Respecting religion???
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
It would depend on the circumstances. I don't generally seek out people to mock, whether they believe in gods or fairies. I keep myself to myself. If they challenged my own beliefs using unsubstantiated assertions, tried to convert me to their way of thinking or insulted me or my family (as has actually happened) - that may warrant a little mockery.
Sounds reasonably fair, the only thing I can't get my head round is being prepared to mock anyone for their beliefs when you accept that their beliefs could turn out to be right, seems a conflict of reasonableness!anonymous said:
[redacted]
It isn't falsifiable. However much we learn, the idea of god backs further into the gaps.God is emphatically not a theory, in the scientific sense. 'theory' in the conversational sense is a synonym for 'idea'. That's not at all close to becoming a scientific theory, which is the best-fit explanation for what we know, with no provable contradiction.
Please be very precise in the way you use that word, because that's at the heart of a lot of the 'competing theory' confusion.
One is a scientific theory in the correct sense, the other is an idea.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It is an act of scientific honesty and generosity to accept the possibility of god. To do otherwise in the absence of definitive evidence would not be scientific.But don't confuse that with an ambiguity. The belief in god is just as unscientific as denying his possiblity.
No true scientist can attest to a belief in god. The one obviates the other.
SpeckledJim said:
It isn't falsifiable. However much we learn, the idea of god backs further into the gaps.
God is emphatically not a theory, in the scientific sense. 'theory' in the conversational sense is a synonym for 'idea'. That's not at all close to becoming a scientific theory, which is the best-fit explanation for what we know, with no provable contradiction.
Please be very precise in the way you use that word, because that's at the heart of a lot of the 'competing theory' confusion.
One is a scientific theory in the correct sense, the other is an idea.
Best fit theory for what we know,.with no provable contradiction? No provable contradiction YET! Many theories that we think as best-fit have no provable contradiction until they get provably contradicted!God is emphatically not a theory, in the scientific sense. 'theory' in the conversational sense is a synonym for 'idea'. That's not at all close to becoming a scientific theory, which is the best-fit explanation for what we know, with no provable contradiction.
Please be very precise in the way you use that word, because that's at the heart of a lot of the 'competing theory' confusion.
One is a scientific theory in the correct sense, the other is an idea.
SpeckledJim said:
It is an act of scientific honesty and generosity to accept the possibility of god. To do otherwise in the absence of definitive evidence would not be scientific.
But don't confuse that with an ambiguity. The belief in god is just as unscientific as denying his possiblity.
No true scientist can attest to a belief in god. The one obviates the other.
Agreed.But don't confuse that with an ambiguity. The belief in god is just as unscientific as denying his possiblity.
No true scientist can attest to a belief in god. The one obviates the other.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you believe in God as he/she/it is presented in the Christian Bible, or the divinity of Jesus, then I am 99.9999 to an almost infinite number of 9s percent certain that you are wrong. So I don't see it as a conflict of reasonableness to mock someone that insists that this belief is on a par with the current scientific theories for the origin and expansion of the universe.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yep - and?Scientific theories are only ever as good as the data which underpins them.
As more data is gathered, it either supports or contradicts the theory. If it contradicts, the theory revised or scrapped and a new theory formulated.
That is the strength of science - not a weakness.
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 24th January 14:47
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, exactly. The arrival of the provable contradiction kills the theory. It is demonstrably wrong, and so is dead. New theory required, embracing the new discovery, asap please.
"All swans are white". Perfectly valid, good, robust theory until we were first shown a black one.
"There is a god". Not a theory at all. Just an idea. Alongside "all gods are white" and "god is the sentient mustard in my fridge".
All possibly true, but none actual theory.
SpeckledJim said:
"There is a god". Not a theory at all. Just an idea. Alongside "all gods are white" and "god is the sentient mustard in my fridge".
All possibly true, but none actual theory.
Precisely - that is why we have to make the distinction between "theory" and "scientific theory".All possibly true, but none actual theory.
For example - I could claim that the universe was sneezed, fully formed, out of the nose of a giant rainbow coloured ocelot - and that all of the memories we have of the time before the great sneezing were simply implanted to give the illusion that we have been around much longer.
If we are going down the "it's possible" route - then my theory on the creation of the universe should be given as much credence as any other?
Moonhawk said:
Precisely - that is why we have to make the distinction between "theory" and "scientific theory".
For example - I could claim that the universe was sneezed, fully formed, out of the nose of a giant rainbow coloured ocelot - and that all of the memories we have of the time before the great sneezing were simply implanted to give the illusion that we have been around much longer.
If we are going down the "it's possible" route - then my theory on the creation of the universe should be given as much credence as any other?
Does your idea have support from billions of people on this planet? For example - I could claim that the universe was sneezed, fully formed, out of the nose of a giant rainbow coloured ocelot - and that all of the memories we have of the time before the great sneezing were simply implanted to give the illusion that we have been around much longer.
If we are going down the "it's possible" route - then my theory on the creation of the universe should be given as much credence as any other?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No - they have been conditioned not to - it's all part of the illusion 
Also - why does an idea have more credence just because a lot of people subscribe to it. Christianity may have a lot of followers now - but 1500-2000 years ago it didn't. Polytheism was all the rage back then. Did that make christianity less credible and were the polytheist views 'correct'?
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 24th January 15:38
Moonhawk said:
No - they have been conditioned not to - it's all part of the illusion
Also - why does an idea have more credence just because a lot of people subscribe to it. Christianity may have a lot of followers now - but 1500-2000 years ago it didn't. Polytheism was all the rage back then. Did that make christianity less credible and were the polytheist views 'correct'?
So what pursuaded people to become Christians, even through the times of the persecution of Christians?Also - why does an idea have more credence just because a lot of people subscribe to it. Christianity may have a lot of followers now - but 1500-2000 years ago it didn't. Polytheism was all the rage back then. Did that make christianity less credible and were the polytheist views 'correct'?
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 24th January 15:38
Do you think the rainbow snot ocelot has this same power?
WinstonWolf said:
Did the idea that the earth is flat have?
Just because you believe in something that doesn't make it fact.
No the idea of flat earth was not believed to have had the support of billions as the total world population in those times is estimated, by many sources, to have been less than 500 million.Just because you believe in something that doesn't make it fact.
HTH.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's a pretty embarrassing argument.Billions believe because they were told to believe when they were young by people whom they trusted. Which is almost certainly why you believe as well.
You learned your religion as you learned English, and you weren't given a choice in either.
PhillipM said:
Claudia Skies said:
- How come god hasn't moved on to communicating over the internet? Seems a bit of a slip-up for the all-powerful one to steer clear of something which would potentially be far more effective than relying on those old books.
Suggest you drop VK a PM to back off a bit so we can hear from the big guy himself!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff