Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

[Sapiens]

Can you claim with a straight face that the evolutionary dogma is not inserted into every possible place in the textbooks students study?!

Why would one not put the most accurate information available in texts? If you have more accurate information, make your case ... if you can't make your case (as seems to be the case) you might remember that it is better to keep quiet than to prove oneself a fool.

Is this not truly "atheistic" nonsense. Try to check the manuals in school-textbooks and see how unnecessarily biased they are with 'atheistic nonsense.'

A ridiculously empty claim.

That while I surely am no professional, and am ignorant to some degree, I have clearly seen enough evidence of the extreme bias that atheists have pushed into our schools.

By and large the "bias" is for the truth.

From when I was young, the evolutionary concept and the insults to people who in schools believed in a creator rather than in the chaos god was never ending.

Chaos god? How quaint.

You might not think it 'atheistic nonsense', but I surely do.

What you think is irrelevant, what is important is what you can rationally demonstrate.

So, one insult for another, isn't it.

Is it an insult to tell you that you are demonstrably wrong?

You may not lie by purpose because you simply don't see it as being truly wrong when people are force fed teaching that belongs to another 'faith' - the belief that all things made themselves, and that nothing intelligent caused neither the universe, nor complex ecosystems, fine tuning of the universe, and beautiful nature.

I offer you the outlook of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama:

If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (2005).​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Enjoyed the video. I understand carbon dating, that until its usefulness plays out, because of the total decay of c14, it gives ranges to guide us. As your video also shows, certain conditions cause it to show too old ages. So, common sense should be taken, skepticism should be used in all things.

It would be nice if everyone just was totally honest about things, but there is a lot of dishonesty around.
There is also the assumption that c14 is a constant in our environment down through the ages, and speaking for things thousands of years ago, becomes an exercise in guesswork.

The method has been calibrated with tree rings first, they could test it directly that way over 9,000 years back. Later the calibration curves were pushed even further back using other methods. Scientists do not like to guess. You are conflating the actions of creationists with scientists again:

Calibration of radiocarbon dates - Wikipedia

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Enjoyed the video. I understand carbon dating, that until its usefulness plays out, because of the total decay of c14, it gives ranges to guide us. As your video also shows, certain conditions cause it to show too old ages. So, common sense should be taken, skepticism should be used in all things.

I guess you missed the point that explained why you aren't going to get good results at carbon dating something as old as a dinosaur fossil; that other methods are used to date such old artifacts; and that's why we don't use carbon dating for artifacts that old (or contaminated artifacts, or marine life). I guess you also missed the point that skepticism is applied to dating methods; which is why several dating methods are used then carbon dating under given circumstances (because we already know that carbon dating performed inappropriately will give bad results),

Because at the end of the day, you choose to believe that science can't legitimately distinguish between true and false religious beliefs and if science does, you rebut science with anti-scientific pseudoscience then pretend that the answered question remains unanswerable.

Its denial and cognitive dissonance at its finest.

When religion tramples on the realm of science -- the observation of the natural world -- science will certainly distinguish between true and false religious beliefs; as it is science that has explained lightning, spherical earth, planetary motion (which does not include chariots piloted by Gods and Goddesses like Helios and Luna); Earthquakes, flood, mental illness, neurological disorders, disease, tsunamis, comets and asteroids, the weather, the Northern Lights, world wide floods, Exodus myths, 7 day creation, exiting on the backs of turtles and elephants (or upon the shoulders of Atlas); and the plethora of other ignorant, outlandish claims religion makes about the natural world.

Religion would do itself a favor by simply accepting science for what it is; leave discussion about the natural world to those who study it (scientists); and focus on more important matters (like serenity, peace, love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, hope, and the other invaluable lessons that religion was meant to teach).

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Can you claim with a straight face that the evolutionary dogma is not inserted into every possible place in the textbooks students study?!

Yes, I can.

I can simply because it is not "dogma".

"Dogma" is defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." There is no aspect of evolution that is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Not even Darwin's original papers were held as "incontrovertibly true"; and he himself revised his own conclusions based on his own evidence.

