Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Still not responding to your hypocrisy I see…
What have I said that is hypocritical? The example you gave does not fit the definition.
When are you going to respond to my post?
Oh, and that you can pick and choose science but you can’t do the same with religion. That’s just bollocks.
There is only one true religion. It transcends and brings together all other Religions.
Here I sit with Christians, Muslims, Hindus and a Buddhist paying homage to the great God karaoke.
Rory & Tiger are busy but Ryan Reynolds was here earlier allegedly Tokes and is a regular and yes there are pics of him on the venues’ FB page
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Science and the scientific method is.
-
Science isn’t definitive, it follows the evidence to a conclusion. But if new evidence becomes available then that can reshape thinking.
-
Religion is completely different, it claims to have the definative answer from the start as it is divine and unchanging. It attempts to shoe horn the evidence to fit its pre-defined answer no matter how badly it conflicts with the evidence.
Originally posted by @Matthew-Le-God
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Matthew-Le-God
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Still not responding to your hypocrisy I see…
What have I said that is hypocritical? The example you gave does not fit the definition.
When are you going to respond to my post?
Oh, and that you can pick and choose science but you can’t do the same with religion. That’s just bollocks.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Science is and the scientific method is.
Science isn’t definitive, it follows the evidence to a conclusion. But if new evidence becomes avaialbe then that can shape thinking.
Religion is completely different, it claims to have the definative answer from the start as it is divine and unchanging. It attempts to shoe horn the evidence to fit its pre-defined answer no matter how badly it conflicts with the evidience.
And as I said, that means you can’t prove religion doesn’t exist and science is the overriding proof as science isn’t definitive.
QED.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
And as I said, that means you can’t prove religion doesn’t exist and science is the overriding proof as science isn’t definitive.
QED.
Why on earth do you think anyone would claim religion doesn’t exist? Of course religion exists.
The burden of proof of the claims within a religion is on the claimant. It is for the religious to prove Jesus was the son God, walked on water, healed the sick etc etc. The burden of proof is not on the non beleiver to prove a negative.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A book is not good evidence of supernatural claims.
This is like talking to Baldrick or Father Dougal.
1 Like
This is so much fun.
So, what you’re saying is the following:
-
You have to prove beyond all doubt God exists for God to be believed.
-
Even though science can never be proved to be true, we must believe that above a God.
No, no hypocrisy here.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
This is so much fun.
So, what you’re saying is the following:
You have to prove beyond all doubt God exists for God to be believed.
Even though science can never be proved to be true, we must believe that above a God.
No, no hypocrisy here.
You don’t seem to understand these two concepts…
-
Extraordinary claims (virgin brirth, walking on walking, coming back from the dead etc etc) require extraordinary evidence. An old book on its own is not extraordinary evidence.
-
The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person who disbelieves the claim.
Science has never (like religions have) claimed to be infalible. It is however the most reliable system of understanding the universe mankind has had for real life application. It is testable in reality, something religion fails at time after time. No-one can provide any evidence of God manifesting in reality.
Originally posted by @Matthew-Le-God
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
This is so much fun.
So, what you’re saying is the following:
You have to prove beyond all doubt God exists for God to be believed.
Even though science can never be proved to be true, we must believe that above a God.
No, no hypocrisy here.
You don’t seem to understand these two concepts…
Extraordinary claims (virgin brirth, walking on walking, coming back from the dead etc etc) require extraordinary evidence. An old book on its own is not extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person who disbeleives the claim.
Science has never (like religions have) claimed to be infalible. It is however the most reliable system of understanding the universe mankind has had for real life application. It is testable in reality, something religion fails at time after time. No-one can provide any evidence of God manifesting in reality.
Oh I see, you want a video or photos of what happened in the Bible. Got it. I’d think you’ll be disappointed. To counter that, I want photos of dinosaurs. Otherwise I may just claim their bones were put there by our alien overlords.
I’m going to have to leave this conversation soon as I’ll be driving home, but I have to say you’ve been awfully good value today MLG, so thanks for being my entertainment.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Oh I see, you want a video or photos of what happened in the Bible. Got it.
I’m going to have to leave this conversation soon as I’ll be driving home, but I have to say you’ve been awfully good value today MLG, so thanks for being my entertainment.
You have an very low level of acceptable evidence if you think merely a book is an acceptable level of evidence for virgin births, walking on water, healing the sick etc.
I hope you are never called upon for jury duty!
If your level of acceptable evidence for supernatural things is a book, do I take by that you are willing to believe anything that happens in a book can be fact?
It’s not just book. The Lord has got songs, too.
1 Like
-
If I said I had a pet dog, that is not an extraordinary claim, it isn’t unreasonable to accept it as true without wanting extra evidence.
-
If I said I had an invisable pet dragon that only I can see, that is an extraordinary claim. It would be odd to accept that as true without some very good evidence. If the evidence I showed you was a book that said I had a pet invisable dragon, would you accept that as good evidence?
1 Like
Are you still not getting that I don’t believe these things, and have at no point said I do? I just don’t judge people for believing them if they wish to. Personally, I believe in science but doesn’t stop me considering other possibilities.
Anyway, ta for today, helped me through a down day at work…
Same time tomorrow? Tomorrow’s subject is aliens.
How can you say you’ve got an invisible pet dragon if you are criticising the Bible? Hypocrisy again.
1 Like
that dragon is not invisible. This is what an invisible dragon looks like:
5 Likes
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Special rates for sotonians
:
:
I have a t-shirt with this on and Le God 7 on the back!
1 Like
Hmm mm.
Think I can nail MLG. He disputes Walking on walking.
1 Like
You are gullible enough to fool for cold reading techniques.