Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor
This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.
|
That's not quite accurate but is well in the direction of what I
strive towards.
When it comes to others I really don't care what people believe but when it comes up in the context of discussion there are two things I can't avoid picking at:
1) If there is a claim of real world affects that should be measurable, I'll want to investigate whether they are actually measured.
2) If there is a claim that rational methods suggest belief for something lacking an evidentiary basis I'll want to investigate whether there are gaps in that rational method.
But if someone keeps it completely in the realm of untestable and unknowable then there is nothing to debate. But I saw a lot (not necessarily here) of "I believe god is unknowable and not subject to scientific methods of investigation. I also believe in the healing power of prayer" or "Since science can't explain how the pre-Big Bang state [which, by the way was not a ball of gas; pre Big Bang neither matter, sub atomic particles, nor time as we know it appear to have existed] it seems the only option is a sentient creator."
The former makes claims that should be testable and the former makes logical leaps that I don't think are supported.
But when someone says "God is the love I feel for all mankind" all I can say is "please don't sit on my furniture you stinky hippie."