• 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 in the Furry Community

Which Organised Religion Do You Adhere To?


  • Total voters
    175
  • Poll closed .

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
I typed up a nice written response but sadly it was lost, so I will just leave you with these links:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/answers-to-11-questions-for-atheists/

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://www.christianityexplained.net/

Hopefully that clears up any questions you have well enough, and I don't really want to argue about this anymore, seeing as I'm only fifteen and I know I probably won't be able to persuade you to view the world as I do (unless, by chance, these links help you - if so, that is a miracle in itself and great!). You can also PM me any other questions you have.

Since you're 15, I'll be nice (but firm) about this. Belief in a god is one thing, it only takes a disregard of a few basic tenets of logical reasoning: the burden of proof, the null hypothesis, and Ockham's Razor. Belief in creationism is another animal; one must disregard a mountain of physical evidence supporting evolution. Evolution isn't just a different guess of how things happened a long time ago. It's a model of an ongoing process with practical applications and predictive power in the present day. As the biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The development of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms is an example of evolutionary adaptation in action, and an understanding of how it works is key to preventing its progress. Our understanding of the history of life's development is complete enough that we can predict what future fossils we'll find, where we'll find them, and what features they will possess, not unlike an archaeological game of Clue. An example of such a fossil is Tiktaalik roseae, a lobe-finned fish ancestor to terrestrial animals that fulfilled scientific predictions with incredible accuracy.

We're very familiar with Answers In Genesis and the like. To anyone with a solid background in the sciences, their objections range from completely missing the point to laughably absurd to willfully disingenuous. Rather than regurgitating these answers that have been prepackaged for you with no greater understanding required, you really ought to acquaint yourself with what scientists actually claim about evolution and why, so that you may think for yourself. No offense, but being as young as you are, you likely haven't been given much exposure to the depth of the evolutionary model and the evidence behind it. For a strong introduction, I suggest you pick up The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Don't let the attachment of Dawkins' name put you off—the man has been one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists for decades, and he only recently began writing specifically about religion. Used paperbacks are very inexpensive, and you should also have no trouble finding a copy to borrow from your local library.
 
Last edited:

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Using Answers in Genesis as a source of information essentially means that you have given up thinking for yourself.
It also means that you admit that you have no idea about science at all but you feel like talking like you do know everything about it.
 

jtrekkie

Feathered
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Or in the language of mere mortals, proven.

But proven does not mean what is modernly implied. "Prove" means something like "test". It isn't possible to prove a theory correct. It can either survive the test, or it can be proven incorrect. A theory only has to fail in one case to be proven false. That's why mathematical proofs are so much easier to disprove than to prove.

Suppose some theory, Newton's theory of motion for example, is studied (I chose that one because everyone knows it is both proven and incorrect, or incomplete). You design a series of experiments to check the theoretical predictions against what actually happens. Of course you find that the theory gives you correct calculations provided your experiments are carefully arranged to neglect smaller effects like friction and inertia. The theory is proven in the situation you have evaluated, but if you try it again on a different effect, like ions in an accelerator, the theory fails. In fact, as it stands today, Newton's equations can only give approximations except in the limit where the speed of light is infinitely large (and Plank's constant is infinitely small (Why are you still reading this? I already made my point.).)

This is fine, of course. A theory isn't intended to give you facts. It is only meant to give you a framework for making predictions and, hopefully, gaining some understanding of the natural world. This is any theory's only justification.

Appealing that the theory of evolution (and there isn't a theory of evolution, to begin with. It comes in flavors.) gives the most accurate predictions doesn't say much, by the way. (And it's not easy to squeeze a good prediction out of it anyway, it was always intended more to be a framework for understanding.) There are only a couple of theories that even touch the issue of why the animal kingdom is the way it is, and not some other way.

Fundamentally evolution is too close to the anthropic principle to give any real insight as to why the world is the way it is.

Isn't this fun? We can keep talking, getting more and more esoteric forever, and never get anywhere. However, it looks like this discussion is geared more towards the philosophical. And, even though it's so popular, trying to pin the theory of evolution into an ontological overview of Nature is, quite frankly, absurd. Maybe that's too strong a word.

