The Religion subforum.

[The Devil Inside]

i sit in the middle of the 2 aforementioned camps, being jewish...i disagree with almost every thread created by a religious person, and more often agree with an atheist here, as a result of the incredibly scrutinous manner in which judaism views it's own beliefs..that was the appeal for me personally.

mostly the problem i have with the subforum is the manner in which "everyday business" is conducted there. as a result, it is a cesspool of dogma (one kind or another) that has no self criticism involved in it's character. ego gets one nowhere in life, and that is all you will find in the religion subforum (with a few notable exceptions). it needs stricter moderation, or stricter rules. thats all i can say on the subject.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

At least someone has contributed a useful opinion on the subject.

 

[leopold]

there must be some explaination as to why religion is so popular.
why, as cris pointed out, has religion infused itself into almost every aspect of human culture?
why is it that pratically every culture on the planet has their religion?
these facts cannot be dismissed as foolish or childish.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

there must be some explaination as to why religion is so popular.
why, as cris pointed out, has religion infused itself into almost every aspect of human culture?
why is it that pratically every culture on the planet has their religion?
these facts cannot be dismissed as foolish or childish.

How about it's an inherent part of the human psyche? Why is it so hard to believe that, when it's so obviously the case. There was never a time when modern humans did not display evidence of ritual behavior, and by extension religious belief.

 

[leopold]

How about it's an inherent part of the human psyche?

which implies that religion is somehow needed by the human race.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

which implies that religion is somehow needed by the human race.

Why not? If it continues to persist, despite all attempts to stamp it out. If people still show a deep desire to retain some kind of spiritualism, why is it unreasonable to believe that humanity needs religion?

 

[Cris]

Jaster,

I've already established that the axiom of a supernatural realm is beyond proof or disproof, and that you cannot attack the axioms of religion with the axioms of science.

This is nonsense. A baseless speculation is not an axiom.

An axiom is simply something that you assume to be true,

No, total nonsense. To assume that something is true because you cannot prove it false is gibberish. If we used that approach then every fantasy that anyone believes is true becomes an axiom.

Now, saying that an atheist is "one who disbelieves the theists claims", is the same as saying that an atheist is "one who does not believe in god", since the claim of the theists is that there is a god.

Oh wow. This is a very basic error. The disbelief in a proposition is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

The theist has no more a difficult obstacle to overcome to satisfy their claims of certainty than the atheist.

Now I know you do not understand the definition of atheism I can understand your error.

Both positions are based upon an assumption that cannot be proven, and so both positions are speculative in nature.

No, the same error as above.

The thing that bothers me is that atheists don't treat their position as speculative, and they expect theists to do so when the foundation of both world views rest on the same philosophical level.

The same error again.

Whoa. Am I going to have to look through the threads on this message board and quote you and the others' conclusions about the false nature of theists' beliefs?

Feel free to do so.

Not once have any of you asserted that the theists were "speculating".

Oh, there were some in the past and several gave up their theism. There have been times when both sides were quite moderate.

You and the other's have continually claimed that religious beliefs of the other members of this board are nothing more than wild, childish fantasy. That certainly qualifies as a conclusion.

No. Observing that something is a fantasy does not mean it is false. An unsupported fantastic idea is factually a fantasy until it can be shown otherwise.

It certainly has not. It has always been, and I can quote you personally, that theist claims are obviously false.

For example?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

This is nonsense. A baseless speculation is not an axiom.

Oh really? Can you prove that you exist? Can you prove that what you sense is real? Can you prove what you sense is not all that is real? These are a few very basic assumptions, none of which are provable. Here, let me give you the definition of what an axiom is, since you so clearly don't know:

An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing other truths.

My contention is that the foundation of all religious belief is, very simply, that reality is not only what you are capable of sensing, i.e. that there is some kind of basic reality which you are unable to sense. Beyond this, there are other assumptions which rest upon this one axiom. Being that religion rests upon this assumption, which is beyond experimentation of any kind since all experimentation relies on the senses either directly or indirectly, then religion is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry by the very nature of it's foundational axiom.

