Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have some scientists been too fanatical?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 31 of 101 (679655)
11-15-2012 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinamatic
11-14-2012 11:39 PM


sinamatic writes:
I think aethiests are certainly capable of having great moral values without a belief in god if they can respect a person of alternative views.
This is interesting. Most fundamental religious people are happy to call atheists immoral or incapable of morality. And, especially in the US, it seems to me that most religious people have an underlying belief very similar to that despite equivocation.
I see your particular equivocation is that I, as an atheist, can only have 'great' moral values if I can respect a person of alternative views. The implication is that the particular alternative view in question is a belief in a particular God.
Well, I'm sorry, that isn't the test.
You should also know that the assumption, inbuilt but unsaid, that atheists are somehow amoral or sub-moral compared to a religious person is deeply insulting and a nasty form of prejudice equivalent to the racial prejudices openly shown against coloured people until relatively recently.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinamatic, posted 11-14-2012 11:39 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by sinamatic, posted 11-16-2012 3:09 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 32 of 101 (679660)
11-15-2012 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinamatic
11-14-2012 11:39 PM


quote:
I'm genuinely concerned about how the debate on evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design is represented from civilians and even some leaders from all isles.
  —sinamatic
The debate should be civil, but there's just one thing you don't seem to realise.
There is no debate in science on the theory of evolution. None. It finished many years ago. Evolution won.
The overwhelming majority of the relevant scientists have accepted the theory of evolution. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc.
The "debate" still going on is between science (including the overwhelming majority of Christian scientists) and very well funded pseudo-science (which includes the very tiny percentage of religious scientists who take their Holy Books literally).
This so-called "debate" is mostly done in the press (newspapers, tv, internet), schools, etc., as a result of the current culture war raging in America; where some people want to insert religion into science education. For this to be possible they made up sciencey sounding words (like "creation science" and "intelligent design"), but these two certainly are not science at all.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinamatic, posted 11-14-2012 11:39 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by sinamatic, posted 11-16-2012 3:15 AM Pressie has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 33 of 101 (679666)
11-15-2012 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by sinamatic
11-15-2012 12:58 AM


I do understand how the world works, do you?
Oh, I understand it quite well.
The way the world works is that evangelical Christians say vile evil things about atheists,
and then they become incensed at a bit of gentle parody on South Park.
If evangelicals want to be treated more nicely, they might try practicing their own Golden Rule.
Also, I'm not catholic ...
It wasn't a catholic who called me a baby killer. It was an evangelical.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by sinamatic, posted 11-15-2012 12:58 AM sinamatic has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 34 of 101 (679669)
11-15-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinamatic
11-14-2012 11:39 PM


I'd like to associate myself with Pressie.
You write:
I'm genuinely concerned about how the debate on evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design is represented from civilians and even some leaders from all isles.
But you see, this is not one of those issues about which well-informed reasonable people can debate any more. When I read what a creationist has to say, then I guess the most civil thing for me to say is: "You make many good and interesting points, sir, and your arguments should certainly be taught in science classes so that children can make up their own minds." Only I want to say something which is less civil but which is actually true: "Sir, you have learned from the internet to recite many falsehoods which are utterly ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about the subjects you're talking about. Science teachers should not be required to parrot your falsehoods in class, because it is wrong to tell lies to children."
You see, the essential problem with creationist arguments is that creationists talk about things that they don't know anything about. If you don't believe me, I can illustrate this at length. But such is the case.
And so from my position of actual knowledge I cannot do the polite thing and treat this as if it was a reasonable controversy between equals. It isn't. It's a debate between people who know things about science and people who don't. It would be more polite for me to pretend that it isn't, but it is much more accurate for me to say that pretty much every creationist argument is produced by someone who is too lazy to study the subject he's talking about and too arrogant to think that he should.
There is no civil way to say this about someone, any more than there's a civil way to say that someone's a thief. One can politely ignore the fact that he steals, or one can impolitely point it out. In such cases, how does one tell the truth and spare the feelings of the thief? One has to choose. And I am in the position of someone who is an eyewitness to the theft.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinamatic, posted 11-14-2012 11:39 PM sinamatic has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 35 of 101 (679688)
11-15-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinamatic
11-14-2012 11:39 PM


