By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AussieGecko said:
UncleScrooge said:

It always strucks me how soon these things turn into a "religion vs science" discussion.

I remember in school people were pretty shocked (they literally couldn't believe it) that I was an atheist / agnostic. And they would always ask me "so you believe in science?" which would leave me pretty confused. You can't "believe" in science. Real religious belief is not the same as trusting scientific discoveries.

Religious belief goes way deeper than just "believing facts". Religion is not about "x and y happened".

Maybe some of you guys should read the work of James Fowler (just google him) then you'll realize that once you hit a certain..."stage" of religious belief there is no believing in religious "facts" anymore.

ooooooooh i love how the people that believe science without question. Like how we were guaranteed the oldest human was 100k years, then going on and going on and now we are up to 2 million.

Oh and raptors, guess what they have feathers, look at jurassic park, hell the lost world it was only recently they realised that they had feathers. Science is a bunch of theories until proven otherwise, and even then its not proven. It is simply a new discovery.

You can not simply criticise religion "theories" if you are trying to use science "theories" in defence.


Hmm... I'm not sure what to answer but going by your last sentence I guess you expect me to "believe" in scientific theories? If so that is not true.

I merely said that you can't believe in science like it was a religion because it is something else. When someone asks me whether I "believe" in science to compensate for religion it feels like they are asking "so you don't like the french language. That must mean you only drive Ferraris right?" There is no connection between the two.

So uhm...was that last sentence aimed at me or at everyone? Because it doesn't reflect my opinion on this matter at all