Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I am too biased Lunabell Aug 2016 #1
I look at it more like brainwashing Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #2
"said the pot to the kettle"... jonno99 Aug 2016 #5
???????? Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #7
Science is brainwashing? Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #19
I call propagating this sort of thinking "brainwashing": jonno99 Aug 2016 #21
You're not biased, you're reality-based, and since religion isn't based in reality... cleanhippie Aug 2016 #3
Hmmm...Do you not take it "on faith" that eventually we'll figure out jonno99 Aug 2016 #4
No, it's taken that science will find the answers to those questions. cleanhippie Aug 2016 #8
So we are in agreement then, your faith in science is strong...nt jonno99 Aug 2016 #9
You are equivocating on the meaning of 'faith.' immoderate Aug 2016 #10
Faith: jonno99 Aug 2016 #11
Yes I do. AAMOF, I think it's pretty much in the bag. immoderate Aug 2016 #12
In the bag? Not really. jonno99 Aug 2016 #15
That's why I avoid using 'faith' that way. Fundies equivocate. immoderate Aug 2016 #16
Chuckles. Plausible? jonno99 Aug 2016 #22
You are right. I don't act out of faith. It's totally useless. immoderate Aug 2016 #23
And yet there is no actual evidence that life formed naturally - only your "feeling" jonno99 Aug 2016 #25
Of course there's lots of evidence. OTOH "the Creator" is a feeling. immoderate Aug 2016 #27
No. Belief in something "for which there is no proof" Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #17
"Faith". Lol. cleanhippie Aug 2016 #13
"science will find the answers to those questions." rug Aug 2016 #14
The proven record of science to date is incredible. Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #18
No, what I am putting down is starry-eyed expectations. rug Aug 2016 #20
You have determined the limits of science? How? By revelation? immoderate Aug 2016 #24
I have determined that science, like all known things is limited. rug Aug 2016 #26
Are the limits of science known? How do you know? immoderate Aug 2016 #28
Naturally. rug Aug 2016 #29
How will we know when we reach the limits of science? immoderate Aug 2016 #30
You assume our ability to learn is greater that what there is to learn. rug Aug 2016 #31
Can you characterize the kinds of things that cannot be known? immoderate Aug 2016 #32
By science, I presume. rug Aug 2016 #33
My bad! I left you that loophole. immoderate Aug 2016 #34
The blobfish will never be explained. rug Aug 2016 #36
Sure. It's pointless. Leastways, I don't detect one. immoderate Aug 2016 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Aug 2016 #38
Given the incredible successes of science to date? Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #40
The question is whether there iare limits to what science can explain. rug Aug 2016 #42
Trying to focus just on the inanimate-to-animate moment... Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #43
Actually, that's the stronger pro-science argument. rug Aug 2016 #44
Meeting intolerance with intolerance? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #35
No, more like meeting ignorance and bigotry with intolerance. Lunabell Aug 2016 #39
Which of these three qualities is more desirable? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #41
Too namby pamby for me. Lunabell Aug 2016 #45
Dialogue does not equate to surrender. eom guillaumeb Aug 2016 #46
"I don't like talking to real people -- but an app I can handle!" struggle4progress Aug 2016 #6
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Are you an atheist wantin...»Reply #19