[Borrowed for Qura]

However, Darwin didn't have a great understanding of the actual mechanisms of heredity. Even though Gregor Mendel was doing his now-famous experiments on pea plants contemporaneously to Darwin, Mendel wasn't particularly well known in his own time. It's unclear if Darwin was really aware of Mendel's work, or even if he would have recognized its importance if he had been. It is clear that Mendel read Darwin, though, and it doesn't seem that Mendel himself recognized the connection between his work and evolution. Darwin had his own theory of heredity which he calledPangenesis, where all the cells in a body would shed 'gemmules', which carried hereditary information, and would accumulate in the gonads to be passed on to the next generation. Unfortunately for Darwin, experiments to test that theory ended up not supporting it.

By the early 20th century, people were forming a better understanding of genetics and heredity, with key contributions coming from Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, among others. So, biologists combined the best of Darwin's theory of natural selection with the best of a genetic understanding of heredity, to create the Modern synthesis. That's really when it all came together as our modern understanding of evolution. Of course, there have been refinements and developments since then, but the modern synthesis forms the basis of the modern day theory of evolution.

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Charles-Darwin-get-wrong

Were it "dogma", Darwin's theories and ideas would have been held as incontrovertibly true, based on the premise of his "authority" on the matter, and we'd be teaching Pangenesis in schools.

So yes. Challenge met.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I have said before and will say it again, your claims against ours, and nothing is accomplished, just like this exchange accomplishes absolutely nothing for me, or for you.

"Its your word against my word" only works when there is insufficient objective evidence to verify either claim. There is ample evidence to support Subduction's claims.

 

[Grandliseur]

I guess you missed the point that explained why you aren't going to get good results at carbon dating something as old as a dinosaur fossil; that other methods are used to date such old artifacts;

I don't think so.

If indeed as some evidence tells us, but which is rejected by atheists, that dinosaur lived at the same time as man, we would indeed encounter C14 in their tissues, giving us measurable dates by the C14 dates - which atheists vehemently would oppose.

skepticism is applied to dating methods; which is why several dating methods are used then carbon dating

Which other dating methods can measure dates between 10k and 50k years? Not tree rings for sure. Aren't the other ones a bit too inaccurate at these young ages?

As I have said before, there is no agreement between the camps. Interpretation of the data is a problem, perspective forces different conclusions. Even one of the archaeologists going according to science was dismissed because she insisted on taking the lab results when her superior caused her to loose her position due to her not accepting any but the facts. She was not doing the religious dance, but simply wanted the measurements to be accepted. Instead, she lost her job.

Once this kind of disagreement is beginning, I stop talking with you guys.

 

[Grandliseur]

I can simply because it is not "dogma".

Your opinion.
To us your 'faith' is totally empty, a null faith that deserves nothing and encroaches on our territory.

Again, your camp because it things it is right, also takes the stance it is therefore right to push your agenda on others. That is the way of tyrants in the past and present.

 

[Sapiens]

Your opinion.
To us your 'faith' is totally empty, a null faith that deserves nothing and encroaches on our territory.

Who cares?

Again, your camp because it things it is right,

No. Because is has real evidence that it is correct.

also takes the stance it is therefore right to push your agenda on others. That is the way of tyrants in the past and present.

We hardly push our agenda on you, we just kick your butt when you try to push yours on us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion.
To us your 'faith' is totally empty, a null faith that deserves nothing and encroaches on our territory.

Again, your camp because it things it is right, also takes the stance it is therefore right to push your agenda on others. That is the way of tyrants in the past and present.

That is because you do not seem to understand the concept of faith. When we accept reality it is not based upon faith, it is based upon evidence. Creationists tend to have a very poor understanding of the concept. Would you care to learn?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If indeed as some evidence tells us, but which is rejected by atheists, that dinosaur lived at the same time as man, we would indeed encounter C14 in their tissues, giving us measurable dates by the C14 dates - which atheists vehemently would oppose.

Perhaps you missed the part in the video where it stated that the C14 came from the preservatives ... You didn't watch the video, did you?

Which other dating methods can measure dates between 10k and 50k years? Not tree rings for sure. Aren't the other ones a bit too inaccurate at these young ages?

But it is YOUR assertion that the dinosaur bones ARE that young. The carbon test you refer to is the outlier. It is the outlier because the results of that test are wrong.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

To us your 'faith' is totally empty, a null faith that deserves nothing and encroaches on our territory.

