fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's the Alice's Restaurant problem--you can get anything you want. If you say that an intelligent being created the universe, you can give it any possible attributes, and these attributes can be used to explain any state the universe exists in. There's no way intelligent design can be proven false, and that's what sets it apart from the scientific community's focus on falsifiable claims. (Wel, most of the scientific community, as any critic of string theory will tell you.)

AYRT

"If you say that an intelligent being created the universe, you can give it any possible attributes, and these attributes can be used to explain any state the universe exists in."

And that is precisely the point I'm trying to make.

The issue I have with the usual iterations of "religion vs. science" argument is that they more often than not refuse to take into account that because religious dogma is not grounded in scientific fact, it can be and has been reshaped and reinterpreted to conform to scientific fact.

It's usually the other way around: rather than shape religious dogma to conform to scientific fact, scientific fact is twisted and warped to conform to religious dogma.

Or do I have to remind you of "shutting that whole thing down."

"Or do I have to remind you of "shutting that whole thing down."

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Is this an American thing?

It's a belief by many anti-choicers, and expressed publicly by a politician named Todd Akin, that women's bodies were capable of preventing pregnancy by sensing when they were being raped and therefore abortion wasn't necessary.

I sincerely hope you're joking.

Sadly, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin#Controversial_comments_on_.22legitimate_rape.22_and_pregnancy

Sadly no. It's a belief that goes as far back as medieval times, when people believed that in order for conception to occur, a woman must orgasm. So if a pregnancy occurred, the woman must've orgasmed, so it couldn't have been rape.

Akin and people like him are scum. Unfortunately, their "reasoning" appeals to a lot of people who don't know much about science or women's bodies and are easily tricked with pseudoscientific nonsense. They won't verify it for themselves either because they're not really interested in the facts, they just want to justify their horrendous beliefs.

...seriously???

/loses another shred of faith in humanity

I mean that's provably wrong on TWO completely separate levels. REALLY wrong

(I would also like to add that I think on some level it's wishful thinking - not really active virulent anti-woman hate but just thinking "man this whole abortion thing would be so much cleaner and neater if conception via rape wasn't a thing" so they stick their heads in the sand)

What's worse is that this issue came up in the battle over funding Planned Parenthood. Religious conservatives want to cut funding because they view it as taxpayer money paying for abortions, even though federal money is not permitted to be used for abortions and PP provides a wide range of healthcare including breast exams, birth control, etc. Yet there's that pesky question of whether or not rape victims should be allowed abortions... So a certain segment of conservatives decided that well, rape victims wouldn't need abortions because they don't get pregnant, therefore any woman who wants an abortion isn't a victim, she's a slut and therefore doesn't deserve healthcare OR an abortion.

It's a seriously horrible debate, and sadly, conservatives are winning. Planned Parenthood has taken a huge hit, and all over the country clinics who do abortions are being shut down.

:(

You don't even really have to be a big fan of abortion to see how silly all that is. It's just awful and it cuts off so much good care and it's so ridiculously misogynistic.

It's usually the other way around: rather than shape religious dogma to conform to scientific fact, scientific fact is twisted and warped to conform to religious dogma.

No. Usually it's a religious person doing standard accepted science and then shrugging and saying "but god too." Is it provable? No. But I don't see why it really matters if nobody's being a dick about it.

Somehow I went to a catholic college full of good stem programs that involved priests as professors but I suppose they must have all been closet atheists or something. I mean otherwise there'd be theology on the exams right? Believers can't compartmentalize it's unpossible

Edited 2015-10-26 05:15 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I went to a Catholic school myself and there was no religion outside of religious classes. But none of that negates what I said.

I suppose it's a mix of both and tends to depend on denomination/what they're trying to prove.

Intelligent design - er, Creationism, to be pedantic - cannot be proven false. Like the whole "the Earth is 6,000 years old and humanity started from two people literally made out of the ground" thing can, but the simple idea that a higher power who is beyond our understanding exists and has influenced our world in some way actually can't. It can't be proven true, either. It's not actually a scientific belief. It annoys me when people (on either side of the debate) pretend that it is.

This may be what you're actually saying, in which case disregard, lol.

Yeah, I was saying that it's not falsifiable. The thing is, it seems like it slots into beliefs that do affect the world. It would be great if people said "Nature is God's creation! We must protect it!" But what I've heard seems more like "Nature is God's creation! If the world is getting warmer, that's God's will!"

Gotcha!

It would be great if people said "Nature is God's creation! We must protect it!"

I could not agree more. One of many reasons I'm disappointed in and disillusioned with organized religion despite still being a religious person.

Creationism means "God created the earth/universe/etc". That has been proven wrong. Now religious people who are really set on having a supernatural being have a hand in the universe's conception have to water it down to "well maybe God started the Big Bang" etc. Except science figures out more and more every day about how the universe likely "banged" into being, and virtually every previous claim about a deity "creating" the universe has been proven wrong.

Creationism means "God created the earth/universe/etc". That has been proven wrong.

...nnno, it hasn't. You can't scientifically prove or disprove a spiritual assertion.

I think in that context they meant Biblical literalism prior to science taking a hold, as in "God built it in one go like a kid with bricks". Now it's been watered down bit by bit by many, ultimately to "God caused existence and then sat back and smoked a pipe and watched his plan unfold" which is merely a spiritual not physical assertion since it doesn't conflict with the observable world.

Right, I mean, you can disprove a literal Genesis. I'm just talking about the general spiritual assertion that there is a God who has a hand, to a certain degree (peoples' beliefs surely vary quite a bit on this), in influencing the current state of things. It's not a scientific assertion, as you said, and can't be scientifically disproved. If AIRT meant "the literal creation story has been disproved" they worded themselves very badly IMO.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Okay, here's the problem with that.

Re: Okay, here's the problem with that.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

Re: Mormon-anon here.