Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for God
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 35 of 213 (480430)
09-03-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Deftil
05-15-2008 12:30 PM


most people that value both scientific research and logic don't believe in gods.
You sure about that? Because a great many people who do believe in god(s) also value both scientific research and logic.
I expect that some Bayesian calculations would show that of all the people who value both scientific research and logic, believers outnumber atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Deftil, posted 05-15-2008 12:30 PM Deftil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Agobot, posted 09-09-2008 3:35 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 43 of 213 (481139)
09-09-2008 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Agobot
09-09-2008 3:35 PM


Cool it, man.
I was only questioning your numbers. Can you back up your statement that most people who value scientific research and logic don't believe in gods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Agobot, posted 09-09-2008 3:35 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Agobot, posted 09-09-2008 4:10 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 45 of 213 (481145)
09-09-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Agobot
09-09-2008 4:10 PM


Your original statement, however, was not about scientists. It was about "most people".
I hope you don't think that only scientists respect scientific investigation and logic.
As for scientists having difficulty believing in something that is not backed up by any evidence, I guess that's an occupational hazard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Agobot, posted 09-09-2008 4:10 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Agobot, posted 09-09-2008 4:31 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 48 of 213 (481159)
09-09-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Agobot
09-09-2008 4:31 PM


Actually, on backtracking, I found it was Deftil (post 14), but as long as you are in accord with the sentiment I agree, it doesn't matter who originally said it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Agobot, posted 09-09-2008 4:31 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Deftil, posted 09-11-2008 9:13 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 86 of 213 (481623)
09-11-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Deftil
09-11-2008 9:13 PM


Thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with the first part of the sentence. The last part, as you said, was an exaggeration and that is the part I took issue with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Deftil, posted 09-11-2008 9:13 PM Deftil has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024