Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Aridas, you need to get out of that state of mind.

That religion should be purged, doesn't necessitate that one need worship critical thinking/scientific methodology.

Must we require something to worship at all?

Indeed, the claim that religion should be purged does not mean that either critical thinking and scientific methodology would need to be worshipped. I also didn't claim that it did, though, which makes your response here quite absent of value. Rather, the reasoning that you put forth for why religion should be purged is the reasoning of an intolerant religion and the logic being employed is actively hostile to both critical thinking and scientific methodology.

Why lie?
Did you forget your earlier reply on 764?

Replacing all religion, harmful or not, with an intolerant religion that worships science over critical thinking and logic isn't actually that much of a step forward.

The point is, you need to get out of that state of mind; get out of the state of mind that deleting religion necessitates that something else need be worshiped.

Not my opinion, evidence shows this. (evidence)

There is is certainly something very, very important to be seen here. Nothing in that article opposes anything that I actually said. Thus, your attempted use of it can only be indicative of errors made by you.

In contrast, the data shown in the article, shows that where religion increases, crime tends to likewise increase.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-happiest-countries-are-also-least-religious/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...us-countries-far-more-at-peace-than-the-most/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...of-the-world/ft_15-03-10_religiousgdpscatter/

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/01/why-are-educated-people-more-likely-to-be-atheists/

Given the above data, and other data, I had expressed that religion is to purged, especially when religion is empirically observed to oppose science.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Regardless, many a theist demonstrably believe in nonsense, and unavoidably, they ignore evidence.

That is quite true, but "many a theist" does not warrant your sweeping condemnation of all theists. That has been our point for many pages now.

No where any where, had I stated 'all theists'.
Hint: See the phrase 'many a theist', you ironically cited.

 

[BStrong]

I need not distort any data.
It is unavoidable that belief generally facilitates that one ignores evidence.

Such is the case, whether or not I am alive.

It's apparent that you have cherry picked pieces of information out of studies and used them out of context. That is distorting the data.

I don't know what being alive has to do with the issue, because I'm certain that NB will die with you.

 

[steenkh]

No where any where, had I stated 'all theists'.

Hint: See the phrase 'many a theist', you ironically cited.

Then re-read your posts right back from the OP. You claim that religion is contrary to science, which has been shown in this thread to be wrong. There are eminent scientists that are religious, and there are forms of religion that is not opposed to science. If you do not want to condemn all religious believers you should qualify your claim accordingly.

In another thread you even want to close down discussions of religion, and you whine when we point out that this is the typical intolerant attitude of religious fanatics!

 

[Aridas]

I need not distort any data.
It is unavoidable that belief generally facilitates that one ignores evidence.

Such is the case, whether or not I am alive.

Typo correction: Simply one need not worship religion.

Alright. So, to be clear, was that whole response of yours to the one highlighted word, taken out of context? It sure seems to be, if that's your clarification.

Regardless of your feelings, or religious attachment, it is unavoidable that countries fair better and better, as religion diminishes:

Regardless of your feelings or religious attachment, your conclusion is untenable based on the argument that you actually made. Trying to move the goalposts to some other argument does not change that fact.

 

[Aridas]

So... second attempt, because the first was left in limbo.

Why lie?

What lie?

Did you forget your earlier reply on 764?

No. Did you actually pay attention to the content there at all? It certainly does not claim what you're arguing against, even after your attempt to rip it out of the context that makes it perfectly clear that your objection is completely irrelevant.

You've tried to do this over and over in this thread. In the unlikely event that you start valuing honesty, you should probably be deeply embarrassed and take a step back to honestly evaluate reasons why you've been resorting to such anti-intellectual and dishonest methods of argument.

The point is, you need to get out of that state of mind; get out of the state of mind that deleting religion necessitates that something else need be worshiped.

Nothing that I said even suggests that deleting religion necessitates that something else needs to be worshipped. Rather, by trying to respond like this, you seem to be trying to argue that deleting religion would automatically prevent replacements of similar nature and quality from occurring.

In contrast, the data shown in the article, shows that where religion increases, crime tends to likewise increase.

At no point did I make any argument at all related to crime. Nor did what I responded to. Thus, this would be a clear example of trying to move the goalpost.

Given the above data, and other data,

Data that is irrelevant to the disputed claim that you made.

I had expressed that religion is to purged, especially when religion is empirically observed to oppose science.