Hi again sinamatic
If aethists want god taken out of society, then who will be their moral leaders? ...
Themselves. As is true for everyone.
Morality is a social convention, independent of religion. It based more on the fact that we are a social animal than on any belief per se. It has to do with enlightened self interest, treating others as you would like to be treated (a "rule" found in virtually all religions).
... Hate it or love it, christianity HAS kept many people sane. ...
And it has driven some people insane ...? Certainly people who kill their children to "save" them can be classified as insane, yes? Blowing up buildings? Killing doctors?
So while scientists may not see their job description as needing to care about hurting people's feelings with their statements, as a human I think it is their responsibilty. ...
As an example: the earth is old, very old, over 4.5 billion years old. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. This is what the objective empirical evidence shows, evidence that anyone can review, you can't sugar-coat it.
If this hurts your feelings, then you need to look at why that happens. What science says is about observed facts and about rational conclusions based on objective empirical evidence. You should (perhaps) realize that anyone who told you otherwise was not telling the truth, that they were misinforming you and that THEY are responsible for deluding you into believing a falsehood -- they are the ones who are "hurting" you.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinamatic, posted 11-14-2012 11:39 PM sinamatic has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 36 of 101 (679692)
11-15-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by sinamatic
11-15-2012 1:31 AM


True Christians
However I worded it like that because true christians, as I percieve them are taught from the bible which we believe to be God's word that we should love our neighbor.
As a Christian I need to point out that there is no such thing as "true Christians". Even the most vile and evil Christian is still a Christian and we need to acknowledge that right up front if we are to be honest with ourselves.
There are nice people and not nice people and the atheist that is taught by parents that we should love our neighbor is no different than if taught by some bible.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by sinamatic, posted 11-15-2012 1:31 AM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sinamatic, posted 11-16-2012 3:42 AM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 37 of 101 (679706)
11-15-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinamatic
11-14-2012 11:39 PM


I would like to thank all of you for your responses, my goal of this thread was to bring to light the need for civility in discussion. I'm genuinely concerned about how the debate on evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design is represented from civilians and even some leaders from all isles. I'm tired of all the hate speech and view it as a true decline in civilization even in the midst of great discoveries and theories. Sometimes I feel like the general population of unbelievers have taken a "south park" stance on christianity. I mean how is it ok to portray what some people view as the almighty god as a dufus comic figure? These are sensitive topics and could carry weighty or even violent consequences if things get too out of hand.
Who are the fanatics? Those who use humor to make a point, or those who become violent when humor is used?
Time after time I see atheists accused of being uncivil for simply disagreeing with theists. It's as if we can only be civil if we agree that God exists.
Also, many scientists think that the truth is more important than feelings. If finding the truth means hurting someone's feelings then the truth wins out. You may complain that someone said something mean, but you may be missing the more important thing, that they are right.
If aethists want god taken out of society, then who will be their moral leaders?
We want God taken out of government. If the only justification for a law is "because the Bible says so" then it is a bad law and it is bad morality. All laws should have a secular justification so that people of all beliefs are treated fairly.
Atheists are not against people believing as they wish. We may think you are foolish and tell you so, but you are still free to believe as you want.
So while scientists may not see their job description as needing to care about hurting people's feelings with their statements, as a human I think it is their responsibilty.
Not when it means sacrificing the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinamatic, posted 11-14-2012 11:39 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by sinamatic, posted 11-16-2012 3:27 AM Taq has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(4)
Message 38 of 101 (679752)
11-15-2012 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinamatic
11-14-2012 11:39 PM


The war on error
Hi again,
You seem to be getting lots of replies. I hope that you take that as a complement, and you don't feel like you're being ganged up on or anything.
I'm genuinely concerned about how the debate on evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design is represented from civilians and even some leaders from all isles.
I understand, but do you have examples of things which concern you from the evolution side of the aisle? Specifically from 'leaders', the civvies are so large a group there is bound to be considerable unpleasantness. There's some here.
I'm tired of all the hate speech and view it as a true decline in civilization even in the midst of great discoveries and theories.
Hate speech?
quote:
communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic
Maybe there's some of that going around, but you make it sound like its endemic in the discourse. Could you show us what you mean?
Sometimes I feel like the general population of unbelievers have taken a "south park" stance on christianity. I mean how is it ok to portray what some people view as the almighty god as a dufus comic figure?
Ridicule is an accepted method in discourse in the endeavour of changing minds. I agree it can be overused, as its one of the easiest tools to employ (but doing it well is tricky). The best defence against it is to hold views that are not ridiculous. Then the arrows and slings kind of fall flat.
These are sensitive topics and could carry weighty or even violent consequences if things get too out of hand.
Why should they be sensitive though? What gives them power of other ideas and beliefs that we should treat them with care? We're grown ups for crying out loud. We're going to be exposed to ideas we don't agree with, that offend us, that anger us. That's because we are free to express our opinions (with certain caveats such as incitement) What right do the religious have for trying to insist we leave their religious beliefs out of this?
It seems to me that some people, such as yourself, believe that religious ideas can't stand up to the criticism. If so, good riddance, surely?
If aethists want god taken out of society, then who will be their moral leaders?
Whoever can lead them morally. Their favourite philosopher, or a combination. A contemporary essayist. You know, it's not like there are any atheists that can dictate to the rest of them who they should follow. But they're of course free to voice their opinions as to who should be considered a 'moral leader', if even moral leaders are desired.
Hate it or love it, christianity HAS kept many people sane.
This presupposes that christianity is sanity
But let's look at this closely, has Christianity helped keep anyone sane? I know some people claim to have had their sanity saved through Christ, but on the other hand, what has Christianity done for schizophrenics? I don't think it has helped particularly there. One of the symptoms of psychosis is 'magical/supersitious thinking', so it seems that Christianity would only give the seriously ill a community supported set of delusions, along with some arbitrary set of additional delusions that may or may not turn out to be a dangerous combination.
And if it really did help the mentally ill, or potentially mentally ill - what is it that it is doing that does this? Is it merely a close community? Is it structured weekends? Is it 'spiritual talk'? Songs? The beliefs themselves? Christ? There's a lot of work to be done on this before you can be clear it comes out how you want it to. And if it turns out to be something mundane that helps the mentally ill - then it just requires a secular institution to adopt that practice.
I've met people that have been violent and reckless who found Jesus and are now self controlled.
Well - I've heard that story a million times - but I've only seen evidence of it a small number of times.
My own behaviour was quite inconsiderate with moderate violence until I was introduced to Kant, John Stuart Mill et al. So maybe all you're seeing here is that when people are given some sort of formal moral tutoring they improve their behaviour. And your seeing it with Christians because that's who you hang around with.
I think aethiests are certainly capable of having great moral values without a belief in god if they can respect a person of alternative views.
Is that conditional? They have to respect a person of alternative views or else they don't have great moral values? Does it have to be all people? I mean there are plenty of people with alternative views to me that I have nothing but disrespect for. On the other hand there are some Christians and Muslims I do respect.
So while scientists may not see their job description as needing to care about hurting people's feelings with their statements, as a human I think it is their responsibilty.
And as a human, I think that one shouldn't deliberately set out to hurt someone's feelings - but you shouldn't cease to express your opinions - even if it means someone somewhere might be upset by them. Because when Christian scientists say things like 'science proves the afterlife' or something, I get a little upset (because I see it as an untruth, because it is ). But I don't think they should be prohibited from saying it.
And there are lots of Christian scientists.
We live in a very diverse society and when people stop respecting others views, things can get out of hand pretty quickly.
Stand as a politician for the communist party in Mississippi.
See how polite the discourse is.
I bet its considerably ruder than 'God does not exist', 'When you're dead, you're dead', 'You don't God to be moral', 'The belief in God is a false one, that is difficult to remove upon examination of evidence, and it is thus a delusion'
I'm sorry if this came across as arrogent or self righteous, I know I'm guilty at times of speaking before I think.
In this case, I'm glad you committed to posting it. I can see this from a Christian point of view: Church attendence is decreasing, with increasing numbers going to megachurches, large an frightening number of young atheists, having been teenagers at the release of the God Delusion, they now find themselves surrounded by religion and they're young and passionate and you can't keep the rascals quiet. Then, all those priveleges the Christians have grown used to, prayers at government meetings, staff directed prayers at school, the safety you feel that the guy you just met is surely a Christian too, all of it is being eaten away by an increasingly active secular movement, spearheaded by atheists.
It must feel like you are under attack. I get that. The thing is, you (as a group) are. And you are no longer winning every battle. Indeed, some high profile battles have been lost. You still win silent victories. How many more schools are there out there that have institutional prayer? Probably quite a lot.
The Christians are still winning, though. So take heart. That said, despite some extreme efforts, the religious seem to be losing the young. And in the long term, that's a losing strategy (as Christians have long known *cough Sunday-School cough prayer-in-public-schools cough bible-camp*)
You want the war to end? I can say that hostilities will be greatly reduced when you finally separate church and state. When atheists are not harassed and bullied. When being an atheist is equally as acceptable as being a Christian. The problem is, I think the social momentum will carry the movement onwards possibly to the point where Christians become a reviled minority. Sorry about that (though Christianity, on the whole deserves that fate given its horrid history), but that's human nature - and no amount of pleading will change that I'm afraid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinamatic, posted 11-14-2012 11:39 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by sinamatic, posted 11-16-2012 4:00 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 44 by sinamatic, posted 11-16-2012 4:15 AM Modulous has replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 39 of 101 (679848)
11-16-2012 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tangle
11-15-2012 4:00 AM


