Why can't religon and science be friends?

[Doreen]

Surely you, the Ann Landers of SciForums, the consummate advisor to those of lesser intelligence, the purveyor of all things anecdotal and antidotal, would not argue against....... Oh'! How am I doing so far?

I prefer to think of myself as the Dear Abby of sciforums. Perhaps you are psychic, not that the twin sister columnists got along.

Doreen, your sardonic wit coupled with your words of consolation make me feel the need to ask if you counsel people in your professional life?

I tend to counsel people out of my professional life. It really can be quite draining and I think many people idealize it.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I prefer to think of myself as the Dear Abby of sciforums.

Then you would agree that words are an expression of an individual's character. Both Abby and Ann did character analyses on a daily basis, and they could only do it from the written word.

You don't think Newyorker was revealing any character flaws in the earlier quoted post? This may sound repetitive but we might as well do away with psychiatrists and psychologists again...this seems to be a common theme for you at least.

 

[Doreen]

Then you would agree that words are an expression of an individual's character. Both Abby and Ann did character analyses on a daily basis, and they could only do it from the written word.

You mean when people in a non-science forum specifically asked, either implicitly or directly, for this treatment and presented details from their lives, rather than just their thoughts about life, to make this easier. Yes, they did this. They did this there. In that context. Not against, for example, the sites rules, with more information and with their ridiculous status as experts in hand.

You don't think Newyorker was revealing any character flaws in the earlier quoted post? This may sound repetitive but we might as well do away with psychiatrists and psychologists again...this seems to be a common theme for you at least.

I did not bring psychiatrists and psychologists up just now, you did I believe. As far as Newyorker's potential character flaws, what difference does it make?

Did they make a good case for why religion and science should or should not be friends? If not, why not? That seems like the issue.

I can't see any positive outcome from your guesses about their psychology, even if they were correct. You could, of course, PM them about your guesses if you are concerned about them.

However I do think you repeated engage in mind reading claims, implicitly, in your posts. Seems fair to point this out since I am quite sure you are skeptical about mind reading.

Here you are stating in unqualified terms what is going on in newyorker's mind and even unconscious:

This is not a rant against science. There are many clues in this post pointing towards Newyorker's fragile psyche. The poster is lashing out against science purely for selfish reasons. The post is about an obsequious sycophant, a flatterer who believes he/she is telling God exactly what He wants to hear. IOW's he/she believes God can be swayed by using psychology. Now there's irony for ya!

Not a perhaps or maybe in there. Even professionals in the physical presence of someone would not use statement of certainty like this.

To me it seems like a cake and eat it too set up. You get to bypass your epistemology when you choose, but those who believe things you do not believe must meet what you consider the correct routes to knowledge. To be consistent you need to live up to your own criteria of knowledge.

 

[scifes]

I'm religious by the way...

:roflmao:
man that made me laugh..

so can we assume your post is talking about your personal experience with your religion?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I can't see any positive outcome from your guesses about their psychology,

Here you are stating in unqualified terms what is going on in newyorker's mind and even unconscious:

:shrug: Your mind reading skills are as good as mine

Even professionals in the physical presence of someone would not use statement of certainty like this.

No, they just let the patient ramble on, charge their time accordingly and offer nothing but praise. Counselors are just sounding boards able to formulate but unable to offer opinions on those seeking their analytical abilities. Police profilers might as well keep their opinions to themselves and not smear the perpetrator. Maybe people should hear of potential social inadequacies, psychoses, neuroses, etc., as you have informed me of mine several times. People might as well join a chat forum....at least they'll get feedback.

Let's face it, all we have between us is a personality clash. You don't like the way I come across. Personally I don't mind your ravings but I wish you would remain consistent. You choose to rant against me for things I never said, acknowledged or claimed. I've lost count on how many times this has happened. I take it back......Maybe you are consistent.

I always go into an internet conversation with reservations about the person I'm engaging, and they should treat me the same as well. So if Newyorker isn't genuine then it doesn't matter what I say. If he/she is genuine then it's highly unlikely that words of mine are going to change him/her but I want to be on target just in case. You object....great!!!

 

[Doreen]

:shrug: Your mind reading skills are as good as mine

Do you really not understand? 1) unless you are psychic, those are guesses. 2) obviously you stated in unqualified terms. I can see the words. In your mind you may know you are guessing. I am describing what you wrote. But I do believe in psychic powers. So even if I had implicitly claimed to be reading your mind, I would not be being a hypocrite. Mull that over.

No, they just let the patient ramble on, charge their time accordingly and offer nothing but praise. Counselors are just sounding boards able to formulate but unable to offer opinions on those seeking their analytical abilities.

Police profilers might as well keep their opinions to themselves and not smear the perpetrator. Maybe people should hear of potential social inadequacies, psychoses, neuroses, etc., as you have informed me of mine several times. People might as well join a chat forum....at least they'll get feedback.

Let's face it, all we have between us is a personality clash. You don't like the way I come across. Personally I don't mind your ravings but I wish you would remain consistent. You choose to rant against me for things I never said, acknowledged or claimed. I've lost count on how many times this has happened. I take it back......Maybe you are consistent.

I always go into an internet conversation with reservations about the person I'm engaging, and they should treat me the same as well. So if Newyorker isn't genuine then it doesn't matter what I say. If he/she is genuine then it's highly unlikely that words of mine are going to change him/her but I want to be on target just in case. You object....great!!!

