The appendix is a vital organ that should not be removed... - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14829059
Rancid wrote:I had chronic appendicitis (light swelling that would come and go, accompanied with light pain that would come and go). It was removed, and I never felt better, seriously.

Bravo for you. This also proves that it is best in some cases to remove a useful organ. My wife got breast cancer in one breast. It was caught early enough that they only had to remove a small portion of the breast. But some women, like Angelina Jolie, have chosen to have both of these useful organs to be removed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... tment.html

colliric wrote:And yes God created Pathogens. He created everything. He created bacteria, he created evolution, he created the Dinosaurs, he created everything, even The Devil(because he is a believer in Democracy and free choice).

According to the Holy Bible, everything that God created was Good. God did not create the Devil, but an angel created by God became the Devil. Man was not created sinful or bad, but became that way by their own choice. As I understand it, the theory of evolution was dreamed up by Charles Darwin. God is a creationist, not an evolutionist. Perhaps Charles Darwin is some people's god.

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord
Last edited by Hindsite on 01 Aug 2017 14:32, edited 1 time in total.
#14829061
mikema63 wrote:Science doesn't prescribe any particular morality because it is fundamentally incapable of doing so.

It is merely a description of the universe based on evidence. It elevates nothing. Except perhaps the value of physical evidence over just taking scripture at literal face value.


The problem comes when you considers the human factor of Scientists themselves. You are fairly reasonable and impartial...but there's a reason quotes like the one below resonate with the general public.

"Men like you built the Hydrogen Bomb, and men like you thought it up." - Sarah Connor, Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Science itself doesn't do any of what you described, I agree..... But Scientists, the Human Beings with human weaknesses, often DO.
#14829064
@mikema63
My apologies. I can not seem to break my habit of using 'you ' as a general reference. It is simply a bad habit.
You admit to giving priority to the literature of science over the literature of religion. This is religious. You may be totally correct in doing so, but that does not matter. The belief in your correctness is what makes it no different from religion.
#14829066
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:As for the OP and people defending the experts, the problem is not removing appendices in a life threatening situation. It's the assertion that the appendix is useless based on the fact that at the time no obvious function had been discovered, the faulty assumption being that our knowledge is complete at any given time. It's one of the most pervasive and insidious fallacies, and so-called experts, including medical experts, fall for it so often it's scary.

But the OP asserted that it is a 'vital' organ. So far we've had one study showing a "very small risk increase" in heart attacks, and that's it. The OP claimed people who'd had theirs removed have been "dying younger from diseases and cancer, particularly those of the gut". There has been no evidence given for this. Colliric re-asserted "you will significantly increase your risk of dying younger, much younger if your are particularly unlucky". And then, in a stunning display of lack of expertise, suggested 'appendix transplants' instead, which would have a real bad effect on the immune system, thanks to the immuno-suppressive drugs that transplant patients have to take. That's been the real bit of quack medicine in this thread.
#14829067
I give priority to the literature of science because it's based on evidence and not a simple declaration that I must believe it or else. Science encourages you to think critically and outright challenge claims made by scientists.

Science, writ large, is not something you can believe is absolutely true in totality because there is a lot we don't understand and science doesn't pretend to understand. Besides, religion is not religion because people believe things to be true, otherwise any belief is a religious one and all human activity is a bunch of different religions which makes the term religion useless as a descriptive term for a type of belief system.

To make this point true you have to broaden the meaning of religion to the point of absurdity.

This is a relatively common false equivalence in christian apologetics to try and make scientific institutions out to be essentially identical to religious ones. They have entirely different structures and make very different sorts of truth and belief claims. Religion makes absolute claims science makes claims that are contingent, open to being dismissed with new evidence and overall are given with far less certainty than a priest.

@colliric I didn't adress our last posts because you entire argument is rather silly. That you and some other people perceive scientists as arrogant for whatever reason says absolutely nothing about any philosophical or logical connection or distinction between science and religion. Indeed even if they were all arrogant it still wouldn't speak to any conclusions you could make about science philosophically.
#14829072
I think defining might be better than broadening. Is science not based upon accepted types of reasoning just like most philosophies, and therefore religion? It is your choice of logic which is the real difference, and therefore no real difference exists.
Edit: we even look to science for 'salvation '. We expect it to cure our illness, lengthen our lives, and even give us immortality. People look to science for the exact same things they look to religion.
#14829078
mikema63 wrote:I give priority to the literature of science because it's based on evidence and not a simple declaration that I must believe it or else. Science encourages you to think critically and outright challenge claims made by scientists.


This is a stawman argument. An oversimplification of what is contained in religious works and what they teach. They usually touch on a variety of mundane topics ranging from wisdom, salvation, finance, engineering, prophecy(or futurism), romance, history, philosophy, ancestry, mathematics and even basic science usually viewed through an esoteric position. Usually it is to tell a narrative related to the relationship of the cultural group depicted and their spiritual beliefs, partly because they are written as spiritual history for that cultural group. They are rarely actually written with the goal of conversion of outsiders specifically in mind, and that is usually only considered later upon the popularisation of the work outside of the group it was written for.

Secondly Religion in the mainstream also encourages critical thinking. It is where that is encouraged that differs. Religion encourages critical thinking in relation to personal subjective experience(don't take my word for it, find out for yourself), where as Science encourages critical thinking when it comes to emperical objective fact(the evidence states this, let's see if it's repeated in the next experiment) If you cant accept this, you obviously haven't done much religious studies.

Science, writ large, is not something you can believe is absolutely true in totality because there is a lot we don't understand and science doesn't pretend to understand.


Agreed, but unfortunately human hubris and ego often results frequently enough in scientists speaking and communicating from flawed human personal opinions, often on subjects that are outside of their field of knowledge. Enough so that it is the most common criticism of scientists themselves in the wider culture. Particularly in literature and films. You need to critically separate the study of science from the profession of being a scientist, they are not the same. Just as medicine is not the profession, being a flawed human General Practitioner(who will make mistakes and not be perfect), is the profession.

Besides, religion is not religion because people believe things to be true, otherwise any belief is a religious one and all human activity is a bunch of different religions which makes the term religion useless as a descriptive term for a type of belief system.

To make this point true you have to broaden the meaning of religion to the point of absurdity.


No you don't, that's another straw-man argument. It is the ancient Greek definition of the word, weather you like it or not. All it meant was "a person's way of living". The term "Organised Religion" is sufficient to describe the modern religious institutions, and most people use it(why don't you?). It is more historically consistent, and keeps the historical definition intact. What's more it is still the acceptable grammatical norm in English.

This is a relatively common false equivalence in christian apologetics to try and make scientific institutions out to be essentially identical to religious ones. They have entirely different structures and make very different sorts of truth and belief claims.


No, most religious apologetics on the subject is related to the human factor(corruption, mistakes, pride, etc) and structural similarities between the two, often in self-criticism... And then discuss Corporate Business, and even Mafioso/Underworld structures in the same manner, often as one topic.

Religion makes absolute claims science makes claims that are contingent, open to being dismissed with new evidence and overall are given with far less certainty than a priest.


No. And you are talking to someone who studied Batchelor of Theology. Religion makes subjective claims related to personal experience, then challenges a person to decide in their own mind if they spiritually feel it themselves. The Priest gives certainty from his own spiritual experience and challenges his flock to explore critically their own personal spiritual experience. Science makes claims based on empirical objective facts, not personal spiritual experiences.

Just as you studied Science, I studied Theology. So don't disrespect my opinion like you did at the end of the last post.
#14829083
mikema63 wrote:No, people may use scientific evidence of how the world works to support some argument on these topics (i.e. someone might bring genetic evidence to a debate on racism) but fundamentally these are moral questions which are outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

Genetic DNA evidence has also been used to support creation by God.
mikema63 wrote:The moral basis of liberalism and many liberals is a fundamentally based in western philosophy and Christianity.

Conservatism is also based o Christianity.
mikema63 wrote:This is a common creationist trope but nobody is hiding or has to be pressed that we have less understanding of how life started than how it developed. Evolution doesn't require any particular origin of life to be true.

The Theory of Evolution requires an origin of the universe and life that goes back into the billions of years. Most evolutionists admit that if the earth and life were created just a few thousand years ago, then evolution would not have enough time to happen as they envision it. Most evolutionists would agree that the Holy Bible account of creation is not compatible with the Evolution theory.
#14829101
I think defining might be better than broadening.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

Is science not based upon accepted types of reasoning just like most philosophies, and therefore religion?


