30th January 2008

“The Church of England cannot get children into church, so it is determined to bring church into school, where the children have no choice and no escape.”

Terry Sanderson

31 Responses to “30th January 2008”

  1. Renshia Says:

    Somebody should put a stop to this. However any free thinking parent can put a halt on it’s effects by explaining that it is only one perspective. I did this with my son and after he was presented with alternate perspectives he came up with the same responses as Chris mentioned in yesterdays quote.

    “Dad, that doesn’t make ANY sense…”

    I am so proud of my son for many of his choices, but this one in particular.

  2. Hypatia Says:

    I think it’s important to give children the opportunity to think for themselves and express their opinions. Throughout my childhood I was told “this is the way it is” and was never told “there are are range of opinions from which you can choose”. To find yourself developing contrary opinions in isolation is quite scary for a child.

  3. Critic Says:

    Luckily, I was raised by parents who taught me to think for myself and research ideas prior to determining my opinions on them. This pertained to everything from Santa Clause to the Tooth Fairy to religious dogma.

    While I was exposed to religious dogma, I was also told that it was merely someone’s opinion and shown that religious dogma is not something that could stand up to the scrutiny of rational thought. Therefore, I learned early on that religions are primitive man’s attempt to understand the world in a primitive way. Modern man now uses science to understand the universe (fact) and has no need for religious dogma (opinion based in fact).

    Sadly, we still have plenty of those who wallow in the primitive ideas of religious dogma. Sadder still that they are allowed to inflict it on innocent children as truth.

  4. Terence Meaden Says:

    Likewise with me.
    I learnt about the Santa Claus myth when I was 6.
    By the time I was 7 or 8, I was convinced that the biblical stuff coming my way, chiefly through school, was largely mythical and therefore nonsense too.
    Eventually, with the passing years as a freethinker in a Christian school and being a deeply curious enquirer, I began to conclude that Jesus was probably a historical figure about which little was truly known, but about whom much had been grossly exaggerated—and that indeed a complex mythology had built up about this man and his mother.
    By contrast, I respected and admired the discoveries of all the scientists, and that in them dwelt the real truths about our world and the universe.
    So by the age of 14 I was determined to be a scientist or archaeologist. At 17 I was accepted at Oxford University to study physics. In my Oxford college I was at once dismayed to find a high number of evangelical Christians among the non-scientists. How could these young people swallow the nonsense of superstitious dogma with which they had been fed? What made them prostrate themselves before scenes of human torture and make out they were drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Jesus!? What weakness of the brain had allowed otherwise bright children to be indoctrinated thus? Of course, the answer was that they had been ‘got at’ when very young, first by parents and then by school and church.
    I offer my sincerest thanks to my parents for sparing me from the time-wasting world of irrational beliefs that constitute religion.
    G. Terence Meaden

  5. Chris Says:

    Critic – you mentioned Kris Kringle. I think that’s an object lesson for the power of wish thinking. My daughter, when I explained communion to her knew that waffer and wine don’t really turn to body and blood. Her exact words were “Gross. They really think that?” She has no motivation to believe it. ‘Ole Saint Nick, on the other hand, she has no trouble believing in. For another year or so, anyway. I admit I’m going to feel a pang of regret when that one falls away…

  6. Hypatia Says:

    Terence: “the answer was that they had been ‘got at’ when very young, first by parents and then by school and church.”

    The people you encountered would have had a strong emotional attachment to their faith. To quote my namesake:

    “To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child-mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after-years relieved of them.”

  7. Terence Meaden Says:

    “Every village has a torch—the schoolteacher. Every village has an extinguisher—the priest.” Victor Hugo

  8. Renshia Says:

    It is only because we are taught not to believe or trust ourselves that we need to look outwards.

    I believed that my children’s job as children was to make mistakes. I encouraged them to make them.. Heck i even instigated them into making them.. Then I allowed them to fix them.. held them responsible and taught them they can do anything.
    Now because they believe in themselves they do not need this external validation.. The concept of needing a god (or outward validation) is silly to them. They are strong and healthy. They control their lives and do not succumb to others opinions of themselves. If they succeed they bath in the satisfaction of it and if they fail they find out why and fix it. When I get phone calls from them they seldom call because of problems but constantly call to share their successes.

    If only we could teach all children to love themselves and to think for themselves and accept responsibility for themselves, religion would run out of victims.

  9. Thunder Says:

    * My daughter, when I explained communion to her knew that waffer and wine don’t really turn to body and blood. *

    You can`t explain what you don`t understand yourself. Communion is a monument that points to the event of Jesus giving of himself. The caths mystification of it has him being victimized more than once and that is unscriptural. The word memorial or rememberance carries the key to understanding its purpose.

  10. Renshia Says:

    ” You can`t explain what you don`t understand yourself”
    it is only because of the brain washing you have received that you cannot accept the fact that someone who does not believe cannot understand.

  11. Thunder Says:

    * it is only because of the brain washing you have received that you cannot accept the fact that someone who does not believe cannot understand. *

    Garbage. It is experience. It isn`t a matter of what I can or can`t accept. It is a matter of you always getting it wrong. It`s funny how you chose the catholic explanation of communion (eucharist) when you didn`t indicate that it was catholicism with which you became disillusioned. You PURPOSELY steered her away lying to her and now lying here attempting to paint yourself objective.

  12. Renshia Says:

    Thunder look at his message.

    He gave you one small part of his conversation. I would bet that communion came into it when describing these different religions, at that point he was probably describing catholicism.

    I find it funny how you think we all have evil interior motives. You act like there is a difference from one to another, but to us it is all the same. One is no better than any other. So the stupidity of communion is relevant whether it is full gospel or muslims or catholic… cause it is all just stupid. To us you all just have your own flavor. were not trying to malign one against the other, because we see no separation.
    Heck, most of us are not even evil. Well except that Dawkins guy.

  13. Thunder Says:

    * Thunder look at his message. *

    I did.

    * He gave you one small part of his conversation. *

    That may be true but his message does not make that inference. Unless you have specific knowledge about the conversation being alluded to then you are making an assumption. I`m going with what is there.

    * I would bet that communion came into it when describing these different religions, at that point he was probably describing catholicism. *

    ” I would bet ” = Speculation.

    That is a possibility but it would be nice if it is true that you would allow him to say it.

    * I find it funny how you think we all have evil interior motives. *

    Your nefarious motives permeate your script.

    * You act like there is a difference from one to another *

    Monument or cannibalistic feast….. VERY DIFFERENT imagery.

    * but to us it is all the same. *

    Because of your disinterest not because of your being informed. You don`t care enough to be informed. You are UNQUALIFIED!

    * were not trying to malign one against the other, because we see no separation. *

    Right…. You are bigoted. (” We all look the same to you “).

    * Heck, most of us are not even evil. *

    God defines evil and God defines sin. Of course you have your own idea of what is and what isn`t correct, good or justified but you have no authority to be the standard. You do have the prerogative to author your own life as you see fit but you also incur the consequences of it and rightfully so.

  14. Roland Says:

    Thunder, many here try to make a conversation with you in a personal level and you either ignore that fact or try making fun of them. Please give your other cheek every now and then… open up a bit.
    I don’t know under what kind of Christian denomination you fall into. Why hide it? I also don’t know if you where born into the religion or if it was something you “choose” per say. I know you are not Catholic, and dislike things about the branch/denomination if it can be called that way.
    If god defines what is evil and what is sin then why did pagan civilization thrive? The need for a successful set of social rules. It is quite obvious that evolution would play a significant role in making us understand what is good or bad [good or evil, sinful or virtuous (if I must)]. Making groups that are capable of acquiring larger numbers to gather food more effectively and protect themselves from other groups less capable. Of course, there are much more variables that play into those dynamics. Environment and technology (closely related) form a big factor there as well.
    Friendship, love, war and peace, can all be traced down to the beginning of our kind. It is interesting when you read about evolution and so many different studies point to the same direction. It makes so much sense. I know you think that reality can basically be split in half (at least you have inferred this in previous conversations with me), where you have science explaining one thing and religion another. There is no evidence suggesting that anywhere, not even string theory, not in quantum mechanics. The only places you can find this argument is with religious leaders who are unable to present facts, who don’t need them, because that is god… faith.
    This is the amazing thing about science; it does not say that is can explain everything now. It says it can explain anything with careful examination of real data.
    Sure there are things we can’t explain yet, but will we base our belief system in the things we don’t understand? Will we look for god in ignorance? Would we do that in something even less important than god? Think about a courtroom -The sentences would be given just by faith and not by evidence, or a company -projecting cash flow, or an engineer -building an airplane.