Scientific thought is founded upon empiricism, which also rests upon an assumption. Namely, that is the assumption that what you sense is real. All of science is based upon this foundational assumption, and that assumption is beyond experimentation since you cannot test the reliability of the senses without using the senses to test their own reliability.

(Edit-Oh yea, for the record, religious beliefs are not baseless, either. Personal experiences, related to other individuals, constitutes a base, regardless of how reliable you think it is.)

No, total nonsense. To assume that something is true because you cannot prove it false is gibberish. If we used that approach then every fantasy that anyone believes is true becomes an axiom.

Whoa, whoa... I never said it was true, I said that it was assumed to be true and that you could not dismiss the assumption because it is beyond falsification. That's the nature of an axiom, buck-o. Science is built on them too. Are you saying that, because you can't assume something is true just because you can't prove it false, then the reliance on observations and experimentation (which is the foundation of empiricism, and thus the foundation of science) is also baseless speculation?

Oh wow. This is a very basic error. The disbelief in a proposition is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

If you read my quote very carefully, which I'm sure you thought you did but actually did not, you will realize that I said:

an atheist is "one who disbelieves the theists claims", is the same as saying that an atheist is "one who does not believe in god", since the claim of the theists is that there is a god.

Which basically means that atheists do not believe in God, and not that atheists believe there is no God, as you seem to think. It's merely an absence of belief in God, not a belief in the absence of God. Oh yea, I read the same "Definitions of Atheism and Theism" thread that you read, right before you posted.

Now I know you do not understand the definition of atheism I can understand your error.

Now that I know you do not understand philosophy, I can understand your error.

No, the same error as above.

No, the same error as above.

The same error again.

Same error again.

Feel free to do so.

I will. Here are a couple of links to the relavent threads. Oh yes, the whole threads, so you can't claim out-of-context-quotes:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56584

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56545

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56260

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56526

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56407

And this is probably the most direct one:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56482

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56409

And those are just of you, Cris. Few of them are direct, but I think if anyone reads your posts in those threads, they get the idea. Being as you have thousands of posts to go through, I could only look at some of the most recent ones. I didn't even bother finding others. I invite anyone else who is interested to go ahead and look through them, just so you can see what I'm talking about.

Oh, there were some in the past and several gave up their theism. There have been times when both sides were quite moderate.

I'm sure, but I'm more interested in recent times, since my own membership on this message board only reaches back to about spring.

No. Observing that something is a fantasy does not mean it is false. An unsupported fantastic idea is factually a fantasy until it can be shown otherwise.

Oh wow, what a turn around. When you're ridiculing religion, "fantasy" is a nice way of saying the beliefs are false and foolish (in the way that you use them, as anyone can tell by reading your many posts), but at the same time you give yourself a convenient way of denying that you deem untrue the beliefs of religious people, merely that they are "unproven", which sounds very diplomatic. The point is, they cannot be proven, as they rest on an unprovable axiom. Oh wait, all axioms are unprovable.

For example?

See above. And really, we are wasting our time talking about you when we could be talking philosophy. Yay!

 

[SkinWalker]

At least someone has contributed a useful opinion on the subject.

Ah. So those that disagree with you or have opinions that are contrary to your own are not useful? Poppycock.

Indeed, it is the very same sort of poppycock that those that reject the theistic nonsense that gets posted in the religious subforum of a science forum are opposed to.

Your premise is that religion deserves respect because the opinions and beliefs of religion are "subjective" and of the supernatural and cannot be defined by science.

I say balderdash. Science can, and does, examine religion. Retreating into the post-modern bullshit realm you have means nothing to me or the others that criticize religious nutters that preach and bitch in the Religion subforum. These people make pseudoscientific and bigotted claims, seek to justify and support the codification of their cult dogmas in governmental policy, and openly criticize science with using their superstitions as the basis for their positions.

