Random Christianity Discussion

[Kerberoz]

Because it takes more than 30 seconds to spot bad science.

Bullshit. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

[Yugl]

You guys have been launching ad hominems left and right, making euro-centric claims about religion, and outright bashing people; yet, they're the arrogant ones? Funny.

[Greatguardian]

Who is saying otherwise?

If there is no evidence presented, there is nothing to analyze, and the assertion can be dismissed outright.

Correct. People are most certainly saying otherwise, however. It's an order of operations matter. People are looking at a conclusion and declaring that all methodology leading up to said conclusion must be false because they believe the conclusion is false. I am looking at a bad methodology, and declaring any conclusion it reaches to be invalid regardless of its truth value because the methods used to arrive at it are faulty.

It's an extremely important distinction, and I'm not the only one who's making it.

Edit:

Bullshit. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

I suppose I should have said, "Because it takes the scientifically literate 30 seconds to spot bad science" then?

[Demosthenes11]

Correct. People are most certainly saying otherwise, however. It's an order of operations matter. People are looking at a conclusion and declaring that all methodology leading up to said conclusion must be false because they believe the conclusion is false. I am looking at a bad methodology, and declaring any conclusion it reaches to be invalid regardless of its truth value because the methods used to arrive at it are faulty.

It's an extremely important distinction, and I'm not the only one who's making it.

honest question: what do you have to gain from listening to someone that claims evolution is false? There is pretty much literally no way they are right. It doesn't matter if their methodology is correct that allowed them to reach that conclusion.

[Greatguardian]

honest question: what do you have to gain from listening to someone that claims evolution is false? There is pretty much literally no way they are right. It doesn't matter if their methodology is correct that allowed them to reach that conclusion.

Wrong.

If their methodology is correct, it's a big fucking deal. If you can use the scientific method to successfully defend a position denying the existence of evolution, then We have a really big problem, Houston. I don't know about you, but I'd want to be in on that.

I doubt it'd happen just as much as the next guy, but stranger things etc.

[Carth]

You guys have been launching ad hominems left and right, making euro-centric claims about religion, and outright bashing people; yet, they're the arrogant ones? Funny.

Maybe I've spent way too much time in the FFXI section of BG, but since when has been arrogant a damning offense?

That said, I'm not even sure why people are getting on GG's case. Is it the fact that he's willing to listen to any claim a person says before judgement, or is it the fact that he's saying everyone else is wrong for dismissing such claims before listening? Either way, it seems like you all agree that bullshit shouldn't be taken seriously, just GG would listen to said bullshit for 30 seconds longer than anyone else.

[Ashmada]

Correct. People are most certainly saying otherwise, however. It's an order of operations matter. People are looking at a conclusion and declaring that all methodology leading up to said conclusion must be false because they believe the conclusion is false. I am looking at a bad methodology, and declaring any conclusion it reaches to be invalid regardless of its truth value because the methods used to arrive at it are faulty.

Bold: No? Why d'you keep entertaining that false dichotomy? It's not "dismiss summarily or publish 876467 studies on it".

You can prove or disprove some things rationally. The scientific method is all fine and dandy in scientific matters but when it comes to pseudo-sciences like homeopathy and astrology, it's completely unnecessary and an humongous waste of time and ressources. If the core principles of said pseudo-sciences aren't sound, there's little point in empirically testing said unsound principles.

And in matters of religion, it's not really applicable. We have philosophy to deal with that; I don't know how these threads turn so quickly into debates about scientific matters when in fact they're only tangentially related, at best.

In fact, that's pretty much the crux of the thread right now. Atheists arguing with other Atheists because said Atheists are using bad science to reach the same or similar conclusions, and then claiming that they have science on their side.

Now, now, to memory you're the only one that claimed to be Mr Scientist.

[Greatguardian]

Now, now, to memory you're the only one that claimed to be Mr Scientist.

We're totally not reading the same thread.

[Siatdiat]

Maybe I've spent way too much time in the FFXI section of BG, but since when has been arrogant a damning offense?

That said, I'm not even sure why people are getting on GG's case. Is it the fact that he's willing to listen to any claim a person says before judgement, or is it the fact that he's saying everyone else is wrong for dismissing such claims before listening? Either way, it seems like you all agree that bullshit shouldn't be taken seriously, just GG would listen to said bullshit for 30 seconds longer than anyone else.

You obviously haven't read the part of the thread where certain things can be immediately discounted, like yec or Noah's arc, according to GG. I mean that is just crazy talk.

[Ashmada]

My memory might be faulty, feel free to jog it up. I know I said nothing of the sort... pretty sure Kerb didn't either... who else did?

[Greatguardian]

You obviously haven't read the part of the thread where certain things can be immediately discounted, like yec or Noah's arc, according to GG. I mean that is just crazy talk.

Context is a funny thing.

My memory might be faulty, feel free to jog it up. I know I said nothing of the sort... pretty sure Kerb didn't either... who else did?

