Why is religiosity unscientific?

[Sheldon]

How come there are no science studies on the gender nonsense

What "gender nonsence"?

The filtration of Atheism into science

Atheism has nothing to do with science, nor science with atheism.

What about crime statistics

What about them, for decades research has shown that atheists in the US are underrepresented in prison populations.

Why let lawyers speak for science?

They don't, what on earth are you talking about?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'd be curious to know who or what might be the simulator or simulators. I have some notion of who or what is beyond the simulation, but unfortunately there is no way for me to prove my hypothetical post human civilization animating us as their simulated ancestors.

Okay... I suppose that's valid. It's value is that it's given you something to be curious about. I guess if I ever run out of things to be curious about then I'll have good reason to embrace the 'it's all just a simulation' outlook. Until then I'm satisfied just trying to figure out the rules to this how this reality works- simulated or not - function.

 

[Sheldon]

Some physicists have proposed

Some "scientists" believe the universe is a few thousand years old, their claim will only take on any significance, when and only when they have any scientific evidence to support their religious beliefs.

Otherwise it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Suave]

Some "scientists" believe the universe is a few thousand years old, their claim will take on any significance, when and only when they have any scientific evidence.

Otherwise it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Please let us note the content of the entire sentence 'Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.'

Please let us agree some scientist had proposed radiometric dating of terrestrial samples for determining the Earth's age. The results of radiometric dating conclude the Earth formed billions of years ago!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The religious idea of marriage, has many social advantages, based on a wide range of data and metrics. Why hasn't science used the scientific method to prove this and define it as such like a law of science? Why do they ignore the preponderance of the data in favor of social arrangements with higher social costs, lower standards of living, higher crime and drug addiction, and well as other metrics? There is an opportunity for science to lead many social issues by offering the best paths to choose? Why let shady lawyers leads?

How come there are no science studies on the gender nonsense, so we can settle this? Science used to consider this newly defined behavior a type of mental confusion. What is the science data that changed this prognosis? Why is science now silent?

The filtration of Atheism into science has dumbed down science. Atheism has an agenda that cannot give any ground to religion, so when religion is right, such as with marriage data, science will fail to do its job. Science, with its atheism religion, that blinds it to truth, should be defunded of tax payer money, due to separation of church and state.

What about crime statistics and using science to set the record straight. There is too much subjectivity. There is plenty of good data to analyze, using the principles of science. Why isn't Science leading the changes needed to improve these statistics? What is the fear or inhibition? Is it Atheism or Liberalism?

Why let lawyers speak for science? Science appears to be under someone's boot, when it comes to social policies. You need to fight for the data, and not turn a blind eye to the truth. Science should set social policies, scientifically clear, so people can still choose, but have eye on a light house of science, instead of the mirror of science fiction.

Does the value of science break down at social dynamics? If science is willing to take a back seat with social policies, where else is compromised?

There are huge amounts of scientific studies on all these topics. If you're looking for 'science' to provide a set of clear answers we then use to forcibly reshape society, I dunno what to tell you. That sounds horrendous, and is a thought that would endure only up to the moment 'science' and your religious beliefs clashed anyway, so it seems disingenuous.

Still...go study the research.

 

[questfortruth]

You're conflating religion with spirituality.

Religion is Spirituality, recall the Holy Spirit in Christianity.

 

[questfortruth]

Because it isn't "useful" in the scientific sense,
ie, it makes no testable (falsifiable) predictions.

WRONG AGAIN. Look: Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

WRONG AGAIN. Look: Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

No. We already went through all of tha t nonsense. It is fraud. There is no doubt about it.

 

[questfortruth]

Atheism - and for that matter theism - are "proven" ideas in the sense that both are demonstrably things that exist in our societies.

The Schizophrenia is about 2 % of population. Atheism is about 2 %. Is there a connection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Schizophrenia is about 2 % of population. Atheism is about 2 %. Is there a connection?

Atheism is far far higher than 2%. Where are you getting your figures from?

 

[questfortruth]

Fact: atheists actually exist

All that exists came from God, in my worldview. Hence, atheists are there, but they do not exist. Like a zombie or vampire - is there in the movie, but is dead.

 

[questfortruth]

Atheism is far far higher than 2%. Where are you getting your figures from?

It is not in USA, but averaged over all humankind - past, present.

 

[questfortruth]

What "gender nonsence"?

Man = Woman=0.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not in USA, but averaged over all humankind - past, present.

You can't average over the past. You have no idea when religion was invented. All you can go by is today. And there was no way to measure people's belief in the past either.

 

[questfortruth]

It's based in faith. Science is based in evidence.

Very strong faith is Knowledge. And Knowledge is very strong Faith.

 

[questfortruth]

You can't average over the past. You have no idea when religion was invented. All you can go by is today. And there was no way to measure people's belief in the past either.

There was about 0 % of Atheism on the planet prior to XX century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very strong faith is Knowledge. And Knowledge is very strong Faith.

Nope. Knowledge is the opposite of faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was about 0 % of Atheism on the planet prior to XX century.

How would you know that? Are you trying to say that people were far less intelligent in the past?

 

[questfortruth]

Nope. Knowledge is the opposite of faith.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG,

 

[questfortruth]

How would you know that? Are you trying to say that people were far less intelligent in the past?

No, there is the Theorem of Degradation:

If the tendency of losing mind was not stopped when there were more of mind, it will not be stopped ever. Hence, like the Entropy in Physics, the Degradation only can grow in time.