By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

Nem on 16 December 2012
Cobretti2 said:
my personal belief is that religion and science are both as bad as eath other.

I can find 10 studies that say chocolate is good for you and at the same time 10 studies that says it is not good for you. Which do I believe?

Basically both rely on faith from followers that the information provided by someone else is accurate.


They might all be right. It all depends on their definition of what is "good for you".

I can tell you smoking is bad for you cause it causes cancer or that its good for you cause it helps you relax. None of those are false, it just depends on what you consider "good for you". The science, the numbers themselves dont lie.



Around the Network
DaRev on 16 December 2012
GameOver22 said:
DaRev said:
Dodece said:
@DaRev

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Disproving a negative isn't a acceptable argument in any court be it civil, criminal, or that of public opinion. It is purely the last resort of the guilty, and those who know that they are in the wrong. This defense is fundamentally the lack of any defense at all. You cannot put forward a theory to actually be proven wrong. If you haven't provided evidence for its correctness. In simpler language you cannot put forward a case to be disproved if you haven't even made a good faith effort to prove it in the first place.

That said its just plain stupid to float the argument in the first place, because society has rejected such arguments. For good reason, because it is immoral, anarchical, and antisocial. If we accepted such a logic. Then every single murderer would be set free to kill as many times as they liked, because they could just say some fantasy creature really did the killing, and since we can't possibly disprove that argument with absolute certainty. They they must in fact be innocent.

Basically if we accept such a logic in any form we invite the dissolution of our society, and probably our very own survival as a species. Deductive reasoning is at the heart of all human activities. Hell even lower order primates understand that mental process. Their first act is never going to be to discount the least likely possibility. As other posters may say stupid argument is stupid.

lol, I don't know what you're on about but you might need to go back to law school. The claim here is that Religion, and as far as I'm concerned, Christiany is false. Well as far as I can remember from my law school days, he who brings a claim must prove it - what is your case against religion? The burden of prooof is on those claiming that religion is false. Religious pople here stand in Defense of religion. I hope you understand the difference. The rest of your post is rubbish so I wouldn't waste my time.

Yeah...Truth is, both sides have to provide evidence for their argument. The whole burden of proof is just a cop-out by both sides. Both theists and atheists use it. Atheists usually try to argue that the burder of proof is on the rligious believer because atheism is just the lack of belief....which is wrong. The lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheists actually claim God does not exist. Theists claim God does exist. Both have to support their argument.

agreed. I just needed to put that would be legal drop out in their pace.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

DaRev on 16 December 2012
Cobretti2 said:
GameOver22 said:
Cobretti2 said:
my personal belief is that religion and science are both as bad as eath other.

I can find 10 studies that say chocolate is good for you and at the same time 10 studies that says it is not good for you. Which do I believe?

Basically both rely on faith from followers that the information provided by someone else is accurate.

It really depend on what scientific field of study you are looking at, as there is going to be more disagreement on some issues and within some disciiplines. In the hard sciences, there's going to be more agreement when looking at core theories, however, there are naturally disagreements when moving to the frontier of research. The social sciences are a mess though....


Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I don't disagree with science as a concept.

The point I was trying to make is that their are some areas of science that we rely on research by others to be accurate or not. We essentially take their word for it that the tests they performed where correct.  ie.e faith in the results lol.

you used the F word.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

GameOver22 on 16 December 2012
Cobretti2 said:
GameOver22 said:
Cobretti2 said:
my personal belief is that religion and science are both as bad as eath other.

I can find 10 studies that say chocolate is good for you and at the same time 10 studies that says it is not good for you. Which do I believe?

Basically both rely on faith from followers that the information provided by someone else is accurate.

It really depend on what scientific field of study you are looking at, as there is going to be more disagreement on some issues and within some disciiplines. In the hard sciences, there's going to be more agreement when looking at core theories, however, there are naturally disagreements when moving to the frontier of research. The social sciences are a mess though....


Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I don't disagree with science as a concept.

The point I was trying to make is that their are some areas of science that we rely on research by others to be accurate or not. We essentially take their word for it that the tests they performed where correct.  ie.e faith in the results lol.

I agree with that. Its actually a problem with pretty much all knowedge. We just have to take other people's word for their results. I mean....I know I'm not capable of truly assessing an academic article from a physicist. I could probably read the abstract, but I wouldn't be able to interppret the math behind it.



Alara317 on 17 December 2012

Cobretti2 said:

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I don't disagree with science as a concept.

The point I was trying to make is that their are some areas of science that we rely on research by others to be accurate or not. We essentially take their word for it that the tests they performed where correct.  ie.e faith in the results lol.

That's the key difference:  If science doesn't know something for sure, it keeps testing and theorizing and testing and experimenting and theorizing and doing more science until an answer is found.  Even once something is accepted as universal truth, Scientists constantly keep testing and theorizing and even arguing against obvious truths becuase science isn't about emotion, it's about knowledge.  Plenty of 'truths' have been debunked, but that's the glory of science, it keeps learning and adapting as new evidence is presented. 

Religion does none of that.  It's "This happened, this is how it was, this is how it will be, the end."  

This is why it infuriates me to no end when religious folk try to disparge scence or act like it's just as fallible as faith.  they're very different things, and while it could be argued that both science and religion require a certain level of faith to believe in, one offers infinitely more substance to its theories than the other.  The truly intelligent person understands that there is plenty more to know, and opens wide for new knowledge at every turn.  

Religion, in turn, is content to keep its realm outside of what science can possibly answer or explain, giving them an awfully convenient exit strategy when people criticise them.  By planting their argument where science cannot disprove it, they take that as proof and run with it. this is totally foolish, and I honestly can't imagine why people don't see it.  



