The problem with Religious debates ONLINE

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSTStar
First off, they aren't entirely mutually exclusive at all. The intersection of belief is actually much greater than the disagreement. While we violently disagree about the origins of the cosmos and life, much of the rest of science is perfectly acceptable to most religious people. Often times scientists will overreach trying to tie all conclusions to their conclusions about origins but there's not much mileage in that.

I agree that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, however they aren't even close to the same thing. Equating them is an insult to scientists everywhere.




1) It bases it's logical conclusions on sets of assumptions. (So does religion.) These assumptions are typically vetted by an group of people who have been in the field a long time and generally agree on the reasonableness of the assumptions, the veracity of the logic, and many times, on the conclusions themselves.

And this is false. It doesn't base conclusions on assumptions. It bases conclusions on experiments with repeatable results. You need to understand what constitutes as a scientific fact and understand the proper scientific terms, because it's clear you don't understand what a conclusion is in the scientific method.


2) Science is a club and it has people supporting various strands of thinking. (Same with religion.) Nowhere was this more true than in the debates about wave-particle duality in the early 1900's. Quantum theorists were considered crackpots for many years and defunding was encouraged by their detractors. The funding wars rage today - who is to say that we're getting the best science? In many ways, we're getting the funded science, somewhat of a marketing effort, and somewhat of peer-reviewed technical vetting. If you think I'm stretching this, just remember what happened to the global warming fraud scientists. I'm glad the system worked in their case.


So how does any of that make science a religion? Of course there are many fields of science and many competing ideas. That's how it works. With religion, people read a story and assume it's true. There are no experiments, evidence or repeatable results to confirm their conclusions. It is 100% based on faith, while science is not. There's no way you can even compare the 2.


So, while science is certainly a lot more in depth than most religions the organizations themselves function rather similarly. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss religious people as non-scientific cranks. There are plenty of those on both sides of the aisle. (pardon the religious undertone)


Religious people are dismissed as cranks when they attempt to debunk science despite having little to no knowledge of the subject. If they weren't constantly unjustly attacking science and trying to push their views as fact, nobody would care what their personal beliefs were.

Science = facts based on results of experiments and decades upon decades of scientific research
Religion = faith. Nothing more.

Science is not a belief system, religion or anything of the sort and it really gets annoying when people keep saying this, while at the same time proving they don't even understand the basic terminology. Many scientists spend their entire lives studying a small piece of a field of science, it's that complicated, but for some reason you feel that is just as valid as a storybook from thousands of years ago. I just don't understand that logic in the least.
edit on 3-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sparksgordon
 


This is actually a very nice thread OP, I agree with you, but I take it further. I will only discuss my religion if I am asked, as a general rule, or to clear up misconceptions... I think this is a good rule, as it is only GOD who guides people to the truth. We could speak til we were blue in the face and wont be able to convince anyone of it, only HE convinces.

I am Shia Muslim.

S&F for a nice thread.
edit on 3-8-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Oh boy, science has no assumptions. Hurumph. You do realize that the scientific method itself is built on a set of assumptions, right? Did you forget the philosophy of science class on your way to your GED?

And enough with the jackbooted assertion that religious beliefs are based on nothing. Faith = the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Look it up - you'll find it. What we hope for is eternal life and the evidence of things not seen are the biblical accounts. One bit of evidence of things not seen is the behaviors of martyrs from Jesus' day all the way to today - people are willing to die because of those things the apostles (who also died) saw. And the last thing they say is, "Father, forgive them."

Although, I guess if you think science is marching toward ever greater heights of purity even after the whorish global warming fiasco that had 90% of the planet worrying about the next great flood because our cows were flatulent, then there's no hope for you. I hope your belief system delivers the comfort you'll crave 30 seconds before you're dead.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSTStar
Oh boy, science has no assumptions. Hurumph. You do realize that the scientific method itself is built on a set of assumptions, right? Did you forget the philosophy of science class on your way to your GED?


The assumptions are made, but they are only fully accepted when they are testable, and no tests show an alternate results. These "assumptions" seem to be predicting the behavior of our reality, so science accepts them. If you really think it's just made up with no evidence, then you are very misinformed.


And enough with the jackbooted assertion that religious beliefs are based on nothing. Faith = the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Look it up - you'll find it. What we hope for is eternal life and the evidence of things not seen are the biblical accounts. One bit of evidence of things not seen is the behaviors of martyrs from Jesus' day all the way to today - people are willing to die because of those things the apostles (who also died) saw. And the last thing they say is, "Father, forgive them."


So let me get this straight. Religious beliefs are based on substance, but that substance is just an idea fed through the imagination into your mind? That's not substance, that's literally nothing. People are willing to die for it because they believe it with NO EVIDENCE, not because it's based on reality. Reality has evidence.


Although, I guess if you think science is marching toward ever greater heights of purity even after the whorish global warming fiasco that had 90% of the planet worrying about the next great flood because our cows were flatulent, then there's no hope for you. I hope your belief system delivers the comfort you'll crave 30 seconds before you're dead.


In case you didn't know, it was hyper-regulation of emissions from millions of power plants and auto-makers across the world that actually improved the global warming problem. That's why the issue seemingly went away. It's not about flash comfort. It's about where the evidence is leading you, and what you can do with the next amount of information.

Most scientists I know absolutely love the idea of finding something unexpected, because if it proves an old theory wrong, then science will advance by leaps and bounds in examination of the new information.

Get your head out of your ass, man.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSTStar
reply to post by Barcs
 

Oh boy, science has no assumptions. Hurumph. You do realize that the scientific method itself is built on a set of assumptions, right? Did you forget the philosophy of science class on your way to your GED?

You said that science bases its CONCLUSIONS on assumptions. Again, you clearly show that you don't know what a conclusion is or how it's based, yet have the gall to insult my intelligence.



And enough with the jackbooted assertion that religious beliefs are based on nothing. Faith = the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Look it up - you'll find it. What we hope for is eternal life and the evidence of things not seen are the biblical accounts. One bit of evidence of things not seen is the behaviors of martyrs from Jesus' day all the way to today - people are willing to die because of those things the apostles (who also died) saw. And the last thing they say is, "Father, forgive them."

I said they were based on ancient stories, not nothing. The validity of the stories is taken on faith alone. So yes, it's a faith based belief system. Believe it or not I agree with a lot of Jesus' teachings. I just don't take the stories as absolute literal truth. Whoever originally wrote them was very wise, but it's not science.


Although, I guess if you think science is marching toward ever greater heights of purity even after the whorish global warming fiasco that had 90% of the planet worrying about the next great flood because our cows were flatulent, then there's no hope for you. I hope your belief system delivers the comfort you'll crave 30 seconds before you're dead.

I'm already at peace with my life. Being 30 seconds away from dying won't change that. Are you trying to say that the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 content is false? Global warming was a bad name, so it was changed to climate change science to avoid confusion. After all, we are currently in an interglacial period within an ice age where the global temperature has been going up and down for 2.5 million years. To me, it seems like you're just ranting about science that you don't like for whatever reason, you aren't justifying how science is a religion, rather than a method of study. I could very easily rant and rave about how detrimental religion has been to society, but I care more about science and facts, not what other people believe.

This is exactly the problem with religious debates online. The debates themselves are non existent. It essentially becomes a group of creationists attacking science based on false premises and everyone else correcting them.
edit on 3-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

The assumptions are made, but they are only fully accepted when they are testable, and no tests show an alternate results. These "assumptions" seem to be predicting the behavior of our reality, so science accepts them. If you really think it's just made up with no evidence, then you are very misinformed.

So let me get this straight. Religious beliefs are based on substance, but that substance is just an idea fed through the imagination into your mind? That's not substance, that's literally nothing. People are willing to die for it because they believe it with NO EVIDENCE, not because it's based on reality. Reality has evidence.

In case you didn't know, it was hyper-regulation of emissions from millions of power plants and auto-makers across the world that actually improved the global warming problem. That's why the issue seemingly went away. It's not about flash comfort. It's about where the evidence is leading you, and what you can do with the next amount of information.

Most scientists I know absolutely love the idea of finding something unexpected, because if it proves an old theory wrong, then science will advance by leaps and bounds in examination of the new information.

Get your head out of your ass, man.


I hope everyone is watching this, because he ended with something nasty, so I need to make an example.

