Science claims many things it can't prove but when it comes to religion we must prove. Double standard.
Provide an example or two, please.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Science claims many things it can't prove but when it comes to religion we must prove. Double standard.
Provide an example or two, please.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Sorry! I didn't mean to be rational! Where was mybrainwashing"training from infancy" when Viviane needed it?!
I was just giving you a hard time :)
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Atheists/agnostics do not claim that there is no intelligence in our "design." They just point out the fallacy of coming to a conclusion that something exists when there is no evidence to support that conclusion. You can't prove a negative. Either you have evidence of something or you don't.
CAPPY! I was trying to get clambake to come to that conclusion or at least allow him/her to prevaricate enough that it was obvious he didn't know.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Both are unanswerable questions silly.
No no no.... you don't get it. Why do you think the questions are equivalent in quality and nature? Just because two math equations equal zero doesn't mean the equations are the same. Similarly, you are said one question is like the other, not that they have the same answer.
Why do you think the questions are like each other?
But of course science not today but tomorrow will figure it all for us. Progress is being made. Blah blah blah. We have big thick books with really complex answers.
It find it funny how the pro-science crowd often seems to be bigger deists than religious people.
You seem to be conflating a lot of ideas that aren't the same. What does being pro-science have, in particular, to do with being deist, which very few religious people are? In what way do you think progress and answers are blah blah blah?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Asking religious people to prove the existence of god is like asking an atheist to disprove there being any intelligence in our design.
I ask again, why do you imagine these are the same? You've no need to confuse the Jedi with the WT in order to answer this.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Asking religious people to prove the existence of god is like asking an atheist to disprove there being any intelligence in our design.
In what way are you imagining those are the same? And I stress the word "imagine".
Anyone with a sincere interest in all thing scientific wouldn’t waste their time with such a pointless endeavour.
Sorry, you don't get to make claims about other people you've never met and motivations are unaware of. That, much like religious people making claims, is claiming and pretending to know things you don't and can't possibly know.
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Viv, you made me laugh out loud! Love your wit.
Thank you!
Most people consider themselves honest as long as they refuse to acknowledge they're lying. Its the admission of being wrong that they consider dishonest.
In the same way, as long as they never admit they're being cruel, they consider themselves loving.
Interesting point, one I've not considered....
The very definition of belief implies there is no proof. Believers cannot quite their head around this fact in of itself, hence why the endless questions of "what is belief", questions predicated on "for those who believe in evolution", etc. It is almost as if belief is a requirement of something being factual to believers. It is almost impossible to debate someone who is not defining the very meaning of the term the same way, but that is another story...
That has become obvious is recent weeks....
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
I hate when people spew philosophy and pretend they are doing it in the name of a scientific debate. This thread is nothing but pointless fluff
No one ever said this was a scientific debate. It was a question about why religious people pretend to know things they can't possibly know.
For instance, you clearly don't know what this thread is about, but pretend you do.
my few of my favorite anti-god, anti-religion, anti-jw vibe music.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtgkrcxybsm.
...you're such an inspiration for the ways .
that i'll never ever choose to be .