Moreover, religious superstition and dogma has such a pervasive hold on societies throughout the world, particularly in theistic societies like Iran and the United States, that criticism and ridicule are necessary. Every bit as necessary as with political ideologies -of which the line is sometimes invisible between.

So, the religion subform is necessary. It belongs right where it is.

If religious nutters want to post their superstitious rants or preach their cult dogma, they should do so knowing that they will be criticized, questioned, and ridiculed. If they want respect for their beliefs, they should start their own message boards or visit those that ban dissenting thoughts.

 

[baumgarten]

Ah, the tension between secular humanism and spirituality. Bunch of internet monkeys flinging feces across cyberspace, the lot of you!

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Ah. So those that disagree with you or have opinions that are contrary to your own are not useful? Poppycock.

Actually, I was addressing the fact that he contributed his opinion to the existence of the religion subforum without any musings about how good/bad religion is. I love opposing views, except when they come from intellectual elitists with little or not respect for the views of those whose beliefs are contrary to their own.

Indeed, it is the very same sort of poppycock that those that reject the theistic nonsense that gets posted in the religious subforum of a science forum are opposed to.

Oh wait... I'm sorry, I thought that the Religion subforum was under the Philosophy section. Wait, it is under the Philosophy section, which means that the intention is clearly to debate Religion in a philosophical sense, wouldn't you agree?

Your premise is that religion deserves respect because the opinions and beliefs of religion are "subjective" and of the supernatural and cannot be defined by science.

Yes, thank you for restating my position for me. I was unaware of it. The foundations of religious belief are subjective and cannot be defined by science. I already told you, but apparently you people have a hard time reading, that I don't believe in the supernatural, but I understand the concept at the very least, which you seem not to. Supernatural, i.e. beyond the scope of nature, which includes your ability to examine it using observation and experimentation. I don't give a shit if you believe that it's a copout, because I already said that I agree. I just can't believe that you don't recognize that the nature of the concept actually does place it outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. It's so basic, so simple, and yet you refuse to understand. Get off your self-erected pedestal and try to understand the position for once in your life. Religious people are not stupid, not at all, and to tell you the truth I have met some extremely religious people who appear to be much more knowledgeable and reasonable than you are behaving, and yet they still believe. Why is that? Maybe you should try actually finding a reasonable answer rather than writing it off as stupidity, because you know, deciding that someone believes something because they are stupid is a sure sign of laziness.

I say balderdash. Science can, and does, examine religion. Retreating into the post-modern bullshit realm you have means nothing to me or the others that criticize religious nutters that preach and bitch in the Religion subforum. These people make pseudoscientific and bigotted claims, seek to justify and support the codification of their cult dogmas in governmental policy, and openly criticize science with using their superstitions as the basis for their positions.

Oh well... my, my, isn't someone a bit emotional? I'm going to ignore your obvious inability to form a reasonable argument that doesn't involve insulting the person you consider unintelligent (Myself), and address your initial, and final, point (minus "balderdash"). Yes, science can, and does examine religion. It examines religious practices, and records the professed beliefs of those who are members of it, and it can examine the validity of some of the claims associated with religion, like, for instance, the idea that the Earth is in the center of the universe. However, my contention is that science cannot examine the foundation of religion because it rests on a completely different set of axioms than science, namely that there is a component of existence that you cannot understand with your senses.

As to your point about decisions being made based on religious beliefs derived from these axioms, I agree. It is dangerous for decisions to be made based upon these assumptions, and I am not in favor of that at all. What I am for is the allowances of those who hold religious beliefs, of which there is a large segment even here at Sciforums, to express their ideas and be given a basic level of respect and patience, and for some honest, philosophical debate to actually take place between people with opposing views. Of course, those who violate the rules openly and with full knowledge of what they are doing are vermin who should be removed from the message board, but you people jump on every thread that is start in the religion forum discussing the beliefs of a particular religion from the point of view of someone who believes. That's what I object to.

