7 ms·

>Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theor

>Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. Wrong. Nothing is presented as unquestionable truth in science. It is the predominent model. Just because some people might seem present it as TRUTH, doesn't mean that any scientist actually thinks that it is. Or, put another way, if shown a better model, scientists will instantly change their views to the newer better model. The only place one can find TRUTH, never changing TRUTH, is in religion. You are never able to change someone's religious worldview with new facts. Shit, Jesus christ himself could come back to earth, and if he said that christians got it all wrong, the christians would hang him on the cross again - how dare Jesus fluck with their beliefs?

colejohnson66 4y ago
Why are you putting "truth" in all caps?
- joshstrange 4y ago
  I think it's the same as putting "truth" in quotes since we aren't actually talking about provable/verifiable things. Religion is all about faith which is literally believing in something that can't be proven, else we would call it facts/truth. The commenter is using all-caps to designate this as a word people are using incorrectly.
- As_You_Wish 4y ago
  For several reasons. One is it is kind of a metaphor for how religious people seem to think about "truth." They think that they have the one truth, the only truth, as ordained by their spirit entity, like Zeus, Ishtar, Ra, or JHWH (the christian god). That their "truth" is the answer to everything. Like in the christian god-entity, people can walk on water or bring dead people back to life. That's part of the TRUTH. Personally, I prefer to use the words "facts" and "evidence" rather than the world "truth", because truth is a very generalized and abstracted concept that can have many meanings and make conversations muddy. If one is saying 1+1 = 2 is truth, and use the word that way, then ok. But usually that is not how the word is used. It's kind of an amorphous term. Also, it kind of makes me chuckle to write it that way because if you see religious people write or comment, they always use all-caps when they write, in the weirdest ways. So it is mimic of them to some extent. Not just on that word, but all kinds of random words in all-caps.
_8j50 4y ago
You make a lot of assumptions. Why people believe things and their reasoning process varies wildly. For myself, religion is not a product of an intellectual excercise but of experience that was a product of faith. What you are saying is if you presented me with an argument you believe to be factual, even though you claim nothing is indisputable in your comment you still think your argument would overrule my experience which you do not share. You speak only from your perspective and I agree that what you consider fact is never beyond dispute and as such it would be impossible to change my mind on matters I have experienced first hand based on what you are presenting. Religious beliefs require accepting there are things we as humans simply cannot understand or process, existence beyond our ability to percieve or comprehend directly unless we measure indirect effects of course, that is why you need faith. It makes no sense to argue with rules limiting your reasoning and operation to a scientific process when speaking to a person who does not share those same restrictions. Science does lead to grear knowledge and progress as well as an understanding of truths but yourself are being religious about science if you believe it is the only way to understand all things true and real in existence (unless you can prove that of course). This childish fight of science vs religion is silly. They are nor mutually exclusive and to both pursuits there is nothing more important than being correct.
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  Honestly, the religion trumps science wording makes it read like a schizopost.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    That's your takeaway? Wow. I went out of the way to describe how they are not mutually exclusive. Religion helps you understand and realize truths that you may or may not be able to do so with science. It isn't religion that trumps science it is experience. Of course you will still manage to misconstruct this as something beneficial to your agenda that science is the enemy of religion. If science claimed the earth is flat (which it did for the record in the past) and you built a baloon that lets you go high enough to witness the spherical and rotating nature of the earth. If you can't get others back up to that height to witness what you witnessed then should any other argument convince you to disbelieve what you saw and measured first hand? That is essentially what you are asking. In your world, others would come up with theories to explain why you saw what you saw and because they are smarter than you and there is popular consensus you should explain away what you saw to conform to their consensus. I am saying that is silly and in fact any viable argument would need to involve a similar level of experience as in perhaps going higher up the atmosphere and demonstrate the exact principles that make the flat earth look round or something. Mere hypothesis and theories don't trump experience is what I said (for the record I am not a flat earther lol). Only an experiment that experientially and reproducably demonstrates your argument can trump a belief gained by experience. Any time someone challenges popular consensus ideas about science you come out with the pitchforks. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate is true. Popular science is how religion has been in the past, it really is a control and power system either way that helps the rulers maintain their grasp be it science or religion when abused this way.
_-david-_ 4y ago
Plenty of scientists present their beliefs as the truth. Anybody who disagrees with them are idiots and conspiracy theorists. The flat earth theory is a common one where you will get that reaction. Your reaction to religion is just a dumb take. Pretty much every religion has a concept of development of doctrine.
- As_You_Wish 4y ago
  Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. >Anybody who disagrees with them are idiots and conspiracy theorists. It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes. If someone says 2+2 does not equal 4, then whatever. Indiana had a bill in 1897 called the Indiana Pi Bill for bill #246. They tried to establish math by fiat, and said that a circle can be turned into a square. So yeah, the Indiana legislators were pretty bad. >The flat earth theory is a common one where you will get that reaction. So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. >Your reaction to religion is just a dumb take It's a free country, you have the right to think whatever you wish. >Pretty much every religion has a concept of development of doctrine. Sure. The whole Santa Claus thing has a doctrine, too. The story of Santa Claus and the raindeer and how it came to be.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    > Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. I brought it up because you said: >Nothing is presented as unquestionable truth in science. It is the predominent model. Just because some people might seem present it as TRUTH, doesn't mean that any scientist actually thinks that it is. Many scientists do think their current views are the truth, not a compelling theory. You are wrong to suggest that scientists don't do this. >It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes You can't have it both ways. If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory. No scientists could possibly come to the conclusion that it is anything other than just a theory. If I believe in a theory that hasn't been disproven like fairies then calling me an idiot would be wrong. According to you, I am making no more of a truthful statement than a scientist who says there are no fairies. >So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. Of course I am not saying that. I am saying there are certain things in science we can say are true. We don't need to have competing theories. The Earth not being flat is one of them. If a scientist says the Earth is not flat and anybody who disagrees is an idiot and wrong, that is perfectly fine.

