DiscussMormonism.com

I have long been aware of two phenomena:

1) when religionists wish to disparage atheism, they call it a religion - likewise, when they wish to disparage science, they call it a religion

2) when religionists attempt to provide support for their beliefs, they do so by (attempting) to use SCIENCE

So it's clear. Hands down. Even the religionists - by their actions, at least - know who the winner is.

(this post was inspired by a discussion on MAD about "militant atheism" which included this comment by Juliann:)

They use science to support themselves just like everybody else. It is in the job description of Christian fundamentalism...I know because of the hysteria when I use quotes to demonstrate the startling similarities between their "scientific "tactics and countermo "scientific" tactics.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=28778

Now, admittedly, the use of science to support religious beliefs often devolves into pseudo-science - you know, where the conclusion has been predetermined and evidence is carefully culled to support that predetermined conclusion, while counter evidence is ignored - but the point is that they know to give their beliefs the impression of credibility, they must use science.

The problem is, that when believers use science, they use it almost as an appeal to authority, while ignoring the actual findings or methods that make the sciences "SCIENCE". They cherry-pick findings to support their own non-scientific world view while ignoring and dismissing anything that doesn't.

I was watching this video last night, simply dumbstruck at the absolute bull plop being passed off on some poor unsuspecting Christians by a man who repeatedly was appealing to his own authority as a "science" teacher. He also uses the "science/evolution as a false religion" argument.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3201340775

Try watching the whole thing. It's PAINFUL

It's absolutely shocking how he tries to simultaneously convince people that he loves science, all while mocking its findings and methods, not to mention repeating transparent falsehoods to shore-up the beliefs of a bunch of young Earth creationists.

I have to wonder why he no longer teaches science. I sure hope it is because he got canned for professional incompetence. He actually seems to be confused about the distinction between geology and organic evolutionary theory! I mean.... come on!

lol, you beat me to it.

The cryptic response would be, Squares are rectangles but rectangles aren't squares. And that's being generous, since part of the issue, a rather important part, is the distinction between rectangles and psuedorectangles.

It's absolutely shocking how he tries to simultaneously convince people that he loves science, all while mocking its findings and methods, not to mention repeating transparent falsehoods to shore-up the beliefs of a bunch of young Earth creationists.

Heh, an excellent summary of the majority of LDS apologetics.

The cryptic response would be, Squares are rectangles but rectangles aren't squares. And that's being generous, since part of the issue, a rather important part, is the distinction between rectangles and psuedorectangles.

You know how Juliann picks up on certain words and phrases, without really understanding their contextual meaning, and then pastes them together in some rickety form of support for Mormonism? That's the problem that prevents her from being able to recognize the difference between rectangles and pseudorectangles. If it's got rectanglish sounding words, it's all the same to her.

I know that sounds severe, but it's the conclusion I've been forced to after my conversations with her.

At any rate, aside from Juliann's comedy, isn't it striking how religionists so obviously use the dressings of "science" to give their beliefs credibility without apparently the slightest insight into why they do so?

When I think of science, I first think of the methodology (which, by the way, could be used by anyone, even those not conventionally recognized as scientists). What is currently considered a "fact" is not as important, IMHO.

That's why I object to using scientific research findings to back up religious claims because - hello - it's impossible. For starters, the existence of God must be determined. Barley growing on the American continent pre-Columbus does not prove there is a God, especially one of flesh and bones who appeared to Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820.

I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few days. In my estimation, none of Mormonism's foundational claims stand up to scrutiny (and no that doesn't mean I think believers are dishonest or delusional), but I've somehow had a blind spot for the larger picture. I mentioned in passing the other day that I still like the idea of our being literal sons and daughters of God, and The Dude reminded me that such a position is nonsensical, given the evidence. If evolution is "true," the idea that we evolved into something compatible with God's form and species is absurd.

I guess what I mean is that I find myself slowly losing hope that I can reconcile belief in God to reality. And once again for our lurking believers, I mean reality as I understand it. Your experience will necessarily differ.

