The absurdity of religious choice

[lightgigantic]

God is generally defined as creator and governor of the universe, worshipped by people. "All religions" is rather indefinite. So they are not the same.

so once again - do we approach questions of god outside of religion?

Unless the penalty arises by the action of systemic scientific policy to oppress someone who opposes a false theory widely held by scientists, it would not be relevant to the equivalent behavior in religion (eg burn the witches).

well that appears to be precisely what we have - penalties for subverting the dominant social paradigm of science
“

It wouldn't matter if science involved only the art of basket weaving. If basket weavers had a systematic method for weeding out defects, they would equally be distinguished from religions by this mere fact. Therefore religions and science are not the same.

actually it would since basket weaving is technically a "hard science" - the softer it goes in simply refining theory upon theory upon theory upon theory (such as your ideas about god being a fabrication of culture) the less effective any so-called systems of weeding out defects are

Regardless of this, science itself marches on, demonstrating continuous refinements to, and discoveries of, the laws of nature, while religion holds them statically attached to fabrications of antiquity.

but if the refinements are simply a self referential hubris it becomes more of a walking in circles as opposed to marching on.

For instance you are yet to explain exactly how all ideas of god are fabrications yet at all aren't shy posting pages upon pages of repetition about how "god is a myth" etc etc, simply following the flapping flag of a blind assertion.

Core tenets means core tenets of religion, which deal with assigning values to ultimate reality which are strictly derived from superstition, myth, legend and fables.

And there's the nature of your error.

You are simply seeking ways to interpret data to drive home your false assumption.

My reply addresses science, as a methodology, having shown that the tenets of science are falsifiable, and subjected to continuous refinements, increasing in truth and accuracy, whereas religions are static in their core tenets, leaving them attached to ancient fabrications. Again, I am enumerating the substantial differences between the science and religion.

If assigning value is the property of a core value then we can talk about the core values of science being funding and promotional ambition. IOW its idiotic to suggest that anything with an assigned value in "reality" is a "core value" since peripheral issues also require the same substance.

And frankly your arguments about science being always dynamic in the pursuit of truth and accuracy and religion being static simply aren't statements backed up by anyone who has come within ten feet of studying history.

You are simply repeating rhetoric and dogma while continuously failing to respond to numerous examples that clearly highlight the mythic nature of your claims about science (being ever dynamic and adjustable to the pursuit of truth an reality) and religion (being static .. despite having clearly gone through many phases, reconciliations and amendments) .

Of course they can, as soon as no more correction occurs. Unlike religion, this is a natural process. In religion, the stasis is not natural. It's artificial. And that's the difference between religion and science.

You fail to understand - the so called progress of self correction becomes marching in circles when their is a dogmatic ideological reluctance to go back on core issues. This becomes all the easier when the claim (like "god is a fabrication of human culture") isn't backed by any doable claims (aka : soft science full steam ahead)

No. Science will not be tainted or hijacked, because it is self-correcting. The point is not how many ways science moves, but that it moves and settles in the correct position, by means of feedback. Science is a closed loop process, by definition. Religion runs open loop, by definition. Thus science and religion are not the same.

If it is, has and will be hijacked how can you say that it isn't?

No, I am speaking only of the intrisic characters of superstition, myth, legend and fables. That fact, by itself, establishes that religions of antiquity have fabricated the explanations for phenomena for which they had no science.

But once again, that is most certainly not a fact so it simply hot air to talk about what it establishes IYHO

IOW That is your opinion ... and even then only of one small part of a particular religion. I might as well be talking about the fact that medical research is a crock on the strength of a single obscure controversy of funding and ambition in a particular laboratory.

Science discovers the true causes of phenomena, and abhors fabrication. Therefore science and religion are not the same.

Science also has its contingent political/funding bodies which provide an identical network for screwing up. If you can't even get this right about science there is no scope for discussing further issues about religion.

No, the evidence speaks for itself, that it is fabricated, so my opinion is moot.

lol
But its your opinion that the evidence speaks for it being fabricated ... despite the fact that even looking at your argument in the best of all possible lights, its simply dealing with peripheral issues of a particular religion (that, by and large, relegates the subject to antiquity shrouded in heavy text critical issues ... which even then shows your claim that religion has no tools for amending information has no basis)

As for the presumption that this reflects upon science, that is moot also. Furthermore, science is closed loop, and cannot become reliant on fabrication, as religion is, since it is open loop. Therefore science and religion are not the same.

You are simply talking about the myth that science is purely objective ... which certainly isn't a claim backed up by the "real world"

The rightness or wrongness of a person has no bearing on whether science relies on fabrication, which is does not, and can not, since it is a closed loop system.

repeating the same myth doesn't make your argument any stronger.

The only closed loop of science is the institutionalized variety that galvanizes a particular approach to a subject in order to gain a social consensus on its validity

No, simply by a prima facie reading of the texts from antiquity, the evidence presents itself, and that evidence contains myths of gods who are created explain the phenomena for which they had no science.

(yet) Once again you can't really say that since you haven't gone into the specifics of what is specifically being presented of characters, how this contradicts "real" knowledge of the subject, how this overall can be applied as a category error for "god" ... much less how this typifies the approach the question of god.

It's a premise founded in fact and evidence that establishes that religion and science are not the same.

That's simply a statement about the ideal of science as opposed to its practice.
(I'm beginning to notice how you are constantly evading things)

Eugenics is not a principle upon which science relies, whereas religion relies, uncorrected on the notion of "chosen people" (for example). Besides, eugenics is probably only founded in a religious setting. We could use this for a case study, and measure the rise and fall of this proposition, and we will discover that science is a closed loop that auto-corrects, which is the only fact we need to discover that science is not the same as religion, since religion is open loop.

Then you are simply falling back on intellectual dishonesty by relegating eugenics to a periphery even though it meets all your criteria stated earlier (imposing values on the "real world") for a core value.

I, of course, understand this, which is why, as I said earlier, I can see how the argument of pointing to people who get it wrong is kind of pointless since people get it wrong all the time in all fields (which is why this constant talk of a "closed loop" by you is simply a poorly thought out ideal)

What science is, ie, whether it is a religion or not, has nothing to do with such ideation. It is merely has an intrinsic property, that it will auto correct, and that it will abhor fabrication, which is distinctly different from religion.

However, I agree completely that people have the perceptions you allude to. My hope would be to disabuse them of their error, and to discover the actual causes of their angst, which manifest to me as resentment, paranioa, and other disturbances of a deeper cause than the fact of a particular theory or scientific finding.

Notice the manner that you instinctively ostracize (aka burn at the stake) any individuals (even though they are certainly more qualified than you, by dint of their experience, knowledge and credentials) that criticize the (mythic) ideas you have about science.

The causes of the nature, eg, Creation, is not a peripheral matter in the religions we are speaking of here. It is core. In a plain reading of these texts, at least as they pertain to creation, the fact that they share common elements, and the nature of those elements, establishes prima facie evidence that they invented gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science. Thus, core tenets of religion dating from antiquity, exemplified by these texts, are fabricated, in contrast to the core tenets of science, which are learned through discovery. Thus religion and science are not the same.

Just a few points:

- You are dealing with a text (OT) so besieged with text critical issues that by and large most persons relegate it to a peripheral status
- The parts you are referencing are in themselves aspects of secondary creation (things that are set in motion after the framework of the existence, the primary creation, is already in existence)
- There is no evidence you can present to undercut them anyway since, by your own admission, it appears that science will "progress forward" and in the future point out how our current (scientific) understandings about milky way (or even Gilgamesh for that matter) are erroneous.

It is my statement demonstrating the difference between the origins of a religious tenet (superstion, myth, etc to explain phenomena) as opposed to a tenet of science (investigation into the actual causes)

But your argument is completely circular t the moment.

"gods are invented because I can find a particular reference to a particular god in a particular text (that has particular text critical issues ... and that by and large advocates don't particularly hold as essential) to show that this might be the case (even though we don't have the science to fully explain the creation of things being mentioned ... and even if we did, those ideas would be turned on their head as we comes to understand the errors we made in our original assertions)"

It sounds more like comedy than an argument.

This is why anyone who is serious about science really doesn't begin to touch on the question of god's existence (unless of course they want to sell a lot of books or something ...in which case it might be a good idea to stick the word "god" on the cover ... but then that's not serious science so I guess the original comment still stands)

It is hard to imagine that any topic in artificial intelligence has anything to do with the discovery of nature, since artificial machinery and the machinery of nature are barely related. I was simply contrasting the tenets of religion which define that nature arose out of fabricated source material, as opposed to the scientific tenets of nature which arise out of discovery.

It doesn't appear that you read the article - its talking specifically about how the pursuit of "discovery" operates within an institutional framework (and how misconceptions are galvanized as they become key values of the said institution).

I simply bring this to your attention to highlight that the basis you use for making a distinction between science and religion is simply incorrect (or at the very least, there are numerous scientists and even bodies of scientific inquiry that disagree with it ) ... so much so that it has even become a stereotype that finds presentation in popular culture.

I mentioned that Tiamat was invented to explain the way the Milky Way appears to be flung across the sky. Her slayer, Marduk (invented to do the slinging) persists throughout various dynasties, so it is clear that this was a core tenet invented to explain a natural phenomenon for which they had no science.

What you haven't done however is establish whether it was a core for subsequent/previous religions or whether it found adaption at the periphery of such bodies through the haziness of text critical issues.

IOW you don't (and in fact I am certain that you can't) establish that this is the core event that established the precedence of religious ideas of god, per se.

For instance if I find a homeless person pretending to the president of the USA I cannot say that the president of the USA is a fabrication (even if I have zero information about presidents of the USA).

Or alternatively if I find a white swan (or even a thousand of them) I cannot say that the evidence points to black swans being a fabrication

This is why absolute negatives (like you are advocating) are philosophical suicide.

This is also precisely why your attempts to bolster science (through atheist driven ideology) are ineffectual (and in fact detrimental) since they undercut a core practice of science : falsification

Other creation myths show a similar pattern: the god appears as a necessary force to cause the unexplained effect.

And they are by and large pretty much still unexplained

Furthermore, I mentioned that the Gilgamesh Epic establishes how a man can be made of earth in direct parallel to the Genesis myth about Adam. Additionally, the Gilgamesh flood story has numerous identical features, from which it is evident that they were borrowed.This myth obviously explains the cause of natural disasters, for which they had no science, as well as the continuity and origin of species, for which they had no science. This alone establishes that these texts invented gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science. From this alone, it follows that, since religions rely on such fabricated tenets as these, then science cannot be similar to religion, since its tenets concerning nature are arrived at not by adoption of fabrications, but through discovery.

You might as well be citing people in mental institutions who think they are jesus as evidence that jesus is a fabrication.

To say science is in error is to assign it the state that exists at the error signal that arises out of the feedback loop. That signal, as I mentioned above, is in a constant state of flux, due to the continuous tracking of the output to the best evidence available. Therefore science is self-correcting, unlike religion, which has no error signal, and therefore is not self-correcting; and either way you look at it, they are dissimilar.

hence a claim that is constantly in a state of self correction = constant state of error.

Its part and parcel of making statements from a metonymic.

IOW if the ultimate macro and microcosm are simply unassailable one will never be able to explain what is a cup of flour or where it is since all frames of reference tither out.

In short, it never gets explicit.

(sometimes called the "ascending" method)

However even in our own experience, a person with a bigger piece of the metonymic pie (eg - accountants, mechanics, doctors etc) can illuminate things on the strength of their bonds of confidence to others (usually made through payment) to the degree that such persons can benefit. IOW we can benefit from the knowledge of others without the necessity of knowing everything they do.

(sometimes this is called the "descending" method)

Since the ascending method is necessarily limited by the macro and microcosm (which it cannot hope to surmount) all its conclusions are relative (even if given an eternity to do research) ... so even if we subscribe to the descending processes within our community (or leave answering questions about the universe and life to the big guys in science) there is no conclusive answer to these questions - progress can never be more than a bigger .... but none-the-less limited ... slice of the metonymic pie.

When we talk about god, we are talking about a personality that doesn't share these metonymic limitations... and when we talk about religion, we are talking about entering into the 'descending" method with god.

IOW to simply talk about religion being short sighted because it lacks an "ascending" method is to not understand the problem.

At the error signal, not at the post-error position.

If you accept that the post error position is a necessary component of the discipline, it constantly has errors

since the contrast I have shown regards the assessments made of nature in science v religion, we are only confined to the evidence of nature insofar as the disparity is concerned, which is purely empirical, and while it is true that religion addresses nature in terms of superstitious explanations, this, if anything, only serves to further differentiate the two

We are talking about the perception of nature. I explained how the tools of empiricism (or the ascending method) are the mind and the senses and how these are necessarily limited and the very sources of error that put an end to your ideas that science is somehow dramatically different on account of being immune to fabrication etc.

I have also given numerous references establishing how science is not an institution bound to the pursuit of being naturally self correcting.

In this way, the differentiation between religion- as being compounded solely by precepts of error - and science - as being the bastion of truth and integrity in the admonishment of error - is simply an imagination on your behalf.

I would have to reject a generalized boundary outside of science that is beyond its purview.

then you have to explain how the mind and senses can give rise to explicit terms while having no access to the macro or microcosm.

No need for some really heady subject matter either.

Can you tell me essentially what is a cup of flour and where it is (if I put it on a table in front of you)?

All fringe, alternative and pseudoscience belong under the purview of science insofar as they tend towards fallacies that misrepresent known elements of nature, so science would invariably keep watch over these and provide fact checking for naive members of society who may fall prey to misrepresentations of actual facts and evidence under the purview of science.

I agree that it has a certain reign over claims that borrow from its same methodologies in order to lay claims (which would include pseudoscience).

My point however is that it simply has no scope to approach certain questions on account of its limited nature nor to impose its own methodologies on others ssytems.