colejohnson66 4y ago

Why are you putting "truth" in all caps?

joshstrange 4y ago
I think it's the same as putting "truth" in quotes since we aren't actually talking about provable/verifiable things. Religion is all about faith which is literally believing in something that can't be proven, else we would call it facts/truth. The commenter is using all-caps to designate this as a word people are using incorrectly.
As_You_Wish 4y ago
For several reasons. One is it is kind of a metaphor for how religious people seem to think about "truth." They think that they have the one truth, the only truth, as ordained by their spirit entity, like Zeus, Ishtar, Ra, or JHWH (the christian god). That their "truth" is the answer to everything. Like in the christian god-entity, people can walk on water or bring dead people back to life. That's part of the TRUTH. Personally, I prefer to use the words "facts" and "evidence" rather than the world "truth", because truth is a very generalized and abstracted concept that can have many meanings and make conversations muddy. If one is saying 1+1 = 2 is truth, and use the word that way, then ok. But usually that is not how the word is used. It's kind of an amorphous term. Also, it kind of makes me chuckle to write it that way because if you see religious people write or comment, they always use all-caps when they write, in the weirdest ways. So it is mimic of them to some extent. Not just on that word, but all kinds of random words in all-caps.

_8j50 4y ago

You make a lot of assumptions. Why people believe things and their reasoning process varies wildly. For myself, religion is not a product of an intellectual excercise but of experience that was a product of faith. What you are saying is if you presented me with an argument you believe to be factual, even though you claim nothing is indisputable in your comment you still think your argument would overrule my experience which you do not share. You speak only from your perspective and I agree that what you consider fact is never beyond dispute and as such it would be impossible to change my mind on matters I have experienced first hand based on what you are presenting. Religious beliefs require accepting there are things we as humans simply cannot understand or process, existence beyond our ability to percieve or comprehend directly unless we measure indirect effects of course, that is why you need faith. It makes no sense to argue with rules limiting your reasoning and operation to a scientific process when speaking to a person who does not share those same restrictions. Science does lead to grear knowledge and progress as well as an understanding of truths but yourself are being religious about science if you believe it is the only way to understand all things true and real in existence (unless you can prove that of course). This childish fight of science vs religion is silly. They are nor mutually exclusive and to both pursuits there is nothing more important than being correct.