That is because I do not have faith; that is why you find it "empty". When theistic "faith" has been wrong about everything from the treatment of disease to the shape of the earth, then someone certainly needs to tread on your territory; and do so aggressively. Religion would do itself a great service by sticking to matters of faith and soul rather than trying to disseminate disinformation and confusion in matters of fact science.

Again, your camp because it things it is right, also takes the stance it is therefore right to push your agenda on others.

What agenda?

The pursuit of knowledge?

What an evil, tyrannical agenda!

 

[Grandliseur]

where it stated that the C14 came from the preservatives ...

I saw that, but did not realize it was talking about that specific test.

I thought the material was virgin material. Is there any verification of your claim?

But it is YOUR assertion that the dinosaur bones ARE that young.

I have seen how at times the test give huge differences in the dates on the same material and that the most liked date is chosen. I also hold to the claim that dinosaur and humans lived together - the dismissal of this evidence by atheists I reject. Thus having dates that are fairly recent is not unexpected to me. The claim that this evidence is false or true only becomes an "I am right, you're wrong" exercise that never stops.

Our paradigms cause an eternal disagreement assuredly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw that, but did not realize it was talking about that specific test.

I thought the material was virgin material. Is there any verification of your claim?

I have seen how at times the test give huge differences in the dates on the same material and that the most liked date is chosen. I also hold to the claim that dinosaur and humans lived together - the dismissal of this evidence by atheists I reject. Thus having dates that are fairly recent is not unexpected to me. The claim that this evidence is false or true only becomes an "I am right, you're wrong" exercise that never stops.

Our paradigms cause an eternal disagreement assuredly.

Let's go over this one more time. What do you think is the source of those dinosaur fossils? How and when were they deposited? Now we know that the flood story is a myth, but right now I will humor that thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion.
To us your 'faith' is totally empty, a null faith that deserves nothing and encroaches on our territory.

Again, your camp because it things it is right, also takes the stance it is therefore right to push your agenda on others. That is the way of tyrants in the past and present.

We can show that we are right with evidence. Sadly for you, you have no reliable evidence. All you have is a book of myths and a terrible ignorance of all of the sciences. Our side does not use faith. That is a religious flaw. You should not project your faults upon others.

And please, tyrants are those that will not support their claims. You are merely describing the acts of creationists when they try to force their beliefs upon others when they can't find any evidence that supports their claims.

 

[Grandliseur]

Now we know that the flood story is a myth

You claim this, I believe it is real.

What do you think is the source of those dinosaur fossils?

Ancient mostly now extinct animals, though a few surprises keep popping up with extinct animals being found in good health, even fish of such supposedly dead ancient things.
It shouldn't be that hard for a professional to go and dig some of these bones up. That is what I thought had been done with the material tested. Of course, there may be legal issues preventing just anyone from digging which I am ignorant about.

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed-lg/public/2017/11/10/1110fish.jpg
A dinosaur-era shark with insane teeth was found swimming off the coast of Portugal

I am not really sure to what extend the word dinosaur is applied, how specific it is, but that fish seems to be one of them still alive, and there have been a few others, though perhaps smaller, even babies that fit no known animal found dead on the shores.

While I am OEC, Professor Walter Veith has some interesting material. Here is one about the flood in case you want to watch it. It is a bit long, still, I found this interesting.
102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claim this, I believe it is real.

I know, and you may believe in Santa Claus too. I can demonstrate that there was no flood unless you are willing to claim that God lies. Which is what your belief says whether you realize it or not.

Ancient mostly now extinct animals, though a few surprises keep popping up with extinct animals being found in good health, even fish of such supposedly dead ancient things.
It shouldn't be that hard for a professional to go and dig some of these bones up. That is what I thought had been done with the material tested. Of course, there may be legal issues preventing just anyone from digging which I am ignorant about.

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed-lg/public/2017/11/10/1110fish.jpg
A dinosaur-era shark with insane teeth was found swimming off the coast of Portugal

I am not really sure to what extend the word dinosaur is applied, how specific it is, but that fish seems to be one of them still alive, and there have been a few others, though perhaps smaller, even babies that fit no known animal found dead on the shores.

