• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Religion and you (well, us)

GraemeLion

Member
Nowhere did I say that the internet stuff is not evidence.

So quit twisting my words. You reinterpreted my statement to mean what you wanted, and then shot it down.

Yes, of course, scientifically peer reviewed papers (preferably published) on the internet carry more weight than Alex Jones' rambling about how the scientists are trying to kill us with mercury in the shots.
 

Unsilenced

Mentlegen
PhoenixStar:

Re: "Prayer DOES help"

Can you cite this? And, more importantly, how does prayer measure up to other useless things such as giving patients sugar pills and telling them it's the cure?

The rest of what you said seems to be misinterpretations, intentional or not, of the various points I made.

"Religion bent without consequence" means you can say whatever you want without being "wrong." This fact however DOES have the consequence of creating fanatics.

Perhaps an example would help.

If you say that gravity does not exist, someone will likely drop something on your head and laugh at you. Nothing changed because of your statement.

If on the other hand you say (and successfully convince people) that god told you to exterminate group "X" because group "X" is evil, then suddenly group "X" is evil. You have changed the status of group "X."

Get it?
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Nowhere did I say that the internet stuff is not evidence.

So quit twisting my words. You reinterpreted my statement to mean what you wanted, and then shot it down.

Yes, of course, scientifically peer reviewed papers (preferably published) on the internet carry more weight than Alex Jones' rambling about how the scientists are trying to kill us with mercury in the shots.

It's easy to read stuff on the internet and assume it to be true. It's harder to actually provide evidence.

.
 

PheonixStar

Trying to Write Right
Although, she is right - the internet is like the source for academics looking for peer review.

But she's also claiming science is a big jerk and liar man what a meany head
thus its okay that i dont understand how dating of soil strata works and it just doesnt seem RIGHT you know so like you dont know man you dont know

Actually, I have a fair working knowledge of how it works. My point is that it's easy to argue with it by using the "five senses" argument. I can say that X, Y, or Z was found in M strata, and I was there, and saw that it was removed under perfect procedures. But then there comes the whole, "I don't believe you" and the "well, carbon dating has been proven inaccurate" and the whole "soil strata dating is called into question by the flood theory" and all the other crapola.

So no matter what it is... and this should tell you something very important about the infallibility of science... there's someone who comes along and "proves" that it's wrong. Or that there's good cause to believe that it's wrong and thus to move it back to theory instead of law.

Of course, evolution is still a theory, yet it's held up as gospel anyway.

Again, the question isn't really proof. The question is, "I don't believe you. I won't believe you. I am certain you are wrong. Provide me with something so that I can claim that it's not good enough proof."

It's the same reason why people ask, "prove that god exists." They aren't interested in you actually proving that god exists, they're interested in ridiculing what you think is acceptable proof.
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Actually, I have a fair working knowledge of how it works. My point is that it's easy to argue with it by using the "five senses" argument. I can say that X, Y, or Z was found in M strata, and I was there, and saw that it was removed under perfect procedures. But then there comes the whole, "I don't believe you" and the "well, carbon dating has been proven inaccurate" and the whole "soil strata dating is called into question by the flood theory" and all the other crapola.

So no matter what it is... and this should tell you something very important about the infallibility of science... there's someone who comes along and "proves" that it's wrong. Or that there's good cause to believe that it's wrong and thus to move it back to theory instead of law.

Of course, evolution is still a theory, yet it's held up as gospel anyway.

Again, the question isn't really proof. The question is, "I don't believe you. I won't believe you. I am certain you are wrong. Provide me with something so that I can claim that it's not good enough proof."

It's the same reason why people ask, "prove that god exists." They aren't interested in you actually proving that god exists, they're interested in ridiculing what you think is acceptable proof.

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate in some cases, but its due to "imperfect" conditions.

What "flood" theory?

And in biology a "theory" is the highest scientific proof available.
There are no biological laws.

And its not gospel, its a working cluster of theories that have a massive fossil record of evidence and genetic evidence.

There is no contrary opinion in the scientific community that lifeforms evolve.
 

GraemeLion

Member
And jelly, you quoted my previous statement.

It says, outright, precisely what I feel.

Simply reading something on the internet and assuming it to be true is one thing, and providing evidence is something completely different.

My statements are not in opposition unless one decides to assume everything they read on the internet is true without providing evidence.
 

