Religion

SwissTony

(2,560 posts)

24. Em...I don't think Humblebum is actualy saying what you think (s)he is saying...

Reply to skepticscott (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:05 PM

Jul 2012

You need a little more subtlety in your thought processes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does the Higgs Boson Discovery Resolve the Religion-Science Debate? [View all] rug Jul 2012 OP

I find this kind of talk very silly. longship Jul 2012 #1

The news media never misses a chance skepticscott Jul 2012 #4

That is correct. rug Jul 2012 #5

Well, sorry...science DOES say things skepticscott Jul 2012 #6

Care to provide an example or two? nt. SwissTony Jul 2012 #10

Science has something to say about skepticscott Jul 2012 #11

No it doesn't. SwissTony Jul 2012 #14

Nice try skepticscott Jul 2012 #15

Nice try, too. SwissTony Jul 2012 #16

Getting lamer every time skepticscott Jul 2012 #17

But Science doesn't say it. SwissTony Jul 2012 #18

As I said skepticscott Jul 2012 #19

I think you're the one with the problem about understanding science. SwissTony Jul 2012 #23

So your counter argument is that science isn't actually saying anything about gods... eqfan592 Jul 2012 #25

Yes, science doesn't say "God X exists or not' SwissTony Jul 2012 #32

Second reply... SwissTony Jul 2012 #34

Yup cgnick Jul 2012 #51

Sheesh, how many ways do you need this explained? skepticscott Jul 2012 #35

"Then science discovers ways that X, Y and Z COULD be without god." humblebum Jul 2012 #37

That statement has merit skepticscott Jul 2012 #39

When the statement is made that "a god was not necessary" - that is a purely subjective opinion humblebum Jul 2012 #40

Is it science that is saying such things or is it humblebum Jul 2012 #21

Science has made its judgement skepticscott Jul 2012 #22

Em...I don't think Humblebum is actualy saying what you think (s)he is saying... SwissTony Jul 2012 #24

I do believe you are incorrect, on both counts. (nt) eqfan592 Jul 2012 #27

We can agree to disagree. SwissTony Jul 2012 #33

You absolutely validate the term 'scientism' but in fact, humblebum Jul 2012 #36

If you think that science cannot rely skepticscott Jul 2012 #38

Oh yes, Science can comment on 10 dimensions or a hundred, or one. That is not the issue. humblebum Jul 2012 #41

It is exactly the issue you raised in #36 skepticscott Jul 2012 #47

Scientists can make comments about anything they so choose. But, "Science" itself says nothing. humblebum Jul 2012 #50

Your statement humblebum Jul 2012 #42

If everything in the physical world skepticscott Jul 2012 #48

You are simply restating the obvious, and last I knew the SM was humblebum Jul 2012 #49

No one "worships" science. But thanks for playing. kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #31

FAIL. You need to provide SOME scientific evidence for the kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #30

Hi, longship! Welcome back. FWIW, I think this was supposed to be silly. cbayer Jul 2012 #7

Back at ya, my friend. longship Jul 2012 #12

Get to the lake and get on a boat. cbayer Jul 2012 #13

It was originally called "The god-damned particle". SwissTony Jul 2012 #9

I like this answer to that question Silent3 Jul 2012 #2

This is hilarious and right on target. cbayer Jul 2012 #8

+6,105 Angry Dragon Jul 2012 #28

Also... Silent3 Jul 2012 #43

Confirmation of the standard model is indeed a problem for some. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #3

It's all in the name, Bosons are named for a guy named Bose, and bose is a dimbear Jul 2012 #20

Eh. What's in a name? pinto Jul 2012 #26

Not at all. Expect theologians to claim that God created the God Particle. no_hypocrisy Jul 2012 #29

I don't know about any claims anyone will make, but LARED Jul 2012 #44

What ultimately solves the debate is the lack of a God. Gore1FL Jul 2012 #45

No. mr blur Jul 2012 #46