More Religious Child Molestation?

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

So you can disprove every one of the few thousands religions worldwide? This seems to me like a very angry attitude towards religion, which I absolutely understand in part.

Quick crash course in how science works:

When preforming an experiment we create the Ho (Called the null hypothesis) There is also the H1 (Called the experimental hypothesis).

Now say we were to create an experiment, with the hypothesis praying leads to improved rate of job acquisition. Our Ho would be "rate of job acquisition doesn't vary significantly in praying groups vs. non praying groups".

H1 Would be "Rate of job acquisition varies significantly from non praying groups".

If this were found to be the case we would say the evidence supports our H1. If it weren't found to be the case we would say the evidence doesn't support the H1.

Science doesn't ever claim with certainty to have "proven" anything. We simply can say the evidence does or doesn't support X hypothesis.

No empirical study can every show that religion isn't real. Just like no empirical study can prove that unicorns or Harry Potter isn't real. This doesn't make these concepts any more viable than any religion, but they cannot be proven false.

Just because science cannot prove something "false" does that mean that all things have the same "truth" value as any random idea? You can claim that eating oranges cures cancer and scientist can't prove that false we can just say "observations do not support this hypothesis". So should you eat oranges instead of undergoing radiation/chemo?

Originally Posted by NickZac

And I never said anything about suffering in the world not being our responsibility. Many religions teach followers that suffering is everyone's issue and that those who follow the religion need to do something about it rather than sitting on the sidelines. Many religious scholars would argue that religion (in general) was a means in which people were taught to help others, through a variety of religious teachings from numerous religions. One example would be the Qur'an and 'Alms-giving', which is a religious and moral obligation for those with wealth to serve the needy because their wealth is seen as a giving from God. In that sense, religion served/serves a functional purpose.

Religion might teach that but it also says that there will be a "final accounting" regardless of how well we rectify the wrongs of the world. Injustice will ultimately be punished and the righteous will ultimately be rewarded.

Believing this perpetrates the "Just World" myth and alleviates that nagging suspicion that the world is F'ED UP.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Quick crash course in how science works:

When preforming an experiment we create the Ho (Called the null hypothesis) There is also the H1 (Called the experimental hypothesis).

Now say we were to create an experiment, with the hypothesis praying leads to improved rate of job acquisition. Our Ho would be "rate of job acquisition doesn't vary significantly in praying groups vs. non praying groups".

H1 Would be "Rate of job acquisition varies significantly from non praying groups".

If this were found to be the case we would say the evidence supports our H1. If it weren't found to be the case we would say the evidence doesn't support the H1.

Science doesn't ever claim with certainty to have "proven" anything. We simply can say the evidence does or doesn't support X hypothesis.

No empirical study can every show that religion isn't real. Just like no empirical study can prove that unicorns or Harry Potter isn't real. This doesn't make these concepts any more viable than any religion, but they cannot be proven false.

Just because science cannot prove something "false" does that mean that all things have the same "truth" value as any random idea? You can claim that eating oranges cures cancer and scientist can't prove that false we can just say "observations do not support this hypothesis". So should you eat oranges instead of undergoing radiation/chemo?



Religion might teach that but it also says that there will be a "final accounting" regardless of how well we rectify the wrongs of the world. Injustice will ultimately be punished and the righteous will ultimately be rewarded.

Believing this perpetrates the "Just World" myth and alleviates that nagging suspicion that the world is F'ED UP.

I am quite familiar with how science works as I have multiple, advanced degrees in research. I never said a word about religions being "true". I asked if you could prove them in being "false". You are taking an extreme one-sided view of religion in a purely negative fashion, which often results in numerous aspects being overlooked.

All religions do not say there will be a "final accounting" regardless of how we perform. Injustice is not always punished.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I am quite familiar with how science works as I have multiple, advanced degrees in research. I never said a word about religions being "true". I asked if you could prove them in being "false". You are taking an extreme one-sided view of religion in a purely negative fashion, which often results in numerous aspects being overlooked.

If you had an advanced degree in research than you would know that science does not prove things false. So you shouldn't need to ask the question.

I am taking the one sided view that living one's life according to lies is always harmful regardless of outcome. Is religion comforting to some people of course it is, this doesn't contribute to its value.

Originally Posted by NickZac

All religions do not say there will be a "final accounting" regardless of how we perform. Injustice is not always punished.

The two major world religions do contain the concept of a "final accounting" with claims of a just afterlife.

The two second largest world religions (Buddhism (if we wan't to call this a religion as deity is technically not involved) and Hinduism preach the idea of after lives which are influenced by your behavior in this life. This is another type of "final accounting" the idea that if you are bad you will return as something lower and have to work your way back up.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

If you had an advanced degree in research than you would know that science does not prove things false. So you shouldn't need to ask the question.

I am taking the one sided view that living one's life according to lies is always harmful regardless of outcome. Is religion comforting to some people of course it is, this doesn't contribute to its value.



The two major world religions do contain the concept of a "final accounting" with claims of a just afterlife.

