+55

Aside from the peculiarity in the fact objections only arise once it contradicts their religious belief, it doesn't make sense for someone of faith to all of the sudden become staunchly analytic of science and its findings. Say they do find the specific evidence for a scientific theory not to be compelling and even poor evidence altogether; previously, faith was a great virtue. So, it's ironic the skeptics they then become. It's important to discuss, then: Why the double standard? amirite?

88%Yeah You Are12%No Way
Babananas avatar Religion
Share
2 24
The voters have decided that Babanana is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

I feel like I'm not smart enough to fully understand this post and make an equally intelligent comment that would be worth reading or responding to.

@ScottyD I feel like I'm not smart enough to fully understand this post and make an equally intelligent comment that would...

I believe they are trying to say that it's odd and hypocritical that religious people criticize the findings of science while all of their religion is based on blind faith.

@ScottyD I feel like I'm not smart enough to fully understand this post and make an equally intelligent comment that would...

Most important is the last sentence. Why the double standard? My interpretation was OP is asking why is it commonly regarded as ironic for a religious person to be skeptical about science but not for an atheist to point out flaws in religion?

@ScottyD I feel like I'm not smart enough to fully understand this post and make an equally intelligent comment that would...

It took me a while to understand. Maybe it was wordiness or bad word placement and word choice. Anyway, I understood it to be saying that some religious people are skeptical of science, which is weird because they seem to have complete faith when it comes to religion. If they preach so much about faith, it's a double standard for them to doubt science. I don't think agree that it's a double standard, though, because the reason they are skeptical of science is because of their faith in religion. (At the same time, I don't think religion and science have to be exclusive).

@ScottyD I feel like I'm not smart enough to fully understand this post and make an equally intelligent comment that would...

@spareseconds: Nooooo. I'll explain more.
The remark about the irony of it wasn't meant to really be apart of the conversation; just saying that it's, you know.. ironic. The real issue that no one seemed to have gotten: I say it is a double standard because the idea of "faith" is only accepted by them and considered a virtue when it goes precisely along with their dogmatic religious principles. I would ask them how the actual ACT of faith is, in itself, a virtue, and point out that it wouldn't be sufficient just to argue for their specific religious beliefs.

Babananas avatar Babanana Yeah You Are 0Reply
@ScottyD I feel like I'm not smart enough to fully understand this post and make an equally intelligent comment that would...

ooh, ok. you worded it much better, Mike =D

Hmm, in response: scientific skeptics do not believe in God unless there is a shift in the evidence that supports the theory. This "faith" in science is sometimes criticized because it disregards "other" types of experiential or philosophical argument for God.

I can understand both sides of the argument. It's really just a worldview clash, and one will see only what their worldview's bias allows them to see. Perhaps there really is a God that can't be proven with empirical methods, but in that case why is he hiding? Doesn't he want us to know him? What's the purpose of such a God demanding faith in the face of reasonable doubt?

It's midnight where I live, but I'm not even sure I could read that while fully awake.

lolwut smilie

It's too early for this shit.

Did anyone else have to read this several times before they knew what it was talking about?

@rowanne Did anyone else have to read this several times before they knew what it was talking about?

I don't even know what the first comment is going on about, either.

I gave it a negative score anyway!

I feel like this post is not generating the kind of discussion OP had originally anticipated.

@Statefarm Probably because no one can understand it. It was homepaged at a terrible time.

hehe smilie That's what I'm talking about. It would be kind of cool if people got to control when their posts get homepaged.

I'm not sure you could've worded this worse if you tried.

Anonymous +3Reply

This is why I love Amirite. One post can be a complex, thought-provoking question, and the next post can be a pun related to feet.

I can't handle big words on the internet.

This post could have done without the flowery language, but at least it got me thinking. As a response, I think skeptics (of both science and religion) fail to realize there is room to believe in both. Take for example, the big bang theory. We all know how earth progressed, and we also know the creation story that the bible teaches. The bible says God created the world in 7 days. What is 7 days to God? There's a joke out there that demonstrates my point pretty well:
A man was praying to God.
He said, “God!?” God responded, “Yes?”
The guy said, “Can I ask a question?”
"Go right ahead,” God said. "God, what is a million years to you?”
God said, “a million years to me is only a second.” "Hmmm,” the man wondered.
Then he asked, “God, what is a million dollars worth to you?”
God said, “a million dollars to me is as a penny.”
So the man said, “God. can I have a penny?”
And God cheerfully said, “Sure!!… just a second.”
So for all we know, both creation theories could be true. (That example was more aimed to monotheistic religious people who are skeptical of science, but gaps like that could go both ways.)

"Sceptics" like yourself have an innate bias against something real sceptics don't - miracles. And more importantly - extra-empirical evidence (like logic, philosophy, or morality).

Modern "sceptics" are as bad as Protestant fundamentalists. but their "Bible", so to speak, is "science". "Science alone" is the cry of the new atheist. "If it isn't proven by science, it ain't real!" Just as closed minded as a Protestant fundamentalist. Because, at your heart, you're really not all that different from them. Dan Barker may have changed from Protestantism to atheism, but he's still a nutcase either way.

Real sceptics can come to know, assuming they are not invincibly ignorant, that there is a God - an all-powerful, all-knowing, immutable, immortal, uncaused Being incomparable to anything in the natural world because it must, necessarily, be supernatural.

But, of course, you'd have to use your brain.

Anonymous -15Reply
@"Sceptics" like yourself have an innate bias against something real sceptics don't - miracles. And more importantly...

I'd love to respond and continue the conversation further, but literally every single remark by you is a red herring. I mean, I'm staring at a MOUNTAIN of false assumptions about myself and other atheists, here, and your comment is dripping with condescension. I'm afraid we can't really go anywhere from here because of such a poor start; you really should just delete this and make a more relevant comment, or just message me and tone it down a bit. No need to be a such douche.

Babananas avatar Babanana Yeah You Are +9Reply
@"Sceptics" like yourself have an innate bias against something real sceptics don't - miracles. And more importantly...

I know this is a serious conversation and all, but your username reminds me...

YouTube video thumbnail

Hehe, negus.

YeahIAms avatar YeahIAm Yeah You Are +6Reply
@"Sceptics" like yourself have an innate bias against something real sceptics don't - miracles. And more importantly...

OH MY GOD! After four days of going back and forth with this post and the first comment, I finally understood what they were talking about!

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.