Fortigurn wrote:TwoTongues wrote:No one is claiming there is no evidence in religion...Chris wrote:Religion is based in faith; science is based in evidence.
I'm glad we've settled that.
And I'm glad you're smug and simultaneously wrong - Chris did not say that religion didn't have "evidence", he said religion is based on faith, which it is - the evidence for the faith bits is not provable.
Fortigurn wrote:...we're saying that there is either insufficient evidence, or else the science and logic disproves the evidence of the supernatural bits.
Ummm no, as we stated elsewhere, there's nothing subjective about the disproving of the supernatural bits. When you have a choice of using a rational and scientific explanation or an unprovable, non-scientific explanation, then there is no choice - otherwise, you could make up any unprovable, non-scientific explanation you wanted! Nothing subjective there.
Fortigurn wrote:There could be plenty of evidence that a person named Moses existed, but that doesn't help prove the existence of a Jewish god.
I agree.There is no verifiable evidence of the supernatural bit...
Yes....and there is plenty of scientific evidence against it.
Now you've taken a turn into philosophy, and left science behind.
You have scientific evidence against the belief, or you can keep the belief with no scientific backing. How is that philosophy?
Fortigurn wrote:What are you arguing here?
That religions actually typically make appeals to evidence, contrary to what was claimed.
That's not true, the so-called evidence they appeal to is ambiguous and does not force one into belief into something supernatural. Seeing that little moon is evidence that god put it up there, because who could put it so high but god, plus this book here who I don't know the author or the date it was written, but anyway it says this god guy put it there? This is the evidence? So we have the god option for the moon or the scientific option, in which something hit the earth a billion years ago and split off the moon, for which we can see matching residue and rocks and things. So you're claiming the "god" evidence is somehow acceptable or equivalent eh?
But you see, I bet you know all this already and are arguing idly or for some pedantic reason. All of this is pretty obvious stuff, so what's the idea?
Fortigurn wrote:This whole science/religion debate comes from the earlier statement equating the world-views of atheism and religion, and some of our belief that they are not even on the same level of philosophy to be comparable.
Science is not philosophy. Let's get that straight. It's useless for philosophy. When people start using it as a substitute for philosophy, and (even worse), as a substitute for ethics, we're all in trouble.
Huh? The argument was that science and religion are not of the same quality to be compared as worldviews, that basing a worldview on something unproven and feel-good and often verifiably untrue is not reasonable like holding the atheist worldview, which most atheists base on science and reason, coupled either with a social benefit ethic or an individualism ethic.