This all made no sense to me. 1) you were ad hom and breaking site rules. 2) you were making claims to read his mind. You have made it clear, through your positions in other threads you do not believe people can read minds. So, you are being hypocritical.

I pointed these obvious things out and you produced the above mess.

But I will leave the issue here until it crops up again elsewhere or, perhaps, you will stop writing about what is really going on in people's minds OR start saying you do believe psychic powers exist. Either of those changes would sort the issue out fine.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Do you really not understand?

If a professional psychologist offered their analysis based on written word then you're saying it is not only unwarranted commentary but mind reading as well, yet if a psychic does the same then it is perfectly acceptable because we should expect it. The reason being that it is ok for psychics to be wrong.

I'm done. Let's go off on another tangent , shall we?

 

[Dywyddyr]

um no God is the maker of heaven and earth and all of earths people all of you must be idiots or not very bright if you think that science is right. God is the means of all and is fantastic and you should hope he can forgive you when you die

What's "god"?
I find it intriguing that someone can post a message on the internet, using a computer and claim that science is BS. It says much about your critical faculties. Or lack of...

no you're assuming that i'm assuming that you're assuming..as i KNOW you're assuming because you don't know.

Yet you saw fit to make a claim about my motives... Based on?

grrrr, that mechanism existing is part of the finding of the mechanism which is part of the search. man you're just too slippery.

Probably because I think.

:wallbang:
if god exists it's he who made science.
i.e god being god, creates everything, including science.

So what?
That was my point: he can alter it whenever he feels like it.

 

[scifes]

Yet you saw fit to make a claim about my motives... Based on?


Probably because I think.


So what?
That was my point: he can alter it whenever he feels like it.

no support of your claims which i have already debunked, yay.

there are no restrictions or alterations to science when god exists, as opposed to when he does not. the judge has spoken, and the prosecutor has finally taken his seat.

 

[Dywyddyr]

no support of your claims which i have already debunked, yay.

YOU made the claim about me...

there are no restrictions or alterations to science when god exists, as opposed to when he does not. the judge has spoken, and the prosecutor has finally taken his seat.

Wrong. You're assuming (unless you've spoken directly to god).

 

[scifes]

YOU made the claim about me...


Wrong. You're assuming (unless you've spoken directly to god).

nu'a nu'a, you have yet to show a failure in science when god exists that doesn't have a mirror for when god doesn't exist;

-god may change his rules, nature may also change its rules.
it's as i said;

Why?

because it's possible that the rules of nature change by themselves as much as it's possible that god changes them himself.
because we can never be certain the laws we discovered now are the real natural laws as much as we can never be certain the laws we've discovered now are the real rules god put.

la lala la lala~~

i've once again beat you~~
:yay:

i might start getting used to this, you may wanna start adapting too

 

[Dywyddyr]

nu'a nu'a, you have yet to show a failure in science when god exists that doesn't have a mirror for when god doesn't exist

I see you've forgotten either how to read or simply forgotten (or ignored) what I wrote the last couple of times you posed that question.
If you can't do any better than merely dismiss (or ignore) my points there's hardly any point in continuing.

god may change his rules, nature may also change its rules.

See above: I already answered that, too.

i've once again beat you~~

Once again?
The next time you beat me will be the first.

i might start getting used to this, you may wanna start adapting too

I should adapt to you becoming habituated to delusion?

 

[scifes]

you answered me? by saying that nature gives us mechanisms?
well i've answered that too.
it doesn't have to, and god may give us mechanisms too. you're on no solid ground in your claims here D.

 

[spidergoat]

How does God's will manifest itself if not physically?

 

[scifes]

you're talking to me?

 

[Dywyddyr]

you answered me? by saying that nature gives us mechanisms?

So you don't bother reading my replies (or if you do read them you don't understand them).

it doesn't have to, and god may give us mechanisms too.

Already addressed.

you're on no solid ground in your claims here D.

Ah thank you, you answered my first question: you clearly don't understand my replies.

 

[scifes]

you like to wiggle around, instead of tackling the matter at hand.

instead of acting like you're right. BE right, show us. i'm sorry but for example, your last post had no value to it whatsoever, you're saying you didn't lose, i can say you did, you'll say you didn't, till what? eternity?

while i also think that i have replied to your argument, and debunked it, i do re-post it for the sake of simplicity, and i repost your argument, and i repost my debunkment of it, and i paraphrase it again, to have you say that i don't understand you, that you've won, that you've answered it before.

i see this as, a tactic to wear out your opponent from repeating himself and playing around with you about nonesense, when you find yourself cornered.

for the third and last time, introducing god into the world alters the method of science in no significant[if any] way, can you provide what shows otherwise?

 

[spidergoat]

you're talking to me?

Yes. If God intercedes on behalf of some people (holy people or those that pray), what is the mechanism? If he doesn't have a physical effect on the world, how can he influence it?

 

[scifes]

so what's the problem if he has a physical effect on the world...say like, putting it into existence, then what?

 

[Dywyddyr]

for the third and last time, introducing god into the world alters the method of science in no significant[if any] way, can you provide what shows otherwise?

Of course it alters things.
If god is in the equation then he has to be accounted for.
Like I said (more than once) - if god is the root cause and is also not subject to scientific interpretation then science comes to a halt.