Samnell is spot on about the Reformation not being the period under consideration. The Reformation was a blood bath almost unlike anything Europe had experienced in a thousand years. The slaughter was so bad that after word they invented 'rules of war' to make it more like a 'kings game' that persisted for about 150 years until the French Revolution.
I was under the impression that most faith is blind, after all, the definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelled or measured in any know scientific method.Science has been wrong before. Since you cannot prove a negative, one must consider 2 possibilities
1: It doesnt exist because I cannot prove its existance.
2: I do not have the knowledge or tools to prove its existance
most people who rely on science ignore #2
EDIT: "Science" once believed we were the center of the universe, the world was flat, splitting the atom would have no harmful effect.
And religion has never been wrong..... The thing about good science is that it is self correcting and it will constantly test its self. That is the point of peer review, There are very few laws or absolutes in science is theory open to review and test Religion is not.
Religion on the other hand likes the status quo - we have the power don't change anything. Keep the peasants illiterate, suppress all other forms of thought or philosophy not of our own.
It was religion that tried to suppress the fact that the Earth was not the centre of the universe when science worked it out though advances in technology (odly discovered by scientists) have a look at a Galileo.
Splitting the atom has a fvcking huge harmful effect ask the people in Hiroshima. One theory was (among several theories) before the atom was first split that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction and destroy the universe as stated before it was a theory among many and it was wrong and proved wrong by science.
EDIT: "Science" once believed we were the center of the universe, the world was flat, splitting the atom would have no harmful effect.
I'm not really sure we can call it science that believed that the world was flat or that we where the centre of the universe. I mean thare have been times and places where this was the commonally accepted fact but without anything resembling a scientific method I'm not really sure that this qualifies as science.
As for the atom - no one new if it was dangerous or not. I think it was Openhiemer who put the chance that the first test would destroy the world and maybe all existence at 1%-5%. There was definitely some small fear that once one started splitting atoms it would cause a chain reaction that would simply not stop or maybe not stop until there where no more atoms around to split.
And religion has never been wrong..... The thing about good science is that it is self correcting and it will constantly test its self. That is the point of peer review, There are very few laws or absolutes in science is theory open to review and test Religion is not.
Not the point. The point is, at the time, it was wrong.
Religion on the other hand likes the status quo - we have the power don't change anything. Keep the peasants illiterate, suppress all other forms of thought or philosophy not of our own.
In some cases, not all. That is like saying all Atheists are like Stalin.
It was religion that tried to suppress the fact that the Earth was not the centre of the universe when science worked it out though advances in technology (odly discovered by scientists) have a look at a Galileo.
But it was scientists who originally made the claim. Those were scientists who were wrong, but the Church interceded. Hence, science should have no precognition of a result. i.e. I want to prove there is, or there isnt a God. Science should be neutral.
Splitting the atom has a fvcking huge harmful effect ask the people in Hiroshima. One theory was (among several theories) before the atom was first split that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction and destroy the universe as stated before it was a theory among many and it was wrong and proved wrong by science.
That wasnt my statement. When the first Isotopes were played with, they didnt know it was harmful. Splitting them threw off radiation, that eventually killed the Drs.
I'm not really sure we can call it science that believed that the world was flat or that we where the centre of the universe. I mean thare have been times and places where this was the commonally accepted fact but without anything resembling a scientific method I'm not really sure that this qualifies as science.
They had the tools of the time. Your statement seems to say it wasnt science because the tools were archaic?
I wonder what would be said 1000 years from now .... presuming the Mayan Calendar was just printed to the date, and not a doomsday prediction.....
As for the atom - no one new if it was dangerous or not. I think it was Openhiemer who put the chance that the first test would destroy the world and maybe all existence at 1%-5%. There was definitely some small fear that once one started splitting atoms it would cause a chain reaction that would simply not stop or maybe not stop until there where no more atoms around to split.
If they expected danger, precautions would have been taken. The splitting of the 'topes wasnt thought to be a harmful process. The Drs eventually died of radiation exposure.
Not the point. The point is, at the time, it was wrong.
So you demand perfection from the get-go? Every hypthesis by every scientist has to be correct to the last detail or "science is wrong"! gets shouted all over? The self-correcting mechanism is built into the scientific method precisely BECAUSE our knowledge is limited, and we recognize that fact, and we make allowances to expand on it as we learn more. People's intepretation of what God supposedly wants is noticeably lacking in that mechanism.