You should also know that the assumption, inbuilt but unsaid, that atheists are somehow amoral or sub-moral compared to a religious person is deeply insulting and a nasty form of prejudice equivalent to the racial prejudices openly shown against coloured people until relatively recently.
I said that only to offer up my view point, that I view anyone that does not respect my views as having a moral flaw, even though you might have other great morals. I do not mean that to be insulting or imply that I as a christian have greater moral values then you. I really do believe that just because I'm a christian that does not automatically make me more moral. I think you may be overly defensive but its justified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 11-15-2012 4:00 AM Tangle has not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 40 of 101 (679850)
11-16-2012 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Pressie
11-15-2012 5:46 AM


The "debate" still going on is between science (including the overwhelming majority of Christian scientists) and very well funded pseudo-science (which includes the very tiny percentage of religious scientists who take their Holy Books literally).
It's interesting that you include the funding referance. Seems to me that scientists working with a evolution based mindset have recieved far more money because it is by far the more popular and accepted theory.
Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Pressie, posted 11-15-2012 5:46 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2012 6:22 AM sinamatic has not replied
 Message 63 by roxrkool, posted 11-16-2012 11:29 PM sinamatic has not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 41 of 101 (679854)
11-16-2012 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
11-15-2012 11:17 AM


Who are the fanatics? Those who use humor to make a point, or those who become violent when humor is used?
Time after time I see atheists accused of being uncivil for simply disagreeing with theists. It's as if we can only be civil if we agree that God exists.
Also, many scientists think that the truth is more important than feelings. If finding the truth means hurting someone's feelings then the truth wins out. You may complain that someone said something mean, but you may be missing the more important thing, that they are right.
This is just flat out not true from my experiences. I would never call someone uncivil for not believing in a god. Finding the truth would never hurt my feelings btw, undermining my intelligence would though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 11:17 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 11-16-2012 9:35 AM sinamatic has replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 42 of 101 (679855)
11-16-2012 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
11-15-2012 9:35 AM


Re: True Christians
As a Christian I need to point out that there is no such thing as "true Christians". Even the most vile and evil Christian is still a Christian and we need to acknowledge that right up front if we are to be honest with ourselves.
OK but thats the same thing as saying that everyone is a scientist that practises science, even though they don't follow the scientific method and ignore logic. So why is it impossible that there would be people who claim to be christians but don't follow the bible? There are true scientists and false scientists, true christians and false christians, true doctors and false doctors. They are all people is what I think you mean to say

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 11-15-2012 9:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 11-16-2012 8:54 AM sinamatic has not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 43 of 101 (679858)
11-16-2012 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
11-15-2012 3:23 PM