Around the Network
DaRev on 17 December 2012
Alara317 said:
DaRev said:


Really what point is that? That non-religious people always make claims about religion that they themselves ultimately can't support?

As for putting my money where my mouth is I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. Because you claim on one hand that religious people should quit but now you want me to convince you? Lol - Go read my many other posts on this religion if you want proof, it was already discussed.

So you're giving up?  You can't prove it, but since the other side can't prove the contrary you're just saying "Well, you can't prove there is no god, so that must mean there is a god"?  That's totally the way to gain respect. 

At least the non religious are mature enough to admit they don't know something and strive to learn more.  Religious folks think they have all the answers, and that further investigation isn't needed.  No wonder people say religion is the opiate of the masses, or that it's an archaic, occasionally barbaric belief system.  If you're stuck in the 1600's for morals, ethics, and science, it's no wonder people are critical of it.  

If you want to be taken seriously, then back up your claims.  At least the non religious people aren't actively making claims, just requiring you substantiate yours. 

lol, nice try. Looks like you're too acustomed to foolish rants by religious people. All the eveidence you need is in the Bible pal - go read it. It's like asking me to tell you about that law of theft. If yyou want to know what theft is you go read a statute book, not Vgchartz. Similarly, if you want proof about God, you good read God's statute book aka the Bible - is that not logical?



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

GameOver22 on 17 December 2012
Nem said:
Cobretti2 said:
my personal belief is that religion and science are both as bad as eath other.

I can find 10 studies that say chocolate is good for you and at the same time 10 studies that says it is not good for you. Which do I believe?

Basically both rely on faith from followers that the information provided by someone else is accurate.


They might all be right. It all depends on their definition of what is "good for you".

I can tell you smoking is bad for you cause it causes cancer or that its good for you cause it helps you relax. None of those are false, it just depends on what you consider "good for you". The science, the numbers themselves dont lie.

Off-topic, but I was reading an article the other day about there being a correlation between chocolate concumption and Nobel prize winners.....I was just wondering....how did this get published?

Chocolate

As for measurements, it really depends on the validity of your measures....whether you're actually measuring what you think you're measuring. This is a big problem for the social sciences, where the connection between concepts and measured objects isn't really clear....for instance, measuring voter turnout with survey results (people consistently overreport turnout). If you really look at the literature, there are multiple ways to measure the same thing, and scholars argue over which one is right. Utilizing different measures can then lead to different conclusions....meaning the results can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Hard sciences don't face the same difficulty, at least not to the same extent.



steelabhold on 17 December 2012

Double post



steelabhold on 17 December 2012
DaRev said:
Alara317 said:
DaRev said:


Really what point is that? That non-religious people always make claims about religion that they themselves ultimately can't support?

As for putting my money where my mouth is I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. Because you claim on one hand that religious people should quit but now you want me to convince you? Lol - Go read my many other posts on this religion if you want proof, it was already discussed.

So you're giving up?  You can't prove it, but since the other side can't prove the contrary you're just saying "Well, you can't prove there is no god, so that must mean there is a god"?  That's totally the way to gain respect. 

At least the non religious are mature enough to admit they don't know something and strive to learn more.  Religious folks think they have all the answers, and that further investigation isn't needed.  No wonder people say religion is the opiate of the masses, or that it's an archaic, occasionally barbaric belief system.  If you're stuck in the 1600's for morals, ethics, and science, it's no wonder people are critical of it.  

If you want to be taken seriously, then back up your claims.  At least the non religious people aren't actively making claims, just requiring you substantiate yours. 

lol, nice try. Looks like you're too acustomed to foolish rants by religious people. All the eveidence you need is in the Bible pal - go read it. It's like asking me to tell you about that law of theft. If yyou want to know what theft is you go read a statute book, not Vgchartz. Similarly, if you want proof about God, you good read God's statute book aka the Bible - is that not logical?

Read about an idea made up by man, and wrote by man (theft) to explain an idea.

Read about an idea made up by man, and wrote by man (god) to explain an idea.

Very logical. The resemblance is remarkable.





DaRev on 17 December 2012
steelabhold said:
DaRev said:
Alara317 said:
DaRev said:


Really what point is that? That non-religious people always make claims about religion that they themselves ultimately can't support?

As for putting my money where my mouth is I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. Because you claim on one hand that religious people should quit but now you want me to convince you? Lol - Go read my many other posts on this religion if you want proof, it was already discussed.

So you're giving up?  You can't prove it, but since the other side can't prove the contrary you're just saying "Well, you can't prove there is no god, so that must mean there is a god"?  That's totally the way to gain respect. 

At least the non religious are mature enough to admit they don't know something and strive to learn more.  Religious folks think they have all the answers, and that further investigation isn't needed.  No wonder people say religion is the opiate of the masses, or that it's an archaic, occasionally barbaric belief system.  If you're stuck in the 1600's for morals, ethics, and science, it's no wonder people are critical of it.  

If you want to be taken seriously, then back up your claims.  At least the non religious people aren't actively making claims, just requiring you substantiate yours. 

lol, nice try. Looks like you're too acustomed to foolish rants by religious people. All the eveidence you need is in the Bible pal - go read it. It's like asking me to tell you about that law of theft. If yyou want to know what theft is you go read a statute book, not Vgchartz. Similarly, if you want proof about God, you good read God's statute book aka the Bible - is that not logical?

Read about an idea made up by man, and wrote by man (theft) to explain an idea.

Read about an idea made up by man, and wrote by man (god) to explain an idea.

Very logical. The resemblance is remarkable.


2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,  that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.