eurasiantiger 4y ago
Honestly, the religion trumps science wording makes it read like a schizopost.
- _8j50 4y ago
  That's your takeaway? Wow. I went out of the way to describe how they are not mutually exclusive. Religion helps you understand and realize truths that you may or may not be able to do so with science. It isn't religion that trumps science it is experience. Of course you will still manage to misconstruct this as something beneficial to your agenda that science is the enemy of religion. If science claimed the earth is flat (which it did for the record in the past) and you built a baloon that lets you go high enough to witness the spherical and rotating nature of the earth. If you can't get others back up to that height to witness what you witnessed then should any other argument convince you to disbelieve what you saw and measured first hand? That is essentially what you are asking. In your world, others would come up with theories to explain why you saw what you saw and because they are smarter than you and there is popular consensus you should explain away what you saw to conform to their consensus. I am saying that is silly and in fact any viable argument would need to involve a similar level of experience as in perhaps going higher up the atmosphere and demonstrate the exact principles that make the flat earth look round or something. Mere hypothesis and theories don't trump experience is what I said (for the record I am not a flat earther lol). Only an experiment that experientially and reproducably demonstrates your argument can trump a belief gained by experience. Any time someone challenges popular consensus ideas about science you come out with the pitchforks. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate is true. Popular science is how religion has been in the past, it really is a control and power system either way that helps the rulers maintain their grasp be it science or religion when abused this way.

_-david-_ 4y ago

Plenty of scientists present their beliefs as the truth. Anybody who disagrees with them are idiots and conspiracy theorists. The flat earth theory is a common one where you will get that reaction. Your reaction to religion is just a dumb take. Pretty much every religion has a concept of development of doctrine.

As_You_Wish 4y ago
Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. >Anybody who disagrees with them are idiots and conspiracy theorists. It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes. If someone says 2+2 does not equal 4, then whatever. Indiana had a bill in 1897 called the Indiana Pi Bill for bill #246. They tried to establish math by fiat, and said that a circle can be turned into a square. So yeah, the Indiana legislators were pretty bad. >The flat earth theory is a common one where you will get that reaction. So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. >Your reaction to religion is just a dumb take It's a free country, you have the right to think whatever you wish. >Pretty much every religion has a concept of development of doctrine. Sure. The whole Santa Claus thing has a doctrine, too. The story of Santa Claus and the raindeer and how it came to be.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  > Scientists may, but so what? They are wrong. The Scientific Method, that concept is what matters. You can read about it in Wikipedia. I brought it up because you said: >Nothing is presented as unquestionable truth in science. It is the predominent model. Just because some people might seem present it as TRUTH, doesn't mean that any scientist actually thinks that it is. Many scientists do think their current views are the truth, not a compelling theory. You are wrong to suggest that scientists don't do this. >It just depends, too. If someone says that there are fairies or pixies that exist, or that Pegasus exists, then that is pretty much an idiot, for all intents and purposes You can't have it both ways. If a scientist says there are no fairies then according to you it is not the truth, but a model or theory. No scientists could possibly come to the conclusion that it is anything other than just a theory. If I believe in a theory that hasn't been disproven like fairies then calling me an idiot would be wrong. According to you, I am making no more of a truthful statement than a scientist who says there are no fairies. >So...I don't get what you are saying? Are you saying that the earth is flat??? Because that would be extremely bizarre to say that. Of course I am not saying that. I am saying there are certain things in science we can say are true. We don't need to have competing theories. The Earth not being flat is one of them. If a scientist says the Earth is not flat and anybody who disagrees is an idiot and wrong, that is perfectly fine.