Jump to content
Science Forums

The Problem With Religion Debates


Recommended Posts

Do these forums have a bullying, stocking and harassment standard?


They have a science standard which you fail to meet as few others. Your dishonesty, dissembling, and anti-science posts throughout the years represent the lowest form of trolling to be found on the web, and here you are again right back at it. I repeat; go away and stay away. :evil:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Explain where my reasoning was wrong? If not I ask the staff again, what is the harassment and bullying policy of these forums when it comes to personal attacks? It is not healthy to allow members to be constantly abused. 

 

Evolutionary theory would be called a law of science, if it was a fact by science standards..This is based on how science upgrades science theory into laws of science. It is not easy to become a law of science, with few ever making it. Sone theories cheat science with politics and civil law. I am not buying into a law that is the product of line skipping. I am not against science, just science that cheats to win. Personal attacks is not science but is a method to cheat. 

 

I agree with the general principle of change called evolution, but not the explanations used to explain the change. The main reason it leave out the majority component of life which is water and how this impacts the organic materials. This is a valid chemical argument. 

 

This is a theology section of the forum. Theology offers phD's at many high powered universities like Harvard. One of the problems is all the debate is kept at the junior high school level of spit balls and name calling. This is how you get the naive to think this is juvenile. 

 

If you argue with bible toters they expect you to provide quotes. They use the same procedure as science of providing proof of position, but their book is not the same. A phD in theology limits his/her sources to books connected to the subject, just tike any science. This is not allowed since it would go beyond junior high and not be as easy to discount. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain where my reasoning was wrong? If not I ask the staff again, what is the harassment and bullying policy of these forums when it comes to personal attacks? It is not healthy to allow members to be constantly abused. 
 ...


You're posts are scientifically and intellectually worthless as well as being motivated by deception and dishonesty. It is not healthy to allow you or you kind to continue posting here. Go away and don't come back. :evil:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turtles are slow and can't follow the pace. You need to learn to think outside your shell.


You need to leave. Your dissembling creationist and anti-science bullshit is beyond the pale. Let me substantiate my assertions with a quote of yours.
 

... It could be due to laziness, bargain basement staff and the evolutionist trolls.

The sciforum site is far more active with 10 times the people. They still got their share of staff trolls but there are far more competent people.


Evolutionist trolls? I think that pretty well sums up your box. If you are welcome at some other science forums -which I doubt- then by all means go there. Your brand of thinking is the lowest of low and I can not say too many times that it's not welcome here. :evil:
As to the staff here, I can't attest to why they have allowed you to stay this long. :shrug:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down guys, why pollute the topic with noise? Somehow I'm getting the feeling you guys know each others from other threads :D

As of the idea of kicking someone out from the forum because of their opinion, I could not disagree more. Blocking out signals that are not consistent with our own views is exactly the attitude that blocks out progress. It's the one big mistake made by religions, and it happens far too much in science too, even though the original principles were supposed to battle that problem.

It always amazes me how many people who brand themselves as scientific people, nevertheless want to defend the absolute factuality of their present day views. The same people who laugh at any old beliefs we have moved on from. As scientific people, we should expect our views to continuously change, and that is clearly synonymous to taking our views as useful, not factual.

With that, let me just go back to post #15;
 

If evolution is a fact, why is it still called evolutionary theory, and not evolutionary law? A law in science is higher than a theory, in terms of being closer to an undisputed fact in its area. There a very few laws of science but theories are dime a dozen. Laws of science do not change but theories are constantly updated as new facts appear.
 
Evolution is only a law/fact in the sense of politics and legal type laws. The first law of thermodynamics was not taken to lawyers and argued by politicians to make it law of the land in school. It was able to do this by staying only in science without spin and lawyers. That is the difference. Once science recruits the least trusted professions, think in terms of skipping steps to the top of science.


The comments about evolution here are a perfect example of the problem I am complaining about in the OP, and further commented on #4. Let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

I argued that the sloppy language used by the scientific party when it comes to the word "fact", is only harmful to the debate. They should not say "evolution is fact" when they actually mean "it is such a firm belief that I feel it would be far too unlikely to not be fact".

That sloppy language carries over a message that is exactly the opposite of the scientific philosophy; it implies firm belief = fact.

The depressing irony is that under religious philosophy, people have been taught all their lives that firm belief = fact, and that is visible from all the language they use. Is it a wonder then, that the message will be misunderstood? Is it a wonder, that so many on the religious side assume science is about a set of beliefs, the only difference being that they don't realize it's a set of beliefs?

