best arguments against religion (no theists)

[gmilam]

I wonder why scientists investigate religion, and would like to know.
I don't know why they do it, but they do it.

I wonder why religionists claim to have scientific answers.
I don't know why they do it, but they do it.

http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710

 

[gmilam]

There are all sorts of religious phenomena that can be and are being studied by science.

Such as...

 

[Pineal]

Such as...

I already mentioned four.

 

[gmilam]

I already mentioned four.

I saw yoga and meditation - neither of which I would consider to be religiously based.

And I saw prayer, which has been shown to have no discernable effect (as I would expect).

Oh, and I see MRIs on people having a "religious experience" - whatever that means... (I've had "religious experiences" listening to Pink Floyd. After 30+ years the guitar solo in Time still sends chills down my spine.)

I don't really see any of these as science investigating religion. These are more physiological responses than religious claims.

It appears to me that we are not on the same page at all.

 

[Pineal]

I saw yoga and meditation - neither of which I would consider to be religiously based.

Well, then you are confused on the issue. They certainly are practices that were created and developed by religious people as part of their religions. Even if they now are used by secular people, this does not mean scientists cannot study them in religious contexts as religious phenomena.

And I saw prayer, which has been shown to have no discernable effect (as I would expect).

And as I pointed out, the results of the studies are irrelevent to the point I was making, which is about there being no reason for scientists to not make religious phenomena the focus of their studies. Using the results of actual studies to refute my point that it is a valid area of scientific study is fairly absurd.

Scientists wouldn't study herbal medicine.
They studied ___________(an herb)
Yeah, but they found out it was not effective.

I am not going to point out the absurdity of this logic a third time.

Oh, and I see MRIs on people having a "religious experience" - whatever that means...

Look, it's fine you don't understand something, but you could ask for a clarification.

(I've had "religious experiences" listening to Pink Floyd. After 30+ years the guitar solo in Time still sends chills down my spine.)

I don't really see any of these as science investigating religion.

Well, that's very strange, but OK, now I understand why you are responding to clear examples of the study by scientists of religious phenomena as not being that.

These are more physiological responses than religious claims.

Scientists also study religious claims or make assessments - your original word - of these on a regular basis. Scientists are constantly rebutting, for example the pseudo scientific claims of Creationists. They assess the arguments, check out the research Creationists use -w hen they do - to support their claims, and rebut using criticism of that research or its applicability or present other research to rebut.

This has happened around other religious claims or claims by religious people.

It appears to me that we are not on the same page at all.

Well, we can agree on that.

Again, I see no reason why scientists should not assess and study religious claims and phenomena....and look, they do this and have done this for quite a while. I'll leave our exchange at that.

 

[Sarkus]

I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt and offered him an opportunity to explain his answer since "no" is quite plainly the only option available unless one wants to come across as a nutcase donchathink?

Fallacy of appealing to personal incredulity, LG. And I'll let the thinly veiled attempt at an insult slide.

And if you want an explanation to an answer in future, I suggest you don’t put “A simple Yes or No will be suffice[sic]” and then complain when it is clearly not sufficient.

As for how:
The first step is to believe that it is possible.
You clearly do not believe – from your comments thus far - therefore there is little point in you going further, as you will not succeed in the next steps.

But should you be interested, and if/when you genuinely do believe that it is possible, then you should seek out those who can teach you how it is done. I am not such a person – I merely know that it can be done.

But if you don’t believe, or if any professed belief is not genuine, then you will not succeed.
And that will not be the fault of the instruction, but of the practitioner.

 

[wynn]

Sarkus, please respond:


How can one calibrate a tape measure to measure microkelvins without calling upon another tool?

You said this was possible. I don't see how??

 

[lightgigantic]

Fallacy of appealing to personal incredulity, LG. And I'll let the thinly veiled attempt at an insult slide.

So far the only incredulous claim has been that one can calibrate a tape measure to read microkelvins without calling upon some other tool.