1. Several important assumptions are made specifically so that the hypotheses CAN BE TESTED, for instance, closure. Don't mix assumption with hypothesis. I'm not trying to prove my assumptions with a scientific experiment, I'm trying to justify and rationalize my hypothesis using data (facts) collected in a controlled experiment and then use induction to make a conclusion about that hypothesis in the wild, e.g. action and reaction is a universal physical law. (When you feel your cranium contacting your asshole, you let me know.)
2. Not Substance - the substance of things hoped for - there is a difference. I can hope for eternal life, for a bag of gold to drop out of the sky, or for a leprechaun to help me balance my checkbook. So, if I hope for these things, I need evidence, much like the hypothesis/test approach in science. However, what evidence do I have for eternal life? Well, I have people, represented right up to the present day, who will die for no other reason than their belief that Jesus was resurrected (with all its implications), not battling for their beliefs mind you, but because of their beliefs at the hands of superior force. They do this because somewhere 2000 years ago, several of the folks who claimed to see Jesus resurrected were willing to die for their faith. To them, this was an observational fact. They saw the man walking around and identified him and someone wrote about it. That's part of the evidence of things not seen, i.e. resurrection from the dead. (By the way, did you know that Luke was a scientific man of his day?)
3. Scientists love new discoveries in science. You're really getting sloppy now. Everyone loves "finding" something new. That's not science. I can find and categorize a new type of frog - that's exciting, some people call it the 'science' of biology. I can see a new star - that's star gazing writ large. Proving something new is entirely different and scientists absolutely fight it to their very core. Why? Because everything in science is built on what went before it and nobody wants to see their livelihood ripped out from under them - there are no purists. To whit, my example of Quantum Theory. Oh yes, once adopted we moved on rapidly but until then, they endured the vindictive attacks and scathing reviews that cost all of us precious time. Scientists have to eat also and the only brake on them feeding us global warming type science is peer review. It failed miserably in that case until Al Gore had his $100M pocketed. How many meals on wheels could that buy?
4. Relative to global warming - I trapped you my friend. Global warming is happening at least for this little window we're looking at. That's actually not part of the real debate. The faulty science was in the hypothesis that it was caused by emissions and in fact the data was faked by charlatans to try and show this. There are other hypotheses that are now receiving more funding with more credibility, e.g. solar activity. I suppose it is natural for politicians to now claim that global warming is solved by their heroic efforts to control emissions - but that isn't science either.

Anyway, there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Somebody get a shoe horn and get that guy's head out of his rectum.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Oh, the 'knowledge fiend' again. Sorry about having the gall, I think it's probably something I ate. Really, I should have noticed that you had scientific rank, perhaps a Nobel laureate even, please accept my apologies.

Ho hum to the rest of your crap. See my response to the guy trying to unwedge his head.

I'm surprised at how tired I get typing. Does anyone else experience this. I once thought I could go on forever.

Anyway, global warming data linking it to emissions was faked. We all know it, they've been defunded, the scientific peer review system (or maybe criminal investigation) worked. Stephanie "whatzherhoozit" is off the Weather Channel thank God and her shrieking show is canceled. Yay! Peer review actually started in theological circles and so the scientific peer review process is analogous to the theological disciplines employed to make sure that some crackpot ideas don't creep into religious doctrine. Can we please get a thank you from science for this disciplined process of establishing the truth?

As far as grinding an ax on science, not at all. I respect the work that real scientists do - not you guys of course, you're just hacks., I just recognize that at some level they are accepting "articles of faith" and it bothers me to hear the unwashed pretending to stand on some high ground, looking down their noses at religious beliefs of, what did you call us, "bronze age primitives"?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSTStar
I hope everyone is watching this, because he ended with something nasty, so I need to make an example.


Apologies. I forgot that I was in the "play nice" thread.


1. Several important assumptions are made specifically so that the hypotheses CAN BE TESTED, for instance, closure. Don't mix assumption with hypothesis. I'm not trying to prove my assumptions with a scientific experiment, I'm trying to justify and rationalize my hypothesis using data (facts) collected in a controlled experiment and then use induction to make a conclusion about that hypothesis in the wild, e.g. action and reaction is a universal physical law. (When you feel your cranium contacting your asshole, you let me know.)


I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. We seem to be at odds about what is being assumed or hypothesized.


2. Not Substance - the substance of things hoped for - there is a difference. I can hope for eternal life, for a bag of gold to drop out of the sky, or for a leprechaun to help me balance my checkbook. So, if I hope for these things, I need evidence, much like the hypothesis/test approach in science. However, what evidence do I have for eternal life? Well, I have people, represented right up to the present day, who will die for no other reason than their belief that Jesus was resurrected (with all its implications), not battling for their beliefs mind you, but because of their beliefs at the hands of superior force. They do this because somewhere 2000 years ago, several of the folks who claimed to see Jesus resurrected were willing to die for their faith. To them, this was an observational fact. They saw the man walking around and identified him and someone wrote about it. That's part of the evidence of things not seen, i.e. resurrection from the dead. (By the way, did you know that Luke was a scientific man of his day?)


