You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Debunking Religious Notions - Rebuttal of @gavvet 's : Entropy vs Christ
The attacks you use to debunk religion I could twist also towards science and make it sound just as silly. It's guess work and historically just as wrong. Why when he says there is room for science and God, is an appropriate answer "No ,there is no God only science?"
I don't care to debate individual points, I just get tired of the arguments against what people believe using science.... which has a lot of unprovable assertations made as well.
Where did I use attacks to debunk religion? Can you please be specific?
Everything is guess work but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for religion so we can safely assume the non-existence of God.
If evidence comes forward the we can talk about it again. I never use science in these debates. Please read the article carefully.
Religion is not God. You cannot safely assume the non-existence of God by citing a lack of evidence held within a book(s). That's a logical fallacy. Ask a Christian Apologetic where they get their validation that God is real and I would bet most wouldn't say the Bible.
Maybe was a harsh word saying attacks. But both posts read the same to me, He was saying room for science and religion from a religious point of view, and parts of this say the same from a scientific point of view. I said debunk as you did at one point really say Jesus was a teacher and there were lots of teachers.... I don't see a need to point this out if it isn't to disprove.
@clevecross
He was JUST that. A teacher. no miracles, no floating on water and all that crap. He was probably a regular human being that got an insane rep from the crazy emperor Constantine
So..... prove he didn't. What do you want me to say here? A statement that attacks the central figure of a religion is an attack on the religion. Myself. I am not about organized religion, but I am religious and believe differently.
For example, you talk about eternity as a fucking bore..... you think of it literally. I imagine eternity as outside of time.... the concept of a day and week wouldn't exist as there is no linear progression. It's perspective... something can't exist that is outside of your acceptable boundaries of reality, and yet science also has stated time is able to be manipulated and is relative to passage in space.
You mockingly refute @stellabella with "unique amalgamation of nuclear waste floating on a dessolate rock in space as a carbon composite." and challenge it to be disputed. I am sure there's a point your trying to make, but you aren't passionate about anything, you are simply mad other people are.
It's pretty easy to attack people who believe in something you can't understand. Scientists who first talked about black holes being real things in the universe were met with the same ridicule.