|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 27, 2022 2:57:11 GMT
The link to Religion & Science was very interesting, showing a fluctuation of theories throughout history. I wish I had the time to read the entire thing; maybe later. The Catholic Church is a sore point with me, given the issue of priests taking advantage of children, and the Church not dealing with it correctly. So I didn't even open that link. But you didn't answer my question - would you go to a doctor that was an outspoken atheist? How about you, rachelcarson1953 ? Would you go to a doctor that was an outspoken theist? How about get treated in a Catholic or any other kind of hospital? My internist, for the last 35 years, was a theist, his father was a Methodist minister. He just retired recently, and I miss him terribly. He was a great doctor, smart, innovative, etc., and in addition was a compassionate healer. He helped me through my cancer treatment and was also my husband's primary doctor. My husband thought that highly of him too. Both my husband and I were atheists. We just never discussed religion with the doctor. He could have been a Secular Humanist and been that caring and compassionate. My oncologist was an atheist. I thanked him, not god, for his skill and knowledge in making certain that I had every chance of going into remission. He glanced briefly at a plaque that another patient had given him that thanked god for him, and he rolled his eyes. He then smiled at me and said "thank you, I rarely get to hear those words from a patient." I was treated in first, a Lutheran affiliated hospital, because that was where I was first diagnosed, and the surgeon that did that first biopsy was so irritated that the mammogram hadn't found the extent of my cancer that he broke scrub and stormed out of the OR to the path lab, and then to the waiting room to give the bad news to my parents and husband. I stuck with him for the serious surgeries because he was so passionate about his work. I had no idea what religion he followed, it was never discussed. Reconstructive surgeries were done in a Catholic hospital because my best friend's husband was an anesthesiologist there, and he was great about being thorough with explanations of what would happen and why. He was Catholic, but not into talking about it. But, in the hospital, my husband did have to run off a nun that had come to pray with me. I had clearly written on the paperwork that I was atheist and did not want a visit from clergy. They disregarded that. My reconstructive surgeon was an arrogant ass, but the best reconstructive surgeon in town, and judging by his narcissism, I doubt he had any belief in a god. So, I make medical decisions on the basis of skill, knowledge, dedication to their profession and willingness to communicate. (Even the arrogant ass was meticulous in discussing what would be done, how and why.) I don't ask about religion, it just turns out that sometimes a doctor will mention something off-handedly. Mostly we talk about science, recommended treatments, survival rates, tumor marker tests and that sort of thing. My late husband's specialists were different; one an atheist, the other Hindu, of East Indian ancestry. When she decided to marry and move to New York, my husband asked a friend to hunt down a statue of Ganesha to give her as a wedding gift. That is the Hindu version of St. Christopher, if memory serves. My current physician and I are just getting to know each other. She is definitely not what I would have chosen, but with the pandemic and all, I was lucky to get any doctor at all. And during this period, my mother was in hospice care, so it's all been a muddle.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 27, 2022 3:23:59 GMT
How about you, rachelcarson1953 ? Would you go to a doctor that was an outspoken theist? How about get treated in a Catholic or any other kind of hospital? My internist, for the last 35 years, was a theist, his father was a Methodist minister. He just retired recently, and I miss him terribly. He was a great doctor, smart, innovative, etc., and in addition was a compassionate healer. He helped me through my cancer treatment and was also my husband's primary doctor. My husband thought that highly of him too. Both my husband and I were atheists. We just never discussed religion with the doctor. He could have been a Secular Humanist and been that caring and compassionate. My oncologist was an atheist. I thanked him, not god, for his skill and knowledge in making certain that I had every chance of going into remission. He glanced briefly at a plaque that another patient had given him that thanked god for him, and he rolled his eyes. He then smiled at me and said "thank you, I rarely get to hear those words from a patient." I was treated in first, a Lutheran affiliated hospital, because that was where I was first diagnosed, and the surgeon that did that first biopsy was so irritated that the mammogram hadn't found the extent of my cancer that he broke scrub and stormed out of the OR to the path lab, and then to the waiting room to give the bad news to my parents and husband. I stuck with him for the serious surgeries because he was so passionate about his work. I had no idea what religion he followed, it was never discussed. Reconstructive surgeries were done in a Catholic hospital because my best friend's husband was an anesthesiologist there, and he was great about being thorough with explanations of what would happen and why. He was Catholic, but not into talking about it. But, in the hospital, my husband did have to run off a nun that had come to pray with me. I had clearly written on the paperwork that I was atheist and did not want a visit from clergy. They disregarded that. My reconstructive surgeon was an arrogant ass, but the best reconstructive surgeon in town, and judging by his narcissism, I doubt he had any belief in a god. So, I make medical decisions on the basis of skill, knowledge, dedication to their profession and willingness to communicate. (Even the arrogant ass was meticulous in discussing what would be done, how and why.) I don't ask about religion, it just turns out that sometimes a doctor will mention something off-handedly. Mostly we talk about science, recommended treatments, survival rates, tumor marker tests and that sort of thing. My late husband's specialists were different; one an atheist, the other Hindu, of East Indian ancestry. When she decided to marry and move to New York, my husband asked a friend to hunt down a statue of Ganesha to give her as a wedding gift. That is the Hindu version of St. Christopher, if memory serves. My current physician and I are just getting to know each other. She is definitely not what I would have chosen, but with the pandemic and all, I was lucky to get any doctor at all. And during this period, my mother was in hospice care, so it's all been a muddle. Yes, I miss my old family doctor (Jewish) too. Admittedly, the new lady that is our doctor is pretty nice, but, I really liked my old doctor. Had him since I was a kid. I'm surprised that the nun was going in to pray with you, because I've always understood that one only receives the spiritual help or treatment (in hospitals) from the patient's religious clergy. Eg: Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest, etc. Chapels in hospitals are for ALL patients of all religious backgrounds, even in hospitals run by specific religions. I've never heard that Ganesha was the equivalent to St. Christopher before. I know that he is the son of Shiva & has an elephant's head. If I recall, he is the god of prosperity, etc. St. Christopher is the patron Saint of travellers.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 27, 2022 3:48:44 GMT
All it takes for me to admit I might be wrong is evidence. I'm not an atheist to piss off Christians, I'm an atheist for the same reason I have no belief in Leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Zeus, or any other mythology. Christians think I'm making fun of them when I say things like that but that isn't the intention, Yahweh really is just as silly as the Easter Bunny once you escape the conditioning that makes you believe in the irrational.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 27, 2022 4:23:48 GMT
My internist, for the last 35 years, was a theist, his father was a Methodist minister. He just retired recently, and I miss him terribly. He was a great doctor, smart, innovative, etc., and in addition was a compassionate healer. He helped me through my cancer treatment and was also my husband's primary doctor. My husband thought that highly of him too. Both my husband and I were atheists. We just never discussed religion with the doctor. He could have been a Secular Humanist and been that caring and compassionate. My oncologist was an atheist. I thanked him, not god, for his skill and knowledge in making certain that I had every chance of going into remission. He glanced briefly at a plaque that another patient had given him that thanked god for him, and he rolled his eyes. He then smiled at me and said "thank you, I rarely get to hear those words from a patient." I was treated in first, a Lutheran affiliated hospital, because that was where I was first diagnosed, and the surgeon that did that first biopsy was so irritated that the mammogram hadn't found the extent of my cancer that he broke scrub and stormed out of the OR to the path lab, and then to the waiting room to give the bad news to my parents and husband. I stuck with him for the serious surgeries because he was so passionate about his work. I had no idea what religion he followed, it was never discussed. Reconstructive surgeries were done in a Catholic hospital because my best friend's husband was an anesthesiologist there, and he was great about being thorough with explanations of what would happen and why. He was Catholic, but not into talking about it. But, in the hospital, my husband did have to run off a nun that had come to pray with me. I had clearly written on the paperwork that I was atheist and did not want a visit from clergy. They disregarded that. My reconstructive surgeon was an arrogant ass, but the best reconstructive surgeon in town, and judging by his narcissism, I doubt he had any belief in a god. So, I make medical decisions on the basis of skill, knowledge, dedication to their profession and willingness to communicate. (Even the arrogant ass was meticulous in discussing what would be done, how and why.) I don't ask about religion, it just turns out that sometimes a doctor will mention something off-handedly. Mostly we talk about science, recommended treatments, survival rates, tumor marker tests and that sort of thing. My late husband's specialists were different; one an atheist, the other Hindu, of East Indian ancestry. When she decided to marry and move to New York, my husband asked a friend to hunt down a statue of Ganesha to give her as a wedding gift. That is the Hindu version of St. Christopher, if memory serves. My current physician and I are just getting to know each other. She is definitely not what I would have chosen, but with the pandemic and all, I was lucky to get any doctor at all. And during this period, my mother was in hospice care, so it's all been a muddle. Yes, I miss my old family doctor (Jewish) too. Admittedly, the new lady that is our doctor is pretty nice, but, I really liked my old doctor. Had him since I was a kid. I'm surprised that the nun was going in to pray with you, because I've always understood that one only receives the spiritual help or treatment (in hospitals) from the patient's religious clergy. Eg: Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest, etc. Chapels in hospitals are for ALL patients of all religious backgrounds, even in hospitals run by specific religions. I've never heard that Ganesha was the equivalent to St. Christopher before. I know that he is the son of Shiva & has an elephant's head. If I recall, he is the god of prosperity, etc. St. Christopher is the patron Saint of travellers. From Wikipedia: Ganesha God of Wisdom, New Beginnings, and Luck; Remover of Obstacles I'd say he was protective of travelers. Obstacles are bad when you travel. My husband's friend was Hindu, and he was the one who chose which statue and why. And on the literature that came with the statue, there was a story about when Ganesha was young. He had been playing, rather roughly, with a cat for a while. When he came home, his mother Parvati, was lying in bed, bruised and covered with dust. He was shocked and asked his mother who had harmed her. She said, "you did." He didn't understand. She said, "whatever you do to another sentient being, you do to me, also." I am paraphrasing that, it was years ago, and I couldn't find that story on the Wikipedia page. But an interesting parallel to a Christian story that I am sure you are familiar with. I have a fondness for Hindu and Buddhist art; I studied Asian art history in college, along with Italian High Rennaissance, which included Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, so I've seen a lot of religious art. The Catholic Church was the only client with enough money to commission that level of art. So, even though I am atheist, I do thank religions for keeping artists employed, as I am an artist, too. Of course, I didn't create religious art, I illustrated children's books...well, come to think of it, there were four books about "God made my (pet)". But I also did licensed property work, like Rainbow Brite and Winnie the Pooh. This was before computers took over and did away with artists who used paint and brushes. Oh, and just FYI, Leonardo Da Vinci, who painted The Last Supper, was an atheist. But artists will paint whatever they are paid for. And he painted a lot.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 27, 2022 4:36:58 GMT
All it takes for me to admit I might be wrong is evidence. I'm not an atheist to piss off Christians, I'm an atheist for the same reason I have no belief in Leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Zeus, or any other mythology. Christians think I'm making fun of them when I say things like that but that isn't the intention, Yahweh really is just as silly as the Easter Bunny once you escape the conditioning that makes you believe in the irrational. Yeah, my Dad got pretty cranky when I compared Santa Clause to god - "he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes". My Dad was a very single-minded Christian, and he took offense to anything not straight out of the Bible. He was sure I was going to hell for that little joke. He was a great dad, we just didn't agree on religion.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 27, 2022 4:43:35 GMT
