Ah, the old "what if?" argument, progressing from kindergarten to middle school. What if a giant, blazing comet hits the earth? What if the sun explodes?stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmAlso, the science of judging religion has a bias...and missing data. This because it avoids relativity. We don't know what the religious nut would be doing without his delusion and without the distraction of church. What if he's on such shaky ground that religion is all that keeps him from mass murder.
Given that almost all murders and wars have been committed by people with 100% faith in god/s, that's a risk I'd cheerfully take. If people realised this is our only shot at life they might be less likely to throw it away in pursuit of someone else's religious goal.
(Should I point out you're directly contradicting yourself calling it the "science of judging religion? Nah)
Nothing to do with science.
At the lowest possible level, sure.
Back to kindergarten, sorry.
There's nothing magical about reality. It actually exists, and zero examples of magic have been discovered thus far, all the way down to sub-atomic particles, quarks and double-slit experiments. The fact that we don't yet have a perfect explanation for some phenomena is not a cause to open a "god of the gaps" argument.
Unless you truly are in kindergarten, and they say people regress, so it might even be the case.
None of it came "fom woo" btw.
Definitely kindergarten, but it's nice to finally get to the nub of your problem.
Why the fuck would I feel lost when logic and evidence gives me a answer I don't like? That's toddler-level childish. reality is what it is and there is no like or dislike about it.
stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmLeaves one stranded when entering the unknown. Rational? Defend logic by rejecting the existence of the unknown. It's a tool for navigation, but only within self-imposed limits.[/
There's nothing unscientific about belief in Gods, but there is something unscientific in claiming that one knows there is no God. They don't.
My horse in the race is not about god, which is what TA and sparky assume. It's about science. That's what i'm defending. Science isn't anti-religion. It has nothing to say about God. Believing that science is anti-religion is, oddly enough, religious thinking. And that is critical thinking.