The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[KWED]

In defence of Christopher Hitchens, the guy’s tongue was always in his cheek.

Absolutely wasn't. He was often intensely serious and passionate about the message he was trying to get across.

It’s not his fault he accumulated a legion of acolytes deaf to irony and nuance, who took everything he wrote as seriously as if it were Gospel.

Gotta love a religionist trying to claim Hitchens wasn't really anti-religious. Think I've seen it all now.

Victor Hugo once said that The KJ Bible made England, but that England made Shakespeare. Well, England made Hitchens too, and irony is as close to the heart of England, as rain and mist.

In reality, the US had as much impact on Hitchens' work as England did.
Also, way to generalise the work of all English writers.
BTW, "England" is just a part of the UK, not all of it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not all.
I just have no desire for deities or what some call "truth".

OK.

This probably explains why you “didn’t receive the communique”. You weren’t listening for it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Absolutely wasn't. He was often intensely serious and passionate about the message he was trying to get across.

Gotta love a religionist trying to claim Hitchens wasn't really anti-religious. Think I've seen it all now.

In reality, the US had as much impact on Hitchens' work as England did.
Also, way to generalise the work of all English writers.
BTW, "England" is just a part of the UK, not all of it.

I understand. You fundamentalists don’t like it when someone questions your appointed prophet. Which illustrates perfectly, my point about deafness to nuance. This is a characteristic of the intransigent mindset, common among extremists everywhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

This probably explains why you “didn’t receive the communique”. You weren’t listening for it.

Sounds like the system is designed for bias confirmation.
Those desiring the message listen for the it, & imagine hearing it.
Those who don't hear it are the ones with a problem.
Such beliefs are non-disprovable...like claiming that 27 angels
can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[lukethethird]

It's only sterile to you because you can't allow the idea of God to be in any way valid or useful. And that's too bad for you. But billions of your fellow humans can, and do. So for all of them the idea and the discussion is not sterile at all. It's unfortunate that you can't participate, but that's your own choice. It's even more unfortunate that you seem to feel obliged to belittle, dismiss, and denigrate everyone else's interest and value in the subject.

Why are you so obsessed with atheists?

 

[PureX]

Why are you so obsessed with atheists?

The post was directed at me, and I responded. How is that an "obsession"?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sounds like the system is designed for bias confirmation.
Those desiring the message listen for the it, & imagine hearing it.
Those who don't hear it are the ones with a problem.
Such beliefs are non-disprovable...like claiming that 27 angels
can dance on the head of a pin.

Nobody said you had a problem. Though you do seem to have difficulty accepting that some people hold beliefs you don't share. Your libertarian instincts seem to desert you when anyone mentions God. Or is that unfair?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody said you had a problem. Though you do seem to have difficulty accepting that some people hold beliefs you don't share. Your libertarian instincts seem to desert you when anyone mentions God. Or is that unfair?

Not hearing messages from gods is
often considered a problem by some.
I don't mind people having other beliefs.

BTW, I'm a poor example of a libertarian.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not hearing messages from gods is
often considered a problem by some.
I don't mind people having other beliefs.

BTW, I'm a poor example of a libertarian.

I’m almost certainly a poorer example of a religious person

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Debate what? How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Whether God can make a stone too heavy to lift? Theology is sterile speculation. Debate it all you like. You'll never come up with a single useful idea.

If you can't demonstrate the likelihood that your god exists, and you can't, then you have nothing to offer the empiricist. And you don't merely consider the possibility. You've accepted it as actual. That's where your thinking goes off the reason tracks.

Now you're reducing your theism to psychology, to comforting placebo. I can agree with you there. That's when I entered it - when I needed comfort, when I was experiencing extreme angst, as I have previously explained to you. You, too. The difference between us is that mine resolved and religion no longer served any purpose (I know that you don't consider a god belief religion, but I do).

Sure we do. I know why I was a theist. I know why you are one. Many are indoctrinated into it and feel comforted by being part of a religious community. They have been taught to consider atheism evil. And they hope for heaven, fear hell, and have their prayers answered. Or they feel that life is empty without such ideas. They've been told that atheists are without morals or purpose. I suspect than many aren't really theists, but just playing the part socially.

And yes, I have a bias against theism as I do against all faith-based thinking. It's guessing.

Interesting that you see atheism as rewarding to atheists just as you see theism rewarding to believers, but condemn the former anyway. But you're correct. I take pride in being an atheist and a secular humanist. What others see as as intellectual and moral failure, I see as the opposite. I see secular humanism as the pinnacle of man's progress to date in epistemology and ethics.

No, most do not. This is you still tilting at windmills, your straw man. You're fighting a nonexistent foe.

You're refusal to acknowledge that most atheists are agnostic undermines everything you have to say about atheists or atheism.

Defeat what? Unevidenced claims? We just reject them. You'd do well to assimilate that as well. Ammo? Against what? You see yourself as some kind of warrior and defender of the faith in a war.

You keep referring to materialism, but whatever you call the alternative that you prefer doesn't function in any area. Presumably, you are talking about idealism, but who knows, as you never say. But what has your alternate way of knowing that you consider more insightful than an empirical approach to what is true and real generated of any value? You continually bemoan the skeptic's outlook as too narrow and ill-equipped to examine this other realm you seem to think exists for no better reason than that you want it to, but you never reveal what you see, or why what you think you know is worth knowing. Because you have no such knowledge. Your better way of knowing is sterile except perhaps to you personally as a comforting placebo, but not to others.

Let me offer an allegory that shows what a better way of knowing actually is and can do. There are a people that can count, but haven't learned to add yet. The chief wants to merge a flock of 36 sheep with one of 87, maybe because of a marriage between two families each with a herd, and he wants to know how many sheep that will be. He can only answer that by merging the two flocks and counting them.

Then along comes a stranger who claims to have another way of knowing that shows him more. He says he can tell in advance how many sheep the chief will count when he merges a flock of 36 with one of 87. This stranger announces that there will be 36+87=123 sheep. The chief merges the flocks, counts them, gets 123, and the crowd gasps, some shouting, "Witchcraft!" This stranger made a claim of seeing more, and demonstrated that he really did.

How about you? Your verbiage suggests that you seem to feel that you have a better way of knowing. Show me some of what this better way of knowing than what you scornfully call materialism has generated so that I'll stop calling it useless. Just kidding. We both know you can't. If you could, you would have posted it in the scientism thread, when you made the same claims that were rebutted the same way and ignored.

This is pretty funny coming from Don Quixote.

It's only sterile to you because you can't allow the idea of God to be in any way valid or useful. And that's too bad for you. But billions of your fellow humans can, and do. So for all of them the idea and the discussion is not sterile at all.

I've already explained this to you. If you can benefit from religion, it is because you have need not met without it. You're in the same category as the guy with poor vision who benefited from glasses, and now thinks everybody ought to wear a pair, unaware that there are those who see well without them, and whose vision would actually be degraded by putting a pair on.

It's even more unfortunate that you seem to feel obliged to belittle, dismiss, and denigrate everyone else's interest and value in the subject.

I wasn't the one who called atheists liars. What respect do you think that you or the beliefs that informed you to think and write like that are owed?

And I noticed that you evaded answering the rest of that post, as I predicted. You have no

Debate what? How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Whether God can make a stone too heavy to lift? Theology is sterile speculation. Debate it all you like. You'll never come up with a single useful idea.

If you can't demonstrate the likelihood that your god exists, and you can't, then you have nothing to offer the empiricist. And you don't merely consider the possibility. You've accepted it as actual. That's where your thinking goes off the reason tracks.