I don't think philosophy is religion. I think Science and religion are branches of philosophy. We can certainly get into arguments about epistemology and how science and religion approach the question. However fundamentally just because you have to accept some standard of logical reasoning doesn't make it a religion, because that would make literally everything a religion including our own sense perceptions of the universe since we just accept our senses as giving us real information about the universe.

we even look to science for 'salvation '. We expect it to cure our illness, lengthen our lives, and even give us immortality. People look to science for the exact same things they look to religion.


Salvation would be the wrong word to use for that, since generally salvation refers to being freed from sin not just the receipt of practical benefits. Nobody looks to science to free them from sin because unlike religion science does and says nothing about morality.

Just as you studied Science, I studied Theology. So don't disrespect my opinion like you did at the end of the last post.


Your opinion will receive as much respect from me as I think it deserves, you don't deserve respect just because you demand it or just because you went to university. Though for someone constantly complaining about the arrogance of scientists you do have balls to then turn around and simply demand respect.

Genetic DNA evidence has also been used to support creation by God.


Certainly, and creationists are free to use whatever evidence they like to make their case. Though obviously I disagree with the arguments.

Conservatism is also based o Christianity.


I was using the term liberalism in the broader sense as a political ideology. American conservatism is also a branch of that broader liberalism.

The Theory of Evolution requires an origin of the universe and life that goes back into the billions of years.


Evolution requires an origin of the universe only in so far as there needs to be a universe for it to happen in. How the universe came about doesn't effect the theory. For instance if god made the universe, or it result from a collision of universes, or it expanded from the vaccume would not invalidate or validate evolution in any way. Anymore than the higs boson being discovered disproved God. God's existence is not contingent on the higs field existing or not.

Most evolutionists admit that if the earth and life were created just a few thousand years ago,


I have never heard this. Or heard any creationist argue that evolutionary biologists believe this. Without some citation showing most scientists believe the earth to be a few thousand years old you have no basis for this belief.

then evolution would not have enough time to happen as they envision it.


Except that all physical evidence points to this not being the case.

Most evolutionists would agree that the Holy Bible account of creation is not compatible with the Evolution theory.


Lots of things conflict with a literal interpretation of the bible. Whether or not it should be interpreted literally is something for theologians to argue though.
#14829109
colliric wrote:It is the ancient Greek definition of the word, weather you like it or not. All it meant was "a person's way of living".

What ancient Greek definition is that? Since 'religion' comes from a Latin word 'religio', not a Greek one. Oxford English Dictionary:

Anglo-Norman religioun, religiun, Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French religion (French religion ) system of beliefs and practices based on belief in, or acknowledgement of, some superhuman power or powers, also any particular such system (both first half of the 12th cent. in Anglo-Norman, originally in commune religion , translating post-classical Latin catholica religio ; the figurative use in sense 4b is apparently not paralleled in French until later (c1810)), monastery (c1130 in Anglo-Norman), religious house (1139 in Anglo-Norman), action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power, piety, devotion (c1145), state of life bound by religious vows (c1150), scrupulousness, conscientiousness (c1210), religious order (end of the 13th cent. or earlier in Anglo-Norman), (specifically) Protestantism (1533 in ceulx de la religion the Protestants, lit. ‘those of the religion’) and its etymon classical Latin religiōn-, religiō supernatural feeling of constraint, usually having the force of a prohibition or impediment, that which is prohibited, taboo, positive obligation, rule, impediment to action proceeding from religious awe or conscience, scruple, manifestation of divine sanction, religious fear, awe, religious feeling, superstition, quality evoking awe or reverence, sanctity, religious observance, religious practice, ritual, particular system of religious observance, cult, conscientiousness, in post-classical Latin also monastic community (8th cent.), religious order, rule observed by a religious order (12th cent.) < re- re- prefix + a second element of uncertain origin; by Cicero connected with relegere to read over again (see relection n.), so that the supposed original sense of ‘religion’ would have been ‘painstaking observance of rites’, but by later authors (especially by early Christian writers) with religāre religate v., ‘religion’ being taken as ‘that which ties believers to God’. Each view finds supporters among modern scholars.

So, not Greek, and not meaning "a person's way of living".

And you are talking to someone who studied Batchelor of Theology.

