+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 423
  1. #221
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,554
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    Quote Originally Posted by Hirokei Kiaza View Post
    What was your methodology in coming to this conclusion?
    Still waiting on bro in law so decided to start....

    The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

    The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

    Humanity is approximately approaching 200 thousand years old. This has changed more than the other two figures over the years, as we discover older fossils than previously known.

    Descent with modification has taken a long time to make us what we are today. We share DNA with all living creatures on the planet, most closely with chimps, but we actually share DNA with trees.

    The amount of time that we as human beings have existed is such a tiny minute fragment of time the rest of the universe has existed.

    All of the things we learn about ourselves, our world, and our universe don't seem to point at any kind of special importance for human beings. We are living on an average planet in an average corner of a galaxy in an average of the universe. We cannot even see all of the universe, and we can only theorize beyond that what may be out there.

    Thinking about these things and then acknowledging the central position that religions make on humans being the most important things in the universe, doesn't it seem a silly long drawn out method of creating something in such a way that it appears to follow physical laws as we slowly approach a totally secular understanding of the reality of our beginnings? There is the idea some propose that the universe and humans show evidence of design. First off... when I get back I will try to post some good information on some of the really poor design decisions evidenced in human beings and in animals.

    Additionally, and I will admit I am ripping off Dawkins here, but once I heard this argument it has been impossible for me to forget it.
    If the universe requires a creator because it is so apparently complex, then doesn't that imply a more complex being that created it all? Does this not imply then an infinite regression of superior gods? Why not skip the bullshit, and take the totally unneccessary god out of the equation? The watchmaker and intelligent design arguments really destroy themselves (yeah they are the same thing I know.)

    The story of reality is much more elegant and truly exciting, to me even more so when you take the unneccessary and unneeded god out of the equation.

    This is without even touching on the concepts of whether god is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. There are so many contradictions within those claims that I feel silly even mentioning them, in my amazement that people can seriously make those claims.

  2. #222
    Burninate all the things.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,409
    BG Level
    7

    Yar. We are only physically capable of seeing less than 1/3 of the existing Universe. Over time, we'll be able to see less and less of it. Eventually, we won't see anything outside our own galaxy. Sad face.

  3. #223
    Bagel
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,386
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
    Science is about learning new things. How can you keep learning new things if you summarily dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your worldview? Science is about keeping your mind open to possibilities, and exploring them whenever you're given the opportunity, not sitting around and trying to reaffirm what you already know.
    Rationally refuting nonsensical claims without requiring recourse to empirical methodology!=dismissing what doesn't fit your worldview.
    Come on, Mr Scientist, you shouldn't need to be told that; let alone twice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian
    It would be pretty cool if the Earth's core was porridge. You're the one making that claim, though. Why do you believe that?
    Because it is! It has been divinely revealed to my sister-in-law's poodle who, after aligning his chakkra with the transiant of Jupiter by 777, barked up the right answer at the wrong tree.
    Come autumn, we smoked the leaves through the sacred hookah and the truth was known to us: PORRIDGE!

  4. #224
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,554
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
    Yar. We are only physically capable of seeing less than 1/3 of the existing Universe. Over time, we'll be able to see less and less of it. Eventually, we won't see anything outside our own galaxy. Sad face.
    I think we are fortunate to have developed this far, in time to see what we can, and hopeful that there will be new technologys that allow us to see further yet.

    The thing is that in this regard, I am very clear on our limitations in actual travel to far away stars, and realize it would take some pretty amazing game changing breakthrough in tech that is not likely to allow it. It is possible that radio telescope tech and any theoretical future tech has similar limitations that I am not personally well versed on.

  5. #225
    St. Fiat
    THE TIME FOR QUESTIONS
    HAS PASSED

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,808
    BG Level
    7

    Quote Originally Posted by Jefe View Post
    Science finds objective interpretation of observable phenomena; hence, religion, supernatural, metaphysical, and unexplained phenomena are beyond the scientific realm.
    You lump all those things together as if they are synonymous.

    But religion claims to be able to explain those things. Just because something cannot currently be explained by science does not automatically make it supernatural. Essentially what you're saying is "This thing is unexplainable, therefore I can explain it."