No, you didn't. What you said and what you responded to were -

Why do people believe nonsense? Numerous reasons. There are lots and lots of potential errors in logic that people can potentially employ, for a variety of reasons. Some of the most common involve accepting invalid authority and letting one's emotions and desires overcome their rationality. As something that shouldn't be completely surprising, both of these seem highly likely to be some of the effects of species traits that grant evolutionary advantages overall.

Regardless, religion contrasts science, and so, it should be purged from this planet.

Why lie, PGJ? Especially when it's so trivially obvious to demonstrate that it actually is a lie, unlike the false accusations that you've repeatedly tried to throw at me?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Then re-read your posts right back from the OP. You claim that religion is contrary to science, which has been shown in this thread to be wrong. There are eminent scientists that are religious, and there are forms of religion that is not opposed to science. If you do not want to condemn all religious believers you should qualify your claim accordingly.

In another thread you even want to close down discussions of religion, and you whine when we point out that this is the typical intolerant attitude of religious fanatics!

Evidence shows that religion opposes science.

Anyway, why was science separated from religion, (science in antiquity became modern science, such that myths were removed), if religion supposedly didn't oppose science?
NOTE: An example of archaic science transforming into modern science, is astronomy being separated from astrology. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy)





Signature:

 

[Aridas]

Evidence shows that religion opposes science.

Some religions do! On the other hand, some religions don't. You'd be hard pressed to show how either deism or humanism opposes science, as easy examples. That's before getting to the fact that most religions are far from monolithic when it comes to what their believers actually believe. Even when it comes to what a religion opposes, it can vary wildly, from the effectively harmless to the quite deadly. Your argument, as made, is thus quite problematic.

Anyway, why was science separated from religion, (science in antiquity became modern science, such that myths were removed), if religion supposedly didn't oppose science?

Given your attention span, the really, really short and dirty answer to that is that "God did it" is not useful when trying to figure out how things work and parsimony was elevated in importance. That's only of value when it comes to the removal of religion in superficial forms that were being tacked onto science, though.

If one wanted to be a little bit more comprehensive, they could note that the sciences of antiquity morphed into the more current forms mostly without a focused removal of religion. Rather, as technology progressed, more accurate tests could be devised and information could be spread more easily, which naturally led to changes.

Separately from that, many religions made numerous concrete claims that were able to be demonstrated to be false. The demonstrably false claims were rejected, with each one showing the untrustworthiness of the religion making the claim. That's where the main source of conflicts between science and many religions could and can be found, either way. Of significant note here is that science didn't oppose religions because they were religions. Science opposed demonstrably false claims, which many religions happened to have made.

NOTE: An example of archaic science transforming into modern science, is astronomy being separated from astrology. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy)

Err... to quote the usual version, though, which looks like it's mostly the same in content...

Astronomy and astrology diverged over the course of the 17th through 19th centuries. Copernicus didn't practice astrology (nor empirical astronomy; his work was theoretical[13]), but the most important astronomers before Isaac Newton were astrologers by profession – Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei. Newton most likely rejected astrology, however (as did his contemporary Christiaan Huygens),[14][15][16] and interest in astrology declined after his era, helped by the increasing popularity of a Cartesian, "mechanistic" cosmology in the Enlightenment.

Also relevant here was the development of better timekeeping instruments, initially for aid in navigation; improved timekeeping made it possible to make more exact astrological predictions—predictions which could be tested, and which consistently proved to be false.[17] By the end of the 18th century, astronomy was one of the major sciences of the Enlightenment model, using the recently codified scientific method, and was altogether distinct from astrology.

As it says, improved measuring devices made it so that astrology's predictions could be meaningfully tested. Astrology's predictions consistently failed, so astrology eventually was thrown out. Science (or, rather, natural philosophy) in action!

Trying to imply that either a rejection of religion or that science is fundamentally opposed to religion is the reason why Astrology was rejected from modern science is remarkably revisionist history that completely denigrates what actually happened and why. The involvement or lack thereof of religion has no significant role in the rejection of astrology, after all.

 

[fagin]

I think you confuse 'oppose' with 'two completely different bloody things'.

 

[steenkh]

Evidence shows that religion opposes science.

Your problem is that your statements are too sweeping. A lot of religion opposes science, but some religion does not, and you have been given plenty of examples.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Evidence shows that religion opposes science.

Anyway, why was science separated from religion, (science in antiquity became modern science, such that myths were removed), if religion supposedly didn't oppose science?
NOTE: An example of archaic science transforming into modern science, is astronomy being separated from astrology. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy)





Signature:

I'm sure you are aware it was the Muslims who preserved the writings of the Greeks.

