U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2011, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,936,501 times
Reputation: 441

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Are you sure? Because upon reading that magazine for information on Stem Cell research (your example) I find nothing like you describe and in fact the magazine appears to be very much pro-stem cell research. It talks at length about methods to improve public acceptance of stem cell research, one of which is to educate them on the benefits and advantages of it.

That does not sound like calling it... how did you put it.... "Stem Cell research was bunk and that it was metaphysical junk".

I opened the current online issue for example and did find they have indeed got an article on Stem Cells. Titled "Religion on Politics on Science: The Rough Ride for Stem Cells Continues" and it talks about the importance of it also. Nothing in there about it being "bunk" or "junk". Which article did you read? It can not have been any of the ones I just did.

Without actual quotations or links or citations I am forced to conclude you did not actually read the contents of this magazine, or you looked at the words but read what you wanted to see rather than what was there.
I am not 100% if it was that magazine. It was a skeptics magazine in a used book store. It could have been an old one. I will go back tomorrow to see if I can find it again. I read the article in the magazine and it claimed Stem-cell research to be metaphysical junk. It also claimed that a certain ancient city was fraud and not what archeologists claimed it to be. The city was Puma Panku, there isn't much we actually know about this city... yet, the magazine seemed to have inside info about it. Not likely...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2011, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,936,501 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
While it is a bit unfeasible to expect everyone to go out and check Einstein's or Hawkings' work, your point that everything is open to question is a valid one.

What your argument looks like is the old accusation that god - denying science - worshipping atheists simply parrot what's in their science books without question, whereas a rational person would question it.

The fact is that this argument applies so much more to religious faith and god - claims since the questioning throws up so many objections which are sidelined by appeals to faith, lack of human knowledge and magic.

Science at least has a built in skepticism whereby everything is questioned and questioned again. Which is why there are occasional shocks and reappraisals - which is proved by theists being able to claim that science is always changing its mind or getting things wrong. But it also means that science applies everywhere. There are no rival sciences as there are religions.

While the corpus of data is as reliable as anything can be expected to be, (so it is reasonable to quote it without all of us having to go and re-do the work ourselves), it is the believers in the god - claims and alternative history cults who are fiercely skeptical of science (which is what your OP was all about) while being incredibly and eagerly uncritical of their own unsubstantiated god - claims and the like.
I don't expect everyone to be able to question and test everything.

And just want to get one thing straight... I don't subscribe to any God or deity. I believe that all religions have somethings right and somethings wrong. I believe that all religions could work and live in harmony. It is slowly happening, in a few generations most religions will get along and accept the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,936,501 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
So do I. So when are you going to get around to doing a randomized double-blind study of your beliefs? If you haven't done so, you're just being a hypocrite to complain that no one else has either. So get to it, and let us know when we can see your published results.
When I want other people to believe what I do, I might do that. However, I do these things for me an nobody else. I wasn't saying to go out and test it for the world. I said test it for yourself. Form your own opinion through your own tests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,936,501 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Let's see ... first you said educated people believe what they read, then you said intelligent people do their own testing, then you said "if people would do their own research," then you said you don't know many skeptics or atheists who do their own studies," then you said they question everything except what they read, then you said they discredit the author but not their work.

Yep, their is plenty there to make us wonder what you are really trying to say. What ARE you trying to say?
I think it's pretty obvious. Being educated through books and reading is one thing. Being intelligent and doing your own testing is another. I don't know many atheists or skeptics that do their own research aside from reading other peoples work.

I do my own research, this includes some tests. They might not be double blind studies, but I don't need that. All I need to do is experiment it for myself.

What I mean by discrediting the author but not their work is that since most skeptics cannot prove the author wrong. Since they can't do this, they find flaws in their personality or writing and flaunt this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,936,501 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by 'experiment' but if anything what I have seen here has had the atheist types going back and checking data on both sides whereas the theists tend to cut and paste from theist apologetics sites without checking them, let alone checking the sources that apologetics sites copy from.
There has been a lot of egg on a lot of theist faces over that. Though it takes a hell of a lot of egg before they even see it's there.