    What was your methodology in coming to this conclusion?
    Some of it touched on already. Here's more.

    99.9% of every species that has ever existed is extinct.

    The "design" of human beings is incredibly sloppy, and supports the "layer by layer" process of evolution rather than a maker.

    Hitchens was fond of this point: For the 200,000 years or so humans have been around, they've lived in fear, death, warfare...nasty, brutish, ugly, bitter little lives that ended in 20-25 years, usually from their teeth or appendix, poorly evolved as they are. Worshiping pagan gods, and going to hell for it without ever knowing the "truth". If you are a christian, you are required to believe that for 198,000 years, heaven watched all this with complete indifference. And then, 2000 years ago or so decided, oh boy, time to intervene. The best way to do this will be to have a human sacrifice in primitive palestine. We won't appear to the Chinese, who can already read and write. This is a great plan.

    There is no evidence that prayer has any effect on the outcome of events. Believers of any religion are just as affected by war, disease, natural disaster, etc, as any other group.

    An omniscient being supposedly begat Jesus, yet never in any of his preaching did he bother to mention to his flock to wash their hands before eating, and to shit away from their water supplies. Think of all the people he could have saved that way--the millions that died of the black death alone.

    etc etc ad infinitum.

  6. #226
    Burninate all the things.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,409
    BG Level
    7

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashmada View Post
    Rationally refuting nonsensical claims without requiring recourse to empirical methodology!=dismissing what doesn't fit your worldview.
    Come on, Mr Scientist, you shouldn't need to be told that; let alone twice.

    Because it is! It has been divinely revealed to my sister-in-law's poodle who, after aligning his chakkra with the transiant of Jupiter by 777, barked up the right answer at the wrong tree.
    Come autumn, we smoked the leaves through the sacred hookah and the truth was known to us: PORRIDGE!
    Maybe you're confusing where the opus lies. You're the one whose methodology needs to be solid in order to provide validity to your claims. It's not my job to disprove anything. As cool as it might be if the Earth's core was made of porridge, your methodology is anything but sound.

  7. #227
    Spiders are Awesome
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,216
    BG Level
    8

    Straw men all over the place.

    One doesn't dismiss astrology because "hurr I think it's stupid", but because there's no evidence that it works, no mechanism by which it even could work, and no logical explanation of how astrologers arrived at their conclusions. There's no need to waste time investigating a claim put forth without evidence. A scientific worldview means examining evidence and then drawing (tentative) conclusions from said evidence. A religious worldview means starting off with dogma and looking for ways to shoehorn evidence into supporting said dogma. The limitation of science is that it can only be used to investigate things that actually exist. For everything else, there's philosophy.

    I don't know any atheists who go around shoving their non-belief in peoples' faces, or even initiating discussions on it outside of the internet. I'm sure some exist, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not they're correct, just as the WBC is irrelevant to whether Christianity is correct. If you go around making assertions, then you have no room to complain when others debunk them. There are plenty of fucktarded atheists (Bill Maher, for one) who are just mad at their parents or using some other illogical method to come to the conclusion. So? People also guess on exam questions and sometimes get the right answer.


  8. #228
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,953
    BG Level
    6
    FFXIV Character
    Audrey Weaver
    FFXIV Server
    Behemoth
    FFXI Server
    Asura

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Edit: whoah whoah, slow down with the teaching all religions in school. That's a wonderful idea and all, but that is not the logical step in trying to get rid of religion. Why not teach everything to a kid before he's 18? Because it's impossible. We have a hard enough time in the US teaching kids grammar and math. I'd rather work on teaching what we already teach more effectively than introduce all religions into school curriculums.
    Actually, I'm on the same boat as Siatdiat here, I've always agreed with Dennet and Dawkins that one of the most important things we're missing is comprehensive comparative religious education in schools, including common problems in or objections to religion and how they tend to deal with them (i.e. Euthyphro, the problem of evil, morality, etc).

    A large part of why people believe what they do is simply because that's what they grew up being taught and it never occurred to them to question it or that there might be different ways to look at it. It's why fundamentalist christians (rightly) blame college so much for driving people away from religion: you're forced to interact with views you've been sheltered from your whole life.

