Why is The Religion Catagory Most Popular

I don't understand, seems that everybody on here doesn't believe in god and yet the Religion category has the most activity.... why are there so many people actively participating in the religious threads when they so adamantly claim "there is no god"... just a curious observation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Simple...there are the few self-proclaimed followers, preachers and other miscellaneous enthusiasts of various religions...and then there are the rational folks that wish to educate the sheeple or more vociferously eradicate that sort of thinking.

Religion is the only illogical system left on the planet (well maybe other than politics lol) and engenders a multitude of "correct" opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hello and welcome.

Religion is the most popular, because whether right or wrong is the most influential. Yes atheist don't believe in god, however this does not include an interest in religious phenomena. Most atheist were at one time religious, from one denomination or another, here we come to compare notes, and also find those who deem themselves rational, but yet buy into religious irrationality, like talking snakes, walking on water, and descending towards heavens while still living. All those claims need be verified, all these superstitions need to be put under scientific scrutiny.

Thus making the sub-forum of religion in a scientific forum very popular indeed!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree and disagree.

Religion is 99% illogical and untested. The system you know is flawed and steeped in tradition.

Unfortantly there is not one human system that isn't corrupt. Religion just happens to be the most corrupt. Science...a human system is corrupt aswell what we observe here on the sf forums is Science's intention to wipe out a threat to it's solidarity.

That is why you here the enthusaiast, preacher and followers of science crying out with a loud voice..."There is no God"

Not because they've proved there is no God..(which would actually be the scientific method of making a clear determination) but because of the threat the system percieves in Religion. Science has ceased to have meaning as a source to trust it too has become a tradition of hard-headedness and orthodoxy only anit-typical to Religion yet finding much in common in methodology.

 

I must pull your socks up Saquist...the burden of proof lies on those making the claim. Theists make the claim, science merely states "please provide evidence, or you cannot make this claim". This is quite different to "there is no god".

For example, please provide evidence that science and religion hold much in common in methodology - as a general rule as opposed to a few individuals - or you cannot make this claim.

 

I didn't understand your first sentence.
On your second...It's more than provable, It's observable..

What is done when a new theory is presented in science...historically?

 

You do understand, god is real and they don't know it but part of them is drawn to our lord Jesus, am I right?

You think everybody on here doesn't believe in god? Did you read any of the posts?

Religion has the most activity? In what world?

They're actively participating in discussion, not in a "god exists" thread. God doesn't exist, they all know this, they just want you to know too.

And who adamantly claims there isn't a god? They say "god" is not scientific that's all.

 

"Pull your socks up" is a colloquialism for "correct your error". Your error being that you seem to think science both states unequivocally that god does not exist and secondly that (since) god is a foregone conclusion (in your opinion) that science must now disprove.

This is inaccurate in the extreme. There is absolutely zero proof of god's existence and since there is no accepted conclusion, the theory of such a being's existence must necessarily be proven by the individual or group that postulates or perpetuates the theory.

I have yet to observe any evidence, appearance or effect of any sort of divine being. Please provide these observances, or a method of observation that does not require that I assume any of the conclusions that you wish me to set out to observe.

Assuming that you mean when 'a new theory is presented to scientific authority'; it is guffawed at when it sounds silly, and after the giggles die down, a team is set up to investigate the theory. If the theory is unprovable, it is returned to its creator with a note, "please provide evidence of your claim, otherwise it is unacceptable".

It is only natural that there be resistance to change, that's inbred into humans. However, this tendency does not stop science as a whole from investigating any and all reasonably theories.

 

You should know that in science one cannot use evidence to prove a claim, only disprove one.

 

acknowledge: Your perception of my error is a misunderstanding. I do not postulate that God must exist merely on implicity. We have written account. Written account is testimony. First hand testimony is irrefutable less but contradicting testimony or lack of sequence in data, or contradiction in data. The data it's self must not be circumstantial.


It is only natural that there be resistance to change, that's inbred into humans. However, this tendency does not stop science as a whole from investigating any and all reasonably theories.[/QUOTE]

Exactly not...objective. The investigation isn't geared to prove it is geared to riducule first. Unfortunantly it's not even to validate...Sciences current purpose is the crush oppostion to the status quo, or the established. It is illistrated time after time.

A biased system. How can you put your complete trust in its finding?

I did not know that.

 

Because people love conflict.

 

simple...and logical...

 

Popper's empirical falsifiability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

 

Its the most popular because religion has such a pervasive and possibly lasting affect on science. While there are those that subscribe to notions of non-overlapping magisteria and such, the reality is that religion and science *do* affect one another and regardless of attempts by the well-meaning (such as the late Stephen J. Gould) to reconcile the two entities, they remain at odds on a great many things. My opinion is that they are at odds largely due to the inability of religionists to come to terms with the fallibility and inconsistencies of their own doctrines in the face of truth and reality, however, I'm sure that there are many on the side of religion that believe the opposite. The difference is that one is a side that, by nature, is willing to adapt and revise (science) and the other is, by nature, unwilling and unable to adapt and revise for fear of losing its membership base.

Eventually, the flexible and yield learn to live and grow while the rigid and unyielding break. The question is, what will be the result of the breakage and how long can the rigid and unyielding hold out. If their doctrine is true, the answer is forever. If it is poppycock, it will eventually bust.

You should know that science uses evidence every day to support claims. "Prove" is such a loaded word. Lets toss that one out and just say that we are demanding that the proponents of religious claims support their arguments with data. Or at least show how their claims can potentially be falsifiable. Otherwise, we must discard the claims altogether since they simply aren't useful to science. They may be completely useful to the deluded masses in maintaining their delusions, but to science and the rationally minded they're useless.

 

People love to spout off their opinions about things, but most hate to try to justify those opinions. With religion, there's not way to actually justify ones beliefs, so .....the religion forum is like a giant, public blog!

Baron Max

 

Sure, but you can only support claims that are empirical, testable and repeatable. Otherwise they don't fall within the purview of science anyway.

And you should know that anything that is not potentially falsifiable is not science.

On theism

 

I do not understand...I need you to elaborate for understanding.

 

This is at BEST semantics, and at worst collimated crap.

Prove the speed of light, with marshmallows. I remember someone posting this simple exercise before. If I claim that the speed of light is X, and prove X with this experiment within a reasonable margin of error, how is this an experiment of disproof?

Just a simple example. Of course, ironically, I have disproved your claim with evidence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I must add that Skinwalker dispatched with that rubbish statement quite elegantly...I posted before I read

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The elaboration is in the links she provided.

 

e.g. any hypothesis in science must fulfil 3 conditions:
1. it must allow for observation
2. it must be testable
3. it must give similar results on repeated testing by the same observer and by separate observers.

The last requirement means that any hypothesis is theoretically subject to disproof or falsification by separate observers.

This is a necessary criteria that separates science from pseudoscience.