The fact of the matter is that very small percentage of the scientific side actually have thought about and understand the meaning and importance of purely scientific philosophy. On both sides, the winning attitude is that it is simply so much easier to not think for yourself, and let your chosen authorities tell you what to think. Not everybody of course, but a clear majority.

About the legal battles, the issues behind those battles are entangled into politics rather than the theory itself. You should be careful of your own thoughts too, when it comes to spinning those events. One big argument was related to whether intelligent design should be taught at science class, and that received a push back because intelligent design doesn't fall under the category of science, by the definition of "science". That is unrelated to whether or not an idea can be proven; it should be well established by now that no we cannot prove anything.

It must be confusing to hear people saying this, because those same people are not at all clear what "science" means, and this goes back to the underlying problem I am complaining about in the OP.

As to why exactly intelligent design doesn't fall under that category is simple; there doesn't exist enough research material to make the idea meaningful for research. It is almost directly derived from ancient writings, with no further material to be looked at. I know the common argument is that intelligent design has got nothing to do with creationism, but nevertheless the main proponents of the former, are the same people who also promote the latter. In fact it would be hard to find anyone who is not religious, but still finds intelligent design as a meaningful idea, the reason being it simply is not a coherent signal in a non-theistic world view.

At the same time, the proper understanding of evolutionary processes / self-organization mechanisms is meaningful, without having anything to do with the question of origins. When evolution theory is represented as logically ill-formed, it also implies that the self-organization mechanisms we are already using in engineering, simply would not work. It is like telling children electricity is just one big lie, thus you should not even try to understand how it works.

Which gets us to the most important part of that whole story; think about why exactly those legal battles are focused onto what is being taught at schools? Scientific world is full of theories that are not part of mainstream structure, but could possibly be true. Let's take TeVes, for instance. Does it make any sense to you, that the correct forum for debatig TeVes would be elementary school classrooms? Can you see someone fighting for that in courts? The kids will figure it out? Why would any rational person think that the correct place for any poorly established idea is in the class rooms, rather than in the scientific circles where theories can be meaningfully debated?

Now I'm the first person to complain about the close mindedness of scientific circles, and I would probably agree with many of your complaints about that, but let's be fair here; For someone to be so interested of pushing an unestablished theory to schools is not honest behaviour at all. It is just an indoctrination attempt, whether they realize it themselves or not. That is what I mean by these battles being about politics.
 

Relative to religious debate, like it or not religion is a specialty topic, with its own area of expertise. One can get a phD in religious studies at major universities. If you wish to argue about religion, saying you hate it or it is is dumb, is a meaningless argument to someone who knows religion as an expert.It may be state of the art for atheists but this is freshman religion not phD.


I would say the problem is deeper than just whether or not people stay civil, because almost always I just see both parties focused onto trying to prove their point of view, when I think both parties should just understand that neither position is provable. Or they get themselves entangled to some meaningless wordplay based on unprovable things (and I can find some hilarious examples if you are interested).

I think the obvious next step would be to talk about whether it is useful or meaningful to use one philosophy or the other. That is when you start getting somewhere.

Actually I think some of the more meaningful anti-theistic comments to this issue have come from people like Bart Ehrman when he is just talking about the well documented humanistic history of the bible. All the issues related to printing it, and what we find in different language manuscripts, and what we know about the cultures and politics of the time when those manuscripts were written, and about the fact that the bible still contains direct references to the polytheistic pagan cultures and the related power struggles.

Like this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE

Btw, how do you view the bible yourself currently, if you don't mind elaborating?
Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is a fact, why is it still called evolutionary theory, and not evolutionary law? A law in science is higher than a theory, in terms of being closer to an undisputed fact in its area. There a very few laws of science but theories are dime a dozen. Laws of science do not change but theories are constantly updated as new facts appear.

You appear to have a misguided, inaccurate and simply wrong understanding of what a scientific theory is. Laws in science are simple expressions of observations. Most were "created" when scientists were more prone to think in terms of absolutes.

 

Today, ranking something as a theory is as high on the heirarchy of quality that an idea can get in science. Evolution is a fact. Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, The Modern Synthesis, call it what you will is as thoroughly an established theory as any. It combines postulated mechanisms, observations and experiments, from a dozen major fields into a self-consistent, solidly validated explanation for the diveristy and character of life we see on the planet.