    It's at least as important as language and math, given how much it influences peoples' whole lives. If we don't have room, we need to make room (US pre-college curriculums are currently awful and need major revising anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian
    Do you think it's possible for a scientifically literate person using a solid methodology to believe in astrology?

    If no, it's a moot point.

    If yes, I'd be damned interested in it. Wouldn't you?

    Increase science literacy and combat ignorance first. If people still believe in astrology after that, I'd be genuinely fascinated to know why or how. If not, oh well - it got weeded out.
    I agree with this in one particular way: I'm willing (eager, even) to investigate useful information no matter where it comes from or who happens to say it. If Glenn Beck makes a reasonable point amongst the cacophony of nonsense he's usually talking, I'm willing to take that point by itself and think about it. I think that's part of being intellectually honest.

    To make a practical example - and this is actually a point Sam Harris makes, that I've seriously on board with for some time now: there's been a lot of writing done on meditation and the various effects it has on your mind, beyond trivial things like "it makes you calm down". The problem with this is it's, for the most part, been mired in a maze of pseudo-scientific "spiritual" nonsense.

    The thing is there's been reports by multiple people that even if you don't believe any of the mystical talk surrounding any of it, if you actually do it as recommended for the appropriate period of time, you will notice a significant change in how you think about things (if only a temporary one).

    So if there is some nugget of truth about the nature of our minds and our brains in there that we've never found out before because it requires intentionally doing something completely counter-intuitive for a prolonged period of time (thinking about nothing is pretty god damn hard to do if you actually seriously try it), then I want to know about it. And we can know about it by studying it further, starting from the mystical religious basis that exists because that's the only place where it's been talked about in detail, then divorcing it from the parts that are superstitious nonsense as we find out more about what's real and true about it and what isn't.

    This is kind of parallel to the way Hitchens viewed religious additions to culture and art: the proper reaction should be to look at it, take what's of real value and discard what isn't, rather than dismissing it a priori without looking at it.

    You can't prove god doesn't exist, not saying he does or doesn't, just asking questions here!
    Depends on the definition of god, actually. You can positively disprove certain kinds of gods, like logically contradictory ones (i.e. simultaneously all-good and all-knowing, or just all-powerful by itself). But yes, you can't disprove the idea of a god, in general.

  9. #229
    Bagel
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,386
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
    Maybe you're confusing where the opus lies. You're the one whose methodology needs to be solid in order to provide validity to your claims. It's not my job to disprove anything. As cool as it might be if the Earth's core was made of porridge, your methodology is anything but sound.
    Do you doubt the sacred hookah? I hope not, because you really don't want to be the target of a porridgefatwa.


    More seriously, welcome to the analogy. We "dismiss" astrology (and other baseless mysticisms) because it's not up to us to disprove it. The tenets of astrology themselves are not sound.


    And as Kerb said, many men made of straw roam this thread, but none appears to be wearing a kilt. We should make a label: "caution, religious thread: straw welcome, kilts not."

  10. #230
    listen!
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    7,236
    BG Level
    8
    FFXI Server
    Sylph

    There is no evidence that prayer has any effect on the outcome of events.
    http://www.secularism.org.uk/prayern...uldevenbe.html

  11. #231
    Banned.

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,472
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Ifrit
    WoW Realm
    Area 52

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerberoz View Post
    So many words, without actually saying anything.

    It's easy to be not-wrong when you don't make any arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
    >People accuse Kaylia of being a religion whiteknight
    >Kaylia says he'll whiteknight anything if the people bashing it are doing so with faulty methodology
    >Methodology used by half the posters in any religion thread is always fairly poor, as they are not scientists and this is the internet
    >Argument is formed that Kaylia is not defending religion, but taking offense to shitty attacks on it.
    Thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    That's pretty normal, since the "socially normal", in your words, athiest hates religion because it's a fairytale or whatever, but they don't understand it and are frustrated with how powerful it is. Like that picture on the top of this page. It's stupid and quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by it as an athiest if anyone takes it for anything but a funny jab at religion.