IOW science works fine for as long as it doesn't leave the confines of science.

The moment you start talking about how science contextualizes claims of god/presents them as fabrications etc however is the moment you leave the confines of science

And while many religious matters are entirely out of the purview of science, those which are used as perennial attacks against science (typically only by fundamentalists) remain under the constant watch of scientists, who are concerned about the nature and persistence of the religious intrusion into
matters not under the purview of religion, and for the purpose of subordinating science to the fabrications of antiquity.

Its a double edges sword - scientists leaving the arena of their expertise to venture opinions on philosophy and religion do the same thing.

Yes I recognize that you are referring to perception, not the evidence of systemic defects that I am referring to.

Actually I am referring to your constantly repeated statements about science being a closed loop of integrity in the pursuit of truth and eradication of error.

They are simply a myth.

I noted that you didn't have a response to the clear cut cases (often made by scientists ... who you , as a further irony, ostracize ) that establish this to be the case.

No, I'm aware of these kinds of self-correcting materials, what I meant was, in order to show that science was not self correcting, you would want to go to cases of fabrication, and see what the journals tell us happened next, ie, did they the science self-correct? More importantly are they maintaining tese errors now, since we are principally concerned with the present state of science.

The real question is "why does it keep resurfacing?"

According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here.[3]

Career pressure
Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
To this category may also be added a paranoia that there are other scientists out there who are close to success in the same experiment, which puts extra pressure on being the first one. It is suggested as a cause of the fraud of Hwang Woo-Suk.[citation needed][4] A main source of detection comes when other research teams in fact fail or get different results.
Laziness
Even on the rare occasions when scientists do falsify data, they almost never do so with the active intent to introduce false information into the body of scientific knowledge. Rather, they intend to introduce a fact that they believe is true, without going to the trouble and difficulty of actually performing the experiments required.
Ease of fabrication
In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, he can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if his results conflict with others in the same field. There are no “scientific police” who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.[5]

The question here is, when establishing that science is not like a religion, I have relied on the contrast between the religious schema, in which explanations core to belief, which are known to have been fabricated in texts of antiquity, persist as the doctrines that explain phenomena which science today explains through discovery.

You simply haven't investigated the claim

The reason for this could be explained by the above link about scientific misconduct

Even on the rare occasions when scientists do falsify data, they almost never do so with the active intent to introduce false information into the body of scientific knowledge. Rather, they intend to introduce a fact that they believe is true, without going to the trouble and difficulty of actually performing the experiments required.

To negate this, we would want to know if the response to the denial of rocks falling from the sky constitutes an interference with the truth of a core belief, and, if so, whether that survived the scutiny of science, or whether Science succumbed to it, which at some point it obviously did not, since that is not a core belief today. So already we can recognize that self correction works.

Actually it shows the reluctance to apply self correction due to institutionalized dogma (something you think is exclusive to religion .. so much so that science can be classed as diametrically opposed to it). Of course I had to provide an example where self correction prevailed (even if it took a few hundred years) in order for you to understand this point .

My point is that there are many claims commonly bandied about in the name of science that fail to recognize the limited nature of the discipline (reductionist views of consciousness or even these forays into atheism supported by science) that are simply nothing more than the dogma of "rocks don't fall from the sky"

Except I have shown that core beliefs, to the extent that they falsely render nature, persist under an open loop non-correcting system, ie, they continue to maintain core beliefs about nature merely because these are given in the fabrications of antiquity.

Much like the case of rocks don't fall from the sky

Since this diametically opposes the scientific method, which abhors the establishment of doctrines about nature based upon known falsehood, then religion and science are not the same.

Thinking like that is simply the product of scientific myth.

We can even categorically discuss why scientists, far from abhorring the institutionalization of falsities, have a strong interest in maintaining them


I understand the claim, nothing more, I honestly think you folks are off your rockers. I understand the perennial religious agenda to undermine science and conduct propaganda warfare and mind control, and the culture war that accompanies it.

The problem is that you are not talking about science. You are talking about atheism ... which has its own issues of propaganda, mind control and undermining science too in some circumstances.

IOW in your quest to attack religion, you corrupt the very tool of science which you pretend to be championing the cause for.

Philosophically and historically speaking, its often seen that diametric opposites amount to the same deal when they get on the ground . Eg : Communism and Fascism

I understand the lack of understanding of basic tenets of math and science that leaves lay people with a muddled framework in which to spin their yarns about how truth can be discovered merely by rebelling against the old guard du jour.

Yet you are the one trying to drive home an absolute negative

I understand the advent of viral pseudoscience as a by-product of rant-inducing sites. I understand the desire to vent frustrations and strike out at supposed institutions, real or imagined, because someone got miffed, yelled at, discredited or fired.

yeah burn that witch good!!

I also understand mental illness in its subtle forms: people with issues, needing help, coming here with delusions of grandeur, or just letting go for reasons they may not even know. I also understand the nutty and eccentric personas, the trolls and spammers, pranksters and hardcore types who feel their individuality is losing ground unless they push back.

lol
welcome to the club

So far that mostly accounts for known errors. But not one of them arises out of the application of the scientific method. It's just human error, running open loop, unchecked.

As far as I know, science is still being performed by humans ....

As far as whether new information disbands conflicting data: this is no statement of the scientific method, just a fatalistic sense of resentment that we're doomed, we can't even marshal the smallest scrap of truth any longer, because the cards are stacked.

On the contrary, its the common companion of anything that is institutionalized, including science so its simply folly for you to try and dress science up in a utopian manner simply on the strength of your imagination and ability to ostracize and burn anyone who disturbs the status quo.
:shrug:

My statement was in reference to the means by which their promulgation of the laws of nature arises, and that peer review in science is a fed-back closed loop system, whereas religions remain connected to the writings of antiquity, maintaining their core definition of nature, without questioning that these are established out of superstition, myth, fable and legend. In this regard, the peer review process of science places it at variance with the static conditions of religions.

And my statement was that religion also has its own similar feedback system.

IOW not only is your suggestion that religion and science are diametrically opposed because one harbors error and the other eradicates it completely wrong ... but also your suggestion that they are diametrically opposed because one has no tools for the reconciliation of information and the other does..
If you you bothered to investigate (which I'm sure you haven't and won't - for reasons explained in the wiki link about scientific misconduct) the history of the catholic church (which isn't my favorite theistic take but serves its purpose as an institution vaguely comprehensible to you) is one of dynamism and reform. Even the staunchest critics of Catholicism concede that its ability to adapt (in terms of balancing the whole deal of management, application and scriptural conclusion in lieu of changing norms and standards - including advances in science) is what has enabled it to persevere.

Which gets back to my original statement (which you seem to be doing your best to avoid in a manner typical of the misconduct well known of scientists I might add ...)

I vaguely remember the comments of one well known and accomplished scientist to the effect that the only difference between science and religion is that peer review testing occurs at a much accelerated rate ... so much for your ideas about them being diametrically opposed ...

 

[NMSquirrel]

WOW..LG..I think that is the longest post i have seen to date..(there may be one in ST vs SW :shrug

 

[Balerion]

well that appears to be precisely what we have - penalties for subverting the dominant social paradigm of science

You misrepresent the issue. The whistleblower is not subverting the dominant social paradigm of science, he or she is exposing a cover-up or fraud. Fraud and cover-ups are not the dominant social paradigm of science, so that is not what they are subverting. Yes, they may be removed from their positions for doing the right thing, but that's no different than an accountant getting fired for calling the attention of his employers to some shady bookkeeping.

 

[lightgigantic]

You misrepresent the issue. The whistleblower is not subverting the dominant social paradigm of science, he or she is exposing a cover-up or fraud. Fraud and cover-ups are not the dominant social paradigm of science, so that is not what they are subverting. Yes, they may be removed from their positions for doing the right thing, but that's no different than an accountant getting fired for calling the attention of his employers to some shady bookkeeping.

By same token, the dominant social paradigm of religion is not cover-up and fraud ...
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

By same token, the dominant social paradigm of religion is not cover-up and fraud ...
:shrug:

Of course it is. It is the subjugation of the masses, the dehumanization of women and the silencing of scientific inquiry. It deals in revealed truths with which one must agree or die in denying--and I mean that both literally and spiritually, as apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islam, and Jesus' claim of being the only way to the kingdom of heaven means that if one does not accept him, one will burn eternally in the hereafter.

Religion began as an explanation to the phenomena we did not otherwise have the means to explain, but all scientific progress has been made in the teeth of religious opposition, and that trend only continues today. The propaganda spread by Christians against evolution, the limitations on stem cell research--what next advancement will be stunted or delayed by the church or the mosque or the temple?

This doesn't even address social issues, such as the state-sanctioned bigotry against homosexuals in the United States, or the treatment of women as breeding animals and personal property in Muslim countries, both of which are exclusively religious enterprises. This behavior was disgusting five hundred years ago, but today, in the light of what we know about how vital the role of women is to a society's success, and how we value equality for every person regardless of their race or sexual orientation, it's unforgivable.