The two second largest world religions (Buddhism (if we wan't to call this a religion as deity is technically not involved) and Hinduism preach the idea of after lives which are influenced by your behavior in this life. This is another type of "final accounting" the idea that if you are bad you will return as something lower and have to work your way back up.

You are confusing social constructs with biological findings. Going all science on religion doesn't work. And science can absolutely prove things false. Even suggesting that science cannot prove things false is ridiculous. If science could not prove anything false, then we would still be prescribing antibiotics for viral infections, operating on a theory that suggested whites are more intelligent than other races, actively believing that the world is flat, and treating the common cold with 'bloodletting'. I understand your point though in regards to religion. However, it is how you are discrediting both all religions and people of religions that concerns me. Part of science is taking the 'active observer' role. For things you don't understand, you observe before passing active judgment. You also analyze it critically to consider how it can play a functional role in everyday life, and why specific beliefs and teachings are as they are. I am in no way qualified to speak on behalf of even a small minority of the world's religions.

And what are the two major world religions? There are about 30 major denominations and about 6 with over 400 million members.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

You are confusing social constructs with biological findings. Going all science on religion doesn't work.

Religious doctrine attempts to explain the natural world : Existence, language, rain, thunder, lighting, etc etc. Religion has never divorced itself from the natural world until recently.

Thanks to recent advancements in science it's becoming increasingly obvious how wrong religion is. So religious scholars are claiming "it's all a metaphor" you know there never was an ark (it's a story) there never was an Adam and Eve (it's a story).

Of course since there never was an Adam and Eve that raise the question of whence original sin came. Which debunks the whole of Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by NickZac

And science can absolutely prove things false. Even suggesting that science cannot prove things false is ridiculous. If science could not prove anything false, then we would still be prescribing antibiotics for viral infections, operating on a theory that suggested whites are more intelligent than other races, actively believing that the world is flat, and treating the common cold with 'bloodletting'.

A scientific theory doesn't equal a fact no matter how well it is supported. Of course some theories are so well supported that we consider them fact (gravity, evolution, germ theory, cell theory etc.). This doesn't actually make them fact however, but all observed data supports these theories, so we think of them as scientific fact.

This is the basis for all the confusion when non scientists say things live "evolution is just a theory" well so is gravity.

Antibiotics are based on theory - Theoretically god could actually be killing all the bacteria at the exact moment we introduce the drug, and we only think antibiotics are doing anything. You can't prove that god isn't doing it after all.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Religious doctrine attempts to explain the natural world : Existence, language, rain, thunder, lighting, etc etc. Religion has never divorced itself from the natural world until recently.

Thanks to recent advancements in science it's becoming increasingly obvious how wrong religion is. So religious scholars are claiming "it's all a metaphor" you know there never was an ark (it's a story) there never was an Adam and Eve (it's a story).

Of course since there never was an Adam and Eve that raise the question of whence original sin came. Which debunks the whole of Christian doctrine.



A scientific theory doesn't equal a fact no matter how well it is supported. Of course some theories are so well supported that we consider them fact (gravity, evolution, germ theory, cell theory etc.). This doesn't actually make them fact however, but all observed data supports these theories, so we think of them as scientific fact.

This is the basis for all the confusion when non scientists say things live "evolution is just a theory" well so is gravity.

Antibiotics are based on theory - Theoretically god could actually be killing all the bacteria at the exact moment we introduce the drug, and we only think antibiotics are doing anything. You can't prove that god isn't doing it after all.

Again, what religions are you speaking of? So all Christian doctrine is debunked even if people accept that humans did not begin a few thousands years ago by two people with the same level of development that we currently have, as homo sapiens sapiens? Obviously, we did not begin as homo s.s., nor did we begin in any recognizable human form, for that matter. But most religions are folklore-ish, and are packed with metaphorical language, have survived many years as oral tradition, and have been revised over time to reflect contemporary morality.

If you want to go philosophical, we can say that facts don't exist and just a series of assumed and tested theories do. If we want to be specifically scientific, we can say that what we commonly call facts are concepts that went from scientific observation to scientific theory to scientific testing to scientific validation to scientific law to common acception. Of course there is still the argument that theory is not fact and as you noted, religious people who strictly believe in fundamental development assert evolution is a theory, and an incorrect one at that. However, gravity and evolution are two things which have such evidence for, that I commonly refer to them as facts as opposed to theory. While technically they may be presumed concepts guided by a series of assumptions, I have personally accepted them to be scientific law that has been verified by a series of tests and affirmation. So given my own bias and subjectiveness, you could argue that my reasoning with this is faulty. Nonetheless, that is how I personally work.

But what I am trying to understand is why you seem to be so angry towards religion...

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Again, what religions are you speaking of? So all Christian doctrine is debunked even if people accept that humans did not begin a few thousands years ago by two people with the same level of development that we currently have, as homo sapiens sapiens? Obviously, we did not begin as homo s.s., nor did we begin in any recognizable human form, for that matter. But most religions are folklore-ish, and are packed with metaphorical language, have survived many years as oral tradition, and have been revised over time to reflect contemporary morality.

A central tenant of Christian doctrine is original sin. This is what Jesus supposedly died on the cross for the inherent sin which is present in all of us from the moment of birth. The claim is that without Jesus we cannot be purged of this sin which is inherent in the vary nature of our being.

Regardless of what people chose to believe or how they chose to interpret things this is a major concept within the bible. It does not change simply because people recognize that no first human ever existed.

If Adam and Eve didn't exist then whence come original sin? The inherited crime from The Garden of Eden.

Originally Posted by NickZac

If you want to go philosophical, we can say that facts don't exist and just a series of assumed and tested theories do. If we want to be specifically scientific, we can say that what we commonly call facts are concepts that went from scientific observation to scientific theory to scientific testing to scientific validation to scientific law to common acception. Of course there is still the argument that theory is not fact and as you noted, religious people who strictly believe in fundamental development assert evolution is a theory, and an incorrect one at that. However, gravity and evolution are two things which have such evidence for, that I commonly refer to them as facts as opposed to theory. While technically they may be presumed concepts guided by a series of assumptions, I have personally accepted them to be scientific law that has been verified by a series of tests and affirmation. So given my own bias and subjectiveness, you could argue that my reasoning with this is faulty. Nonetheless, that is how I personally work.

But what I am trying to understand is why you seem to be so angry towards religion...

I am angry towards religion because religion is now and always has been a lie. The reason we are still arguing about teaching evolution vs. intelligent design in our classrooms is because of religion. The reason we are having a debate about the rights of gay people is because of religion.

You cannot blame the religious people for "misunderstanding their religion" when it's written right there in Leviticus how we should treat gay people. They understand their religion perfectly, some modernize and ignore certain tenants of their religion which no longer can exist within modern society.

Slavery is another excellent example of something which is supported by Christian doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...#New_Testament

You are wrong in classifying religion as mythological, religion only becomes mythological once we realize that it isn't based in reality.

Zeus was once a religious figure, now he is a mythological figure.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

You are wrong in classifying religion as mythological, religion only becomes mythological once we realize that it isn't based in reality.

Zeus was once a religious figure, now he is a mythological figure.

How am I wrong in classifying it as mythological if we are in agreement that it is not based in reality?

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

How am I wrong in classifying it as mythological if we are in agreement that it is not based in reality?

Can you prove it isn't based in reality?

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Can you prove it isn't based in reality?

This is far to serious to have you present the "chicken or the egg" analogy.

Prove it is based in reality, then we'll talk.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

This is far to serious to have you present the "chicken or the egg" analogy.

Prove it is based in reality, then we'll talk.

I feel that you're missing the point of my comment.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Can you prove it isn't based in reality?

Jesus don't start that again!

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Jesus don't start that again!

It's the Sackcloth and Ashes.

It gets in his lungs, and it's a bitch to get it out.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Jesus don't start that again!

Wait so your saying just because you can't "disprove" something doesn't give it some inherent "mystical value"?

[Grey Beard]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Wait so your saying just because you can't "disprove" something doesn't give it some inherent "mystical value"?

Oh, Oh, ... I feel a retch coming on.

KGB

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Wait so your saying just because you can't "disprove" something doesn't give it some inherent "mystical value"?

Do you enjoy arguing just for the sake of it? I agree with you and then you disagree with my agreement with you...

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Do you enjoy arguing just for the sake of it? I agree with you and then you disagree with my agreement with you...

I suppose I didn't exactly interpret your response as an agreement.

What is your stance on religion in general?

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Do you enjoy arguing just for the sake of it? I agree with you and then you disagree with my agreement with you...

Post of the fortnight.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

I suppose I didn't exactly interpret your response as an agreement.

What is your stance on religion in general?

I am really not sure. I really can't tell you what I believe personally because I really don't know myself...consequently, I often view religion as almost a 'spectator'. In a functionalist's perspective, religion has been a function of society that was historically a structural component of not only religious life, but also education, work, the family life, and social life, for better or worse. Many religious based writings are also sources we derive history from.

In today's society, it really isn't as clear. Contemporary morality is varied wildly, religiosity is declining worldwide, and family life, social life, education, and work have largely moved away from formal religious ties. Alms to the poor has been a core function of most modern religions, and still is to this day...however, there are many organizations without affiliation that do this as well. Obviously, religion still has some positives. It provides social interaction, can promote group interaction and understanding, can unite different people together, can provide those in need, provides formal affirmation within a community, often brings economic opportunities, and is a hallmark of free speech. Research also shows that couples that go to a religious service on a regular basis are married longer and have higher marital satisfaction rates...why is heavily debated. Regardless of whether the afterlife concept is true or not, it gives a 'hope' for something greater, something to work for, and something to reason why bad things happen...this is often shaped in a negative light however there are some really positive aspects to it as well. However, the negatives can't be overlooked either. It has increased division by religion, been utilized to justify evil doings, is actively used to discriminate, has resulted in the deaths of millions from various 'holy wars', and can promote a negative groupthink leading to hate. Obviously I've only touched on some of the pros and cons but I see its modern function as not really defined, and I see both benefits of organized religion as well as drawbacks...sorry for such a waffled answer.