I want to prove there is, or there isnt a God. Science should be neutral.
On that one topic, assuming you define "God" and "not interacting in any dectable way with observable reality," okay. But that's not the God that most people worship. A lot of people's concept of a God requires that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is demontratively false. Science should NOT be neutral about that. Well-meaning religious people write all kinds of theological stuff into thermodynamics and bacterial falgella and quantum meachanics, too -- again, things that are not true -- and science should NOT be neutral about that, either.
So you demand perfection from the get-go?
Not sure where I made a demand..... I recognize science's short comings. Seems you are having issues accepting it.
Every hypthesis by every scientist has to be correct to the last detail or "science is wrong"! gets shouted all over?
Hyperbole isnt helping you. I merely stated, science is not perfect.
The self-correcting mechanism is built into the scientific method precisely BECAUSE our knowledge is limited, and we recognize that fact, and we make allowances to expand on it as we learn more.
So in the future, a correction could be the discovery of God? This seems to be a possibility Atheists ignore.
People's intepretation of what God supposedly wants is noticeably lacking in that mechanism.
Whether we agree isnt the issue here. I will ask you, does that make them wrong? What if they are the ones who got it right in the first place? Your presumption is they are wrong, and you base that on science, which has been wrong in the past as well. In short, your position God doesnt exist is based on an imperfect tool, that is limited in its knowledge and scope.
On that one topic, assuming you define "God" and "not interacting in any dectable way with observable reality," okay. But that's not the God that most people worship. A lot of people's concept of a God requires that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is demontratively false.
Im not a literalist. When the Bible talks about creation, earth and sun (our measure of time based on a rotation) isnt created until later in the week. If we are to believe that God is immortal to our understanding, "a day" could have a very different meaning by our limited definition of time.
Science should NOT be neutral about that. Well-meaning religious people write all kinds of theological stuff into thermodynamics and bacterial falgella and quantum meachanics, too -- again, things that are not true -- and science should NOT be neutral about that, either.
Science should want the truth, that is all. But if Science says, Lets prove no God, then it will search for information to support that response at the expense of information that may prove God. That doesnt help science.
I was under the impression that most faith is blind, after all, the definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelled or measured in any know scientific method.I agree. I simply feel that some tools are better suited for this use than others. It's true that I can kill a man with a drinking straw, if killing is what I want to do. Killing him with a hammer is easier, though. Killing him with a Glock is easier still.I wholly agree here. The mastermind (for lack of a better term atm) will use the tool that has the highest effectiveness. Blind Faith paired with ignorance plays into that.
EDIT: But let us note, most faiths dont want "blind" faith. Ignorance is the tool of "Blind" faith.
Then you have a very poor impression.
Not sure where I made a demand..... I recognize science's short comings. Seems you are having issues accepting it.No; only pointing out that, unlike religion, science itself recognizes that shortcoming and allows for it.
So in the future, a correction could be the discovery of God? This seems to be a possibility Atheists ignore.
Yes -- if he pops out and shows Himself, instead of conspicuously hiding in the gaps of our ignorance, then, yes, His existence will be the study of scientific work. Until then, He's not necessary to account for the things we're studying, so there's no need to invoke him. Science doesn't attempt to disprove God -- it just ignores Him as irrelevant.
Whether we agree isnt the issue here. I will ask you, does that make them wrong? What if they are the ones who got it right in the first place? Your presumption is they are wrong, and you base that on science, which has been wrong in the past as well. In short, your position God doesnt exist is based on an imperfect tool, that is limited in its knowledge and scope.
Again, science corrects itself when it's wrong. You guys don't. And I don't assert that God doesn't exist -- just that He sure doesn't seem to.
I'm not a literalist.
Then a lot of fundamentals claim that YOU have it wrong. As do all the Muslims. What makes you so sure you're right? As an atheist, I deal in likelihoods, not absolutes -- i.e., "Given what we know, God seems like a pretty lame hypothesis," as opposed to "there is no God." Notice the difference?
|
Rangas are born to rule.... Down with the budgie smuggler wearing mad monk...I have no clue what you just said
Ranga: A person who has red or orange hair (as does Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Julia Gillard – and as, one might deduce, does The 8th Dwarf).
Budgie Smugglers: Australian slang for men’s tight-fitting Speedo style swimwear.
The Mad Monk: the leader of the Australian Federal Opposition, a conservative Christian; well known for being a conservative Christian, a fanatical sportsman, and for wearing budgie smugglers.
