Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Unless you take that as double-sarcasm, which is not beyond the author, I believe.

[Siquo]

malimbar, shall I let Descartes continue? (That's a theist joke)

Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.

[Il Palazzo]

But the religion claims to know the ultimate truth, so how can it change it's mind when faced with inconvenient developments?
Science claims that it's trying to find the truths, so changing it's mind to fit new developments is not only allowed, but necessary.

[FuzzyZergling]

But the religion claims to know the ultimate truth, so how can it change it's mind when faced with inconvenient developments?
Science claims that it's trying to find the truths, so changing it's mind to fit new developments is not only allowed, but necessary.

Exactly, I couldn't have put it better in any way.

[Bauglir]

Religion changing its mind is only evasive when it accuses science of being inconsistent because theories change. And then I only choose that word because of the blatant hypocrisy. Generally I find that a religion willing to change its mind to adapt to evolving conditions is much better than a religion that insists on its infallibility in the face of mountains of evidence.

[Ephemeriis]

Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.

Science is a process, not a book.  It makes no claims about absolute truth.  Science is about testing theories and refining them until they stop breaking.  And then finding new ways to break them.

No scientific text is ever going to claim to be 100% infallible.  No scientific text is ever going to claim that you'll be condemned to an eternity of damnation if you have the temerity to question its contents.

Religion, on the other hand, claims absolute truth.  You've got various religious texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago that claim they're 100% right.  And you'll suffer horribly if you question them.  And you've got folks alive today who claim that hundreds if not thousands of real, repeatable, observable tests are wrong - because a dusty old religious book says so.

[Sinned]

But the religion claims to know the ultimate truth, so how can it change it's mind when faced with inconvenient developments?
Science claims that it's trying to find the truths, so changing it's mind to fit new developments is not only allowed, but necessary.

Well put.

Science changes it's mind when theories are proven, not when (generalizing here ) an old man goes... "What god meant to say here!!!!  <fill in new interpreted passage from holy book>" for whatever reason fits his or "sects" agenda.

[Siquo]

See? And even the Roman Catholic Church has changed its mind a few times about for instance the shape and movement of the earth in the face of overwhelming evidence. And still it's regarded as a bad thing.

[Il Palazzo]

Because if it's no longer a reliable provider of Ultimate Truth^TM, then what's it's selling point?

[fqllve]

See? And even the Roman Catholic Church has changed its mind a few times about for instance the shape and movement of the earth in the face of overwhelming evidence. And still it's regarded as a bad thing.

Well duh, because religion is a Bad Ting and therefore everything it does is bad, even if it's good.

[Andir]

See? And even the Roman Catholic Church has changed its mind a few times about for instance the shape and movement of the earth in the face of overwhelming evidence. And still it's regarded as a bad thing.

But they keep putting out the same book!

I think it's time for a new revised version without all the stuff that has been changed taken out.  It will save cost (and trees) as well, considering it will now be about 50 pages.

[Dasleah]

the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug asshole

[Siquo]

Because if it's no longer a reliable provider of Ultimate Truth^TM, then what's it's selling point?

Hmm. I think "answers you can believe in".
If the (details of the) answers become unbelievable, they need adjustment. That's what science does. And science has a lot of things, but never answers (unless misinterpreted), and people look for answers, hence the need for religion.

the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug asshole

Or genuine.

[malimbar04]

malimbar, shall I let Descartes continue? (That's a theist joke)

Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.

So that's who the brain in the jar guy was. So am I Discartes here, or am I his opponent?

The more I think about it and read about it and talk about it, the more I'm convinced that we could actually prove that god doesn't exist. Well, maybe not EVERY god, but certainly all of the gods that have any effect on the world in any way. I still can't prove that a lazy, powerless, and dumb god doesn't exists, as long as it doesn't claim to create the universe or meddle in human affairs.

Though, maybe strangely, I think it's a good things religions evolve. Ideally I'd want religion to turn into a sam-harris-like construct, doing some of the same things but attributing the experiences to something naturalistic.

[Leafsnail]

Ugh jeez, Subnormality.  Guy needs to just write essays or something.

Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships.  None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.

I'm no expert, but isn't that meant to be ironic?  On an LCS kindof level.

the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug asshole

Intentionally or not, this is the most beautiful post I have ever seen.