Why is the Religion forum so popular on a Science Board?
- Thread starter Kadark
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Not really, I have posted in a lot more non-religious threads than you might think. It's just that things get heated in the religious threads so I end up posting more posts here. Often theists will avoid answering the questions or get hostile right away, this also results in more posts. Scientists usually understand each other better then atheist understand theists and vice versa.
I call myself an idiot sometimes as well - that's not true always.
Science is a true/ not true, observed/ not observed thing.And most of you aren't religious, but that doesn't stop you from posting here all day, does it?
If someone's wrong they either find out and admit it or resort to conspiracy theories about being held back and then enter woowoo land to get written off.
The religion section always has differing points of view, even among believers.
As humans we feel "qualified" to jump in and add our two penn'orth - you don't need a degree in quantum mechanics to talk about belief.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's also a fact that religious threads are just more active and thus are on top of the list. I view most threads and if I feel I can make a contribution or if I want to ask a question I do. That includes religious threads, and since they are more active.. well you get the picture.
The answer to the OP is easy, the politics, world events, and religion threads are subjects which can actually be debated since there are no 100% proven right answers and thus people will argue. most posts in these threads are opinions or statements from personal experience, which thus have less validity and are open to debate. when many people bring their opinions to the table, there are many more posts.
however, in the science threads if you will look (which Im assuming you have not becasue otherwise you would have seen this) most threads consist of someone asking a question about something they dont know about. Then, various posters who know the answer to the question post not their opinion but the factual answer. once the answer is posted, the thread dies with little activity. there can be no further discussion of a topic if the answer is established. the only threads that can generate a lot of activity are those where people do not agree on the answer becasue it has not been proven.
Secondly, politics is a science, it is called political science. In addition, opinions on world events delve into various social sciences, such as sociology and psychology. You forget that science simply means examining problems and devising testable hypotheses to answer them.
Third, there are more posts in world events and politics becasue there are many more happenings in the world than new scientific topics to post on.
Finally, many posts which are scientific end up in other threads because of opinions. For example, a thread about environmental science, specifically the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the temperature may start off in environmental science. then, somebody posts soemthing like "the government should enact regulations on emissions" of course, others will disagree about the policy to be taken, so guess what, its a political thread now. Next somebody will mention how todays temperature was the highest in recoreded history, and now its a world event! many threads start as objective science and delve into subjective politics and other fields. Another rexample would be a scientific discussion about the beginnign of the universe. This is a scientific topic where the answer is not known, thus there are many posts about it because people have different opinions. Someone is bound to say that god did it, and then it becomes a religion debate.
In fact, almost all topics of scientific inquiry (beginning of universe, consciousness, beginnig of life) where the answers are not definitely known ARE religious topics. Now personally, i dont see this as coincidence but rather as religion being confined only to the areas of life that science cant explain YET, whereas before it applied in a broader spectrum. After all, nobody is debating that the sun goes around the earth anymore, but that was a hot religious topic before science proved the truth.
however, in the science threads if you will look (which Im assuming you have not becasue otherwise you would have seen this) most threads consist of someone asking a question about something they dont know about. Then, various posters who know the answer to the question post not their opinion but the factual answer. once the answer is posted, the thread dies with little activity. there can be no further discussion of a topic if the answer is established. the only threads that can generate a lot of activity are those where people do not agree on the answer becasue it has not been proven.
Secondly, politics is a science, it is called political science. In addition, opinions on world events delve into various social sciences, such as sociology and psychology. You forget that science simply means examining problems and devising testable hypotheses to answer them.
Third, there are more posts in world events and politics becasue there are many more happenings in the world than new scientific topics to post on.
Finally, many posts which are scientific end up in other threads because of opinions. For example, a thread about environmental science, specifically the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the temperature may start off in environmental science. then, somebody posts soemthing like "the government should enact regulations on emissions" of course, others will disagree about the policy to be taken, so guess what, its a political thread now. Next somebody will mention how todays temperature was the highest in recoreded history, and now its a world event! many threads start as objective science and delve into subjective politics and other fields. Another rexample would be a scientific discussion about the beginnign of the universe. This is a scientific topic where the answer is not known, thus there are many posts about it because people have different opinions. Someone is bound to say that god did it, and then it becomes a religion debate.
In fact, almost all topics of scientific inquiry (beginning of universe, consciousness, beginnig of life) where the answers are not definitely known ARE religious topics. Now personally, i dont see this as coincidence but rather as religion being confined only to the areas of life that science cant explain YET, whereas before it applied in a broader spectrum. After all, nobody is debating that the sun goes around the earth anymore, but that was a hot religious topic before science proved the truth.