Definitions from Urban Dictionary.
|
Dude, I would be stoked if god suddenly appeared. But since he is conveniently beyond the scope of science to locate, and he appears to not give a shit about the horrible things that happen in the world, I choose to not give a shit if he is real or not.
If I'm wrong, and he really does exist, I'm punching him in the face and going to hell with a smile.
Dude, I would be stoked if god suddenly appeared. But since he is conveniently beyond the scope of science to locate, and he appears to not give a s@@# about the horrible things that happen in the world, I choose to not give a s@@# if he is real or not.
If I'm wrong, and he really does exist, I'm punching him in the face and going to hell with a smile.
Travel light.
|
I think you've swapped the Reformation with the Enlightenment. The Reformation brought about not the domestication and pacification of Christianity, but rather new heights in brutality and a full century of warfare. The division between Catholics and Protestants was not over whether or not there would be an oppressive, doctrinaire theology endorsed by the state and imposed upon all for the aggrandizement and profit of the clergy and the state, but rather what set of clergy would be the beneficiary of such a system.
Here is something I've talked about before, your take on the 'mellowing out' of Christianity is exactly the point. Islam essentially has to go through its own version of the Reformation. Before the Reformation, is when you see the more fanatical and strict behaviour codes of Christianity.
Oops, my bad you are exactly right. I blame sleep dep. I meant the Enlightenment.
Oops, my bad you are exactly right. I blame sleep dep. I meant the Enlightenment.I think you've swapped the Reformation with the Enlightenment. The Reformation brought about not the domestication and pacification of Christianity, but rather new heights in brutality and a full century of warfare. The division between Catholics and Protestants was not over whether or not there would be an oppressive, doctrinaire theology endorsed by the state and imposed upon all for the aggrandizement and profit of the clergy and the state, but rather what set of clergy would be the beneficiary of such a system.
Here is something I've talked about before, your take on the 'mellowing out' of Christianity is exactly the point. Islam essentially has to go through its own version of the Reformation. Before the Reformation, is when you see the more fanatical and strict behaviour codes of Christianity.
That is one of the most hilarious goofs I've seen in this thread.
I recognize science's short comings. Seems you are having issues accepting it.
Science recognizes its own short comings. It is actually built into the process.
So in the future, a correction could be the discovery of God? This seems to be a possibility Atheists ignore.
Speaking for myself, I do not ignore the possibility of there being a god. There is also the possibility of there being a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy. We can not, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disprove their existence either. Why are you not equally quick to defend their possible existence?
In short, your position God doesnt exist is based on an imperfect tool, that is limited in its knowledge and scope.
And your position that god does exists is based on what?
If we are to believe that God is immortal to our understanding, "a day" could have a very different meaning by our limited definition of time.
This is often referred to as 'moving the goal posts'.
Again, science corrects itself when it's wrong. You guys don't.
The tone of this comment seems to indicate that you believe that scientist are all one big happy family and that they are quite happy to toss aside widely held beliefs at the drop of contrary evidence. Also that all religious people never do self examination and change their views of the function and method of religious study.
I don't believe either of those views are valid. As things like the Reformation, yes I do mean that one, demonstrat religious thought does undergo changes. As the enlightenment shows, it can undergo other changes. Many have remarked in this very thread about how Christianity has "calmed down" generally over the centuries. Is that evidence that "those guys" some times do correct themselves?
Also, scientists who have dedicated their entire life to studying and espousing certain ideas and models, don't just roll over and play dead just becomes some new upstart has a new idea. Scientific fields can be just as (figuratively) cutthroat as any other field. While yes, ultimately more accurate ideas will push through, it can often be a long and conflicted process, and things may even degrade before coming back decades or centuries later.
I think history has shown both science and religious thought have under gone radical shifts from time to time. Neither switchs at a drop of a hat and both demand vigorous efforts by the various supporters.
Again, science corrects itself when it's wrong. You guys don't.The tone of this comment seems to indicate that you believe that scientist are all one big happy family and that they are quite happy to toss aside widely held beliefs at the drop of contrary evidence. Also that all religious people never do self examination and change their views of the function and method of religious study.
I would say that scientists are still human and often don't want/like to change (or be wrong) but are ultimately going to accept the new ideas (if proven more correct) within a decade or less.
After all science needs those opposing view points to keep everything going. If they were truly one big happy family the advancement of science would slow considerably.