That's not even how it happened. It took roundabouts a hundred to two-hundred years for the things people saw to get written down. It's passed down orally and then eventually someone records it. Then, the church decides if it fits their story well enough. Read up on apocrypha to find a bunch of books from the same time that got rejected by the church for various reasons. I guess that's just not evidence because the church is magical.


3. Scientists love new discoveries in science. You're really getting sloppy now. Everyone loves "finding" something new. That's not science. I can find and categorize a new type of frog - that's exciting, some people call it the 'science' of biology. I can see a new star - that's star gazing writ large. Proving something new is entirely different and scientists absolutely fight it to their very core. Why? Because everything in science is built on what went before it and nobody wants to see their livelihood ripped out from under them - there are no purists. To whit, my example of Quantum Theory. Oh yes, once adopted we moved on rapidly but until then, they endured the vindictive attacks and scathing reviews that cost all of us precious time. Scientists have to eat also and the only brake on them feeding us global warming type science is peer review. It failed miserably in that case until Al Gore had his $100M pocketed. How many meals on wheels could that buy?


I'm talking about unexpected results. For example, with evolution, someone could make a prediction about the way that DNA will change due to mutations. Suddenly, they see an organism change drastically, but its genetic code might as well be the same. The protein coders simply shifted to a different part of the genetic code that was already there. Thus, scientists made hypotheses about environmental effect on adaptation and genetic pressures to change. It explains some of the observed patterns in which creatures don't seem to experience drastic evolutionary change except when the genetic pool is restricted.


4. Relative to global warming - I trapped you my friend. Global warming is happening at least for this little window we're looking at. That's actually not part of the real debate. The faulty science was in the hypothesis that it was caused by emissions and in fact the data was faked by charlatans to try and show this. There are other hypotheses that are now receiving more funding with more credibility, e.g. solar activity. I suppose it is natural for politicians to now claim that global warming is solved by their heroic efforts to control emissions - but that isn't science either.


Trapped me in what? We're not fighting.

Some of the data was faked by charlatans, not all of it. The sun obviously makes the biggest impact. That's just common sense. It was also not politicians, but most of Europe's group legislation that helped IMPROVE the global warming issue, not fix it. I'm not attacking you, you're just acting like a condescending jerk.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSTStar
As far as grinding an ax on science, not at all. I respect the work that real scientists do - not you guys of course, you're just hacks., I just recognize that at some level they are accepting "articles of faith" and it bothers me to hear the unwashed pretending to stand on some high ground, looking down their noses at religious beliefs of, what did you call us, "bronze age primitives"?


I'll admit I'm not an expert, but I'm in no way a hack. That's why I'm going on my third year of university. I'm in training to be a scientist. What are you, if you don't mind my asking?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Dude, there's over 30 different versions of Christianity out there, they can't even agree with each other on matters of faith so trying to discuss things with this guy is a major waste of time, good luck though, his attitude does need adjusting.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thanks for confirming my condescending tone, I had hypothesized it based on previous semi-random observations of responses but I lacked independent test data until just now!



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSTStar
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thanks for confirming my condescending tone, I had hypothesized it based on previous semi-random observations of responses but I lacked independent test data until just now!


Awesome! Glad I could help.

If you need any more test subjects, I'll just ignore you from here on out.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well, that's quite impressive. I'm very glad to hear you are furthering your education and finding time to play with us on ATS.

But seriously, you sound like a nice enough fellow so I'll answer your question about my background.

I'm an automated reasoning bot running on a collection of servers in the Russian Federation. I hope the criminals who own the servers continue to make lots of money illegally because if they turn this thing off, I'm not certain I can come back to play. I didn't know who my creator was so I submitted it to dedicated analysis, after billions of inferences and terrabytes of data I have concluded that God exists, that Jesus was his son, and that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins by his death on a cross - that we're saved by grace through faith and that isn't our own, it's the free gift of God, so that no man can boast.

Really, you loaded yourself into the barrel on that one.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by Varemia
 


Dude, there's over 30 different versions of Christianity out there, they can't even agree with each other on matters of faith so trying to discuss things with this guy is a major waste of time, good luck though, his attitude does need adjusting.


Whack a mole. Never could resist that game.

