Random Christianity Discussion

[Demosthenes11]

Do you think it's possible for a scientifically literate person using a solid methodology to believe in astrology?

If no, it's a moot point.

If yes, I'd be damned interested in it. Wouldn't you?

Increase science literacy and combat ignorance first. If people still believe in astrology after that, I'd be genuinely fascinated to know why or how. If not, oh well - it got weeded out.

there are plenty of intelligent people that believe in stupid shit. superstitions, sky cake, etc. We are all people; we are all subject to believing dumb things from time to time. I don't care what methodology someone is using if they say "the air is made from pixie dust" - it's ridiculous. So is astronomy, so is religion. If we treated everyone as if their opinions and beliefs were valid, even for a second, it gives it credibility. If someone believes that astrology is true and real, they are obviously simply ignoring the last thousand years of human progress. If they should know better, they are choosing to ignore it. Religion is the same. A deist or agnostic theist are really the only people that have credibility in their beliefs, and its because they acknowledge their belief is based off of nothing.

[Siatdiat]

Like I said. It's not important what you believe. It's important why you believe what you do. If you look at astrology and say "lol that's dum", of course that's ignorant. That's not any less ignorant than blindly accepting it. If I were to come across someone that takes astrology or something similar seriously and wants me to do so as well, the first thing out of my mouth would be "Why?". Not a patronizing "Why?", but an inquiry into their methodology. If their methodology is bad, then that's on them. If their methodology is solid, then good for them.

I really thought there was a fine shade of difference between us, but you have finally gotten through to me that there is a vast gulf between us. Do you believe that everyone has their own truth? Astrology isn't true, and for someone to believe in it they have to either not investigate it, or have investigated it but believe in it regardless. Maybe part of my problem is I value truth and honesty too much. When you say "if their methodology is good" I don't really know what to say. I asked before what system people use to make investigations in reality and you didn't respond to it. I will ask again exactly what good methodology is so you can ignore it once more.

If an astronomer believes that God exists in the cosmos and spends his life collecting and analyzing mass quantities of data on stellar phenomena in the hopes of finding him, where's the harm? They are investigating the world around them. So what if they're doing it to get closer to God? And so what if he adds a lot of superfluous analysis to his findings because of it? Johannes Kepler is one of the most important figures in non-classical Astronomy, and damn near all his important findings were buried beneath metric tons of absolute nonsense.

Do you actually read my posts, or do you skim through part way, feel compelled to respond, and just hit "reply with quote" then cut and paste? An astronomer who makes no claims of what god is or does, but only holds a personal belief that a god is a concept that may be real and therefore they feel like looking for evidence for it, that is exactly what I have said at least twice I find very distinctly different from people who either whole heartedly follow a religious doctrine of belief, or who make up a doctrine out of their ass and claim it to be true, or "their truth." There are way more obvious and better examples of important scientists in the past who also happened to have crazy personal beliefs, for example Newton who believed in alchemy. Of course, they aren't known for their crazy beliefs, they are known and respected for their contribution to the world. Also that is generally scientists in the past, who looking at it in proper context, shouldn't really be surprising. Its kind of half ass to talk about a 17th century astronomer/astrologer in a modern context. I would ask you to show me a modern scientist or philosopher who has done anything of actual value who believes whole heartedly in astrology.

Edit: Edited some, didn't bother fixing the super run on sentence from hell in the second paragraph.

[Greatguardian]

The scientific method is not an extraordinarily difficult concept. When looking at one's methodology, you're looking at the process behind their decision to believe in one thing or another.

"Because it is" is poor methodology. There is no reasoning.

If someone came up to me and handed me a bunch of data showing a correlation between quantifiable personality tendencies and birth stars, along with various marriage statistics and presented a case that accounted for interfering factors, who am I to say they're full of shit?

Demos, you're focusing far too much on the conclusion and not the methodology. That's being nothing short of closed-minded.

You know what would've sounded like absolute horseshit 100 years ago? Saying that people are made of stardust. And you know what? We are. Stardust sprinkles, bitches. That's what we are.

[Siatdiat]

I can't help it, I said I would abstain from commenting on this but I can't.

That picture is meaningless. Just like freaking out when you're about to die and ask mercy to God doesn't make you a Christian (something that seems very common among atheists), taking medicine instead of asking God to heal you doesn't make you an atheist.

What specific atheists do you know of that suddenly asked god for mercy on their death beds? Flew is the closest real example I can think of and he wasn't on his death bed. That of course isn't valid evidence of anything. Regardless, if this does happen, who are you to say they aren't really christian at that point?

Christian
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Isn't someone who calls to god/jesus on their death bed professing a belief in them, however suddenly it may be?

Nevex doesn't always make no true scotsman arguments, but when he does, they are probably stupid.

Atheists are aware that they're a minority, which is why they want to others to believe that they're more numerous than they truly are. All minorities do that, like the "born this way" BS gay people have been spreading for years. That mentality is what makes them a minority.

In some developed countries atheists aren't such a minority as in America. I also don't know that I have ever seen any atheist try to represent themselves as being more common than they are, the only thing I have seen from atheists is to challenge the use of religious tests for public office, challenge protection of faith healing parents who let their children die, and challenge people who move to implement the teaching of creationism in schools, because kids should be "taught the controversy."

As for the "born this way" BS gays thing... are you serious? It seems purposefully trollish but I want to know if this is what you really "believe?"

[Xno Kappa]

You can't prove god doesn't exist, not saying he does or doesn't, just asking questions here!

Spoiler: show

lol

[Siatdiat]

The scientific method is not an extraordinarily difficult concept. When looking at one's methodology, you're looking at the process behind their decision to believe in one thing or another.

"Because it is" is poor methodology. There is no reasoning.

If someone came up to me and handed me a bunch of data showing a correlation between quantifiable personality tendencies and birth stars, along with various marriage statistics and presented a case that accounted for interfering factors, who am I to say they're full of shit?

Demos, you're focusing far too much on the conclusion and not the methodology. That's being nothing short of closed-minded.

There are conclusions that I don't think can be reached with any form of good methodology. I'm interested now if you can show me a peer reviewed work that shows some evidence for any supernatural phenomena at all. That is most likely not going to happen, so instead I would accept a blog post or a youtube video that makes a claim and follows with support that I can't destroy in 15 seconds. I'm asking for something modern too, don't put up some weird science journal shit from 1783.

Additionally I would also still be interested in hearing about a modern scientist of renown who believes in any kind of supernatural phenomena. I don't mean theoretical physicists who say maybe this or that either, I mean specifically believe in unprovable phenomena.

You know what would've sounded like absolute horseshit 100 years ago? Saying that people are made of stardust. And you know what? We are. Stardust sprinkles, bitches. That's what we are.

We didn't know that 100 years ago. I think that is a perfectly fine distinction.

[Greatguardian]

Do I believe in bigfoot or astrology? No.

Do I know anyone who does and has published findings about it? No.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested if someone did. That's the key difference. I'm not lending validity to beliefs that I hold to be false. I'm just saying that what I'm really interested in isn't the conclusion in the first place. If someone walks up to me and says "Hey, if you rub these two crystals together, they'll make you healthy", am I going to spit in their face and told them to get lost? No. I'm going to ask them how they work, what they're made of, where they came from, if they can demonstrate their function, and if they know why they work the way they do. If they can't answer that, then I'll walk away. If they can, well I just found some fucking awesome crystals that make you healthy when you rub them together.

[Ashmada]

Like I said. It's not important what you believe. It's important why you believe what you do. If you look at astrology and say "lol that's dum", of course that's ignorant. That's not any less ignorant than blindly accepting it. If I were to come across someone that takes astrology or something similar seriously and wants me to do so as well, the first thing out of my mouth would be "Why?". Not a patronizing "Why?", but an inquiry into their methodology. If their methodology is bad, then that's on them. If their methodology is solid, then good for them.

Have fun chasing chimerae.

That statement is damned naïve. Not all claims needs to be thoroughly examine empirically, some can thankfully be summarily dismissed after a brief rational examination; astrology is one such claim.
Regardless of methodology, the tenets of astrology are unsound.


But if you want to lend equal weights to all claims, I'd like you to disprove (through a double blind peer-reviewed study, of course) my theory that the earth's inner core is actually made of porridge.
You better start drilling for samples right now, I think it'll take a while.

