You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
It is just a short blurb, but an important one as knowing the difference between proof and evidenced support is a key concept.
Enjoy!
[5] Learn the distinction between proof and evidential support.
This is something that supernaturalists never tire of failing to understand, so once and for all, I shall present the distinction here.
Proof is a formal procedure in pure mathematics, and only applicable to that discipline. Proof consists of applying, in an error-free manner, well-defined rules of inference to the axioms of a given mathematical system in order to produce theorems, and thence recursively to those theorems to produce more theorems.
Evidential support consists of providing empirical demonstrations that a given set of postulates is in accord with observational reality. This is the process that is used in the physical sciences in order to build scientific theories. Postulates that are NOT in accord with observational reality are, as stated in [2] above, discarded.
As in [4] above, if you cannot exercise the basic level of intellectual effort required to learn this simple distinction, or worse still, erect fatuous nonsense about “proving” a scientific theory (especially if “prove” is mis-spelt with two ‘o’s), then expect your posts to be treated as a free fire zone for scathing and withering derision.
Organized religion consistently delivers venal corruption wherever it goes. In Kenya the ruffles and flourishes are culturally appropriate but the mendacity remains unsurprisingly the same.
As a special envoy of the Sky Daddy it is my job to fleece lead you into his good graces by bullshitting dramatically conveying His Word unto you for a nominal donation.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
It is just a short blurb, but an important one as knowing and being charitable toward your opponents positions is vital during a reasonable debate.
Enjoy!
[4] Learn what scientists ACTUALLY postulate, not what you think they postulate, or have been told that they postulate by duplicitous apologetics websites.
This dovetails nicely with [3] above (because creationists always assume they know better what scientists postulate than the scientists themselves), and also dovetails to varying degrees with [6], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13] below. If creationists really want to critique the theory of evolution, then they had better start learning what that theory actually postulates, as opposed to the farcical strawman caricatures thereof erected by authors of duplicitous apologetics. If you cannot be bothered to exercise this basic level of intellectual effort, then don’t be surprised if people treat your attempts to erect 3,000 year old mythology, written by ignorant Bronze Age nomads, as being purportedly “superior” to the work of Nobel Laureates, with the scorn and derision such attempts deserve.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
Enjoy!
[3] The “assumptions” canard (with “interpretation” side salad).
This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. As I have stated in [2] above, science is in the business of testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named “Answers in Genesis” with respect to their assertion that 14C dating was based upon “assumptions”. I’ve also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don’t even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest.
Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the “interpretation” assertion, which creationist erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does NOT rely upon “presupposition”. Indeed, scientists have expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were proper inferences to draw.
Basically, there is only one “interpretation” of the data that matters to scientists, and that is whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
I get this one, or variations on it on many discussion threads. The confounding of religion and science is all to common as methods used to criticize one are not necessarily suitable for critiquing the other.
Enjoy!
[2] Science is NOT a branch of apologetics.
Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves NO empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision.
Among the more duplicitous examples of such dishonesty, all too frequently seen here in the past, is quote mining of scientific papers or scientific publications. There are entire websites devoted to the exposure of this particular brand of dishonesty, and anyone making the mistake of erecting quote mines here will have their buttocks handed to them in a sling.
How do we frame arguments? What context do we use to determine what is a bad argument versus what is a good argument. The Liberal Viewer uses an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali to put forth the argument that once religious thought touches the public policy sphere, it must be evaluated on rational grounds.
Friends, country men lend us your chil...errrr... ears.
The insipid organization known as the Catholic Church continues to fumble along now begging forgiveness for violating children and destroying their lives.
“Pope Benedict XVI has begged forgiveness from clerical abuse victims and promised to “do everything possible” to ensure priests don’t rape and molest children ever again.”
Well that is nice, but as the CBC reports it is too little, a lot too late.
“Benedict made the pledge during a Mass Friday in St. Peter’s Square, marking the end of the Vatican’s Year of the Priest, a celebration of the priesthood that has been marred by revelations of hundreds of new cases of clerical abuse, coverup and Vatican inaction to root out pedophiles.”
I’m sure that now, he means business.
“On Thursday, Benedict strongly defended celibacy for priests as a sign of faith in an increasingly secular world, insisting on a church tradition that has come under scrutiny amid the clerical sex abuse scandal.”
Well, it would seem there is a correlation of sorts between sex starved priests and the innocent children they systematically and repeatedly target. One might, if possessing even a moderate grasp of reality, ascertain that the policy of Celibacy for priests is not working very well. Will the pious make a decision based in the real world? Wait for it.
“The pope called it “a great sign of faith, of the presence of God in the world.”
The Vatican has long denied that its celibacy requirement was the root cause of priests who rape and sodomize children.”
OH SNAP! Celibacy is the presence of GOD in the world let the rape-train continue full steam ahead!
When people talk to me of religion and morality they wonder why I look at them funny.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…