Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[dom.donald]

That doesn't change anything though. It ends with an extremely tentative suggestion that within certain clumps (clades), the timing of the branching may be so compressed, as to render any meaningful resolution into a clear lineage impossible. It seems like that, in the detail, the whole system (based on this dataset and this particular method of analysis) may not resolve into a straightforward tree. But life is incredibly complex, so why would we expect there to be a totally elegant solution that works in every detail, at every level? It's the same in physics. So, further work may be required in this field, but scientists know this anyway. Micro adjustments, not wholesale gaps in a solid theory that is based on mountains and mountains of empirical evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

[Veritas_Vincit]

Absense of evidence IS evidence of absence if we do not find the evidence we should expect where we should expect to find it. It isn't Confirmation of absence, but it's can fairly be considered evidence.

[robvalue]

I totally agree.

No dead bodies and smashed up buildings? Godzilla almost certainly didn't just walk down my street.

The religious can't admit we won the argument, because it would mean admitting their beliefs are unfounded. So they have to be ready to admit that as well.

I got a rare insight on that today, actually. For those of you who view the forum at large, you'll know I was at a really low point yesterday. Suicidal. Now, I knew full well "my depression" was lying to me. It was telling me all sorts of shit about myself and other people, which I knew were flatly contradicted by the available evidence. I knew, on some level, these things weren't true. But I believed them anyway. The emotional grip my depression puts me in makes it almost impossible not to believe what it says.

I don't expect this is exactly the same as with religion, but I feel it gave me some sort of empathy.

PS: I'd respect a theist who said, "I agree with you now, this argument is invalid. However I still believe the conclusion is true, because... "

Instead it's like hoping we don't notice when they do a merry go round of hundreds of lame arguments and then back to the first one.

[Redbeard The Pink]

[robvalue]

Who cares if a book happens to have some accurate things in it? All it shows is it is slightly less fictional than previously thought. It doesn't make all the other extraordinary claims suddenly true.

I think I have the benefit of an unemotional and uninvolved perspective on matters of religion, science and history. I don't hang any of my identity or fundamental world views on the "truth" of anything in particular. Christianity is true? Don't care. Theory of evolution is false? Don't care. We were actually designed by aliens? Don't care. All I'd have is scientific curiosity, in any of these cases.

[vorlon13]