[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

It is possible for some religious views to be compatible with science. It's totally possible to accept evolution as one of the many tools your favored deity has given nature.

But it's totally incidental for religion and inconsequential for science.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[(Anonymous)]

If it's inconsequential, then whey are so many people so vehemently opposed to it?

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

You ask that as if some people rejecting the idea that religious dogma can safely incorporate some scientific principles is somehow meaningful to science as an enterprise and a body of knowledge. it isn't.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course it isn't meaningful to science. It's meaningful to people would like to be able to have serious, in-depth discourse about this without being shut down every fucking time by some edgelord completely ignoring the points they make in favour of spouting "LOL CHRISTUNS R DELUSONAL WIF THER SKYDADY! RELIGIN IS LIE EVOLUTION IS BETR LOL!" ad nauseum.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

Goalposts are usually installed with a metal bar in a sleeve placed some distance into the ground and surrounded by a cylinder of poured concrete. This keeps them from moving.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

if anyone has been moving goalposts in this thread it's you, but whatever.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

Nah.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[(Anonymous)]

lol

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[diet_poison]

lol I like this comment.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dreemyweird]

Ehh, as someone who has some knowledge of ecology as a discipline, I'll have to disagree. Unfortunately, some people rejecting the idea that religious dogma can incorporate scientific principles can be VERY consequential for science as an enterprise.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

I fail to see how.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dreemyweird]

I'd argue that practically speaking, popular education is an inherent part of such disciplines as ecology and environmental biology. Instead of doing further research, some ecologists actually dedicate a good portion of their lives to trying to convince a bunch of pigheaded Conservatives that climate change is a real thing. The extent to which the idea of global warming is rejected by the populace is catastrophic, and to say that it's inconsequential for ecology is to hide one's head in the sand.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

Wait, I thought we were talking about atheists rejecting religious dogma.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dreemyweird]

...and I thought we were talking about religious Conservatives and was puzzled :D Sorry, there was a misunderstanding.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[dethtoll]

Oops! :D

Re: Mormon-anon here.

[kitelovesyou]

If it's inconsequential, then whey are so many people so vehemently opposed to it?

Do you mean why are so many non-religious proponents of science threatened by religious views about the universe?

I think it's partly the long bitter fight over epistemology - what are the sources of our knowledge? Many religious people think that where science and religion appear to conflict, that religion should come first. Vice versa for many proponents of science. Religion used to punish scientists who came to discoveries that conflicted with religion. Religion in many places seeks to suppress scientific teachings now. However, scientific teachings are in most places these days privileged above religious teachings that would conflict with them. However, scientists, seeing science as the number one source of truth about observable reality, are still bitter about various religious agendas seeking to suppress them.

Many proponents of science, especially many atheists, mistakenly think that the scientific method can completely encompass all knowledge. It can't. Only falsifiable observations. So religious statements about truth are seen ipso facto as a direct contradiction to science. They aren't, if they aren't about falsifiable theories! Science can say nothing about the existence of an intelligent deity or not, only that it isn't necessary to explain the world around us. (Which is another reason why so many religious people are threatened by science.)