 

Your opening question, If evolution is a fact, why is it still called evolutionary theory, betrays a major lack in your education. That is not a problem as long as you seek to rectify it. It is a problem if you choose to offer your ignorance as a counter to sound science.

 

Evolution is only a law/fact in the sense of politics and legal type laws.

No, it is a fact because it has been observed. No scientist I am aware of has any interest in according evolutionary theory the status of a Law, since that would be wholly irrelevant. If you know of one provide the details now, or cease such silly talk.

 

This common negative and hostile reaction does not bring anything to the table to further the discussion. If the religious person begins to quote scriptures, like a scientists would quote journal articles, this is prohibited. The analogy is trying to argue science to first graders who will panic if you quote journals. One is handcuffed and that is called a victory by the first graders.

You appear to be arguing that the acounts in Genesis, whichever of the two you pick, provide a better explanation for biodiversity than science. If that is not what you are suggesting, then please clarify now. If it is what you are suggesting then :spin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderator Warning: Turtle, cut the bitching in the forum. You have a mechanism for raising complaints. Continue to use it. The next outburst within any thread and you take a holiday.
 
This is Ansii's thread. He has raised an interesting point. It may produce some contrary views. We shall all keep it civil.


My reports go ignored. If you-all would do your job there would be no need of my bitching. You cow-tow to the psychopaths and threaten me; nice.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down guys, why pollute the topic with noise? Somehow I'm getting the feeling you guys know each others from other threads :D

As of the idea of kicking someone out from the forum because of their opinion, I could not disagree more. Blocking out signals that are not consistent with our own views is exactly the attitude that blocks out progress. It's the one big mistake made by religions, and it happens far too much in science too, even though the original principles were supposed to battle that problem....


Give me a break Anssi. The topic is noise and you darn well know so. The forum has clear rules, it's not a democracy, and HBond has ignored those rules for years. He should be thrown out not on account of his opinion, rather on account of his dishonesty, failure to support his assertions with references and other such devious tactics which completely disregard the intent and letter of the rules.

You acknowledge this is a battle and then decry my girding of loins and taking up my sword[pen]. Sounds rather hypocritical to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me a break Anssi. The topic is noise and you darn well know so. The forum has clear rules, it's not a democracy, and HBond has ignored those rules for years. He should be thrown out not on account of his opinion, rather on account of his dishonesty, failure to support his assertions with references and other such devious tactics which completely disregard the intent and letter of the rules.


Well here I am trying to identify some of the common problems that are causing religion debates to never get anywhere, and you are expressing frustration over never getting anywhere with HydrogenBond... Smells like an opportunity to me!

Shall we do this HBond? Try something little different?

If we do this, Turtle please don't keep expressing your frustration, it has been already noted.
 

You acknowledge this is a battle and then decry my girding of loins and taking up my sword[pen]. Sounds rather hypocritical to me.


One of my problems with religious philosophies is the pretense that truth has been found, and the idea that there's no need to keep looking anymore. And most of all I have a problem with the mechanisms that prevent people from looking any further from whatever has been already established.

Would it not be hypocritical if I was okay with the same mechanisms when they just so happen to strengthen the power of my own views?

I truly do not think there is any problem with letting ideas "get out there" so to speak. I think there is a problem with common education establishments not promoting the idea of thinking for yourself as much as they could. I mean really thinking, not just making up your mind as fast as possible to avoid thinking.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here I am trying to identify some of the common problems that are causing religion debates to never get anywhere, and you are expressing frustration over never getting anywhere with HydrogenBond... Smells like an opportunity to me!

Your olfactory acumen may need checking. ;)
 

Shall we do this HBond? Try something little different?
If we do this, Turtle please don't keep expressing your frustration, it has been already noted.

Sorry, but I will express myself when and how I see fit.
 

One of my problems with religious philosophies is the pretense that truth has been found, and the idea that there's no need to keep looking anymore. And most of all I have a problem with the mechanisms that prevent people from looking any further from whatever has been already established.

Studies in psychology point to upbringing in an authoritarian household as a root cause of a fundamentalist stance. I recommend you read this entire book, but I'll quote just a snippet to give you the gist of the mental deficit born by such folk.