Re: The war on error
In this case, I'm glad you committed to posting it. I can see this from a Christian point of view: Church attendence is decreasing, with increasing numbers going to megachurches, large an frightening number of young atheists, having been teenagers at the release of the God Delusion, they now find themselves surrounded by religion and they're young and passionate and you can't keep the rascals quiet. Then, all those priveleges the Christians have grown used to, prayers at government meetings, staff directed prayers at school, the safety you feel that the guy you just met is surely a Christian too, all of it is being eaten away by an increasingly active secular movement, spearheaded by atheists.
It must feel like you are under attack. I get that. The thing is, you (as a group) are. And you are no longer winning every battle. Indeed, some high profile battles have been lost. You still win silent victories. How many more schools are there out there that have institutional prayer? Probably quite a lot.
The Christians are still winning, though. So take heart. That said, despite some extreme efforts, the religious seem to be losing the young. And in the long term, that's a losing strategy (as Christians have long known *cough Sunday-School cough prayer-in-public-schools cough bible-camp*)
You want the war to end? I can say that hostilities will be greatly reduced when you finally separate church and state. When atheists are not harassed and bullied. When being an atheist is equally as acceptable as being a Christian. The problem is, I think the social momentum will carry the movement onwards possibly to the point where Christians become a reviled minority. Sorry about that (though Christianity, on the whole deserves that fate given its horrid history), but that's human nature - and no amount of pleading will change that I'm afraid.
I like most of what you said here because it does carry the most truth that I've read so far. However bear in mind that not all of christianity has been as horrid as so many people claim. They have been on the recieving end of it too in history. There have also been millions that went to church, tried to live a moral and god fearing life and have never hurt a soul. Many have started charities and live only to help their fellow man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 11-15-2012 3:23 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 44 of 101 (679859)
11-16-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
11-15-2012 3:23 PM


Re: The war on error
My own behaviour was quite inconsiderate with moderate violence until I was introduced to Kant, John Stuart Mill et al. So maybe all you're seeing here is that when people are given some sort of formal moral tutoring they improve their behaviour. And your seeing it with Christians because that's who you hang around with.
Au contraire, I hang out with more non believers. I find it funny that you assume that automatically. You make my point though as you admit that people benefit from formal moral tutoring. I never implied that it must come from a church or christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 11-15-2012 3:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2012 8:56 AM sinamatic has replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 45 of 101 (679864)
11-16-2012 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
11-15-2012 2:50 AM


The point of the picture, which I think you've missed, is that all an atheist needs to do to get labeled as an extremist or a fanatic is do something like saying: "There is no God". It's a very low bar. For a religious person to get labelled an extremist, they have to do something shocking and/or violent --- for an atheist, expressing the opinion that atheists are right is apparently sufficient.
So people like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett get called "extremists". Why? 'Cos they wrote books, which no-one is obliged to read, suggesting in usually very moderate not to say scholarly language that religion is a bad idea and atheism is a better one.
Ok last reply for the night, I should have put them all together but oh well. I did get your point, however it's not a very accurate depiction in my mind. An extremist aethiest would be someone who believes that anyone who doesnt believe that life spontaniously came about and evolved into man is a danger to society. An extremist thinks that any one that believes in a god does not think logically and is automatically a fool.
That is my take on it anyway. The reason I think like this is because I can see both sides. I have seen the evidence for evolution and I understand why so many believe that there is no god. I don't really blame aethiests for thinking believers in a god are misinformed, as the case for god has not been articulated very well to keep up with the ever expanding science of life orgination. Personally I don't get too wrapped up in the debate because I believe that god does not want to prove his existance through science. After all if science proved that god exists, who would not want to follow him? OK maybe a few nuts out there but lets be honest. This does not mean though that I base my belief on a feeling or blind trust. I do think that there should be evidence for god but I think its taken from more then just science alone. Things need to make sense and they do for me, in a logical way, not a dellusional way like dawkins would have people believe. I'm not here to convert anyone I just want to explain that when someone stereotypes me as naive or foolish it upsets me just like it does you.
Creationists and intelligent life scientists are trying to show a case where science and religion can co exist. Maybe some of them are reaching too much, but I can say the same for mainstream scientists. I haven't fully decided exactly what all makes for good science and bad. I've always had a questioning mindset and dont ever take someone's word for something, even more so when money is involved. (Believe me there is a lot of money involved when it comes to science,politics and religion). Yes there is one truth and one side or neither will ultimately be proven right, when they die. Though the side believing in no god will never know they were right while the side believing in god will never know they were wrong.
(Crap that sounds like something someone already said somewhere)
Oh well, it's the truth
Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 2:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2012 7:23 AM sinamatic has replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2012 7:27 AM sinamatic 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