FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-04-2002, 08:49 AM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 4,171
Post

galiel,

The burden of proof is on you and I don't see much point in continuing.

If you can tell me how it is that I do consult or should consult science when I decide if I liked that movie I just watched or if science tells me if I am in love, then I'd be happy to consider your point of view.

DC
Rusting Car Bumper is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 04:10 PM   #32
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 1,677
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DigitalChicken:
<strong>If you can tell me how it is that I do consult or should consult science when I decide if I liked that movie I just watched or if science tells me if I am in love, then I'd be happy to consider your point of view.</strong>
Which religious document do you consult to decide if you liked that movie? Which guru do you consult to tell you whether you are in love or not?

Seems to me you need neither science nor religion. What you need is a dose of common sense and for someone to remind you that you can make up your own mind without deferring to some imagined authority.
galiel is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 04:35 PM   #33
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 1,677
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DigitalChicken:
<strong>galiel,

The burden of proof is on you and I don't see much point in continuing.

</strong>
The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. You claim that a scientific religion is possible.

Since:
- there is no empirical evidence to suport that claim(such a beast does not currently exist),
- there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it (as evidenced by religions' historical fight to suppress science, by the fact that science has replaced religion as the explanation for an increasing number of phenomena that were previously thought to be the exclusive realm of religion),
- that logically there is no reason to assume that religious faith is essential or irreplaceable for any part of human experience,
- and that, finally, the very definitions of the two terms are contradictory,
therefore you are making an extraordinary, counter-intuitive claim.

Thus, it is up to you try to substantiate it.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>
galiel is offline  
Old 10-05-2002, 03:44 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Los Angeles Area
Posts: 1,372
Talking

Just for laffs: Scientology
fando is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:52 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.