The Authoritarians
 

...Chapter 4
Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism

So here’s the trip map for another seven-stop chapter. First we’ll square up the terms “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals.” Then we’ll bring the discussion into the context of this book, authoritarianism. We’ll analyze the ethnocentrism you often find in fundamentalists. We’ll see how some of the mental missteps we covered in the last chapter appear in them. We’ll appreciate the positive things people get from being fundamentalists. Then we’ll come up against the intriguing fact that, despite these benefits, so many people raised in Christian fundamentalist homes leave the religion. We’ll close our discussion with some data on shortfalls in fundamentalists’ behavior, including a surprising fact or two about their practices and beliefs. By the time we have ended, we’ll have learned many disturbing things about these people who believe, to the contrary, that they are the very best among us.
...

In the chapters alluded to in this quote the evidence is given as to the poor reasoning skills, dogmatism, and willingness to lie and deceive exhibited by fundamentalists as well as the larger group of right-wing authoritarians to which they belong. For these folk the die is cast and no amount of your reasoning is going to change them one whit.
 

Would it not be hypocritical if I was okay with the same mechanisms when they just so happen to strengthen the power of my own views?

I truly do not think there is any problem with letting ideas "get out there" so to speak. I think there is a problem with common education establishments not promoting the idea of thinking for yourself as much as they could. I mean really thinking, not just making up your mind as fast as possible to avoid thinking.

You are not going to get any thinking such as you seek from HBond or his ilk. You are just adding to the noise by beating the dead horse. Your thrust is akin to allowing that it's OK to shout fire in a crowded theatre, notwithstanding that principle applies to a democratic venue which this forum is not. Please rethink the advisability of starting this thread here. :naughty:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your olfactory acumen may need checking. ;)


I don't know, I'm taking real deep sniffs and definitely.... there's definitely something there... :detective:
 

You are not going to get any thinking such as you seek from HBond or his ilk. You are just adding to the noise by beating the dead horse. Your thrust is akin to allowing that it's OK to shout fire in a crowded theatre, notwithstanding that principle applies to a democratic venue which this forum is not. Please rethink the advisability of starting this thread here. :naughty:


So either this will lead nowhere and you will be right, or it will lead somewhere and you will be pleased. Seems like a pretty good deal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My reports go ignored. If you-all would do your job there would be no need of my bitching. You cow-tow to the psychopaths and threaten me; nice.

Your reports are not ignored. The staff consider each one and make judgements they deem appropriate. If you dislike those judgements then you need to make a better case. Eliminating the constant emotion from your complaints would be a start: your remarks here are insulting. Please stop that.

 

I have asked you not to raise these points within the forum proper,  but via the Report mechanism. Apparently you have so much respect for the board and for myself that you choose to completely ignore that request. That is rude. Please stop that.

 

Do not reply to these observations within this thread. You do not get two chances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I'm taking real deep sniffs and definitely.... there's definitely something there... :detective:

I don't doubt that there is an odor; I doubt the nature of it. ;)

So either this will lead nowhere and you will be right, or it will lead somewhere and you will be pleased. Seems like a pretty good deal.

Non sequitar. Just because there's a way to a pile of poo does not mean I'll be happy to go or get there. :esick:

Edit: PS You appear to have ignored my reference on the psychology of fundamentalist behavior. Please do me the courtesy of an appropriate response inasmuch as my reference is in both the spirit and the letter of our rules.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 And most of all I have a problem with the mechanisms that prevent people from looking any further from whatever has been already established.

I truly do not think there is any problem with letting ideas "get out there" so to speak. I think there is a problem with common education establishments not promoting the idea of thinking for yourself as much as they could. I mean really thinking, not just making up your mind as fast as possible to avoid thinking.

You are making so many interesting points that it is impractical to deal with them all. I shall continue to throw out thoughts that seem relevant.

 

I hope you would agree that many religions do pursue further enlightenment. I cite the Jesuits as an example. And Bhuddism, if you will concede it is a religion, seems to have this as central.

 

In terms of allowing alternative ideas to be aired, this is where Turtle and I seem to deviate. I welcome posts by such as H-bond, not because I have much hope that he can be convinced of his errors, but because it provides an opportunity for lurkers to read the correct explanations of phenomena, presented in a calm, objective manner. I know that's not quite the context you were speaking in, but I think it is pertinent to mention it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes listen to religion debates because it offers epistemologically interesting material of people explaining and defending the fundamentals of their particular world views. Although a lot of the time it's kind of like watching a train crash, I suppose.

...


You suppose? Strikes me as rather intellectually dishonest. You know darn well it is exactly a train wreck virtually all of the time and yet you move blithely right along instigating it. 'Epistemologically interesting'? Pphhhh; lipstick on a pig. Other than your apparent amusement, nothing good is coming of this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...