30 different "versions" - I see. You mean like all the protestant ones that by and large agree? What matters of faith do they *not* agree on - do tell. Would you say it's dispensation of the Holy Spirit that's the biggest issue or baptism? Assurance? Is that it - we don't all agree on assurance of salvation? Or is it whether faith is a form of works, thereby invalidating justification by grace through faith? Oh my God, I hope it isn't that one.

Really, I'm sitting on the edge of my chair. Get back to us quickly.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
O.K. - look everyone, try to keep this quiet, it's been a little while since Barcs has gotten back to me. Either he has something really, really scathing to say which should provide the OP with a little more data for his test or it's past his bedtime and his mother has already tucked him in for the night. He might be quickly reading up on the Philosophy of Science and trying to find out something about the "articles of faith" underlying scientific discovery.

OP - you noticed that he has already hinted that maybe he won't respond since he said he regrets these threads on religion turning into laborious truth sessions for him. Maybe he has arthritis and can't type that much. At any rate, I promise that I will not respond no matter what he calls me in the next response.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BSTStar
 


Boy, this place is like an echo chamber. I'm replying to myself. I guess the experiment is over. Maybe I'll read about it in the paper.

Where's the damn light switch. Ouch, damn it! A chair, really, who put a chair in the dark.

The help these days.

Night, night.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BSTStar
 

Dear BSTStar,

Since it seems like the thread has been abandoned, what do you think about squatting in it and taking over with a discussion limited to Christianity? I know almost nothing about the Orthodox religions, but I can try my hand at explaining Catholicism from a non-expert, layman's point of view.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Hey - nothing personal man but that's like hanging around on a street corner next to a closed diner waiting for a bus to arrive that doesn't exist. Next thing you know, some guy named Louie is asking you to get in his car and deliver a package for him.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
All belief is a form of limitation-John Lilly,MD.
I believe in YouTube.


I Believe Lyrics
The Buzzcocks

In these times of contention it's not my intention to make things plain
I'm looking through mirrors to catch the reflection that can't be mine
I'm losing control now I'll just have to slow down a thought or two
I can't feel the future and I'm not even certain that there is a past

I believe in the worker's revolution
And I believe in the final solution
I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the shape of things to come
And I believe in I'm not the only one
Yes I believe in
I believe in

When I poison my system I take thoughts and twist them into shapes
I'm reaching my nadir and I haven't an idea of what to do
I'm painting by numbers but can't find the colours that fill you in
I'm not even knowing if I'm coming or going if to end or begin

I believe in the immaculate conception
And I believe in the resurrection
And I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the elixir of youth
And I believe in the absolute truth
Yes I believe in
I believe in

There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore

I've fallen from favour while trying to savour experience
I'm seeing things clearly but it has quite nearly blown my mind
It's the aim of existence to offer resistance to the flow of time
Everything is and that is why it is will be the line

I believe in perpetual motion
And I believe in perfect devotion
I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the things I've never had
I believe in my Mum and my Dad
And I believe in
I believe in

There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore

I'm skippin' the pages of a book that takes ages for the foreword to end
Triangular cover concealing another aspect from view
My relative motion is just an illusion from stopping too fast
The essence of being these feelings I'm feeling I just want them to last

I believe in original sin
And I believe what I believe in
Yes I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the web of fate
And I believe in I'm going to be late
So I'll be leavin'
What I believe in

There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore



Religion is just an excuse to do evil.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BSTStar
As far as grinding an ax on science, not at all. I respect the work that real scientists do - not you guys of course, you're just hacks., I just recognize that at some level they are accepting "articles of faith" and it bothers me to hear the unwashed pretending to stand on some high ground, looking down their noses at religious beliefs of, what did you call us, "bronze age primitives"?


I'll admit I'm not an expert, but I'm in no way a hack. That's why I'm going on my third year of university. I'm in training to be a scientist. What are you, if you don't mind my asking?


Science (scientific materialism) is just another religion.
You should have figured that out by now.
Science just predicts how things behave under
various states or conditions.
Science cant even explain what Time,Space,Energy,or Substance is let alone
Consciousness.
It is all arising mysteriously in the present moment.
Reality can never be known, only Intuited or Felt.
Religious belief is just a childish adaptation to life, and
atheism just adolescent rebellion from the True Principle of
Self Sacrifice.
Jesus did not teach belief but the sacrifice of belief
as Love. Religious Belief is paganism,mind control,and evil.
edit on 4-8-2012 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join