you can be fanatical about anything.
Again with the equivocation fallacies. They, science and religion, are not equally valid, falsifiable, or carrying the same weight in any sense. One goes about determining reality and is the only consistently and reliably method for doing so mankind has. The other relies on faith. Equating those two is asinine in any respect - including being 'fanatical' about them. One is not as good as the other. A fanatical knowledge seeking book worm is nowhere the same or equal to a child molesting priest. You don't get to equate reason with unreason!
the fact is that people go about using the scientific community to back up their own belief system all the time.
That's horse shit. This is precisely why we have peer reviews - those whom fail to adequately explain and convince their peers of the validity of their discoveries by using the scientific method - e.g. so others can reexamine and recreate experiments and findings - are considered to have provided a contribution of lesser value. All findings are not equal or equally supported by evidence. This is why unfounded assertions, like the existence of a sky god, are discarded outright.
You need to understand what the scientific method is. Here, read:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...entific_method
Now stop making unfounded assertions regarding science.
there are PLENTY of scientific discoveries that have done more to prove the existance of God than not.
Bold assertion. Citation? I'm sure you'd win the Nobel Prize for showing this to anyone using the scientific method. You know, not faith, not gullibility, not 'wishing it was so'. Do go on, it's hilarious
Also, you're the one making the positive claim, the existence of a sky god, you have the burden of proof. Demonstrate your god - win a nobel price - or a million dollar even here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R...rmal_Challenge
I'll wait for your triumphant demonstration
but hey, continue your non-fanatical witchhunt of someone who never attacked anyone, just because he doesn't agree with you.
You're doing that all by yourself - I'm simply helping by pointing out your gross misconceptions of science and religion.
fair enough.i was attempting to not use the phrase "believing in science." i realize athiests aren't scientists and vice versa.
1) There is nothing to 'believe'. Science is not a belief.
Science in the broadest term is a system of discovery and invention based on empirical evidence and experimentation rooted in methodological naturalism. It has nothing to do with believing it or not. You're thus making a huge, huge equivocation fallacy.
2) Atheism has nothing to do with science. They're not synonyms or interchangeable. Atheism is, as stated, simply the rejection of theistic claims. Trying to understand the world around us can lead to atheism, sure, it's only natural when you realize that there is more to the answer than 'a god did it'. But it's not a requirement. The head of the human genome project, Francis Collins, is a Christian for instance.
seriously though, in the spirit of peace, let's just agree to disagree. i didn't come on here to start a religion flame war.
Seriously though, in the spirit of reason, stop coming to the the grown up thread with your childish imaginary friend argument, and stop pretending your unreason is on the same shelf as reason. We have a
The Theism Threadfor that - along with Zeus, Allah, Loch Ness monster and all the other imaginary beings.