    Cheers :),

  15. Thunder Says:

    * Thunder, many here try to make a conversation with you in a personal level *

    Questioning my intellect when you don`t know me gets very personal in a very negative way. I don`t understand what makes you think that could condition me to be anything but guarded.

    * you either ignore that fact or try making fun of them. *

    You think I`m having fun? I consider this a (/an intellectual) combat. I did drop my guard and got unjustifiably lambasted for it. One thing I am NOT doing is making fun of anyone. I give all of you the benefit of the doubt that you are prepared to reason but what comes out just doesn`t reflect brain sweat to me. It reflects a disinterest in having an informed construction of position and a lack of introspection.

    * Please give your other cheek every now and then… open up a bit. *

    Easy for you to say…… you have passed the (official) unofficial bell-weather of acceptability which is NOT being reasonable or intellectual it is being an non-believer (for any reason whatsoever).

    * I don’t know under what kind of Christian denomination you fall into. *

    I had already explained it to you.

    * Why hide it? *

    I`m pretty sure I mentioned greenbriar church of Christ in Ashland City Tennessee….. And then I explained that it is NOT a denom….. and then you (whoever) went off on a tangeant about it being affiliated with catholicism. And I let you guys do your speculations when all you had to do was use your search engine and you could do all the learning about it you wanted. But you were unmotivated to be right.

    * I also don’t know if you where born into the religion or if it was something you “choose” per say. *

    And I answered that. I said noone is born into THE (definate article) Church. They are reborn into it.

    * If god defines what is evil and what is sin then why did pagan civilization thrive? *

    You already have your idea and that is certainly the bibles answer to that can`t be right. Or do you KNOW the biblical answer to that? I`ve already posted it. We have already had an extended conversation about it.

    * The need for a successful set of social rules. *

    Should this be punctuated with ‘?’ ? In any case…. The thriving you are speaking of who was it doing the thriving? What element of their society? I have prompted twice for you (whoever) to look up the valley of hinnom and sacrifices to molech. But the bible isn`t a history book to you. You know full well that history is the prerogative of the ones left standing. So you let the evil ones of the past indicate to you that the pyramids weren`t built on slave labor etc…. etc…. etc…. Allowing that is illogical. But in reading the bible you don`t see only victory or only virtue. You see the whole bloody affair. As many failures as victories. You`re dad-gum right the bible isn`t a history book. History books don`t tell the whole story.

    * It is quite obvious that evolution would play a significant role in making us understand what is good or bad [good or evil, sinful or virtuous (if I must)]. *

    This is you attempting to make science do what it doesn`t do. Evolution did NOT write the constitution or the magna-carta. (and I`m not convinced that evolution constitutes science).

  16. Thunder Says:

    * The only places you can find this argument is with religious leaders who are unable to present facts, who don’t need them, because that is god… faith. *

    I was unaware that anyone else ever made the argument as I have. Mostly I see things like intelligent design being promoted attempting to repackage faith in a scientific configuration. Or making the very unsophisticated argument God is mysterious…… I never much cared for that though I agree with it I make the very logical assumption that he doesn`t intend to remain mysterious.

    * This is the amazing thing about science; it does not say that is can explain everything now. *

    There are some thing that science will NEVER be able to do. It is a tool. It isn`t something to venerate.

    * It says it can explain anything with careful examination of real data. *

    Definately reverential. Science isn`t a proposition. It is a process. It does not carry a promise of…….

    * Sure there are things we can’t explain yet *

    I`m pretty sure if starting from scratch science would play very little part in framing any body of social law. Morality is simply irrelevant to the process of science.

    * will we base our belief system in the things we don’t understand? *

    I speak about the things I understand to the level that I understand them. I don`t believe that is common.

    * Will we look for god in ignorance? *

    God is NOT a commodity. That is the flaw behind that study of prayer that someone alluded to. That is the flaw behind the continual insistence for believers to produce evidence of his (Gods) existence.