PheonixStar

Trying to Write Right
PhoenixStar:

Re: "Prayer DOES help"

Can you cite this? And, more importantly, how does prayer measure up to other useless things such as giving patients sugar pills and telling them it's the cure?

Actually, the placebo effect is a great example. It's a proven fact that it exists. Therefor, if the 'placebo' is prayer, and it works for the person, then removing it from them is the same as 'taking away their medication' so to speak.

The rest of what you said seems to be misinterpretations, intentional or not, of the various points I made.

"Religion bent without consequence" means you can say whatever you want without being "wrong." This fact however DOES have the consequence of creating fanatics.

No, you can't. Not any more than you can if you do it with science. Just as people rationalize abusing religion, people rationalize abusing science. And just as people get away with abuses in the name of religion, they do in the name of science, as well. Consider our water being poisoned with fluoride with impunity, for example. Or the vaccine makers getting a legal free ride on any negative side effects of their H1N1 vaccines-- so long as they don't know about them ahead of time. Or as long as no one can PROVE that they knew ahead of time.

Perhaps an example would help.

If you say that gravity does not exist, someone will likely drop something on your head and laugh at you. Nothing changed because of your statement.

If on the other hand you say (and successfully convince people) that god told you to exterminate group "X" because group "X" is evil, then suddenly group "X" is evil. You have changed the status of group "X."

You use a physical versus a moral argument, and you think that it's going to make sense?

If on the one hand, you impregnate a woman with a fetus that's not of her biological origin, and you tell people that it's perfectly okay to deprive the offspring of their biological heritage and knowledge of it, then suddenly you have changed the status of the offspring, and you have violated his or her basic human rights. Without consequence, I might add (except to the poor child who must grow up with their rights violated, of course, but THAT's not important!).

Religion and science can BOTH be used to deprive people of their basic human rights. And both HAVE BEEN used as such.

Science isn't limited to basic things like dropping a rock on someone's head. If you're going to make moral examples, then make moral examples. Don't make a moral example versus a physical (non moral) example.

Not that hitting someone on the head is precisely moral, that is.


Nope, not really. I think that you're ignoring the fact that both applications can be used with negative consequences. People have been slaughtered in the name of religion and science both.
 
J

Jelly

Guest
And jelly, you quoted my previous statement.

It says, outright, precisely what I feel.

Simply reading something on the internet and assuming it to be true is one thing, and providing evidence is something completely different.

My statements are not in opposition unless one decides to assume everything they read on the internet is true without providing evidence.

i can understand how someone would misinterpret that, though
 

PheonixStar

Trying to Write Right
And jelly, you quoted my previous statement.

It says, outright, precisely what I feel.

Simply reading something on the internet and assuming it to be true is one thing, and providing evidence is something completely different.

My statements are not in opposition unless one decides to assume everything they read on the internet is true without providing evidence.

I have seen objects in soil strata that, under current THEORIES, couldn't be there. Because human beings weren't around 500 million years ago making mortars and pestles. So we're told.

I have also seen lighting in a cave that was very obviously not a natural formation or creation. It was machined, but nothing like it exists in the world today, so far as we know, and it couldn't have been put there within the last hundred years or the overgrowth over it wouldn't have been so extensive.

I have reasons to trust the judgment of certain other people who have also seen things that clearly dispute the theory of human beings coming into technological advancement only recently in history.

But these, of course, are not PROOF to you, because you didn't see them, you don't know me, and I have no "EVIDENCE" to prove it.

So what's the point of relating my personal experiences, when I know perfectly well and have already heard the responses to them a thousand times.

Until any EVIDENCE as you call it, can be given to you, first we have to establish exactly what you think is acceptable evidence.

I have reason to believe quite a few things that I read on the internet that are considered fringe and unworthy of belief. My personal experiences outweigh your disparagement of them.

History is a lie. Obviously, not all of it, but a great deal of it. And much has been suppressed.

Mostly by the churchs, but in combination with the scientists, you can rest assured. Because if someone on this planet, 500 million years ago, was making mortars and pestles, then that throws the vaunted THEORY of evolution into turmoil.
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Oh boy, I can't wait for the lack of evidence of this ridiculous assertion.
I shit candy bars, you should open your mouth and lay down.
 

PheonixStar

Trying to Write Right
Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate in some cases, but its due to "imperfect" conditions.