Moreover, religious superstition and dogma has such a pervasive hold on societies throughout the world, particularly in theistic societies like Iran and the United States, that criticism and ridicule are necessary. Every bit as necessary as with political ideologies -of which the line is sometimes invisible between.

Look, honest and constructive criticism is necessary and healthy, but out and out ridicule is rude, and has no place in a community that is clearly meant for calm intellectual discussion.

So, the religion subform is necessary. It belongs right where it is.

It seems to me that you believe that the religion subforum is designed specifically to draw in theists and then ridicule their positions. I say, if that is indeed the purpose of the subforum, it should be removed.

If religious nutters want to post their superstitious rants or preach their cult dogma, they should do so knowing that they will be criticized, questioned, and ridiculed. If they want respect for their beliefs, they should start their own message boards or visit those that ban dissenting thoughts.

Look, I have no problem with criticism and questioning of religious beliefs in people. It's normal and healthy for skeptics to do just that, but not all religious people are "nutters", as you seem to think, and if treated with respect will discuss the issue in as calm and intellectual a fashion as they are addressed with. You, sir, are hostile in the extreme to anything even remotely religious, and you have absolutely no sense of respect, politeness, or consideration for anyone who opposes your particular views.

 

[SkinWalker]

Actually, I was addressing the fact that he contributed his opinion to the existence of the religion subforum [of this science forum]without any musings about how good/bad religion is. I love opposing views, except when they come from intellectual elitists with little or not respect for the views of those whose beliefs are contrary to their own.

I see no indication in this thread that you've shown any appreciation or respect for any view opposed to your own. You made a point to say "at least someone has contributed a useful opinion to the subject," with the clear implication that other opinions, to date, have been useless. Looking over the thread, I found many useful opinions on both sides of the argument -mostly from Cris.

Oh wait... I'm sorry, I thought that the Religion subforum [of this science forum]was under the Philosophy section. Wait, it is under the Philosophy section, which means that the intention is clearly to debate Religion in a philosophical sense, wouldn't you agree?

You make the assumption that its placement is intended to speak to its purpose. I say that regardless of where it is placed, it is in a science forum first. It is the science forum that draws most of the members who are looking for scientific perspectives and how other subjects relate to science.

Yes, thank you for restating my position for me. I was unaware of it.

More than the post-modernist perspective that you claim not to believe, your banality is fast becoming your most irritating trait.

The foundations of religious belief are subjective and cannot be defined by science.

Poppycock. Religious nutters claim they are, but this is poppycock. This paves the way for saying, "everything is subjective," and gives rise to the question, "why bother to study anything at all." Post-modernist bullshit.

I already told you, but apparently you people have a hard time reading, that I don't believe in the supernatural, but I understand the concept at the very least, which you seem not to. Supernatural, i.e. beyond the scope of nature, which includes your ability to examine it using observation and experimentation.

So which is it? Do you believe in the supernatural or don't you? If it doesn't exist (you don't believe in it, right?), of course it is "beyond the scope of nature." But I say the supernatural does exist and can be examined by science. Furthermore, I say the "supernatural" adheres to the same laws of physics as everything else. This is because the "supernatural" is a human invention just like democracy, philosophy, and the scientific method itself. The supernatural exists in the minds of people as a belief. Being in the human mind makes it a collection of fired neurons, which are subject to the laws of physics. And this belief, however subjective you might think it to be, can be tested by looking at the behaviors and rituals of human believers. The supernatural is a perceived set of phenomena, but phenomena that affect the perceivers' actions, therefore the phenomena can be observed in a manner similar to the way cosmologists observe a blackhole: by looking at its effect on the environment around it.

I just can't believe that you don't recognize that the nature of the concept actually does place it outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.