Religion is fraud. It is a knowing, smiling lie in the face of all modern civilization holds dear.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course it is. It is the subjugation of the masses, the dehumanization of women and the silencing of scientific inquiry.

no more than science is

It deals in revealed truths with which one must agree or die in denying--and I mean that both literally and spiritually, as apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islam, and Jesus' claim of being the only way to the kingdom of heaven means that if one does not accept him, one will burn eternally in the hereafter.

to say the least .. that's debatable

Religion began as an explanation to the phenomena we did not otherwise have the means to explain, but all scientific progress has been made in the teeth of religious opposition, and that trend only continues today.

more hyperbole - for a starter there is no evidence that religion began that way (unless we want to start accepting dogma as truth .. which isn't something you appear to be in favor of) and secondly there is also no evidence for all (emphasis yours) scientific advancement being made in the teeth of religious opposition.

The propaganda spread by Christians against evolution, the limitations on stem cell research--what next advancement will be stunted or delayed by the church or the mosque or the temple?

This doesn't even address social issues, such as the state-sanctioned bigotry against homosexuals in the United States, or the treatment of women as breeding animals and personal property in Muslim countries, both of which are exclusively religious enterprises. This behavior was disgusting five hundred years ago, but today, in the light of what we know about how vital the role of women is to a society's success, and how we value equality for every person regardless of their race or sexual orientation, it's unforgivable.

this is all a mish mash of periphery, politics and cultural bigotry ... a combination which can also be applied to the broader arena of science (for as long as one isn't paying attention to core values that is)

Religion is fraud. It is a knowing, smiling lie in the face of all modern civilization holds dear.

that's simply your bias speaking

 

[Balerion]

no more than science is

I'm sorry, you're going to have to elaborate.

to say the least .. that's debatable

Let's see: it's in the scripture.

Where's the debate?

more hyperbole - for a starter there is no evidence that religion began that way (unless we want to start accepting dogma as truth .. which isn't something you appear to be in favor of) and secondly there is also no evidence for all (emphasis yours) scientific advancement being made in the teeth of religious opposition.

Every religion has a creation myth, and most promise an afterlife. They all blame their god or gods for famines, plagues, and droughts, while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health. Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

If this wasn't a primitive attempt at explaining the unexplained, then what was it?

Tell me what major scientific discovery was not, at one point or another, challenged by the dominant religion of the time or region? From the heliocentric model to evolution, from the sphericity of the earth to the application of the HPV vaccine, every step science takes forward is fought tooth and nail by religion.

this is all a mish mash of periphery, politics and cultural bigotry ... a combination which can also be applied to the broader arena of science (for as long as one isn't paying attention to core values that is)

I don't know what you mean by "periphery," but the justification for everything I said can be found in the Abrahamic texts. It isn't simply the language of the oppressor, it's the heart of the matter. And how aren't these matters core tenants? It seems that whenever someone points out an ugly part of your faith, you brush it off as not being a core tenant. Don't misunderstand this next question, because I know you're wrong, but: by what authority do you make these distinctions?

that's simply your bias speaking

No, that's the truth speaking. Your bias makes you blind to it, or dismissive of it, but it's all there in the texts, and in the teachings.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

In the event that you may actually happen to be experiencing a glum sense of ostracism, and in particular if it should happen to be on account of a lack of due recognition of any kind, allow me to offer that your express regard for common sense places you in a highly esteemed light--even by objective standards--but also which, in my humble estimation, exceed even the most emotive of subjective characterizations, to which I would personally add the often maligned yet truly heartfelt interjections: "way cool!", "far out!" and "bad-ass!", but only for my lack of a potentially more appropriate and sufficiently poignant vocabulary, and only after conducting a reasonable word search to convey my appreciation for your well considered opinions, which tend to leave me gratefully speechless, as may often happen in my own bouts of gloomy rejection.

Well thank you. However due the obivious lack of body language and the inability to properly facilitate what your true purpose is tone and pich in saying these words. the text of cyber-space words are our only forms of communication and can fall into the scrutiniy of mis-interpreation or lack of there-of. hopfully the message i had received was not one of sarcastic rudeness..if not i thank you. Sincerely the Saturnine Pariah.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Well thank you. However due the obivious lack of body language and the inability to properly facilitate what your true purpose is tone and pich in saying these words. the text of cyber-space words are our only forms of communication and can fall into the scrutiniy of mis-interpreation or lack of there-of. hopfully the message i had received was not one of sarcastic rudeness..if not i thank you. Sincerely the Saturnine Pariah.

I appreciate your appeal to reason, and this was purely meant to be taken as a compliment. The silly language was meant only to show spirit, so you might get a sense of my solidarity with the ideas you express. I'm a firm believer that anti-science propaganda is an assault on logic, so I liked the way you expressed the same ideas that resonate with me.

 

[wynn]

Of course it is. It is the subjugation of the masses, the dehumanization of women and the silencing of scientific inquiry. It deals in revealed truths with which one must agree or die in denying--and I mean that both literally and spiritually, as apostasy is a crime punishable by death

That is true for consumerist society.

what next advancement will be stunted or delayed by the church or the mosque or the temple?

