RE: Our theists of all labels please answer....
April 24, 2017 at 4:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2017 at 4:22 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 24, 2017 at 4:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(April 24, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: But not all religions are making historical claims, are they? You're making a false equivalency between different kinds of claims.
Bullshit, we can prove Mecca to be a real place. Muslims would point to that REAL PLACE as evidence for the existence of Allah.
Buddhists will point to their writings and real people and real places and claim that Buddha is the start of human wisdom.
Jews do the same.
Your stuck in the idea that "fact" and "history" and "scientific fact" the word "fact" means the same thing equally in all context. That is where your logic is fucking up. That is why you either unwittingly or willingly refuse to understand the importance of NEUTRALITY when using science to determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Religion cannot be mixed with science if the scientist wants to be neutral and objective.
Some scientists try to escape that by claiming they are "Separate but equal".
That is simply bullshit they pull to compartmentalize to justify cherry picking the parts of science they agree with and run away from science when it points away from their claims.
The bottom line is the to are NOT compatible because scientific method is not a religion itself, it is a tool, a neutral tool and works regardless of any personal bias the person has.
Exactly.
No matter what religion scientists are, if they measure the speed of light, they will all get the same results. There is no Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc, speed of light.
On the other hand, all those different religions will have different answers to questions about their god, the soul, an afterlife, hell, etc.
Interesting that the thing that is completely unverifiable, leads to vastly different answers to the same questions. Funny that, huh.
Not to mention that those differing answers seem to be drastically influenced by geography, and the religion of one's parents.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
