Dead men DO bleed! : On debating with theists.

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

Well no, I called you a theist, and I stated theists always seem to be making that claim (Which in my opinion you made), and then I went off in a rant about why the 'god of the gaps' argument is pure junk.



So, let me get this straight. Your point is that because the evidence that is out there, and our current understanding of it, does not completely satisfy you : That this makes a perfectly good case for god? Would that be correct?

A lack of evidence for one theory, is not a substitution for evidence for another.

Now, would you like to explain to me exactly why it is logical to believe in a deity?

oeb,

Let me start by saying I wasn't offended, just annoyed at your bunching me into a collective group. I dont think 'all atheists' do anything, they are all different.
And no, I'm not saying
because we don't understand space=there is a god.
Why do you keep saying that? I'm saying I(am I using enough emphasising fonts here:D) believe in God due to other reasons, and when somebody on here said to me "how can you go form being a logical atheist to being an illogical christian" I then replied that believing in god doesnt seem any more ridiculous to me then alot of things in our current world. I used the example of space to emphasise my point. There was never lack of=proof of. Okay?

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

oeb,

Let me start by saying I wasn't offended, just annoyed at your bunching me into a collective group. I dont think 'all atheists' do anything, they are all different.
And no, I'm not saying
because we don't understand space=there is a god.
Why do you keep saying that? I'm saying I(am I using enough emphasising fonts here:D) believe in God due to other reasons, and when somebody on here said to me "how can you go form being a logical atheist to being an illogical christian" I then replied that believing in god doesnt seem any more ridiculous to me then alot of things in our current world. I used the example of space to emphasise my point. There was never lack of=proof of. Okay?

OK, let me make myself even clearer. I as an atheist, have not heard a single logical argument FOR believing in god. You keep on stating that there is (or at least you have) logical reasons for believing in god.

There is evidence that suggests that the universe is expanding, and it's expansion is a logical argument based on this. That is why that is not such a strange idea. Are you aware of this evidence, or would you like me to go through it with you?

Now, on the other hand, I have yet to come across any evidence that suggests or even hints a divine being. (And I am aware of no scientific evidence that does).

So, there we go, I have told you why believing in god is much more ridiculous than believing the universe is expanding, here is your chance to explain why it is not.

The Mad Hatter

Can I point out a couple of things here?

Firstly (and this has regularly bothered me online), the symbol '!=', to a non-mathematical person, looks an awful lot like a '=' with a typo. I don't think it's a good idea to use mathematical symbols in writing, especially when the person you're writing to may not have studied maths to any significant degree.

Secondly, why shouldn't someone be quite happy to say 'God did it' and leave it at that? Who cares if it's not logical, or even not sensible? Surely people don't need to know how everything works, and the laws that make reality happen. I imagine midlandmissus and others would be quite happy to withdraw from debates about evolution and creationims and all that stuff - and for that who could live quite happily without ever hearing the terms again. Unlike some others on these boards, mm isn't trying to shove her religion down our throats, so I really don't think she should be attacked in the way that she is. Go pick on wolfsbane, he's just reemerged in the BCP thread.

Thirdly, midlandmissus - I think CerebralCortex asked a fair question when he asked why you gravitated towards Christianity specifically rather than deism generally. In other words, there is no more evidence for the Christian god than there is for Brahma, Odin, etc., so why did you decide that it was the Christian god which had revealed itself to you?

oeb

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Can I point out a couple of things here?

Firstly (and this has regularly bothered me online), the symbol '!=', to a non-mathematical person, looks an awful lot like a '=' with a typo. I don't think it's a good idea to use mathematical symbols in writing, especially when the person you're writing to may not have studied maths to any significant degree.

Sorry, I am a programmer, I type that seventy or eighty times a day, it's reflex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Secondly, why shouldn't someone be quite happy to say 'God did it' and leave it at that? Who cares if it's not logical, or even not sensible? Surely people don't need to know how everything works, and the laws that make reality happen. I imagine midlandmissus and others would be quite happy to withdraw from debates about evolution and creationims and all that stuff - and for that who could live quite happily without ever hearing the terms again. Unlike some others on these boards, mm isn't trying to shove her religion down our throats, so I really don't think she should be attacked in the way that she is. Go pick on wolfsbane, he's just reemerged in the BCP thread.

Because it's wrong, and it fosters ignorance. If I make a post in a public forum stating that the world is flat, is it wrong of people to reply to that thread to correct me?

The Mad Hatter

oeb wrote: »

Because it's wrong, and it fosters ignorance. If I make a post in a public forum stating that the world is flat, is it wrong of people to reply to that thread to correct me?

No, but we're not talking about something as obvious as the shape of the world. If people want to go around believing in God or Reiki or invisible, intangiable pink unicorns, that's completely their business, and if they're not trying to foist those things on other people then I don't see why they can't just be let get on with their lives.

oeb

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, but we're not talking about something as obvious as the shape of the world. If people want to go around believing in God or Reiki or invisible, intangiable pink unicorns, that's completely their business, and if they're not trying to foist those things on other people then I don't see why they can't just be let get on with their lives.

Which is all well and good, as long as they keep it to themselves. Posting about it on a public forum is not keeping it to themselves.

lostexpectation

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Tell me about it.

I do feel like that. but it's different for me.

I don't feel like I'm coming on here to sway people's views and getting frustrated that they're not being swayed. I never set out to do that.

It's when I talk about myself at all, it's having to defend yourself over and over again that gets to me.

It's strange....I used to be an atheist, and now I cant even remember what it was like....

keep posting on an atheist board bout your faith and you are going to keep getting asked.

thats not to say don't post here just don't complain again and again when your questioned.

Húrin

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yeah, me too. I used to be an atheist but now God is in my life and it's wonderful. I'm not a Christian though, and I'm not signed up for any religion, I dislike religion, too much certitude. Jesus never wrote a book, did he?

No, he asked his followers to:

Mark 16:15 wrote:

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

eoin5 wrote: »

I get frustrated with believers usually when they come out with ignorant statements like religion does more good than harm or that because so many people are doing it it has to be true.

Come on, it's not exactly an uncontested truism that religion does more harm than good!

I agree that the "everyone does it" argument is very bad to rely on, but I think that the idea that most people in history have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, to be even less tenable. The historically socially privileged profile of atheists further disarms this claim.

Fox McCloud wrote: »

My parents are Buddhist, but I wasnt brought up Buddhist they left me decide when i was old enough whether i wanted to get involved in religion. I went to both Catholic and Protestant schools and decided science makes sense in the end!

Why is it always science vs religion? There is no inherent conflict because neither claims to answer the same kinds of questions. I blame Dawkins for creating this false battle. He needs to evolve some more.

Dave!

There's no conflict until religions start to make scientific claims about the nature of the universe, such as that the universe is 10,000 years old, god created us as we are (rather than us evolving). Those are claims about nature, and are completely at odds with our scientific understanding, so of course there's a conflict there as it's preaching ignorance to teach this stuff.

If religions stick to stuff about afterlife, etc., then there's unlikely to be conflict as I can't foresee anybody attempting to explain what we experience after death. There's no reason to postulate an afterlife, but there's not much that can be said if someone is willing to create one out of nothing.

SimpleSam06

Nodin wrote: »

You can point out the holes in their plot, their selective quoting and the rest, but when it gets down to the very core, you can't win, in the sense that some "true believer" is going to round and admit that they're wrong.

Thats because you are fighting them on the wrong battlefield. You can cite scientific references until you are blue in the face, you can even do the experiments right there, and it won't bother them. Thats because they aren't trying to win that fight, they are trying to gather followers and publicity by any means neccessary, purely in an attempt to increase their own secular power. Debating them on the wrong level just adds to their impetus.

For example, take the whole creationism thing. Thats an appeal to human egotism, manifest destiny, the innate feeling that most people have that they are somehow "better" than the molecules of which they are made. Its shrouded in all sorts of theological arguments, but thats the source of it. If you were to tackle them at the source, and say, "hey, you don't really care one way or the other, you just want more followers and contributions to your church coffers by telling people what they want to hear", watch them fold up.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

alot of things don't make that much sense.