And with that well thought-out post, so carefully written, I decided to delete the off-topic posts cluttering the thread. This is, actually, a topic worth discussing. Please stay on the topic.
:roflmao:
:bravo:
I like the religous subforum because Satan told me that for every soul I can send to him I gets me a bright shiny new nickel. I shore-doo like them nickels - so shiny and purdy
Seriously, there are some philosophical arguments that can only be flexed in the religous sub-section.
Also, as atheists, most of us know there is no God - - so it's kind of fun to see what sort of interesting arguments people who believe in fairy creatures come up with. A window into this alternate Universe where virgins give birth, moons split in half, spaghetti and meat-balls give cheesy blessings and flying horses sail to heaven and back.
As for politics - Isn't today the anniversary of the murder of 332 women and children in Ossetia? The Bali bombing, 9/11, women walking around covered head-to-toe in black sacks, illegality of teaching evolution in KSA, honor killings, that fruit loop running Iran, those school girls that burned gruesomely and heinously to death in KSA (better they melt then be seen uncovered) ... ... come on, its like looking into Medieval Christianity only it's really happening in the here and now - it's begging to be talked about.
Then there's Bushy - comeon, ever see BR run run a line on him. The missing WMD - Clinton's fault! CLinton ... CLinton ... MEGATRON! Ohhh I mean Clinton
So its all kind of fun
Michale
Seriously, there are some philosophical arguments that can only be flexed in the religous sub-section.
Also, as atheists, most of us know there is no God - - so it's kind of fun to see what sort of interesting arguments people who believe in fairy creatures come up with. A window into this alternate Universe where virgins give birth, moons split in half, spaghetti and meat-balls give cheesy blessings and flying horses sail to heaven and back.
As for politics - Isn't today the anniversary of the murder of 332 women and children in Ossetia? The Bali bombing, 9/11, women walking around covered head-to-toe in black sacks, illegality of teaching evolution in KSA, honor killings, that fruit loop running Iran, those school girls that burned gruesomely and heinously to death in KSA (better they melt then be seen uncovered) ... ... come on, its like looking into Medieval Christianity only it's really happening in the here and now - it's begging to be talked about.
Then there's Bushy - comeon, ever see BR run run a line on him. The missing WMD - Clinton's fault! CLinton ... CLinton ... MEGATRON! Ohhh I mean Clinton
So its all kind of fun
Michale
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
1) claiming to know there is no God is fairly ridiculous.
2) I think you have caught the feel of why athiests like to argue with believers. It gives them a ritual where they are 'rational' and the other person gets to play the role of the 'irrational' thus reinforcing the self-image of the athiest. A self-image that includes this idea that they come logically to ideas and are not swayed, crassly, by emotions. Never questioning whether emotions are in fact behind their philosophical position. And a need to deny the value of intuition and certain experiences because that whole realm is scary to them and perhaps one they are not so skilled in.
Thats an interesting observation; I've noticed the hardcore atheists are also the most literal thinkers, the ones with poor lateral thinking abilities. I wonder if atheism is the result of being unable to see a view point, except through inductive reasoning.
The answer; because God and science are the opposite ends of the same string. Both, in true form; seek answers to our existence. In early societies, science and religion were indistinguishable.
Last edited:
I'd like to take this moment to point out that most atheists (indeed, none that I can think of) make that claim. Surely there are some that do. But their number is far, far below the number of theists that claim they absolutely know that there is a god. Most atheists recognize that "knowing" that there is no god in the universe is not possible. They also recognize that the obverse has not been shown to be true to the extent that one can say that they know there *is* a god.
Or, they simply tire of the consistent criticism of theists who are anti-science and spout GODDIDIT whenever they cannot wrap their minds around concepts ranging from evolution to gravity. These limited thinkers offer the GODDIDIT explanation at each moment the realize science has yet to explain a given phenomenon in nature, creating an argument from ignorance -the "god of the gaps." Not to mention that the prevalence of this poorly constructed and utterly ignorant argument creates obstacles for progress in science and society. Perhaps that is the reason why so many argue against the religious.
And *I've* noticed that the most hardcore theists are the most credulous, accepting notions of fantasy that are the most ridiculous. We all know what credulism and fantasy are, so perhaps they need not be defined for the scope of our discussion, but I'm interested to know what you consider to be "lateral thinking" and what would be good examples of this. Moreover, I'm wondering how many "hardcore atheists" in the public eye I could quote examples of this "lateral thinking" in order to satisfy your requirement for it. Perhaps, you're right however. I'm unsure of what, precisely would qualify as "lateral thinking" for you, so it is completely possible that not a single public but "hardcore" atheist will qualify. [I say "public" since their works are generally known and can be agreed upon as having been from that person, btw.]
