why does this forum care so much about religion

[Metric]

An excellent question. I don't mind discussing it once in a while, but Jesus. Start a thread about a non-trivial scientific idea and it stands an excellent chance of being buried in minutes by God-talk.

[pokervintage]

Stalin's Soviet union, a godless country, routinely tortured and murdered for whatever reason they deemed necessary. I could go on with many examples of what is wrong with atheism. Religion is not the problem. Some religions say "Love your brother as you would yourself". Following that doctrine is not a problem. Human beings have issues whether they believe in God or not. Not all religions have a "problem" with Gays. Come on, don't blame religion, blame the individuals and their actions.

pokervintage

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Belief in god is one thing, and alone it isn't a problem. Theistic doctrine and the actions that follow from them are big problems. Technology, medicine, philosophy and law are only a few of the fields which have often been held back by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theist would like to claim some historical significance in some of those fields. That's like Genghis Khan wanting credit for unifying the Steppes.

Even if there were some merit to the claim historically ( other than accident of place/time), the question would be, "what have you done for me lately."

The major advances to thought/study came when religion was in recession, but it's a moot point in today's world anyway.

luckyme

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Stalin's Soviet union, a godless country, routinely tortured and murdered for whatever reason they deemed necessary. I could go on with many examples of what is wrong with atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a logical fallacy to equate Stalin's method of rule with Atheism. Believers have been guilty of similar atrocities in the name of their faith.

Technically, you haven't shown a single example of what's wrong with atheism.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
An excellent question. I don't mind discussing it once in a while, but Jesus. Start a thread about a non-trivial scientific idea and it stands an excellent chance of being buried in minutes by God-talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem is that it's the Internet, and everybody is qualified to loudly hate on religion. But having discussions about science requires more knowledge and interest, so it falls by the wayside, for the most part.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on with many examples of what is wrong with atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go on? I'll settle for the first one.

luckyme

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
One might even say that science _being_ arguable makes it what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point is...Try and make a point to a scientist and he will ask for rigorous proof. Not arguable diatribes.

pokervintage

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Technically, you haven't shown a single example of what's wrong with atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

My example of the Soviet Union equates very well with luckyme blaming religion because of what happened to his cousin.

pokervintage

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One might even say that science _being_ arguable makes it what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point is...Try and make a point to a scientist and he will ask for rigorous proof. Not arguable diatribes.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Proof is harder to get in these days of raw material costs.

luckyme

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One might even say that science _being_ arguable makes it what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point is...Try and make a point to a scientist and he will ask for rigorous proof. Not arguable diatribes.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

It is actually quite amazing how much science is based not on rigorous proof, but sufficient proof - or probable proof.

And actually in a few cases you have examples where it is based on flawed proof, improbable proof and sometimes bad proof that you expect will get better (the hubble constant is a classic example of the last one).

It doesn't mean these cases are bad per se, sometimes it is just necessary to have somewhere to start with and at other times the models you get will have good predictive value still.

The important thing is that science is (ideally) in the cases where these things are done, aware of it in method. Iow. that the scientists know what they are using and why. This is the 'scientific' approach that is so important.

A simple analogy would be for instance if you were go shopping, and you want strawberries. But it is out of season so you don't remember how much they are. You assume they will be something along the lines of what they cost last winter + the normal increase in price. It isn't foolproof, not does it necessarily exact - but until you can expand on your knowledge (was it a good harvest/bad harvest, has there been strikes, is strawberries popular or not this year, how does the prize differ from store to store etc.) it it is 'good enough' and the predictive value is good.