Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ColeusRattus t1_j6hniay wrote

Reply to comment by Scary_Vanilla1730 in 3.8 billion people believe human life started with a Man and His Clone by Acceptable-Shape-528

That is true. And science doesn't claim to have answers those questions. While religion does. This disqualifying itself from being taken seriously in any discourse about the beginning of our existence.

4

subzero112001 t1_j6ho9k4 wrote

Wait, how does simply claiming to have an answer automatically disqualify itself as credible?

1

ColeusRattus t1_j6hoi4b wrote

Let me demonstrate:

If you (specifically you, not a hypothetical you) want to get to the next train station, just exit your home, turn right. Follow that road the next intersection, then turn left. Follow that road for five miles, and you will find the train station on your right.

Is this claim credible?

4

subzero112001 t1_j6hpv5v wrote

Sure, it’s credible.

0

ColeusRattus t1_j6hq16e wrote

Then would you please follow my instructions and tell me if you ended up at a train station.

3

subzero112001 t1_j6ldlfk wrote

Telling me to do perform a specific act isn't an explanation of your theory.

So i'm still waiting for an explanation.

1

ColeusRattus t1_j6lq43s wrote

Just for the record, it's you that specifically asked for it to be spelled out. It is not me being condescending to a religious person.

Anyway, let's clear that up.

Any religion's claim to the origins of life or the world is just like me claiming to know how to get to the next train station from your home. A fabrication.

Now the scientific approach would be to gather data, and then postulate a hypothesis. So a scientist would try to find out your address, the address of the nearest train station and then would plot the proper route.

And now it gets really funny: a religious person will, in the very likely case that my directions are wrong, still claim they are true, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

1

subzero112001 t1_j6mkjjb wrote

> it's you that specifically asked for it to be spelled out.

All I asked was that you clarify a very puzzling statement you previously made.

> It is not me being condescending to a religious person.

Of course not, I'm not religious.

>Any religion's claim to the origins of life or the world is just like me claiming to know how to get to the next train station from your home. A fabrication.

This particular claim of yours only hold's any merit if you're certain that all religions are completely false. Given the lack of evidence to make such an irrefutable claim, this is again yet another very puzzling statement that you're making.

> And now it gets really funny: a religious person will, in the very likely case that my directions are wrong, still claim they are true, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

A religious person will say a train station exists in a spot even though it doesn't? Wtf...you shoot out these bizarre statements rapid fire huh?

1

ColeusRattus t1_j6mksfk wrote

>This particular claim of yours only hold's any merit if you're certain that all religions are completely false.

Well, all evidence and livable experience points strongly towards that being the case.

>A religious person will say a train station exists in a spot even though it doesn't?

Yes. An allegory for every dogma. Every statement of faith works like that.

1

Scary_Vanilla1730 t1_j6hnwft wrote

Einstein himself was an agnostic not an atheist, but you believe that having a theory is wrong. A theory that can not be disproven is not wrong I'm sorry, we just can tell if it's right, you included. My opinion on the matter is that the universe confounds me and I cannot imagine that this big clock exists and has no clockmaker

−1

ColeusRattus t1_j6hnyrx wrote

A theory that cannot be falsified is not a theory. It's a fabrication.

3

Scary_Vanilla1730 t1_j6hod0e wrote

I think you just hate on people believing in a god for no good reason and have a superiority ego pb towards religious beliefs. your definition is wrong by the way

−3