It would seem that you either actually do believe in the supernatural and have deep-rooted religious beliefs (and pretend otherwise here), or you have a flawed understanding of how science works. Why don't you reveal what your past screen names were and allow us the benefit of researching your past positions?

Get off your self-erected pedestal

More banality.

Religious people are not stupid, not at all, and to tell you the truth I have met some extremely religious people who appear to be much more knowledgeable and reasonable than you are behaving, and yet they still believe. Why is that?

I, too, know many smart people who have religious opinions; who go to church; who believe in the premise of a given religious cult. I would easily characterize several as "smarter" and more knowledgeable as me. Clearly, smart people can believe in superstitions and are affected by 20 years of indoctrination in much the same way as not-so smart people. But is this really the topic of the thread. It would be a good topic for a Religion subforum of a Science forum.

Maybe you should try actually finding a reasonable answer rather than writing it off as stupidity, because you know, deciding that someone believes something because they are stupid is a sure sign of laziness.

Perhaps, you could point me and the rest of those that read in this thread to the post where I made a comment or assertion that all religious people are stupid. Could it be that my pejorative use of the term "religious nutter" has been deemed by you to mean all religious people? Do you presume to know what and how I think? I believe you became rather emotional with me or someone else on that very presumption at some point in the past.

For the record, I don't think that all religious people are nutters. Many of the ones that post in the Religion subforum of this Science forum are, however.

Oh well... my, my, isn't someone a bit emotional? I'm going to ignore your obvious inability to form a reasonable argument that doesn't involve insulting the person you consider unintelligent (Myself), and address your initial, and final, point (minus "balderdash").

Ah, but balderdash was the main point. In addition, I don't recall bringing into question your intelligence, but perhaps you just did by missing the point and making an assumption that I did by criticizing your position. But that is consistent for you, at least: remember, we've established that the only opinions you find useful are those that agree with your own. So, if your intelligence is in question here, it is you that have made the inquiry.

What I am for is the allowances of those who hold religious beliefs, of which there is a large segment even here at Sciforums, to express their ideas and be given a basic level of respect and patience, and for some honest, philosophical debate to actually take place between people with opposing views.

Except, as Cris pointed out to you (which, because he disagrees, you doubtlessly did not find his opinions useful), honest debate cannot occur between the rational and the irrational. The tautological arguments of religious nutters avoids rational questions posed by those that don't hold their beliefs. This irrationality is present even between religious nutters as they argue which of their superstitions is better or more correct than the other!

They are free to express their opinions. But when their irrationality is expressed, so are those skeptical free to express theirs. If they're willing to comment so casually about their belief in an eternity in Hell because I refuse to agree with their superstitious beliefs, then I'm free to call them nutters and point out why.

Of course, those who violate the rules openly and with full knowledge of what they are doing are vermin who should be removed from the message board, but you people jump on every thread that is start in the religion forum discussing the beliefs of a particular religion from the point of view of someone who believes. That's what I object to.

Your objection has been noted. It doesn't appear that the administration/moderation here will change to suit your needs. Now that we don't agree with you, will you be moving on to another forum? Or will you just suck it up and deal with it?

Look, honest and constructive criticism is necessary and healthy, but out and out ridicule is rude, and has no place in a community that is clearly meant for calm intellectual discussion.

There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend. And, by "ridicule," even I try to limit my ridicule to the superstition rather than to the individual. If the individual takes it personally when I call his/her religion a cult, that's the individual's problem. Regardless of what you think the purpose of the religious subforum might be, most of the members who post there seem to disagree. They appear to agree with my position that it is a religious subforum in a science forum and that the expectation is irrationality will be ridiculed as it deserves to be. If I go to church, I'm in a religious forum and I wouldn't expect my rationality to be appreciated. I would expect (and deserve, I should suspect) ridicule.

It seems to me that you believe that the religion subforum [of a science forum] is designed specifically to draw in theists and then ridicule their positions. I say, if that is indeed the purpose of the subforum, it should be removed.

