Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-02-2012, 08:36 AM #22
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Guys. Are you talking about science and christian fundamentalists or science and capitalism. I remember the thread being vaguely about capitalism.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 11:35 AM #23
rnauman821
I Ring the Bell
 
rnauman821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 563
rnauman821 is a Supporting Member
rnauman821 is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff View Post
Blame religion. Nutcases like Santorum openly bash evolution, understanding NOTHING of what they speak of. They'd rather hide behind the bible, than discover the facts. And when you hate evolution science, it isnt' a stretch to hate other science, like global warming data, amount of oil left in the ground, etc. It's primarily certain science that the right fears. And it's certain science the left gets bagged altering the data or message on, which doesn't help the cause.
This is the second time agreeing with you in recent memory.

Put an extra period at the end if it is really you.
rnauman821 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 01:46 PM #24
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 plays in the APPA D3 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Use this stuff, and your vinegar needs to be white wine. Not distilled, not apple cider, no mixes, JUST white wine vinegar. Perfect "deli" pickle.

I'd argue that it isn't people placing too much weight in "superstition", but rather putting weight in what they want to believe. THAT applies to all sides; Keynesian economists think their theory is the best, Scientologists think Xenu is hidden in some cave under the surface of the earth and our souls watched crazy 3d movies on the moon, Biologists specializing in apes think the split between chimp and bonobos is based on which side of the river they were on (one side had to compete with gorillas, so developed more aggressive behavior. The other side waaaay more peaceful... and they kind of act like homo sapien sapiens), and the major difference between the sects of Catholicism (including Greek Orthodox and Lutheran) and the majority of Protestant sects the Protestants believe in "once saved, always saved" while the Catholic "group" believe you can fall from grace. I can keep going, this is actually kind of fun. Point is, it isn't a group thing. It is an individual thing. Speaking of which... I need to grab that book on Galileo. From what my historian friends tell me, the real story isn't like what everyone learns.

Try the pickles.
I'm seriously going to. I love pickles.

Edit: But you linked me to a mix, then said "no mixes, just white wine vinegar."..clarify please.

Edit2: Nvm, I read it again.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 02-02-2012 at 03:21 PM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 10:16 PM #25
Pail Ail (Banned)
Bill Watterson
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
That's all I was saying. I said nothing of the validity of religion or superiority of science. In fact, I said that there ARE those two sides. It's up to each person which to put more weight into when it comes to forming beliefs.
What does that last sentence even mean? That way of thinking about things sets up the dichotomy. I mean **** you're discussing whether someone who places more weight in superstition (I thought we were discussing religion, but now you're seemingly throwing all religious faith under the blanket term of superstition [I'd also say that you're implicitly saying something about the validity of religion when you call it superstition) than in science would more likely oppose science.

Everyone places different amounts of "weight" on different topics, that says nothing about the ordinal ranking of value placed on topic X versus topic Y by the individual.

Quote:
And for someone who isn't religious, you sure get pretty defensive any time someone speaks in favor of the validity of worldly explanations as OPPOSED to explanations that depend on specific details about disgustingly hypothetical realms of existence. You just fueled the very dichotomy that you despise. Lighten up, try smiling every now and then. Go on, try it at your keyboard. No one is looking.
lul. Seriously?

You're almost on to something. Really, I get frustrated with the idiocy of atheists. That's about it. Maybe it's because I've actually read theological works and I'm sure most atheists are too ideological to dare acknowledge the importance of such works. Maybe it's because the internetatheist is the philosophical counterpart to the internetlibertarian, a plague on the interwebz.

But onto the substance of what you wrote. How did I fuel the dichotomy by claiming that such a dichotomy is useless, nothing more than an ideological tool? I didn't get frustrated with you pointing out that the works of the natural sciences (which is what you mean by science) are different than the works of religion and theology, I'm frustrated that you try to bring religion into the discussion by saying that someone who places a lot of weight in superstition rather than the hard sciences (which is quite the specific example, I doubt that the superstitious have readily examined the social sciences and decided which is more correct in explaining the world...) is more likely to oppose science. No one with any intellectual objectivity would call religion mere superstition and try to claim they aren't saying anything about the validity of science versus religion.


Also, you just wrote that you weren't saying anything about whether religion or science were right or what degree of rightness each possesses, but right below that you say I seem to get defensive whenever someone speaks about the validity of natural-science explanations opposed to your caricature of religious explanations. So which is it, bro?

Quote:
Opposition to science can arise there also, when convenient/comfortable thought takes precedent over supported/logical thought.

Some people are uncomfortable around homosexuals, so they readily believe negative untruths about the homosexual community to justify their prejudices.

Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled...just sayin. They do.
And some people oppose religion and theology because they're internet atheists so they prefer being louder than the "opposition" rather than understand the opposition.

Some people oppose conservatism because they associate it with old people that they've had negative experiences with.

etc.etc.

what's the point?
Pail Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 10:14 AM #26
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 plays in the APPA D3 division
Some people will literally tell you that "Evolution is just a theory" and go on to state how their prophecies and ancient stories are a better source to go off of than false evidence planted on Earth by Satan. Some people refuse to condone any teaching of evolutionary theory in the classrooms, and insist that their concept of creation should be given equal credibility in a science class.

So, these people trust their faith more than empirical evidence. This is when science is opposed by superstition. Yes, superstition. "I won't get hurt if I walk through fire, the Lord will protect me." "If I do good things for people, then more good things will come to me." Karma is an entirely superstitious belief.

Rain dancing is a superstitious practice, as is slaughtering a goat to please the gods in order to receive rain fall. How did it rain in the desert today, after so long without? Either god made it so via mystical powers, or a storm developed in a way which can be explained naturally.

You fueled the dichotomy by turning this into a religious pissing match. I stated that science is not unopposed. It is very often opposed by superstitious people. This is not to say that all religious people are merely superstitious loons, but those who can reject carbon dating and protest that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, can certainly be said to be clinging to superstitious beliefs. Biblical literalists oppose scientific claims all the time, instead putting forward their scripture and ridiculous stories.

I'm pretty sure the research shows that the average atheist knows more about world religions than any other philosophical demographic, and also score better than the average christian when it comes to Christianity itself. You should also keep in mind that when atheists are continuously bombarded by the same horribly flawed arguments and claims, often coming from people with very little exposure to worldviews different from there own, an attitude of intellectual superiority is sure to develop in some people. Remember, this is the internet, and the internet is all about establishing your dominance through a veil of anonymity.

So you may be annoyed by atheists who seem to provoke the low hanging fruit, if you will, but with so many religions and interpretations of those religions all asking atheists how we can possibly believe the world-view we do, as they spout of their own brands of non-sense as well, "gospel," can you really blame atheists?

And I informed you about your defensive tendencies because you clearly felt that I was attacking religion with my initial post. I was telling you of your defensive nature towards a specific attitude (People who value science when discovering truths, more so than their faith in ancient scripture).

You know where I stand, bro, but in that post, I was only saying that science does not run unopposed, and that there are other ways of which people arrive at what they hold to be true....bro.

And your last couple lines are off the point, and irrelevant. Opposition to science can arise when convenient/comfortable thought takes precedent over empirically supported/logical thought. That is all I was saying there.

Hate the "internet atheists" all you want, but I would bet that the average atheist poster is far more informed when it comes to philosophical discussions, and have given far thought, with less bias, into the subject than the average christian poster. I appreciate your willingness to call atheists on poor or misinformed arguments, but I feel like in your haste to check atheists, you have developed a blind eye or numbness to the idiocy of the modern moderate christian. You should tune back in and hear some of the irrational **** that gets said whole heartedly.

Anyway, I just got off work and am heading to bed now. Talk more with you again later, bro.

EDIT: We've gone far enough OT now, I think. Not that this thread was particularly insightful to begin with, but if you want we can continue this in R/P or through pm's.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 02-03-2012 at 04:10 PM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 12:47 AM #27
Pail Ail (Banned)
Bill Watterson
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
I've had less problems with religious people asking me about my views on deities and religion ever since I stopped caring. That's the atheists problem. jus sayin.

Atheists are intelligent enough to question something as important as the existence of a deity, forgive me if I hold them to a higher standard than the idiocy of a modern moderate christian. Or is that the new atheist standard?
Pail Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 06:57 PM #28
Pail Ail (Banned)
Bill Watterson
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Also, on the topic of the OP:

science and capitalism do go hand in hand, scientists and capitalism do not.

The most visible signal of elite-status is wealth. Scientists typically do not become wealthy, and the negative connotations associated with intelligence and an interest in academic subjects (from grade school on) does not help. Yet, people who are not as smart/not as committed/etc. can become quite rich (deservedly so) in a capitalist society (as could a scientist, it's just less likely if he attempts to reach this goal in the field of science). This is why scientists are shown to be some of the biggest supporters of wealth redistribution theories, and this signaling theory explanation makes the most sense.

And please, if you study the natural sciences, don't react negatively to this.
Pail Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 02:40 PM #29
Tuff
Supports 2nd Amendment
 
Tuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Tuff is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnauman821 View Post
This is the second time agreeing with you in recent memory.

Put an extra period at the end if it is really you.
If I started talking about putting the Marines on the border of Mexico, it would probably prove it was me more than a 2nd period.
__________________
IrishMafia
Proud American
Tuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump