(March 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:What I'm saying is that there can be things that are impossible to discover by the scientific method.

Allegedly.

Of course those things which science can't help you with tend to be things like your personal taste or the meaning of a poem. So long as the alleged existence of gods is on that level, I see no reason to begrudge theists their beliefs or to argue that those can't coexist with science. But if God is envisioned as an entity or substance or a force capable of affecting physical objects -including the consciousness produced by physical brains- then claims like that require evidence to be taken seriously.

(March 29, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Lek Wrote: Court cases are often determined not by scientific investigtion, but the testimony of reliable witnesses.

We have perjury laws for a reason, you know. And what causes those perjury laws to be engaged?

Oh, what's that? Evidence? That can be scientifically investigated in order to demonstrated the factual or non-factual basis of the testimony? You know, the method by which we determine that the witness is reliable?

You're getting it totally backwards, dude.

(March 29, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Lek Wrote:

(March 29, 2014 at 1:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I see the conflict in applying the scientifc method to everything but the existence of god. I'm not saying it impairs anyone's ability to understand science. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, it appears impossible to conclude god exists if you truly value the scientific method.

If the scientific method is your only way of determining anything, you probably won't conclude that God exists. The problem is that you're boxing yourself in, setting arbitrary boundaries, and limiting your ability to perceive. You're saying that if science can't prove it, then it's not possible.

No. It would be closer to say that if science can't prove it they don't believe it. There is a world of difference between not believing something and that thing not being possible. It's possible that you're Cameron Diaz. However I don't believe you are.

[/quote]

No. It would be closer to say that if science can't prove it they don't believe it. There is a world of difference between not believing something and that thing not being possible. It's possible that you're Cameron Diaz. However I don't believe you are.

[/quote]

100,000 witnesses haven't testified to that.

Quote: I see no reason to begrudge theists their beliefs or to argue that those can't coexist with science.

I don't like to give them an inch.

No. It would be closer to say that if science can't prove it they don't believe it. There is a world of difference between not believing something and that thing not being possible. It's possible that you're Cameron Diaz. However I don't believe you are.

[/quote]

100,000 witnesses haven't testified to that.
[/quote]

And what DID 100,000 witnesses testify too?

100,000 witnesses did not testify to anything in the bible. At best a handful of guys reported that 100,000 people testified to something.

Big difference. I can show you people on the internet who claim tens of thousands of positive results for their miracle cures. Don't make it so.

NOPE

Yes.

asshole athiest have trouble being normal with asshole theist.

science is a process. Religion is a process.

people screw the pooch. but your average IQ'er wouldnt understand.

There is also the abhorrence of science encroaching on religions territory. A clear boundary needs to be set by both camps, for each to represent themselves accurately.

(March 29, 2014 at 8:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There is also the abhorrence of science encroaching on religions territory. A clear boundary needs to be set by both camps, for each to represent themselves accurately.

What, you mean suppressing any and all scientific findings that might call your beliefs into question? No thanks, dark ages is already over.