Atheism

[fr0d0]

So you agree with me? This isn't clear.

I agree to an extent, though my full feeling is that if religion wants to claim to be outside the scope of science then it should be complete, therefore religion should never reference (positively or negatively) science.

I agree with that too.

I accept that Stem Cell research may raise moral questions for some and therefore the religious are entitles to voice their opinions which is only right and fair.

My main argument here is that the church and large numbers of religious people (not necessarily yourself) do claim the right to reference science whenever it suits them and have restrained it at time. While I appreciate they may not represent your views Fr0d0 I see them as the main representative body and therefore their actions must be considered within any discussion on the subject.

True. I hold that they are in error and their reasoning inconsistent.

I'm sorry if you don't feel I'm not genuine in my aims ... may I ask what gives you that impression?

I guess I'm a little paranoid over the similar circumstances. If I am wrong I apologise. Both times you've seemed genuine.

I said that proving the existence of a super-natural realm would generate the plausibility your God would require to be justifiable, not that anything 'outside the natural universe' is by default God.

I felt you were dismissive in that; without any justification you said 'There would never enter into the contemplation of God/the supernatural even though I had made my reasoning clear.

OK sorry that I misunderstood. I can't see how it would be possible, even theoretically, to prove the existence of a supernatural realm. That would be like saying we proved the existence of something that couldn't exist.. a contradiction. Not something can never be something. God simply isn't a 'thing'. Shame you didn't discuss this with Jon Paul or Arcanus.. both would give you answers far more satisfying than I am able I think. With me it's like pulling teeth - with them there's clear logic