Claims such as “some guy split the moon into two pieces the other day, and then put it back together” fit the definition of bullshit about as close as anything can. The same goes for creationist’s claims. These are testable, we can examine the body of evidence to see if they are credible relative to competing theories. When we do it is obvious that, according to science, they are in no way credible, and are indeed bullshit according to science.
Scientific secterism! Let the suicide bombings begin!
Seriously, maybe all the people who claim to be scientific but can’t agree what science is and isn’t need to sit down and have a chat, because this thread is not making science look good.
For what it is worth, I think Steken and tomndebb are absolutely correct. Science does not cover all aspects of existence, but is an investigation into the external/objective/material world. As such, science is a method, not another magical belief system.
It also seems quite silly to talk about whether something supernatural exist when you have just posited that everything that exists is natural. Per definition then, nothing supernatural exists, and if angels, gods, demons or unicorns turn out to exist, they are obviously naturally occurring.
Many of the claims of religion are refuted by science precisely because they assert that certain events occurred in the external/objective/material world. Your point is valid for religious beliefs like “God is love”, or other vague spiritual hokeyness, but not for specific claims that defy the laws of physics and would have left physical evidence had they occurred. We know that the bible’s claims that life was created spontaneously rather than evolving is bullshit, because the claim does not fit the evidence contained in the fossil record.
If I tell you I split the moon in two and rejoined it while you were not looking, you know that this claim is bullshit, right? How do you know? Because of science, specifically, because of the body of knowledge accumulated using the scientific method.
Muslim majority states don’t, but many many Muslims and ex-Muslims themselves desire this freedom. You would hear from more of them if expressing those desires did not lead to assassination attempts and imprisonment.
#ExMuslimBecause: Thousands of Former Muslims Are Speaking Out After Paris – and It’s Amazing
That’s simply wrong. You’re assigning a truth-value of “false” to a statement that can’t be tested either way. You’re just as wrong in saying, “It is false” than a faithful believer is in saying “It is true.”
Here’s a simple reason why: if a nonsense claim is “false” be default…then a nonsense claim that is phrased negatively would have to be “true” by default.
“God is not love.”
“That’s false!”
“Aha! Then you acknowledge that God is love!”
Dammit, I thought it was going away for sure when Wendy’s brought back the pulled pork sandwich. 
No. What science says, is: God is not.
An assertion that he is, is bullshit according to science.
You can’t prove it. You can’t even demonstrate it. It’s as insane to say that “God doesn’t exist” as to say “Life on a planet of some distant star doesn’t exist.” You don’t know that.
Science has the wisdom to remain silent on matters for which there is no evidence.
Query: Is it possible that people here are using “bullshit” in the Popperian sense of “nonsense?” A claim is “nonsense” – non pejorative – if there isn’t any evidence for it. It is nonsense to speak of life on a planet revolving around Rho Eridanus. There’s no evidence either way.
But it is not “bullshit” to speak of life on other planets. There is no Popperian term of “bullshit.”
You may believe so. I may believe so. But “science” - which isn’t in the business of believing one way or the other - does not believe so.
Now, one may well believe that “it is unreasonable to believe anything that cannot be scientifically proven.” But “science” - which, again, simply isn’t in the business of believing one way or the other - does not believe so.
No, that is not at all how science works.
When confronted with claims “structured in such a way that empirical evidence itself is an impossibility,” science does not scream “BULLSHIT!” It just sorta shrugs and walks away.
And as has already been explained to you, it cannot be scientifically proven that what cannot be scientifically tested does not exist. One may accept it on faith - as you seem to do - but one cannot claim that “according to science,” it is so.
Did you manage to verify this statement using the scientific method? If so, show your homework. Let us know by which specific line of scientific line of experimentation you reached your conclusion. Thanks in advance.
How would this possibly prove that communication with a divine being is impossible…?
True.
Science gets to call bullshit whenever religion makes a verifiable and falsifiable claim about anything in the empirically accessible realm.
Whenever religion makes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim about anything in a (supposedly) empirically unaccessible realm, however, science has to shrug and walk away.
Correct. Which is one of the reasons why some religious scholars use “meta-empirical” rather than either “supernatural” (“which presupposes an ontological division expressly denied by many of our sources”) or for that matter “spiritual” (“[which] seems to suggest an opposition to ‘material’ which is particularly problematic when used in monistic contexts”). In the 19th century, some religious groups preferred the term “supernormal” to “supernatural,” because they very much believed that divine powers existed within, and as part of, the “natural” world.
You have just moved the goalposts. Your original claim was
Now you back away from that claim to say that ridiculous claims that are not empirically verifiable are bullshit. That, again, is an opinion about which science makes no statements. Before you can get away with making your claim, you have to establish which claims are ridiculous. You are relying on your own belief system, and not science, to set the rules.
Splitting the moon and restoring it probably falls into the “ridiculous” column, (particularly since no society has a record of anyone having noted such a phenomenon). Healing events, or even bringing persons back to life, may have never occurred, but they do not fit into some objective column of “ridiculous” claims simply because you do not happen to believe they occurred.
I would love to see the citation, (preferably in a peer reviewed journal), where scientists demonstrated that no one is granted 72 virgins after death or that no one is united (or re-united) with their one true love. I don’t even believe that stuff, myself, but I am curious to see your reference(s) demonstrating that science has disproved the phenomena.
I still stand by my statement you quoted (even though I see I mixed up Christianity and Islam at one point). One thing is for sure though, even if Islam is claimed by a roughly similar percentage of the world’s population in 100 years as it is today, how it looks will be extremely different, as today is quite different from a century ago. The Islam Huda Sha’arawi was engaging had a very different momentum.
