religion

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right, scientific studies demonstrably hinge upon scrupulous peer review and years of crosschecking. The thing about scientific arguments is they are falsifiable, which is the mark of a good argument - religious arguments that point to an all-powerful creator still have yet to square the infinite regression rebuttal which, put simply, asks, "What came before that all-powerful creator?"

An arguments that point to an omnipotent creator at the beginning of everything is simply unfalsifiable, and is a grandiose claim made with very little evidence, and can therefore be dismissed with very little evidence.

And on the point of what religion actually is, I think most of us here are capable of making that distinction. Science is not a religion, and is irreconcilable with religion. As Stephen Gould said, science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria - they both do completely different things and simply can't be conflated. However, I disagree with Gould when he posits that there shouldn't be an argument between the two.

Your own post contradicts itself lol. "Scientific studies demonstrably hinge upon scrupulous peer review and years of crosschecking" yet apparently that doesn't exist on religious views? "An arguments that point to an omnipotent creator at the beginning of everything is simply unfalsifiable, and is a grandiose claim made with very little evidence, and can therefore be dismissed with very little evidence." Theory anyone? "And on the point of what religion actually is, I think most of us here are capable of making that distinction. Science is not a religion, and is irreconcilable with religion." That doesn't even make sense. You basically claim if a God does exist, he would work in ways that no one would ever discover, and like I said, by definition, science is a religion, doesn't matter how much you say it isn't.