We have managed to chip off the tiniest fragment of knowledge from the gigantic column of everything that can be known, so its reasonable to assume that a lot of things when you get right down to it just aren't going to make sense. Two hundred years ago, wireless radio would have been witchcraft. In two hundred years time, we will be able to do things so far removed from our current abilites that they might as well be magic. Trying to explain away things we don't know as "god" is not just intellectually lazy, its dangerous in the sense that it stymies the search for real knowledge.

Atheism holds that there is no god. Agnostics hold that there might be one, and theists claim there definetely is one. The only position that is reasonably defensible is the agnostic one, although somewhat paradoxically the atheist position is the most likely based on what we know. Therein lies the rub however. There is an element of arrogance in both the theist and atheist camps, given that we don't know everything, and in fact we know very very little in the overall scheme of things. Personally I wouldn't waste any time in belief in a deity, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Dave! wrote: »

There's no conflict until religions start to make scientific claims about the nature of the universe

Theres no conflict until religions start making wild claims to get press, is what you mean.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

Come on, it's not exactly an uncontested truism that religion does more harm than good!

I agree that the "everyone does it" argument is very bad to rely on, but I think that the idea that most people in history have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, to be even less tenable. The historically socially privileged profile of atheists further disarms this claim.

Nothing is an uncontested truism but I would say that religion almost certainly does more harm than good and if people cant see that then I dont know where they are looking.

Of course most people have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, how many religions are there? Your last sentance non-sequitur.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it always science vs religion? There is no inherent conflict because neither claims to answer the same kinds of questions. I blame Dawkins for creating this false battle. He needs to evolve some more.

Science strives to answer all questions. Just because we don't have answers yet doesn't mean those questions are outside of it's remit. How many questions previously only answered by religions have now been given scientific explanations? Does that not give pause for thought?

Tellingly, the only place religion can hide now is in the philosophical and unverifiable.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it always science vs religion? There is no inherent conflict because neither claims to answer the same kinds of questions.

Try telling that to a creationist

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Nothing is an uncontested truism but I would say that religion almost certainly does more harm than good and if people cant see that then I dont know where they are looking.

Atheists think that religion almost certainly does more harm than good. Theists say that religion almost certainly does more good than harm. We both can think of numerous examples why our positions are right. However, I don't think that this argument can be resolved based on examples. Earlier this morning I thought up a good argument for my position that was not based on examples, but damn I forgot it!

Of course most people have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, how many religions are there?

I'm talking about theism generally. Most people on earth believe in a God.

Your last sentance non-sequitur.

It's not but it requires more explanation. The apparent fact atheists have been historically socially privileged, in contrast to the observation that religious beliefs can be seen in significant proportions among all social classes, implies that atheism is particular, and stems from, that privileged position rather than indicating some wider truth.

robindch wrote: »

Try telling that to a creationist

I wonder how many billions of words of atheist arguments have been wasted on this topic? How many atheists actually think that most European Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I don't think that it even merits discussion. It's a distraction. Why even bother attacking such an absurd belief?

Dades wrote: »

Science strives to answer all questions.

That's ridiculous. Where did Descartes or Bacon say that? What scientist has ever made this claim?

Scientific dismissal of perception (from Descartes) means that it cannot answer questions that depend on perception to find the answers.

Science itself is limited by our human intellects, so while we can go further than our senses can take us, we cannot gain absolute truth no matter how much we chase it. It's like trying to create a perfect projection of the world onto a map. There are no perfectly accurate maps. I recommend a book called Physics and Philosophy by James Jean.

To take the obvious, I don't see any serious scientists trying to prove or disprove God's existence.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder how many billions of words of atheist arguments have been wasted on this topic?

Very few in comparison to the number of words wasted by creationists on the topic!

Húrin wrote: »

How many atheists actually think that most European Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Probably not all that many. Certainly, no atheists that I know think this.

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think that it even merits discussion. It's a distraction. Why even bother attacking such an absurd belief?

Lots of reasons. Here are a few:

• Most creationists demean or insult the science and the scientists that helps to provide them with much of the comfort they enjoy and that insolence tends to upset people.
• it's a gateway belief to a lot of other, nastier, more anti-social beliefs. You're probably aware that in the US, creationist beliefs are highly correlated with the anti-global-warming industry.
• A lot of anti-creationists object to the deceptive behavior, misrepresentation and lies that the creationist industry employ.
• Most anti-creationists believe that you should be honest when describing the world and provide children with an accurate picture of it, and not a bronze-age fantasy-based picture of the world.