Now you're reducing your theism to psychology, to comforting placebo. I can agree with you there. That's when I entered it - when I needed comfort, when I was experiencing extreme angst, as I have previously explained to you. You, too. The difference between us is that mine resolved and religion no longer served any purpose (I know that you don't consider a god belief religion, but I do).

Sure we do. I know why I was a theist. I know why you are one. Many are indoctrinated into it and feel comforted by being part of a religious community. They have been taught to consider atheism evil. And they hope for heaven, fear hell, and have their prayers answered. Or they feel that life is empty without such ideas. They've been told that atheists are without morals or purpose. I suspect than many aren't really theists, but just playing the part socially.

And yes, I have a bias against theism as I do against all faith-based thinking. It's guessing.

Interesting that you see atheism as rewarding to atheists just as you see theism rewarding to believers, but condemn the former anyway. But you're correct. I take pride in being an atheist and a secular humanist. What others see as as intellectual and moral failure, I see as the opposite. I see secular humanism as the pinnacle of man's progress to date in epistemology and ethics.

No, most do not. This is you still tilting at windmills, your straw man. You're fighting a nonexistent foe. You're refusal to acknowledge that most atheists are agnostic undermines everything you have to say about atheists or atheism.

Defeat what? Unevidenced claims? We just reject them. You'd do well to assimilate that as well. Ammo? Against what? You see yourself as some kind of warrior and defender of the faith in a war.

You keep referring to materialism, but whatever you call the alternative that you prefer doesn't function in any area. Presumably, you are talking about idealism, but who knows, as you never say. But what has your alternate way of knowing that you consider more insightful than an empirical approach to what is true and real generated of any value? You continually bemoan the skeptic's outlook as too narrow and ill-equipped to examine this other realm you seem to think exists for no better reason than that you want it to, but you never reveal what you see, or why what you think you know is worth knowing. Because you have no such knowledge. Your better way of knowing is sterile except perhaps to you personally as a comforting placebo, but not to others.

Let me offer an allegory that shows what a better way of knowing actually is and can do. There are a people that can count, but haven't learned to add yet. The chief wants to merge a flock of 36 sheep with one of 87, maybe because of a marriage between two families each with a herd, and he wants to know how many sheep that will be. He can only answer that by merging the two flocks and counting them.

Then along comes a stranger who claims to have another way of knowing that shows him more. He says he can tell in advance how many sheep the chief will count when he merges a flock of 36 with one of 87. This stranger announces that there will be 36+87=123 sheep. The chief merges the flocks, counts them, gets 123, and the crowd gasps, some shouting, "Witchcraft!" This stranger made a claim of seeing more, and demonstrated that he really did.

How about you? Your verbiage suggests that you seem to feel that you have a better way of knowing. Show me some of what this better way of knowing than what you scornfully call materialism has generated so that I'll stop calling it useless. Just kidding. We both know you can't. If you could, you would have posted it in the scientism thread, when you made the same claims that were rebutted the same way and ignored.

This is pretty funny coming from Don Quixote.

It's only sterile to you because you can't allow the idea of God to be in any way valid or useful. And that's too bad for you. But billions of your fellow humans can, and do. So for all of them the idea and the discussion is not sterile at all.

I've already explained this to you. If you can benefit from religion, it is because you have need not met without it. You're in the same category as the guy with poor vision who benefited from glasses, and now thinks everybody ought to wear a pair, unaware that there are those who see well without them, and whose vision would actually be degraded by putting a pair on.

It's even more unfortunate that you seem to feel obliged to belittle, dismiss, and denigrate everyone else's interest and value in the subject.

I wasn't the one who called atheists liars. What respect do you think that you or the beliefs that informed you to think and write like that are owed?

And I noticed that you evaded answering the rest of that post, as I predicted. Why? You have no answer. Look at how much of the above post you simply dodged like it wasn't there. Many good points were made, but you just bellied up.

You like to call others liars. How about I call you a coward? If you want respect, you have to give respect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why are you so obsessed with atheists?

