How to discuss religion with believers?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

... many things in science have no proofs...

I'm not sure you know what that means. The only thing science cares about is evidence. In scientific terms, proof is a term used to reference evidence that supports a theory not that it is an absolute sum of all knowledge. In theism, proof means that the evidence supports an absolute as the sum of all knowledge. The theists definition of proof does not actually exist in science.

The nuance is important. Not only does it have a completely different meaning in science and religion, but how the word is used in scientific terms distinguishes actual science from junk science.

^This.  I think it was Asimov who defined 'proof' in relation to science as, 'Established to such a high degree of certainty that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse.'

Which means (to me, at least) that anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists are all perverts. 

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The best way to dissuade a Christian from his or her religion is to ask them about Koalas and how they came to Australia. Like: once the koala bear got off of the Ark, how did it get to Australia? Koala only eats eucalyptus leaves, and there’s no eucalyptus trees where the Ark allegedly landed. So how did the koala bear get to Australia?

That always "kills" them.

This is exactly what not to do to dissuade anybody.  Seriously, did you even think before you typed this?

"Hey man, you should turn away from your beliefs because of koalas in Australia. Somehow they got there and had to eat eucalyptus."

From savethekoala.com

"An adult koala eats between 200 to 500 grams of leaves each day. Koalas eat mainly eucalyptus leaves (gum leaves). Occasionally they will eat the leaves from some other native Australian trees, and they also use certain trees just for resting in."

Additionally, how the koala got there has nothing to do with its diet.  Plus, why would a "koala" had to have been on the ark?

---

, many things in science have no proofs

GC

Citation needed.  In science things aren't taken simply on somebody's word, unlike in religion.

The Royal Society's motto is Nullius in Verba for a reason.

This is untrue. Do you know what science is?  Do you know what the scientific method is?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Plus, why would a "koala" had to have been on the ark?"

You're right, Satan put them there.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

We hear you GC. My point is that I can reject all science and it still won't make magic man any more likely...
Which is the subject of religion... Not whether science has disproven pink unicorns ...Let's get to the crux of it.
IMO, the crux is that we are trying to mix oil and water. You can't. I can personally respect you as a person and for having those beliefs, but it is not the atheists who are uncomfortable with just having faith. Some theists need to take it further and PROVE that their particular sky fairy is the one true one.
But I'm still happy to smile and nod a lot ...That's just me.  

If you imply a fallcy to the question, then how can you except an answer that isn't fallacious.  What "sky fairy?"  If nobody claimed a "sky fairy", then where did you get the term from?  If you define something differently than what the other person defines it, then how can you expect them to explain whatever it is?  That's why in any good research, you must define the subject/variables you are discussing.  Even in a debate setting, typically one of the first things you'll see is the subject(s) of debate will be defined. Sometimes this is done by a moderator or the person making a positive claim about something who is actually debating.

---

"Plus, why would a "koala" had to have been on the ark?"

You're right, Satan put them there.

Again, another fallacy.  Once you start with the "Satan put them there", then you've indicated you are not ready for serious discussion because nobody is asserting it besides you.  It's self-defeating.

[Angrboda]

... many things in science have no proofs and thus by your own words must reject them as you have God ...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We hear you GC. My point is that I can reject all science and it still won't make magic man any more likely...
Which is the subject of religion... Not whether science has disproven pink unicorns ...Let's get to the crux of it.
IMO, the crux is that we are trying to mix oil and water. You can't. I can personally respect you as a person and for having those beliefs, but it is not the atheists who are uncomfortable with just having faith. Some theists need to take it further and PROVE that their particular sky fairy is the one true one.
But I'm still happy to smile and nod a lot ...That's just me.  

If you imply a fallcy to the question, then how can you except an answer that isn't fallacious.  What "sky fairy?"  If nobody claimed a "sky fairy", then where did you get the term from?  If you define something differently than what the other person defines it, then how can you expect them to explain whatever it is?  That's why in any good research, you must define the subject/variables you are discussing.  Even in a debate setting, typically one of the first things you'll see is the subject(s) of debate will be defined. Sometimes this is done by a moderator or the person making a positive claim about something who is actually debating.

---

"Plus, why would a "koala" had to have been on the ark?"

You're right, Satan put them there.

Again, another fallacy.  Once you start with the "Satan put them there", then you've indicated you are not ready for serious discussion because nobody is asserting it besides you.  It's self-defeating.

I'm not sure it's possible to have a 'serious discussion' about koalas on the ark, any more than it is possible to have one about the best way to catch a unicorn.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, another fallacy.  Once you start with the "Satan put them there", then you've indicated you are not ready for serious discussion because nobody is asserting it besides you.  It's self-defeating.

Yeah, dumbass, I knew that. I was mocking you.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Again, another fallacy.  Once you start with the "Satan put them there", then you've indicated you are not ready for serious discussion because nobody is asserting it besides you.  It's self-defeating.

Yeah, dumbass, I knew that. I was mocking you.  

Right, well you mock whoever you like. That's your choice and right to try to validate yourself in such a manner, but in terms of the OP it's irrelevant.

Maybe we can do a spinoff thread: "How to discuss science and logic with unbelievers?"

---

If you imply a fallcy to the question, then how can you except an answer that isn't fallacious.  What "sky fairy?"  If nobody claimed a "sky fairy", then where did you get the term from?  If you define something differently than what the other person defines it, then how can you expect them to explain whatever it is?  That's why in any good research, you must define the subject/variables you are discussing.  Even in a debate setting, typically one of the first things you'll see is the subject(s) of debate will be defined. Sometimes this is done by a moderator or the person making a positive claim about something who is actually debating.

---

Again, another fallacy.  Once you start with the "Satan put them there", then you've indicated you are not ready for serious discussion because nobody is asserting it besides you.  It's self-defeating.

I'm not sure it's possible to have a 'serious discussion' about koalas on the ark, any more than it is possible to have one about the best way to catch a unicorn.

Boru

No reason to have a discussion about koalas on the ark unless someone asserted such.  No reason to discuss catching unicorns unless someone defines what a unicorn is first.

Is it even possible to catch a unicorn?  Well yes, but it depends how "unicorn" is defined.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, dumbass, I knew that. I was mocking you.  

Right, well you mock whoever you like. That's your choice and right to try to validate yourself in such a manner, but in terms of the OP it's irrelevant.

Maybe we can do a spinoff thread: "How to discuss science and logic with unbelievers?"

I've got a better idea. How about, "How to discuss science and logic with twats like Max?" Oh wait. That would be calling out. My bad. Still, it would be a conversation worth having.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it even possible to catch a unicorn?  Well yes, but it depends how "unicorn" is defined.

Next up, the proper net mesh width for trapping fairies in flight and at rest, respectively.