Advancement toward what?

This doesn't even address social issues, such as the state-sanctioned bigotry against homosexuals in the United States, or the treatment of women as breeding animals and personal property in Muslim countries, both of which are exclusively religious enterprises. This behavior was disgusting five hundred years ago, but today, in the light of what we know about how vital the role of women is to a society's success, and how we value equality for every person regardless of their race or sexual orientation, it's unforgivable.

You certainly don't value equality.

Religion is fraud. It is a knowing, smiling lie in the face of all modern civilization holds dear.

"Modern" doesn't automatically mean 'good.'

 

[wynn]

Every religion has a creation myth, and most promise an afterlife. They all blame their god or gods for famines, plagues, and droughts, while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health. Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

Now that's a Freudian slip!

 

[Balerion]

That is true for consumerist society.

What is? Consumerist society dehumanizes women? People are killed for not attending clearance sales? Come now, be serious.

Advancement toward what?

What kind of question is that? Do you honestly not understand the concept of scientific advancement? Wouldn't you consider evolution an advancement in our understanding of the world? Of the human condition? You wouldn't call the HPV vaccine an advancement in medical treatment that will save countless women from cervical cancer? Is that not advancement to you?

What are you looking for?

You certainly don't value equality.

Ah, the hit-and-run. A favorite of trolls everywhere.

Either you qualify that comment, or you fucking apologize to me. I'm sorry for the language, but you just accused me of bigotry, and I'm not going to have it.

"Modern" doesn't automatically mean 'good.'

It certainly means more informed, which is the context in which I used the term.

Now that's a Freudian slip!

How so?

 

[wynn]

What is? Consumerist society dehumanizes women?

As you said:

Originally Posted by JDawg
Of course it is. It is the subjugation of the masses, the dehumanization of women and the silencing of scientific inquiry. It deals in revealed truths with which one must agree or die in denying--and I mean that both literally and spiritually, as apostasy is a crime punishable by death

If Stepford is your ideal, however, then of course you see no problem with where modern society is going ...

What kind of question is that? Do you honestly not understand the concept of scientific advancement? Wouldn't you consider evolution an advancement in our understanding of the world? Of the human condition? You wouldn't call the HPV vaccine an advancement in medical treatment that will save countless women from cervical cancer? Is that not advancement to you?

What are you looking for?

I am looking for real advancement, not Stepford.

You certainly don't value equality.

Ah, the hit-and-run. A favorite of trolls everywhere.

Either you qualify that comment, or you fucking apologize to me. I'm sorry for the language, but you just accused me of bigotry, and I'm not going to have it.

How PC of you to consider that a "hit-and-run"!

If you would truly value equality, you would embrace the theists, for example. Which, clearly, you don't, and are even proud of it.

How so?

Is this really what you intended to say -

Every religion has a creation myth, and most promise an afterlife. They all blame their god or gods for famines, plagues, and droughts, while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health. Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

 

[Balerion]

As you said:

I know what I said. What the hell does it have to do with consumerist society subjugating women?

If Stepford is your ideal, however, then of course you see no problem with where modern society is going ...

Where did you get the idea that Stepford is my ideal? Do you even know what "Stepford" refers to, because you clearly aren't using it properly. I'm arguing against religions specifically for their treatment of women as chattel, as secondary citizens, as subordinates to their male counterparts--which is exactly what the Stepford wives were. My ideal is the opposite of that. I'm arguing for their liberation, not their subjugation.

And what is modern society if not the liberation of women?

I am looking for real advancement, not Stepford.

You have to start qualifying your comment, because this makes no sense on its own. It's a vague comment that has no apparent basis in the conversation. How in the world does scientific advancement subjugate women? How does the HPV vaccine subjugate women?

How PC of you to consider that a "hit-and-run"!

It isn't PC to take offense to an intended insult. And considering that you made the accusation without any qualification, "hit-and-run" is a perfectly applicable phrase.

If you would truly value equality, you would embrace the theists, for example. Which, clearly, you don't, and are even proud of it.

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "embrace," and what does that have to do with how I feel about equality? I'm starting to think you don't even know what equality means. You mean to say that I don't think theists should have the same rights as atheists? What exactly are you saying?

Is this really what you intended to say -

Yes. I've read it a dozen times now, and for the life of me I can't figure what's got you so tripped up. And certainly, there's nothing Freudian about it. What are you confused about here?

 

[wynn]

Where did you get the idea that Stepford is my ideal?

From the things you praise.

