Atheist scientists: Question for ya

Scientists generally publish their results in scholarly journals. In some science libraries you can read articles published more than a hundred years ago. (Check out the June 1865 issue of the American Journal of Insanity).

We scientists, atheists or not, generally are open to the possibility that our view of things may change and that previous scientific ideas may have been wrong. For example almost no one believed in plate tectonics until the late 1960's when there emerged real evidence that it was happening. It is amusing to read Geology textbooks from earlier days and see all the goofy explanations they had for things before that.

Unfortunately most organized religions assume that the final word has been said on all questions and the case is closed.

We don't have a cure for cancer yet so there is no cure for cancer.

We can't prove God exists yet so there is no God.

Where's the confusion?

There difference here is that scientists don't say there is a cure for cancer and we just can't prove it they say that they are LOOKING for the cure.

Theists want me to believe that there is a God without prove and further more they seem to be doing nothing to look for proof.

Don't pretend this question isn't aimed at Religious beliefs. If it wasn't you would have posted in the science section not in R&S. Oh and how many answers were you expecting to get from scientists? They don't usually hang out on Yahoo Answers so you'll have to accept the answers of the greater population as well.

Edit: What you've summarised me as saying has no relevance to what I actually said AT ALL. You read what you want to read and for that I feel pity for you.

It doesn't take a scientist to know you can't prove everything in a lifetime or figure out how many freaks an apartment building can hold = =

people that are truly smart can differentiate the true things and the bullcrap that scientists spit out these days

and to answer your question more directly, no science is not limited to the now, for example aren't we trying to solve global warming?

Sounds like you are guessing the thought process of scientists to me. There are scientists that believe in God so your first statement is completely invalid. Second, it's not that it can't be proved as much as there is no way to even start proving it. Scientists don't believe that it's possible for people to breath fire and grow wings but it is still a lot easier to do seeing as we could at least try and mess with DNA until it was possible. Science is based on things that you can touch or manipulate in some way. As God cannot be touched or manipulated it is a bit hard to prove that he is there. Well done for trying to outwit scientists who have some of the highest IQs in the world though. I'm sure you must be some sort of genius.

We each try to contribute to humanity's store of knowledge and understanding of the natural phenomena around us.

Your quote 'if we can't prove it then it doesn't exist' could be expanded (for your understanding) to "if there's no evidence for something, then there's no reason to believe it true", the evidence being the reason.

Fact is, there's NO natural phenomena yet observed that requires one to postulate the existence of a supernatural deity. See? First the phenomena to explain, then the theory to explain it.

Overly religious people have it the other way around. They first assert the existence of some deity, then try to interpret things as "evidence" for that deity. Ignore or distort anything that doesn't agree.

No, I absolutely accept that there are things science can never prove in my lifetime, however long that ends up being. We don't think "Hey if I can't go get a test tube and some tongs and prove it RIGHT NOW it's not real"

Are you religious?

most scientists do not think that simple. they are critical, indeed, but they evaluate the probability of each event.

Thus the cure for bacterial infections seems more probable than treatment against viral infections /such as HIV/ which still seems somewhat more achievable than cure against prionic diseases /which in principle are JUST mutated proteins/ at the distant /improbable/ edge of the this probability scale /related to the specialisation of the scientist/ there is place for oddly designed, complicated, hard-to-prove things such as deities.

You in the common life do such probability assessments, too.

science is DEFINENTLY not limited to the "now"

It is ever evolving. New answers new technology to view the world we live in. ALL scientists know that all answers cannot be created in one life time.

It will take many many many many... MANY lifetimes to know all answers the universe has to offer.

ANd when something that appears miracules that cannot be explained today it might be explained 10,30, 100000 years from now.

So no, They are not limited to the "Now"

The majority of us just don't want to be brainwashed and controlled by religious freaks like you. We want to be free and you people, evidently, just can't leave us to it.

If heaven or hell exist, I am taking responsibility in saying that i deserve wherever i go... But right now i believe that when i die, i will rot and that's it!

in science you can't have preconceived notions of what the answer should be.

If you have faith in what future may or may not prove, that is not scientific.

Science starts with questions and look for the answer.

Religion starts with an answer and make up questions.