• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Peer review" [W:46]

I

it's just me

Non Bidenary
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
21,051
Reaction score
3,212
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Adherents to atheism are often seen and heard saying that writing or opinion that does not conform to mainstream scientific thought is not "peer reviewed", which is to say that it has not been vetted by other professionals in the same field.

Yet, these same people, when it comes to Christianity, apparently believe that any claim counter to Christianity is thought to be legitimate by virtue of the fact that it exists at all - no "peer review" necessary. Peer review is not only viewed as unnecessary but not even welcome.

Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.

Why is that? Why the hypocrisy?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Adherents to atheism are often seen and heard saying that writing or opinion that does not conform to mainstream scientific thought is not "peer reviewed", which is to say that it has not been vetted by other professionals in the same field.

Yet, these same people, when it comes to Christianity, apparently believe that any claim counter to Christianity is thought to be legitimate by virtue of the fact that it exists at all - no "peer review" necessary. Peer review is not only viewed as unnecessary but not even welcome.

Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.

Why is that? Why the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Part of 'peer review' in a scientific sense is 'replication, and pointing out where the errors lie'. In religion, and indeed such things as 'philosophy and ethics', there is no objective standard to which to adhere to. There are some issues that could fit 'peer review', such as the claim for a world wide flood, the resurrection, and using the cosmology that promotes a flat earth, but many parts of religion are not physical, but metaphysical instead.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

RAMOSS said:
Part of 'peer review' in a scientific sense is 'replication, and pointing out where the errors lie'. In religion, and indeed such things as 'philosophy and ethics', there is no objective standard to which to adhere to. There are some issues that could fit 'peer review', such as the claim for a world wide flood, the resurrection, and using the cosmology that promotes a flat earth, but many parts of religion are not physical, but metaphysical instead.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There is an objective, often historical standard, that Christians have agreed on for hundreds or even thousands of years. "Peer review" does not have to be atheistic scientism.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Nonsense. There is an objective, often historical standard, that Christians have agreed on for hundreds or even thousands of years. "Peer review" does not have to be atheistic scientism.
Click to expand...

Is there?? Please, show the objective historical standard that doesn't rely on Christian dogma that shows the resurrection happened, that is consistent with other historical claims.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Nonsense. There is an objective, often historical standard, that Christians have agreed on for hundreds or even thousands of years. "Peer review" does not have to be atheistic scientism.
Click to expand...

What is this objective standard?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Adherents to atheism are often seen and heard saying that writing or opinion that does not conform to mainstream scientific thought is not "peer reviewed", which is to say that it has not been vetted by other professionals in the same field.
Click to expand...

Which atheists? Please name some names, and give the context in which they expressed themselves. Thanks!
Yet, these same people, when it comes to Christianity, apparently believe that any claim counter to Christianity is thought to be legitimate by virtue of the fact that it exists at all - no "peer review" necessary. Peer review is not only viewed as unnecessary but not even welcome.
Click to expand...

Supernatural claims are not subject to peer review. Do you undertstand why that is?
Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.
Click to expand...

Creation science isn't science.

The quantity "God", or other such similar designations, cannot be falsified, quantified or even described. As such, it cannot be addressed by science.
Why is that? Why the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

There is no hypocrisy there.

I suggest that you actually understand the terms that you're trying to use before attempting to criticize others using those same terms.

Atheism is simply not accepting the propostion that there is/are god/gods based on the available evidence.

Tell me: what does the bible say about lies?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Atheism is lack of a belief in a deity.

Peer review is :
evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

Religious works are probably peer reviewed in their discipline by other theologians.

This has nothing to do with:
science
atheism
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

For instance, I may believe that there was a mass revelation at Mount Sinai. But this isn't "objective evidence" of anything other than my assertion of belief.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

RAMOSS said:
Is there?? Please, show the objective historical standard that doesn't rely on Christian dogma that shows the resurrection happened, that is consistent with other historical claims.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that Jesus was a real person and not a re-fried Roman or Greek god as many atheists claim he was?

Nobody said anything about a resurrection, not yet. So start at the beginning - are you going to claim that Jesus was not a real person?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Mach said:
Atheism is lack of a belief in a deity.

Peer review is :
evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

Religious works are probably peer reviewed in their discipline by other theologians.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So where do atheists and other non-believers get off trying to peer review theological topics?
 
Last edited:
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Tanngrisnir said:
Which atheists? Please name some names, and give the context in which they expressed themselves. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Read the damn forums. Thanks!

Supernatural claims are not subject to peer review. Do you undertstand why that is?
Click to expand...

Are logical claims subject to peer review?

Creation science isn't science.
Click to expand...

Tell me, what is your field of scientific study?

The quantity "God", or other such similar designations, cannot be falsified, quantified or even described. As such, it cannot be addressed by science.

There is no hypocrisy there.

I suggest that you actually understand the terms that you're trying to use before attempting to criticize others using those same terms.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you actually hear whatever claim I make before jumping to conclusion. Where did I say God could be addressed by science? Oh, the "peer review" thing threw you. Peer review: evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

Atheism is simply not accepting the propostion that there is/are god/gods based on the available evidence.
Click to expand...

No, that's what it used to mean.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Concrete knowledge structures are useful in a way because they provide a certain degree of reliability, but they should not be applied dogmatically. Science is self-axiomatic and self-referential within its systems and as most of us know, human experiences and many other unknowns fall outside of the realm of science to quantify (at this time).

