My experience at RaptureReady

[Yahweh]

My question is: If the community here believe their are closer to the truth and have a superior understanding of reality, why the nastiness, why the hate?

I believe that question cant likely be asked (or answered) without first passing through the bias filter.

 

[Iacchus]

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear.

Nice!

And now that the tables have turned and this idea has clearly "come of age," perhaps we should begin to question science just as boldly? Especially since it seems, it's become a means by which to "rule out" God.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: My experience at RaptureReady

Nice!

And now that the tables have turned and this idea has clearly "come of age," perhaps we should begin to question science just as boldly? Especially since it seems, it's become a means by which to "rule out" God.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but the validity of science and the validity of religion are in absolutely no way comparable.

Everything in science is consistent, testable (with exception to things such as String Theory), and overall demonstratably true.

And again, science has not ruled out the existence of a deity (or gnomes for that matter).

 

[Iacchus]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but the validity of science and the validity of religion are in absolutely no way comparable.

Sure they are, they both came from the same place. Or, are you suggesting the human race is about to offshoot into two seperate species? ... those with "scientific" bindings and those with "religious" bindings.

Everything in science is consistent, testable (with exception to things such as String Theory), and overall demonstratably true.

"Sterile" might be a better way of putting it. By the way, did you know that the word "testable" comes from the word "testis?" Hmm ... Perhaps this is what the Bible means when it says, "Of their fruits ye shall know them ..."

And again, science has not ruled out the existence of a deity (or gnomes for that matter).

What is science, if not the by-product of human agency?

While I keep hearing from you that science has no accountability. Which, in fact is the same argument you pose against those who "subscribe" to religion.

 

[Keneke]

Boo

Precisely.

edit: care to participate in a few debates?

 

[espritch]

By the way, did you know that the word "testable" comes from the word "testis?"

Why no, I didn't know that. And apparently, neither did Daniel Webster. "Testable" is a derivation of "test". According to my Webster's Dictionary, “test” is a Middle English word meaning “a vessel in which meals were assayed”. This was derived from the Latin word “testum” meaning “earthen vessel”.

So just where exactly did you get your derivation?

P.S. According my dictionary, the word "testify" is from the latin "testis" which means both "to witness" and refers to the the male reproductive gland. Does that mean that when the bible says to "witness unto all nations" it is actually saying "screw the world"?

 

[Ipecac]

While I keep hearing from you that science has no accountability. Which, in fact is the same argument you pose against those who "subscribe" to religion.

Sorry, but science is accountable to itself. The scientific method is used to constantly test and retest scientific conclusions. Science is self-correcting. Religion has no such mechanism.

 

[Iacchus]

Why no, I didn't know that. And apparently, neither did Daniel Webster. "Testable" is a derivation of "test". According to my Webster's Dictionary, “test” is a Middle English word meaning “a vessel in which meals were assayed”. This was derived from the Latin word “testum” meaning “earthen vessel”.

So just where exactly did you get your derivation?

P.S. According my dictionary, the word "testify" is from the latin "testis" which means both "to witness" and refers to the the male reproductive gland. Does that mean that when the bible says to "witness unto all nations" it is actually saying "screw the world"?

I just automatically assumed that since "testimony," "testament" and "testify" (these three I did look up) were all derived from "testis," then "test" was related also. But, that was my mistake.

Of course I don't know if we need to make a big production out of it, otherwise I may need to "bear witness" to the fact and put you to "the test."

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry, but science is accountable to itself. The scientific method is used to constantly test and retest scientific conclusions. Science is self-correcting. Religion has no such mechanism.

And what about this thing called "ethics," which is derived from religion? Are you saying science has no need for ethics?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Just had a look at the RR bb. Interesting how similar in some ways the board is to JREF, particularly how much of the traffic is unrelated to their main "mission". It's a social community for folk of a particular mindset. I don't think I would learn much of interest there though. Nor would I wish to appear as a "Troll", which I probably would in their view.

 

[Iacchus]

Just had a look at the RR bb. Interesting how similar in some ways the board is to JREF, particularly how much of the traffic is unrelated to their main "mission". It's a social community for folk of a particular mindset. I don't think I would learn much of interest there though. Nor would I wish to appear as a "Troll", which I probably would in their view.

Yeah, wouldn't it be something if we all thought alike.

I'm just here to challenge the "status quo."

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

And what about this thing called "ethics," which is derived from religion?

Your proof that ethics derive from religion is...what, exactly?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Just had a look at the RR bb. Interesting how similar in some ways the board is to JREF, particularly how much of the traffic is unrelated to their main "mission". It's a social community for folk of a particular mindset. I don't think I would learn much of interest there though. Nor would I wish to appear as a "Troll", which I probably would in their view.

Three subforums, which are pretty crucial to their "mission", are 'members only', meaning you aren't able to even see them without having registered.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ah.
I doubt I will bother to register. If they need to read my opinions they can find them here.(I shan't hold my breath). Having browsed a random selection of threads at RR, I don't think I would find the sight very informative.

There are parallels between the sites though, which is interesting in itself. Given the attitude here to "Trolls"- ie not people who disagree, but ones who do so disagreeably- I think any JREF regular who chooses to post at RR needs to be very , very polite if he is to communicate anything at all. Don't think I have the patience. Kudos to those who have.

 

[Yahweh]

Sure they are, they both came from the same place.

Logical Fallacy #1: Begging the Question.

The reason why the validity of Religion and the validity of Science are not comparable is due the nature of the two.

Everything in science is demonstratably true and can be empirically verified. No religious beliefs hold up to scrutiny, they are demonstratably false.

That is why "I believe projectiles will fall in a parabolic path" is not equivelant to "I believe there is a god(s) who will take my soul and set it on fire".