Oh, and about Answers in Genesis, they are precisely just as good a source as any, and they way you put itciting any source means you have given up thinking for yourself. Which is correct, except without the wholly unnecessary disparagement. Truly that is the problem of science today. Everyone takes so much for granted instead of doing their own work.
 

tisr

I exist perhaps
But proven does not mean what is modernly implied. "Prove" means something like "test". It isn't possible to prove a theory correct. It can either survive the test, or it can be proven incorrect. A theory only has to fail in one case to be proven false. That's why mathematical proofs are so much easier to disprove than to prove.

Suppose some theory, Newton's theory of motion for example, is studied (I chose that one because everyone knows it is both proven and incorrect, or incomplete). You design a series of experiments to check the theoretical predictions against what actually happens. Of course you find that the theory gives you correct calculations provided your experiments are carefully arranged to neglect smaller effects like friction and inertia. The theory is proven in the situation you have evaluated, but if you try it again on a different effect, like ions in an accelerator, the theory fails. In fact, as it stands today, Newton's equations can only give approximations except in the limit where the speed of light is infinitely large (and Plank's constant is infinitely small (Why are you still reading this? I already made my point.).)

This is fine, of course. A theory isn't intended to give you facts. It is only meant to give you a framework for making predictions and, hopefully, gaining some understanding of the natural world. This is any theory's only justification.

Appealing that the theory of evolution (and there isn't a theory of evolution, to begin with. It comes in flavors.) gives the most accurate predictions doesn't say much, by the way. (And it's not easy to squeeze a good prediction out of it anyway, it was always intended more to be a framework for understanding.) There are only a couple of theories that even touch the issue of why the animal kingdom is the way it is, and not some other way.

Fundamentally evolution is too close to the anthropic principle to give any real insight as to why the world is the way it is.

Isn't this fun? We can keep talking, getting more and more esoteric forever, and never get anywhere. However, it looks like this discussion is geared more towards the philosophical. And, even though it's so popular, trying to pin the theory of evolution into an ontological overview of Nature is, quite frankly, absurd. Maybe that's too strong a word.

Oh, and about Answers in Genesis, they are precisely just as good a source as any, and they way you put itciting any source means you have given up thinking for yourself. Which is correct, except without the wholly unnecessary disparagement. Truly that is the problem of science today. Everyone takes so much for granted instead of doing their own work.

Actually, yes. A scientific theory cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. You're absolutely right, we are unable to know any objective truth from science. So much for cornering the scientific community.

Science is the best method we have for determining which statements about reality are the best for predicting experience. Science does not try to find objective truth, scientific theories are temporal, provisional and contingent.

When you formulate a hypothesis, and then formulate an experiment to test said hypothesis, and you discover the experiment agrees with the hypothesis. The theory is now not right, it is simply not proven wrong. However, the theory had been failed to be proven wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right. But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succed in disproving what you thought was right.

But science does not claim to produce objectively true statements. The point of science is try to find theories that predict experiences, or at least seem to predict experiences. What's the point you may ask? Predicting experiences is useful, they are useful even if the theories we use to make these predictions are not objectively true.

As Richard Dawkins puts it, "If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works, bitches."

Science works because it tests if predictions match reality by actually experimenting if predictions match reality. The point of science is not to find objective truth.

And to Answersingenesis, I have viewed answersingenesis, and a few people, including myself have rebutted one of the articles presented on the site, titled "Differences between Humans and Animals". Many of claims they make can easily be refuted with a good amount of science, logic, and epistemology. They are absolutely not just a good a source as any, as a source which has been peer-reviewed and been proven wrong.
 

Ame

Member
If there is no right and wrong, how is your claim that the Tao exists meaningful, and why should anybody be persuaded when you make the argument that you are unable to prove it exists?

Imagine if your doctor was prescribing you a new drug, and this is what she said. Would you trust her prescription? No; you would want proof that any drug you take will treat your disease rather than killing you.

You wouldn't be happy to say 'there's no right and wrong, only perception' after taking hemlock to cure hay fever.

