Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
If you have a meaning that the word religion does not mean, then make another term instead of trying to change the word to suit your proposes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"We don't know" - why can't religions except that?
- Thread starter Altfish
- Start date
If you have a meaning that the word religion does not mean, then make another term instead of trying to change the word to suit your proposes.
Um... what?
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
First of all you assume that a society of people who are not typically religious would oppress the rlgious which is not the case.
Second of all, what are you a scientist of?
I am guessing it is a soft science.
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Um... what?
If you can not provide a counter argument and instead chastise me for mentioning rape and murder than that means you are appealing to emotion instead of using logic to debunk my claim.
My apologies. I thought the satire would be obvious. Apparently it wan't. So let me say it plainly: that was satire. A joke. Supposed to be silly.
You guess wrong. Though even if you happened to be right, I fail to see how that would be relevant. The stereotypes of laypersons about "soft" sciences are somewhat lacking in merit.
If you say so.
I don't understand how one makes a counter argument to something that isn't an argument and sounds entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Bear in mind you did not say this initially:You said this:
Which is pretty much not an argument, definitely not a question, and an example of both of the logical fallacies pointed out earlier by appealing to extremes and the emotional intensity of words like rape and murder.
Maybe open with the question next time?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I think that depends on the scientist and also the believer. Science is definitely limited in its knowledge, and faith is only focused on certain aspects of life. But people do like to stand at the opposite side of a fence, then they can argue. Just look at Dawkins. He has taken the level of science down several levels.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Why? Because the powers that be want to remain the powers that be. Reason is the enemy. Same for politics.
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Excuse you but that is the opinion of hard sciences scienctist if you want some quotes.
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Why?
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
My apologies. I thought the satire would be obvious. Apparently it wan't. So let me say it plainly: that was satire. A joke. Supposed to be silly.
You guess wrong. Though even if you happened to be right, I fail to see how that would be relevant. The stereotypes of laypersons about "soft" sciences are somewhat lacking in merit.
If you say so.
You said this:
Which is pretty much not an argument, definitely not a question, and an example of both of the logical fallacies pointed out earlier by appealing to extremes and the emotional intensity of words like rape and murder.
Maybe open with the question next time?
Really? Really? You're throwing out that card again? Ugh.
Still waiting for a counter argument.
Oh, I'm aware a few of them hold that opinion, and with respect to how social sciences were conducted in the past, such criticisms may have held more merit than they do now. My experiences in graduate school involved no such immature attitudes towards other disciplines. Colleagues appreciated other fields on their own merit, in fact, as they were studied enough to understand the proper contexts and usages. So much research nowadays is cross-disciplinary. Arrogant and condescending attitudes towards other fields is counterproductive to the aims of research and only serves to tick of potential colleagues and collaborators. That sort of mentality has no place in proper academia, and I never saw it during my time in grad school (nor do I see it working in the university over the past couple years either... except among undergraduate students who don't know any better, I suppose).
I would advise against holding your breath. I am not interested in arguing, much less counter-arguing a non-argument. I am not interested in convincing you of any particular perspective. That's not what I hang around here for. What I like to do is help folks understand other perspectives, even if they disagree with them. The conversation thus far suggests suggests to me that this is not your interest, which means it is of little benefit for either of us to continue this. There are other people on the forums who are happy to be argumentative. I am not one of them (except on the off chance that I'm bored... which does occur on occasion).
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
So being skeptical of the ability to measure such things is being arrogant and condescending?
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Ok I get that you are angry because I have countered you arguments a lot.
But it is not that I don't want to learn more than you have not provided me anything yet.
Measure what? It's important to understand that for people who do actual research... well... I'm just going to post this. I think it explains it better than I can. Basically, actual scientists get the limitations of their studies, and if one reads the primary literature, that's very apparent. However, the general public mostly gets this, which leads to a bunch of very sad outcomes:
[GALLERY=media, 7084]Science News Cycle by Quintessence posted Oct 1, 2015 at 7:23 PM[/GALLERY]
I'm not angry, and certainly not about that, but thanks for your concern. I really don't understand what you want me to provide. I'm not just saying "that's not really a counter-argument" to be difficult... I literally have no idea where to go with that. I don't get how your "counter-argument" even applies to what I was saying. It's kind of like having a conversation where we're talking about the new Star Wars film, and suddenly you start going on about the latest episode of some cable TV soap opera.
outhouse
Atheistically
A supermassive black hole expanded IMHO
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Because that's what people want. So many people are willing to believe in a comforting lie so long as it claims to have answers.
One thing that always amuses me is when a believer says "well science doesn't know everything", yeah it doesn't, but it still has waaaaay more answers to things than your book of lies.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
We religionists don't completely make the answers up. We rely on scripture, sometimes other theologians, and reason. There are some things we do admit that we don't have the answer for (like how can God have always existed) but then some atheists will accuse us of copping out.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
That's what religion does