Or, are you suggesting the human race is about to offshoot into two seperate species?

Logical Fallacy #2: Strawman. You are deliberately misrepresenting the context of what I had written to make it easier to attack. However, you deserve some credit for creativity.

Logical Fallacy #3: Red Herring. You are introducing material irrelevant to my comments to throw everyone's attention away from the points being made, possibly with hope that a new conclusion will be made.

... those with "scientific" bindings and those with "religious" bindings.

Logical Fallacy #4: Non sequitir. There is no conceiveable way those who admire science and those with religious convictions is logically connected to speciation of the human race.

"Sterile" might be a better way of putting it.

Logical Fallacy #5: Undistributed Middle. You are trying argue that two things are similar, but you fail to specify in what way they are similar.

By the way, did you know that the word "testable" comes from the word "testis?"

Logical Fallacy #6: Red Herring. Introduction of more irrelevant material.

Logical Fallacy #7: Misinformation. The word "testable" does not derive from the word "testis". See above posts for explanation.

Hmm ... Perhaps this is what the Bible means when it says, "Of their fruits ye shall know them ..."

Logical Fallacy #8: Non Sequitir. Your conclusion is in no way logically connected to your previous statement.

Logical Fallacy #9: Begging the Question. Quite a set of questionable premises you got there.

What is science, if not the by-product of human agency?

Logical Fallacy #10: Sweeping Generalization. I've already explained that the validity of Religion and Science are not comparable. Similar origins between two concepts does not suggest the two are comparable.

While I keep hearing from you that science has no accountability.

Logical Fallacy #11: Strawman. You are misreprenting my position to make it easier to attack the misrepresented position, when you knock down the misrepresented position you claim the original position has been demolished. Stop that.

Logical Fallacy #12: Ad hominem. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said nor do I agree with.

Which, in fact is the same argument you pose against those who "subscribe" to religion.

Logical Fallacy #13: Strawman. Misrepresenting my position to make it easier to attack me is a terrible way to make an argument.


13 of 'em, I'd be impressed if I wasnt so irritated...

 

[Iacchus]

The reason why the validity of Religion and the validity of Science are not comparable is due the nature of the two.

The difference between Science and Religion is like the difference between thoughts and emotions (or, left brain versus right brain). And it's totally ludicrous to say that both can't exist at the same time. Indeed you can't have one without the other. Much as you can't have men without women.

In fact if we don't acknowledge that the "integration" of Science and Religion will make our society whole, then we will continue on in our delusional state, down this neurotic schizoid path, and "the left" will constantly be at odds with "the right."

So you've presented this whole stupid argument because you don't want to accept what it means to be whole. This "is" the problem with Science, in its attempt to "distance" itself from its emotions. Too bad, it's only a one-sided (neurotic) view.

Actually when you get right down to it, this whole thing is a man against woman thing. Do you know why? Because women were once considered the origin of life (contrary to what Science may wish to believe) and indeed, the very center of existence. And, I think men may be just a tad jealous when women give birth. I mean men can build all the monuments to themselves that they like, but how does that compare to giving birth, the most precious commodity of all?

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. -- Revelation 12:1-6

So is anyone aware that Science is the prodigal son of Religion?

 

[Ralph]

It's always "nice" to hear about children who die----because the parents choose some form of "faith-based" healing over traditional medicine for a sick child.

It's one thing for an adult to make these choices but a child has no say over something that's literally-life or death for him.

What a tragic waste of life when someone dies from something that traditional,science-based, medicine can normally cure.

Going to the doctor & praying is one thing----skipping the doctor in favor of prayer is a criminal act IMO..............

 

[Ipecac]

The difference between Science and Religion is like the difference between thoughts and emotions (or, left brain versus right brain). And it's totally ludicrous to say that both can't exist at the same time. Indeed you can't have one without the other. Much as you can't have men without women.

In fact if we don't acknowledge that the "integration" of Science and Religion will make our society whole, then we will continue on in our delusional state, down this neurotic schizoid path, and "the left" will constantly be at odds with "the right."

So you've presented this whole stupid argument because you don't want to accept what it means to be whole. This "is" the problem with Science, in its attempt to "distance" itself from its emotions. Too bad, it's only a one-sided (neurotic) view.

Actually when you get right down to it, this whole thing is a man against woman thing. Do you know why? Because women were once considered the origin of life (contrary to what Science may wish to believe) and indeed, the very center of existence. And, I think men may be just a tad jealous when women give birth. I mean men can build all the monuments to themselves that they like, but how does that compare to giving birth, the most precious commodity of all?

So is anyone aware that Science is the prodigal son of Religion?

Huh? Does that actually make sense to you?

Religion is an outgrowth of human fear. It has nothing to do with science.

Science is a method of looking at the world to determine the truth of how things work. It has nothing to do with religion.

They are not separate parts of one whole. Religious folk would like you to believe they are so they can glom off some of the respectability of science. But nothing in your paragraph above is true.

The only ones under a delusional state are those who choose religion.

 

[Keneke]

You are assuming that religion and science or opposites on the same coin. It's really not. Religion and atheism are more likely to be opposites, I would wager.

And the whole man vs woman argument reminds me of that little phrase that raised my hackles in one of Randi's commentary, that some woo-woo crap was called "Woman's Science". It was such an insult to women, especially female critical thinkers.

And what does science and religion have to do with men being jealous of women's ability to give birth? The analogy does not hold.

 

[Ralph]

I have children & I've gone into the delivery room when they were born.

If I'm jealous---it's well hidden in my subconcious mind.

I'm quite content just making the normal contribution to this event without the need to carry a baby around inside me for 9 months.