    Higher education should make you much more apathetic towards religion(ala, no more religion bashing as you say you did in college). Is that what you mean when you say you've become more moderate? Or do you mean you've started to believe in the doctrine of a religion? If it's the former then yeah, that's what happens when you mature and are educated. You fight less over inconsequential bullshit. What do you care if they're religious or not? I don't.

    By the way, I'm very certain the social norm is NOT more often than not to bash religion(for being a religion, e.g. non-believers vs believers). Atheism is still a huge minority between all of the religions. Let alone atheists who aren't retarded and go on to discuss religion using pictures like the red light thing and "believing" god wont let you die. That's not what anybody believes, obviously.
    I spend too much time on the internet, or with young adult. When I meant "social norm", I should have said with people I normally interact with. I agree that "religion bashing" isn't the norm in media or politics (unless we go toward the extreme), but I rarely find myself in a situation where defending religion is the "cool thing to do". In fact, I'm pretty sure I would be bashing it more openly if I ever ended in that situation.

    Anyway, your interpretation of my post is correct. I consider myself an atheist, but agnosticism is the only reasonable stance I can defend.


    The pictures on top of the page was indeed retarded, and it's one of the reason why I'm so inclined to join these "religion bashing" thread. These fallacies are frustrating to read, especially when people quote them saying "THIS", as if it had any weight.




    Quote Originally Posted by Siatdiat View Post
    Kudos to both of you for your service to humanity. Neither of you has ever responded to me or anyone else who has suggested that your attitude would be different if someone made a thread about bigfoot, or transcendental meditation, or something more acceptably silly because it does not have the ring of holiness to protect its foolishness.
    Did I ever defend Young Earth Creationism, miracles, and other shit like this? No.

    Certain aspect of religions are defendable, but that doesn't mean every religious nutcase's beliefs are. I'm only okay with this when religion is entirely defined outside the scope of sciences, and that people understand the difference and implication of their various beliefs.

    Would I defend Bigfoot or scientology? Probably not, but it will always depend on what either side are saying.


    93% of the members of the Academy of Sciences are atheists. 91% of Americans believe in god. Does that say anything to you?
    That 7% of the scientist are able to do sciences just fine despite being religious?

  12. #232
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Quote Originally Posted by Dotsudoku View Post
    I'm not entirely sure if this counts as a derail or not, but I'll ask regardless: as a general request of GG, Kaylia, and Yugl, could any of you elaborate a bit more upon the discussion of how the axioms of religious, logical, and scientific belief are all equally, arbitrarily formed? This was mentioned very briefly in a thread not too long ago, and was of great interest to me. It seems relevant enough for this thread.
    Spoiler: show

    Theory (I'll be using this to strictly refer to hypothesis deduced from theory throughout)
    Event/Fact
    Event/Fact
    Fact 3
    Observation (Outcome)

    The more natural form (But less clean form) is:

    Theory&Fact&Fact => Observation

    Religion, Science, and so forth occupy the 'Theory' slot. I'm going to clarify the 'event/fact' part since that's different from conventional usage. By 'facts', we're talking about how the universe/world is (Not necessarily Earth, but this 'realm' in general). So if the theory says the planet is 5000 yrs old (Or w/e the bible says) and it is a fact that the Earth is actually older, then you have a contradiction. If a theory and a set of facts demands an observation (Outcome), then in order to be a valid, there is no case in which the observation is false (Consequent) and the theory+facts (Antecedent) are true. Remember that 'valid' is hypothetical. Consequently, "If you watch and like Glee, thunder will strike you" + "You watch and like Glee" + "Therefore, thunder will strike you" is a valid claim. Laymen tend to confuse 'valid' with 'sound' and it is this latter term that people want to look at when they make the religion v science debate. Soundness is the question of whether the premise/conclusion actually are true. So the above claim may be valid, but if one of those claims is false (ex: I've never watched Glee), then the claim won't be sound.

    So how does this operate when the observation does not happen? If the premises, when all true, force the outcome, and the outcome does not happen, then you know one or more of those premises is false. The question is which one?

