15 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

No it's nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it is zero to do with emotions. I have already told you three times now that one can test these things.

Why are you determined to not follow an argument?

You raised this not me. Again, why are you determined to not follow a discussion, argument, train of thought?

No,you seem incapable of scrolling back to what you wrote. You said a lot of obvious silly stuff like people cannot read science papers, did you forget?

You also said not everyone can be a scientist which no one on the thread implied, you forget that too?

STOP putting stupid ideas on my lips and try and follow a thread.

And now your being dishonest, I've directly answered your post's with reasoned argument's.

If you've run out of reasonable arguments maybe you should stop digging.

Otherwise, the onus is on you to be more specific, and quote the post's you claim I've forgotten...

On 8/22/2025 at 5:11 AM, joigus said:

Nothing you said addresses my observation that religion, as any other intelectual construct, is a projection from people's minds, and therefore the way we interpret religion evolves with our collective human experience.

Well I wasn’t in total disagreement. But you have to take into account that some see God in every day life. They are experiencing God in reality in every day life. But I argue the same for science. Yes it evolves as society changes.

I respect you don’t believe. I wasn’t always a believer. I was just trying to show the converse. If you are not familiar with religions, religions just look like a reason to wage war or starve people.

But aside from miracles and signs, the tangible part of religion that should be observable and tangible is how people live their lives.

Martial arts is very religious and spiritual. But has tangible concepts like fighting battles. But fighting is only one part. Improving one’s self mentally and physically is the true goal.

So just because you believe religion comes from projections of the mind how can you be absolutely sure? I like science but today there are conflicting view such as is there climate change or not? Are vaccines good or bad? Sounds like science is being as misused as religion.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And now your being dishonest

If that is what you think then we are done. Perhaps interact with other posters and not derail this thread.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

If you are not familiar with religions, religions just look like a reason to wage war or starve people.

Sadly from what I know of history religions have starved more people than they have fed, killed more people than they have saved or cured.

Some have been worse than others it is true - there is a range of net harm done by religions.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

I like science but today there are conflicting view such as is there climate change or not? Are vaccines good or bad? Sounds like science is being as misused as religion.

Oh, please.

“some see God in every day life.” is subjective. The evidence of climate change and the benefit of vaccines is objective.

Not understanding it or being motivated to look into it, or whatever, is the issue. The objective evidence actually exists. Comparing it with religion is intellectual bankruptcy.

Don't like to get involved much in Religious discussions.

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sadly from what I know of history religions have starved more people than they have fed, killed more people than they have saved or cured.
Some have been worse than others it is true - there is a range of net harm done by religions.

If you substitute 'nations', 'governments', or even 'cultures' in the above post for the word 'religions', it would still be just as applicable.
I would not fault the religion itself, but how it is interpreted/leveraged by some people.
And, as it is a man-made concept, it cannot be static, but evolves with the times, as @joigus has suggested
Hence differences between Old and New Testament, or even how the Church is struggling to stay relevant in modern times.

I don't think many people have a need for Religion, just like many people have no need for nations, cultures or even governments; IF everything is working well.
But when things go wrong, and there is suffering, people hope that their nation/government/culture will take care of them.
( even when that hope is an irrational belief, as in in America under D Trump )
That is what Religion provides; a crutch, or a hope, to get some people through their times of suffering.

I'm not a believer, and I don't need a crutch, but I certainly don't fault those that do.
I do fault those that leverage that suffering to take advantage of the sufferers, by blaming everything wrong on the 'heathens', much like the government of D Trump blames everything wrong with America on the immigrants ( which once made it great ).

Maybe the Greek God Zeus could take the form of a Swan and seduce someone again. That would make people think that something is up.

Edited August 24Aug 24 by HawkII

2 hours ago, HawkII said:

Maybe the Greek God Zeus could take the form of a Swan and seduce someone again. That would make people think that something is up.

Nah. There’s a whole section on PornHub showing that sort of thing.

18 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well I wasn’t in total disagreement. But you have to take into account that some see God in every day life. They are experiencing God in reality in every day life. But I argue the same for science. Yes it evolves as society changes.

Your conflating people's cultural bias/philosophy (their personal belief system) with a methodology that seeks to eliminate culteral bias.

Theoretically science doesn't evolve, in the way society does; there should, at least, be a culteral 'seasonal lag'.

18 hours ago, Trurl said:

I respect you don’t believe. I wasn’t always a believer. I was just trying to show the converse. If you are not familiar with religions, religions just look like a reason to wage war or starve people.

Most religion's are born of some sort of conflict or hardship, they mostly espouse some sort of call for forgiveness in the hope of peace.

It's politicos that call for war, mostly in the face of the forgiven bc we all know what sort barstewards the Samaritans are... 😉

On 8/24/2025 at 6:18 PM, swansont said:

“some see God in every day life.” is subjective. The evidence of climate change and the benefit of vaccines is objective.

I’m just saying the physicist and believer are viewing the same world with different results. For people who are married they would see finding his wife guided by God.

Religion is like computer security in that you must be able to authenticate and trust. It may be hard to deny the effectiveness of vaccines, but you have to trust those who distribute them.

So we thought we could trust them and they break the system and ironically vaccines are bad for you. (That is because they made it bad.)

I believe in science but it is limited. In a previous thread in religion I said something similar and someone replied that that wasn’t science’s purpose but philosophy’s.

But to relate back to what sign would make you remember the gods? As far as seeing God in every day life, you don’t see it because you are untrained. It is like learning math. You learn math and start seeing patterns everywhere. A camouflage pattern never repeats. This is important because my knowledge of patterns doesn’t apply. My science is useful but my patterns don’t apply everywhere.

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

I’m just saying the physicist and believer are viewing the same world with different results. For people who are married they would see finding his wife guided by God.

Religion is like computer security in that you must be able to authenticate and trust. It may be hard to deny the effectiveness of vaccines, but you have to trust those who distribute them.

So we thought we could trust them and they break the system and ironically vaccines are bad for you. (That is because they made it bad.)

I believe in science but it is limited. In a previous thread in religion I said something similar and someone replied that that wasn’t science’s purpose but philosophy’s.

But to relate back to what sign would make you remember the gods? As far as seeing God in every day life, you don’t see it because you are untrained. It is like learning math. You learn math and start seeing patterns everywhere. A camouflage pattern never repeats. This is important because my knowledge of patterns doesn’t apply. My science is useful but my patterns don’t apply everywhere.

When one understands why some people needs a god, it's for those that don't really understand the bible, then one also understands why a god is unnecessary, for others...

You're conflating again, this time it's trust and belief; I don't have to believe that my computer will work bc I trust in the on switch...

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

I’m just saying the physicist and believer are viewing the same world with different results.

That’s not what you said, though. “I like science but today there are conflicting view such as is there climate change or not? Are vaccines good or bad? Sounds like science is being as misused as religion.”

There are e.g. objective ways to show that vaccines are good, that they do what is intended — they save lives. How is that “misuse”?

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

For people who are married they would see finding his wife guided by God.

And if they can’t find a wife it’s God’s will. All paths lead to the same conclusion. No chance of falsifying the premise because the conclusion is not based on evidence. It’s not objective, and makes no effort to be.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

Religion is like computer security in that you must be able to authenticate and trust. It may be hard to deny the effectiveness of vaccines, but you have to trust those who distribute them.

You have to trust your plumber know’s what they’re doing when they fix the toilet, too. You trust people to follow the rules of the road when you go out on a drive, bike ride, or go for a walk. You put trust in people all the time. It’s not an unusual thing.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

So we thought we could trust them and they break the system and ironically vaccines are bad for you. (That is because they made it bad.)

Vaccines are bad for you? They “made it bad”? Are you expecting others to inherently understand such cryptic statements?

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

But to relate back to what sign would make you remember the gods? As far as seeing God in every day life, you don’t see it because you are untrained. It is like learning math. You learn math and start seeing patterns everywhere. A camouflage pattern never repeats. This is important because my knowledge of patterns doesn’t apply. My science is useful but my patterns don’t apply everywhere.

Ah, yes. The inevitable shifting of the blame. No, I have not been brainwashed.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Vaccines are bad for you? They “made it bad”? Are you expecting others to inherently understand such cryptic statements?

I was referring to the current state of the CDC. You have a guy that doesn’t believe in vaccines in charge of the agency. So if vaccines weren’t bad his actions will make vaccines a bad thing. Which is ironic cause he said they were bad and now they are. So he is telling the truth now.

21 minutes ago, Trurl said:

You have a guy that doesn’t believe in vaccines in charge of the agency.

What does that have to do with the efficacy of vaccines and vaccine technology?

If Trump surrounds himself with anti science idiots and shoehorns them into important administrative roles, that is hardly a slur on the science or scientists.

Vaccines work and the COVID vaccination program demonstrated that.

33 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I was referring to the current state of the CDC. You have a guy that doesn’t believe in vaccines in charge of the agency. So if vaccines weren’t bad his actions will make vaccines a bad thing. Which is ironic cause he said they were bad and now they are. So he is telling the truth now.

RFK Jr is a quack. His crackpot views have no effect on the objective scientific facts, any more than a flat-earther affects the orbits of satellites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And if they can’t find a wife it’s God’s will. All paths lead to the same conclusion. No chance of falsifying the premise because the conclusion is not based on evidence. It’s not objective, and makes no effort to be.

That just means it is a blessing to find a wife. I don’t know I’m not married. But others describe it as one of the best part of their life.

4 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

What does that have to do with the efficacy of vaccines and vaccine technology?

I haven’t said vaccines don’t work. I’m saying the scientists don’t always agree. And I’m saying that even if the science is 100% correct if the implication is bad the true science doesn’t matter.

4 minutes ago, Trurl said:

And I’m saying that even if the science is 100% correct if the implication is bad the true science doesn’t matter.

What “implication”?

5 minutes ago, Trurl said:

That just means it is a blessing to find a wife. I don’t know I’m not married. But others describe it as one of the best part of their life.

All of which is beside the point. There are atheists and agnostics who are happily married.

2 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I haven’t said vaccines don’t work. I’m saying the scientists don’t always agree. And I’m saying that even if the science is 100% correct if the implication is bad the true science doesn’t matter

The scientific community overwhelmingly agree, is there any published literature you can cite that had any traction to the contrary?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

RFK Jr is a quack. His crackpot views have no effect on the objective scientific facts

It’s the objective facts that have no effect on the decision.

I saw a video on “verbal judo.” It is said that in a tense situation logical arguments do not win. I don’t think logic works in politics either.

5 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

The scientific community overwhelmingly agree, is there any published literature you can cite that had any traction to the contrary?

Again I used vaccines as an example. I am not a doctor. I’m just saying science is just facts to you use it. Unless you are inventing new technology or creating new guidelines than there is no value to evidence. Just as the gods determining what sign to show you.

We know that some say climate change is natural. I believe it is very real. But what if I have irrefutable evidence? Do. I just say: I told you so as the planet explodes?

Science is good. But I don’t think humans are Vulcan. They don’t always think logically. And not every problem is logical.

If we had “pure logical” decisions do you think the world would be better?

And what is the science to the application to science? Evidence is just evidence till applied.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

I haven’t said vaccines don’t work. I’m saying the scientists don’t always agree. And I’m saying that even if the science is 100% correct if the implication is bad the true science doesn’t matter.

Have you learned nothing from this site? Science is NEVER 100% on anything. Theory is strong because it never assumes it's got everything right. Can't you see that the very thing you're dissing is its biggest strength? Religion assumes it's 100% correct, maybe you're confusing science with that.

41 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I saw a video on “verbal judo.” It is said that in a tense situation logical arguments do not win. I don’t think logic works in politics either.

Do you consider discussing this subject with us a "tense situation"? We actually appreciate reasoned arguments over verbal judo.

You're a maths guy, right? So why do you keep using the term "logic" wrt science? Logic is for maths and philosophy. Logic is a formal process that bears little resemblance to what Mr Spock used to refer to.

45 minutes ago, Trurl said:

We know that some say climate change is natural. I believe it is very real. But what if I have irrefutable evidence? Do. I just say: I told you so as the planet explodes?

Are you talking about climate change with human causes, is that what you believe? What else besides the irrefutable evidence do you think will persuade deniers?

Does threatening them with the Wrath of God work? I've heard people admonish Republicans lately by saying that Jesus wouldn't defund school lunches.

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

We know that some say climate change is natural. I believe it is very real.

Natural and real aren’t contradictory or incompatible in any way, so I’m not sure what your point is.

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

But what if I have irrefutable evidence? Do. I just say: I told you so as the planet explodes?

You seem to skip over the context that I’m sure you have in your head, but we can’t read minds, so this just reads as a non-sequitur.

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

Science is good. But I don’t think humans are Vulcan. They don’t always think logically. And not every problem is logical.

So what?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

But what if I have irrefutable evidence? Do. I just say: I told you so as the planet explodes?

Here I am questioning the value of evidence. And even when science is right it makes no difference if we do nothing about it. I compared it to the gods who can present no evidence to man to prove they exist.

And when you use science what are the guidelines for applying it?

I am not blaming science. To me that is the same as blaming religion. People are the reason it is wrong. I don’t know what science covers that; maybe psychology? But I don’t think man has the ability to ever solve these problems. That is were a personal God comes in.

55 minutes ago, Trurl said:

People are the reason it is wrong.

The scientific method works, it is probably the main thing that has positively advanced humans as a species. Art, music and literature are great but did not help us eradicate smallpox.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

gods who can present no evidence to man to prove they exist.

Of course they could, they are gods.

6 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Of course they could, they are gods.

The last time God showed his Angels during the Blowing up of Sodom and Gomorrah Cities, the people who saw them turned to Pillars of Salt. It's tricky for Gods to show themselves in a Safe manner.

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

Here I am questioning the value of evidence. And even when science is right it makes no difference if we do nothing about it.

The choice to do something, or not, is not up to science. Often not up to scientists, either.

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

I compared it to the gods who can present no evidence to man to prove they exist.

So, gods are not omnipotent then?

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

And when you use science what are the guidelines for applying it?

Not provided by science in many cases. That’s one reason for the humanities requirements in college/university.

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

I am not blaming science. To me that is the same as blaming religion. People are the reason it is wrong. I don’t know what science covers that; maybe psychology? But I don’t think man has the ability to ever solve these problems. That is were a personal God comes in.

Or psychology, philosophy, history and sociology (and perhaps others)