Why is science wrong?

[HitchSlap]

Nah, the butt holes would have been butt holes religious or not.

Yeah, you're right.

 

[PsychoSarah]

People only act on what they believe. No person acts outside of their belief system. Unless they are acting on pure faith, which is possible.

I believe that the best way to live is to remain calm even in the worst of situations. I also have an anxiety disorder and anger issues, so obviously I don't match up to my belief.

 

[biggles53]

Lots of theists don't kill witches, or believe in them. Believing in witches isn't integral to theism, nor is thinking it is a good idea to kill them.

So no, killing witches isn't about theism.

How about this:

Marxists killed priests because they were atheists. Therefore, it is accurate to say that atheism causes the murder of priests.

Well, the first statement is a bit simple, but its true so far as it goes. The Marxist undoubtedly murdered many clergy members during and after the Russian Revolution, more than a thousand clergy in the first five years. And they did so because of their Marxist beliefs, and atheism is an integral component of Marxism. And what's more, it was specifically their Marxist/atheist view of religion that was the justification behind those murders - it was the policy of the state to oppress and eliminate religion because it was untrue and seen as destructive.

So how is it then, that people think it makes sense to say that Christians burned witches because of theism, but not that Marxists killed over 12 million Christian because of atheism?

As far as I can see, that is either trying to have your cake and eat it too, or it is sloppy thinking.

Quite simple really...

There are many reasons that people might kill priests, whether the killers are atheists or not...power, revenge, political difference and,yes, wanting to stamp out that particular religious belief......but none of those are inherent to being an atheist....

However, to want to kill witches means that you believe them to exist....and who are the people who believe in witches....?

 

[biggles53]

Even more simply....you don't have to be a witch-burner to be a theist, but you do have to be a theist to be a witch-burner.....

 

[MKJ]

Quite simple really...

There are many reasons that people might kill priests, whether the killers are atheists or not...power, revenge, political difference and,yes, wanting to stamp out that particular religious belief......but none of those are inherent to being an atheist....

However, to want to kill witches means that you believe them to exist....and who are the people who believe in witches....?

You are making simple logical errors here.

You cannot say that because some theists or atheists believe in something, it is therefore integral to atheism or theism as a whole. This is called the fallacy of composition. Just as, you have pointed out, believing religion should be persecuted is not inherent to atheism as a catagory, so believing in witches, or thinking they should be persecuted, is not inherent to theism. You can't take the more limited statement and apply it to the whole.

And if you are going to make an error like that, you should really do it consistently - it would seem honest at least. Applying it in the one case and not the other just smacks of bias or worse.

As for your idea that the Soviet persecution of religion was for reasons unconnected to religion - I almost don't know what to say. anyone with any history will be willing to say that there were many instances of people using official policy as excuses for personal vandettas, just as we know that has happened in many instances of religious persecution. But the history of this is quite clear - the policy in the Soviet state was to get rid of religion because it was untrue. The goal was to create an atheist state in line with Marxist principles. The persecution of religion in China is not much better and is still ongoing, and it has the same impetus - state atheism.

I can't decide if it is shocking, or ironic, or sad, or what, that someone trying to argue that religion is irrational does so on the basis of revisionist history and logical errors that you wouldn't see from a first year philosophy student.

 

[MKJ]

That's the problem with moderate Christians who selectively choose what to adhere to or not. Meh. As Hitch said, "religion poisons everything."

What's the problem - they don't burn witches?

There is a difference between selectively adhering, and understanding what is meant based on first principles or context.

 

[biggles53]

You are making simple logical errors here.

No, that's your game....because you haven't paid close attention...

You cannot say that because some theists or atheists believe in something, it is therefore integral to atheism or theism as a whole.

And this is what I mean by paying attention....I have not said what you claim.....go back and read carefully.

This is called the fallacy of composition. Just as, you have pointed out, believing religion should be persecuted is not inherent to atheism as a catagory, so believing in witches, or thinking they should be persecuted, is not inherent to theism. You can't take the more limited statement and apply it to the whole.

Save your breath for someone who has actually committed the fallacy...

And if you are going to make an error like that, you should really do it consistently - it would seem honest at least. Applying it in the one case and not the other just smacks of bias or worse.

You're starting to look silly....

As for your idea that the Soviet persecution of religion was for reasons unconnected to religion - I almost don't know what to say.

Well...you could try "Ooops!" Because I have said nothing like that....again, take your time when you're reading....

anyone with any history will be willing to say that there were many instances of people using official policy as excuses for personal vandettas, just as we know that has happened in many instances of religious persecution. But the history of this is quite clear - the policy in the Soviet state was to get rid of religion because it was untrue. The goal was to create an atheist state in line with Marxist principles. The persecution of religion in China is not much better and is still ongoing, and it has the same impetus - state atheism.

