"We don't know" - why can't religions except that?

[Taylor Seraphim]

If that's what you want to believe. Meanwhile, those who have made more study of comparative religion and the social sciences will be moving on...

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.

 

[Quintessence]

I was asking why things we find bad that are common in humans are not tried to been eliminated YOU responded with ad homonien by no provide a counter argument.

Therefore YOU are appealing to emotion!

Do not project your slanderous ways onto me!

Um... what?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I disagree with this generalization about sciences and religions, but agree that there are some important distinctions to be made with respect to how they operate. Regardless, I'm not seeing how this supposed distinction is a reason for censoring or disenfranchising so-labeled "religious" voices from politics yet allowing the so-labeled "scientific" ones. As I understand the principles of democracy in my country, everyone is allowed to have a voice and influence policy. The only exception to this I am aware of is for lawbreakers; those who are convicted of felonies loose their right to vote. I have difficultly accepting any other reason as a valid one for disempowering a group of people from the processes of democracy.

I also have to wonder what my status would be under a nation that disenfranchise people for being religious. Since I'm both a scientist and religious, I would end up in this awkward middle area of being officially approved yet disapproved. Were I a sensible person, I would pretend I am not religious so I could vote and contribute, and all the while continue acting in accord with my religion anyway. Inevitably there would be some sort of inquisition and some witch hunts to ferret out those nasty religious people from influencing anything. There might even be some wars. Delicious drama!

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]

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.

 

[Quintessence]

First of all you assume that a society of people who are not typically religious would oppress the rlgious which is not the case.

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.

Second of all, what are you a scientist of?

I am guessing it is a soft science.

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 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.

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:

I was asking why things we find bad that are common in humans are not tried to been eliminated

You said this:

So is murder and rape.

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]

Scientists are happy with admitting they don't know all the answers (usually with the rider, "but we're looking into it") why do most (every?) religion have to have an answer for everything? Even if they make the answer up.

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]

Scientists are happy with admitting they don't know all the answers (usually with the rider, "but we're looking into it") why do most (every?) religion have to have an answer for everything? Even if they make the answer up.

Why? Because the powers that be want to remain the powers that be. Reason is the enemy. Same for politics.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

Excuse you but that is the opinion of hard sciences scienctist if you want some quotes.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

That there is something rather than nothing is more than sufficient evidence to infer the existence of God.

Why?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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?

I recall saying no such thing, though considering social sciences regard religion as one of the five essential institutions that all human cultures have. Both religion and religiousness are part of human nature, and in that sense, are "necessary."

So is murder and rape.

Really? Really? You're throwing out that card again? Ugh.

No counter argument?

Still waiting for a counter argument.

 

[Quintessence]

Excuse you but that is the opinion of hard sciences scienctist if you want some quotes.

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).

Still waiting for a counter argument.

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]

Arrogant and condescending attitudes

So being skeptical of the ability to measure such things is being arrogant and condescending?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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).

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.

 

[Quintessence]

So being skeptical of the ability to measure such things is being arrogant and condescending?

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]

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.

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]

What came before the Big Bang?
or if you prefer...How did the Universe start?

A supermassive black hole expanded IMHO

 

[Aquitaine]

Scientists are happy with admitting they don't know all the answers (usually with the rider, "but we're looking into it") why do most (every?) religion have to have an answer for everything? Even if they make the answer up.

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]

Scientists are happy with admitting they don't know all the answers (usually with the rider, "but we're looking into it") why do most (every?) religion have to have an answer for everything? Even if they make the answer up.

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.

 

[Jimmy]

Scientists are happy with admitting they don't know all the answers (usually with the rider, "but we're looking into it") why do most (every?) religion have to have an answer for everything? Even if they make the answer up.

That's what religion does