Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

[Keith&Co.]

Perhaps one down vote can be cancelled out by an up vote.
Not sure how that whole karma thing works.

It's reputation, not Karma. Your Rep Power is in the bottom of your post ID, under your picture and location. Yours is 4. If you pos-rep someone, they get four points to the positive.
If you neg-rep someone, they get two points to the negative.
As you accrue time on the board and positive reputation, your rep power increases.

 

[bigfield]

They say that atheists rule the Internet - and sometimes when I look at the disgraceful stuff which proliferates online I'm inclined to agree - but I would have to say that for every one anti-theist Facebook page or atheism Reddit there are at least ten more counterpoint apologetics pages. Add to that the number of overtly evangelical/proselytization sites and church pages and I think it's far from certain which side of the AvT debate is helped more by the Internet.

Since theists outnumber atheists, one would expect religious pages to outnumber anti-religious pages.

However, anti-religious movements only depend on one thing: doubt. When a preacher makes a bold claim from the pulpit, any doubting churchgoer can check those claims on the Internet. While this is far from a guarantee that the churchgoer will investigate the claim critically, there is a good chance that whatever they find will contradict the preacher.

How did you find your estimates for Facebook and Reddit pages, anyway?

 

[abaddon]

Perhaps one down vote can be cancelled out by an up vote.
Not sure how that whole karma thing works.

The little color badges are not the reputation to worry about.

Lion IRC, right now you and syed are the guys on this board who seem willing to say just anything. Including the jeering at atheists/atheism because you can’t back up your assertions and you want to deflect the problem onto atheists. Give thinking a try instead. Do it without loading your wanted conclusion “God” into every question, into every assertion. Make the argument lead to God, don’t start with the God and then shape the argument to fit.

The numbers of webpages don’t matter. An “advance of theism” due to the internet would show in numbers, right? Not in an increase in “nones” in the polls, but in an increase in theists, right? If that’s so then show it and don’t keep just giving us your “testimony”.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 9201

You know what that picture looks like? Just like all the other unborns your god killed in the flood in a fit of jealous rage. What is he, Anakin Skywalker?

 

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps one down vote can be cancelled out by an up vote.
Not sure how that whole karma thing works.

The little color badges are not the reputation to worry about.

Im not worried. But thanks for your concern.

...Lion IRC, right now you and syed are the guys on this board who seem willing to say just anything. Including the jeering at atheists/atheism

Jeering? Is that what you read into my posts?

...you can’t back up your assertions and you want to deflect the problem onto atheists.

I've given several reasons and examples showing why I think science is helpful to (my) religion. Now, you might disagree with the implications of those but I don't think you can accuse me of not backing up my claim. It's not as if people have asked me why I think a certain thing and I'm refusing to answer.

...Give thinking a try instead.

WUT? Are you serious? That's just insulting!

... Do it without loading your wanted conclusion “God” into every question, into every assertion. Make the argument lead to God, don’t start with the God and then shape the argument to fit.

Hang on pal!
Where have I done that?
A few days ago I was posting about the Cosmological First Cause argument and freely admitting that you can avoid a first cause by positing a past-eternal universe. Most classical apologetcs consist of arguments that begin with religiously neutral premisses which then lead TO the inference that God exists.

...The numbers of webpages don’t matter.

In an argument about the Internet's utility for advancing the theistic worldview you think the number of web pages don't matter???? Really? I would have thought it was vaguely relevant. But as you say, I don't think.

...An “advance of theism” due to the internet would show in numbers, right? Not in an increase in “nones” in the polls, but in an increase in theists, right? If that’s so then show it and don’t keep just giving us your “testimony”.

Let's ask the Internet whether religion is increasing or decreasing worldwide.
Christianty - growing.
Islam - growing.
Bahá'í Faith - growing.

"By 2050, just 13 percent of people in the world will say they are unaffiliated, compared with 16 percent who said the same in 2010, according to a new Pew Research Center survey."

 

[Lion IRC]

But of course, as we saw with Brexit and Trump vs Clinton, polls can't always be trusted.
Some people lie about their faith.
Heaps of atheists apparently even pretend to be priests.

Oh...if only I knew which Internet page was telling the absolute truth.

WAIT - I'm repeating myself. I already mentioned the post-modern, post-truth fedeism paradox.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's ask the Internet whether religion is increasing or decreasing worldwide.

You pick one source and it's Wikipedia?
In a thread about how 'science' helps your side?

That's hilarity, Lion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Competing truth claims on the Internet give rise to fedeism.
Can you see the irony?
It's the exact opposite of what rational skeptics (atheists) would hope for.
The Internet plays right into the hands of what atheists call woo-peddlers

Cheerful Charlie's thread post here reminds me that science (technology) has given us the Internet which has been another great boon to help the advance of theism.

They say that atheists rule the Internet - and sometimes when I look at the disgraceful stuff which proliferates online I'm inclined to agree - but I would have to say that for every one anti-theist Facebook page or atheism Reddit there are at least ten more counterpoint apologetics pages. Add to that the number of overtly evangelical/proselytization sites and church pages and I think it's far from certain which side of the AvT debate is helped more by the Internet.

William Lane Craig speculates that in this contest of ideas, the sheer explosion in numbers of diverse, completing ideas and contrary world views, many are left perplexed. He says that because the Internet has enabled everyone to claim proofs and truths, this has actually resulted (ironically) in the rise of fideism.

When people are bombarded with so many opposing truth claims in this so-called "post truth" epoch, not knowing who to believe, they revert back to trusting their OWN subjective judgements and opinions. As a result they pick whichever Google result they think is right. They create their own Facebook newsfeed which basically turns into a feedback loop.

Don't 'believe' me?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Competing truth claims on the Internet give rise to fedeism.
Can you see the irony?

Can you define fedeism, or support your asserti

It's the exact opposite of what rational skeptics (atheists) would hope for.

I'm leery of any claim you make about what skeptics hope for.
WHichi s to say, you assert a lot of things, and i remain skeptical of your assertions.

The Internet plays right into the hands of what atheists call woo-peddlers

Does the internet do that?
Or would it be better to say that humans do what they have always done, and the internet is just another place they do that?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

He probably means fideism, the concept that no proof for God is possible so one believes in God without hard evidence. Fideism is considered a heresy in the RCC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

So, which God does one believe in without evidence? A personal God? An impersonal God? (26% of believers in the US believe in God as an impersonal force). Do we believe in the Bible God, Islamic God, Gods of voodoo?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I know quite a few people, all religious, who think they're correct about something because that's what it says in one of their bible stories. They'll tell you the verse and chapter. I think that's their understanding of being scientific, nothing more than providing support for their argument by referencing their sacred writings.

In a way that is how science works, by citation, but that is hardly what it means to be scientific.

Lets be honest, science and the scientific method is the enemy of religion. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any young earth creationists, or even any creationists.

 

[Lion IRC]

They say that atheists rule the Internet - and sometimes when I look at the disgraceful stuff which proliferates online I'm inclined to agree - but I would have to say that for every one anti-theist Facebook page or atheism Reddit there are at least ten more counterpoint apologetics pages. Add to that the number of overtly evangelical/proselytization sites and church pages and I think it's far from certain which side of the AvT debate is helped more by the Internet.

Since theists outnumber atheists, one would expect religious pages to outnumber anti-religious pages.

Yep.
And many religions are evangelical by intent.
So their proliferation on the Internet would be expected.
Plus, the Internet makes public square atheism easier to find - what a boon for the apologist.

...How did you find your estimates for Facebook and Reddit pages, anyway?

I extrapolated social media demographics.

 

[abaddon]

I know quite a few people, all religious, who think they're correct about something because that's what it says in one of their bible stories. They'll tell you the verse and chapter. I think that's their understanding of being scientific, nothing more than providing support for their argument by referencing their sacred writings.

In a way that is how science works, by citation, but that is hardly what it means to be scientific.

Lets be honest, science and the scientific method is the enemy of religion. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any young earth creationists, or even any creationists.

I think for Lion IRC “science is our friend” alternately means “theistic science” and anything science does that gets people talking about religious things, like "the creation" for example now we know the universe had a beginning. Science also seems like a meaning-seeking activity to him, especially when it concerns itself with "origins".

Irt “science helps theism”, leaping from science to technology to ultrasound to emotional effects on the public works as a reason-enough to say so. That it’s a lame argument doesn’t matter, he’s made it and that’s enough.

When the claim is “internet advances theism”, it’s ok to cite a Wikipedia article about religion’s growth due to high fertility rates in Muslim and third world nations to back up his claim. That he failed to relate it to the internet stopped mattering somewhere in the process.

I get the impression that backing up his claims is a matter of talking positively about theism. A kind of testifying, maybe.

 

[Lion IRC]

I never said the Internet was the only thing advantageous to theism.

And it was you who said the polls (stats) should indicate whether religiousity was increasing or declining.

You raised the issue not me.

So don't go getting all precious about lies, damned lies and statistics.

Everybody knows that the birth control pill is basically cyanide for atheism.

ETA (More science at work.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

I never said the Internet was the only thing advantageous to theism.

But when asked if you could support your claim, it's the only thing you offered.
Where 'advantageous to theism' comes from is anyone's guess...

And it was you who said the polls (stats) should indicate whether religiousity was increasing or declining.

Well, i suggested that might be an indication.
Now, you just need to tie the increase to science, somehow. I mean, if you're going to pretend to be scientific, right? You need to show if it's science that's increasing the numbers OR if the numbers are increasing in spite of science.
And you quote worldly numbers. Are those accurate within scientifically literate countries, too?

There's still a lot of questions around your claim.

You raised the issue not me.

No, you raised the issue of the internet and science being good for religion. I suggested one place to start looking for support for your claim.
You still have a lot to do before you can say you've supported it.

So don't go getting all precious about lies, damned lies and statistics.

Well, then find some other means to support your assertion.
It's your assertion, you should probably have some support for it before you make it, right?
You don't want to be confused with syed and his trolling, obviously.

Everybody knows that the birth control pill is basically cyanide for atheism.

Ah.
So, if i understand your point, it's not science that's making more religionists, you think that religionists are fucking their way to a bigger part of the population. Atheists taking birth control are reducing their representation in the next generation....

Okay.
Now, have you looked to see the number of abortionists? How do they fall between believers and atheists?
Because last i looked, it's the daughters of believers who are having the most abortions, way outside of proportional representation for the population spread. Would that offset the numbers practicing birth control, at least a little bit?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Technology is onced removed from science. Internet is once removed from technology. Social media is once removed from Internet.

Someone says science is helping his religion then starts talking facebook.

 

[Lion IRC]

Technology is onced removed from science.

Nope. They are inextricable.

...Internet is once removed from technology.

Nope. Internet is impossible except for technology.

...Social media is once removed from Internet.

Nope. Social = people. Media = the mode of communication.
These two together are not 'removed' from the Internet in any sense.

...Someone says science is helping his religion then starts talking facebook.

You have missed a big chunk of the thread so far.

But carry on quibbling about the fine distinction between science and technology. (Yawn)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Technology is onced removed from science.

Nope. They are inextricable.

Once-removed is not suggesting that they're independent. And it's clear technology depends upon science, but technology =! science.

Not all science produces technology.

No part of the definition of science requires technology, either as an end result or even as a tool in producing results.

Nope. Social = people. Media = the mode of communication.
These two together are not 'removed' from the Internet in any sense.

No one said they are.
But once-removed is not the same as removed.

He's not saying what you think he's saying, so your precious and condescending rebuttal is more than a little removed from his point.

 

[Malintent]

Without science we wouldn't have images like this which have greatly helped
advance the Pro-Life cause.

Helped in what way? Are you suggesting that people who support abortion rights, or women seeking abortions, were not previously aware that fetuses look like fetuses?

.. or that the specific picture posted is of such a late term pregnancy that approximately 0 abortions have ever been attempted at this stage...for obvious reasons.

 

[Malintent]

Helped in what way? Are you suggesting that people who support abortion rights, or women seeking abortions, were not previously aware that fetuses look like fetuses?

It has helped shape public opinion more broadly.
People are posting 3D ultrasound pictures of their baby on Facebook.
Companies like Elavit (Bayer) are using science to promote their product (folic acid) which improves the health of unborn babies.
Science has provided the evidence relating to FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder - a very serious consequence of pregnant women doing what they want with their own bodies. (Drinking while pregnant)

.. and yet, drinking alcohol while pregnant is not illegal anywhere... but late term abortion is... and is conflated with early term abortion... horribly inconsistent and not science-based, agree?