First, I don't think it had a purpose or a design plan other than to satisfy the desire for others to debate religious topics. I think when sciforums was exosci, back in 1999 - 2000, we had a lot of religious discussions. Dave (Porfiry) created a new message board in the updated exosci.com at the beginning of 2000 and included "World Affairs" and "Religious Debate" as the two subforums under "Reality." Cris was moderator then and Tiassa and a few others still here today were regular posters. When the forums were updated again in May of 2001, there was no "Philosophy" section, but a "Religious Debate" section that included "Christianity," "Atheism," and "Alternative." The "Philosophy" section as we know it today was added later that year.

Clearly, this wasn't "designed" to "draw in theists and then ridicule their positions," but rather to satisfy the need that existed for religious debate as theists kept coming to this as a science (initially a pseudoscience!) board and squaring off against the scientifically and rationally minded with their irrationality. Creating a new forum gave a place for these discussions and debates to exist. The theists were already coming here when so a place for religion was created. It is the science that draws the theists (not all, certainly) who have disagreements with science.

Second, you're repeating yourself by calling for its removal. More banality. For someone that pretends to be affronted when your position is restated for the purpose of continuity in writing a response, you certainly do repeat yourself with banality.

not all religious people are "nutters", as you seem to think,

Again, do those that read this thread a service and cite the post where I make that assertion. When I refer to the "religious nutter," I'm referring to those that enter the religion subforum of a science forum and preach their superstitions to the heathens. Or argue why science is wrong because their religious irrationality must be correct. Or claim that their religious cult beliefs will cure the world of the "disease" of homosexuality -or any other bigoted view point these "nutters" might have.

and if treated with respect will discuss the issue in as calm and intellectual a fashion as they are addressed with.

I don't ridicule or criticize *any* religious posters who have an intellectual, rational, or respectful position.

You, sir, are hostile in the extreme to anything even remotely religious, and you have absolutely no sense of respect, politeness, or consideration for anyone who opposes your particular views.

I'm hostile only to nutters and assholes. I didn't think I was being hostile towards you, but if I was, which category would that put you under?

 

[Woody]

MJ said about Cris:

Now that I know you do not understand philosophy, I can understand your error.

My point exactly. The man apparantly fails to comprehend how philosophy works. Philosophy is purely a logical thought process based on assumptions.

 

[Woody]

Ah, the tension between secular humanism and spirituality. Bunch of internet monkeys flinging feces across cyberspace, the lot of you!

No, they are all atheists. It's a debate between science and it's father, philosophy. Science thinks it's better than the philosophical priniciples that it came from and has a friend called a political agenda. That's one of the ways that junk science gets started. Science and politics get together and abandon philosophy.

Religion was also born of philosophy. It's father even has a name called "Logos." Religion has respect for its father. Religion and politics can get together and do the same bad things.

 

[Woody]

MJ said about SW

Oh wait... I'm sorry, I thought that the Religion subforum was under the Philosophy section. Wait, it is under the Philosophy section, which means that the intention is clearly to debate Religion in a philosophical sense, wouldn't you agree?

No he'll never agree unless he is in control of everyone's brainwaves. I made the same point you made. It's all about control my man, control.

Looking down the list of sub-forums, someone tell me what the art and culture forum has to do with science. How does somebody use the science "yardstick" to write a play or even a song -- is this supposed to be funny?

How about the science of pseudo-science? The science of fiction, now that's a real humdinger!

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I see no indication in this thread that you've shown any appreciation or respect for any view opposed to your own. You made a point to say "at least someone has contributed a useful opinion to the subject," with the clear implication that other opinions, to date, have been useless. Looking over the thread, I found many useful opinions on both sides of the argument -mostly from Cris.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but all but a few of the posts in here addressed towards me I have responded to with a decent level of respect, at least for the person, and am no more guilty of intolerance than the majority of people here including yourself. In order that this doesn't spiral into a series of ad-hominems, I'm just going to concede on this point and move onto the actual subject itself.