I may say that I have read and tested the Gospels to near destruction.
The believers (even if they bothered to look) have clearly just shrugged it off. Reading what others have done and taking their word for it is one kind of bias. Reading it and not taking the detailed and explained argument on board requires bias of another order entirely.
I'm skeptical of the bible as well. As the story of the bibles are very similar to other ancient texts from other civilizations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 01:03 PM
 
34,818 posts, read 8,993,080 times
Reputation: 4812
Well, that's what I call reasonable (bugger.. my bias is unbuttoned again) In which case any matter you have skeptical doubts about there is reason to think we could sort out by some critical re- examination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 02:35 PM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
10,344 posts, read 10,417,847 times
Reputation: 6969
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
I think it's pretty obvious. Being educated through books and reading is one thing. Being intelligent and doing your own testing is another. I don't know many atheists or skeptics that do their own research aside from reading other peoples work.

I do my own research, this includes some tests. They might not be double blind studies, but I don't need that. All I need to do is experiment it for myself.

What I mean by discrediting the author but not their work is that since most skeptics cannot prove the author wrong. Since they can't do this, they find flaws in their personality or writing and flaunt this.
I understand exactly what you mean. My father used to refer to engineers with no common sense as "educated idiots." However, I think you are making a broad generalization. Without trying to be too general, it is worth mentioning that many atheists (and skeptics) are highly intelligent people. Remembering that it is very difficult to prove a negative (and, by definition, atheism is a negative), I wonder just what specific testing and research you would be expecting them to conduct. These seem to be pretty much the opposite of the type of people who would attack the author instead of the writing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,041 posts, read 30,728,275 times
Reputation: 12222
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
When I want other people to believe what I do, I might do that. However, I do these things for me an nobody else. I wasn't saying to go out and test it for the world. I said test it for yourself. Form your own opinion through your own tests.
There are just some things that people believe that I do not need to test to know they are false, and many of these have been tested by people who are qualified and have the resources to do such tests....Asking people to test everything for themselves is just not reasonable.

Tell us please what it is that you have run these personal tests on,(I'm guessing reiki) were they peer reviewed and unbiased? A biased test is worse than no test at all you know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,936,501 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
There are just some things that people believe that I do not need to test to know they are false, and many of these have been tested by people who are qualified and have the resources to do such tests....Asking people to test everything for themselves is just not reasonable.

Tell us please what it is that you have run these personal tests on,(I'm guessing reiki) were they peer reviewed and unbiased? A biased test is worse than no test at all you know.
I have experimented with many things and come to my own conclusion about each. Reiki is one of these, as is meditation, acupressure, lucid dreaming, brainwave music, gemstones/minerals, and other practices and philosophies.

My tests were done for me. I studied various texts and went to many courses. I performed my own studies. I logged them in a journal and had no opinion about the topic. I am naturally intrigued by things and crave to know more about a topic. I don't just buy into anything. I also continue to study the same topics over time. I believe in reiki, however I still test and question its possibilities and limits.

You can mock my belief all you want. I am a rational and logical person, as you seem to be as well. I have nothing against your beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,041 posts, read 30,728,275 times
Reputation: 12222
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
I have experimented with many things and come to my own conclusion about each. Reiki is one of these, as is meditation, acupressure, lucid dreaming, brainwave music, gemstones/minerals, and other practices and philosophies.

My tests were done for me. I studied various texts and went to many courses. I performed my own studies. I logged them in a journal and had no opinion about the topic. I am naturally intrigued by things and crave to know more about a topic. I don't just buy into anything. I also continue to study the same topics over time. I believe in reiki, however I still test and question its possibilities and limits.

You can mock my belief all you want. I am a rational and logical person, as you seem to be as well. I have nothing against your beliefs.
You keep saying that I'm mocking, but I'm not, as a matter of fact I meditate, and have played around with lucid dreaming (didn't much like it though). Reiki, and magical properties of gemstones as you know I don't believe in, and reserve judgement on acupressure etc., as for brainwave music, I don't even know what that is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top