    * Think about a courtroom -The sentences would be given just by faith and not by evidence *

    I do think about a courtroom every time the matter of evidence comes up. Witness testimony is evidence. You have billions of witnesses (most incredible) but you insist on a burden of proof based on your unwillingness for an outcome other than the one you predetermine.

  17. Critic Says:

    God is NOT a commodity. That is the flaw behind that study of prayer that someone alluded to. That is the flaw behind the continual insistence for believers to produce evidence of his (Gods) existence.

    Stating that god is not a commodity means nothing to a reasonable.

    See how the religious person, who has no proof and knows that there can be no proof, tries to separate the knowledge of the existence of god from other forms of knowledge. Truly a pitiful attempt to support a baseless claim.

    If a god exists, the knowledge of that god can be determined by scientific inquiry. If it cannot be determined by scientific inquiry, it cannot be.

    I do think about a courtroom every time the matter of evidence comes up. Witness testimony is evidence. You have billions of witnesses (most incredible) but you insist on a burden of proof based on your unwillingness for an outcome other than the one you predetermine.

    Eye-witness testimony is the least reliable source – every time. Ask any attorney. That would square with your statement that most witnesses claiming godly experiences are incredible. I am glad we agree on this.

    The burden of proof is always with the claimant. It only stands to reason. Just because your position is unreasonable, does not mean that your unreasoned arguments will convince anyone.

    An extremely wise man once said, “…Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan.

    So, I say again, PROVE IT or stop wasting our time.

    Please?

  18. Roland Says:

    This is by far not the best place to have these kinds of debates, it is very disorganized and I easily loose track and interest because of it. But thanks for letting me know what kind of Christian you are. It kind of allows me to know what to expect.
    Since we (or people in general) are re-born to the church, I would guess that it requires a bit of mental excersice in order to actually take the decition of whether one wants to belong to that church or another. I can imagine a younger you reading the bible thinking -“Huh, I totally agree with this.” Meaning that you had a preconceived notion of what good and bad really was, even before reading the bible. Making the bible pointless for understanding right from wrong and what moral laws should be like.
    You are speaking of half truths when speaking about history, who writes it, truth and science. The same can be said about witnesses… I’ve talked to people who have seen terminal patients miraculously healthy again, but no amputee who miraculously grew a new limb. I know about Muslims who assert that god is as described in the Qu’ran, Jews who believe that Israel is their holy land, Christians who think that Jesus was not the son of god but god himself, but I have not seen god provide us with irrefutable proof that we should follow one religious scripture over another. And it would be similar as walking into a courtroom where several people have seen a car crash but they all describe different ones for the same trial.
    The development of morality, laws, and yeah… even the Magna-Carta or a constitution can be explained with science. I suggest (just a suggestion, don’t retaliate like when I suggested to read about Gandhi) for you to have a higher understanding of how science plays an important role in explaining these events.
    Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. The scientific method on the other hand can be described as a tool. Venerate? No. Trust? Yeah.
    Witnesses can lie or mistakenly perceive reality(lie without meaning to do so), that’s why they are no sure bet. Yeah, the forensic scientist could interpret a DNA test results in the wrong way and accuse a family member of a murder, however it is far more accurate than witnesses. You can have several witnesses convinced that a thief was one man shooting and still be wrong. Billions of witnesses… truth is not a popularity contest.

    Cheers :),

  19. Thunder Says:

    * Stating that god is not a commodity means nothing to a reasonable. *

    Wrong. It means nothing to the unreasonable. To the reasonable it would be reflected upon if they had been taking the wrong approach to a situation.

    * See how the religious person, who has no proof and knows that there can be no proof, tries to separate the knowledge of the existence of god from other forms of knowledge. *

    Wrong! Science is NOT THE ONLY THING THAT PRODUCES KNOWLEGE! Experience produces knowledge.

    * Truly a pitiful attempt to support a baseless claim. *

    Wrong. Already been this route five times already. I`m NOT trying to convince you of anything. The way it is being laid out to you the only way to gain proof is to receive it from God. That is EXACTLY the way it is suppose to be. That is the christian construction. I didn`t make it up.