What "flood" theory?

And in biology a "theory" is the highest scientific proof available.
There are no biological laws.

And its not gospel, its a working cluster of theories that have a massive fossil record of evidence and genetic evidence.

There is no contrary opinion in the scientific community that lifeforms evolve.
There's some theory I don't remember real well that claims that the various strata would be that way if it had settled during a massive, world-wide flood. I don't remember the theory very well, it was posted by some Christian in a debate several years ago. I read it, it was interesting, but I don't know enough to be able to debunk or support it, so I wasn't all that interested in it.

And my point was that it's called a THEORY because they know perfectly well that even the THEORIES that they might hold as gospel can someday be overturned.

There are many paradigms that exist in our culture, one of the main ones being this idea that everything has to begin or end. All scientific theory is based on this unquestioned paradigm. Discussion of how the Universe began is predicated upon the idea that it HAD to "begin."

Simply because the human mind cannot imagine the idea of it having no beginning. Which goes back to the paradigm of, if we cannot imagine it, it cannot exist.

So, basically, it comes down to the idea that "proof" must be first determined. What is acceptable "proof" to one person, isn't to another.

Let's just say that I have a hard time accepting much that I'm told about history anymore. There's a lot left out, yet we're taught it as gospel.

Columbus (or more liberally, perhaps Leif) discovered America. Right?

Uh, except there were people living here, so obviously, they did NOT discover America at all. This is another paradigm-- only the Eastern European "discoveries" are actually that...

So who REALLY discovered America? We don't know. And that's just one of many things we don't know. All because we've bought into a cultural paradigm that states that the only history that exists is our own.

We all know that history is written by the winners, yet we all still pretend that it's all true. The winners, naturally, wouldn't lie to us... right?
 

GraemeLion

Member
Oh boy, I can't wait for the lack of evidence of this ridiculous assertion.
I shit candy bars, you should open your mouth and lay down.

I guess I've been a skeptic for too long, Jellyhurwit.

I knew he was going to be pulling this shit early on in the conversation. You get used to these kinds of "I read evidence somewhere and saw stuff somewhere." They never can point you to peer reviewed things, though.. because it's all one giant conspiracy.

And on that note, I think I'm punching out of this thread. I know a waste of time when I see it.
 
Last edited:

PheonixStar

Trying to Write Right
I guess I've been a skeptic for too long, Jellyhurwit.

I knew he was going to be pulling this shit early on in the conversation. You get used to these kinds of "I read evidence somewhere and saw stuff somewhere." They never can point you to peer reviewed things, though.. because it's all one giant conspiracy.
First off, I am a she, in case reading is a bit tough for you. And it's you that's pulling shit. "Give me evidence, but NOT FROM THE INTRANETZ!!!"

Not to mention the same old shit, "if I don't believe it, it's all a big conspiracy [insert snide insinuation here]."

As far as peer reviewed, that kind of makes my point. Your idea of what constitutes proof is different from what constitutes proof to me. I don't follow the "peers" like a sheep. Especially when it's been made clear that the "peers" refuse to accept anything that doesn't support their gospels. I mean, theories.

In particular, I do NOT believe things that contravene the evidence of my own eyes with regards to science. If no one can give me satisfactory answers for why these things were found in strata that is dated at 500 million years ago, then I refuse to simply pretend I never saw it.
 

Mayfurr

Mostly Harmless
Studies have been done that prayer (and I include meditation in prayer, given that most [not all, but the very vast majority] do it for spiritual purposes) has an effect on both the pray-er, and the recipient.

That's funny, because the studies I've seen on the subject indicated that in a double-blind test there was NO difference in a patient's physical well-being between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.

In fact, the only difference between the prayed-for and unprayed-for in the study was that the patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly worse state of mental well-being - presumably because they concluded that they were in worse shape than they actually were because prayer is usually seen as a last resort when medical science fails... :)
 

Trpdwarf

Lurking in Castle Moats
That's funny, because the studies I've seen on the subject indicated that in a double-blind test there was NO difference in a patient's physical well-being between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.

In fact, the only difference between the prayed-for and unprayed-for in the study was that the patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly worse state of mental well-being - presumably because they concluded that they were in worse shape than they actually were because prayer is usually seen as a last resort when medical science fails... :)

All studies I've seen show either no effect or that those who were prayed for did worse than the ones who were not prayed for.