Who's that?
#14829112
@mikema63
You have got me thinking about some fun arguments. Your arguments ring of truth if it is possible to separate science from scientists. First, the existence of science without scientists would appear to elevate it to God status. How does it exist without them?
Sorry hit submit before I was finished I will just hold off on my other comments.
#14829126
mikema63 wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

I am not entirely sure you understand what I mean by anything. But I do agree with you that most of us just accept our senses as giving us real information about the universe. I also know our senses can be easily fooled.

Salvation to a Christian means obtaining eternal life, which includes freedom from sin and death. Some people look to medical science for the possibility of extending life to the ages mentioned in Genesis. This however, is nothing close to salvation as a Christian sees it.
mikema63 wrote:Your opinion will receive as much respect from me as I think it deserves, you don't deserve respect just because you demand it or just because you went to university. Though for someone constantly complaining about the arrogance of scientists you do have balls to then turn around and simply demand respect.

Yes, it is hard to respect someone that has such opposite beliefs about what is true and false. However, I got an associate degree from a community college, not a university. So that is no reason for you to respect me. Please look for another reason.
mikema63 wrote:Certainly, and creationists are free to use whatever evidence they like to make their case. Though obviously I disagree with the arguments.

We creationists do have a lot of evidence on our side, but I certainly don't expect an atheist evolutionist to agree with our arguments. I agree that animals can change genetically due to selective breeding and environmental adaptations. But these changes have limits so that a fish can not change to become a bird or any other kind of animal. A fish was a fish in the beginning and none of its descendants will ever become anything but a fish. Unlike, evolutionist, I do not believe man evolved from a chimpanzee or any other type ape. Man has always been man from the time God created them, male and female.

I did not say that most evolutionary biologists believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. You apparently skipped over the word "if" in my statement. There is some evidence that seems to point to a very old earth if interpreted wrongly. There is also much evidence that seems to point to a young earth.

Lots of things conflict with a literal interpretation of the bible. Whether or not it should be interpreted literally is something for theologians to argue though.[/quote]
We Christians know that there are different ways to interpret different parts of the Holy Bible. But that can generally be determined by the context and the style. Certainly, we should have enough sense to know that when Jesus told His disciples that the bread and wine was His body and blood that He meant for them to interpret it symbolically, not literally. But on the other hand, it is clear that Genesis 1 is written as history and should be taken literally. And there is no indication that a day there means any thing other than a regular 24 hour day.

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord
#14829164
First, the existence of science without scientists would appear to elevate it to God status. How does it exist without them?


Depends on how you look at science. Science as an activity is a particular system that is entirely pointless without humans actually operating it. However the discoveries made by the system about how the universe works would be true without humans around and people often refer to these facts as science as well. So whether or not science can exist independently of people has more to do with how you parse the term than anything else.

Since the institution is designed specifically to try and remove human biases from the equation you couldnt remove them. However you could create a new system that uses (very advanced) machines and programs that mindlessly goes through some process to derive facts about the universe and I suspect many would call that science as well.

It might be useful to separate the process of science from the body of knowledge it's produced when addressing the question of it surviving us.

Further, something transcending humanities existence seems like a poor definition for what the level of a god is. Lots of things transcend us after all in some sense or another. A more rigerous definition of what makes something a god is in order if we are to see if science fits or not.
#14829170
You seem to be expressing a belief in science to continue to exist with or without scientists. You believe the system can exist on it's foundation principles. This pretty well defines religion. Can we agree that it is likely both science and God were created by man in an attempt to satisfy his needs?
#14829180
The philosophical justifications for the scientific process could be true without humans sure. The actual process of science couldn't work, and the facts derived from it could. However I fail to see how any of that makes it a religion.

In fact there is actually a foundational flaw with all of science in the form of the induction fallacy which renders all scientific knowledge only probabalistic and lacking in complete certainty. So in that sense it's value can be described as purely utilitarian to humans.

There are a lot of different ideas in the philosophy of science after all, and the philosophical foundations of science is by no means settled.

I agree that science and religion developed from human societies but then everything else we do is as well. So to call then comparable on that grounds would mean all human activity would be religious. Which would make the term useless for any discussion.
#14829197
Yes, I meant to give you points for taking my own reasoning to that point. :up:
Everything is based upon religion and our need for it. I find anti-religion people a little silly for this reason. You would be hard pressed to find anything that was not influenced by religion. I don't see it as an insult when I say the same about science. I am not a religious person at all and I detest organized religion, but I understand it's importance to many people and especially to a functioning society. The attempt to delegetimatize all religion in the name of science is a destructive force today. This is also why many act as if science is a religion because it is a need we can't erase. The problem is science is,so far, a poor substitute for religion when it comes to creating harmonious communities.
#14829216
One Degree wrote:The problem is science is,so far, a poor substitute for religion when it comes to creating harmonious communities.

True science and true religion go good together. The problem is with those people that pervert them for their own use. The Holy Bible warns us of false teachers, but this does not just apply to religion. There are also false teachers that have perverted science in order to claim that God does not exist, and therefore, there is no absolute authority to determine good and evil. Morality then becomes what you can get away with doing.
#14829242
Hindsite wrote:True science and true religion go good together. The problem is with those people that pervert them for their own use. The Holy Bible warns us of false teachers, but this does not just apply to religion. There are also false teachers that have perverted science in order to claim that God does not exist, and therefore, there is no absolute authority to determine good and evil. Morality then becomes what you can get away with doing.


This is the point I was attempting to get through to him. Thank you for stating it more clearly. How can he explain people in his field behaving in the manner below as being defensible:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... l?ITO=1490

This isn't science, it's Politics and social engineering being introduced to academia in a "scientific journal" as if it was "100% Science...how dare you question us!" by a bunch of Human Beings. Some other more morally minded Scientists noticed it was factually wrong and were treated like shit.

There are scientists and scientific organisations who proud fully believe they know absolutely everything and how dare you question them, you infidel.

Science has been corrupted by the Human factor(and so have Religious organisations).

Also I accept being corrected by PC, it was the Ancient Romans. The greeks used a different word. It simply literally means "A way to live". It was applied to Sport, Politics, State religions, trade.... They treated it all as "Religio".
#14829246
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio

Better definition contained within the body of that Wikipedia article.

Religio among the Romans was not based on "faith", but on knowledge, including and especially correct practice.Religio (plural religiones) was the pious practice of Rome's traditional cults, and was a cornerstone of the mos maiorum, the traditional social norms that regulated public, private, and military life. To the Romans, their success was self-evidently due to their practice of proper, respectful religio, which gave the gods what was owed them and which was rewarded with social harmony, peace and prosperity.


In other words, it was the application of one's personal belief system(or Knowledge) in the public realm, for the greater good of self and society. Most religious scholars summarise the ancient application of the word into the definition I provided, so it is easier for modern people to understand how the Romans(not the Greek, I stand reminded) understood it. It was "The Roman way of living well".

Under the Roman understanding of the word, Atheism is indeed a religion(as it is the application of the belief that "there is no God", a person applying that knowledge into the way they live their life) and so is Sport.
#14829299
colliric wrote:In other words, it was the application of one's personal belief system(or Knowledge) in the public realm, for the greater good of self and society. Most religious scholars summarise the ancient application of the word into the definition I provided, so it is easier for modern people to understand how the Romans(not the Greek, I stand reminded) understood it. It was "The Roman way of living well".

Under the Roman understanding of the word, Atheism is indeed a religion(as it is the application of the belief that "there is no God", a person applying that knowledge into the way they live their life) and so is Sport.


No, your 'other words' try and give a completely different meaning to what that Wikipedia article says (which basically agrees with the Oxford English Dictionary). Both explicitly say it's all about interaction with the gods. Your "way of living well" is mos maiorum, of which religio was just one aspect. That is what is now discussed as "moral".

scrupulous or strict observance of the traditional cultus
...
the term religio originally meant an obligation to the gods, something expected by them from human beings or a matter of particular care or concern as related to the gods, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety".

In this sense, religio might be translated better as "religious scruple" than with the English word "religion". One definition of religio offered by Cicero is cultus deorum, "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods."
...
Religiosus was something pertaining to the gods or marked out by them as theirs

The Wikipedia entry even directly contradicts your claim that with a Roman understanding "atheism is indeed a religion":

"neglecting the religiones owed to the traditional gods was atheism, a charge leveled during the Empire at Jews, Christians, and Epicureans."

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]