Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 3, 2013 at 11:19am

If science wasn't correctable it wouldn't be science. It is hardly a shortcoming to be open to new information.

If you are saying that because science can only explain the things that have been investigated and supplied with plausible, testable and reproduceable results based on what is known at this point, that is the nature of the world. Sorry if you have higher expectations, that is inherent in the gap of knowledge that religion attempts to fill.

I guess I can understand, I was pretty suicidal when I found out Pluto wasn't a really a planet.

I am more interested in some examples of when the Bible hasn't failed you. I remember once when I was a kid I stood on a bible to reach something on a high shelf, and I guess it didn't fail me that day, but all the other times, specifically the times I actually opened it for use, its pretty much failed. A failure of biblical proportions you might say.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 3, 2013 at 11:42am

I was pretty suicidal when I found out Pluto wasn't a really a dog!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 3, 2013 at 1:10pm

Arch, don't even get me started on the Donald Duck no pants thing.

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 3, 2013 at 1:38pm

Not to mention the inconsistency of Pluto being a dog in canine form, while Goofy is a dog in human form, so I won't mention it.

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on January 8, 2013 at 7:55am

Are you trying to tell me there is no doG?

Permalink Reply by James Cox on January 4, 2013 at 1:00am

Is 20 years long enough to determine failure? What difference do atheists make to this evaluation?

Which came first 'absolute faith' or the determination of failure? Having 'absolute faith', is not the same as 'confidence'. Coming here to get 'absolute faith', seems like a rather foolish enterprise.

If you are trying to get an improvement in your degree of 'confidence' in your belief, this might also not be the place. We are not here for that process.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 2, 2013 at 8:48pm

Far more so than belief, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 2, 2013 at 9:01pm

David,

Do you count your change?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on January 2, 2013 at 9:09pm

I use oscilloscopes and logic analyzers to gather evidence about the performance of my electrical circuits. I'll tell my customers the data is merely temporal and subjective. Save me a lot of trouble, "just have faith" I'll tell them !

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Henson on January 3, 2013 at 12:14am

Marc,

No.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 3, 2013 at 7:58am

So you're saying you give someone a hundred bucks for an item and take it on faith that you got the correct change?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 2, 2013 at 9:05pm

What's realistic about an inclination toward religion (you're a Jehovah's Witness, right?)?

Science is a method, not a body of knowledge. Religion is a body of dogma. The difference between science and religion is probably what you view as it's primary flaw: it's changeable whereas you prefer something solid and unchanging, even if it isn't true.

The difference between religion and science is science's capacity to correct itself. The inability to do so is why religion is worthless.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page