Also, stop feeding the idiot, please?
 

Geek

Chico
That's funny, because the studies I've seen on the subject indicated that in a double-blind test there was NO difference in a patient's physical well-being between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.

In fact, the only difference between the prayed-for and unprayed-for in the study was that the patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly worse state of mental well-being - presumably because they concluded that they were in worse shape than they actually were because prayer is usually seen as a last resort when medical science fails... :)

God on the other hand is nowhere to be found. He is a being, an entity, not a concept or feeling. His alleged presence has no observable consequences, nothing to differentiate the actual state of affairs from the one where he does not exist. Though here we have two contradictory claims. Let's use prayer as an example, though there are similiar claims floating around:

- God can be influenced by prayer to heal the sick.
- On a close look, you won't find any evidence for this, because not every prayer is fullfilled.

So you can see the evidence, and no, you can't see or test it.

One of the most carefull studies of this topic has come to the result that people do not benefit from prayer that was done for them, see: 'No health benefit' from prayer. So if evidence is found, it is used to prove that god exists. If no evidence is found, all sort of excuses will be used to "explain it away". People who think that god exists and answers to prayers make a claim about the real world, and these claims are open for scientific studies. But when those studies are made, everything is done to claim that a real influence on this world through god cannot be shown, contradicting the claim. So there is evidence for god, and there is no evidence for god. It shows what belief really is: some sort of bias. Whatever speaks for the case of good is used, whatever speaks against his existence is thrown away, with every excuse that can be found. If Jones is in court and and is accused to be a murderer, and he is innocent. this sort of examination will conclude that he commited murder, not matter what the truth is. God either influences the world, than this can be shown, because science is a great tool for finding that out. Or, he does not influence the world, than all miracle claims are ruled out, and all prayer is moot, and all god-centered religions are arbitrary.
 
Last edited:

Unsilenced

Mentlegen
Actually, the placebo effect is a great example. It's a proven fact that it exists. Therefor, if the 'placebo' is prayer, and it works for the person, then removing it from them is the same as 'taking away their medication' so to speak.

So be it. I'm not taking away anything by stating facts, it's all in their mind.

No, you can't. Not any more than you can if you do it with science. Just as people rationalize abusing religion, people rationalize abusing science. And just as people get away with abuses in the name of religion, they do in the name of science, as well. Consider our water being poisoned with fluoride with impunity, for example. Or the vaccine makers getting a legal free ride on any negative side effects of their H1N1 vaccines-- so long as they don't know about them ahead of time. Or as long as no one can PROVE that they knew ahead of time.

That is not an evil of science, that is an evil of law and politics.


You use a physical versus a moral argument, and you think that it's going to make sense?

You are comparing superstition to actual facts and you expect it to make sense?

If on the one hand, you impregnate a woman with a fetus that's not of her biological origin, and you tell people that it's perfectly okay to deprive the offspring of their biological heritage and knowledge of it, then suddenly you have changed the status of the offspring, and you have violated his or her basic human rights. Without consequence, I might add (except to the poor child who must grow up with their rights violated, of course, but THAT's not important!).

Is... is that about ovadonation? Really? Tell me it is. It'd be funny.

Religion and science can BOTH be used to deprive people of their basic human rights. And both HAVE BEEN used as such.

When has science deprived someone of their rights? Science has never stopped anyone from doing anything... well... nothing that they could do already. It stops you from say, flying spontaneously because that would be silly.

Science isn't limited to basic things like dropping a rock on someone's head. If you're going to make moral examples, then make moral examples. Don't make a moral example versus a physical (non moral) example.

Now you seem to understand the problem here. I cannot use a moral example of science because science does not give a fuck about morals. I cannot give a physical example of God because he does not exist.

Not that hitting someone on the head is precisely moral, that is.

Depends on the person.


Nope, not really. I think that you're ignoring the fact that both applications can be used with negative consequences. People have been slaughtered in the name of religion and science both.

Find this in your history book for me:

"E=mc squared!"
"NO IT DOES NOT!"
"HEATHEN!!!!!!" *stones other guy to death.*

Responses in bold.
 

Solinuas

New Member
Well, continuing the subject, it doesn't matter humanity will use any excuse to commit atrocities, i mean with a bit of effort you could probably get people to commit atrocities in the name of a speck of dust.
 
Top