What's Will All The Religion Hatred?

[Padawanbater2]

you want "proof" of science's fallibility? just what proof do you desire? scientific proof?

No, I want you to give me an example of how the scientific method, not human interpretation of it (something completely different), is flawed. You made that claim, what do you have to support it?

can't you see the bizarre nature of your request? look to our present infatuation with agw (or whatever they're calling it these days) for an example of the flaws in our "science". the truth may very well be staring us in the face, but it is our interpretations of the evidence that is the flaw.

How is the science behind agw flawed? The science, not the interpretation of the science. You seem to be arguing against a point I didn't make. It seems redundant to tell an atheist the truth is out there, people just don't see it, doesn't it?

repeatability demands interpretation and consensus can only give us the bias of the majority. it isn't that the method fails to give us facts, but how we choose to see these facts and how we act on them that is the fallibility in the system.

What we decide to do with the results the scientific method provides us with has no bearing on the validity and effectiveness of the method itself. You are talking about two completely different things.

 

[Heisenberg]

Observing the laws of nature and their consequences is not the same as expecting a deity to hear your prayers and take interest in your personal life. If you are stipulating that the person sees it as punishment for breaking rules then I suppose the conclusion would have to be that the person simply changed the agent, but even so we are left with a significant reduction in dogma and mythology. Ideally the person would be aware of the science behind assigning intentional agents to observed patterns, and take that into account. I don't see anything that would prevent this outlook aside from unawareness or delusion. Awareness is what Pad is trying to promote. If your point is that delusion will never be totally eradicated, I don't see how anyone could argue against that, but why should that stifle our passion for spreading understanding? What prevents us from attaining concepts like altruism in the absence of that delusion?

 

[bud nugbong]

i died for a little while, and no theres no god. just goes black. live your life for what it is, because its all youll get.

 

[undertheice]

The science, not the interpretation of the science.

i don't know how i can make it any plainer, you're beginning to sound like duke over in the politics forum. you can't simply divorce the method from what that method is used for and those that use it. well, maybe you can, but no reasonable person could. it's like saying that sunlight is pure, clean energy that is available freely to everyone, so solar power is free and completely nonpolluting. it ignores the cost and mess made by turning that sunlight into useable energy.

 

[Padawanbater2]

i don't know how i can make it any plainer, you're beginning to sound like duke over in the politics forum. you can't simply divorce the method from what that method is used for and those that use it. well, maybe you can, but no reasonable person could. it's like saying that sunlight is pure, clean energy that is available freely to everyone, so solar power is free and completely nonpolluting. it ignores the cost and mess made by turning that sunlight into useable energy.

Howbout you answer the questions as asked and quit giving obscure analogies that don't apply to what we're talking about?

You said the METHOD was flawed. You seem to think that the way someone observes or interprets the results of the method is what makes the objective results flawed. I told you it doesn't matter what you or I believe or accept, the objective results are what are true, this is the strongest aspect of the scientific method.

You do divorce the relationship between accurate results and the fallibility of human reasoning because the method demands it. You cannot apply the scientific method properly if you don't, therefore, you cannot have accurate science. Even the ancients knew that.

 

[undertheice]

you really are hopeless, aren't you pad. how about this? in a perfect world, where humans are completely uninvolved in the process, your precious scientific method is infallible to a point. it can describe the known universe in all its glory and all mistakes will eventually be rectified. now i'm sure you know of a place just like that, don't you. the problem is that the entire point of the scientific method is to explain the universe to humans. so that perfect place seems rather pointless, now doesn't it.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Before people started looking further into science didn't they pretty much know nothing? So why cross out the chances there is a god when we really don't know?

Also I agree with undertheice (no offense pad) about how you can't just erase religion from humans, Even if you could it would not be fair, because it is like taking out an emotion from the human mind. Would you want love to be erased? Love doesn't really help science, we may find temporary happiness but come on it's not gonna find a cure for anything. So if you apply the same logic to religion you would see that religious people find comfort in religion much like other people find comfort in love but they are both equal when it comes to how it helps science. any opinions on this?

 

[ganja father]

ur ok u shld not diss religion

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Wut thay shld doo iz diss syince.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Also I agree with undertheice (no offense pad) about how you can't just erase religion from humans,

yes you can with a plain and simple robust education.
it wont have 100% success first generation but you believe me one or two kids worth down the line you'll start getting proper results.

education education education

 

[Brazko]

you really are hopeless, aren't you pad. how about this? in a perfect world, where humans are completely uninvolved in the process, your precious scientific method is infallible to a point. it can describe the known universe in all its glory and all mistakes will eventually be rectified. now i'm sure you know of a place just like that, don't you. the problem is that the entire point of the scientific method is to explain the universe to humans. so that perfect place seems rather pointless, now doesn't it.

There is a place where the "Scientific Method" is infallible and even non-existent. It's called the Universe. It confirms and analyzes itself without approach to a methodology.

It's a lost cause, I tried explaining this to Pad before and he was just as irrational then as now. He seems to think that the Scientific Method is some outside existing entity that controls and conveys Objective information unobscured by the process to the observer. Maybe if some of his trusted mentors would point out the fallacy of this held conception, it may filter through the system.


http://www.scientificmethod.com/bklet/i_13.htm
How do Scientists Use the Scientific Method - Some of the Procedural Principles and Theories

Experimentation - Testing and experimentation, whether on a blackboard or computer, or in the lab, are usually essential activities in the use of The Scientific Method. Government standards must be observed in experiments involving people, animals, and the environment.
Replicable - Results must be reproducible, communicable, and communicated.
A Skeptical Attitude - A Skeptical Attitude toward authoritative statements is required in seeking the truth. Data used in your thinking must be "true" insofar as it is possible to determine "truth." It may be useful to determine key terminology.
Values and Ethics - As much as humanly possible, a researcher should strive to be free of prejudice and bias that often creep into human judgment and action. They must give due credit to his team or collaborators. Ethical conduct is expected.
Infallibility - No claims should be made that "The Scientific Method" produces infallible solutions. State rather: "On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that ..."
Gather All Evidence - If bias or inadequate effort causes you to ignore or fail to find contrary evidence, you will not arrive at the "truth."
Mathematics - Qualitative and quantitative methods of mathematics should be used whenever possible.
Society - There is a growing interest in the concept that science is a social activity.
All Stages of The Scientific Method - Each has various procedural principles and theories peculiar to them. See Steps or Stages 1 to 11.

I know this still doesn't answer the question because its Not the Solutions that are produced by "The Scientific Method" that aren't susceptible to fallacy. Its the omnicompetent externalized coexisting "Scientific Method" that bestows us with information tainted by our susceptible minds that is infallible..

 

[Brazko]

yes you can with a plain and simple robust education.
it wont have 100% success first generation but you believe me one or two kids worth down the line you'll start getting proper results.

education education education

I agree that education may erase religion to a degree, but I think the innate human component to the concept of God/Higher Being, even with the inclusion of self existing in a Higher Dimension or Form is what I feel Ice is laying reference to.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I agree that education may erase religion to a degree, but I think the innate human component to the concept of God/Higher Being, even with the inclusion of self existing in a Higher Dimension or Form is what I feel Ice is laying reference to.

imo that is largely a relic from a society that is mostly grwn up with eternal damnation hiding under their bed (sorry a benevolent father loving them from above)

and what i meant by "robust" was leaving school with (much better than standard) tools for spotting the liars and charlatans that will surely try to turn them threw their adult years

get those 2 fixed and i'd say less than 200 years till a mostly sane globe

 

[Brazko]

imo that is largely a relic from a society that is mostly grwn up with eternal damnation hiding under their bed (sorry a benevolent father loving them from above)

I'm not sure of what you mean by relic from a society, other than a modern mainstreamed predominantly shared concept of Christainity/Islam. Outside of that I'm clueless to your meaning

and what i meant by "robust" was leaving school with (much better than standard) tools for spotting the liars and charlatans that will surely try to turn them threw their adult years

get those 2 fixed and i'd say less than 200 years till a mostly sane globe

I agree that could be possible as well... How likely to happen? idk, but possible...

 

[Hepheastus420]

yes you can with a plain and simple robust education.
it wont have 100% success first generation but you believe me one or two kids worth down the line you'll start getting proper results.

education education education

Did you read the rest of that post? I was saying that if you could erase religion you shouldn't because it's just as important of an emotion as love. But yeah education can take away love too right?

 

[ginjawarrior]

I'm not sure of what you mean by relic from a society, other than a modern mainstreamed predominately shared concept of Christainity/Islam. Outside of that I'm clueless to your meaning

a society that desires atheism at adulthood buthas to unlearn their childhood fairytales.
the more ingrained they are in reality the harder the transition. that causes people to fall at wayside and get sucked in by stuff like "the secret"

 

[ginjawarrior]

Did you read the rest of that post? I was saying that if you could erase religion you shouldn't because it's just as important of an emotion as love. But yeah education can take away love too right?

are you seriously trying to say

a. only religous people love?
b. educated people can't love?

 

[Brazko]

a society that desires atheism at adulthood buthas to unlearn their childhood fairytales.
the more ingrained they are in reality the harder the transition. that causes people to fall at wayside and get sucked in by stuff like "the secret"

What about the childhood raised Atheist that starts to believe in Fairytales in their adulthood?

Why do they fall at the wayside?

 

[ginjawarrior]

What about the childhood raised Atheist that starts to believe in Fairytales in their adulthood?

Why do they fall at the wayside?

peer pressure from the group hysteria?
inadequate tools for discerning bullshit?

the numbers going the other way are not so substantial when you look at the numbers realizing their gods a lie and strt wanting proof.

 

[Heisenberg]

Before people started looking further into science didn't they pretty much know nothing? So why cross out the chances there is a god when we really don't know?

Uncertainty is actually the position we are promoting at this point. We do not seek to cross out god, just the certainty in god which leads to religion.

Also I agree with undertheice (no offense pad) about how you can't just erase religion from humans, Even if you could it would not be fair, because it is like taking out an emotion from the human mind. Would you want love to be erased?

This is a utilitarian argument appealing to final consequences. The problem is that it does nothing to justify mainstream religion of today. If we are simply using religion to develop love and social coherence, we can spend 5 minutes and come up with a religion far more useful than any of today, but you would know this religion to be fake. Following your logic, we would have to adhere to or tolerate this religion even though we know it false, because of the ultimate good it brings.