Atheist will believe ANYTHING that a scientist says.?

Question

That whole lame story about "the human species splitting in two" is a prime example. I noticed quite a few comments trying to rationalize such nonsense. It is good that Curry is working in progessively secular UK. He is just putting a new spin on eugenics,

Add a "why do" if that makes you feel better. This section is about ranting, no one cares about what the other thinks, there opinions are pretty much set in stone. I've learned that here pretty quickly.

Comrade, they aren't going to say it (PC) but some do think it.

Perhaps I am false mischaracterizations, I am so sorry. Considering that this study is done by a evolutionary theorist, who wrote a foreword in one of Dawkins' books, I can only speculate that this Curry is an atheist. Since most atheist believe anything that reknowned atheist put out, my characterization isn't that far off.

McKenzie, I have to agree with you. What I want to know is that why do atheist don't question things that Dawkins etc say. They automatically take it as fact. They don't question their statements, if a noted atheist says something then it must be true. That is BS. Even today scientist know that Darwin's theory of evolution has many holes in it. Yet atheist don't care.

Pericle thanks for stating the blunt truth:
"They are fun of twisting truth just for the sake to combat Christianity in whatever way"
I gave you a thumbs up.

And how will the two species be divided? I think we can look to history for the answer.

Answer 1

Goodness, no.

That would be silly.

Science isn't based on belief. Anyone who "believes" is not being scientific.

Of course there are atheist who believe anything a scientist says. They don't get it.

But there are also a vast majority who simply see a scientific theory as the most likely explanation for something and would happily change their mind in a second if given better evidence that proved a different theory.

Those who "Believe" science are delving into a religious thought, not science.

That's why I dislike Darwinism so much. Apart for the theory of evolution, which is a partially proven theory with good evidence, but not fully proven, yet, and the man, Darwin, who was not an atheist, you have those who DON'T understand science and try to use the theory of evolution to bash religion.

How silly. As if science was aimed at destroying God.

Nonsense. I would hope religious people of all sorts would join the scientific, who would welcome proof of God in a scientific manner and have no problem with people believing what they want as long as they don't prevent others from pursuing scientific research that is ethical, in ignoring such silliness as "Darwinism".

Now, discussion of and acceptance of the theory of evolution as the best "scientific" theory we presently have is perfectly sane and scientific.

Next decade, we might find we are totally mistaken and scientist will happily explore the new findings! What a joyous thing to have discovered something new!

Disproving God? Let's send the Darwinists (we'll pay) to go exhaustively test every aspect of the universe to prove God does not exist, and send the Creationists who think they have a scientific theory out to find proof, both on separate space craft.

The rest of us will wait here in ignorance, scientific pursuits, and religious beliefs and wait for their return.

What say you?

Answer 2

Two cornerstones of scientific methodology are repeated observations of the same phenomenon and independent verification. Without collaboration or substantive evidence, a hypothesis will not hold up under scrutiny. Forensic archaeological and paleontological evidence supports diversification of our human ancestors.

There is no evidence to support the premise that the human race started with a single pair lacking belly buttons.

Answer 3

In my more than 60 years of researching as a philosopher, scientist and an inventor, i have never see one athiest believe a true science findings. They are fun of twisting truth just for the sake to combat Christianity in whatever way. Even though how much they are being laugh at by sensible people. For no sensible person who will put his future in an statistical monstrocity.

Answer 4

Atheists will hear anyone's argument. Not all Atheists believe the exact same science. While one believes in extraterrestrial life, they other may not think it's possible at all. It's subjective. You have to look at the evidence yourself and make your own choice. That's the cool thing about being an Atheist. You don't have to believe anything at all if you don't want to. Or you can believe whatever you want to. We don't judge.

Answer 5

Atheists don't believe what ONE scientist says, rather they believe what the whole body of science believes to be true.
Case in point: Some Christian scientists say that evolution is hogwash.

Answer 6

Doesn't eugenics need a new spin? The last take on it was politically motivated and based on a tissue of racist lies.

Oh, and thanks for the mischaracterizing generalization, whereby you project the gullibility of theism onto the skeptical community. Can't wait to do something nice for you someday.

Answer 7

Actually, we believe what a scientist says when they have EVIDENCE for it.

What about Christan's? They usually believe whatever their pastor/father/preacher/etc. says. I'm sure that they'd believe him/her if they said that there was unicorns back in Jesus' time. So, who's the more foolish, the one who believes in what has evidence, or someone who believes what someone with NO evidence says?

Answer 8

Any rational person is will be a skeptic until something is proved and that includes ages old religions claiming real deities to scientific ventures.

Answer 9

you see... its not always so, only if the scientist has evidence which they always do.. also... what is the difference between an atheist who listens to a person of logic and rational thinking and someone who listens to a person who believes in a fantasy creature ' god' which there is no proof of his/itz existance...

Answer 10

I prefer to believe theories that have evidence to support them. That completely negates creationism and intelligent design.