why reject christianity

[Audie]

Its I very difficult situation for them but they are able to reconcile their belief and facts. I have no idea how but they do.

As @Audie said in her post...



I know, not quite creationist but i know of several christians with strong god belief who are scientists.

If a person tries to propose counter-theory or interpretation
to something as deeply and widely established as thr age
of earth with 6 day poof and flood, he can do it.

But he will need some serious data. "Coz the bible seems to
say" wont do.

Sans data-as they always are-he is showing a very
unprofessional disregard for scientific integrity.

 

[dfnj]

There is something of a difference between creationists who accept the scientific method and abide by it despite their faith and the @james bond creation (oxymoron) scientists who refuse peer review but simply want their claims accepted because "god"

If you don't think there is just as much bias, dogma, and subjective judgments in science as in religion you are just not paying attention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

[Audie]

power? - in a way, I am a Gnostic .

So you think you are infallible.

 

[Audie]

If you don't think there is just as much bias, dogma, and subjective judgments in science as in religion you are just not paying attention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

You may be paying attention, but not to the concept of
false equivalence.

 

[Audie]

Well, there are acceptable ways to translate it into something more meaningful on orthodox or mystical strands of Christianity. @Vouthon is the person for that.

Nonsense cannot be translated accurately into sense.

 

[ChristineM]

If you don't think there is just as much bias, dogma, and subjective judgments in science as in religion you are just not paying attention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

The thing about peer review is that by definition it is open to scrutiny by literally millions of qualified individuals . Can you say the same about religions?

Interesting article, making several claims without providing evidence for their claims. Tasty bait for some.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

 

[dfnj]

The thing about peer review is that by definition it is open to scrutiny by literally millions of qualified individuals . Can you say the same about religions?

Interesting article, making several claims without providing evidence for their claims. Tasty bait for some.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Science is just a belief system. Nature will behave the way it does regardless if we have science or not. What you are doing is making a subjective judgment about religion. Many people do not share you opinions. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it a right or a fact. Your assumption that the only belief systems having value are evidence based is just an opinion. Many people have faith-based belief systems that are not based on evidence. Many people value religion as being important if not the most important part of their lives.

I don't think you can prove objectively what are the best subjective judgments to make. Good luck with that.

 

[ChristineM]

Science is just a belief system. Nature will behave the way it does regardless if we have science or not. What you are doing is making a subjective judgment about religion. Many people do not share you opinions. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it a right or a fact. Your assumption that the only belief systems having value are evidence based is just an opinion. Many people have faith-based belief systems that are not based on evidence. Many people value religion as being important if not the most important part of their lives.

I don't think you can prove objectively what are the best subjective judgments to make. Good luck with that.

Science is a belief system backed by evidence, religion is a belief system backed by mythology.

I dont give a monkeys uncle who shares my views or what other people's opinions are, evidence has the odds over mythology for having a grounding in reality. When you can provide evidence of god magic you may have something, until then what you have is faith.

Why a subjective argument? Cant you handle an objective one? See how that sarcasm goes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't think there is just as much bias, dogma, and subjective judgments in science as in religion you are just not paying attention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. Your article that you do not understand does not support your claims.

Peer review is the minimal standard that a new idea has to go through to have any credibility at all. In the sciences today there is no valid reason to avoid peer review. Peer reviewed articles are still wrong a good percentage of the time. Ideas that avoid peer review are wrong almost all of the time. A wise person tries to minimize the number of times that he is wrong. Using peer reviewed concepts means that one is much less likely to be wrong in the sciences.

 

[Audie]

Science is just a belief system. Nature will behave the way it does regardless if we have science or not. What you are doing is making a subjective judgment about religion. Many people do not share you opinions. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it a right or a fact. Your assumption that the only belief systems having value are evidence based is just an opinion. Many people have faith-based belief systems that are not based on evidence. Many people value religion as being important if not the most important part of their lives.

I don't think you can prove objectively what are the best subjective judgments to make. Good luck with that.

"Just a belief system" indeed. You know that is nonsense?
If not, that is a bad sign.

Religion is aculture of faith. Science is a culture of doubt,
however little you understand that from the outside, not
even looking in.

Among highest values in religion is faith regardless of any
evidence, regardless of none; the virtue actually
increases as evidence goes against it. Shun, shun,
run from, defy or eschew data, facts, anything onjective.

(Except for "objective morality" whose nature and existence
is beyond human description or even detection)

Religion is 100% and nothing but subjective.

Zero data.