And so on.

Mark Hamill

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Right it doesn't go on for infinity. Where are the edges then.

Really far away?

The Mad Hatter wrote:

No, but we're not talking about something as obvious as the shape of the world.

To atheists, there being no god is as obvious as the shape of the world.

The Mad Hatter wrote:

If people want to go around believing in God or Reiki or invisible, intangiable pink unicorns, that's completely their business, and if they're not trying to foist those things on other people then I don't see why they can't just be let get on with their lives.

But what people believe depicts how they act in situations. You say people should be allowed to believe what they want as long as they dont interfere with others, but what happens when one of these peoples kids starts to get taught evolution or physics in school, which go against their own beliefs in how the universe was created and the existence of intangible pink unicorns? Is the parent going to stand back and not interfere? No-one can help letting their beliefs effect their day to day lives and therefore the lives of others, be it their kids or anyone else.
People do not get to believe whatever they want unchallenged, because some things are wrong and can (and usually do) lead to bad situations. Now there is no reason these challenges can't be done without respect and dignity, but in my opinion they must happen.

H&#250 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Where did Descartes or Bacon say that? What scientist has ever made this claim?

What scientist have ever claimed otherwise?

H&#250 wrote: »

Science itself is limited by our human intellects, so while we can go further than our senses can take us, we cannot gain absolute truth no matter how much we chase it. It's like trying to create a perfect projection of the world onto a map.

You may be right that its limited by our intellects, but that doesnt mean it wont strive further (whether it can get there or not), which is all that Dades said.

H&#250 wrote: »

There are no perfectly accurate maps.

Strange, as someone so interestered in the philosphical side of things, I thought this would have been obvious: There are perfectly accurate maps. The perfectly accurate map of the world is the world itself, it just so happens that its completely useless, because of its perfection.

SimpleSam06

Húrin wrote: »

I'm talking about theism generally. Most people on earth believe in a God.

Lets take a closer look at that, though. Most people of the various Christian denominations believe in a god that damns the majority of the population of the planet to an eternity in flaming torment, more or less by an accident of birth.

So either you dismiss the idea out of hand (and if you start dismissing that, where do you stop?) or you accept that most people unlucky enough to be born in China for example will roast in hell, which by most sane standards depicts the Christian deity as some sort of a diabolical fiend that makes the nazgul look like a gang of teenage taggers. Great Cthulhu in his non-euclidean labyrinth doffs his cap in respect. I don't know how anyone can seriously look themselves in the mirror and say they worship that.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder how many billions of words of atheist arguments have been wasted on this topic? How many atheists actually think that most European Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I don't think that it even merits discussion. It's a distraction. Why even bother attacking such an absurd belief?

This is why.

The Mad Hatter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To atheists, there being no god is as obvious as the shape of the world.

Well, yes, but if someone says the world is flat, you can send them to walk around it to prove them wrong. The fact is tangible. You can't point to NotGod and say how much he isn't there.

But what people believe depicts how they act in situations. You say people should be allowed to believe what they want as long as they dont interfere with others, but what happens when one of these peoples kids starts to get taught evolution or physics in school, which go against their own beliefs in how the universe was created and the existence of intangible pink unicorns? Is the parent going to stand back and not interfere? No-one can help letting their beliefs effect their day to day lives and therefore the lives of others, be it their kids or anyone else.
People do not get to believe whatever they want unchallenged, because some things are wrong and can (and usually do) lead to bad situations. Now there is no reason these challenges can't be done without respect and dignity, but in my opinion they must happen.

Well, firstly, I think the incidence of people being bothered by the disagreement of science and religion is very small. Generally speaking (though the internet belies this I don't think message boards can be taken as representing an accurate proportion of reality), people will go along with whatever aspect of religion or science explains their world to them and then get on with careers and lives that likely have very little to do with either.

Secondly, it may be that if the parents disagree they will try to externally influence the child's education, but the data is there for the child to examine (and by the time they get to studying evolution or physics, the child is usually more than old enough to make their own conclusions). Incidentally, I know you could bring up statistics from the US here, but you have to bear in mind that the US has an appalling public education system.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Scientific dismissal of perception (from Descartes) means that it cannot answer questions that depend on perception to find the answers.