See, isn't that what makes a beautiful religion? something that forwards the acquisition of knowledge and promotes harmony and social enlightenment? You act as if religion or even atheism is something that must be spread, or proven. But that's where your missing the point. Atheism was originally a reaction to the tyranny of western religion (obviously talking about atheism post medieval era) , promoting the acquisition of knowledge and equality despite religious affiliations. Today the thought is still focused on the acquisition of knowledge, but are not aquiring anything useful! who cares about background radiation, or fossils, or anything proving evolution. We know that evolution is probably true, why not just believe or not believe what does it matter? I personally don't think much on the matter, because its a waste of time, the past is in the past. Why study fossils when there are people starving, why propose hypotheses when there is war. There is so much humanity could be putting time and effort into yet we squander our time on proving where we came from. Same problem with Christianity tho,despite sending a loving message of peace and love they focusing on sending bibles to Africa rather than food and money -____- don't get me started on that.

All ideals, whatever they are, if they don't put right action into what they promote they are useless to me, and useless to the world. This is what I meant by, "There are no right answers, only perceptions. There is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the Tao" It all doesn't matter, the world is what it is, created or no. But we are humanity, and we have issues we need to focus on.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
Evolutionary biology has tons of practical application, most notably in the field of medicine. It is far from mere trivia.
 
F

FangWarrior

Guest
Furry's are the most disorganised people I know :p hence why it isn't an 'organised' religion :V (I only had 10 spots I cant put everything there haha)
IT IS TO AN ORGANIZED RELIGION! everyone knows that furry religion is THE BEST! ALL HAIL THE FUR GOD! >:V
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
See, isn't that what makes a beautiful religion? something that forwards the acquisition of knowledge and promotes harmony and social enlightenment? You act as if religion or even atheism is something that must be spread, or proven. But that's where your missing the point. Atheism was originally a reaction to the tyranny of western religion (obviously talking about atheism post medieval era) , promoting the acquisition of knowledge and equality despite religious affiliations. Today the thought is still focused on the acquisition of knowledge, but are not aquiring anything useful! who cares about background radiation, or fossils, or anything proving evolution. We know that evolution is probably true, why not just believe or not believe what does it matter? I personally don't think much on the matter, because its a waste of time, the past is in the past. Why study fossils when there are people starving, why propose hypotheses when there is war. There is so much humanity could be putting time and effort into yet we squander our time on proving where we came from. Same problem with Christianity tho,despite sending a loving message of peace and love they focusing on sending bibles to Africa rather than food and money -____- don't get me started on that.

All ideals, whatever they are, if they don't put right action into what they promote they are useless to me, and useless to the world. This is what I meant by, "There are no right answers, only perceptions. There is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the Tao" It all doesn't matter, the world is what it is, created or no. But we are humanity, and we have issues we need to focus on.

'why does recognising science matter?'. It matters if you desire your beliefs to be accurate reflections of reality. We use our accurate models of reality to do all sorts of neat things. Fossil phylogeny is even used when studying earthquakes that occurred a very long time ago. We use that knowledge to build safer cities- because we are aware of the seismic risk even if no earthquake has occurred in living memory.

One of my Tutors at College is a palaeoseismologist. He uses all kinds of techniques, including fossils, to study the seismic nature of central asia.

There are right answers. There is proof. Proving the right answer matters because we can save lives.

Your attitude is just...bizarre. As if throwing up our hands and saying 'let's concentrate only on immediate utilitarian needs' would actually work. As if failing to care about facts, if you don't see an immediate use for them because you're too ignorant, would actually benefit us.
 

jtrekkie

Feathered
And to Answersingenesis, I have viewed answersingenesis, and a few people, including myself have rebutted one of the articles presented on the site, titled "Differences between Humans and Animals". Many of claims they make can easily be refuted with a good amount of science, logic, and epistemology. They are absolutely not just a good a source as any, as a source which has been peer-reviewed and been proven wrong.

I wasn't entirely clear. You can't declare any particular source wrong, that is cheating. You can declare a source moronic, but that's just an opinion and doesn't carry any weight. Every source is precisely as good as every other source, peer-reviewed or not. A lot of authors have written on peer review, it falls short of it's lofty goals, especially in implying that such and such journal has some kind of authority. In this age of information it's easy to make a case that the peer review process does more harm than good. (OMG I just went there. You can be discommunicated from science for that.)

There is no room for reputation in science.
 
Last edited:

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Every source is precisely as good as every other source, peer-reviewed or not.

That is simply not true. If your source is demonstrably and factually false then your source is worthless. Especially if the person you are arguing with can demonstrate that! Because now you haven't given a counterargument, you have indirectly supported the other person's argument!

And by the way, answersingenesis is a demonstrably false source.
 

Nikolinni

Niko Linni
That is simply not true. If your source is demonstrably and factually false then your source is worthless. Especially if the person you are arguing with can demonstrate that! Because now you haven't given a counterargument, you have indirectly supported the other person's argument!

And by the way, answersingenesis is a demonstrably false source.

Actually, point to Cool on this one. True people do seem to bat sources away for sometimes no good reasons, there are times when you can show that a source is wrong, flawed, written with an agenda, severely biased, etc. And in that case, a source like that isn't really a good source.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Actually, point to Cool on this one. True people do seem to bat sources away for sometimes no good reasons, there are times when you can show that a source is wrong, flawed, written with an agenda, severely biased, etc. And in that case, a source like that isn't really a good source.

I have yet to see a christian website that gives proper counterarguments and not just shit like "that is wrong, here is a bad analogy to prove it!", "that is wrong because my beliefs say so!", or "that is wrong because who the heck do these scientists think they are?!". Or "counterarguments" that are based on misconceptions in general. If I read one more time that the big bang was supposedly an explosion I'm gonna lose my shit... (I'm constipated, please do show me a site like that! :c)
 

Kokoro

Member
Yes, but we have turned out your pockets when it comes to evolution.
The evidence that supports it is overwhelming. At this point saying that it isn't a proven fact only serves to demonstrate that you haven't done any research on the subject.

Precisely. It's as if we not only discovered the money, but also ran it through counterfeiting detection and determined it to be genuine. The preponderance of evidence shows that evolution is a fact.
 

Ame

Member
I'm not ignorant to the idea that scientific research into such things has brought about interesting and useful findings, but when I was talking about Atheism and its search for knowledge, I meant it is all well and good to research into the past, to discover reality, hell, my religion is based on the cultivation and accumulation of knowledge, any kind, but there is a time and a place for that, we shouldn't be researching such things when a lot of the world is, you know, in poverty, war and starvation? although it is inevitable for our world to suffer but it is our honorable duty as a human society to act accordingly, as a society.

Such research should be a luxury not a right, once our world is stable. We should be able to learn where we came from, the truth of the world, I am all for that. I really want to know the truth, the whole truth. But not at the cost of lives where the time and effort could have gone to saving them.

Unfortunately I guess I'm in no position to judge, we can all preach preachy shit at one another till the cows come home but what does that change? nothing really. Once I finish university tho, hopefully I will be able to earn some cash, shake some hands and change something, even just a little bit.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Atheism and its search for knowledge

You got the wrong idea about atheism.
Atheism doesn't do anything. It isn't a beliefsystem. I am not interested in knowing as many true and as little false things as possible because I'm an atheist! That is just my nature. Atheism only describes that you don't believe in gods or a higher power in general. That is all it's about. No dogma, no rules you have to follow, nothing. It is just a non-belief and nothing more.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I'm not ignorant to the idea that scientific research into such things has brought about interesting and useful findings, but when I was talking about Atheism and its search for knowledge, I meant it is all well and good to research into the past, to discover reality, hell, my religion is based on the cultivation and accumulation of knowledge, any kind, but there is a time and a place for that, we shouldn't be researching such things when a lot of the world is, you know, in poverty, war and starvation? although it is inevitable for our world to suffer but it is our honorable duty as a human society to act accordingly, as a society.

Such research should be a luxury not a right, once our world is stable. We should be able to learn where we came from, the truth of the world, I am all for that. I really want to know the truth, the whole truth. But not at the cost of lives where the time and effort could have gone to saving them.