    * If a god exists, the knowledge of that god can be determined by scientific inquiry. *

    You mean the evidence of that existence can be determined scientifically. But you don`t need science…. you`ve already made up your mind without it. Go ahead and claim you have applied science to the question of the existence of God. If you had you would have to conclude not enough information yet you have drawn a conclusion based on insufficient information (you say it yourself).

    * If it cannot be determined by scientific inquiry, it cannot be. *

    Wrong. There are questions science will NEVER be able to answer.

    * Eye-witness testimony is the least reliable source – every time. *

    That is irrelevant. You aren`t being asked to draw a conclusion on my testimony. You are being invited to experience for yourself.

    * Ask any attorney. *

    Unnecessary.

    * That would square with your statement that most witnesses claiming godly experiences are incredible. I am glad we agree on this. *

    We don`t agree. I don`t believe that shadow images of mary on a frigerator constitutes experiencing God or is indicative of a miracle. That to me would be the equivalent of God jumping through flaming hoops like a circus dog.

    * The burden of proof is always with the claimant. *

    Always is inaccurate. I handled this already….. Its like an experiment. You can`t contest conclusions drawn from an experiment by refusing to recreate the experiment because you don`t want to risk having to draw the same conclusion. Sorry it doesn`t work that way.

    * Just because your position is unreasonable *

    It isn`t unreasonable.

    * does not mean that your unreasoned arguments will convince anyone. *

    I defy you to produce the post where I have said I was trying to argue you into being convinced. I have said as much that I was not trying to convince you. I say go find out for yourself. That is NOT unreasonable. In fact it is (use to be) an atheist argument that if God existed why doesn`t he show himself. Basically I`m telling you that if you are willing for it to be so then God will make himself known to you. If my position is unreasonable then so is yours and yours is anyway.

    * An extremely wise man once said, “…Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” *

    His wisdom is a matter of debate. And there can be no greater evidence than for God to make himself known to you personally.

    * So, I say again, PROVE IT or stop wasting our time. *

    And I say AGAIN…. if you want the proof go out and get it. Gods existence is not predicated on me whatever. And I`m not wasting your time. You are doing that.

  20. Thunder Says:

    * This is by far not the best place to have these kinds of debates *

    I was going to say that myself.

    * it is very disorganized and I easily loose track and interest because of it. *

    It really wasn`t meant to be used the way we are using it.

    * But thanks for letting me know what kind of Christian you are. *

    I`m not sure how to take that.

    * for you to have a higher understanding of how science plays an important role in explaining these events. *

    I`m telling you it doesn`t. You think science has anything to do with voting? That`s how the constitution came about.

    * Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. *

    Science is the study of……. Based upon application of the scientific method. Scientific data is derived through the process of scientific investigation utilizing the scientific method. Science is a tool. It is something to be used not venerated. That similar to the scripture where Jesus said the sabath was made for man and not man for the sabath.

    * Billions of witnesses… truth is not a popularity contest. *

    Never suggested it was. I have in fact said not to trust anyones word to go find out for yourself.

  21. Critic Says:

    Basically I`m telling you that if you are willing for it to be so then God will make himself known to you.

    This is the most depressing kind of fantasy argument that the religious mind spews forth.

    Deny reality. Just live in my little fantasy world where god is real. If you want it it will happen. God reveals himself to the individual. “Just keep brainwashing yourself – or at least let me brainwash you,” says the religious person to the logical world.

    Not one bit of objective thought. Nothing for the logical mind to consider. Pitiful and depressing.

  22. Thunder Says:

    * Nothing for the logical mind to consider. *

    You give yourself way too much credit.

  23. Critic Says:

    You give yourself way too much credit.

    If one can’t counter the argument because one’s position is baseless, just attack the person making the argument and maybe the audience will forget that you failed to provide a logical reply. Ooops, now that I said that your reply may seem inadequate. Sorry.

  24. Thunder Says:

    * Ooops, now that I said that your reply may seem inadequate. *

    Just like I said. You give yourself way too much credit. Your arguments are recycled and have been addressed many times. They are depleat of anything except your animosity toward believers. And I`m tired of trying to reason around your arguments lack of depth and over abundance of speculative stereotypical contempt. Intellectually you are beneath me.