He is not obsessed with atheists as such. He is obsessed with those people who claim that not just for some, but for all versions of God, all those versions are meaningless with evidence, rationality, objectivity, logic and what not in similar senses . That is not true, because that they are meaningless are without evidence, rationality, logic and what not in similar senses. They are always meaningless 1st person due to a subjective evolution of worth.

The problem is that some people don't understand when they are subjective and that is not limited to religious people. Yes, some religious people are harmful due to being religious, but that is not limited to being religious. I can find real life examples where some rational people are harmful.
That is the end and that has been the end game since for me, I learned to be a skeptic, use critical thinking and do science like this:
"Towards the end of his talk to the science teachers Feynman attempted a definition of science, but
then hesitated, noting from his own experience that science is neither its form nor its content. He did not
characterize science as a particular method, though while that is one of the many ways science develops,
it is itself not what science is. He finally answered the question, ‘what Is science’ this way, that it is,
“...the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not
necessarily trusting the [human] race[‘s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best
definition.” (2005, p. 185) And then he went on to tell them, “…learn from science that you must doubt
the experts…When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science
doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.” (Feynman, 2005, p. 187)"
https://www.researchgate.net/public...at_Is_Science_and_Today's_Mistrust_of_Science

So here it is for what is always at play in these kinds of debates. If you however indirect claim a we for in effect all humans, I hold you responsible if you claim to have the correct answer for that we. And it doesn't matter if you use science, religion and/or philosophy. And I accept you do the same when I do so.
So talk all about what is meaningful and meaningless to you as you or relevant/irrelevant, matters/doesn't matter, makes sense/doesn't make sense, is useful/useless, is good/bad, is right/wrong or good/bab. But if you use a we for all humans, then the game is on.

 

[Augustus]

Feel free to cite some of Dawkins', Dennett's, Harris' or Hitchens' "historical illiteracy".

From about 22.20 for 3 or so minutes Sam Harris is certainly terribly wrong about history.

Christianity lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire and ushered in the Dark Ages.

Classical knowledge was only preserved in the Islamic world

The church, which was opposed to science, refused to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm he was right

etc.

Says the person who insists that the earliest human societies were constantly in a state of internal conflict.

Feel free to quote me saying that, you can't of course as you imagined it due to your poor reading comprehension. I said there was frequent conflict with outgroups, and cooperation and limited conflict within groups same as with other primates.

On the other hand, you did say that it was wrong to say a species of primate who live in in tens of thousands of small kin based groups and who regularly fought each other were "divided".

You insisted they were in fact already "united" because you didn't want to accept that religion played a role in uniting these disparate groups into ever larger societies.

In fact, you even said religion actually made these small kin based primate groups more divided than they would have been otherwise

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This needs to be explained. It doesn't mean that what a human senses in their environment is not there or imaginary, but that the light waves that reach the eye, and the eye converts this light into sensory data (via signals, neurotransmitters and electricity) to the visual cortex of the brain, and the brain converts them into representations of what is being viewed. Jim can look at a loaf of bread on a table and his sensory apparatus will relay the reality of this loaf and table to his brain. The representations in the brain are NOT the things seen, so philosophers have called this brain activity illusory. The loaf itself can't be in the brain, but a representation of the loaf can be, thus it is an illusion of the loaf that the brain senses.

Of course human senses are limited. We can't see many waves of light. We can't see infrared like other animals can. We can't see microorganisms, or deep into space. So the unaltered human as an instrument for observation is limited.

This all assumes people have working senses and brain.

Now this differs from people who have damage to some senses. It also differs from people who have brain dysfunctions. As we know mental illness or drugs can alter what people think they are seeing. Hallucinations are not accurate representations of the environment.

