(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(April 4, 2009 at 9:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Give me one reason why your God or ANY supernatural God is really any more valid (in terms of actually existing objectively in reality) than Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus?I like the way you put that. No, there is no single reason (in terms of actually existing objectively) my God is more valid. 100% correct. Spot on.
Which brings us right back to the question I asked in another thread, Is it therefore valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied?
(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Which is why anything more you say on the subject is immaterial. We both accept that bit. Let's move on.
Until that point is addressed there is, for the rationalist, no moving on because nothing you can say about your god matters ... IOW, if the answer to my question is yes, it's a pointless philosophical conversation dealing with things that debatably might be but most likely are not.
(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(April 5, 2009 at 4:17 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Religions (all religions) make implicit claims about the universe we live in, a claim (any claim) can be examined and evaluated for its merit or lack thereof ... the significant difference between religious claims and scientific ones is that the former are usually (always?) wrong.
Like I said in the statement you quoted, you're referring to literalist hogwash there. I don't accept that hogwash, so those claims don't apply to me. You can't therefore use them against me. Use them about Christianity as a very wide definition, sure. But doing that you could say almost anything. I don't think it's helpful. I'm trying to present logical reasoning to you for my beliefs. Not someone else's. I can't justify those any more than I could justify yours.
Again that is a dodge ... I am not being literalist here, I am saying that any claim advanced has no more right to be excepted from the usual means of evaluation than any other. Unless you can justify why that exception is so it is nothing more than special pleading.
(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I agree that religious claims in the area of science are wrong. I said so on this forum only yesterday. On this we agree.
Not really (and I'm not even sure I said that) ... what I think is wrong is any implication that realms claimed by religion are IN ANY WAY AT ALL not the domain of science.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
