The real question.

Science is held to a much higher standard than religion.

Scientific findings are constantly revised and re studied...religion is not, religion is only changed through culture, reformation, and economics/politics.

Science aims to be proven, religion does not.

Science does NOT go by blind faith, religion does.

Science is unbiased...most religion is totally biased

If a scientific finding contradicts another scientific law or is not logically acceptable, it is discarded. If a religious doctrine contradicts another religious doctrine, or is not logically acceptable, it is still used.

Sorry Ytse, but science beats religion when it comes to standards.

Originally posted by Ytse
But anecdotal evidence doesn't = illogical. It's just not empirical.

I was paying a compliment, sheesh

but yes

However, the ONLY reason that science appears better is because you are using things that are almost by definition the realm of science.

If the system of logic you use postulates that any pattern we see in the universe is a construct of our pattern seeking brain, science falls apart.

If you say there is no way to ever eliminate all the confounding variables in an experiment, then scientific exploration is not held to very high standards at all.

Its asinine to make the argument in the 21st century, but from a strictly philosophical or theoretical standpoint, science can only prove other science.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hmmmm You don't get it, sorry. 😄

No, I get it. You think we're talking about something we're not. Refer to this post:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8908074#post8908074

We're talking about evidence for or against the suppositions religion makes about reality. And the question asked was which is another standard for proof aside from scientific and I said anecdotal. And as far as this topic goes, since science can't even test these sorts of things I would hardly say it's superior here.

------------------------------

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Science is held to a [b]much higher standard than religion.[/B]

I wasn't talking about religious doctrine at all.

------------------------------

Originally posted by inimalist
I was paying a compliment, sheesh

but yes

Oh, I was just elaborating. 🙂

Religious "truths" and scientific truths are BOTH susceptible to whacked out metaphysical claims of being illusions. "God" is not exempt from being an illusion.

Illusion or not, naturalistic, objective and verifiable scientific truths >>> subject and unreliable supernatural explanations.

To save my sanity, I'm skipping the rest of this conversation...gues thats what happens when you slip out of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Holy Shit! You think Dawkins is wrong WITHOUT EVEN HAVING READ HIS BOOK!?

Yopu've just lost all credibility. Maybe if you actualy knew what his viewpoint was based on, you'd have a right to criticize it... But you're just doing baseless guessing right now.

ZOMG! You know SO much about Dawkins that you DONT EVEN KNOW that hes WRITTEN MORE THAN ONE BOOK, AND WRITTEN COUNTELESS ARTICLES, AND DONE COUNTLESS INTERVIEWS.

ZOMG! I haven't read one book.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You see, you are making yourself out to be an idiot. I am 100% sure that Alliance knows more about what Dawkins does than you do. You have shown 0 knowledge of science. You really shouldn't even bother with this conversation because you fail at logic and science.

Do you even realize that Dawkins has published far more than one book? Oh that's right, you never get to see any of that because you aren't qualified. You may shut up before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.

😂 Thank you 🙂.

Originally posted by inimalist
Dawkins' fatal error is that he doesn't draw a clear line between his science and his opinion. In many genres this is ok, but when you write as a voice for "scientists" people get really uppity about it.

He launched a salvo in the name of science on really shaky applications of scientific concepts.

Yes, more good points. Dawkins may have started as a scientist, but he doesn't really understand what science is. Thats his fatal flaw. Most of his errors stem from that.

Originally posted by Boris
As apposed to what other type of proof? If something has been scientifically proven, what other proof is left?

Moral, Philosophical, Religious, Social, Historical, etc.

Originally posted by Alliance
Moral, Philosophical, Religious, Social, Historical, etc.

Well, one outta 5 aint that bad... but then again, if something is to be proved that it is from a certain time, then scientific method's are used, hence science being the final true proof of everything.

Then, I'm sorry to inform you you know shit about science.

Science never "proves" anything. It gives us functional best guesses.

Prove I am thinking of a redesign for the 5 dollar bill? Science won't help you there.

And proof is not truth either, so you fail yet again.

Originally posted by Alliance
Prove I am thinking of a redesign for the 5 dollar bill? Science won't help you there.

No.

First, psych is not actually a science 🙂

Second, you can't prove that I'm thinking of a specific object, even with psych.

Originally posted by Alliance
No.

First, psych is not actually a science 🙂

Second, you can't prove that I'm thinking of a specific object, even with psych.

depends on how extensive the neuroimaging is 😉

I noticed you excluded it from science... But you did acknowledge it's existence... You hate that.

Originally posted by inimalist
depends on how extensive the neuroimaging is 😉

Neuroimaging cannot tell ou what I'm thinking...only generally where brain activity is.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I noticed you excluded it from science... But you did acknowledge it's existence... You hate that.

Well, I could consider imaging to be a subfield of medical physics.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nuh-uh.

Neuroimaging cannot tell ou what I'm thinking...only generally where brain activity is.

Well, I could consider imaging to be a subfield of medical physics.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nuh-uh.

Neuroimaging cannot tell ou what I'm thinking...only generally where brain activity is.

last couple of years there have been some ridiculous breakthroughs in being able to decipher patterns of activation in individuals.

It takes massive amounts of tests to even determine what the individual's particular pattern for any thing is, and the most advanced stuff they have done at this point is predicting movement, but its defiantly something that is theoretically possible with unlimited funds and access to the technology.

argh...

🙂

nothing is sacred anymore

YEAH! FIGHT THE POWER!

🤨

Indeed.

Here, have a pirate!

Yarrrr! 🏴‍☠️