IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th May 2022, 11:30 PM   #81
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Why are you answering a question I didn't ask?
The question you ask can be rephrased as "Why can't we keep god as a possibility?"
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 01:05 AM   #82
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
General consensus among who?

Creationists.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 01:53 AM   #83
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it.
Wrong. If an alternative theory is equally consistent with existing data and makes the same predictions as the original theory then both theories are equally valid. Occam's Razor usually applies in a case like this.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 02:36 AM   #84
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Too bad that religion is never consistent with anything. So what was your point again?
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 03:01 AM   #85
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,094
Originally Posted by EaglePuncher View Post
Too bad that religion is never consistent with anything. So what was your point again?
Contrarianism... its not a bug, its a feature.

That and fibbin' for Magic Sky Daddy to keep the door ajar.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 03:05 AM   #86
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,809
Originally Posted by EaglePuncher View Post
The question you ask can be rephrased as "Why can't we keep god as a possibility?"
That sums it up.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 03:29 AM   #87
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by EaglePuncher View Post
Too bad that religion is never consistent with anything.
As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion. You have gone beyond creating strawman arguments.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 03:33 AM   #88
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion. You have gone beyond creating strawman arguments.
Please quote me or retract your strawman
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 03:42 AM   #89
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by EaglePuncher View Post
Please quote me
Did you not see the quote?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 04:38 AM   #90
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,094
Originally Posted by psionl0
As usual your claim is that if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion.
What a load of of horse-cock!

Firstly, biblical creation is NOT a scientific theory, its religious dogma anchored in faith, fantasy and fairlytales for which there is ZERO evidence.... None! Nada! Zip! Not a ******* skerret!

Secondly, no-one... absolutely no-one here has suggested, or even implied that scientific theories which compete with an accepted theory, are religion.... you are simply straight up, bare faced lying about that. Science doesn't work the way you are saying. It is a self correcting process that welcomes competing, theories that are supported and substantiated with evidence and facts.

Lastly, competing scientific theories happen all the time. There are plenty of examples of this, and none of them are regarded as "religion". Classical Newtonian mechanics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are good examples of this. ALL three are theories and ideas which compete to explain aspects of space and science. In fact, Classical mechanics is still used in the calculation of Ephemerides for sky observers because the additional accuracy afforded by accounting for relativistic effects is not worth the extra effort. As an amateur astronomer, I don't need to know the rise and set times for the Moon and Mercury down to the last millisecond. A planetary scientist/engineer however, calculating the orbital trajectory of a probe to Mercury WOULD need that extra accuracy.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th May 2022 at 04:40 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 05:18 AM   #91
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What a load of of horse-cock!
I mention "two scientific theories". Somebody says "religion". You say "nobody says religion". You are clearly on auto pilot.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 05:29 AM   #92
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I mention "two scientific theories".
And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 05:35 AM   #93
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,094
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?
Could be one of....

Lamarckism
Catastrophism
Orthogenesis
Vitalism
Structuralism
Saltationism

...all of which have been thoroughly debunked for over a century


But, you and I both know what he's really driving at, don't we?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 05:53 AM   #94
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Did you not see the quote?
I did but the quote did not contain: "if there are two scientific theories about the same thing then one of them must be religion"

But whatever
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 05:55 AM   #95
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I mention "two scientific theories". Somebody says "religion". You say "nobody says religion". You are clearly on auto pilot.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 07:55 AM   #96
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And what are those two theories? Can you even identify them?

1. Evolution
2. ???

Care to fill in the blank?
Yeah. Let's repeat this question. What other scientific theory do you (psionl0) have in mind?

While waiting for your response I'll just reiterate that there aren't any. And in anticipation of your lying in response I'll point out that does not mean it is "sacrosanct". All the debates about evolution now are within the theory. For examples: were Neanderthals and sapiens capable of interbreeding to the point that they should be consider the same species? That's a debate within evolution. And it would be great if our science classes could get to the point that it's feasible to teach that relativity advanced concept in public schools.