What does astrology have to do with religion?

 

[Minoosh]

PART CGiven that belief generally constitutes that beings ignore evidence ... why do theists allow themselves to be bettered by chimps, w.r.t counting properly? (in particular, wrt the universe's age; the cosmos is not under 10 thousand years old)

I don't think an inability to count is the issue. Some theists have counted the number of generations since Adam, per the Bible, and are basing their belief on such counting. Some theist, but by no means all of them, believe God could have made everything look old, down to carbon 14 dating and background radiation observations.

Why does this happen to humans, despite our empirically advanced brains?

You are assuming our brains are empirically advanced. I'm not sure evidence backs this up.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Some religions do! On the other hand, some religions don't. You'd be hard pressed to show how either deism or humanism opposes science, as easy examples. That's before getting to the fact that most religions are far from monolithic when it comes to what their believers actually believe. Even when it comes to what a religion opposes, it can vary wildly, from the effectively harmless to the quite deadly. Your argument, as made, is thus quite problematic.



Given your attention span, the really, really short and dirty answer to that is that "God did it" is not useful when trying to figure out how things work and parsimony was elevated in importance. That's only of value when it comes to the removal of religion in superficial forms that were being tacked onto science, though.

If one wanted to be a little bit more comprehensive, they could note that the sciences of antiquity morphed into the more current forms mostly without a focused removal of religion. Rather, as technology progressed, more accurate tests could be devised and information could be spread more easily, which naturally led to changes.

Separately from that, many religions made numerous concrete claims that were able to be demonstrated to be false. The demonstrably false claims were rejected, with each one showing the untrustworthiness of the religion making the claim. That's where the main source of conflicts between science and many religions could and can be found, either way. Of significant note here is that science didn't oppose religions because they were religions. Science opposed demonstrably false claims, which many religions happened to have made.

NOTE: An example of archaic science transforming into modern science, is astronomy being separated from astrology. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy)

Err... to quote the usual version, though, which looks like it's mostly the same in content...



As it says, improved measuring devices made it so that astrology's predictions could be meaningfully tested. Astrology's predictions consistently failed, so astrology eventually was thrown out. Science (or, rather, natural philosophy) in action!

Trying to imply that either a rejection of religion or that science is fundamentally opposed to religion is the reason why Astrology was rejected from modern science is remarkably revisionist history that completely denigrates what actually happened and why. The involvement or lack thereof of religion has no significant role in the rejection of astrology, after all.

Simply, religion generally opposes science. (As is evidenced)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Your problem is that your statements are too sweeping. A lot of religion opposes science, but some religion does not, and you have been given plenty of examples.

That some religions don't oppose religion as you claim, certainly does not remove that religion generally opposes science.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I'm sure you are aware it was the Muslims who preserved the writings of the Greeks.

What does astrology have to do with religion?

Here is an accurate rephrasing of your question above:

What does mythology have to do with mythology?

The above rephrasing may (or may not?) help.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

.

If one wanted to be a little bit more comprehensive, they could note that the sciences of antiquity morphed into the more current forms mostly without a focused removal of religion. Rather, as technology progressed, more accurate tests could be devised and information could be spread more easily, which naturally led to changes.

Also, this is where your argument collapses; religion is generally consistent with myths.

So, in contrast to your nonsensical quote, there was certainly a focused removal of religion, from astronomy for example.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You are assuming our brains are empirically advanced. I'm not sure evidence backs this up.

Can chimps invent the entire enterprise of science and technology?

Why do you garner that our brains are not empirically advanced, even despite contrasting evidence?

 

[abaddon]

Also, this is where your argument collapses; religion is generally consistent with myths.

So, in contrast to your nonsensical quote, there was certainly a focused removal of religion, from astronomy for example.

Do you reject Darwin?

 

[steenkh]

That some religions don't oppose religion as you claim, certainly does not remove that religion generally opposes science.

One of the largest religions in the world, Catholicism, is not opposed to science. It was a Jesuit monk working in a Vatican funded observatory who proposed the Big Bang theory.

Besides, not all sciences are "opposed" by those believers who "oppose" science. You will have some difficulty in finding religious believers who are opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity, nuclear physics, electromagnetism, or quantum physics.

Your sweeping generalisations are simply wrong.

 

[steenkh]

Here is an accurate rephrasing of your question above:

What does mythology have to do with mythology?

The above rephrasing may (or may not?) help.

Astrology is not mythology, so your rephrasing does not help at all.