Well, in a sense it is correct, because physical things are category concepts for which the experiences making up physical things can be explained without the terms physical things.
So yes, physical things are a cultural construct for which others are possible. They, the terms, are sometimes treated as being there in the literal sense, but they are not. If you check they are defined by how they works as experiences to a human.
If you really want to play philosophy I am in part doing a version of phenomenology and describing the world as always including humans, because describing the world requires a human to do the describing.

And, yes, some of your experiences are objective, but not all. And some of your behaviours are objective, but not all.

 

[oldbadger]

....my point about deafness to nuance. This is a characteristic of the intransigent mindset, common among extremists everywhere.

Religious extremists mostly, or so I find.

 

[oldbadger]

Nobody said you had a problem. Though you do seem to have difficulty ,.......

Oh dear .......
So you DO say that @Revoltingest has a problem!

It's 'make-yer-mind-up' time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My mother just died from cancer so we both know how real it is, and how we have to deal with the real affect is has on our lives.

Many theists insist their god is real in the same sense when it clearly is not. Atheists acknowledge reality without gods or a supernatural much the way those of us who deal with cancer know it is real, and not imagined.

Faith healers say cancer patients can deal with cancer with imaginary treatments. They don't work. So rational minds can understand what is real and what is imaginary fairly well to function in every day life.

Yeah, we agree.
But your example is not all of religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

1. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One suspect that a list of "atheist characteristics" made by anyone claiming they are is likely to be similarly flawed. But anywho...

Gnostic atheism is the only rational position in respect to the gods of religion.
Agnostic atheism is only reasonable in the context of non-specific, supernatural forces.

This one is wrong.

Also not true.

Boo hoo. Try a thicker skin?

Another straw man. We view science as the "best method", not some "infallible source". That nonsense belongs to you religionists.

WADR you are overthinking this. Yes, what you say is true, but its kinda stating the bee din' obvious.

To a degree, yes. Again, "stating the bleeding' obvious".

Another straw man. Whether a god is talking literally or figuratively, there is still no evidence for that god.
And remember that there are religionists who claim that god should be taken at his word. We atheists are equal opportunity sceptics so we can address both the literalists and the revisionists.

Careful you don't run out of straw there.
Morality is a combination of innate and acquired traits. Some morality has come from religion, but then religion got it (well, the bits worth having) from our innate tendencies in the first place.

Wrong again. That is only brought up when religionists claims that religious ideology or behaviour is timeless and universal.

That's quite a mixed bag of straw you have there.

Wrong again.

Who wrote that again? They are an idiot, and so are you for agreeing with it.

I actually have not commented on each point yet, I have not said I agree or disagree with each point.

I posted it, as when I read the article I saw it needed to be discussed as aspects of it are obviously found in many conversations on RF and throughout the world. So if the list does become a mindset of a movement, would that be the destruction of humanity?

I note in your reply you offered a comment about people needing thicker skins.

I do see aspects of some of the points reflected on RF, I do see other aspects reflected in the news I watch on TV.

As for a movement that implements these as a whole, I very much doubt it, but given the right conditions, not impossible.

RegardsTony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"I didn't say to drive the X out of town, I'm just putting up the posters that quote the person who said it".

Weasel words.

The poster was already put up, I took it off the wall and brought it to a group for a discussion.

That is where it is at.

Regards Tony

 

[Yazata]

I found this interesting.

It is interesting. It's probably the best summary of what I think of as evangelical atheism that I've seen, (There's really nothing 'new' about it.)

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Dennett is a very good philosopher. I'm unfamiliar with what he says about religion or why. Harris has more subtle views about religion (he'd probably call it "spirituality") than he gets credit for. (Probably his own fault.) I'm unfamiliar with Hitchens except as a polemicist. And Dawkins is kind of a tragic figure, a once prominent evolutionary biologist who has become a rather sophomoric opponent of "religion", which in his mind seems to equate to fundamentalist Christian protestantism. It's tragic to see a once brilliant and productive scientist self-destruct like that.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.