Yes, I miss my old family doctor (Jewish) too. Admittedly, the new lady that is our doctor is pretty nice, but, I really liked my old doctor. Had him since I was a kid. I'm surprised that the nun was going in to pray with you, because I've always understood that one only receives the spiritual help or treatment (in hospitals) from the patient's religious clergy. Eg: Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest, etc. Chapels in hospitals are for ALL patients of all religious backgrounds, even in hospitals run by specific religions. I've never heard that Ganesha was the equivalent to St. Christopher before. I know that he is the son of Shiva & has an elephant's head. If I recall, he is the god of prosperity, etc. St. Christopher is the patron Saint of travellers. From Wikipedia: Ganesha God of Wisdom, New Beginnings, and Luck; Remover of Obstacles I'd say he was protective of travelers. Obstacles are bad when you travel. My husband's friend was Hindu, and he was the one who chose which statue and why. And on the literature that came with the statue, there was a story about when Ganesha was young. He had been playing, rather roughly, with a cat for a while. When he came home, his mother Parvati, was lying in bed, bruised and covered with dust. He was shocked and asked his mother who had harmed her. She said, "you did." He didn't understand. She said, "whatever you do to another sentient being, you do to me, also." I am paraphrasing that, it was years ago, and I couldn't find that story on the Wikipedia page. But an interesting parallel to a Christian story that I am sure you are familiar with. I have a fondness for Hindu and Buddhist art; I studied Asian art history in college, along with Italian High Rennaissance, which included Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, so I've seen a lot of religious art. The Catholic Church was the only client with enough money to commission that level of art. So, even though I am atheist, I do thank religions for keeping artists employed, as I am an artist, too. Of course, I didn't create religious art, I illustrated children's books...well, come to think of it, there were four books about "God made my (pet)". But I also did licensed property work, like Rainbow Brite and Winnie the Pooh. This was before computers took over and did away with artists who used paint and brushes. Oh, and just FYI, Leonardo Da Vinci, who painted The Last Supper, was an atheist. But artists will paint whatever they are paid for. And he painted a lot. My sister-in-law is Hindu. Yes, I know which Christian story that parallels: The parable of the sheep & goats. Yes, there are a lot of good Hindu & Buddhist art. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, hence the artwork is similar.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 27, 2022 21:13:48 GMT
if science was to produce more empirical evidence that supported the existence of a god; well, we follow the science. No, we don't... This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 27, 2022 21:56:48 GMT
Yes, I miss my old family doctor (Jewish) too. Admittedly, the new lady that is our doctor is pretty nice, but, I really liked my old doctor. Had him since I was a kid. I'm surprised that the nun was going in to pray with you, because I've always understood that one only receives the spiritual help or treatment (in hospitals) from the patient's religious clergy. Eg: Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest, etc. Chapels in hospitals are for ALL patients of all religious backgrounds, even in hospitals run by specific religions. I've never heard that Ganesha was the equivalent to St. Christopher before. I know that he is the son of Shiva & has an elephant's head. If I recall, he is the god of prosperity, etc. St. Christopher is the patron Saint of travellers. From Wikipedia: Ganesha God of Wisdom, New Beginnings, and Luck; Remover of Obstacles I'd say he was protective of travelers. Obstacles are bad when you travel. My husband's friend was Hindu, and he was the one who chose which statue and why. And on the literature that came with the statue, there was a story about when Ganesha was young. He had been playing, rather roughly, with a cat for a while. When he came home, his mother Parvati, was lying in bed, bruised and covered with dust. He was shocked and asked his mother who had harmed her. She said, "you did." He didn't understand. She said, "whatever you do to another sentient being, you do to me, also." I am paraphrasing that, it was years ago, and I couldn't find that story on the Wikipedia page. But an interesting parallel to a Christian story that I am sure you are familiar with. I have a fondness for Hindu and Buddhist art; I studied Asian art history in college, along with Italian High Rennaissance, which included Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, so I've seen a lot of religious art. The Catholic Church was the only client with enough money to commission that level of art. So, even though I am atheist, I do thank religions for keeping artists employed, as I am an artist, too. Of course, I didn't create religious art, I illustrated children's books...well, come to think of it, there were four books about "God made my (pet)". But I also did licensed property work, like Rainbow Brite and Winnie the Pooh. This was before computers took over and did away with artists who used paint and brushes. Oh, and just FYI, Leonardo Da Vinci, who painted The Last Supper, was an atheist. But artists will paint whatever they are paid for. And he painted a lot. are you sure? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_life_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci#Philosophy_and_religiontvaraj.com/2014/11/23/leonardo-da-vinci-6-belief-in-god/
