Re: religion/science
stargroup: Thing is, what he said is obvious and is something almost anyone will agree with. It's harder to grow a sack and defend your claims.
Giggles: No. I am saying most people who believe in God are likely ignorant of much of the science we know today or simply don't understand all the arguments. Most people don't even understand the basics of evolution. Many are still Creationists, which makes me want to punt people in the kidneys. I would argue that if someone accepts/understands science, they would see that there is no need to believe that a God is "responsible for it all."
bluguerrilla: Again, I think it ties back to understanding. Someone with a strong understanding and a skepticism/dissatisfaction with an explanation is usually indicative that the explanation is missing a large piece (say, to explain all the variance as opposed to just assuming that all variables involved are accountable for 100% of the result). So many people don't even understand the basic concept of a necessary condition. It's like listening to people who argue that evolution is "random." Anyone who spews that **** or doesn't understand what a necessary condition is is ignorant of the counterarguments and loses all credibility.
stargroup: Thing is, what he said is obvious and is something almost anyone will agree with. It's harder to grow a sack and defend your claims.
Giggles: No. I am saying most people who believe in God are likely ignorant of much of the science we know today or simply don't understand all the arguments. Most people don't even understand the basics of evolution. Many are still Creationists, which makes me want to punt people in the kidneys. I would argue that if someone accepts/understands science, they would see that there is no need to believe that a God is "responsible for it all."
bluguerrilla: Again, I think it ties back to understanding. Someone with a strong understanding and a skepticism/dissatisfaction with an explanation is usually indicative that the explanation is missing a large piece (say, to explain all the variance as opposed to just assuming that all variables involved are accountable for 100% of the result). So many people don't even understand the basic concept of a necessary condition. It's like listening to people who argue that evolution is "random." Anyone who spews that **** or doesn't understand what a necessary condition is is ignorant of the counterarguments and loses all credibility.
Comment