Religion and scuba

[dfx]

Interesting statement however it still falls into the contest flaw. IE in the 50's basics of life was shelter and food. to day it is cell phones and sat tv. Likewise you statement could be reworded to say that science has not made life better. science made the bomb. Science created the vehicles for greed and its decendants.

Man, you're really whipping out the fallacies here! First of all, I didn't claim that science made life better. I didn't even claim that religion made life worse. All I pointed out was that there was a correlation. But since you mentioned it: I hope you wouldn't contest the fact that science has dramatically improved the average life span and life expectancy of people. I don't know if you would consider this as "better life," but I would. Has religion ever done anything to the same effect?

Yeah, science has created the bomb and some other evil things. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Science by structure is a system that believes nothing unless it can be proved in a test tube. Science believes there is no other possible position than what is proven by science. Yet the world was flat. science said till they changed their position. Turned out that our world was not the center of the universe. One can not blame science in its youth for believing that. From their limited perspective it was a logical conclusion. Ship sails off and sinks on the horizon... Not factual but an understandable conclusion. What can be blamed on science is the closed mind position taken every time science is challenged or perceived threatened.

Let's see what we have here. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman for sure. I already explained this like 3 times. If there's a conclusion based on good evidence and this conclusion has been confirmed multiple times over, then that's a good conclusion. It may turn out to be wrong later on, but that doesn't matter. It was a good conclusion because it had good evidence behind it and at that time, it was reasonable to believe it. Now there's new evidence and a new conclusion has been reached. Now it's not reasonable to believe in the old conclusion any more, because the new evidence contradicts it. These are the "challenges" you mentioned. Science embraces this as it's the best way to learn new things. Science never "feels threatened." In fact, science threatens itself all the time. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong all the time. I don't know how anyone could see this as "closed minded," but hey, it's a good way to slander the process I guess. If there's anything "close minded" about it, then it's the fact that science dismisses claims that "are true because I say so," which is all that religion does. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Religion on the other hand starts off with the conclusion, assumes that it's true and then looks for confirming evidence. Contradicting evidence is ignored. The conclusion is never changed, no matter what happens, because, well, it's true because it's true and because we say so and we can't possibly be wrong. That's the definition of being closed minded. I don't know if science ever claimed that the earth was flat or was in the centre of the universe, but if it did, it must have had good reasons to do so. Later we found out that this was wrong. How did we do this? Through science! Religion on the other hand has claimed these things based on nothing and has tortured and killed people to keep them from presenting contradicting evidence and finding out the truth.

I am still waiting for science to tell me where the FIRST matter came from and what comes after the absolute end of space.

Argument from ignorance. We don't know. That just means that we don't know and nothing else. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps one day we will, or maybe we won't. It certainly doesn't mean that there can't be any explanation. See a few posts above.

The day science admits that there are some things that are just not meant to be known will be the day when science makes the largest move in their position on religion.

Not sure how that would happen. As I just said, just because we don't know something yet, doesn't mean that it can never be know. How would science ever figure out that something can't be known? I can't imagine a way. Perhaps one day we will know how, but until then we just don't know.

BTW what did we believe in before science found/ explained how the world had gravity? The world sucked??

Science would have said what I just explained: We don't know. Which would have been a very good answer. Other people on the other hand might have invoked something supernatural, as they have done so many times before. They did this without having a good reason to do so, and they would have been wrong. In fact, every time someone did this without any good reason, they turned out to be wrong. It's not a smart thing to do.

 

[JohnN]

. Science by structure is a system that believes nothing unless it can be proved in a test tube. Science believes there is no other possible position than what is proven by science. Yet the world was flat. science said till they changed their position. Turned out that our world was not the center of the universe.

LOL, your understanding of history is quite convenient. It was the Church responsible for earth as the center of the universe, and the Flat Earth theory is largely another urban myth. . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Would you like to try again with another set of your "facts" ?

 

[NAM001]

Thank you again you have demonstrated in this post just what I have been saying. Things are fallacies because you don't understand them. You have FAITH that one day you may or may not understand them. Conclusion based of todays accepted fact does not make it fact. As closed minded goesl, Once again you admit that science argues all the time but they have a common thread. Their is no foundation of faith. Religion is just a man made thing to make us feel better about our selves and it is sciences job to put a stop to it. Science operates from the perspective of there is a natural explanation for everything. Science closes their mind to any other possibilities, because they are predetermined as myth. No one of strict science can accept this because if they did they would not be of strict science. Its an argument that can not be discussed because no one will all join the same page. Religion is totally a matter of faith. Science is not equipped to confront faith directly, (because they believe there is no foundation for faith) it can only do it through its believers and then in doing so can only do so by attacking the believer. When it comes to religion its kill the messenger and the message will die with it. Religion has for the most part always been willing to let science do what they will Religion may denounce what science produces , but they don't try to eliminate the process of science. Too bad the opposite is not that way.