And what is modern society if not the liberation of women?

uke: uke:

You have to start qualifying your comment, because this makes no sense on its own. It's a vague comment that has no apparent basis in the conversation. How in the world does scientific advancement subjugate women? How does the HPV vaccine subjugate women?

Stepford, here we come!

Yes. I've read it a dozen times now, and for the life of me I can't figure what's got you so tripped up. And certainly, there's nothing Freudian about it. What are you confused about here?

You said:

Every religion has a creation myth, and most promise an afterlife. They all blame their god or gods for famines, plagues, and droughts, while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health. Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

I think that what you intended to say was something like

Every religion has a creation myth, and most promise an afterlife.
They all blame humans for famines, plagues, and droughts,
while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health.
Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

 

[Balerion]

From the things you praise.




uke: uke:




Stepford, here we come!

See, I thought you actually had something to say. I didn't realize you were just throwing around some new buzzword you heard somewhere but don't really understand. My fault. Occasionally I make the mistake of taking people seriously who don't deserve to be taken seriously.

It is funny watching you squirm when you're pressed to back up a comment you can't actually back up, though. So I'll pose the challenge again: Explain yourself, or admit you're full of crap.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for that apology.

I think that what you intended to say was something like

Every religion has a creation myth, and most promise an afterlife.
They all blame humans for famines, plagues, and droughts,
while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health.
Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

Wow. No, that's not at all what I meant to say. If "they" blame humans for famines, plagues and droughts, and credit "their" god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health, who is "they"?

"They" are the religions. Obviously.

 

[wynn]

Obviously, you rwle and all that.

 

[Balerion]

Obviously, you rwle and all that.

Way to bail out, troll.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm sorry, you're going to have to elaborate.

science monopolized by male WASP sentiments yada yada

Let's see: it's in the scripture.

Where's the debate?

amongst persons who advocate it obviously - IOW its simply a a caricature to present these communities in that manner

Every religion has a creation myth,

correction every religion has ideas on creation ... and every atheist describes it as a myth

and most promise an afterlife.

so?

They all blame their god or gods for famines, plagues, and droughts, while crediting their god or gods for plentiful harvests, long life, and good health. Earthquakes and floods are often considered punishment by their god or gods for man's evil deeds.

If you can concede that calamities on an individual, collective or global level are the consequences of evil deeds by man, I think you have to review your opening analysis on where to lay the blame - kind of like criminals blaming cops for catching them while they consider going to jail a consequence of their misdeeds

If this wasn't a primitive attempt at explaining the unexplained, then what was it?

An explanation that certainly isn't ruled out by any sort of scientific explanation

Tell me what major scientific discovery was not, at one point or another, challenged by the dominant religion of the time or region?

For your edification

With respect to atheism and science, theism is widely regarded by historians as having had the best scientific arguments on its side well into the eighteenth century. The renowned Denis Diderot, atheist and deist in turns, could still say in 1746 that science posed a greater threat to atheism than metaphysics.[3] Well into the eighteenth century it could be argued that it was atheism and not theism which required a sacrifice of the intellect. As Schroeder has pointed out, atheists were scientifically retrograde until at least the mid eighteenth century, and suffered from their reputation as scientifically unserious.

From the heliocentric model to evolution, from the sphericity of the earth to the application of the HPV vaccine, every step science takes forward is fought tooth and nail by religion.

hogwash

I don't know what you mean by "periphery,"

substituting major values for minor ones

but the justification for everything I said can be found in the Abrahamic texts.

and as I said, such a peripheral vision fully enables one to taint science in the same manner (not that i do, since I don't think its intellectual honest to view it in that manner simply for the sake of bolstering a political objective)

It isn't simply the language of the oppressor, it's the heart of the matter.

rubbish

And how aren't these matters core tenants?

the very fact that they are argued against (as issues of application) or are in the process of getting adjusted according to changing social norms by the very communities you tar with the same brush ...

It seems that whenever someone points out an ugly part of your faith, you brush it off as not being a core tenant.

alternatively, you approach the topic like a shit magnet (which is an approach one can manage to anything you care to mention)

Don't misunderstand this next question, because I know you're wrong, but: by what authority do you make these distinctions?

By the communities who represent them ... as opposed to trying to wind in some over arching cultural/intellectual supremacy spin doctoring BS

No, that's the truth speaking. Your bias makes you blind to it, or dismissive of it, but it's all there in the texts, and in the teachings.

well let's see ...

Your views aren't historically supported to suggest a consensus
Your views aren't culturally supported to suggest a consensus
Your views aren't scientifically supported to suggest a consensus
Your views aren't religiously supported to suggest a consensus


Hence this ...

Religion is fraud. It is a knowing, smiling lie in the face of all modern civilization holds dear

... is clearly bias
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Way to bail out, troll.

Blaming others is sooooo easy, isn't it.