I can't decide if it is shocking, or ironic, or sad, or what, that someone trying to argue that religion is irrational does so on the basis of revisionist history and logical errors that you wouldn't see from a first year philosophy student.

Finished now...?

 

[biggles53]

MKJ,

Before you make yourself look even sillier, please answer this simple question...

Who, other than those who believe in their existence, would want to burn witches...?

 

[juvenissun]

So my question? Why is science wrong? What about it makes it incorrect?

Science is never wrong (by its definition).

But the interpretation of science could be very very wrong.

Evolution is an interpretation.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Science is never wrong (by its definition).

But the interpretation of science could be very very wrong.

Evolution is an interpretation.

Well, evolution is a fact as well. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the fact of evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

What's the problem - they don't burn witches?

There is a difference between selectively adhering, and understanding what is meant based on first principles or context.

The problem is, people burned witches as a direct belief, understanding and desire to follow god's directive, namely, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

This is how "religion poisons everything." Context is a weak excuse for choosing what tickles your fancy and what doesn't. It's the reason there are an estimated 33,000 Christian denominations alone. This is why your understanding of context can take a hike. There is no conceivable situation in which burning another human being should be condoned. But that's just me, and I consider my morality to be better than that of the bible.

 

[Strathos]

You know that verse is mistranslated, right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You know that verse is mistranslated, right?

Is it, which word/words, I always am interested in the mistranslated verses.

 

[MKJ]

MKJ,

Before you make yourself look even sillier, please answer this simple question...

Who, other than those who believe in their existence, would want to burn witches...?

You know, you have so grossly missed the original point - not really even addressed it - that I am not sure if its worthwhile to go further with it.

The original point point I was responding to was the idea that people burned witches because they were theists, but that atheists don't take action on the basis of atheism because atheism is a negative proposition. This argument is used generally as part of the larger proposition that theism is bad because it leads to things like burning witches.

But you cannot make that kind of link between theism as a catagory and actions that belong to a specific set of theists. Just as, I would suggest, you cannot say that because Marxists systematically persecuted religion in order to advance state theism, you cannot say that athism is bad because it leads to state persecution of the religious.

The problem with the original statement was twofold. One, the assumption that atheism is a non-position and so does not lead people to take any kind of action. That is empirically false, which could suggest a logical problem in way athism is being understood. And that problem is this - Atheism, like theism, doesn't generally exist as an abstract position, unless the individual is very dim - it exists as part of a concrete worldview. It is, in fact, a positive. The atheist is not saying "there is no god" so much as "I live in the sort of universe which does not have anything I would identify as god". For the sort of atheist that seems to dominate the web, it would be "only those things that can be shown to be empirically true are true, therefore there is not god." It is a positive statement about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is in fact the real subject, not deity itself.

 

[MKJ]

The problem is, people burned witches as a direct belief, understanding and desire to follow god's directive, namely, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

This is how "religion poisons everything." Context is a weak excuse for choosing what tickles your fancy and what doesn't. It's the reason there are an estimated 33,000 Christian denominations alone. This is why your understanding of context can take a hike. There is no conceivable situation in which burning another human being should be condoned. But that's just me, and I consider my morality to be better than that of the bible.

This though is a bit like looking at all the idiotic books on nutrition out there, or Dr Oz (at one time a reputable published scientist!?,) or even including the "creation scientists", and coming to the conclusion that all science is silly and its methods create only noisy disagreement.

I don't much like the idea of burning anyone either, but I realize I live in a delicate age that shies away from that sort of thing. However, if one was to burn anyone, I suppose people who had made a pact with the Prince of Evil and were using diabolical powers to harm others might be the ones to consider. Keeping them in prison seems unlikely to be effective.

 

[biggles53]

MKJ,

Here is your claim with which I took issue...

Christians didn't burn witches because they were theists.

It is clearly in error, because the only people who WOULD burn witches are those who have a belief that witches are real and should be destroyed. The ONLY people so disposed are those with beliefs in the supernatural - viz, the religious.

Do I claim that ALL theists will or have taken part in that ghastly practice...?

No....that is the inference that YOU have chosen to draw, in order to bolster your shoddy argument....

Now, if you wish, I can also demonstrate how the other horn of your case is errant nonsense as well...?

 

[Strathos]

Is it, which word/words, I always am interested in the mistranslated verses.

The original word translates basically as "someone who uses magic/witchcraft to harm others".

 

[biggles53]

However, if one was to burn anyone, I suppose people who had made a pact with the Prince of Evil and were using diabolical powers to harm others might be the ones to consider. Keeping them in prison seems unlikely to be effective.

Do I need to add any more....?

 

[MKJ]

Do I need to add any more....?

Do you not understand or are you just removing the context because it makes you feel better?

 

[Seipai]

Do you not understand or are you just removing the context because it makes you feel better?

Not much "context" was removed. Do you seriously believe that any of the people were charged with witchcraft by various church bodies ever made a deal with the devil?