RE: pop morality
March 23, 2016 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2016 at 4:40 pm by FebruaryOfReason.)
(March 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Drich Wrote: ...douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact...
Oops.
Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy
(March 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.
"Belief" in science doesn't require an expenditure of faith like "belief" in religion does.
Belief in the context you are referring to simply involves an expenditure of energy to test a hypothesis.
If a hypothesis proves inconsistent with a critical assessment of the evidence, we scrap the hypothesis.
One of the main differences between science and religion is that we don't have to carry on believing in the face of contradictory evidence, whereas you do.
I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty.