• Christian school teacher arrested for alleged sexual assault; more victims suspected
    (archived link)

• Christ the King bookkeeper gets 2 years in prison for embezzling church funds
    (archived link)

• Ex-teacher at Pope John XXIII High School is sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking upskirt photos of students
    (archived link)

• Pakistani religious body declares using VPN is against Islamic law

• Hate pastor renegs on promise to refund tithes

• Priest faces life imprisonment over third child sex offences conviction

• Church of England head resigns over handling of sex abuse scandal
    (archived link)

• Ohio pastor accused of raping a juvenile facing 6 felony counts
    (archived link)

• Televangelist Kenneth Copeland says people who didn’t vote for Trump will hear the names of aborted ‘babies’ for all eternity

   
Previously

  • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    4 hours ago

    Science only determines whether data is consistent with a given model. Nothing more, nothing less.

    This isn’t a meaningful distinction. A claim that the sun is an angry head would assert that it fits the model of a head. This is something we can test scientifically. If the data regarding the sun isn’t consistent with the model of a head, then the claim that it’s a head has been disproved. At minimum, we can prove that the data is inconsistent with the model and give significant evidence against the claim.

    So far, the only counterargument to this is “we can’t know for sure that it isn’t the head of an unknown non-biological sentient being.” If this was a substantial argument in favor of the claim, then it would stand to reason that the sun could be considered anything, like a planet from another universe, the eye of a mortal human named Bob, a USB-C cable for a bottle of hand sanitizer, and more.

    I’m not sure what your point is, or why you’re so adamant that the sun may, in fact, be the head of a non-biological sentient being. This has nothing to do with my point that OP’s argument isn’t convincing because it holds equal relevance to other fields.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      3 hours ago

      Incorrect. Robots have electrical heads, organizations have conceptual heads. You’re not making a scientific argument, you’re making semantic strawmen contrived to confirm your biases. Nothing could be further from science.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 hours ago

        First, what is your point?

        Second, does the sun fit any of the following definitions:

        • biological head
        • robotic head
        • head of an organization
        • spiritual head
        • head of a tool
        • match head
        • the head command
        • document head(er)
        • the headless horseman’s head If so, can you explain how with direct evidence or argumentation rather than simply “we can’t say for sure that it doesn’t”? Again, that argument would make it eligible to fit any and all possible definitions.

        Third, if it doesn’t fit any of the above definitions, can you explain which definition of head that it does, what that definition is, and why it’s relevant?

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          My point is you’re torturing a non-scientific argument to try to pass it off as scientific. No one benefits my pretending achieve is something it isn’t. You’re trying to use it to determine reality, when it’s just a tool to develop consistent models. It does not work when considering a phenomenon outside of testable hypotheses.

          Again, the sun could be the head, the sensory and processing unit, of an unknown nuclear being. We have no way to test this, so it cannot be scientifically “disproved”. That does not dictate reality. You’re trying to apply scientific reasoning to phenomena outside its preview.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            Your claim doesn’t have anything to do with my original point other than semantic sports over whether the sun is a head. Philosophy and theology also don’t determine reality. We can only discover it through these means, the same way we can discover reality through science. The simple fact is that some philosophical, theological, and scientific hypotheses are closer to reality than others. The only way to dispute that would be to argue there is no objective truth, which is a self-defeating claim.

            Again, OP is making a meaningless argument.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              1 hour ago

              There is no objective truth. You wanting to project objective truth does not make it more real. Reality is a mystery, and using tools incorrectly to fool yourself into objective truth is a miscarriage of science.

              You’re trying to apply materialism to allegory. Evaluating religion this way is a meaningless argument.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 hour ago

                Is the statement that there is no objective truth objectively true? If so, there is some objective truth, and the statement is false. Like I said, it’s a self-defeating claim.