    1. Denying the theory: This is what most atheists accuse religious people of failing to do. So allow me to demonstrate ignorance of Christian values. Lets assume the bible says "All people that pray will get money in X minutes." If you pray and X minutes passes, you damn well better get money! If it is not, then you can just deny that the theory (The bible's claim). What most atheists fail to realize (Because our revisionist history trims away these oddities) is that there are instances where science will fail to deny the theory as well. A classic example given by Putnam in "The corroboration of theories" is the discovery of Neptune where scientists did not reject the universal gravitation theory because an observation did not align. Other convenient examples include classroom experiments where your results may not perfectly align with the math.

    2. Denying the 'fact': This is a common one for both religion and science. One of the versions of Buddhism roughly says that if you sincerely say Buddha's name, you will be enlightened. So if enlightenment fails to happen, it's common to maintain the doctrine but then say that the person never sincerely said his name. Using the classroom experiment again, we can see that this route applies to science when we 'roughly measure' using instruments. So if you're conducting an experiment that requires you to heat an object to a certain temperature, the object may not be the exact temperature you want. Another example is the Neutrino incident.

    3. Denying the observation: This is also one that people use to complain about religion. Since religion deals with blurry and imprecise terms such as 'good' and 'evil', it's quite possible for you to interpret results so that they 'fit' the observation you want. I've read of examples where natural science does this, but I cannot recall any common ones at this time.

    The kicker is that you're not forced to deny any specific one, logically. Since you're not logically compelled to deny any specific one, you're not "right" or "wrong" if you decide to deny the fact each time. You're not even compelled if the same premise appears in multiple instances where this problem arises.

    Code:
    Theory1     Theory1
    Fact1        Fact2
    Fact1'       Fact2'
    O1              O2
    Even though Theory1 appears in both situations, you can reject Fact1 and Fact2 to explain both cases. There's no logical problem with that until begin maintaining that certain observations/facts must be true. Yet, doing so with a posteriori facts is only possible if you do so in faith.

    So why science? I'm adding this at a last moment, so I don't have a precise or thoroughly checked answer, but I would say because science is more precise as to the outcome. If all you can predict are 'good' and 'bad' outcomes, then you don't have a very useful idea. There are a lot of outcomes that qualify as 'good' and 'bad', so predicting one or the other doesn't have much utility. And utility is the real benefit of science. Without said utility, I'm guessing society would have abandoned the idea many years ago.

  13. #233
    Demosthenes11
    Guest

    I would hate to watch some of you live your lives. When you are asking someone to back up ridiculous claims, you already know where the conversation is going.

    It's the same thing as evolution deniers. If they really had evidence or anything like that, they would be waiting for their nobel prize. Astrology is no different in this sense. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue or inquire with these people almost all of the time. You know why they are wrong, you know they are ignoring several things, etc.

  14. #234
    Spiders are Awesome
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,216
    BG Level
    8


  15. #235
    Burninate all the things.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,409
    BG Level
    7

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashmada View Post
    Do you doubt the sacred hookah? I hope not, because you really don't want to be the target of a porridgefatwa.

    More seriously, welcome to the analogy. We "dismiss" astrology (and other baseless mysticisms) because it's not up to us to disprove it. The tenets of astrology themselves are not sound.

    And as Kerb said, many men made of straw roam this thread, but none appears to be wearing a kilt. We should make a label: "caution, religious thread: straw welcome, kilts not."
    I'm not sure if you're accusing me of NTS. Maybe you just don't understand the discussion. I think that's most likely what's going on here.

    My stance is, quite simply, that I could care less about anyone's conclusions. The important thing is the method by which one reaches their conclusions. If you go out and scientifically deduce that the core of the Earth must be made of porridge, then that's pretty tasty. If you fall back on herp derp, then it's herp derp regardless of what you're saying.

    Do not simply dismiss conclusions before looking at the methodology behind it. Dismiss bad science.

    But sure, you can keep believing that it's "scientific" to throw out a paper after reading the abstract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes11 View Post
    I would hate to watch some of you live your lives. When you are asking someone to back up ridiculous claims, you already know where the conversation is going.