That picture is meaningless. Just like freaking out when you're about to die and ask mercy to God doesn't make you a Christian (something that seems very common among atheists), taking medicine instead of asking God to heal you doesn't make you an atheist.

Agreed. I take exception to the inflamatory parenthesis (disparaging the defensless deceased is very common among christians), but yes, that Penn&Teller quote, though amusing, isn't very useful.
The Big Bag of christian Cop Outs® has an excuse ready: "help thyself and thy god will help thee".

Or some sort of paraphrase, IIRC it's in there somewhere.

[Siatdiat]

You can't prove god doesn't exist, not saying he does or doesn't, just asking questions here!

Spoiler: show

lol

I do know however, that if he does exist, he has done everything in his power to make himself appear to be superfluous and totally unnecessary.

[Xno Kappa]

I do know however, that if he does exist, he has done everything in his power to make himself appear to be superfluous and totally unnecessary.

What was your methodology in coming to this conclusion?

[Siatdiat]

Do I believe in bigfoot or astrology? No.

Do I know anyone who does and has published findings about it? No.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested if someone did. That's the key difference. I'm not lending validity to beliefs that I hold to be false. I'm just saying that what I'm really interested in isn't the conclusion in the first place. If someone walks up to me and says "Hey, if you rub these two crystals together, they'll make you healthy", am I going to spit in their face and told them to get lost? No. I'm going to ask them how they work, what they're made of, where they came from, if they can demonstrate their function, and if they know why they work the way they do. If they can't answer that, then I'll walk away. If they can, well I just found some fucking awesome crystals that make you healthy when you rub them together.

wut...

Also good reading comprehension as usual. I left pretty broad criteria to be met, and you narrowed them to make it seem unlikely, ignoring that no matter how broad the criteria we set, you aren't going to find it. Also, still curious about an astrologer scientist of value in 2012.

[Greatguardian]

For a thread full of people espousing the virtues of science and critical thinking, there sure aren't many scientists in here. I'm pretty sure Kaylia's the only other one. Huh.

But okay I'll get back to chasing Chimerae and drilling for core samples.

[Siatdiat]

What was your methodology in coming to this conclusion?

Going for bike ride with my bro in law. Will get to this in a bit.

[Ashmada]

Wow, didn't think you'd get a bite there, Hirokei.

[Greatguardian]

Why would I try to provide validity to Astrology? That opus isn't on me. There's no discussion to be had amongst people who collectively do not believe in it, as you don't and I most certainly do not either. The hypothetical was that we found someone who did believe in astrology. The conditional became "If they came to this conclusion through a solid methodology". If that conditional is met, then yes Astrology would have credibility. If not, then it would not. There is no credibility being given or taken before the conditional.

[Siatdiat]

For a thread full of people espousing the virtues of science and critical thinking, there sure aren't many scientists in here. I'm pretty sure Kaylia's the only other one. Huh.

But okay I'll get back to chasing Chimerae and drilling for core samples.

This may be the most worthless post you have ever made. You have touched on this idea before though that apparently only scientists can understand science, or have science backing their opinions, or whatever load of tripe you are trying to imply with this post.

[Greatguardian]

This may be the most worthless post you have ever made. You have touched on this idea before though that apparently only scientists can understand science, or have science backing their opinions, or whatever load of tripe you are trying to imply with this post.

No implications. Just data. I do question what some posters here consider "Science", though. Summary dismissal of anything is most certainly not scientific.

[Ashmada]

Yet, you summarilly dismissed my theory (or did you actually start drilling?).

[Greatguardian]

Science is about learning new things. How can you keep learning new things if you summarily dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your worldview? Science is about keeping your mind open to possibilities, and exploring them whenever you're given the opportunity, not sitting around and trying to reaffirm what you already know.

100 years ago we thought Gravity was a force, too. Lol.

edit:

Yet, you summarilly dismissed my theory (or did you actually start drilling?).

It would be pretty cool if the Earth's core was porridge. You're the one making that claim, though. Why do you believe that?

[Jefe]

Science finds objective interpretation of observable phenomena; hence, religion, supernatural, metaphysical, and unexplained phenomena are beyond the scientific realm.

Come on peeps.

Lol Hiro doin' work.