With that, I think we're done here.
All religions are anti-science
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
With that, I think we're done here.
when your hypothetials defending potential doubt don't match actuals with living in plain sight, switch to the person doesn't use proper English to get away from your reality imploding instantly.
Into the Night
Verified User
Lie. You are speaking for all religions.
False authority fallacy.
Yes. RQAA.
You are saying that religion IS science???
RQAA
No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. Denial of philosophy. Conflations. RQAA. Trolling.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
gibberish fallacy
Into the Night
Verified User
You can present arguments anytime you want to.
Into the Night
Verified User
Mockery. Denial of logic.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
mockery fallacy
IBDaMann
Well-known member
What science, specifically, are you claiming that they deny? Surely you have something specific in mind, yes?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The bad news is that you didn't win that one. Into the Night was correct. You should have paid closer attention.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That's not how it works. You show that his statement is false with one example. That is called the scientific method.
If I say there are no pink gremlins in LA, you don't demand that I show that there are no pink gremlins in LA because that is not possible. Instead, you show the existence of at least one pink gremlin in LA and my statement is falsified.
The burden is on you to support your affirmative claim that those religions are anti-science ... by specifying at least one science model denied. Of course you cannot do this because those religions do not reject any science.
Global Warming, on the other hand, rejects the laws of thermodynamics and black body science. That's the only religion that can be singled out as being anti-science.
It is how it works.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#:~:text=When%20two%20parties%20are%20in,challenges%20a%20perceived%20status%20quo.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
This forum is not a formal debate forum. Most of you trolls write insults half the time. And Legion starts threads of insults and bans all the liberals.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
So my suspicion was correct. You don't know what a discussion is, and why it's not the same as a "formal debate".
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
Will you explain?
I don't recall competing with ITN, who I have a great deal of respect for.
In any case, we couldn't agree because he denied the validity of definitions based upon their source, without other explanation.
On that basis, I decided that we'd reached an impasse.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. I see you didn't quite grasp my reference to the scientific method. Perhaps you aren't aware that the scientific method really is a thing. The laws of thermodynamics are cases in point. They state things that can never happen. For example, are you under the impression that anyone was ever required to show that no energy can ever be created out of nothing? How do you suppose would one go about showing that? I'll give you a hint: It stands as the 1st law of thermodynamics and the burden lies on others to provide one example of energy being created out of nothing in order to falsify it.
Currently the statement has been made by Into the Night that the listed religions do not reject any science and you are not aware of any science they reject ... ergo you are both in agreement. If you are going to claim that there is some science that they reject then list the example. The burden is on you. Your attempt to shift your burden is a fallacy.
That is how it works.
... and don't reference Wikipedia. It is not an authoritative source and is summarily dismissed.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Into the Night was correct in his terminology and his definitions; you were mistaken. This is why I said that you should have paid closer attention, and you should have asked for clarification because you would have learned something.
Religions are unfalsifiable. Science is completely falsifiable; it's a requirement for science. One can accept all science and tack on all the unfalsifiable beliefs desired as long as none of them specifically violate any science. Your claim that having unfalsifiable assumptions somehow forces one to reject science is simply incorrect.
Faith-based assumptions are simply beliefs (which Into the Night calls "circular arguments"); unless they contradict science, they don't contradict science. The bottom line is that mere assumptions are not "anti-science" and are in fact included in all science models and in all mathematical theorems.
The technical term for "anti-science" as you are using it is "not externally consistent." For example, the Greenhouse Effect dogma says that greenhosue gases reduce earth's radiance by "trapping" earth's radiance and by "slowing" its escape into space, thus increasing earth's temperature. This, however, is inconsistent with (i.e. violates) science models, specifically Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and is therefore "not externally consistent" and is declared specifically "not science".
Thus, if you want to declare a particular religion "anti-science" you need to show how that religion is not externally consistent, or how it violates physics or how science must be denied to continue believing. You'll find that the Global Warming faith is the only one that is anti-science.
You're entitled to your own opinion.