Jim
Nets of Wonder
No, I don’t think you do.I get what you are saying Jim ...
(edit)If you would like to try to understand what I think my reasons are, let me know.(/edit)
Last edited:
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I don’t think you do.I get what you are saying Jim ...
Yes I do, you're asking people to explain how some of the silliest religious ideas - like Jesus walking with dinosaurs, or God creating bananas specially to fit the human hand or that Noah and his floating menagerie survived a global flood that has left not a single trace of genuine evidence in the geological record - are unscientific without saying they are unscientific.No, I don’t think you do.
False.You're asking us to pretend, for example, when someone declares that humans have only been on the earth for a few thousand years, that this is an opinion carrying equal validity ...
My reasons have nothing to do with showing respect for diverse opinions.I am all for showing respect for diverse opinions
Agreed. Nothing but a string of reckless statements. I’ll try again.
Sometimes when I see people denouncing a religion, its followers or its beliefs, it looks to me like they think that their arguments are what they call “scientific” and/or that the beliefs they’re denouncing are contradicted by what they call “science.” With one possible exception seven years ago, I haven’t seen any posts in these forums using a direct quote from reports by researchers of results of their research, as an argument against the beliefs they’re denouncing.
@Audie @A Vestigial Mote @Polymath257
@sayak83 @wandering peacefully @ChristineM
I would like to see some more recent examples of direct quotes, from reports by researchers, of results of their research, as arguments against what other people are saying. More recent than 2012, but before I started this thread.
False.
My reasons have nothing to do with showing respect for diverse opinions.
If' you would like to try to understand what I think my reasons are, let me know.
A few hours ago it dawned on me that you might actually have thought that I could be doing that. After thinking about it, I can understand you thinking that about me, but at first it really took me by surprise.... I for one get my antenna up when a person explains that he "loves" science. The more so when they go on to divide it up into good v bad science.
From there we go on to that good science supports noahs ark, etc.
A few hours ago it dawned on me that you might actually have thought that I could be doing that. After thinking about it, I can understand you thinking that about me, but at first it really took me by surprise.
I can live with that, as a description of what I think of science. I think I do remember saying something other than that, along with it.Did you say something other than that you like science, but only as it conforms to your taste?
Oh. Okay then.The noahs ark reference was not about you.
More than one motivation. My original motivation for starting this thread was to point out that where people are opposing something they call “science” against something they call “religion,” the emperor has no clothes.I, for one, would like to know your motivation.
What I was asking for was not scientific articles. What I was asking for was direct quotes, copied and pasted into a post from reports of research results, written by the people who did the research, as arguments against some people’s beliefs. I’m satisfied that there might have been an example of that seven years ago, and possibly another one more recently. I’m also satisfied that my point has been made, for anyone who might benefit from it.So, are you at least satisfied that people in this forum do, in fact, use scientific articles to make arguments against the views of others (as your OP requested)?
More than one motivation. My original motivation for starting this thread was to point out that where people are opposing something they call “science” against something they call “religion,” the emperor has no clothes.
One reason that I’m saying now that I’m opposed to calling any views “scientific” or unscientific,” is that those words don’t actually communicate anything to most people, other than a false stamp of authority on some views and stigmatizing people who disagree.
((Save it for your echo chamber. Oh. That’s who it’s for. Sorry.))And I disagree that it is a 'false stamp of authority'. In fact, it is a *true* stamp of authority because the scientists are the authorities.
And yes, those views that are unscientific should be recognized as such. In particular, those who promote their ideas as scientific for political gain when, in fact, the consensus of the scientific community disagrees with them, should be called out for their mendacity. This is the case, for example, of many creationist 'authorities' based in the Discovery Institute.
((Save it for your echo chamber. Oh. That’s who it’s for. Sorry.))
((It stretches my imagination to think that a person who is pretending to be educated and informed could seriously be saying “the scientists are the authorities” and equating “consensus of the scientific community” with truth. If none of the other people in this discussion who are pretending to be educated and informed see anything wrong with that, maybe that will finally convince me that this is nothing but a fantasy roleplaying game.))And I disagree that it is a 'false stamp of authority'. In fact, it is a *true* stamp of authority because the scientists are the authorities.
And yes, those views that are unscientific should be recognized as such. In particular, those who promote their ideas as scientific for political gain when, in fact, the consensus of the scientific community disagrees with them, should be called out for their mendacity. This is the case, for example, of many creationist 'authorities' based in the Discovery Institute.
I want to be sure that I’m understanding you correctly. Are you calling the opinions of some scientists “science”?Sorry if you don't like that science has authority in certain matters.
((It stretches my imagination to think that a person who is pretending to be educated and informed could seriously be saying “the scientists are the authorities” and equating “consensus of the scientific community” with truth. If none of the other people in this discussion who are pretending to be educated and informed see anything wrong with that, maybe that will finally convince me that this is nothing but a fantasy roleplaying game.))
I want to be sure that I’m understanding you correctly. Are you calling the opinions of some scientists “science”?
Thank you. That’s good enough for my purposes.No, I am calling the consensus of working research scientists science.
You’re claiming an authority for science that no honest and responsible research would ever claim for itself, by definition.Sorry if you don't like that science has authority in certain matters.