Unfortunately I guess I'm in no position to judge, we can all preach preachy shit at one another till the cows come home but what does that change? nothing really. Once I finish university tho, hopefully I will be able to earn some cash, shake some hands and change something, even just a little bit.

This attitude towards science, that it should be purely utilitarian, is idiotic. ._.

Blue-sky science, as we have already justified, continues to provide useful information that we can use to combat the ills of our planet. Without Geological research into ancient climate we wouldn't be able to predict how our changing climate is going to influence our planet.

But even if people were researching a subject purely for academic interest this is defensible, and the potential applications of their research should not be the deciding factor in our appreciation of epistemology. Whether something is true or not is the only concern.

And before you suggest it, no you can't demand that scientists trained to tease apart echinoid phylogeny should 'switch to curing cancer' or something like that. That would be as naive as question why, if Steven Hawking is so smart, he does not cure his disease. Being talented in one field does not mean one is talented at all fields.

Nor is the amount of money expended on Geological research, which happens to be incredibly useful to our species, significant. Our species spends more on fucking cosmetics.
 

Kokoro

Member
On a note related more directly to the OP, not only is atheism not an "organized religion", but neither is Shinto. Shinto is a collection of spiritual and some superstitious beliefs, but there is no dogma, membership, central authority nor holy text. Shinto is all about harmony with nature, and Japanese culture has always been one to accept new information rather than to blindly cling to old ideas that don't work well.

I think it also has some interesting perspectives that can be applied in modern contexts. The Void for example meshes so well with ideas that theoretical physicists are suggesting, what with virtual particles constantly popping into and out of existence and such. And in Shinto, "gods" are more like the "quintessence" of things, and "gods" are also viewed not just as things, but also as events. It's interesting to consider one's self not simply as an object, but also as an event in time.

It's one of the last bastions of mainstream Animism in the world, and I think that's beautiful.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I think people should be careful about 'meshing' spiritual ideas into scientific theories. Science is a very methodical and conservative thing, with plenty of delicate nuances. When people attempt to force science to accommodate their spiritual ideas they usually end up polluting the meaning of specific terminology, to the effect of disabling their understanding of the science in question in favour of a good spiritual feeling.

Most spiritualists aren't interested in cultivating an accurate understanding of fundamental physics, for instance, but if you ever do you will find that spiritual interpretations will represent obstacles to your development, simply because they are not a coherent part of physics. They're poetry.
 

Kokoro

Member
I think people should be careful about 'meshing' spiritual ideas into scientific theories. Science is a very methodical and conservative thing, with plenty of delicate nuances. When people attempt to force science to accommodate their spiritual ideas they usually end up polluting the meaning of specific terminology, to the effect of disabling their understanding of the science in question in favour of a good spiritual feeling.

Most spiritualists aren't interested in cultivating an accurate understanding of fundamental physics, for instance, but if you ever do you will find that spiritual interpretations will represent obstacles to your development, simply because they are not a coherent part of physics. They're poetry.

Indeed that is quite true of more western religions which promote faith over reason and a disregard for the natural world. But I find that far-eastern religions, particularly Shinto (including it as religion for ease of discussion), promote an understanding and acceptance of nature. They're more concerned with personal or cultural development and harmony with nature rather than conflict with it.
This is why Japan was able to so easily adopt new technologies the rest of the world had been developing from the 1800's and onward, and it's why Japan is one of the main countries leading the world in science and technology today.

Poetry is a nice way to describe how Shinto works. It's a poetic way of embracing nature. Spiritual in the sense that Tyson or Dawkins are spiritual; with much less focus on the supernatural stuff than other spiritual practices.
 
Last edited:

jtrekkie

Feathered
That is simply not true. If your source is demonstrably and factually false then your source is worthless. Especially if the person you are arguing with can demonstrate that! Because now you haven't given a counterargument, you have indirectly supported the other person's argument!

And by the way, answersingenesis is a demonstrably false source.

Let me put it differently. The source is entirely irrelevant. Further, declaring some person or group innately false is criminal, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today.

