|
StrangerThan -> RE: The Reason Project (2/6/2010 7:05:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydawg
Dawkins isn't Dogmatic or Bigoted? When did those definitions change???
Because you can NOT declare God does not exist, and pretend it is based in Science. Simply can't. Science has no conclusion either way on that.
Actually you can declare anything you want. Your credibility is weighted by how many people are ready to believe you. That is how religion and dogma came to be.
- LA
Credibility has no bearing on the subject. Credibility is nothing more than how many other folks will line up their opinion with yours. History has plenty of examples of credibility leading the rank and file into obscurity in some cases, to death in other cases. Regardless, what we are talking are belief systems, whether it be scientific or otherwise.
Now, I know, some freak is going to jump on that bandwagon and talk about the scientific process. Try listening before you do. It helps with that diarrhea of the brain syndrome. We all know that the basis of acceptance is reproducible results. However, slathered all across the scientific spectrum are opinions, whether it be the opinion that a sliver of bone dug out of a sand pit in the middle east was part of a ritualistic killing, or that velociraptors hunted in packs like wolves. Often the knowledge or insight into the past, present and future is like looking at a still photo from 100 years ago. You get the starched clothes, the solemn looks. What you don't get is the day to day, life in the dirt existence. If we had no idea what life was actually like 100 years ago, I've no doubt we'd be reading headlines from leading antropologists and archaelogists stating that humans worshiped starch in those days due to the overwhelming evidence of its presence in their daily lives.
I can go along with the spread of scientific knowledge. The attack on dogma, religion, other belief systems by what is a process rife with its own belief system - re opinion, is something I will not. I especially will not do so as long as political correctness owns a portion of that scientific process and its belief system.
Yes, you can state anything you want. Whether or not it has any veracity to it is where we started, a matter of opinion unless you can supply reproducible results - which in the latter half of blurb defining their purpose, you cannot.
Bottom line.
|
|
|
|