  25. Roland Says:

    Thunder,
    I think you are misunderstanding the role of science and the scientific method a bit. I didn’t make up those definitions. I don’t intend or ever have to venerate it but to use it. Also, don’t confuse the theory of Evolution of Species with the term evolution. I know that in conversations like these it is easily confused.

    I do think about a courtroom every time the matter of evidence comes up. Witness testimony is evidence. You have billions of witnesses (most incredible) but you insist on a burden of proof based on your unwillingness for an outcome other than the one you predetermine.

    I misunderstood this statement. I thought the reason you pulled the billions was because you intended to demonstrate that there actually is a large number out there as witnesses of god. That’s the statement that pulled the whole popularity contest response.
    You have to understand that even with billions of witnesses, you have ti look at your spectrum of testimonies here…
    =Christianity: 2.1 billion (33%)
    =Islam: 1.5 billion (21%)
    =Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion (16%)
    =Hinduism: 900 million (14%)
    =Chinese traditional religion: 394 million (6%)
    =Buddhism: 376 million (6%)
    =primal-indigenous: 300 million (6%)
    =African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
    =Sikhism: 23 million (0.36%)
    =Juche: 19 million
    =Spiritism: 15 million
    =Judaism: 14 million (0.22%)
    =Baha’i: 7 million
    =Jainism: 4.2 million
    =Shinto: 4 million
    =Cao Dai: 4 million
    =Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
    =Tenrikyo: 2 million
    =Neo-Paganism: 1 million
    =Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
    =Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
    =Scientology: 500 thousand
    You cant just pick and choose anyone of them. You can’t just ignore the inconsistencies between each other or themselves. The definition of god can drastically change between one religion to another, from everything to energy to a everything with consciousness to something that can’t be understood. Choice to be fair you should know it in your heart, but not just that; you should also try to learn about it quite and know it so you can have a real opinion. You can spend a lifetime learning about just one religion. If you don’t feel it in your heart you can’t just pretend to like it. Why lie right? If god will know it anyways you are just pretending for society. Frankly I have tried Christianity, but I haven’t the rest of them so I can’t say that Christianity is any better or worse than any of the other ones.

  26. Thunder Says:

    * I think you are misunderstanding the role of science and the scientific method a bit. *

    I`m pretty sure I don`t.

  27. Roland Says:

    Source: Merriam Webster.
    Site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

    Main Entry: Science
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
    Date: 14th century

    1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
    2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
    3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
    4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
    5capitalized : christian science.

    Some of these are links and such… I think it would be better if you go to site I posted, things show a bit nicer there.

    Cheers,

  28. Thunder Says:

    When speaking of a word of multiple use it is invalid to suggest that every usage attached to that word is applicable in any situation in which that word resides. The word one for instance carries more than one usage but not every usage is applicable to the scenario in which the word resides. My use of the term science is specific to the use of information gathering. Data which is correct but is not compiled (or verified) scientifically can`t be characterized as scientific though it rightfully can be characterized as knowledge.

  29. Roland Says:

    I think Merriam Webster made it clear.
    Cheers,

  30. Thunder Says:

    * I think Merriam Webster made it clear. *

    It is STUPID to suggest that everything that is known is known by scientific means. Sorry but that is just the way it is. Furthermore, even scientific knowledge by you (atheists) own admission is subject to change. On top of that…… whatever you think you know because someone else (suggests to have) scientifically confirmed is not scientifically confirmed to you until you do the work for yourself. That is how there can be two different scientist with conflicting data [HAPPENS ALL THE TIME].

  31. Roland Says:

    1) You don’t have to “believe” in Science to be atheist. It would be a wonderful world if it were like that.
    2) Don’t talk Descartes if you can’t walk Descartes.
    3) Yeah, conflicting data does happen. It is a complicated issue and I can see some misinformation on it because of the tone you assume. Just remember that scientific data is tested, a panel of Scientists need to see the test bringing the same results independently before accepting the conclusion. Conflicting data just means there is more to study about the subject… they want to identify that variable.
    4) I don’t think I ever suggested that everything that is known is known by scientific means. Yeah, you can learn from experience, but not all knowledge obtained without a set of rules for filtering the true from the false data is truly useful. Experience by it self is also blamed for superstitions.

    Cheers,