To be perfectly honest, given how much I care about your contributions to this discussion I am not at all inclined to go and re-read the thread for you. If you wish to assert that no one is claiming to have "scientific reasoning" on their side, you're going to have to convince me. Kerb has made maybe 3-4 posts in the whole thread, and to wit the majority of my posts do not address him.

Edit: Easy example, I know siat has brought up using science. I did not say everyone here claimed to be a scientist. I said they claimed to be using science, or have science on their side.

[Demosthenes11]

you don't have to use science to have science on your side.

[Thunder]

Actually, I'm on the same boat as Siatdiat here, I've always agreed with Dennet and Dawkins that one of the most important things we're missing is comprehensive comparative religious education in schools, including common problems in or objections to religion and how they tend to deal with them (i.e. Euthyphro, the problem of evil, morality, etc).

I can't disagree more :\ if we revise education pre-college(and we will, eventually). I think teaching more math/science and that will do more for society than teaching some religion. Do you know how many we will need to teach? I'm sure christianity/judaism/islam are core. But then what about the billions of buddhists and hinduists? That's at least 5 religions we need to teach to children who have trouble with the scientific method at age 20.

Teaching all of this successfully to kids is a pipe dream. Leave it to liberal learning in colleges and universities, imo. We have way bigger problems in education than kids coming out with poor understandings of religion.

Furthermore, I reason that teaching everyone all religions, even if possible, wont solve the problem of dumb people. Because that is the issue here, yes? It isn't that someone believes in a religion because why should you care if someone does or not if it does NOT affect their actions negatively(ie, voting for satorum because he's against gays, or voting down science funding because you know god is the answer already, or something else detrimental to society). It's that someone can be fooled so easily and thus controlled to do things a logical person wouldn't. We wont create more logical people by teaching religion. We need more science for that, I think.

The only case I can see being made is that for every believer and non-believer you have, the non-believer is more likely to be smarter than the believer. And maybe that's the point you're making - don't get offended if you are, I've only seen your last couple of posts.

I am definitely saying this, further I am making the claim that you cannot come to a conclusion of any real value by "experimenting" with religions.

Then you should also renounce all art since it's just as useless as religion. That's a dangerous thing to run with. Sure, mastering calligraphy or something isn't "useful" to you, but it's art, it's something to love, something to keep you engaged. Beyond what a hobby is, but like a hobby. Reading and thinking about cliche religious quotes is pretty engaging. Not dumb bible ones - the ones that are sort of philosophical. I've enjoyed discussing of buddhist ones from a bunch from bruce lee's book with a friend of mine. But anyway, my point is that there is certainly a place for religion and it isn't for explaining our universe. Also, incase the conversation heads there, I want to preemptively point out that everyone engages in useless things(video games!). And playing video games is probably a bigger waste of time than discussing a religion since it has greater philosophical applications(READ PLEASE: JUST TIME, NOT ANYTHING ELSE - NO IMPLICATION OF PLAYING VIDEO GAMES MAKES YOU AS DUMB OR NOT DUMB AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON)

And also, proving my quote is almost as impossible as proving there isn't a god. And I ask, even if you could prove there is no god - would religion be relegated to mythology? Either way, I don't care about killing religion off any faster since education will do it slowly anyhow. Plus, I don't want to know what kind of lies we will need to keep people in check without religion. Had a conversation with a friend about it earlier and if today we had no religion we agreed that things would get pretty hectic when we need more things like terrorism, kony, homosexuality, etc to rally people for something. I'm scared of the uneducated in the uneducated religious zealot. Not the religious zealot.

[Kaelan?]

I can't disagree more :\ if we revise education pre-college(and we will, eventually). I think teaching more math/science and that will do more for society than teaching some religion. Do you know how many we will need to teach? I'm sure christianity/judaism/islam are core. But then what about the billions of buddhists and hinduists? That's at least 5 religions we need to teach to children who have trouble with the scientific method at age 20.

That wouldn't work, and we already have evidence it wouldn't work. We already know it's not just an issue of being smart or stupid. Being math/science-savvy doesn't prevent you from believing nonsense in the other areas of our lives, as pointed out by Kaylia: the important part of the "93% of scientists" statistic is that even among them the believing number is still not 0%. If people like Isaac Newton, possibly one of the most brilliant human beings who ever lived, could invent Calculus one day, then believe in bullshit ideas like Alchemy and a bit of christian woo-woo that even today's average christian would find weird the next day, then how could you possibly ever hope that a little science by itself would somehow be enough to help the average guy deal with religion? Science knowledge and critical thinking skills are certainly a factor, but they are by no means the only thing necessary.

People are too good at compartmentalizing. You have to tackle the subject directly for it to have a real impact. That aside, are you really making your primary objection to "teaching all religions" the fact that we can't in practice teach every single one of them? It didn't occur to you that it might be enough to just teach a meaningful sample of those to make an impact?

