Register to reply

Debunking Ancient Fantasy

by Max Faust
Tags: ancient, debunking, fantasy
Share this thread:
CosmicCrunch
#37
Apr21-10, 08:25 PM
P: 25
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
I'm not defending any religion, nor do we allow anyone to push their religious beliefs here. We are talking about the essence of faith -a belief really in anything not recognized by science.

Science can only really address phenomena or claims that can be tested. While much religious dogma might be contradicted by science, the essence of faith is untouchable in this regard - that is, unless a God makes a showing. But the inability to test a claim does not falsify that claim. And many claims that at one time could not be tested, later could be. Rogue waves are probably one of the best recent examples of this. The claim has been around for centuries, but science has only been able to address the claim recently through oil rig sensors, and satellite data. Sure enough, they exist!
religion in itself is a fill in the blank philosophy, theres been scientists who make break thru discoverys only to come to a halt cause they cant find the next answer so they fill in the blank with intelligent design. Then another scientist will come after the first and will logically figure out what last scientist couldnt learn and then he comes to a point of no more understanding also and then also puts intelligent design in the blank. the more we learn the less blanks we have to fill


and scientists do measure things directly and indirectly, what they can't conclude they don't leave to a higher being as being responsible and just leave it at that, (e.g. creation of the universe) do u have faith that we will figure it out one day
Evo
#38
Apr21-10, 08:26 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,664
Quote Quote by zomgwtf View Post
Wrong again. I could cite sources if you want. Keep trying you guys. In fact I could cite sources from both playing fields. I could site sources from thiest scientist doing research to make conclusions on particular religious beliefs and I could cite non-theist or neutral works to determine the opposite.
Yes, please cite sources of valid, mainstream scientific research that specifically states they are debunking religion. I don't care about loons that are trying to make stuff up to back a specific religious belief (ID).
Ivan Seeking
#39
Apr21-10, 08:26 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Quote Quote by zomgwtf View Post
No, that's MY original point. I have no reason to believe in God(s) THEREFORE NOT A CHOICE.

Honestly.
You deem there is no reason to. That is not the same as literally having no reason; no evidence, no claims, no history, no legends, no myths. Surely you can understand the difference?

Also, I have never banned anyone because they argue with me. But it is important to refrain from personal insults, innuendo, and snide remarks, which are a violation of the guidelines and will earn a ban with enough violations.
CosmicCrunch
#40
Apr21-10, 08:27 PM
P: 25
Quote Quote by zomgwtf View Post
I have to agree with the general idea behind what mgb is saying. Also CosmicCrunch you are wrong is saying that they weren't as intelligent as we are today (by my understanding of the word intelligence). Maybe they didn't 'know' as much as we do today but they were definitely as intelligent, maybe moreso on average even?
im referring to more ignorant in the world around us than we are now
Evo
#41
Apr21-10, 08:29 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,664
Quote Quote by CosmicCrunch View Post
religion in itself is a fill in the blank philosophy, theres been scientists who make break thru discoverys only to come to a halt cause they cant find the next answer so they fill in the blank with intelligent design. Then another scientist will come after the first and will logically figure out what last scientist couldnt learn and then he comes to a point of no more understanding also and then also puts intelligent design in the blank. the more we learn the less blanks we have to fill


and scientists do measure things directly and indirectly, what they can't conclude they don't leave to a higher being as being responsible and just leave it at that, (e.g. creation of the universe) do u have faith that we will figure it out one day
Please post the valid scientific research that backs your statements that credible scientists claim ID is a valid answer to anything.

Sorry, we don't allow this kind of misinformation here. And I warned you to stop the text speak.
CosmicCrunch
#42
Apr21-10, 08:30 PM
P: 25
how bout neil degrasse tyson

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9600994873365#

happy?
Ivan Seeking
#43
Apr21-10, 08:33 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Quote Quote by CosmicCrunch View Post
im referring to more ignorant in the world around us than we are now
As for your point, that is not the basis for faith, that is the basis for religion. It is important to understand the difference. I am not defending any particular religious belief, I am arguing the limits of logic as applied to faith of any sort.

