God arguments based on science.

[manifold]

Whenever anyone tries to prove (or disprove) the existence of God based purely on science, that person:

A. Is profoundly ignorant of scientific discipline

B. Has an ulterior motive

C. Both A & B


Which do you think is most common?

 

[Anguille]

What's your ulterior motive?

 

[manifold]

What's your ulterior motive?

It's always the same and I'm surprised you'd even need to ask.

Getting people to question what they know.

 

[Anguille]

So why didn't you include a "None of the above" in your poll?

Agenda ho!

 

[manifold]

So why didn't you include a "None of the above" in your poll?

Agenda ho!

Because that's not a possiblity. This is a poll question, not a multiple choice question.

 

[Anguille]

Because that's not a possiblity. This is a poll question, not a multiple choice question.

I guess it's just a poll for people who already feel a certain way then.

 

[manifold]

I guess it's just a poll for people who already feel a certain way then.

I'm listening.

Explain to me how it could be none of the above please?

 

[Anguille]

I'm listening.

Explain to me how it could be none of the above please?

"Employing science in a debate about God's existence most commonly betrays?"

That's vague, employing science to prove or disprove or as part of some point on the side?

"A profound ignorance for scientific discipline"

Must one be categorized as profoundly ignorant, there is no other category?

"An ulterior motive"

Such as?

Shat-head is right, you need to re-take Polls 101.

 

[editec]

OTOH, although I often take our board resident Darwin thumping athetsts to task for bothering to whine about believers, I ALSO recognize that the bible thumpers, if left to their own devices, would turn our nation into a repressive theocracy, too.

Keep your religion (or your lack of it) out of my lifestyle, please

Thank you in advance for shutting the fuck up.

Yours, completely indifferent to your believe systems,

editec

 

[manifold]

"Employing science in a debate about God's existence most commonly betrays?"

That's vague, employing science to prove or disprove or as part of some point on the side?

"A profound ignorance for scientific discipline"

Must one be categorized as profoundly ignorant, there is no other category?

"An ulterior motive"

Such as?

Shat-head is right, you need to re-take Polls 101.

Perhaps I should have replaced "profound" with "fundamental."

 

[Ravi]

A

 

[manifold]

btw Ang:

Shit-herd doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[strollingbones]

It's always the same and I'm surprised you'd even need to ask.

Getting people to question what they know.

can we all say "rep ho"?

 

[manifold]

can we all say "rep ho"?

Well yes, I am a rep ho, that much is true.

But that post wasn't a rep grubbing attempt, and that's worked out pretty well since it hasn't been repped.

 

[Gunny]

Whenever anyone tries to prove (or disprove) the existence of God based purely on science, that person:

A. Is profoundly ignorant of scientific discipline

B. Has an ulterior motive

C. Both A & B


Which do you think is most common?

What is most common is people trying to refute religion using scitentific theories of origin that have as much real evidence to support them as Creationism does.

 

[manifold]

What is most common is people trying to refute religion using scitentific theories of origin that have as much real evidence to support them as Creationism does.

Indeed, that is quite common. That is why said both prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot possibly do either and to think that it can, is to betray a fundamental ignorance of science itself, or as the poll offers as a choice, an ulterior motive.

 

[AllieBaba]

OTOH, although I often take our board resident Darwin thumping athetsts to task for bothering to whine about believers, I ALSO recognize that the bible thumpers, if left to their own devices, would turn our nation into a repressive theocracy, too.

Keep your religion (or your lack of it) out of my lifestyle, please

Thank you in advance for shutting the fuck up.

Yours, completely indifferent to your believe systems,

editec

Please share that sentiment with Booboo, strolling, KK, MichaelCollins and a few others whose only purpose in posting seems to be to bash Christians.

 

[Shogun]

the Ulterior motive is to point out the distinct difference between what IS and what IS NOT science. SCIENCE revolves around physical evidence. No way around that. Every theory that xtians cry about has physical evidence available. Talking shit to evolution doesn't validate biblical creation in SCIENCE. This is why I ask for the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE when dogma junkies get too uppity about science.

 

[Anguille]

Indeed, that is quite common. That is why said both prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot possibly do either and to think that it can, is to betray a fundamental ignorance of science itself, or as the poll offers as a choice, an ulterior motive.

I do not see why science couldn't ultimately prove the existence or non existence of God. Perhaps you are betraying a fundamental ignorance of the possibilities of science?

 

[manifold]

I do not see why science couldn't ultimately prove the existence or non existence of God. Perhaps you are betraying a fundamental ignorance of the possibilities of science?

Nope. "Possibilities" is another discussion entirely. But thanks just the same sweet tits.