That, say, once Billy learns that it turns out several of his favorite Bible stories have parellels in other cultures and that Jesus shares many of his characteristics with several other religious figures, he might stop to consider that perhaps the stories he was told weren't as special as he thought they were? Which might then raise more questions and in the end, even if he's still religious, there's a good chance he'll be a lot less convinced that the way his parents taught him is the only possible right way to look at things when he grows up.

The reason religious indoctrination works is that it's a lot easier to change a child's mind than it is an adult's. If you wait until they get to college (which, by the way, not everybody goes to), for some people it might be too late.

[Thunder]

But eventually all people will go to college. Unless education stops advancing. For a lot of people it's too late. There is no way religion is going to become mythology in this generation

Tackling religion in schools now is too soon is what I'm saying.

And no, scientists today not being 100% athiest is not evidence against science/math being less prone to religion. In fact, I'd sooner think it proves scientists are less prone to religion since they have less % of religious people than, say, janitors. Unless 93% of scientists are religious. Then I think that's bullshit. Because you used newton.. look at all of the people who challenged religion in history. It was always scientists. Their % of athiests has always been higher than the general population and it will continue to grow along with the general population.

Furthermore, what I just posted in my above edit is pretty relevant here: if we start to attack religion now it will not solve the problem of dumb people. Ok, billy is now less convinced that the way his parents taught him is the only possible right way to look at things when he grows up. But does that promote logical and objective thinking more or less than science/math? Because the problem is the uneducated people rallying to stop advancement of our society, otherwise what the fuck do we care if they believe or not? If religion is dead and we still have illogical people voting, being elected into powerful positions, and making/judging laws, etc then they need to be controlled just as religion is controlling them now. I postulate that we'd trade one evil for another if religion were to die right now.
Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

don't have to be a dick when discussing something, btw

[ronin sparthos]

The challenge of the day from my point of view is to repel the radicals at the gates and to bolster the separation of church and state in this country. Such a challenge will naturally draw in religious moderates, pagans, deists and people of lesser followed faiths (like Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs) in the US against the largely Christian theocrats who are becoming far too powerful and will ultimately lead this country to a fundamentalist fate.

We can talk all about how religion should drop off the face of the Earth, about how it's a blight, that the stories are myth, have been embellished into legend or whatever but the fact is that right now there are millions of theists living in the US right now and many of them could rally around a banner of uniting to protect the absolutely important concept of keeping religion out of the public sphere.

You are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like in this country (and should be open to being scrutinized) but at the end of the day laws shouldn't be written to satisfy the needs of one specific group.

[Yugl]

Damn it, why did we ever outlaw slavery. We put a single group's needs over the collective whole. How terrible of the US.

[Kaylia]

How did you determine that they do sciences "just fine"? Seems like you just made that up.

Because sciences is "peer reviewed", it's safe to assume the 7% who believes in God do their job as well as the other 93%. You can't bullshit eternally before someone point you the door.

Secondly, from a personal experience, at least one third of our department are muslims, and I know they are doing a pretty damn good job with physics and mathematics. These guys are awesome (even if they don't eat bacon), and they will make sciences progress way more than you, or anyone who bash religions will ever do.

Thirdly, the best theoretical physicist I met in my life also had spiritual beliefs of some sort, and I know for damn fact he wouldn't let these beliefs get in the way of sciences. If every physicists were doing even 1/10th of what he did, we would be riding flying car by now (not really, but you get the point)

Now that I detailed my point, I will flip the question around and ask you the same thing. Why do you believe they can't do it right?

[Kerberoz]

physics and mathematics

Let me know when you find a god-bothering biologist who isn't a laughing stock. Not that it would matter, because anecdotes are not evidence, and most of us aren't talking in absolutes, anyway. Do you see any claims that 100% of all people with any sort of belief make bad scientists in every field? Because that's what you seem to be arguing against. Good ol' black-and-white strawman.

and they will make sciences progress way more than you, or anyone who bash religions will ever do.

Oh shit, we've got a fortune teller here.

[Siatdiat]

Then you should also renounce all art since it's just as useless as religion.

When does my criticism of religion for having ultimately more negative effects than postive mean I am criticisizing it as being useless? Aesthetics and Religion serve completely different purposes. Aesthetics actually could be one of the most interesting topics of discussion, if we are examining it in detail.

But anyway, my point is that there is certainly a place for religion and it isn't for explaining our universe.

Ok, what is it?

Plus, I don't want to know what kind of lies we will need to keep people in check without religion. Had a conversation with a friend about it earlier and if today we had no religion we agreed that things would get pretty hectic when we need more things like terrorism, kony, homosexuality, etc to rally people for something. I'm scared of the uneducated in the uneducated religious zealot. Not the religious zealot.

So you are saying modern morality has developed becaused of christianity? Please make your case for this I'd be quite interested to see if you have any valid points.