"We don't know" - why can't religions except that?

[djhwoodwerks]

No, but I find the question to be irrelevant.

Do you find find faith (belief without evidence) to be an effective way of judging if something is true?

Oh, that question.

May I, @Taylor Seraphim ?

That is not even a meaningful question to ask. The concept of God is nowhere near delimited enough or meaningful enough for its acceptance to be presumed as you imply.

For more detail, google for "Russell's Teapot".

It's the same question I was asked.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's the same question I was asked.

Except that it really is not. It is rather the opposite one.

You are relying on a sense of simetry that is entirely unjustified. There is no reason except perhaps your personal esthetical preference why the two questions about God's existence would or should be treated as logically equivalent.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

search 4 John Ashton In Six Days.

@Taylor Seraphim - I did as @Geoff-Allen instructed, and searched for the book. One of the top links I found was this:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cg_in_six_days.htm

It's an in-depth review of the involved 50 scientists' backgrounds. Here's an excerpt I found particularly revealing:

"Let us note that not one of them purports to have become a creationist as a result of his or her own research."

 

[djhwoodwerks]

You are relying on a sense of simetry that is entirely unjustified. There is no reason except perhaps your personal esthetical preference why the two questions about God's existence would or should be treated as logically equivalent.

There is no reason except perhaps your personal esthetical preference why the two questions about God's existence wouldn't or shouldn't be treated as logically equivalent.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no reason except perhaps your personal esthetical preference why the two questions about God's existence wouldn't or shouldn't be treated as logically equivalent.

That is just not even remotely true. God has no evidence to show for it, and no explanation power.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What effective way do you judge that there is no God? Belief without evidence?

Oh no, there could be a god, I just do not find any evidence for one.

 

[Gambit]

Scientists are happy with admitting they don't know all the answers (usually with the rider, "but we're looking into it") why do most (every?) religion have to have an answer for everything? Even if they make the answer up.

Why do you believe that religion has to abide by the same standards that science does?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

@Taylor Seraphim - I did as @Geoff-Allen instructed, and searched for the book. One of the top links I found was this:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cg_in_six_days.htm

It's an in-depth review of the involved 50 scientists' backgrounds. Here's an excerpt I found particularly revealing:

"Let us note that not one of them purports to have become a creationist as a result of his or her own research."

If what you say is true, then I rest my case.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Why do you believe that religion has to abide by the same standards that science does?

The more accurate question is why does religion have to be logical?

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh no, there could be a god, I just do not find any evidence for one.

So? What is your argument? Who cares if you can't find any evidence for 'god', /I assume you mean any deity

 

[Altfish]

Why do you believe that religion has to abide by the same standards that science does?

I don't if it'd be honest and not try to get the likes of creationism into science lessons. Not try to influence policy, not try to get privilege in tax relief, etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't if it'd be honest and not try to get the likes of creationism into science lessons. Not try to influence policy, not try to get privilege in tax relief, etc.

Science teaches faulty theories... If the wrong thing is taught in Science class/of course that happens, /, should Science not be taught?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So? What is your argument? Who cares if you can't find any evidence for 'god', /I assume you mean any deity

He asked me so if you don't like that complain to him.

 

[Desert Snake]

He asked me so if you don't like that complain to him.

Great, we can redirect the criticism.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Great, we can redirect the criticism.

Ok please explain to me what I have done wrong?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok please explain to me what I have done wrong?

Hmm? I said, we can redirect the criticism.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't if it'd be honest and not try to get the likes of creationism into science lessons. Not try to influence policy, not try to get privilege in tax relief, etc.

Do you hold sciences to the same standard? That is, they should not try to influence policy, or get government funding for research (paid for by taxes), etc? If not, why?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Do you hold sciences to the same standard? That is, they should not try to influence policy, or get government funding for research (paid for by taxes), etc? If not, why?

No because science is logical and can produce meaningful things in society than nothing else can.

 

[Gambit]

The more accurate question is why does religion have to be logical?

Would you rather it be illogical?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Would you rather it be illogical?

Are you asking me whether or not I wish that the religions of the world to be illogical?

Well the cannot all be logical because they contradict each other so I do not see how it would be possible.