    It's the same thing as evolution deniers. If they really had evidence or anything like that, they would be waiting for their nobel prize. Astrology is no different in this sense. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue or inquire with these people almost all of the time. You know why they are wrong, you know they are ignoring several things, etc.
    Because it takes more than 30 seconds to spot bad science.

  16. #236
    listen!
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    7,236
    BG Level
    8
    FFXI Server
    Sylph

    That 7% of the scientist are able to do sciences just fine despite being religious?
    How did you determine that they do sciences "just fine"? Seems like you just made that up.

  17. #237
    Burninate all the things.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,409
    BG Level
    7

    In fact, that's pretty much the crux of the thread right now. Atheists arguing with other Atheists because said Atheists are using bad science to reach the same or similar conclusions, and then claiming that they have science on their side.

  18. #238
    Spiders are Awesome
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,216
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
    Do not simply dismiss conclusions before looking at the methodology behind it. Dismiss bad science.
    Who is saying otherwise?

    If there is no evidence presented, there is nothing to analyze, and the assertion can be dismissed outright.

  19. #239
    Demosthenes11
    Guest

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
    In fact, that's pretty much the crux of the thread right now. Atheists arguing with other Atheists because said Atheists are using bad science to reach the same or similar conclusions, and then claiming that they have science on their side.
    you are some kind of arrogant fuck. Hey guys, if you tell someone they are fucking stupid when they say "hurrr evolution doesn't exist," you don't have any credibility in a science discussion.

  20. #240
    Relic Shield
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,554
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Odin

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaylia View Post
    Did I ever defend Young Earth Creationism, miracles, and other shit like this? No.

    Certain aspect of religions are defendable, but that doesn't mean every religious nutcase's beliefs are. I'm only okay when religion is entirely defined outside the scope of sciences, and that people understand the difference and implication of their various beliefs.
    I don't suppose you or GG will ever understand the condescending arrogance of your view. You both obviously have your own degree to which you find religion to be fucked up. It's based off of your own personal value system applied to the concept of religious belief, and at some point you consider it bad or dangerous. As long as it doesn't cross that line you are cool with it. You seem to be of the mindset that if they keep religion in a seperate special world where it doesn't affect any other views, then its ok. GG on the other hand seems to think that any ridiculous idea cannot ever actually be challenged if it does a few specific things:

    A. Fall into religious safety zone of not being too crazy, based on his own values of what he considers crazy and insane, and what he considers ok and safe.

    B. If the believers of it swear that they thought about it really hard and really could come to no better conclusion.

    I could break it down more but you get my point.

    I think if we explored it you might even be less accepting than GG, but you are both much more accepting of faith being the basis of someones decision making processes than I am.

    The difference in our views is degrees, but you guys are clearly more enlightened because your standards are more lenient.

    I said previously, I draw a big thick line between an agnostic deist, who doesn't make claims of having received any kind of sense data or personal revelation of god, and any follower of one of the brand name religions. Where do you draw your line?
    Still not clear on where the distinction is for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaylia View Post
    Would I defend Bigfoot or scientology? Probably not, but it will always depend on what either side are saying.
    A huge intelligent close relative to man, that has been reported in Russia, Canada, USA, Tibet, etc. but no one has ever found a skeleton of the proper size.

    A religion created by L Ron Hubbard after deciding he wasn't making enough money writing short sci fi stories in digests, and actually mentioned to friends that religion was where the money was before shortly after starting the church of scientology.

    I guess I agree, I would like to see what someone could possibly have to say to entice me to give either idea a chance beyond what I have already researched on it in the past. I am very doubtful that will ever happen, and I don't feel even slightly close minded about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaylia View Post
    That 7% of the scientist are able to do sciences just fine despite being religious?
    My point, first off, was that intelligent well educated scientists are less likely to believe in god than the average bear. I thought that was clear. Additionally, of that 7% how many have the deistic view of god that makes no claims about the nature or about what god is actually like? I'd guess the majority. I would guess in that spectrum a very small amount would actually connect themselves to any organized religion, and even then I would think its safe to say they are "culturally" christian, just keeping peace with the family at large.