Any insults you perceive are simply a consequence of your inability to explain in a straight-forward manner how one does that

And if you want an explanation to an answer in future, I suggest you don’t put “A simple Yes or No will be suffice[sic]” and then complain when it is clearly not sufficient.

As for how:
The first step is to believe that it is possible.
You clearly do not believe – from your comments thus far - therefore there is little point in you going further, as you will not succeed in the next steps.

But should you be interested, and if/when you genuinely do believe that it is possible, then you should seek out those who can teach you how it is done. I am not such a person – I merely know that it can be done.

But if you don’t believe, or if any professed belief is not genuine, then you will not succeed.
And that will not be the fault of the instruction, but of the practitioner.

So do you want to add anything to "you got to believe you can" as to "how one can measure microkelvins with a tape measure without calling upon (ie "calibrating" ) other tools?

Or is that all (IYHO) that one needs to solve the problem?

 

[Sarkus]

So far the only incredulous claim has been that one can calibrate a tape measure to read microkelvins without calling upon some other tool.

And you are arguing merely from that incredulity: "I can't believe it is possible therefore it must be wrong!"

Any insults you perceive are simply a consequence of your inability to explain in a straight-forward manner how one does that

Another fallacy, LG - the perception of the insult is independent of the other.

So do you want to add anything to "you got to believe you can" as to "how one can measure microkelvins with a tape measure without calling upon (ie "calibrating" ) other tools?

Or is that all (IYHO) that one needs to solve the problem?

Read what I wrote, LG. It will certainly save you asking questions that have already been answered... and at no point did I ever suggest it was all that was needed.

But if you wish to trundle down your path of responding with obvious/blatant fallacies then it is rather redundant me saying anything.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

But you need to believe first in order to "see" god, you don't seem to have any problem with that. Yet another inconsistency to add to your growing list.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

But you need to believe first in order to "see" god, you don't seem to have any problem with that. Yet another inconsistency to add to your growing list.

lol
Even in that case belief is not sufficient, what to speak of measuring microkelvins with a tape measure

 

[lightgigantic]

And you are arguing merely from that incredulity: "I can't believe it is possible therefore it must be wrong!"
Another fallacy, LG - the perception of the insult is independent of the other.
Read what I wrote, LG. It will certainly save you asking questions that have already been answered... and at no point did I ever suggest it was all that was needed.

But if you wish to trundle down your path of responding with obvious/blatant fallacies then it is rather redundant me saying anything.

then please explain "all" that is needed (and without calling upon other tools for calibrating the tape measure)

 

[Sarkus]

LG, you just don't read what is posted, do you.

Go back to post #226. Read it. Actually read it.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

So even when your glaring inconsistencies are called out to your face you respond with another red herring, at least I now have a good measure of you. You really should work on that though, hypocrisy isn't an attractive trait, I do have to admit that it is a mighty common christian trait though.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, you just don't read what is posted, do you.

Go back to post #226. Read it. Actually read it.

I've read it a few times and nowhere do I see anything to do with (all) one requires to calibrate a tape measure to measure microkelvins (whether calling upon another tool or otherwise).

If you feel you have answered this, please repeat it.

If not, please answer (all) one requires to calibrate a tape measure to measure microkelvins (preferably without calling upon other tools .... if you want to strengthen your case).

(Trying to get off the hook by saying you don't have the expertise to tool-lessly calibrate a tape measure doesn't really help you since about 99% of the discussion on this forum is made from such a lack of expertise - IOW they can post links to the nature of the subject and how things are done - at the moment we are simply left with your belief that someone can do it even though you can't explain who or how or where ... not a particularly strong platform to launch an argument from :shrug: ... particularly if even a rudimentary understanding of microkelvins reveals that all the measuring equipment is electronic in nature ... and of course tape measures don't come with batteries now, do they? )

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

So even when your glaring inconsistencies are called out to your face you respond with another red herring, at least I now have a good measure of you. You really should work on that though, hypocrisy isn't an attractive trait, I do have to admit that it is a mighty common christian trait though.

No

Its simply that in neither case belief is "all" one needs

But if Sarkus would hurry up and give a straight answer perhaps we could advance the discussion in to what one requires aside from belief.