While I am OEC, Professor Walter Veith has some interesting material. Here is one about the flood in case you want to watch it. It is a bit long, still, I found this interesting.
102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV

Your inability to understand the sciences is not evidence for your case. And no, that is not a dinosaur. Also it is very similar to sharks from that era, that does not mean that it is the same. That is an error that those that do not understand the sciences make quite often.

And as to your video, nope, not willing to discuss it here. It features Water Veith, he is just another liar for Jesus. Now if you want to post any of the claims from that video I will gladly refute them. But I will not waste my time listening to someone that I know is a liar. I have seen his work in the past.

By the way, do you know how science is done? Real scientists run their ideas through the gauntlet of peer review in well respected professional journals. Those on your side refuse to do so because they know that their ideas are so easily shown to be wrong. Tell me, why do you think that they avoid peer review?

 

[Grandliseur]

And no, that is not a dinosaur.

I just checked how the word dinosaur is applied. The fact that it is applied to land animals "of the extinct orders" does not mean that this animal does not belong to animals from that era and thought to be extinct. So, in that sense, in terms of having been thought to be extinct, it does show that the notion of dinosaurs living among us is not far fetched. I suppose we need to invent a term like dinosaur that covers all such large animals thought to be extinct, whether land or sea animals.

As to some of your other things you said, I will not comment about since it again is a matter of differences of perception, of believing what is going on in the war of atheists and theists.

There is no need to go any further on this.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There is no need to go any further on this.

I agree, as you will choose the answer you like best, regardless of whatever sources or materials we give you. To question your beliefs is just too frightening for you. I've been there and I wish you well in your journey.

 

[Grandliseur]

To question your beliefs is just too frightening for you. I've been there and I wish you well in your journey.

If it were a matter of questioning my beliefs, it would be no big thing in a sense. I left my church because I questioned what they taught, even its implementation. It is a matter of perspective and paradigm.

You say you have been there. Perhaps then the following video might still contain something that may interest you:

You are welcome if you do look at it to tell me what you got out of it, positive and negative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just checked how the word dinosaur is applied. The fact that it is applied to land animals "of the extinct orders" does not mean that this animal does not belong to animals from that era and thought to be extinct. So, in that sense, in terms of having been thought to be extinct, it does show that the notion of dinosaurs living among us is not far fetched. I suppose we need to invent a term like dinosaur that covers all such large animals thought to be extinct, whether land or sea animals.

As to some of your other things you said, I will not comment about since it again is a matter of differences of perception, of believing what is going on in the war of atheists and theists.

There is no need to go any further on this.

Dinosaurs still do live among us. Here is a picture of one:

And there is a proper definition of dinosaurs:

"Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Saurischia", encompassing ankylosaurians (armored herbivorous quadrupeds), stegosaurians (plated herbivorous quadrupeds), ceratopsians(herbivorous quadrupeds with horns and frills), ornithopods (bipedal or quadrupedal herbivores including "duck-bills"), theropods (mostly bipedal carnivores and birds), and sauropodomorphs (mostly large herbivorousquadrupeds with long necks and tails).[18]

Dinosaur - Wikipedia

 

[gnomon]

Can the sciences legitimately distinguish between true and false religious beliefs? Why or why not?

Is there anything about the scientific method or methods of inquiry that would prevent the sciences from legitimately distinguishing a true religious belief from a false one?

For instance:

Can the sciences legitimately tell us whether the notion that Rama's Bridge was built by the Vanara army of Rama is true or false? Why or why not?

Can the sciences legitimately tell us whether the notion that there was once a great flood covering all the earth is true or false? Why or why not?

Can the sciences legitimately tell us whether any specific deity exists or doesn't exist? Why or why not?

Can the sciences legitimately tell us whether enlightenment is an actual state of awareness? Why or why not?

etc.

​

BONUS QUESTIONs (EDITED):

1) Assuming that the sciences could indeed tell us whether at least some religious beliefs were true or false, then in what way(s), if any, would it matter that the sciences could do so?

2) What, if anything, is the relationship between scientifically established fact (and/or hypotheses) and the meanings or purposes of religions?

Religion is not about God.

Therefore......all the answers to your question are no.

And science has already presented the quality of religious belief. It's communal belief.

Thus no....science cannot distinguish one belief from another because religious belief is about communal belief and ethnic belief. It has very little to do about a so called God.