I don't believe either of those views are valid. As things like the Reformation, yes I do mean that one, demonstrate religious thought does undergo changes. As the enlightenment shows, it can undergo other changes. Many have remarked in this very thread about how Christianity has "calmed down" generally over the centuries. Is that evidence that "those guys" some times do correct themselves?
I would say religion does change and adapt but only as a survival strategy. Its that or die out.
Again, science corrects itself when it's wrong. You guys don't.The tone of this comment seems to indicate that you believe that scientist are all one big happy family and that they are quite happy to toss aside widely held beliefs at the drop of contrary evidence. Also that all religious people never do self examination and change their views of the function and method of religious study.I would say that scientists are still human and often don't want/like to change (or be wrong) but are ultimately going to accept the new ideas (if proven more correct) within a decade or less.
After all science needs those opposing view points to keep everything going. If they were truly one big happy family the advancement of science would slow considerably.I would say religion does change and adapt but only as a survival strategy. Its that or die out.
I don't believe either of those views are valid. As things like the Reformation, yes I do mean that one, demonstrate religious thought does undergo changes. As the enlightenment shows, it can undergo other changes. Many have remarked in this very thread about how Christianity has "calmed down" generally over the centuries. Is that evidence that "those guys" some times do correct themselves?
Looks like, at least in those respects science and religion have a somethings in common (struggles to change, only change to survive).
The tone of this comment seems to indicate that you believe that scientist are all one big happy family and that they are quite happy to toss aside widely held beliefs at the drop of contrary evidence.
On the contrary -- I've been part of the peer-review process, and know from experience how cutthroat it is. And I'm glad of it. It's important that the people espousing the existing model try as hard as possible to defend it; that way we're not tossing it aside in favor of a flimsy new model that's potentially even less well-supported by the evidence. Only when the new evidence is stonger than the existing stuff, and the new model exhibits verifiably greater predictive power than the existing one, do scientists start to shift their thinking.
Also that all religious people never do self examination and change their views of the function and method of religious study.
Again, on the contrary, religious people often change their views, but typically it's a function of "revelation," which seems to be the primary "method of religious study." Islam (for example) didn't split off from Judeism and Christianity on the basis of religious study, but rather of claims of divine revelation and insight not available to the poor benighted infidels.
Again? Really? Guys, please take it over to the religious discussion thread, where endless regurgitation of the same tired Philosophy 101 escapees ad nauseam is par for the course.
This thread was about something else.
This thread was about something else.
The "something else" expired 3 days ago without having happened; the thread is therefore a derelict and up for grabs.
This thread was about something else.The "something else" expired 3 days ago without having happened; the thread is therefore a derelict and up for grabs.
I guess I don't see the point of killing a thread about the line between free speech and appeasement (which I was at one point enjoying), especially since:
1. There is nothing new here. Nothing.2. There is already a thread dedicated to discussing the topic doing the killing .
But I am not the thread police, so carry on.
But I am not the thread police, so carry on.
If it looks like it, smells like it and tastes like it… :P
I guess I don't see the point of killing a thread about the line between free speech and appeasement (which I was at one point enjoying)
I'd predict your goal would be better served by posting something on-topic that people could then respond to...
On the other hand, if you can't think of anything else to say about that topic, it's possible no one else can, either.
I apologize if this has already been posted. Rather biased.
Quran Burning Story: This Is How the Media Embarrass Themselves
I apologize if this has already been posted. Rather biased.
Quran Burning Story: This Is How the Media Embarrass Themselves
Gotta love the HuffPo. Their take: "The organization was headed by an Imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has made it his life's work to stand against radical cults like al Qaeda and teach young Muslims that America is a place where one can freely worship at the appointed times and then join other faith communities in America in the task of building a great nation."
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
Agnostic-turned-Muslim pushes for Tennessee mosque
"You mark my word, if they start [to] bring thousands and thousands of Muslims into the relatively rural area, the next thing you know, they're going to be taking over the city council. Then they're going to be having an ordinance that -- that calls for the public prayer five times a day," Robertson has said.
So…what you are saying is religion and politics should not mix?
Many, many moons ago when my grandmother would drag me to Catholic mass, I remember one song they would sing all the time. They will know we are Christians by our love.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter...
Maybe he has had a change of heart.
"I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."
CNN September 8, 2010
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause.
A cause, maybe, but support for an allied country that its neighbors have sworn to "wipe off the map" can hardly be considered a ROOT cause. The root might be the centuries-old Muslim/Jewish strife, which in turn is simply a manifestation of mankind's basic urge to separate into groups that kill one another.
