GirlChat #602889

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: The problem with you...

Posted by Dante on Thursday, September 25 2014 at 07:13:46AM
In reply to Re: The problem with you... posted by Markaba on Thursday, September 25 2014 at 01:12:08AM

"Why? Because religion by its very nature is actively destructive to science, and it uses doctrine to defy and science."

Its not, and most believers know it.

Only certain readings of religion feel threatened.

Most religions have a legalistic aspect and a mystical aspect. In some ( like many branches of Buddhism ) the mystical aspect is stronger than the legalistic aspect.

For the most part, those attempting religious jurisprudence run afoul of secular laws ( particularly laws governing morality ) and pay little heed to science as a competitor.

It takes a strange confluence of history to link the questions about metaphysical cosmology to questions about moral legislation in such a way that encouraging the teaching of the heliocentric solar system can be seen as encouraging fornication.

That confluence happened in the West. But the West didn't happen elsewhere.

It isn't even all Xtianity either; the Greeks love them their mystical readings over literalistic ones.

While scientists are more likely than the general public to be nonbelievers; its is still a fact that more than half of them are believers themselves.

You should really spend more time with science-literate believers. Its an eye-opener.

" I would just side with the best debaters in any given scenario, which would be you and Dante at GC."

If you think I'm engaged in debate you are so far off from the truth its hard to know where to begin.

Perhaps here I can best explain by dragging the topic back to Atheism.

* ahem *

Is there any value in debating Creationists?

No.

Some may claim value to them. But there is no value for me.

Why?

Because debates are won by persuading either the party you're talking to, or the majority of listeners. Debates reduce the truth and facts to a numbers game; the thresholds vary for how many converts count. But in debate the argument that failed to win enough converts lacks merit.

I don't believe that science is an opinion poll.

I can see from both your tendency to argumentum ad populum and your tendency towards the Galileo Fallacy that whether the numbers are with you or against you matters very much to you. And you seem to assume that it matters to everyone else too. You assume wrong.

Dante

Dante





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?