Beyond that, there are endless rationalizations for getting around logical objections like yours. One can always logically invoke some aspect of "God" to explain away apparent contradictions with scientific evidence.
Evo
#44
Apr21-10, 08:34 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,664
Quote Quote by CosmicCrunch View Post
how bout neil degrasse tyson

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9600994873365#

happy?
Post the specific part that backs something you said. Be sure to explain where the part of his you are quoting backs the part of what you said. Posting a link to a video is not acceptable.
zomgwtf
#45
Apr21-10, 09:05 PM
P: 500
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
You deem there is no reason to. That is not the same as literally having no reason; no evidence, no claims, no history, no legends, no myths. Surely you can understand the difference?
You deem there is no reason to believe in the cosmic teacup. You're making up a difference when one doesn't exist at all.

Cosmic teacup:
Has as much evidence supporting it as does a possible hypothesis of God. (none... unless you get into crackpot visions etc. which case I counter because I've had visions of the teacup ergo, evidence hence: I believe it)

Definitely has claims... Known also as Russells teapot or Celestial teapot... various names. Never heard of Bertrand Russell have you? Odd. It's a very popular argument utilized by people arguing with theists to show that the burden of qualifiable evidence is not on the shoulders of those who don't believe. It's on those that posit the beliefs. I think Dawkins has a version of it too.

Definitely has a history... it's been used since 1952 and has risen to become an extremely popular concept!

Err no legends or myths? I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not you choose not to believe in something or not.

In fact: I don't think ANY of what you say has ANYTHING to do with whether it's a choice to be an Athiest. Possibly with the exception of evidene... history and 'claims' however have no bearing on this. I have a feeling your making 'appeal to popularity' 'appeal to common practice' 'appeal to belief' fallacies. Very unfortunate cause you seem to have ventured very far down this path of accepting fallacy as decision makers...
zomgwtf
#46
Apr21-10, 09:17 PM
P: 500
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Yes, please cite sources of valid, mainstream scientific research that specifically states they are debunking religion. I don't care about loons that are trying to make stuff up to back a specific religious belief (ID).
Well then, I'm afraid that this will rule out using most of theistic scientific sources... Kind of unfair. They are not 'mainstream', I don't think (read: It's of my opinion) they are valid and you go on to call them loons making stuff up. The most recent article I've read was about Athiest to be 'defunct' genetically and evolutionarily speaking. It was a pretty interesting article but I don't think it meets your or Forum criteria. (the research conducted wasn't all that great)

What about the studies done on prayers? Would that qualify? You can hardly say that they are studying prayers for some other reason which doesn't have to do with specific religions...

I think you've already conceded that science DOES have something to say about religion though. I didn't bother pointing it out earlier, meh:

Perhaps what you mean is that science has inadvertantly debunked the myths, such as the age of the earth, how it was formed, how life evolved, etc.
My entire point was exactly that what you had originally claimed:
The pursuit of science has zero to do with religion.
was wrong. You changed the goalpost on me however and I obliged to jump through it however you've changed it again but limiting what qualifies as citable material so I don't know what to say now. I'll just accept that you conceded to me that your original point was wrong.

Science does have much to say about religion, regardless of how many mainstream scientists set out with those intentions or how you personally view them. Science can't comment on God or deities for the reason already posted by Ivan.

EDIT: I feel as though you are equating belief in a religion with concept of God. Incorrect comparison to make.
zoobyshoe
#47
Apr21-10, 09:18 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,641
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
I do have reason to believe in a God.
What's the reason?
Hurkyl
#48
Apr21-10, 09:35 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
If I claimed that my sister is visiting, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "Hurkyl's sister is visiting Hurkyl" hypothesis?

If I claimed there was a cosmic teacup, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "cosmic teacup" hypothesis?