Lateral thinking is where you look at variables other than step by step induction. e.g.
It took two hours for two men to dig a hole five feet deep. How deep would it have been if ten men had dug the hole for two hours?
The answer appears to be 25 feet deep. This answer assumes that the thinker has followed a simple mathematical relationship suggested by the description given, but we can generate some lateral thinking ideas about what affects the size of the hole which may lead to different answers:
* A hole may need to be of a certain size or shape so digging might stop early at a required depth.
* The deeper a hole is, the more effort is required to dig it, since waste soil needs to be lifted higher to the ground level. There is a limit to how deep a hole can be dug by manpower without use of ladders or hoists for soil removal, and 25 feet is beyond this limit.
* Ten men would need more room to work side-by-side, and so may need to dig the hole wider rather than deeper. Each man digging needs space to use a shovel.
* Deeper soil layers may be harder to dig out, or we may hit bedrock or the water table.
* Digging in soil, clay, or sand each present their own special considerations.
* Ten men are more likely to disagree on a digging method than two men.
* Holes required to be dug beyond a certain depth may require structural reinforcement to prevent collapse of the hole.
* The shape of the hole may not be a prism: if it is cone-shaped hole, which is wider at the top than the bottom, then even if the volume of the hole is five times that of the first hole, it may not be five times as deep.
* Digging in a forest becomes much easier once we have cut through the first several feet of roots.
* It is possible that with more people working on a project, each person may become less efficient due to increased opportunity for distraction, the assumption he can slack off, more people to talk to, etc.
* More men could work in shifts to dig faster for longer.
* There might be fewer shovels than available men.
* The two hours dug by ten men may be under different weather conditions than the two hours dug by two men.
o Rain could flood the hole to prevent digging.
o Temperature conditions may freeze the men before they finish.
* Would we rather have 5 holes each 5 feet deep?
* The two men may be an engineering crew with digging machinery.
* One man in each group might be a manager who will not actually dig.
* The extra eight men might not be strong enough to dig, or much stronger than the first two.
* There must be a reason for digging and ten men are more likely to hinder each other's progress, due to personal profit and expectations : competition, disagreement on the place where it would be better to dig, disagreement on who should use a shovel to dig and who should use a bucket to carry the soil out of the hole, ...
* A greater number may induce a greater diversity and the babel tower syndrome may occur : incompatibility within the workers and failure to understand each other effectively.
The most useful ideas listed above are outside the simple mathematics implied by the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
I've already discussed this propensity with regard to Dawkins elsewhere, Hitchens too could be considered to fit that mould. Most of the atheists I encounter on this forum, (Q), Geoff, Michael, etc are all presentists and apply a truth value to logic (YES or NO), signifiying their inability to see beyond the obvious.
True, I can only know I exist. So when I used the word "know" its in this sense: I know there are no fairy-creatures sitting on Grantywanty whispering into his ear what to type as commanded by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
While I can not literally "know" I think the use of the word in such a situation is warranted - don't you?
How do you know that?
Sometimes a YES or NO is required to even go forward with a discussion. A great example is this: Does the possibility exit there is no God?
To skirt around this question for days on end is fine - - but at some point, really, it would be nice to get an answer other than: What is a God? What do you mean by possibility? What Does the word "Does" mean? And then when all is said and done, definitions of definition, refuse to answer the question because it's not really a fair question to ask at all....?!?!?!?
THAT will eventuate in a: YES or NO.
To skirt around this question for days on end is fine - - but at some point, really, it would be nice to get an answer other than: What is a God? What do you mean by possibility? What Does the word "Does" mean? And then when all is said and done, definitions of definition, refuse to answer the question because it's not really a fair question to ask at all....?!?!?!?
THAT will eventuate in a: YES or NO.
Know what?
Yes, but is there a god?
All of your solutions to the above question are based on an inherent logic involved in the complex interaction of man, weather, and shovel. All measurable, observable, practical things.
Let's just add a few to point out some absurdities:
*God ordered half of them to stop halfway through.
*An angel came down and took pity on them and finished the job for them in a millisecond.
*They prayed for god to open the earth for them and thus it was granted.
*Satan appeared, laughed, and turned the dirt they were digging into granite.
Etc.
^^^ Hey Skin, this is an example of application of truth to logic.