For instance, the steady state theory isn't dead. In fact if you don't entirely neglect the electromagnetic force you can account for the distribution on matter, including the formation of galaxies, solely using observable phenomena and processes. (I can look up the author if your interested). It is possible that this theory is just plain wrong, but nobody knows. Only a couple of people have pursued it so it remains largely unanalyzed because it is philosophically unsavory. (If your wondering how that fits in, the author was primarily an experimental physicists.)

Another anecdote. Mesmer was an idiot. His methods were flawed, his conclusions were unfounded, and he made sick people eat iron filings. However, he discovered a bone efide psychological phenomenon. Based on his quackery, instead of any relevant study of the subject, people wouldn't believe hypnoses was a real phenomenon for a long time. (Benjamin Franklin's verdict didn't help his credibility any, either.)

And as for the other thing, I didn't need another argument because we were in agreement (which is what debate is for, actually. The call it "synthesis".) But even if we weren't silence does not equate with assent. If it did you could argue to the trees and count them your supporters. And when you start discussing metaphysics with a cow you just look ridculous. I know because Voltair tried it, and who's going to argue with him.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Let me put it differently. The source is entirely irrelevant. Further, declaring some person or group innately false is criminal, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today.

For instance, the steady state theory isn't dead. In fact if you don't entirely neglect the electromagnetic force you can account for the distribution on matter, including the formation of galaxies, solely using observable phenomena and processes. (I can look up the author if your interested). It is possible that this theory is just plain wrong, but nobody knows. Only a couple of people have pursued it so it remains largely unanalyzed because it is philosophically unsavory. (If your wondering how that fits in, the author was primarily an experimental physicists.)

Another anecdote. Mesmer was an idiot. His methods were flawed, his conclusions were unfounded, and he made sick people eat iron filings. However, he discovered a bone efide psychological phenomenon. Based on his quackery, instead of any relevant study of the subject, people wouldn't believe hypnoses was a real phenomenon for a long time. (Benjamin Franklin's verdict didn't help his credibility any, either.)

And as for the other thing, I didn't need another argument because we were in agreement (which is what debate is for, actually. The call it "synthesis".) But even if we weren't silence does not equate with assent. If it did you could argue to the trees and count them your supporters. And when you start discussing metaphysics with a cow you just look ridculous. I know because Voltair tried it, and who's going to argue with him.

I regularly get sent citations from 'doctors' claiming that wifi causes autism. Those people are listed as frauds by reputable institutions because their work has already been pursued, and found to be fraudulent.

AIG's website is such an example. They have decided what their conclusion will be before they undertake inquiry, so they aren't a useful body for citations.

Steady state is dead, by the way. Red shift demonstrates our universe is expanding uniformly, and several characteristic predictions of expansion-based theories have already been satisfied, excluding the possibility of a steady-state universe. It has been demonstrated our universe is finite in time. It cannot be steady state.

Steady-state hypotheses were widely followed before the big bang theory emerged. The evidence gathered by instruments such as Hubble, Planck and the detection of the CMB, destroyed the steady state hypothesis.

One may as well claim that 'the geocentric model isn't dead'. Yes it is.
 
Let me put it differently. The source is entirely irrelevant. Further, declaring some person or group innately false is criminal, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today.

You just had to challenge CC. Essay-length posts ahoy :v

Though seriously - You basically have little to no source filter, which is just about as bad as having repeatedly incorrect sources.
 

Shadow Jaeger

set phasers to thrust
here's a question i really want to ask, if the bible is a non fiction book because its religious. Does that mean that with jedism being a religion now, would that make star wars a non fiction?
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
If you had no way of deciding which sources were reliable, you could reach the right conclusion if you correctly analysed every single piece of information.

In practice nobody has the time to do that, however, and few people have the mental capability to tell real science from falsified research.

So if we let people use known psuedo-scientific sources it will inadvertently result in some users believing pseudoscientific claims- because they incorrectly believe that the mere existence of text on the internet is reason to lend credence.

here's a question i really want to ask, if the bible is a non fiction book because its religious. Does that mean that with jedism being a religion now, would that make star wars a non fiction?

Frankly, if most religions claim they are the only true religion, they cannot all inhabit the non-fiction section with any earnest.


But it appeases their followers, who've no apatite for such thoughts.
 
Top