You make the assumption that its placement is intended to speak to its purpose. I say that regardless of where it is placed, it is in a science forum first. It is the science forum that draws most of the members who are looking for scientific perspectives and how other subjects relate to science.

It's a completely useless gesture to have a philosophy section to this message board when, as you claim, every topic here is meant to be dissected in a scientific manner. Yes, it's placement does imply a certain kind of discussion, and you are refusing to accept that. The vast majority of discussions that take place in here outside of the hard science section of the board turn into philosophical discussions, and I think that this thread probably belongs in that category.

More than the post-modernist perspective that you claim not to believe, your banality is fast becoming your most irritating trait.

Useless ad-hominem. You seem not to be able to make a post without poking at least a couple in there.

Poppycock. Religious nutters claim they are, but this is poppycock. This paves the way for saying, "everything is subjective," and gives rise to the question, "why bother to study anything at all." Post-modernist bullshit.

What exactly is your definition of the word "poppycock"? You seem to use it quite often, and mostly when you have nothing to respond with in a constructive manner. You seem completely incapable of civilized debate. Every post you make is either filled with ad-homs, or you are saying that the position of your opponent is "poppycock". Your banality is fast becoming your most irritating trait.

Post modernist bullshit? Do you even know what subjectivity is? It's called personal experience. You can't tell someone that they didn't experience a religious vision in much the same way that you can't tell someone that their favorite color isn't blue, or that they don't get angry when someone continually insults them because they are incapable of impersonal discourse.

So which is it? Do you believe in the supernatural or don't you? If it doesn't exist (you don't believe in it, right?), of course it is "beyond the scope of nature." But I say the supernatural does exist and can be examined by science. Furthermore, I say the "supernatural" adheres to the same laws of physics as everything else. This is because the "supernatural" is a human invention just like democracy, philosophy, and the scientific method itself. The supernatural exists in the minds of people as a belief. Being in the human mind makes it a collection of fired neurons, which are subject to the laws of physics. And this belief, however subjective you might think it to be, can be tested by looking at the behaviors and rituals of human believers. The supernatural is a perceived set of phenomena, but phenomena that affect the perceivers' actions, therefore the phenomena can be observed in a manner similar to the way cosmologists observe a blackhole: by looking at its effect on the environment around it.

No, I do not believe in the supernatural, because the concept of the supernatural places it outside of nature. I think I have to provide another definition of supernatural, just so you know what I am talking about:

supernatural
adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according
to natural laws; not physical or material;
"supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" [ant:
{natural}]

I don't believe that there is such a thing, but I recognize that you can only say that you don't believe in such a thing, and that you can't prove or disprove it's existence. It is, in a very real sense, a matter of faith, and it's founded upon the same kind of unprovable axioms that science is founded upon. How many more times am I going to have to repeat this? You should really learn some formal philosophy, or else stop arguing on a subject which you don't understand. You can't study the supernatural because it is beyond observation, but you can study those things which believers claim are caused by the supernatural. You're right, you can infer things about a "supernatural" realm by it's supposed effects, but the very concept itself says that it does not follow physical laws. How can you not understand this? Science relies upon observation and experiementation, which rely upon your senses, and if the concept says that it can't be known through the senses, then you can't use science to know what it is or how it works. Very simple, logical conclusion.

You see, the conflict here is between dualism and monism. Science, because of it's foundational philosophy of empiricism, assumes that there is only one existence, or at the very least that you can only understand one existence (monism). Religion, because of it's foundational axiom that reality is not just what you can sense (which is not falsifiable), assumes that there are two existences; that which you can observe and that which is beyond the observation of the senses. This is very easy to understand.

It would seem that you either actually do believe in the supernatural and have deep-rooted religious beliefs (and pretend otherwise here), or you have a flawed understanding of how science works. Why don't you reveal what your past screen names were and allow us the benefit of researching your past positions?

I'll give you the only one which I can remember at the moment (BetweenThePoints), and it says absolutely nothing about my religious beliefs, since I don't believe that I ever posted anything in the religion subforum, or even in the philosophy section as far as I can remember. That was quite a long time ago, too. And why would I pretend not to have deep-rooted religious beliefs? That's utter nonsense, and stop making this discussion about me with your ad-homs and personal inferrences. I don't have a flawed understanding of how science works, it just seems obvious to me that you don't understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, and so you have a flawed understanding of science.



I don't think there was anything important in the rest of your post, except that I accused you of calling all religious people stupid. I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I don't feel like sifting through thousands of posts in order to try and quote you, so I am just going to say that I inferred it by the way that you treat all of the religious people on this board, and even those who just want the discussion to be civil. If I left anything important out down below, forgive me. Bring it up, please, so that I can address it. Otherwise, I'm just going to stick to the philosophical discussion which I have addressed, since I know that the administration is not going to remove the subforum.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

It's a debate between science and it's father, philosophy.

Finally, someone understands why I am arguing. It bothers me that people around here seem to think that scientific thought has become greater than it's philosophical roots. There would be no science without these roots, and none of you seem to understand philosophy at all.

 

[SkinWalker]

It's a completely useless gesture to have a philosophy section to this message board when, as you claim, every topic here is meant to be dissected in a scientific manner.

I don't recall asserting this. I do, however, recall answering the "why religion subforum exists" if the nutters aren't allowed to preach argument with religion can be discussed without buying into it; without respecting it; and without giving tacit approval of it. One method I've suggested, is the obvious one: since this is a science board first, look at religion scientifically.

But if you mean to imply that I think all topics on a science board be looked at in the light of science, then I agree. But I also recognize this to be my own opinion, because of which I wouldn't presume to seriously call for the closure of the religion subforum of a science forum. As I have said repeatedly, nutters should be free to post as long as they adhere to the rules of the forum, but expect that the majority of the members of a science forum will vehemently disagree and critically respond to even the point of ridicule. If you don't like it, don't let the cyber door hit ya on the way out.

Yes, it's placement does imply a certain kind of discussion, and you are refusing to accept that.

On the contrary, I embrace the fact that a religion subforum of a science forum will have criticism, skepticism and ridicule in the responses. I think I've made that perfectly clear.

Useless ad-hominem. You seem not to be able to make a post without poking at least a couple in there.

I don't believe there was a single ad hominem in the remark you quoted. Unless you're still implying that disagreement with you and your position is tantamount to disrespect to you personally. But, again, you make it clear in your quip to Woody that it is your opinion that matters and others should align themselves with you. And Woodster calls me controlling (that was an ad hominem remark, by the way. But not a useless one).

What exactly is your definition of the word "poppycock"?

Come on. You've demonstrated a proficiency with the internet and the ability to look up vocabulary. You can handle this one, right. Banal, I'll admit, but accurate.

I don't think there was anything important in the rest of your post,

Don't worry yourself. Most of what I write is directed to other readers than to the OP in my replies anyway.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I don't think I'm even going to respond to the specific points you made. Everyone here can see that you've latched on to the one comment I made about someone finally giving a worthwhile response (off-handed, yes, serious, not totally), and that you are more interested in insulting me personally than actually debating the topic, which has sadly turned from the religion subforum to a philosophical discussion about examining religion through science. I'll wait until you address the topic without trying to goad me (which you have succeeded in doing, to a limited extent) before I continue with you.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Note the ad hom frequency in religion forum, more so than in any other, reason being............unable to debate a point thus resort to undermining the point maker. By personally slurring (or promoting can work either way) the poster as a means of disputing the quality of their point, it saves ever having to actually dispute THE point itself. Thus we can conclude ignorance is rife in that forum as are the main ad hom contributers and you know who you are.

Defend you ad homs if you can manage it without ad homineming!