So any sort of "root cause" analysis is a sham, because you can always go back an extra step and blame the other guy.
What we CAN say, uniquivocally I hope, is that flying planes into buildings is not an appropriate means of influencing foreign policy -- whether one agrees with that policy or not.
|
|
I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
Then why have they targeted Canada so much, we've foiled at least 2 major internal terror plots in the past 8 years.
I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
And Spain.
|
|
American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause.A cause, maybe, but support for an allied country that its neighbors have sworn to "wipe off the map" can hardly be considered a ROOT cause. The root might be the centuries-old Muslim/Jewish strife, which in turn is simply a manifestation of mankind's basic urge to separate into groups that kill one another.
So any sort of "root cause" analysis is a sham, because you can always go back an extra step and blame the other guy.
What we CAN say, uniquivocally I hope, is that flying planes into buildings is not an appropriate means of influencing foreign policy -- whether one agrees with that policy or not.
Actually, the root cause was when the us and the un got together and formed isreal by taking away palestinians land.
|
|
Then why have they targeted Canada so much, we've foiled at least 2 major internal terror plots in the past 8 years.I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
No one cares about canada, jeremy. Go enjoy your penguins and eskimos.
No one cares about canada, jeremy. Go enjoy your penguins and eskimos.Then why have they targeted Canada so much, we've foiled at least 2 major internal terror plots in the past 8 years.I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
You here that Jeremy? We get penguins now! Yeah!
Then why have they targeted Canada so much, we've foiled at least 2 major internal terror plots in the past 8 years.I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
Because we have troops on the ground and Joint Task Force Two hunts 'high value targets'. We've taken sides in this conflict and made it clear who's side we are on.
And Spain.I don't know anything about the Imam but the statement about US policies being the cause is fundamentally accurate. I'd maybe pick and choose my words more carefully but its American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause. Iceland is does not fear terrorist attacks because no terrorist cares about Iceland in the slightest. The same is pretty much true of Switzerland and, I'm sure, Chile.
Never mind that Imam Feisal is a Hamas supporter, and the guy who said after 9-11, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (60 Minutes).
While not as high profile as some states Spain was a member of the Coalition of the Willing and did contribute troops.
American presence in the middle east and their support for Israel that is the root cause.A cause, maybe, but support for an allied country that its neighbors have sworn to "wipe off the map" can hardly be considered a ROOT cause. The root might be the centuries-old Muslim/Jewish strife,...
Not centuries old by any means. There was no immigration movement at all before 1880. Things really did not start to heat up until World War I and especially the events after 1920.
So any sort of "root cause" analysis is a sham, because you can always go back an extra step and blame the other guy.
This is arguably the rare exception to that. Roman Legions drove the Jews from the Holy land in huge numbers. Christian Crusaders celebrated their (ultimately short lived) victory over the Infidel and the creation of the Crusader States with massive pogroms in the area slaughtering every Jew they could find and helping to cement the damage the Romans had done to the population. Most of the population left after that simply converted to the Muslim faith over the centuries.
Mainly because, if your Christian or Jewish the Koran specifies that your exempt from the army but have to pay higher taxes - which really blows in the Ottoman Empire because taxes are already pretty high and their is no general levy for the army.
In other words this is a really unusual case - most of the time whoever is living on some piece of land had to conquer it from the old inhabitants at some point or another. Here much less so because a third party kept showing up, slaughtering the original inhabitants, and then leaving.
What we CAN say, uniquivocally I hope, is that flying planes into buildings is not an appropriate means of influencing foreign policy -- whether one agrees with that policy or not.
I agree.
]No; only pointing out that, unlike religion, science itself recognizes that shortcoming and allows for it.
Incorrect. Interpretation of the Bible has been, and currently is, incorrect with many faiths. Look at all the differences in faiths with just one book? Look at all the different conclusions? Heck, you have people who added and disregard historical texts based on what they want to believe? You keep jumping to conclusions about me that are incorrect. It seems to me you supplant your preconceptions of someone with faith on all of us. Does that mean all Atheists are Stalinesque?
Yes -- if he pops out and shows Himself, instead of conspicuously hiding in the gaps of our ignorance, then, yes, His existence will be the study of scientific work. Until then, He's not necessary to account for the things we're studying, so there's no need to invoke him. Science doesn't attempt to disprove God -- it just ignores Him as irrelevant.
Your conclusion is based on Him not popping out for your benefit? How full of yourself you must feel. You eliminate relevance without proof based on your philosophy. It almost seems like a bitter statement. Pardon me if I made some preconceptions about you...
Again, science corrects itself when it's wrong. You guys don't. And I don't assert that God doesn't exist -- just that He sure doesn't seem to.
Just because it corrects itself later, doesnt mean it isnt incorrect now.
Then a lot of fundamentals claim that YOU have it wrong.
Yes they do, just like you seem to think I have it wrong. So?
What makes you so sure you're right?
I dont necessarily think I am right. But I am not insisting you are wrong. I am merely stating your decisions are based on an imperfect system that has a history of being incorrect. It seems to me having an open mind to all possibilities, rather then pising in someone's corn flakes with condescension would be more appropriate. The fact is this, science has not proven one way or another the answer. Thus, to claim science as your reason is to present a pie crust position. Easily made, easily broken
As an atheist, I deal in likelihoods, not absolutes -- i.e., "Given what we know, God seems like a pretty lame hypothesis," as opposed to "there is no God." Notice the difference?
Actually, your predisposition draws your conclusion. I actually use science with other information to come to my conclusion. As a non-literalist, it makes sense, at least to me.
IMHO, Time and its definition is the key to understanding. Time in the eyes of God, days etc would have a completely different perception and definition then to you and I. What is a day to an immortal (as we understand immortality)???
Your conclusion is based on Him not popping out for your benefit? How full of yourself you must feel.
If you can pull your remarks back towards something vaguely resembling the point I made, I'll be delighted to respond. As far as the rest of your reply, I see a lot of Byronesque langauge, but very little meaning underlying it -- just unsubstantiated opinion.
Science recognizes its own short comings. It is actually built into the process.
Not sure how this makes it "correct" now... If it is wrong now, and corrected later, it is still wrong now....
Speaking for myself, I do not ignore the possibility of there being a god. There is also the possibility of there being a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy. We can not, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disprove their existence either. Why are you not equally quick to defend their possible existence?
Santa Claus was real. The story of Saint Nicholas was documented. The difference between the data of the Tooth Fairy, and God is when the coin was left, etc, we have the parent admitting doing it and calling the tooth fairy responsible.
Please use a better defense then documented fairy tales.
And your position that god does exists is based on what?
Does it matter? I believe in God, you dont. I have a Bible, the absence of proof that it is a "fairy tale" as your above quote comparison attempts. Much of the events in the Bible has been proven true.
This is often referred to as 'moving the goal posts'.
This is often referred too sticking to a position despite the possibilities.
In short, those who claim "science" as their foundation of not believing, have yet to show that God doesnt exist. You claim possibilities without knowing all the information to determine accurate odds.
In short, your belief that God doesnt exist is based on anecdotal information, and ... shall I say it? Faith.
]If you can pull your remarks back towards something vaguely resembling the point I made, I'll be delighted to respond.
I did make a point. You can choose not to respond, that doesnt mean the point wasnt made
As far as the rest of your reply, I see a lot of Byronesque langauge, but very little meaning underlying it -- just unsubstantiated opinion.
Unsubstantiated opinion, unlike you? LOL Funny how you and others base your "opinion" on a conclusion that violates the basic rule of scientific conclusions.
In short, those who claim "science" as their foundation of not believing, have yet to show that God doesnt exist.
Why would we want to? If His existence or non-existence irrelevant to our interests -- why spend time on that? Then there's the concept of "burden of proof" -- if I claim I have an invisible unicorn steed, it's up to me to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. Finally, there's the logical nonsense of trying to "prove" a negative.
Why would we want to?
Cause science is about proof?
If His existence or non-existence irrelevant to our interests -- why spend time on that?
So who defines His relevance?
Then there's the concept of "burden of proof"
In every discussion, it seems the Atheist crowd is the one deciding the burden. I see no need for a Burden.
-- if I claim I have an invisible unicorn steed, it's up to me to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it.
Is it? You seem to be assigning needs to others that dont exist.
Finally, there's the logical nonsense of trying to "prove" a negative.
So one of the basic tenets of science is nonsense? I think our discussion is over. Seems you just pick the points that support your faith in your philosophy, assign needs to others based on your needs, to epeen your opinion that youre factually correct.
Until you can accept scientific principals, I suggest you eliminate that word from your reasoning. All that leave you is Faith that God doesnt exist. How ironic.