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 28, 2022 2:55:45 GMT
From Wikipedia: Ganesha God of Wisdom, New Beginnings, and Luck; Remover of Obstacles I'd say he was protective of travelers. Obstacles are bad when you travel. My husband's friend was Hindu, and he was the one who chose which statue and why. And on the literature that came with the statue, there was a story about when Ganesha was young. He had been playing, rather roughly, with a cat for a while. When he came home, his mother Parvati, was lying in bed, bruised and covered with dust. He was shocked and asked his mother who had harmed her. She said, "you did." He didn't understand. She said, "whatever you do to another sentient being, you do to me, also." I am paraphrasing that, it was years ago, and I couldn't find that story on the Wikipedia page. But an interesting parallel to a Christian story that I am sure you are familiar with. I have a fondness for Hindu and Buddhist art; I studied Asian art history in college, along with Italian High Rennaissance, which included Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, so I've seen a lot of religious art. The Catholic Church was the only client with enough money to commission that level of art. So, even though I am atheist, I do thank religions for keeping artists employed, as I am an artist, too. Of course, I didn't create religious art, I illustrated children's books...well, come to think of it, there were four books about "God made my (pet)". But I also did licensed property work, like Rainbow Brite and Winnie the Pooh. This was before computers took over and did away with artists who used paint and brushes. Oh, and just FYI, Leonardo Da Vinci, who painted The Last Supper, was an atheist. But artists will paint whatever they are paid for. And he painted a lot. are you sure? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_life_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci#Philosophy_and_religiontvaraj.com/2014/11/23/leonardo-da-vinci-6-belief-in-god/ Based on what my professor taught in my Italian High Rennaissance Art History class in 1974, yes he was an atheist. Sorry I can't link to that; it was before the Internet existed.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 28, 2022 3:39:45 GMT
if science was to produce more empirical evidence that supported the existence of a god; well, we follow the science. No, we don't... This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. Tuesday, 10:22 pm. 9/27/2022This is the original post that preceded the post of August 11, 2022. The thread title is Scientific Method, a thread I started just to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. I found it on page 18 of my post history. You actually went that far back to point out some perceived inconsistency in a post made that long ago (48 days). And yet you didn't expound on exactly how that was inconsistent. You are trying to drag that post into the present to revive that thread. Why? Do you dislike me that much that you are again trying to get the last word? No more 'round and 'round. I have made that clear.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2022 4:00:13 GMT
Tuesday, 10:22 pm. 9/27/2022This is the original post that preceded the post of August 11, 2022. The thread title is Scientific Method, a thread I started just to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. I found it on page 18 of my post history. You actually went that far back to point out some perceived inconsistency in a post made that long ago (48 days). And yet you didn't expound on exactly how that was inconsistent. You are trying to drag that post into the present to revive that thread. Why? Do you dislike me that much that you are again trying to get the last word? No more 'round and 'round. I have made that clear. Everybody knows that if science leads us to God, it made a wrong turn somewhere. ps. Pro tip: Clicking on the timestamps in the quotes will take you directly to the quoted posts.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 28, 2022 6:17:15 GMT
if science was to produce more empirical evidence that supported the existence of a god; well, we follow the science. No, we don't... This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. We follow the evidence, but there is no evidence.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 28, 2022 13:31:57 GMT
Some other posters have touched on this point, but one could conceive of an atheist being convinced of the existence of God by overwhelming evidence, but it's very hard to conceive of an opposite. Science could maybe cause doubt in certain conceptions of God, but there will always be gaps in scientific knowledge where the believer can retreat to and say this is where God lies.