Would you (psionl0) like to include outdated theories? Feel free. Explaining how they were rejected would be great. But again, that requires just getting the basics in first.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 08:02 AM   #97
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Right now, Psion sounds exactly like the Hydrino/BLP gang on Reddit.

Extremely educated people (some of them post on this very forum) tell them again and again and again that the math behind hydrino is faulty and they respond with "The Church of QM must not be questioned" (again and again and again)
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 08:16 AM   #98
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,405
I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 08:51 AM   #99
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Yeah. Let's repeat this question. What other scientific theory do you (psionl0) have in mind?
It has been mentioned before that there is no such thing as a single fixed theory called evolution (or an "official" theory of evolution).

This subject has been done to death in other threads and is OT in this thread.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 08:51 AM   #100
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.
This^
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 09:14 AM   #101
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It has been mentioned before that there is no such thing as a single fixed theory called evolution (or an "official" theory of evolution).

This subject has been done to death in other threads and is OT in this thread.
No, it's not OT because you said this:

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.
What theories in what classes? Science theories in science classes please. So which theories?

Some argument can be made that creationism could have a place in a comparative religion class. But the problem in the US right now is that no one makes that argument honestly. Virtually all the people making any argument at all that creationism belongs in school are liars who want religious indoctrination in the classroom.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 09:39 AM   #102
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,414
Different theories from the same data? Happens all the time in the lab. That's why experimental work proceeds so slowly: You've got to design and run experiments to test different theories.

Further, you need data to construct any theory at all. Distinguishing applicable data from noise eats up time, money, and grad assistants. And then there's the delightfully maddening phenomenon of unexpected observations. The process never stops and it never stops changing.

Don't sound very dang reelijuss ta me.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 09:51 AM   #103
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What theories in what classes?
Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 9th May 2022 at 09:55 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 10:02 AM   #104
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.
Here we go
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 10:25 AM   #105
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

No, I want you to answer this question:
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?
Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 10:25 AM   #106
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?
No I expect you to keep ducking the question.

Let me rephrase the question in a way that is harder to duck: Should teachers be allowed to teach creationism?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.
No one is arguing for a polar opposite position. No one. No one.

And no one should take seriously that the filthy lying creationists are making sincere arguments. When they say the words you quoted they are lying. And we should not pretend we don't know that.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 9th May 2022 at 10:35 AM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 10:28 AM   #107
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

What if they want to bring up Santa Claus as a disproof of relativity?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 10:54 AM   #108
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,352
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it.
Wrong.


Well I guess the crackpots will challenge anything regardless of the data.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If an alternative theory is equally consistent with existing data
Again, because something like 10 people have already told you thins. There are no other theories that are consistent with the data in the cases of climate change or evolution.


Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
makes the same predictions as the original theory
If they make the same predictions you haven't challenged the original theory.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 11:01 AM   #109
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,352
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.
I think what you are suggesting is is that we don't just tell children why we are certain that these things are correct, we teach them the reasons that go into that conclusion.

That's different than saying children should be taught that theories like evolution and climate change should be "challengeable". In these cases there is no viable alternative theory, nor is there data to suggest the theories are wrong, so on what basis could they be challenged?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 11:02 AM   #110
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,809
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

And fine for them to bring up the theory of a flat earth in geography when the teacher is teaching the theory of the earth being round? Fine for them to bring up that the sky is held up by Atlas in geography?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 11:36 AM   #111
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I think what you are suggesting is is that we don't just tell children why we are certain that these things are correct, we teach them the reasons that go into that conclusion.

That's different than saying children should be taught that theories like evolution and climate change should be "challengeable". In these cases there is no viable alternative theory, nor is there data to suggest the theories are wrong, so on what basis could they be challenged?

Psionl0 has already answered that:
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 01:22 PM   #112
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,094
Originally Posted by psionl0
Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.
Well at least you have finally shown the courage to not lie about what you really want.

But you are still wrong. "Goddidit" has absolutely NO place in science, ever... or at least, not unless the student brings scientifically testable evidence with the claim... but theists NEVER bring evidence, they only bring fairy stories and dogma from the religious books. "Goddidit" does not belong in science any more than flat earth... similarly, it ought to be dismissed from the get go
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th May 2022 at 01:26 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 01:39 PM   #113
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 16,692
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Everything should be open to questions.
No. In science class, everything in nature is open to examination using the scientific method, the resulting validated body of knowledge is called science. It is wed to method; any theory one wishes to pursue must conform to scientific methodology to prosper and enter into the knowledge base.

Quote:
If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.
Not ostracized nor ridiculed; rather, instructed that this is science class, not religion, and to kindly save that question for home or Sunday school.

Quote:
An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.
No. This is science class, not metaphysics, and "supposed intelligence" is not an observed fact needing an explanatory theory; it is speculative fantasy.

Point of order: Evolution, in the form of geologically layered progressive morphology; i.e., the fossil record, is fact. Rather, a set of factual observations. To explain it, and his differentiated finches, there is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it". Once a specific theistic explanation comes into play, we see no natural laws can be operable, as no universals nor models of cause and effect pertain. Not science, not for science class, not a question of openmindedness.

Category error of epic, grandeous proportions. In conceptual space, theology harks to itself, not to nature. Thus, it is untethered to fact.
__________________
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 9th May 2022 at 01:44 PM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 01:52 PM   #114
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces.

Nope, an honest answer would be that there is no evidence that this “supposed intelligence” exists.

You’re begging the question.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 02:43 PM   #115
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,086
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
No. In science class, everything in nature is open to examination using the scientific method, the resulting validated body of knowledge is called science. It is wed to method; any theory one wishes to pursue must conform to scientific methodology to prosper and enter into the knowledge base.

Not ostracized nor ridiculed; rather, instructed that this is science class, not religion, and to kindly save that question for home or Sunday school.


No. This is science class, not metaphysics, and "supposed intelligence" is not an observed fact needing an explanatory theory; it is speculative fantasy.

Point of order: Evolution, in the form of geologically layered progressive morphology; i.e., the fossil record, is fact. Rather, a set of factual observations. To explain it, and his differentiated finches, there is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it". Once a specific theistic explanation comes into play, we see no natural laws can be operable, as no universals nor models of cause and effect pertain. Not science, not for science class, not a question of openmindedness.

Category error of epic, grandeous proportions. In conceptual space, theology harks to itself, not to nature. Thus, it is untethered to fact.
I KNEW it.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 07:01 PM   #116
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well at least you have finally shown the courage to not lie about what you really want.

But you are still wrong. "Goddidit" has absolutely NO place in science, ever... or at least, not unless the student brings scientifically testable evidence with the claim... but theists NEVER bring evidence, they only bring fairy stories and dogma from the religious books. "Goddidit" does not belong in science any more than flat earth... similarly, it ought to be dismissed from the get go
This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 07:03 PM   #117
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it".
I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 07:13 PM   #118
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.

It’s the only alternative you have been able to present.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 07:23 PM   #119
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has [i]absolutely nothing whatsoever[/I ]to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.

Not true.

Science has actually actively positively directly disproved much that is religious. And what little now remains still within reach of the God of the gaps has no justification in terms of providing clear parsimonious explanation for our observations.


What a bizarre idea this is, that science has nothing to say about anything religious. I mean, how can anyone even say that with a straight face?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2022, 07:44 PM   #120
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Science has actually actively positively directly disproved much that is religious.
And the derail continues . . . .

The phrase "much that is religious" is too vague to mean anything. If you mean that we can use the scientific method to show that many claims in the bible are wrong (such as the universe is only 6000 years old) then that is true. But anything the bible says about God himself is beyond the realm of scientific testing.

For example, the notion that God determines the outcome when you roll dice (Proverbs 16:33) is totally unfalsifiable. You can say that it is nonsense but you can't say that "science proves" that this is nonsense. There endeth any discussion of gods in the science class room because science is theologically neutral.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.