Religions are also self-axiomatic in that if you can believe in the primacy of their basic tenets through faith, the rest can be explained. On the other hand, sometimes these structures are in place to guide humans toward a certain experience, but without the ability to inherently provide it. Most religions at their core are more or less saying the same thing but they all provide different means of experiencing it. The core faith they ask you to have at the outset is actually what you achieve through realizing the prospective experience.

I trust in the virtue of what most human systems are attempting to convey, I just don't trust in absolutism. Who was it that said... trust those who are seeking the truth, and doubt those who claim they've found it.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Northern Light said:
Who was it that said... trust those who are seeking the truth, and doubt those who claim they've found it.
Click to expand...

Whoever said it wasn't very bright. If I told you not to put your hand on a hot stove as a truth claim and you disregarded it, well, shame on you.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
How about the fact that Jesus was a real person and not a re-fried Roman or Greek god as many atheists claim he was? Chris

Nobody said anything about a resurrection, not yet. So start at the beginning - are you going to claim that Jesus was not a real person?
Click to expand...

Can you show the supernatural claims about Jesus to be true, such as 'son of god', and 'Died and was resurrected', and can you demonstrate he actually preformed miracles?

FOr that matter, let's see evidence whose source didn't ultimately come from Christians, or is very likely modified by Christians?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Whoever said it wasn't very bright. If I told you not to put your hand on a hot stove as a truth claim and you disregarded it, well, shame on you.
Click to expand...

Most people can agree on such basic physical phenomena. It's when things become more complex that opinions differ. So I don't find your rebuttal very useful.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
How about the fact that Jesus was a real person and not a re-fried Roman or Greek god as many atheists claim he was?

Nobody said anything about a resurrection, not yet. So start at the beginning - are you going to claim that Jesus was not a real person?
Click to expand...

I strongly believe he was a real person (though not the Messiah) but I concede that this can't be conclusively proven. Only inferred based on a large amount of circumstantial evidence and logical intuition.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Whoever said it wasn't very bright. If I told you not to put your hand on a hot stove as a truth claim and you disregarded it, well, shame on you.
Click to expand...

THere is a difference between 'the stove is hot', which is a statement that can be tested. .and 'Believe in this specific version of this god or go to hell', which can not be tested. Look at the argument you are having with scism... neither of you can show that the other is wrong ...
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Read the damn forums. Thanks!



Are logical claims subject to peer review?



Tell me, what is your field of scientific study?



I would suggest that you actually hear whatever claim I make before jumping to conclusion. Where did I say God could be addressed by science? Oh, the "peer review" thing threw you. Peer review: evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.



No, that's what it used to mean.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify what it is you're trying to demonstrate? Is it that religion is subject to peer review?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.
Click to expand...

Creation science isn't legitimate because it is not science, not because it isn't peer reviewed.

Just because you call something science doesn't mean it is science. I could take a huge steaming **** in a bucket and call it defecation science, but that doesn't make it science.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Adherents to atheism are often seen and heard saying that writing or opinion that does not conform to mainstream scientific thought is not "peer reviewed", which is to say that it has not been vetted by other professionals in the same field.

Yet, these same people, when it comes to Christianity, apparently believe that any claim counter to Christianity is thought to be legitimate by virtue of the fact that it exists at all - no "peer review" necessary. Peer review is not only viewed as unnecessary but not even welcome.

Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.

Why is that? Why the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Because rabid anti-Christian leftist morons are hypocrites?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

RAMOSS said:
Can you show the supernatural claims about Jesus to be true, such as 'son of god', and 'Died and was resurrected', and can you demonstrate he actually preformed miracles?

FOr that matter, let's see evidence whose source didn't ultimately come from Christians, or is very likely modified by Christians?
Click to expand...

I am going to explain this so even you can understand it - Christianity teaches that Jesus is the son of God. It's not a debatable point, because that is what we do teach. You don't have to believe it. You don't have to like it. It's still what we teach. Now, along comes some pseudo Christian cult that says "Christianity does not teach that Jesus is the son of God. They are subject to review from Christianity at large. Yes or no?
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Tucker Case said:
Creation science isn't legitimate because it is not science, not because it isn't peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

Stay on point, we are not talking about creation science, we are talking about peer review.

Just because you call something science doesn't mean it is science. I could take a huge steaming **** in a bucket and call it defecation science, but that doesn't make it science.
Click to expand...

I believe you just did.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Tanngrisnir said:
Which atheists? Please name some names, and give the context in which they expressed themselves. Thanks!

Supernatural claims are not subject to peer review. Do you undertstand why that is?

Creation science isn't science.

The quantity "God", or other such similar designations, cannot be falsified, quantified or even described. As such, it cannot be addressed by science.

There is no hypocrisy there.

I suggest that you actually understand the terms that you're trying to use before attempting to criticize others using those same terms.

Atheism is simply not accepting the propostion that there is/are god/gods based on the available evidence.

Tell me: what does the bible say about lies?
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving his point. Great job!
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

it's just me said:
Stay on point, we are not talking about creation science, we are talking about peer review.
Click to expand...

Why the **** are you talking about peer review in the religious discussions forum, then? You should ask a mod to move it for you if you don't want to discuss the **** you bring up in the OP.



I believe you just did.
Click to expand...

No, it turns out I only farted.
 
re: "Peer review" [W:46]

Tucker Case said:
Why the **** are you talking about peer review in the religious discussions forum, then? You should ask a mod to move it for you if you don't want to discuss the **** you bring up in the OP.





No, it turns out I only farted.
Click to expand...

Wow, I think we're done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom