I'll paraphrase here, for the benefit of those who haven't caught on yet to the little game that Leslie's playing:
"Because science cannot answer in detail every single question that could possibly ever be asked about how the universe was formed or how it functions, it follows that trust in science is no more defensible as being evidence-based or rational than is trust in a religious faith."

Can't fault you for trying Les, but still very wide of the mark.

 

I wonder if you can indicate the so called "tortuous or ambiguous language" that I have used to "cloud the debate."

That is the last thing I would do since I find that getting into the depths of semantics is a waste of time in a discussion.

Atheists will use the word "faith" as an excuse to undermine those who have religious beliefs. I was indicating that the word can be used in the same sense when it comes to "pro scientists" and their beliefs. You may not wish to accept this in case it weakens your own argument.

You might even notice in a previous post that I indicated that I do not disbelieve the scientific evidence but the theories have not been proved. I do however prefer to see fair play rather than offensive criticism.

Les

 

Leslie, #512
In the interest of brevity, I'll refer you to my #511 for an answer to that.

 

On the contrary, you are very wide of the mark yourself. You are accusing me of behaviour which is patently untrue.

Les

 

*pops on bobble hat and dips rich tea buscuit in a nice cup of tea*

"feeling the glory"

 

*Kicks DCI on the shin*

 

Who created God?

 

He was just there.....................apparantly

 

Nope, not in the slightest. Taking your most recent example:

Your statement might have been accurate to some extent, if it had read instead "when it comes to "pro scientists" and the small number of theories which they currently accept as being the most plausible, but which invariably deal with fields that are by far the hardest (and in most if not all cases with current technology, impossible) to subject to experimental testing".

The fact is though you used the completely unqualified 'their beliefs', at a stroke conflating all of the vast body of scientific knowledge which can and has been subjected to experimental testing, with those fringe questions such as what happened before the Big Bang and so on, and consequently casting the same shadow of uncertainty over both. So, is it mere oversight on your part or unfortunate coincidence that you've not once taken the time to point out that so far as religious faith is concerned, the entirety of what's believed in has to be accepted as simply being plausible, and is incapable of being subjected to experimental testing, rather than just the odd marginal aspect of it belonging in that category as is the case with science? Or are you doing exactly as I claimed - highlighting out of all proportion the fact that there are still a few questions about the universe that science hasn't yet been able to answer, in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that religious faith is incapable of answering with certainty a single question about it?

 

From a scientific stand point, I neither believe or disbelieve in the Big Bang theory nor do I have a "faith" in science to come up with the answer and perhaps there never will be an answer. Our current study and understanding of the universe seems to support the big bang theory, but at the end of the day, it is what it is, a theory that has yet to be proven. We can only theorise within the "laws of nature" that we can observe. Perhaps there is more to space time and quantum physics, perhaps there never was a point of creation, just infinite existance.

Religion conveniently fills the holes that science cannot explain.

 

The clue's in the title, Leslie!

 

The dinosaurs, 4000 years ago - last thing they did before committing mass suicide

 

I have changed five words in that paragraph, can you see how it completely lacks intellectual acuity? Batman is no less of a fake than his god?

 

Adam West is Batman - the rest are fakes

 

Well the best THEORY says we are in a long line of bangs and crunches. However due to the difficulties in proving this there are no answers as I'm sure you are well aware.

Now if i had said I have faith that it is so would that be a better answer or even make it more plausable?

 

I love it when people with sufficient prosiac dexterity metaphorically rip people to shreds.

Mark and Warren, you're battling against people for whom faith obscures rational thought, either partially or completely. In simple terms, they haven't got the cognitive ability to refute your arguments, therefore sidestep them under a guise of "misunderstanding".

You could be here all week. All year in fact. And even if Big Bang is finally proved, there will still be billions of humans hanging onto the faith bandwagon. Humans, you gotta love them.

 

There wasn't any space until the singularity expanded. I know that's an impossible thing for the human brain to imagine, but on current evidence, that seems to have been the case. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you.

 

Yeah I know, but sometimes I find I can't let the drivel pass me by.... its a bit like watching early Neighbours, the whole car-crashness of it is strangely compelling

 

Agreed

 

I think it is somewhat disingenuous to write off science in such a flippant manner.
We, as "brains in a jar" need some kind of belief system to comprehend our meaningless existence.
If it is considered arrogant to assume that the human mind is complex enough to understand the workings of the universe, what right do theists have to persuade us this is not so?

 

My own belief is that religion was invented to give the small minded a reason to behave, but science can't prove that in any way. If you go back a few hundred years, 'rational thought' told everyone the Earth was flat, and those who thought it wasn't were branded lunatics, so I wouldn't use rational thought as an argument for anything unless you still believe that the Earht is flat. (I have pictures to prove it, but I didn't take them myself, so they may have been staged)p.s. - WTF does sufficient prosiac dexterity actually mean. I think you stuck a couple of big words together in the hope of sounding as clever as Bubba. sufficient prosiac dexterity - enough dull fine motor skill of the hands or fingers?p.p.s - Hi Tel

 

Just found this and thought it was rather appropriate. so which religion is for you?

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientis...rmine_what.php

 

Not sure i follow your point. Who's writing off science? Flippantly or otherwise? Not me!

Who are you speaking for when referring to "we"? I'm a brain in a jar who doesn't need any sort of belief system, possibly because i think our collective existence is, to use your word, ultimately meaningless. If somebody shows me that there is greater reason other than that we've just been hugely fortunate as humans to be on the right planet at the right time etc, then i'll listen. Until then, i don't need a crutch on which to rest, or "religion" as i believe it's called.

 

ello Fast Bloke.

In Oirish i think it translates as "a way wit words, to be sure".

And hey, Bubba still thinks peoples' is a valid word so i don't want to be as "clever" as that..!!

 

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u.../DieThread.jpg

TX.

 

@ Telboy

The Anthropic Principle goes further still and takes the fluffy 'wow, aren't we lucky to be here' notion out of the equation. This principle is supported In Hawkin's latest offering, The Grand Design. Your nihilistic world view will be well and truly entrenched after a read, I'm sure. Hope you're well.

 

I'm well, thank you!

I never began my "notion" with a wow. I'm not wow about anything regarding my existence. Teeny tiny planet in the right place in a Universe the size of which no human can properly understand. End of story for me till somebody proves otherwise. No wow. That's just the facts as we know them, nothing more nothing less.

 

I would have thought that my way of thinking would have been clear by now.

I have not denied the possibility that the scientific theories may eventually be proved correct and that science could just find the answer that no one can yet prove. It is a waste of time to try to lay that one on me.

Neither have I attempted to convince the atheists that they are wrong in their beliefs and that they should throw it all in the air and immediately believe in a God of some kind.

I have said often enough that I really don't care what anyone else's beliefs are, I have only ever said that we should follow what our consciences tell us and no one can deny that is the honest way to go.

What I do say is that either way could be right and one day we might actually have that answer. Neither path can be proved or disproved.

I do have my own beliefs of course and I am not disposed to reveal what they are since that is my own business. It is a mistake to make an assumption about that I can assure you.

The points I have always made is that religious arguments are a complete waste of time for obvious reasons, and I will never be dragged into that! What I have always said however is that the use of offensive language and insults towards someone who believes differently to oneself is immature to the point of being childish and proves nothing except a lack of an argument or even confidence on the part of the person concerned. We all have the right to believe what we feel is right and should have the good manners and common decency to respect another person's right to his own point of view.

Les

 

Ah, now, to be sure, do you mean they have been having relations with the Blarney Stone, to be sure to be sure?btw - Peoples' is the correct way to define something which belongs to several groups of people, while people's is the correct way to define something which belongs to several people as a singular group. So this god the fanatics are discussing. It is the same god for several religions, making him "the peoples' god." When you get to Alex Higgins, he had a single group of surporters, so he would be "the people's champion" See - I knew Bubba was clever

 

The million-dollar question here Les is which is the most likely to be proved right? You seem intent on drumming home the message that as things stand, no-one could get a cigarette paper between the two on probability, but from where I'm standing I don't see how anyone who's actually taken the trouble to think about it longer than five minutes could come to that conclusion. Now, if you really haven't thought or don't want to think about it any longer than that, fair enough, that's your prerogative, just say you've got no real interest in the subject and walk away. The problem is though, that's not at all the impression you give. In post after post in this thread, you've come across as just wanting to close down the debate on that probability, rather than contributing anything very constructive on either side of it.

With you all the way on that, although I still think you have to be careful not to give people too much leeway to claim being offended over basically nothing. If someone enters freely into a debate on a subject in a public forum, then they should be prepared for the fact that their views might be vigorously challenged at times. The fact the debate might touch on their deeply-held religious beliefs doesn't in any way give them a pass to be treated with kid-gloves, if no-one's forced them to be there participating in it in the first place.