Agreed...Mad scientists.
No, just kidding. I get your point. Dogma is dogma, it is not science. So if a scientist spouts dogma then you know they are not talking science. Not that there is anything wrong with dogma.
What's the Difference Between Science and Religion?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
- Status
:shrug: Nobody has ever agreed with me. You must be wrong.
Oil,
How am I a liar by asking you to take that risk ? Don't call me a liar, you don't know me and I did not call you such. I am only questioning your ability to ask the hard questions of yourself.
And you haven't answered my question. Would you be willing to give up all of what science has brought us, since you believe so much that there is a god and you are so sure of how things were and will be. If there is and your so sure he will take care of you than where is the risk.
Oh yes the Catholic chuch, there is an example of a progressive entity if I have ever seen one. Give me a break, they have been the biggest hinderance to our social evolution. That argument just shows that you are willing to weigh a penny to a bar of gold as the same. Ignore all evidence that challenges your belief. You are intelligent enough to understand complex issues but are not strong enough to face your own insignificance.
Get over it, you will never be able to stop the progress that science is making in uncovering the truth of where we came from and those discoveries will be going on for long after you and I are dead. That is the beauty of science. It does not have an end. Religion on the other hand is dying a slow death.
Again, I am not claiming there is no god, but tell me you know that there is and I will keep asking, you know this how ?
JA
How am I a liar by asking you to take that risk ? Don't call me a liar, you don't know me and I did not call you such. I am only questioning your ability to ask the hard questions of yourself.
And you haven't answered my question. Would you be willing to give up all of what science has brought us, since you believe so much that there is a god and you are so sure of how things were and will be. If there is and your so sure he will take care of you than where is the risk.
Oh yes the Catholic chuch, there is an example of a progressive entity if I have ever seen one. Give me a break, they have been the biggest hinderance to our social evolution. That argument just shows that you are willing to weigh a penny to a bar of gold as the same. Ignore all evidence that challenges your belief. You are intelligent enough to understand complex issues but are not strong enough to face your own insignificance.
Get over it, you will never be able to stop the progress that science is making in uncovering the truth of where we came from and those discoveries will be going on for long after you and I are dead. That is the beauty of science. It does not have an end. Religion on the other hand is dying a slow death.
Again, I am not claiming there is no god, but tell me you know that there is and I will keep asking, you know this how ?
JA
This is a blatant lie. It's a straw man but it's no surprise why you have to rely upon it as your strongest and most logically rigorous argument.
Oils,
You are only taking part of my question to you. That is dishonest. Answer the whole question please.
Here is my original question to you. Please answer the whole question.
"I would also make the same deal with you that I have done with my friends who profess the belief, if you want to continue the circular argument with no end.
You reject all of what science has brought our society, everything down to your electric toothbrush. You will still have what you claim is provided by god, water, air and land to grow food, you can create fire, shelter (wood and stone) etc. But nothing that science has provided. Deal ? "
In other words would you be willing to live without science and start over. Being the sole person to have to re-create every wheel like invention. You would have to be a complete source of knowledge with no library of books from the history of science to enable you beyond your current knowledge base.
Please answer.
Thank you,
JA
You are only taking part of my question to you. That is dishonest. Answer the whole question please.
Here is my original question to you. Please answer the whole question.
"I would also make the same deal with you that I have done with my friends who profess the belief, if you want to continue the circular argument with no end.
You reject all of what science has brought our society, everything down to your electric toothbrush. You will still have what you claim is provided by god, water, air and land to grow food, you can create fire, shelter (wood and stone) etc. But nothing that science has provided. Deal ? "
In other words would you be willing to live without science and start over. Being the sole person to have to re-create every wheel like invention. You would have to be a complete source of knowledge with no library of books from the history of science to enable you beyond your current knowledge base.
Please answer.
Thank you,
JA
I always try to be mature and civil until people start attacking me personally which usually takes less than one sentence. You want to attack the ideas using observation and logic that's fine. That's science. That's progress.
Try actually answering the questions people ask of you, and you might get taken more seriously. When you squirm, change tack, and avoid the difficult questions, you lose credibility. Then people become uncivil, because they have given up of a serious exchange.
- Status