Topic: Health and Religion - page 82. (Read 210871 times)

If you congratulate people, who inherently understand, that their life is valuable and purposeful, then why do you come here and spends more and more of yours and their time trying to tell them they are wrong?

Do Ten commandments offend you so much?

By the way, nobody here ever wrote that Bible in its present or past state is literal word of God. Rather it is account of past witnesses, who came closer to Him.

Bible is not Quran. It is and should be subject to interpretation, not step by step tutorial.

@CoinCube...... when I stated that "I figured you to more intelligent than that", this was not an inflammatory claim, nor was it implying a low intelligence. It is simply stating that I thought your intelligence was greater than what I since believe. Should you determine that it was a statement of low intelligence or an inflammatory comment against yourself, then that is by your own thought process and not mine. In essence, your belief in my logical fallacy in that situation is flawed.

You claim that you are defending BADecker's conclusions, yet, his words state "When they believe in something that they do not know is truth and fact, they have religion.". I simply agreed that the comment was correct. This comment alone confirms that BADecker agrees that religion is not truth and fact.

Having read your link, I will concede that my statement of "Religion is all faith.... no truth" I will concede that a level of truth does occur in religion, but only to the individual and/or a core group of people with the same ideology. This does not make it factual for everyone.

I have no issue with a person having faith, in fact I congratulate them on their faith as it is a personal choice they make which best suits them. 

You again misunderstand me stats. I am not defending BADecker he is entirely capable of defending himself.

The reality is I do challenge BADecker when I disagree with what he says. In fact I have done so in this very thread.
See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13990595

What I am doing here is defending BADecker's correct conclusions. The truth of these conclusions rest on their own merit regardless of whatever BADecker has or has not said in the past.


As an aside I also challenge this statement of yours as false. However, unlike the simple logical fallacy above this is a deeper point of contention. If you are interested in why this statement is false I would direct you to the following link.

Debate on Nihilism

I figured you to be more intelligent that that.

...
Interesting how you take the stance against me, yet have never mentioned the same context when BADecker makes comments about people belonging in mental institutions (funny farm) and having low intelligence.

CoinCube, can I suggest you take a long hard critical look at the way in which BADecker has argued his point, and the language with which he treats others to validate his point before defending him with your righteous comments.

Religion is all faith.... no truth!

Finally, you agree that religion isn't truth and fact.

Well done little fella, you are growing up!

Religion is all faith.... no truth!

Finally, you agree that religion isn't truth and fact.

Well done little fella, you are growing up!

Religion is all faith.... no truth!

When they believe in something that they do not know is truth and fact, they have religion.

Not what his words say.

Sorry try again.

I do find it funny how you understand the riddle language of BADecker.

I figured you to be more intelligent that that.

If taken in moderation.  Too much of it, and you become paranoid, schizophrenic, serial or mass murderer.

Regardless, it is a very dangerous poison IMHO.  Just like alcohol or drugs, religious ideology can fuck up your thinking.

Finally, you agree that religion isn't truth and fact.

Well done little fella, you are growing up!

Religion is all faith.... no truth!

Hundreds of thousands of self-professed science supporters turned out to over 600 iterations of the March for Science around the world this weekend. Thanks to the app Periscope, I attended half a dozen of them from the comfort of my apartment, thereby assiduously minimizing my carbon footprint.

Mainly, these marches appeared to be a pleasant excuse for liberals to write some really bad (and, OK, some truly superb) puns, and put them on cardboard signs. There were also some nicely stated slogans that roused support for important concepts such as reason and data and many that decried the defunding of scientific research and ignorance-driven policy.

But here’s the problem: Little of what I observed dissuades me from my baseline belief that, even among the sanctimonious elite who want to own science (and pwn anyone who questions it), most people have no idea how science actually works. The scientific method itself is already under constant attack from within the scientific community itself and is ceaselessly undermined by its so-called supporters, including during marches like those on Saturday. In the long run, such demonstrations will do little to resolve the myriad problems science faces and instead could continue to undermine our efforts to use science accurately and productively.

Let’s start with my contention that most “pro-science” demonstrators have no idea what they were demonstrating about. Being “pro-science” has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it. On any given day, many of my most “woke” friends are quick to post and retweet viral content about the latest on what Science (and I’m capitalizing this on purpose) “says,” or what some studies “prove.” But on closer look, much of what gets shared and bandied about is sheer bullshit and is diagnostic of one thing only: The state of science (and science literacy) in this country, and most of the planet for that matter, is woefully bad.

For example, the blog IFLScience (IFL stands for “I f---ing love”) seems singularly committed to undermining legitimately good science half the time, while promoting it the other half—which, scientifically speaking, is a problem. Here’s a neat one that relays news about a study that suggested that beer hops may protect against liver disease. I’ll be sure to mention that to the next alcoholic with hepatitis and cirrhosis that I treat. To date that article has been shared 41,600 times. Very few of those readers, I should mention, were mice, though the research was carried out in, you guessed it, mice. (And of course, this type of coverage is not refined to cleverly named blogs.)

That’s not to say plans to cut back funding for research are wise (though so far most of those plans seem contained to a meaningless budget proposal). Nor should we tolerate it when our policies are poised to undercut genuine scientific expertise for politically expedient purposes...

But there is very little indication that what happened on Saturday will counter these misconceptions. Instead, the march revealed the glaring dissonance of opposing that trough of ignorance by instead accepting a cringe-worthy hive-mind mentality that celebrates Science as a vague but wonderful entity, what Richard Feynman called “cargo cult science.” There was an uncomfortable dronelike fealty to the concept—an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse. That is not intellectually rigorous thought—instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight.

Let’s face it: People like science when it supports their views. I see this every day. When patients ask me for antibiotics to treat their common colds, I tell them that decades of science and research, let alone a basic understanding of microbiology, shows that antibiotics don’t work for cold viruses. Trust me, people don’t care. They have gotten antibiotics for their colds in the past, and, lo, they got better. (The human immune system, while a bit slower and clunkier than we’d like it to be, never seems to get the credit it deserves in these little anecdotal stories.) Who needs science when you have something mightier—personal experience?

People who believe that science theory is truth, have a science religion going for themselves.

Nobody knows that science theory is factual. Why not? If they knew, it would not be theory, but science law.

When they believe in something that they do not know is truth and fact, they have religion.

When they believe in something that they do not know is truth and fact, they have religion.

In my opinion, all these wars of religions and ideologies will never lead to peace and understanding of each other. This is a time bomb that can destroy the world.

Too much religion isn't the problem. There is no way to get away from religion. The closest we can come to getting away from religion (outside of death) is going to sleep. Otherwise we actively live our religion.
...
Religion is the thing that shows us how to live good lives with each other on earth, and, if one has the correct religion, the way to everlasting life.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion:
The moral argument for God
Why Does God Allow Evil?