Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    16 Nov '17 22:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    Pretty off topic from what we were discussing. But... anti-vaxxers are clearly more associated with the non-religious political left.

    Reference: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html
    This post is irrelevant. Your question was about RELIGIOUS EXCEPTIONS for vaccines being the rise; not about being anti-vaccine in general. And, as I said, the reason for the rise in religious exceptions has to do with the rising prominence of Fox News.
  2. 16 Nov '17 22:55
    Originally posted by @vivify
    This post is irrelevant. Your question was about RELIGIOUS EXCEPTIONS for vaccines being the rise; not about being anti-vaccine in general. And, as I said, the reason for the rise in religious exceptions has to do with the rising prominence of Fox News.
    Not irrelevant. Are you saying there is a fact-based argument for non-medical vaccine exemptions?
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    16 Nov '17 23:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    Not irrelevant. Are you saying there is a fact-based argument for non-medical vaccine exemptions?
    You seem unable to keep track of your own arguments.

    YOU brought up religious exemptions for vaccines, despite a general decline in religion.
    Your question was NOT about anti-vaccination in general.
    That's why your link, which used Bill Maher (a notoriously militant atheist) as an example, is not relevant: your question was about a specific group: religious people.

    My initial answer regarding Fox News and it's influence over it's religious base (like with being anti-vaccine) was sufficient for your question.
  4. 17 Nov '17 03:16 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @vivify
    You seem unable to keep track of your own arguments.

    YOU brought up religious exemptions for vaccines, despite a general decline in religion.
    Your question was NOT about anti-vaccination in general.
    That's why your link, which used Bill Maher (a notoriously militant atheist) as an example, is not relevant: your question was about a specific ...[text shortened]... luence over it's religious base (like with being anti-vaccine) was sufficient for your question.
    Yeah it wasn't my argument. I was simply asking you a question. Your answer about conservative Fox Newsies did not make sense, since the rise in religious exemptions is not happening among conservative, Fox News-watching folk.

    What about this: Since the decrease in vaccinations is happening in liberal areas, perhaps liberal, HuffPo reading folk are claiming religious exemptions (in many areas it's the only available option), even though they are not formally religious. (although by believing in the harmful fantasy that vaccines cause illness, they kinda are) That would make more sense given the available data.

    I'm not sure what relevance Bill Maher's militance has to do with your argument.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Nov '17 11:19
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    Certainly not worthy of scientific discussion. Ask them to point to Biblical evidence that supports their opinion, though, and they might have trouble. It's only one interpretation. Young earth is a relatively new religious phenomenon. And this position necessarily means that God purposefully planted fake evidence to throw us off the trail of the real "evidence" he wrote up, cryptically, in the Bible. Huh?
    That doesn't bother them in the slightest. For instance, I used to go round and round with RJ Hinds about all this, he being an avowed Young Earther and no amount of evidence changed his mind one bit. How he can look at rock formations by the dozens that are bent 180 degrees and still think that all happened 6000 years ago is beyond me, and all the other tactics I took rolled off him like water off a duck.
  6. 17 Nov '17 16:10
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    That doesn't bother them in the slightest. For instance, I used to go round and round with RJ Hinds about all this, he being an avowed Young Earther and no amount of evidence changed his mind one bit. How he can look at rock formations by the dozens that are bent 180 degrees and still think that all happened 6000 years ago is beyond me, and all the other tactics I took rolled off him like water off a duck.
    It doesn't bother them that there's no biblical passage explaining the age of the earth? How do they justify their position?
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Nov '17 16:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    It doesn't bother them that there's no biblical passage explaining the age of the earth? How do they justify their position?
    That's the funny part, there IS no biblical passage saying Earth is such and such years old.
    It is the work of an assswipe theologian from the 19th century, forget his name, but addedd up all the Jane Begat Roger who begat Billy who begat Abraham who begat, etc., etc., etc., ad nausium. So figuring the bible to be 100% infallable,(infallibible as Patrick Sky said in his 'pope' song) anyway with a 100% accurate depiction of all those begats, it added up to a date of something like 4004 BCE.


    That's about the time when the bible was starting to be taken literally, the WW flood, literally happened, and so forth.
  8. 18 Nov '17 04:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    That's the funny part, there IS no biblical passage saying Earth is such and such years old.
    It is the work of an assswipe theologian from the 19th century, forget his name, but addedd up all the Jane Begat Roger who begat Billy who begat Abraham who begat, etc., etc., etc., ad nausium. So figuring the bible to be 100% infallable,(infallibible as Patrick ...[text shortened]... en the bible was starting to be taken literally, the WW flood, literally happened, and so forth.
    How does a Young Earther possibly pretend to know though, if the biblical evidence is so clearly subjective? I mean, even if you assert that all the scientific empirical evidence (that, if you're religious, was provided by God) was faked and/or created, just like science there'll always be doubt whether the interpretation of what a "day" was before the Earth was created is fictional. The Bible might be infallible, but translation of it is not. And you're willfully ignoring the reality of everything else around you.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Nov '17 12:49
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    How does a Young Earther possibly pretend to know though, if the biblical evidence is so clearly subjective? I mean, even if you assert that all the scientific empirical evidence (that, if you're religious, was provided by God) was faked and/or created, just like science there'll always be doubt whether the interpretation of what a "day" was before ...[text shortened]... anslation of it is not. And you're willfully ignoring the reality of everything else around you.
    I said as much to RJ Hinds and he finally withdrew from posting about it. It is called cognitive dissonance.