I think that agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to hold on these matters.

(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;

That's just it, there's no way that they could possibly know that. Many atheists are aware of that problem and it seems to be part of what has motivated the recent redefinition of 'atheism' from belief in the non-existence of God to lack of belief in the existence of God. Which unfortunately threatens to make atheism synomymous with agnosticism.

(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;

Which is a false premise in my opinion. Ignoring the good that religion does in people's lives turns it into a caricature. It's easy to point to historical evils attributable to "religion". But almost all of those are attributable even more to politics. But have atheists rejected politics as pathological in nature and in toto? It's often hard to find people more political than atheists.

These sort of atheists remind me of fundamentalist evangelical theists with a bloody hole where their own faith was ripped out of their chests. But the same old missionary impulse remains, the desire to convert the planet and an intolerance for those who believe differently than they do.

(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;

Yes. That's why I don't particularly like this kind of atheist (just as I dislike their religious opposite numbers). I'm much more comfortable as an agnostic among the more philosophically astute kind of religious people. The open-minded seeker types.

(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;

Yes, there's a tendency to replace their lost religious faith with faith in scientism.

(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;

I see faith and reason as complementary. My definition of faith might be something like 'Trust and confidence in beliefs and ideas that aren't conclusively justified'. The thing is that every belief lacks conclusive justification when we inquire deeply enough. Scientific induction, the principles of logical inference, even the existence of the physical world are matters of faith too. We can't escape from the necessity of faith. That doesn't mean that some things aren't more plausible than others, but that's another discussion.

(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;

I think that it's foolish to conceive of history as a one-dimensional line from the past (bad) to a single preordained future (good), with our only choice how quickly we move leftwards along that line. That seems to me to be another atheist vestige of Christianity, this time its eschatology of the coming Kingdom.

I perceive of time more like a tree, with any number of possible futures, some paradisical, others hellish (and most in between). The actions we take now will determine what branch we take.

(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;

Yes. It seems to be to be another expression of the fundamentalism at the heart of the 'new atheism'. There's no end of fascinating subtleties in religious thought from all traditions that these fundamentalist atheists typically seem largely unaware of. They have decided that religion is bullsh*t, there's no need for them to study bullsh*t, so they are almost proud of their ignorance.

(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.

As an agnostic, I'm inclined to think that humans do come from the factory so to speak with social instincts already installed. But countless inconsistent moral codes are consistent with those instincts, all "socially constructed". And I don't think that there is any objective fact of the matter that would allow us to choose between them.

(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);

Yes, I'm totally unwilling to dismiss the struggles and victories of my parents, their parents, and all that came before me. We stand today on the shoulders of giants. And none of them was perfect. They just did their best (most of the time) in the exceedingly imperfect circumstances in which they found themselves, and maybe left the world a little better place. We aren't perfect either and our children are likely to reject us too.

It's just foolish to imagine ourselves as somehow standing outside the flow of history, the only people who have ever lived who have a clear grasp on right and wrong, truth and falsity.

(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;

(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

And these are indications of the fundamental authoritarianism and totalitarianism that lies at the heart of their worldview. To be fair, some of their religious opposite numbers suffer from the same defects, but that's no excuse for them turning themselves into the same thing in reverse.

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

I think that last is over-stating it. The 'new atheists' are no more a threat than the religious fundamentalists they resemble so much and battle so vigorously. I don't foresee either side converting all of humanity. The cat of free-thought is already out of the bag.

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Good thread, Tony. It raises lots of issues for discussion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Another straw man. We view science as the "best method", not some "infallible source". That nonsense belongs to you religionists.
...

Who is that we and why the ""? @Sheldon wouldn't agree. There is objective evidence that science is the best and that is not a view. One of you are wrong and all the other negatives, including the possibilities of hallucinating and/or being delusional.
So which of you are that?

So what are your answers, dear scientist? Remember you are not the only who understands science and you could be wrong.