If I were to become an atheist...

If I were to become an atheist... Jan 26, 2018 2:29:35 GMT

Quote

Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 26, 2018 2:29:35 GMT

Jan 25, 2018 13:37:43 GMT Arlon10 said:

Jan 25, 2018 12:41:35 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

<1,2,3>

1) I guess the answer to my question is that you're going to keep up with this nonsense in perpetuity, because what you said here ignored everything I said and is just repeating what you said earlier.

There's a lot of that going around.

2) Believing that the sun will rise/explode tomorrow are both beliefs that require faith, but one is rational and the other is irrational.

The last time you mentioned that I challenged you to show that more people of faith believe the sun will explode tomorrow than there are "scientists" who do. Where is that data?

3) I might as well quote Yudkowsky, " [ ... ... ] the point is that there are worldviews which try to minimize that imposition [of witch doctoring], and worldviews which glory in it.

Aha, well chosen words, more or less what I live for these days. Why can't you see that is my point though? I actually agree with everything you say about science. The only glitch is that mine is science and yours is not.

Most of the confusion lately comes from using statistical analysis, which I have explained is not the same as the "science" that deserves your accolades. I have studied both and made excellent grades in both. I know whereof I speak. Amateurs note differences in data so small that it only shows up after twenty years then try to dictate which factor caused the change. That is not science. Way too many things change way too much in twenty years to say which "one" factor is responsible. The science you mean to applaud eliminates other factors in order to correctly identify the effects of the one factor of interest. That is ordinarily impossible in statistical analysis scenarios in the news. Do you think the sea will rise drastically tomorrow? It might, you just don't why yet.

if you expect an invisible dragon to heal your daughter of cancer

The "invisible dragon" of religion does not use the power of the state to force you at gunpoint to pay for its medical treatments. The invisible dragon of false science shouldn't do that either, but it does. Medical costs are insanely high and it is because people continue to believe in false science.

2. The sun rising/exploding is merely an extreme example to illustrate the point about your "fallacy of gray." All faiths are not the same. Some are rational, some are irrational. Some are based on overwhelming evidence, some are based on none. So trying to lump science and religion into the same category because believing in them both requires faith is stupid. Science has proven itself time and again; religion has not. So there's evidence for believing that science knows what it says it knows; there's no such evidence for religion. These faiths are not equal.

3. You are not a scientist. You don't get to decide what's science and what's not. That's for scientists to decide. If you want to claim anything is/isn't a science, then take it up with other scientists. But, yet again, you seem to not actually be addressing anything in that article and quote, but merely using it to go off on another Arlon-sequitor.

The invisible dragon of religion may not use the "power of the state," but they still use the power of human irrationality to get people to donate thousands--probably millions in total--of dollars every year that primarily goes into the pockets of the preachers and/or into building fancy churches or into promoting the "word," while promising the moon and delivering nothing (except, perhaps, psychological comfort). That money would be much better spent... on just about anything, including state-based medical costs. The entire reason that medicine has become a matter for states and taxes is precisely because it works. If it didn't work, nobody would care about paying for it, much less trying to allow everyone access to it.