ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) Hello, I am of course, atheistic. Beyond atheism though, based on scientific evidence, I had come to possess a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief. (As shown in my signature) I observe science's great importance, and I reject anything that disregards science, and so in addition to religious belief, I reject the very concept of belief. (See spoiler below) Spoiler WHY REJECT THE VERY CONCEPT OF BELIEF? Belief is one of many unavoidable candidates/concepts for that which opposes science, for belief by definition/research (See research/standard definition), permits large ignorance of evidence. One may especially ignore evidence for a few cases, and if extra extra careless, one may do so for many many cases. Anyway, why is there a religious section on ScienceForums.net? Edited August 16, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Area54 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Your rejection of belief seems to be based upon a belief. 1
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 16, 2017 Author Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Area54 said: Your rejection of belief seems to be based upon a belief. There was no need, because scientific evidence exists; (1) Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias: (Cognitive paper source) (2) ‘Belief memories’ are typically false: (Neuroscience paper source) Anyway, why do you garner there is a religious section on ScienceForums.net? Edited August 16, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Area54 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Thank you for your links. You will be aware that I could post similar ones on the relationship between belief and cherry picking of research. Why is there a religious section on these Forums? I don't know. I don't work here. I suspect it may be for one of several reasons. Somewhere to isolate the religious fundamentalists Somewhere to discuss the conflicts between science and religion Somewhere to discuss the common ground between science and religion Somewhere to discuss the scientific investigation of religion Somewhere to discuss religion because a lot of members seem to want to There are probably more
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 16, 2017 Author Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Area54 said: Thank you for your links. You will be aware that I could post similar ones on the relationship between belief and cherry picking of research. Why is there a religious section on these Forums? I don't know. I don't work here. I suspect it may be for one of several reasons. Somewhere to isolate the religious fundamentalists Somewhere to discuss the conflicts between science and religion Somewhere to discuss the common ground between science and religion Somewhere to discuss the scientific investigation of religion Somewhere to discuss religion because a lot of members seem to want to There are probably more I haven't consumed cherries in quite some time... I do consume oranges, mangoes etc though. Anyway, there are several non-science websites where the religious can unravel their worries. Edited August 16, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Area54 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: I haven't consumed cherries in quite some time... I do consume oranges, mangoes etc though. Anyway, there are several non-science websites where the religious can unravel their worries. My second, third and fourth list items have nothing to do with "the religious unravelling their worries". It appears that you believe they do.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 16, 2017 Author Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Area54 said: My second, third and fourth list items have nothing to do with "the religious unravelling their worries". It appears that you believe they do. I need not faith. Scientific investigation of religion (for example, a study into the neurological behaviours of the religious) would still fall appropriately under science). Science does not require religion. (So your other points are irrelevant)
Area54 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, ProgrammingGodJordan said: I need not faith. Scientific investigation of religion (for example, a study into the neurological behaviours of the religious) would still fall appropriately under science). Science does not require religion. (So your other points are irrelevant) I never suggested you needed faith. I never suggested I needed faith. I made no explicit comments about faith. The only reason I can currently come up with for you introducing it is that you are obsessed with your agenda of non-belief. You might want to consider the risks of that approach. (I remind you that the irony you placed in the title may be a two edged sword.) Scientific investigation of geology (for example, a study of the chemical changes in a rock undergoing metasomatism) would still fall appropriately under chemistry. And yet we have a section on Earth Science. And we have a section on Politics. And some forums have sections on History. You asked me why there was a religion section. I pointed out that it was nothing to do with me and offered some possible reasons it had been created. I'm not defending or attacking those hypothetical reasons. I was just answering your question. Therefore those other points are relevant as a direct answer to your direct question. If you wish to ask another question please go ahead.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 16, 2017 Author Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Area54 said: Scientific investigation of geology (for example, a study of the chemical changes in a rock undergoing metasomatism) would still fall appropriately under chemistry. And yet we have a section on Earth Science. An irrelevant point, as unlike nonsensical religious talk, both of the scientific things you mention, not surprisingly, already fall under science. Edited August 16, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Area54 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: An irrelevant point, as unlike nonsensical religious talk, both of those things already fall under science. Not at all. The scientific investigation of religion is a distinct susbset of scientific investigation and so is arguably entitled to its own section. Personally, I would place such discussions in Biology, or introduce a Social Sciences section, but - to repeat yet again - I have nothing to do with how the admin team created subdivisions. I simply offered you some possible reasons they may have had. You seem hell bent on objecting to the very existence of the section that you are blind to rational proposals. That looks awfully like something prompted by a belief. Anyway, I've answered your question. I suggest you wait till a mod or admin gives you the "real" reason there is a Religious sub-forum and then you can argue the case with them. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 16, 2017 Author Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Area54 said: Not at all. The scientific investigation of religion is a distinct susbset of scientific investigation and so is arguably entitled to its own section. Personally, I would place such discussions in Biology, or introduce a Social Sciences section Yes, the above is appropriate. As I mentioned before your above response, studies into religious behaviour falls under science, so a section for that would be okay, while a section that permits science opposing religious blather, would not be (is not) suitable. Quote You seem hell bent on objecting to the very existence of the section that you are blind to rational proposals. That looks awfully like something prompted by a belief. Anyway, I've answered your question. I suggest you wait till a mod or admin gives you the "real" reason there is a Religious sub-forum and then you can argue the case with them. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Not blind, but rather, I had pointed out that some of your earlier proposals were irrelevant/inapt, as they did not validate why these forums would need permit religious blather. Edited August 16, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan
Area54 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 17 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Not blind, but rather, I had pointed out that some of your earlier proposals were irrelevant/inapt, as they did not validate why these forums would need permit religious blather. FFS, they are all valid and relevant as possible reasons for why the Religious forum was created. I did not say they were good reasons. I simply answered your question with "I suspect it may be one of several reasons", some of which I then listed. Now please don't reply, I don't wish to spend anymore time on this.
StringJunky Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) There is a religion section because people will post about religion and its presence keeps the subject away from the pure science forums; it's a necessary conduit. It also gives the opportunity for religious people to test their beliefs against scientific consensus. Edited August 16, 2017 by StringJunky
swansont Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 ! Moderator Note The short answer is that the staff decided it would be better to have one, since religious topics repeatedly crop up, often from people who thing religious texts are science books. But... The possible irony involved does not give you leave to violate the rules you agreed to when you joined. Posting to advertise your blog is against the rules. Soapboxing is against the rules (which includes your bait-and-switch tactic in the OP, which also violates the rule about staying on topic). Since the question has been addressed, this is closed.
Recommended Posts