems fair to allow the distribution of literature if christians are already allowed to. 

Agreed.

However, I believe the error was made in the distribution of the Bibles to begin with.
Separation of Church & State. If anything, allow distribution of the materials for research purposes, however, include other POV's as well. Stock them in the libraries, but no religious indoctrination instruction in the classroom, and certainly not at the elementary levels.

[Skip8282]

2.  What theories are out there "based on researched and tested facts" about the origin of life on day 1?  I'm unaware of any. 

I'm not aware of any either, but when you were asked for an example of a scientific theory based on faith, you answered with the origin of life.

What specific theory has faith as an element?

[OzmO]

I'm not aware of any either, but when you were asked for an example of a scientific theory based on faith, you answered with the origin of life.

What specific theory has faith as an element?

bump

nothing has really changed.  What specifically about the or a scientific theory of origin of life is based on faith?

[Dos Equis]

I'm not aware of any either, but when you were asked for an example of a scientific theory based on faith, you answered with the origin of life.

What specific theory has faith as an element?

Sort of a trick question.  There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)

I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo:  What is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

[avxo]

Sort of a trick question.  There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)

Not true - there are theories and at least one experiment has been devised that produced results consistent with predictions made from that theory (see the Miller-Urey experiment, for instance).

Just because you either don't like that theory and its implications (or perhaps because you are unaware of them) doesn't make the theory any less scientific. Nor, for that matter, are you particularly qualified to decree what is and is not scientific.

Is it possible those theories are wrong? Sure it is - falsifiability is as the core of scientific inquiry; incremental improvements of existing theories and radical new theories have cropped up as a result of new evidence surfacing.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo:  What is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

Far be it from me to answer for Ozmo, but I think that the evidence very strongly points to abiogenesis.

[OzmO]

Sort of a trick question.  There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)

I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo:  What is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

You said there is faith involved.  Still asking you for an example.   Are you refusing to give one?

[Dos Equis]

Not true - there are theories and at least one experiment has been devised that produced results consistent with predictions made from that theory (see the Miller-Urey experiment, for instance).

Just because you either don't like that theory and its implications (or perhaps because you are unaware of them) doesn't make the theory any less scientific. Nor, for that matter, are you particularly qualified to decree what is and is not scientific.

Is it possible those theories are wrong? Sure it is - falsifiability is as the core of scientific inquiry; incremental improvements of existing theories and radical new theories have cropped up as a result of new evidence surfacing.


Far be it from me to answer for Ozmo, but I think that the evidence very strongly points to abiogenesis.

I'm not trying to "decree what is and is not scientific," nor do I care about qualifications.  Nobody needs to be "qualified" to talk about stuff on a message board. 

In any event, did this "Miller-Urey experiment" create life in a lab? 

Isn't "abiogenesis" the theory of spontaneous generation?  And are you suggesting that theory has been tested? 

[Dos Equis]

You said there is faith involved.  Still asking you for an example.   Are you refusing to give one?

I answered that:

Sort of a trick question.  There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)

I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo:  What is your belief about how life began on day 1? 

Are you refusing to say what your belief is about how life began on day 1?