Runtu wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few days. In my estimation, none of Mormonism's foundational claims stand up to scrutiny (and no that doesn't mean I think believers are dishonest or delusional), but I've somehow had a blind spot for the larger picture. I mentioned in passing the other day that I still like the idea of our being literal sons and daughters of God, and The Dude reminded me that such a position is nonsensical, given the evidence. If evolution is "true," the idea that we evolved into something compatible with God's form and species is absurd.

I guess what I mean is that I find myself slowly losing hope that I can reconcile belief in God to reality. And once again for our lurking believers, I mean reality as I understand it. Your experience will necessarily differ.

Atheists are often critisised when they state that science is a basic component of their atheism.
...I guess it's often taken to mean that we believe science somehow forces the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

...but that's not really it. It's more as you've described it above - pretty well in my opinion. It's more the idea that once the scientific method is fully accepted, 'bad' explinations for things just tend to no longer bear up in one's mind...

One of our great lies is that a whole culture can and should take up the scientific viewpoint. Few have the stomach for it. If they did it God would be pleased but to reach that state you must actually be a scientist (even an amateur one) and spend your time studying it. What most people mean by judging something by science is that they heard on TV once or read a magazine article once that led them to believe X. To have an open mind means not to judge till the information is gathered. It's a difficult life. Most are too lazy for it.

The religious viewpoint is filled with failures of the same stripe. They proclaim the holiness of books they know a few quotes from but have never completely read. They declare the divinity of a being they routinely forget to contact. They evangelize with principles they do not understand. Again, they are lazy.

A lazy generation is a damned generation. Such souls are generally not as much fun in Hell but we can herd them in in bulk.

Belial wrote:One of our great lies is that a whole culture can and should take up the scientific viewpoint. Few have the stomach for it. If they did it God would be pleased but to reach that state you must actually be a scientist (even an amateur one) and spend your time studying it. What most people mean by judging something by science is that they heard on TV once or read a magazine article once that led them to believe X. To have an open mind means not to judge till the information is gathered. It's a difficult life. Most are too lazy for it.

The religious viewpoint is filled with failures of the same stripe. They proclaim the holiness of books they know a few quotes from but have never completely read. They declare the divinity of a being they routinely forget to contact. They evangelize with principles they do not understand. Again, they are lazy.

A lazy generation is a damned generation. Such souls are generally not as much fun in Hell but we can herd them in in bulk.

What a complete misrepresentation of science. To have a scientific outlook is simply demanding that evidence be documented, tested and verified. whoever has their hand up your ass needs to come in for a reality check.

Mercury wrote:

Belial wrote:One of our great lies is that a whole culture can and should take up the scientific viewpoint. Few have the stomach for it. If they did it God would be pleased but to reach that state you must actually be a scientist (even an amateur one) and spend your time studying it. What most people mean by judging something by science is that they heard on TV once or read a magazine article once that led them to believe X. To have an open mind means not to judge till the information is gathered. It's a difficult life. Most are too lazy for it.

The religious viewpoint is filled with failures of the same stripe. They proclaim the holiness of books they know a few quotes from but have never completely read. They declare the divinity of a being they routinely forget to contact. They evangelize with principles they do not understand. Again, they are lazy.

A lazy generation is a damned generation. Such souls are generally not as much fun in Hell but we can herd them in in bulk.

What a complete misrepresentation of science. To have a scientific outlook is simply demanding that evidence be documented, tested and verified. whoever has their hand up your ass needs to come in for a reality check.

Simply demanding? That's an impressive demand. Many (if not most) of the people who claim to have a scientific outlook know next to nothing. The few who do it have are mostly embarrassed by the rest. Same with religion.

That's Lilith's hand again by the way. She is not well grounded in reality and is rather perverse. Let's just say that this morning there were 2 hell hounds on my lawn. She hung out with them for a while. There are now 12.