Frankly if someone gives me an answer based on "perception", I'll file it under "innocuous", while I wait for the day (which may never come) that someone provides a verifiable answer.

What possible weight would a 'perceived' answer have, except to the person perceiving it?

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

Frankly if someone gives me an answer based on "perception", I'll file it under "innocuous", while I wait for the day (which may never come) that someone provides a verifiable answer.

What possible weight would a 'perceived' answer have, except to the person perceiving it?

Exactly. That's why this hunt for the person who will try to give a universal proof or disproof for God's existence is futile. It's a question that deductive science cannot answer.

To claim that science can answer every question is to burden science with a load it cannot bear. This is I think why some atheists slip into the unfortunate trap of claiming or implying that it is wrong to ask questions about God.

Dades

My point was not that science can answer every question, but that science seeks to answer every question. Including the origins of life, the universe and everything.

Introducing an invisible, intangible, unverifiable god concept, does not show that science has limits, it shows that our imaginations are not limited by science.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists think that religion almost certainly does more harm than good. Theists say that religion almost certainly does more good than harm. We both can think of numerous examples why our positions are right. However, I don't think that this argument can be resolved based on examples. Earlier this morning I thought up a good argument for my position that was not based on examples, but damn I forgot it!

My experience of these discussions usually involves a theist rationalising every accusation or ending up in godwins law.

Húrin wrote: »

I'm talking about theism generally. Most people on earth believe in a God.

The fact is most of them are wrong due to the amount of different gods out there. Shouldnt it therefore make more sense to put god belief down to a human trait rather than a very twisted god that likes to send incompatible versions of himself to different regions.

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Because Wicknight origiinally said this to me

how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities."

and I'm saying, how is believing in a supernatural deity stranger than believing we are on a globe suspended in space that cant possibly be either infinite or finite.

Because that's what I personally find strange. There's nothing stranger than life!

As CerebralCortex says, stranger is a human concept, it doesn't have much bearing on the universe.

My point isn't that the supernatural stuff in religion is stranger than the universe. The universe is in fact far far far far "stranger" than any of us can imagine, in that at a fundamental level it doesn't work the way humans imagine it should based on the human instincts and experience. Thats actually an argument against God in my opinion, as religion seems to try, through God, to get back the universe into a concept we can more easily understand, that of human-like interactions. People often say thinks like that if the universe had a beginning then something must have been "before" that and must have created it, which is an attempt to think of the universe in a that is more manageable for humans, even if it has little bearing on reality. For example, there is no "before" the Big Bang .. that is a very strange concept for a human to imagine (surely there is always a before), but all the evidence points to it being true, time itself started at the Big Bang, "before" time is an invalid concept.

So the argument not to take human experience as meaning anything particularly sound has very little to do with strangeness of the ideas, and a lot to do with trusting human experience.

Human experience is very very unreliable. The issue for religion, and belief in God, is that it is based entirely around human experience, human testimony.

The human mind is very good at deceiving something into thinking a certain way about things. Again this goes back to what I said above about humans trying to shape reality around concepts we already understand.

God, interestingly enough, is simply a very powerful human, he thinks like a human, he acts like a human, he does things for human reason, he even has human emotions (Jews and Christians attempt to explain this by saying we are actually like God, rather than the other way around).

God is an attempt by our brains to view the world in a framework we are familiar with, a frame work that is in fact the opposite of strange. Yes we make up supernatural stuff that would never work in reality (angels being a prime example), but ultimately it is about

It is in fact the "strange" that bothers us, that we don't understand, that our brains fight against, and which leads people to religion.

Now, back to the original point, a lot of atheists here would take the view that if you were a "proper" atheist, you would have already realised this, and that you wouldn't be swayed by your own internal experiences, as these are simply your brain trying to get you to view the world in a manner that is easier for it to process.

Of course that isn't actually what atheism means, so I reject the idea that because you didn't do this you weren't a proper atheist. If you didn't believe God existed you were an atheist, you didn't have to not believe in God because you realised all the things above. That is redefining "atheism" beyond what it means, in my opinion.

Mark Hamill

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, yes, but if someone says the world is flat, you can send them to walk around it to prove them wrong. The fact is tangible. You can't point to NotGod and say how much he isn't there.

Well surely by virtue of the fact that no-one can point to God (in a tangible way) is evidence that he isn't here.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, firstly, I think the incidence of people being bothered by the disagreement of science and religion is very small. Generally speaking (though the internet belies this I don't think message boards can be taken as representing an accurate proportion of reality), people will go along with whatever aspect of religion or science explains their world to them and then get on with careers and lives that likely have very little to do with either.

True, a lot will, but some wont and these tend to be the loud ones.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Secondly, it may be that if the parents disagree they will try to externally influence the child's education, but the data is there for the child to examine (and by the time they get to studying evolution or physics, the child is usually more than old enough to make their own conclusions). Incidentally, I know you could bring up statistics from the US here, but you have to bear in mind that the US has an appalling public education system.

Have you ever seen clips of the likes of Kent E. Hovind "preaching" to really young children about creationism? The awe inspiring amount of nonsense he comes out with that they believe because their parents tell them too and they dont know better. Kids from early ages get indoctrinated into the beliefs their parents want for them, education system or not. They get put into primary and secondary schools that closest represent what the parents want them taught and its incredibly hard for them to get change and learn all the facts. Why do you think the entire of the Phelps family are fundamentalists? Because thats how they are brought up by their parents. And a child is being educated by their parent for at least 4 years before they hit primary school, and probably about 11 or 12 years before they could hit the scientific alternatives to their parents explanations (should they come into contact with them at all).

midlandsmissus

lostexpectation wrote: »

keep posting on an atheist board bout your faith and you are going to keep getting asked.

thats not to say don't post here just don't complain again and again when your questioned.

lostexpectation seriously what is your problem. show me (exactly ) where ive complained again and again.

midlandsmissus

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I really don't see how you can be offended by what Oeb said, it has been said on this forum many times I thought you'd come to expect that phrase? I'm curious if you had the above experiences in lets say Tokyo do you think you'd be now researching Shinto? I can understand the belief in god maybe as far as deism like Eintsein but to go all the way to believing christianity is the one is beyond my faculties(for want of a better term).

On the analytical thinking comment, in terms of the nature of the existence of the universe being of any religious persuasion means you never need to have an analytical mind. What think you ?

In fact you now cleary have what you believe to be the truth, the way and the life, why go any further?

Disclaimer: these are all sincere questions, with no mal intent, following the fact that you are in the AA forum I think it fair for me to ask them and willingly concede you the right to ignore them.

Cerebralcortex,

I believe all religions are good, and god doesn't care which one you follow. Obviously it wouldnt be fair if only one religion was right, and people in different geographical areas didn't have access to it, so I dont believe that.

In fact you now clearly have what you believe to be the truth, the way and the life, why go any further?

I dont think religion explains everything. I think the bible was interpreted by men at the time so I dont believe everything in it. I think we are on this world to learn. You can never stop learning.

Thanks for the disclaimer

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

Sorry, I am a programmer, I type that seventy or eighty times a day, it's reflex



Because it's wrong, and it fosters ignorance. If I make a post in a public forum stating that the world is flat, is it wrong of people to reply to that thread to correct me?

Yeah but Oeb you can't just say it's wrong. You think it's wrong. I don't think it's wrong. In your opinion it is. This is beliefs we're talking about. I think you are wrong as much as you think I am wrong, and we are never going to convice the other.

midlandsmissus

Dades wrote: »

Science strives to answer all questions. Just because we don't have answers yet doesn't mean those questions are outside of it's remit. How many questions previously only answered by religions have now been given scientific explanations? Does that not give pause for thought?

Tellingly, the only place religion can hide now is in the philosophical and unverifiable.

I have a degree in science you can be interested in science and still be religious

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yeah but Oeb you can't just say it's wrong. You think it's wrong. I don't think it's wrong. In your opinion it is. This is beliefs we're talking about. I think you are wrong as much as you think I am wrong, and we are never going to convice the other.

I don't really mean wrong as 'incorrect' as such. I mean wrong as in it impedes progress (IE A bad thing).