Not that you would disagree with the above point I’m sure, but I think it’s important to stress it because how Islam will change depends a lot on the type of world it is existing in, and that is something we have some say in.
Originally Posted by **Chief Pedant **
*“Interview 1000 people independent of one another with this question: What is God’s exact plan for the Middle East?
If you do not get 1000 exactly similar answers with exactly similar details, they are not talking with God, and the idea that God is talking with them is bullshit.”
What it proves is that claimed communication with a divine being is bullshit.
The last say, 100 billion who thought they were communicating with a supernatural being were wrong, but you want some evidence that the 100 billion and first guy might be right before you are going to call it impossible?
And from the lack of such papers, you take away that science has not disproved there are no virgins with big tits awaiting the Islamic dead?
Again, I am embarrassed for you.
I do not know what else to say. Science proves conclusively that what we call consciousness resides exactly within the neurophysiologic processes of the brain. It can be altered. It can be damaged. It does not exist outside of the brain.
Also, when you die your penis rots away.
In general, there aren’t papers disproving the tooth fairy. But according to science, he’s also a fairy ( 
) tale.
Nope. Proves no such thing. “You can’t prove a negative.” Basically, you can’t even state the proposition clearly.
Also, can you clarify what you mean by “bullshit?” I asked this earlier. If you only mean “nonsense” in the standard Popperian sense, then, yeah, I agree. Faith-based claims are nonsense, in that they cannot be proven nor disproven. If you mean “Obviously false,” then you’re wrong.
Induction is not proof. The first thousand people who thought they could fly were wrong…but the Wrights weren’t.
I mean, “obviously false,” in the plain sense of the words.
There is a qualitative difference between the Wrights, and a guy who thinks he can literally fly to Jerusalem from Mecca on a night ride.
What creates that difference is science.
Science says you can use physical principles to create machines that fly.
Nitwits say “You can’t prove a negative, and you can’t reason by induction, so maybe you can transport yourself physically over to Jerusalem from Mecca on a night ride. You can’t reason by induction, so maybe just because the first 100 billion people couldn’t flap their arms and zip over to Mecca, maybe the 100 billion and first guy could. You can’t PROVE a negative.”
This distortion of language to create an implication that something might be possible because “you can’t prove a negative” is a triumph of the haplessly uninformed when what is being postulated derives from pure fancy and flies in the face of what we have uncovered scientifically about how the world around us works.
So far, what we have uncovered scientifically is: Physical principles win. Magic loses.
Were you to uncover a previously unknown principle that lets a human flit over to Jerusalem and report back, you could postulate that Mo pulled it off, and be within the sphere of science. Until you have scientific reasoning that underlies it, science says it’s bullshit (along with all other such supernatural imaginings).
Reassuring the religious masses that science cannot prove their religion wrong is the stuff by which religious leaders drive their audiences’ behaviors. Where the religious leaders have world views that are dangerous, such thinking is dangerous.
But with education, the demise of religious principles is inevitable, since science says religious ideas that invoke the supernatural are bullshit.
For that reason, as long as we can preserve western education instead of sympathizing with Boko Haram, Islam is going away.
You are asserting that science has made a positive assertion, then you duck away and claim that you do not have to provide evidence of your claim because “science” has “proven” (with no proof provided) your assertion.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And you are really demonstrating a process of understanding that would comfortably fit in any Evangeliical church.
OK, this is where things get weird.
You clearly know that you can’t prove a negative.
You know that that statement is true.
And yet you call those who stand by it “nitwits.” Hell, you even seem to want us to refrain from spreading this simple truth - “you can’t prove a negative” - for fear that it might help “religious leaders” in their attempts to “drive their audiences’ behaviors.” You seem to think that this simple truth is so dangerous that it should be withheld from “the religious masses,” who might, because of it, remain religious.
Should the “education” of which you speak exclude the idea that “you can’t prove a negative”? Is this something we should not teach our kids, for fear that it might lead them towards religion?
As for that last part, I’d still like for you to tell us by which specific line of scientific experimentation “science” has shown that “religious ideas that invoke the supernatural are bullshit.” Thanks in advance.
<chuckling>
It’s hard for me to figure out if you just have no idea what science is, or are just being obstreperous.
I’m pretty sure a paper looking at whether or not an imaginary Pink Unicorn blowing fairy love to cure malaria would not pass peer review.
The positive assertion that Pink Unicorn fairy love is unhelpful would not get made.
Apparently in your paradigm, science therefore makes no positive assertion wrt the effect of Pink Unicorn fairy love on malaria.
<chuckling>
I’m starting to figger out why religion is so successful with the masses!
The fact is that science thinks Pink Unicorn fairy love as a cure for malaria is bullshit, even if not a single paper to that effect exists.
Let me help you with your reading skills by quoting myself:
By CP:
“This distortion of language to create an implication that something might be possible because “you can’t prove a negative” is a triumph of the haplessly uninformed when what is being postulated derives from pure fancy and flies in the face of what we have uncovered scientifically about how the world around us works.”
I don’t mind being quoted, but I believe a simple courtesy is to quote the complete thought.
And perhaps I shouldn’t have said “nitwits.” I was trying to be polite.
“Idiots” is more accurate.
The refuge taken by idiots under “you can’t prove a negative” as a means by which to invoke the possibility of the supernatural is stupid, and unscientific.
Scientific investigation and experimentation would, can and has proven the various supernatural postulations up with which the undereducated and idiotic have come, to be unsupportable bullshit.
Perhaps you would like to make a given postulate so that I can suggest how science has–or would–disprove it.
But if you just prefer to remain ignorant, enjoy your delusion that science cannot disprove the supernatural negatives up with which you like to come…Boko Haram welcomes you!