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.
The social sciences are different from hard sciences for a reason. They are inherently very subjective.
LOL wrong. We have empirical evidence like any other science. Our p values are higher because of the effects of culture, learning, etc. But ALL science can be relatively subjective in its interpretation of the results. But we use objective, quantitative measures like everyone else.
LOL wrong. We have empirical evidence like any other science. Our p values are higher because of the effects of culture, learning, etc. But ALL science can be relatively subjective in its interpretation of the results. But we use objective, quantitative measures like everyone else.
It's hard to believe that when there exist Freudian psychologists. Which is the equivalent of having Aristotelian phycisists.
EDIT: my opinion of Freud just dropped even lower, now that I've read that he may have derived some of his theories from Shakespeare's plays!
<cue rapturous laughter>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmicstargoat
Mickiel is very prolix and never met a claim that he didn't like to make. Also, in spite of his rhetoric, he tries to distance himself from Christianity. For Mickey, EVERYTHING is evidence for his god, whether it makes sense or not, and it never does. Good luck.
If cosmologists conclude that the universe originated from a random string of quantum fluctuations, he'd conclude that those fluctuations count as God.
Last edited by Sci Fi Fan; 10-13-2012 at 12:12 PM..
The contemporary science of psychology teaches in keeping with an ability made possible by science that an individual can go around bopping anyone that is fancied if a condom is used. Religion teach's otherwise and is right... Problem with the science is no one wants to use the condom because it contradicts the freedom...so the big scientific idea even if on every bedpost in the world will not defeat the many bugs and disease's which want to take over, they.. the greatest army in the world...here's an update on another and many more to come added ranks to the disease'e of the worlds military. So this clearly shows the science which people think is on the ball is for the birds on this one, no doubt about it....look here, Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea: Is The Antibiotic Era Coming To An End? (VIDEO)
No, scientific studies of sexual intercourse with condoms results in a lower incidence of disease transmission than sexual intercourse without condoms.
And, predictably, that good old "No Condoms, Abstinence Only!" methodology results in what? It results in the Bible Belt dominating the list of states where syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea are most common: STD Statistics for the USA
Syphilis
Louisiana (16.8)
Georgia (9.8)
Arkansas (9.6)
Alabama (8.9)
Mississippi (8.1)
Texas (6.8)
Tennessee (6.5)
North Carolina (6.3)
New York (6.1)
Illinois (5.8)
Chlamydia
Mississippi (802.7)
Alaska (752.7)
Louisiana (626.4)
South Carolina (595.0)
Alabama (556.2)
Delaware (540.4)
Arkansas (502.7)
New Mexico (478.4)
Tennessee (478.1)
New York (472.4)
This is really dumb. Religion says not to have sex outside of marriage. Stick to the facts. If people stuck to what religion said, veneral disease would not be an issue.
It's not about religion as much as people NOT doing what religion teaches.
Oh? So marriage protects humans from venereal disease? That is interesting. It is also stupid. It is noteworthy that the religious invaders of this hemisphere brought Bibles, Smallpox and Syphilis to the indigenous population, but who cares about a bunch of savages, right?
My post specifically addressed another post. When you jump into an ongoing discussion, stick to the if we all lived in a fantasy-world where humans were not human, then STDs would be much less common (though, you're dead wrong -- they would still exist and be an issue). And if we lived in a fantasy-world where humans used condoms always and expertly except when trying to procreate, then STDs would also be much less common. But we don't live in those fantasy-worlds, we live in the real world. And here in the real world, those places implementing the fantasy-based "abstinence-only" policy upon real people with all the faults of real people end up with more STDs and more unwanted pregnancies (and, thus, more abortions) than those places who deal with the real world and treat humans as real people who are never going to live up to the ridiculous religious expectations.
It's a simple challenge, really. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you could name a single instance in all of human history, although coming up with more than three would probably be impossible.
By "Science", mean a discovery proposed by a significant portion of the scientific community that based on a version of the modern scientific method. That is very distinct from philosophy.
Of course, there have been instances when scientists were wrong, but the beauty of the field is that they ended up correcting themselves, and did not burn dissenters at the stake. What I want is an example in which the dominant religious institution, through religious means, proved a scientific position wrong.
So scientists thought X, religious leader said no, you're wrong, and the latter turned out to be right.
And I'm referring to objective truths, not morality or philosophy.
After all, religion by definition is dogmatic and doesn't change -- it's already being guided by omnipotence, right? Modern science is still relatively new, and getting more and more accurate every year. So the chances of the latter being wrong decreases every generation, while the accuracy of the former at best stays the same. So if you cannot find a single instance where bible thumpers were right on biology or climate science, then arguing that they are right for the one time in human history is...well, just plain dumb.
Also, I don't want any circular responses, such as "they are right on intelligent design now!" or "they are right that Christ is our savior!". I want claims made by the church that have been empirically demonstrated to be superior to a counter-claim by the scientific community.
Last time, I bet 100 imaginary bucks. This time, I'm going all out and offering my entire imaginary salary to any person who can actually come up with one example.
And I'll give up every imaginary dollar I make in my lifetime to anyone who can come up with more than five nontrivial examples, and furthermore repute every one of your posts that I ever read.
I just have a few questions:
1. Why do you assume a religious figure (or system, in accordance with the OP) would be an authority in any scientific field (outside of those who are actually educated experts in said field, of course)?
2. I'm not aware of any definition that states religion, or it's dogma, is immune to change. Could you please provide your reasoning for this statement?
3. Science and religion typically deal with different things (as you already identified: objective truths vs. morality and philosophy). Isn't your "challenge" simply trying to compare apples to oranges?
Last edited by JB from NC; 10-13-2012 at 08:00 PM..
It's a simple challenge, really. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you could name a single instance in all of human history, although coming up with more than three would probably be impossible.
By "Science", mean a discovery proposed by a significant portion of the scientific community that based on a version of the modern scientific method. That is very distinct from philosophy.
Of course, there have been instances when scientists were wrong, but the beauty of the field is that they ended up correcting themselves, and did not burn dissenters at the stake. What I want is an example in which the dominant religious institution, through religious means, proved a scientific position wrong.
So scientists thought X, religious leader said no, you're wrong, and the latter turned out to be right.
And I'm referring to objective truths, not morality or philosophy.
After all, religion by definition is dogmatic and doesn't change -- it's already being guided by omnipotence, right? Modern science is still relatively new, and getting more and more accurate every year. So the chances of the latter being wrong decreases every generation, while the accuracy of the former at best stays the same. So if you cannot find a single instance where bible thumpers were right on biology or climate science, then arguing that they are right for the one time in human history is...well, just plain dumb.
Also, I don't want any circular responses, such as "they are right on intelligent design now!" or "they are right that Christ is our savior!". I want claims made by the church that have been empirically demonstrated to be superior to a counter-claim by the scientific community.
Last time, I bet 100 imaginary bucks. This time, I'm going all out and offering my entire imaginary salary to any person who can actually come up with one example.
And I'll give up every imaginary dollar I make in my lifetime to anyone who can come up with more than five nontrivial examples, and furthermore repute every one of your posts that I ever read.
I'm on the Science side of the argument but I can think of a couple:
Religion said there were strange "other places" outside of our universe which exist in the same place as we do; places they called heaven, hell, the underworld, spirit world or any one of dozens of names depending on the culture and time.
Science said: Poppycock! there is only the universe and it is a tangible place... there are not "other worlds" occupying the same piece of universal real estate as us.
Now every "rockstar physicist" wants to work on string theory and the idea of strange "other places" known as alternate dimensions are considered actual science... not just science fiction. Religion erred on the details but had the concept right all along.
I've got another local example; in the 1840's the Mormon church came out and said don't use alcohol or tobacco because it is bad for your health, per god. This was back when the only people who didn't use them were dead people, BTW.
Science spent many years and many millions of dollars of grants from alcohol and tobacco companies to try to prove otherwise, but we certainly know the truth now...
You've gotta remember, religion is proto-science. There actually is centuries of wisdom and good advice based on real observations wrapped up with all the fluff.
Typical. Attention paid. Antitheist gets all desingenions and huffy. I'll use capital letters. IF PEOPLE FOLLOWED RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS ON SEX, STDS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE
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.
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.