I expect your answers are "no" and "yes", respectively. I challenge you to explain why the answers are different.
Evo
#49
Apr21-10, 09:40 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,664
Quote Quote by zomgwtf View Post
Well then, I'm afraid that this will rule out using most of theistic scientific sources...
You've completely lost me.

I said that I do not believe that any credible scientist has done accredited peer reviewed scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

I know Dawkins argues against religion, but he has not actually done any scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

So, are you saying that there is actually valid documented scientific research for this purpose?

No, you aren't, I know you better.

Don't forget that I am an atheist, but I don't tolerate nonsense or misinformation either.
zomgwtf
#50
Apr21-10, 09:41 PM
P: 500
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
If I claimed that my sister is visiting, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "Hurkyl's sister is visiting Hurkyl" hypothesis?

If I claimed there was a cosmic teacup, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "cosmic teacup" hypothesis?

I expect your answers are "no" and "yes", respectively. I challenge you to explain why the answers are different.
I don't think this changes the fact that it's not a choice.
zomgwtf
#51
Apr21-10, 09:48 PM
P: 500
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
You've completely lost me.

I said that I do not believe that any credible scientist has done accredited peer reviewed scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

I know Dawkins argues against religion, but he has not actually done any scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

So, are you saying that there is actually valid documented scientific research for this purpose?

No, you aren't, I know you better.

Don't forget that I am an atheist, but I don't tolerate nonsense or misinformation either.
You originally had only claimed that science doesn't deal with religion basically. I said this wasn't true. You changed your position to include that scientists don't go out with the intent to debunk religion. Which, also isn't true, but doesn't matter to the original point I was making.

Namely:
Science does have something to say about religions.
Evo
#52
Apr21-10, 10:01 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,664
Quote Quote by zomgwtf View Post
You originally had only claimed that science doesn't deal with religion basically. I said this wasn't true. You changed your position to include that scientists don't go out with the intent to debunk religion. Which, also isn't true, but doesn't matter to the original point I was making.

Namely:
Science does have something to say about religions.
Nuh-uh. Read my posts. They have all been consistent in that there is a requirement that there is no intentional, named research specifically to discredit religion. I was very careful to make sure this was not misunderstood.

Can you post links to where I did not make this clear?
zomgwtf
#53
Apr21-10, 10:05 PM
P: 500
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Nuh-uh. Read my posts. They have all been consistent in that there is a requirement that there is no intentional, named research specifically to discredit religion. I was very careful to make sure this was not misunderstood.

Can you post links to where I did not make this clear?
Specifically this:

The pursuit of science has zero to do with religion. Gods, goddesses, trout that created the world, science doesn't address these beliefs. If you are talking about myths in religious writings, most people do realize they are just stories and not to be taken literally. The ones that *do* take them literally are a fringe that do not represent the mainstream believers.

Religion and God are not the same thing. I took this to mean that 'the pursuits taken in science have nothing to do with the realm of religion.'
Evo
#54
Apr21-10, 10:12 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,664
Quote Quote by zomgwtf View Post
Specifically this:

The pursuit of science has zero to do with religion. Gods, goddesses, trout that created the world, science doesn't address these beliefs. If you are talking about myths in religious writings, most people do realize they are just stories and not to be taken literally. The ones that *do* take them literally are a fringe that do not represent the mainstream believers.

Religion and God are not the same thing. I took this to mean that 'the pursuits taken in science have nothing to do with the realm of religion.'
Exactly. The pursuit of science does have zero to do with religion.

The pursuit of science is science. If it happens to contradict religious myths, that has nothing to do with the science itself.

Zom, you disappoint me, you're better than this.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
So do you ever drop your baggage and fantasise? General Discussion 13
Looking For A Fantasy Novel... Science Fiction & Fantasy 9
Fantasy US Presidential Poll Current Events 22
What are the fantasy pictures? Science Fiction & Fantasy 12