Science puts objectivity up there as a highest value.
Imposdible to be perfect, but at least the ideal is to
try, as opposed to the opposite, as per religion.

How anyone could concoct in his mind that sci and rel
are somehow equivalent is a study in over-
thinking leading to the swamps of total confusion.

 

[Audie]

No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. Your article that you do not understand does not support your claims.

Peer review is the minimal standard that a new idea has to go through to have any credibility at all. In the sciences today there is no valid reason to avoid peer review. Peer reviewed articles are still wrong a good percentage of the time. Ideas that avoid peer review are wrong almost all of the time. A wise person tries to minimize the number of times that he is wrong. Using peer reviewed concepts means that one is much less likely to be wrong in the sciences.

Peer review is not PERFECT!

So religion and science are the same!

That is some hi-power cogitatin'!!


.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just gave 2 examples from personal experience.

The two chemistry professors you mentioned? Why do you think they accepted the scientific method?

Someone who accepts the scientific method accepts that a hypothesis ought to be believed when it’s supported by rigorous inquiry, even if that hypothesis conflicts with deeply-held beliefs.

If someone isn’t willing to abandon beliefs that are incompatible with these rigorously-supported hypotheses - such as creationism - then I’d say that they don’t actually accept the scientific method, even if they use scientific approaches in other areas of their life that don’t conflict with those beliefs.

 

[Audie]

The two chemistry professors you mentioned? Why do you think they accepted the scientific method?

Someone who accepts the scientific method accepts that a hypothesis ought to be believed when it’s supported by rigorous inquiry, even if that hypothesis conflicts with deeply-held beliefs.

If someone isn’t willing to abandon beliefs that are incompatible with these rigorously-supported hypotheses - such as creationism - then I’d say that they don’t actually accept the scientific method, even if they use scientific approaches in other areas of their life that don’t conflict with those beliefs.

I see your idea. Compartmentalize? I dont know.

I do know both are well respected in their fields, the
grant money comes in, grad students seek them out,
all such trappings in good order.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see your idea. Compartmentalize? I dont know.

I do know both are well respected in their fields, the
grant money comes in, grad students seek them out,
all such trappings in good order.

Right: they can follow a methodology - perhaps very well - within their area of expertise, but this is different from committing in a general sense to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

 

[Audie]

Right: they can follow a methodology - perhaps very well - within their area of expertise, but this is different from committing in a general sense to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Right: they can follow a methodology - perhaps very well - within their area of expertise, but this is different from committing in a general sense to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I would think a person could do more / better than that,
essentially being a hack. Chemistry is not much
like historical geology, in which I'd guess there is no
interest.

Chemistry is the same, I think in last thursdayism
or any other semi reasonable religion.

Closest I came to inquiring was a q to the
organic prof about creating life in a lab.

He said he thought it is way too complex.

 

[dfnj]

"Just a belief system" indeed. You know that is nonsense?
.

bla, bla, bla, bla. You know one man's belief system is another man's cult. Everyone thinks their own dogma is the one TRUE dogma and everyone else is insane. You are no different.

 

[dfnj]

No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. Your article that you do not understand does not support your claims.

Peer review is the minimal standard that a new idea has to go through to have any credibility at all. In the sciences today there is no valid reason to avoid peer review. Peer reviewed articles are still wrong a good percentage of the time. Ideas that avoid peer review are wrong almost all of the time. A wise person tries to minimize the number of times that he is wrong. Using peer reviewed concepts means that one is much less likely to be wrong in the sciences.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[dfnj]

Science is a belief system backed by evidence, religion is a belief system backed by mythology.

I dont give a monkeys uncle who shares my views or what other people's opinions are, evidence has the odds over mythology for having a grounding in reality. When you can provide evidence of god magic you may have something, until then what you have is faith.

Why a subjective argument? Cant you handle an objective one? See how that sarcasm goes?

All good objectivity is decided by subjective judgments.

 

[Audie]

bla, bla, bla, bla. You know one man's belief system is another man's cult. Everyone thinks their own dogma is the one TRUE dogma and everyone else is insane. You are no different.

So you do think your dogma is the One.

Quelle surprise!

I dont do dogma nor do "one true". Dont try to tar me
with your brush.

Blabla is such a clever, telling retort when
you are called on some absurdity

Ok, got your measure. I call your pompous bluff
so you get all icky and make things up about
me-as youve had nothing but vapourware all along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong again. Science deniers quite often abuse that article as you have. It does not support your claims. It only tells us of your ignorance in regards to what science is and how it is done.