Man, you're really whipping out the fallacies here! First of all, I didn't claim that science made life better. I didn't even claim that religion made life worse. All I pointed out was that there was a correlation. But since you mentioned it: I hope you wouldn't contest the fact that science has dramatically improved the average life span and life expectancy of people. I don't know if you would consider this as "better life," but I would. Has religion ever done anything to the same effect?

Yeah, science has created the bomb and some other evil things. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque


Let's see what we have here. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman for sure. I already explained this like 3 times. If there's a conclusion based on good evidence and this conclusion has been confirmed multiple times over, then that's a good conclusion. It may turn out to be wrong later on, but that doesn't matter. It was a good conclusion because it had good evidence behind it and at that time, it was reasonable to believe it. Now there's new evidence and a new conclusion has been reached. Now it's not reasonable to believe in the old conclusion any more, because the new evidence contradicts it. These are the "challenges" you mentioned. Science embraces this as it's the best way to learn new things. Science never "feels threatened." In fact, science threatens itself all the time. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong all the time. I don't know how anyone could see this as "closed minded," but hey, it's a good way to slander the process I guess. If there's anything "close minded" about it, then it's the fact that science dismisses claims that "are true because I say so," which is all that religion does. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Religion on the other hand starts off with the conclusion, assumes that it's true and then looks for confirming evidence. Contradicting evidence is ignored. The conclusion is never changed, no matter what happens, because, well, it's true because it's true and because we say so and we can't possibly be wrong. That's the definition of being closed minded. I don't know if science ever claimed that the earth was flat or was in the centre of the universe, but if it did, it must have had good reasons to do so. Later we found out that this was wrong. How did we do this? Through science! Religion on the other hand has claimed these things based on nothing and has tortured and killed people to keep them from presenting contradicting evidence and finding out the truth.


Argument from ignorance. We don't know. That just means that we don't know and nothing else. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps one day we will, or maybe we won't. It certainly doesn't mean that there can't be any explanation. See a few posts above.


Not sure how that would happen. As I just said, just because we don't know something yet, doesn't mean that it can never be know. How would science ever figure out that something can't be known? I can't imagine a way. Perhaps one day we will know how, but until then we just don't know.


Science would have said what I just explained: We don't know. Which would have been a very good answer. Other people on the other hand might have invoked something supernatural, as they have done so many times before. They did this without having a good reason to do so, and they would have been wrong. In fact, every time someone did this without any good reason, they turned out to be wrong. It's not a smart thing to do.

View attachment 213053

 

[JohnN]

Religion has for the most part always been willing to let science do what they will Religion may denounce what science produces , but they don't try to eliminate the process of science. Too bad the opposite is not that way.

Really ??? From 1992

ROME, Oct. 31— Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.The address by the Pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences closed a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633, one of history's most notorious conflicts between faith and science. Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid being burned at the stake and spent the remaining eight years of his life under house arrest.

and it only took them 13 years :cool2:

 

[NAM001]

Yes you are correct. and the church took decades to challenge the SCIENCE that the church adopted as fact to support their premis of the earth was the center of the universe. This is a prime example of the church building themselves around the science and then finding out science was wrong. The church was the enforcers of the position not necessarily the inventors/deliverers of the concept. All (science or clergy) who challenged the churches position was not dealt with nicely. As the bible did not say the earth was flat the notion came from other than any religious source. The flat world issue may be THE example of bad science coupled with improper application of church powers. It has nothing to do with the validity of religions FOUNDATIONS of faith.


In electronics we have a similar delema when teaching current is it electron flow or is it hole flow. Do electrons leave the car battery on the red cable or the black cable. Is the battery terminal with the + on it the one with the charge on it. Or do they both have charges on them. and if so how is the charge determined other than In respect to each other. I guess the answer is all dependant upon what your understanding is grounding rto as to which answer is correct.

LOL, your understanding of history is quite convenient. It was the Church responsible for earth as the center of the universe, and the Flat Earth theory is largely another urban myth. . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Would you like to try again with another set of your "facts" ?

 

[mmmbelows]

Just checking - after almost 400 posts - have any atheists been converted to believers? Have any who believe in God renounced their faith?

 

[JohnN]

Yes you are correct. and the church took decades to challenge the SCIENCE that the church adopted as fact to support their premis of the earth was the center of the universe. This is a prime example of the church building themselves around the science and then finding out science was wrong. The church was the enforcers of the position not necessarily the inventors/deliverers of the concept. All (science or clergy) who challenged the churches position was not dealt with nicely. As the bible did not say the earth was flat the notion came from other than any religious source. The flat world issue may be THE example of bad science coupled with improper application of church powers. It has nothing to do with the validity of religions FOUNDATIONS of faith.


In electronics we have a similar delema when teaching current is it electron flow or is it hole flow. Do electrons leave the car battery on the red cable or the black cable. Is the battery terminal with the + on it the one with the charge on it. Or do they both have charges on them. and if so how is the charge determined other than In respect to each other. I guess the answer is all dependant upon grounding as to which answer is correct.

You're still missing it (badly) The church adopted dogma that was impervious to observed behavior. Science is not immutable, dogma is. The strength of science is that any conclusion is always subject to continual review and testing. Let's contrast that to the belief that the earth is < 10,000 years old. Is there any evidence you could be presented that would cause you to deviate from the dogma?

Also, you should have read the link I supplied about the flat earth. Your statements are just wildly incorrect, history indicates the earth was believed to be spherical as early as the 5th and 6th century BC.

 

[NAM001]

So long as the new results fall into a limited category of allowable conclusions. So far I don't think any of the religious group is attempting to convert the science community. No matter what position the science folks take, I will sleep the same at night.

Science is not immutable, dogma is. The strength of science is that any conclusion is always subject to continual review and testing.
QUOTE]

 

[dfx]

Yes you are correct. and the church took decades to challenge the SCIENCE that the church adopted as fact to support their premis of the earth was the center of the universe. This is a prime example of the church building themselves around the science and then finding out science was wrong. The church was the enforcers of the position not necessarily the inventors/deliverers of the concept. All (science or clergy) who challenged the churches position was not dealt with nicely.

Wow, you really believe that this is how it went? OK, I'll play along. Let's say that this is really what happened.

So eventually it was discovered that the earth was not flat. How was this discovered? Through science. OK. What did science do with this new found discovery? It gladly accepted it as truth. Some people may have needed some convincing, but that's a great part about science: its claims can be demonstrated to be true. If someone didn't believe you, you simply showed it to them.

What did the church do with this new found discovery? It fought against it. It declared it heresy. It insisted that its old beliefs, the ones now known to be false, are still true.

Religion claims that it has all the truths already. Religion tells people: stop looking for answers, we already have the answers. All you ever need to know is in this book. Religion stifles progress. Religion doesn't challenge science because religion isn't science. It doesn't make any new discoveries. It doesn't change its stance based on new evidence. It only changes its stance when forced to do so by the secular world.

Now to refute your claim, see what I just wrote above: science only makes claims that can be demonstrated to be true. I don't know how the flatness of the earth could ever be demonstrated, other than "just look at it, it looks flat." Which isn't really science at all.

As the bible did not say the earth was flat the notion came from other than any religious source. The flat world issue may be THE example of bad science coupled with improper application of church powers. It has nothing to do with the validity of religions FOUNDATIONS of faith.

Oooohhh, but the bible most certainly did say that the earth was flat! In fact, it still does! Not only once, but many many times over. And don't forget that the bible wasn't written based on scientific knowledge at that time. Instead it's supposed to be the inspired word of god. Somehow, your god wanted people to believe that the earth was flat.

Now of course, in some of the more modern translations, the "circle of the earth" and other instances clearly indicating a flat earth were suddenly translated away, perhaps "circle" has been translated as "sphere" or perhaps the whole thing was just rephrased to make it sound more plausible. Or, as a last resort, believers can claim that it's all just metaphorical! But all these translations were done after we've figured out that the earth isn't flat and after the churches finally gave in to this fact. These are just more attempts at squaring the circle (or in this case, globing the disk). And we've only figured all this out through science. Not by religion insisting that the earth is flat and making people stop claiming otherwise.

 

[Diver0001]

Wow, you really believe that this is how it went? OK, I'll play along. Let's say that this is really what happened.

So eventually it was discovered that the earth was not flat. How was this discovered? Through science. OK. What did science do with this new found discovery? It gladly accepted it as truth. Some people may have needed some convincing, but that's a great part about science: its claims can be demonstrated to be true. If someone didn't believe you, you simply showed it to them.

In actual fact, some science is pretty controversial. Scientific debate is rife with some of the most unholy flame-wars (to put it in internet terms) you've ever see.... I mean ... "Fire and brimstone" was a campfire level of flame-wars. If Dante lived in our time, he may have even reserved a special level of hell for those who engaged in scientific debate.

Don't forget, a large number of "beta" types can fall somewhere on an autistic spectrum (from the Nerds who are everywhere to massive Aspergers with 190 IQ's but entirely devoid of social skills). It takes a special type of personality to spend an entire career trying to *prove* beyond all doubt that you were right when most "normal" people would have given up in a year (or a month). Becoming a top athlete or some other occupations also requires this level of "obsession" but even top athletes eventually retire and move on and many talk about the sacrifices they . Top scientists die in their armor. Just look at Hawking. He's an obvious example but they...are...everywhere in the fields of physics, astronomy, mathematics.... Beautiful minds.... but still tethered to a worldly personality that I'm sure in many cases seems to them and to those around them as more of a burden than an asset.

So just as we should perhaps not idealize the monk, we shouldn't idealize the scientist either. Stereotypes are tricky business but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.

R..