 

[Sarkus]

I've read it a few times and nowhere do I see anything to do with (all) one requires to calibrate a tape measure to measure microkelvins (whether calling upon another tool or otherwise).

You say you have read it, but then what you post more or less demonstrates that you haven't. :shrug:

But, just so you don't have to go back to that post... here it is again in all its glory:

I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt and offered him an opportunity to explain his answer since "no" is quite plainly the only option available unless one wants to come across as a nutcase donchathink?

Fallacy of appealing to personal incredulity, LG. And I'll let the thinly veiled attempt at an insult slide.

And if you want an explanation to an answer in future, I suggest you don’t put “A simple Yes or No will be suffice[sic]” and then complain when it is clearly not sufficient.

As for how:
The first step is to believe that it is possible.
You clearly do not believe – from your comments thus far - therefore there is little point in you going further, as you will not succeed in the next steps.

But should you be interested, and if/when you genuinely do believe that it is possible, then you should seek out those who can teach you how it is done. I am not such a person – I merely know that it can be done.

But if you don’t believe, or if any professed belief is not genuine, then you will not succeed.
And that will not be the fault of the instruction, but of the practitioner.

And, before you start arguing any more strawmen, at no point do I say (as I have already told you, and as I wrote in the post that you claim to have read and re-read, yet you seem to fail to grasp) that belief is all you need.
If you genuinely think that I have, please do point out where I have either stated it or implied it.

 

[lightgigantic]

You say you have read it, but then what you post more or less demonstrates that you haven't. :shrug:

But, just so you don't have to go back to that post... here it is again in all its glory:




And, before you start arguing any more strawmen, at no point do I say (as I have already told you, and as I wrote in the post that you claim to have read and re-read, yet you seem to fail to grasp) that belief is all you need.
If you genuinely think that I have, please do point out where I have either stated it or implied it.

geez - guess you didn't catch the edit

hence

(Trying to get off the hook by saying you don't have the expertise to tool-lessly calibrate a tape measure doesn't really help you since about 99% of the discussion on this forum is made from such a lack of expertise - IOW they can post links to the nature of the subject and how things are done - at the moment we are simply left with your belief that someone can do it even though you can't explain who or how or where ... not a particularly strong platform to launch an argument from ... particularly if even a rudimentary understanding of microkelvins reveals that all the measuring equipment is electronic in nature ... and of course tape measures don't come with batteries now, do they? )

IOW the claim one can measure microkelvins without electronic equipment flies in the face of scientific norms (much less merely using a tape measure)

Well, what do you have to say for yourself?

 

[Sarkus]

geez - guess you didn't catch the edit

Your tone is somewhat unbecoming - seemingly blaming me for not catching an edit while typing up a response? :shrug:

IOW the claim one can measure microkelvins without electronic equipment flies in the face of scientific norms (much less merely using a tape measure)

Somewhat irrelevant whether its within scientific norms or not. While many of the matters in question do bear similarity to the scientific, you are assuming that the achievement is within the realm of science alone.

You clearly don't believe, and seem unable/unwilling to walk the path that will lead you to discovering the answer.

You are like the proverbial high-school drop out, LG. :shrug:

Edit: do you need me to explain that analogy to you? I hear it might be confusing?

 

[lightgigantic]

Your tone is somewhat unbecoming - seemingly blaming me for not catching an edit while typing up a response? :shrug:

its more your inability to concede that calibrating a tape measure to measure microkelvins is just like calibrating a lawn mower to do the tax returns of a small business that makes you blameworthy

Somewhat irrelevant whether its within scientific norms or not. While many of the matters in question do bear similarity to the scientific, you are assuming that the achievement is within the realm of science alone.

You clearly don't believe, and seem unable/unwilling to walk the path that will lead you to discovering the answer.

You are like the proverbial high-school drop out, LG. :shrug:

Well feel free to post links to those successful highschool students who made the grade to electronically-less measure microkelvins oh guru of the tape measure