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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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 2nd September 2017, 12:45 PM   #801
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,636
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Simply, religion generally opposes science. (As is evidenced)
Yes, yes. Try to hide from actually addressing the various ways that you were clearly demonstrated to be wrong by offering up a weaker alteration of one of your claims that you've still not presented either valid evidence or cogent argument to support. That'll fix eeeeverything, right?

What you've actually demonstrated is, at best, that some parts of some religions oppose some findings of science. No one here disputed that in the first place, though, and most of those here have pointedly opposed the opposition to science, where it actually happens, especially when it happens in potentially deadly ways. You're not actually offering anything particularly new to us here as evidence, either, for that matter, and most of us can point out lots and lots of other instances where religions have caused bad things, or at least played very important roles in why things happened as they did. So, given all that, why should any of us accept your poorly formulated and terribly supported actual claims that would do little more than give the more mystical woos a field day with how much they can accurately find to be wrong with it and use that to further reconfirm their biases?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 2nd September 2017, 01:54 PM   #802
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,636
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Also, this is where your argument collapses; religion is generally consistent with myths.
Your interpretation of what I said is quite strange if you think that would even undermine the points that were actually made, much less cause the argument to collapse.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
So, in contrast to your nonsensical quote, there was certainly a focused removal of religion, from astronomy for example.
At best, one could say that there was a focused removal of falsifiable claims that were consistently able to be falsified. Even then, "focused" could still be something of a hard sell, though, considering how long it actually took to do. Saying that there was a focused removal of religion, though, is laughably wrong, given that the reasons for the removal had little to nothing to do with the presence or lack thereof of mythological or religious influence. Of some relevance there is that astrology was largely treated as mythological only after it was found to consistently fail the increasingly accurate tests, so you're trying to put the cart before the horse fairly clearly. As another similar example, there were multiple forms of creationism that were scientifically viable for quite a while, until the evidence against them became clear and they were then discarded because of that, not because of their relation to religion. Much related to religion and mythology was removed from natural philosophy and later, science, yes, but the reasons for the removal largely had nothing of note to do with its relation to religion or mythology, which make your claim distinctly misleading at best and flat out wrong otherwise.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 2nd September 2017, 05:49 PM   #803
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,707
Red face

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Do you reject Darwin?
How does the empirical observation that chimpanzees don't invent science and technology, supposedly translate to one rejecting Darwin?

Are you attempting to deflect from the fact that the brains of humans are generally, demonstrably more advanced than chimps, contrary to your prior claim of the opposite?
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 2nd September 2017, 05:57 PM   #804
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Astrology is not mythology, so your rephrasing does not help at all.

Astrology is unavoidably of mythological description:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisces_(astrology)
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 2nd September 2017, 06:05 PM   #805
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
One of the largest religions in the world, Catholicism, is not opposed to science. It was a Jesuit monk working in a Vatican funded observatory who proposed the Big Bang theory.

Besides, not all sciences are "opposed" by those believers who "oppose" science. You will have some difficulty in finding religious believers who are opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity, nuclear physics, electromagnetism, or quantum physics.

Your sweeping generalisations are simply wrong.
I didn't say that all things said by all religious people oppose science.

What I instead said was that religion generally opposes science, and that is empirically observed. (This is the reason why science was separated from the nonsense that is religion, from science in antiquity to modern science)


FOOTNOTE:
Catholicism unavoidably generally opposes science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Heaven, hell, etc are scientifically unfounded.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 2nd September 2017, 06:06 PM   #806
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Yes, yes. Try to hide from actually addressing the various ways that you were clearly demonstrated to be wrong by offering up a weaker alteration of one of your claims that you've still not presented either valid evidence or cogent argument to support. That'll fix eeeeverything, right?

What you've actually demonstrated is, at best, that some parts of some religions oppose some findings of science. No one here disputed that in the first place, though, and most of those here have pointedly opposed the opposition to science, where it actually happens, especially when it happens in potentially deadly ways. You're not actually offering anything particularly new to us here as evidence, either, for that matter, and most of us can point out lots and lots of other instances where religions have caused bad things, or at least played very important roles in why things happened as they did. So, given all that, why should any of us accept your poorly formulated and terribly supported actual claims that would do little more than give the more mystical woos a field day with how much they can accurately find to be wrong with it and use that to further reconfirm their biases?
Yes, religion is empirically observed to generally oppose science, and your feelings, and evidence contrasting responses, not surprisingly, won't change the evidence.
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 3rd September 2017, 08:21 PM   #807
gigmaster
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chatsworth, Ga. USA
Posts: 49
I don't believe religion is in opposition to science, because they are two different entities. One is an organized and codified method for determining the probable accuracy of any given problem or question, as long as enough information is available. The other is an untestable philosophy which has proven to be somewhat accurate on some things, partially inaccurate on othther things, and completely wrong in others. Science has been proven to be a valid discipline for thousands of years, and unliike religion, it is fluid, and can be adjusted when new information becomes available.

