This is a religion subforum in a science forum as SkinWalker has pointed out many times before. Discussions of religion here will be held up to scientific scrutiny just as are discussions in the physics subforum. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it means this. A statement or claim will be met with the following request:
A) Do you have evidence for this?
B) Please provide said evidence.
The discussions that follow will generally consist of the science-minded among us trying to explain to the non-scientists why what they have claimed is baseless due to the lack of evidence or the evidence being useless from a scientific standpoint.
From my perspective, some of the most fascinating discussions regard the evolutionary psychology behind theistic thinking and behavior and the idea that science can provide reality-based solutions to some long-standing human problems caused by religious thinking.
If you think that the scientific community is polite and tolerant of poor evidence, unsupported claims and logically absurd claims, then you are woefully mistaken. These "events" are met with the harshest criticisms.
As an example, I would submit this:
You wish to discuss whether god told Noah to build the ark or not, and the implications of this for god's relationship with Mankind. This is frought with so many problems it's hard to know where to begin. Most of us will groan and tell you it's a load of childish crap.
1) First, how do you know there is a god? Please provide evidence and supporting repeatable experimental results to support this claim.
2) The existence of a "god" is the foundation of all religious discussions. Discussing Noah, or Jesus, or the "proof" of god as provided by the bible/q'uran/talmud/etc,etc... is like discussing office politics that may have occurred on the 53rd floor, when you haven't demonstrated that there's even a building there, let alone a foundation for a building.
3) If you insist on proceeding with porly supported, logically absurd claims, we will generally not be polite with you.
4) Intelligent discussion requires intelligence. This begins with accepting that statements like:
"God tells us..."
"God loves you..."
"God (substitute your own creative assertion)..."
and my favorite,
"Let's objectively discuss (anything that presupposes a deity)..."
will be met with questions A) and B) above. Lack of anything enlightening in response to questions A) and B) will be generally met with something that has the general flavor of:
"Ok, this is stupid. Shut up and go away."
Hope this helps.
A) Do you have evidence for this?
B) Please provide said evidence.
The discussions that follow will generally consist of the science-minded among us trying to explain to the non-scientists why what they have claimed is baseless due to the lack of evidence or the evidence being useless from a scientific standpoint.
From my perspective, some of the most fascinating discussions regard the evolutionary psychology behind theistic thinking and behavior and the idea that science can provide reality-based solutions to some long-standing human problems caused by religious thinking.
If you think that the scientific community is polite and tolerant of poor evidence, unsupported claims and logically absurd claims, then you are woefully mistaken. These "events" are met with the harshest criticisms.
As an example, I would submit this:
You wish to discuss whether god told Noah to build the ark or not, and the implications of this for god's relationship with Mankind. This is frought with so many problems it's hard to know where to begin. Most of us will groan and tell you it's a load of childish crap.
1) First, how do you know there is a god? Please provide evidence and supporting repeatable experimental results to support this claim.
2) The existence of a "god" is the foundation of all religious discussions. Discussing Noah, or Jesus, or the "proof" of god as provided by the bible/q'uran/talmud/etc,etc... is like discussing office politics that may have occurred on the 53rd floor, when you haven't demonstrated that there's even a building there, let alone a foundation for a building.
3) If you insist on proceeding with porly supported, logically absurd claims, we will generally not be polite with you.
4) Intelligent discussion requires intelligence. This begins with accepting that statements like:
"God tells us..."
"God loves you..."
"God (substitute your own creative assertion)..."
and my favorite,
"Let's objectively discuss (anything that presupposes a deity)..."
will be met with questions A) and B) above. Lack of anything enlightening in response to questions A) and B) will be generally met with something that has the general flavor of:
"Ok, this is stupid. Shut up and go away."
Hope this helps.