This leads some to say atheism should be the default, but I think that misunderstands why people are religious in the first place. No-one comes to the God question as a blank slate and the reasons for believing in God are often based in emotion rather than evidence. Even those who make evidential or logical arguments for God tend to be people who already believe for other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2022 20:04:37 GMT
Some other posters have touched on this point, but one could conceive of an atheist being convinced of the existence of God by overwhelming evidence, but it's very hard to conceive of an opposite. Science could maybe cause doubt in certain conceptions of God, but there will always be gaps in scientific knowledge where the believer can retreat to and say this is where God lies. This leads some to say atheism should be the default, but I think that misunderstands why people are religious in the first place. No-one comes to the God question as a blank slate and the reasons for believing in God are often based in emotion rather than evidence. Even those who make evidential or logical arguments for God tend to be people who already believe for other reasons. I don’t believe there is a god; I just lack belief that there isn’t.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 28, 2022 23:50:42 GMT
Tuesday, 10:22 pm. 9/27/2022This is the original post that preceded the post of August 11, 2022. The thread title is Scientific Method, a thread I started just to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. I found it on page 18 of my post history. You actually went that far back to point out some perceived inconsistency in a post made that long ago (48 days). And yet you didn't expound on exactly how that was inconsistent. You are trying to drag that post into the present to revive that thread. Why? Do you dislike me that much that you are again trying to get the last word? No more 'round and 'round. I have made that clear. I am beginning to think he is a troll, his posts are generally not connected to the topic at hand if the topic is calling him out on his misunderstanding, and he frequently makes claims that, when he is shown how they are wrong, will simply just make again, or pretend that the literal take on the words he used negates the obvious implcation. He is certainly not willing to entertain an actual conversation or assimiliate any evidence given to him. I wondered for a while if he was a more mature, patient blade.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2022 23:55:09 GMT
Tuesday, 10:22 pm. 9/27/2022This is the original post that preceded the post of August 11, 2022. The thread title is Scientific Method, a thread I started just to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. I found it on page 18 of my post history. You actually went that far back to point out some perceived inconsistency in a post made that long ago (48 days). And yet you didn't expound on exactly how that was inconsistent. You are trying to drag that post into the present to revive that thread. Why? Do you dislike me that much that you are again trying to get the last word? No more 'round and 'round. I have made that clear. I am beginning to think he is a troll, his posts are generally not connected to the topic at hand if the topic is calling him out on his misunderstanding, and he frequently makes claims that, when he is shown how they are wrong, will simply just make again, or pretend that the literal take on the words he used negates the obvious implcation. He is certainly not willing to entertain an actual conversation or assimiliate any evidence given to him. I wondered for a while if he was a more mature, patient blade. I'm fairly certain that a statement about science and God is more connected to the topic at hand than your post about me, or Rachel's post about how quoting a post of hers somehow means I don't like her. What was that you were saying about intelligent respectful discussion?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 30, 2022 0:02:30 GMT
Im not convinced it does. Let's see what this good rabbi says on the subject:
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 30, 2022 0:22:30 GMT
Im not convinced it does. Let's see what this good rabbi says on the subject: I guess I am more pointing out that the people who deny religion because of science are far less common than the people who deny science because of religion. That could be a function of loudness though.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 30, 2022 2:41:07 GMT
Let's see what this good rabbi says on the subject: I guess I am more pointing out that the people who deny religion because of science are far less common than the people who deny science because of religion. That could be a function of loudness though. Yeah, I guess so.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Oct 22, 2022 18:20:57 GMT
Religious people have so much to be wrong about aside from "Is there a God." Religions have all sorts of extras, most of which don't match other religions. I can see them saying they were wrong about some specific as long as it doesn't clash with their overall belief in God.
|
|