That being said, although I personally prefer science, there are many people who seem to benefit from religion, and I would not begrudge them that, as long as they stay out of my hair. I willing to let them be....
gigmaster 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 5th September 2017, 02:20 AM   #808
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,636
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Yes, religion is empirically observed to generally oppose science,
Go ahead and actually demonstrate that with something valid for once, then? You've had plenty of time to and opportunity to do so, after all.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
and your feelings, and evidence contrasting responses, not surprisingly, won't change the evidence.
Your feelings and continued failure to present valid evidence to support your actual claim remain as unconvincing as ever. You've flailed about a lot as you invoked numerous fallacies and presented evidence that would only actually back up dramatically weaker or completely irrelevant claims than the ones that you've been trying to push. Your empty rhetoric, not surprisingly, doesn't change that.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 5th September 2017, 02:49 AM   #809
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,111
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Astrology is unavoidably of mythological description:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisces_(astrology)
When you look up the astronomical constellation of Pisces in Wikipedia you get the same mythological story, so please revise your argument.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 5th September 2017, 02:57 AM   #810
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,111
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I didn't say that all things said by all religious people oppose science.

What I instead said was that religion generally opposes science, and that is empirically observed. (This is the reason why science was separated from the nonsense that is religion, from science in antiquity to modern science)
The phrasing "opposes science" is unfortunate, because even with the "generally" qualifier added, you are still making a sweeping statement that is difficult to defend.

Quote:
FOOTNOTE:
Catholicism unavoidably generally opposes science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Heaven, hell, etc are scientifically unfounded.
They are certainly scientifically unfounded, but that does not make Heaven and Hell in opposition to science. You cannot scientifically falsify them.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 3rd October 2017, 07:54 AM   #811
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
The phrasing "opposes science" is unfortunate, because even with the "generally" qualifier added, you are still making a sweeping statement that is difficult to defend.


Not at all "difficult to defend".



You don't need to be a nobel prize winning genius to see the ;
(1) Science is thus far mankind's best invention/tool. (Responsible for internet, modern cars, medicine, supermarket foods, surgical equipment, modern hospitals... )

(2) Religion opposes science, where religion is scientifically worthless.





Why does religion oppose science?

(1) As an example, astrology/myth/religion was removed from astronomy (See reference [2]), when archaic science became modern science, in the scientific revolution. (See reference [1])

(2) Scientific knowledge/progress was held back by Christianity as another clear example of religion opposing science. (See reference [3])





Quick References:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy
[3] https://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=17880
ProgrammingGodJordan 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 5th October 2017, 11:02 PM   #812
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,636
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1) Science is thus far mankind's best invention/tool. (Responsible for internet, modern cars, medicine, supermarket foods, surgical equipment, modern hospitals... )
Fairly certainly, it is.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(2) Religion opposes science, where religion is scientifically worthless.
As usual, you're showing off your ignorance and bias. Is there some reason why you are so intent on buying into the lies of the anti-science theists and the wishful thinking of the anti-theists?

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Why does religion oppose science?

(1) As an example, astrology/myth/religion was removed from astronomy (See reference [2]), when archaic science became modern science, in the scientific revolution. (See reference [1])
Science opposes the demonstrably falsifiable. That's not even remotely the same as opposing religion. In fact, religion-including theories historically have had significant support from scientists, at least until such time as the available evidence clearly demonstrated that they needed to go to the scrap heap, which pretty clearly shows one of the huge flaws in your logic. Geological Creationism, as I've mentioned before, is an easy and obvious example, in addition to the astrology that you favor citing, even after your own cited sources were shown not to support your claim.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(2) Scientific knowledge/progress was held back by Christianity as another clear example of religion opposing science. (See reference [3])
To some extent, Christianity did hold back science during the "Dark Ages" and a number of Christians certainly are trying to undermine and fight against science during the present day. The actual situation was a fair bit more complex, though, and trying to focus solely on the negative part of Christianity's role in it while ignoring the actual reasons why the "Dark Ages" actually happened, what it actually was, and the positive things that Christianity did makes for rather terrible historical revisionism. It is perhaps particularly telling that your link, yet again, largely refutes the overall case that you're trying to push, like so many of your links have previously.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

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 10:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.