Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:

thedoctor said:
The argument against religion here seems to hinge upon pure science. Well, guess what, folks. Science isn't any more pure than religion. Yes, the best scientests don't test for a certain conclusion or desired effect; but that is not always true. Just like there are Christians and Jews and etc., etc. who fall short of their religion's goals, there are scientest that do the same. Scientists argue over the meaning of findings as well as their implications. They look for specific answers to certain questions. Science has it's fallibilities and unanswered questions just as religions do. Neither is perfect; therefore, I believe, any point of view that hinges out the flaws of one and does not address the flaws of the other is lacking.


the argument isn't based on science but on common sense and observation.
Scientists can be proven wrong and then move on and redevelop their theories.
Religion can not. Religion is set in stone (the Bible) and is seen as true and unalterable.

Science is being used here more as a comparision to modern thought versus ancient thought.



True and untrue. Science also has that loophole that nothing can ever be proven. There are still many scientists out there who hold onto their theories no matter the opposing evidence. Same goes for religion. That's why you have so many denominations and sects of the same religions around the globe. People tend to focus on the parts of the religion they like best.

whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."