Christianity; The World's most vile religion

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Belacqua

Because unfortunately what scientists tell us many times turns out to be wrong. 

There's nothing unfortunate about this. One of the chief differences between science and religion is that science, by its very nature, is inherently self-correcting. The whole point of science is finding out what is wrong in order to determine what is right.

'You're no better at mouse-killing than you are at, well, anything else around here.' - Paul Edgecomb

Boru

[Deesse23]

Because unfortunately what scientists tell us many times turns out to be wrong. 

..and not once, ever did anyone have to say "huh, look at this: The preacher was right and the scientist was wrong. Heres why: *opens up holy book*". No, when one scientist was wrong, it was another scientists who showed what is correct.

Your lies and strawmen are really boring. Its always the same routine. You are a one-trick pony.

So how is a person a set of principles. Please elaborate.

[Angrboda]

Ultimately do you care more about the belief (religion), or more about whether that belief is true (science).

So it's not wise to assume that something is true because it's science. As you know, the proper method in science demands that we make no such assumption.

Sigh, I did not assume, nor do I assume, any such thing, another straw man. 

The meaning of your original expression, "whether that belief is true (science)," is a bit opaque. Could you please unpack that for us?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Because unfortunately what scientists tell us many times turns out to be wrong. 

1. Science is self correcting religion is immune from correction.

2. Science follows the evidence while religion already assumes it's answers are all correct.

3. Science tentative language never calls it's statements truth and acknowledges everything is up for revision when new evidence comes fourth.

4. Pointing to instances were the scientific community got something wrong as proof that all science is unreliable or dishonest or that god magic is a valid alternative is absurd .

None of these are a failing of science they are a strength.

[Sheldon]

Sigh, I did not assume, nor do I assume, any such thing, another straw man. 

The meaning of your original expression, "whether that belief is true (science)," is a bit opaque.  Could you please unpack that for us?

Well just as the dictionary defines it really, "in accordance with fact or reality." I realise when we claim to "know" something, people often have a different threshold and perception of knowledge, but in the scientific context, knowledge makes the best attempt to reflect objective reality. The problem is that there is often a misconception that a fact is somehow immutable, but it is possible to know something is true, and later find out you're wrong, however with the scientific method, this has proven to very seldom be the case, and as others have pointed out, science is also self correcting, unlike the subjective clams of religions.  

Scientific methodology is not infallible, but then no human method can be so, since we are fallible. What it is though, is the most reliable method(s) we have for understanding reality, and of course this is never more clear than when we compare it to the subjective and unevidenced claims of religions. 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It’s both interesting and to the point that when scientists get something wrong, it’s always scientists who spot it.

Boru

[Sheldon]

Empirical research didn't start with Christians, and didn't end with them. 

As if it doesn't need their unevidenced superstition at all.