This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
GlassDog · 46-50, M
I'm an atheist and I tend to approach most things by debate. However, if a religion is based on faith rather than provable truth, perhaps debate isn't the right method of discussion.
In the same way, I get people questioning science based on their feelings and instincts. That's also inappropriate.
In the same way, I get people questioning science based on their feelings and instincts. That's also inappropriate.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@GlassDog: They claim their beliefs are provable truths - then fail to provide the proof.
GlassDog · 46-50, M
@suzie1960: Well, I think that's a mistake on their part. It's not something that should be claimed. Although I think there's perhaps a difference in opinion about what proof is. To me, it has to be watertight and rigorous. I've noticed some people have a less rigid feeling about it.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@GlassDog: No proof is completely watertight but I agree it should be rigourous. It should also be open to challenge.
GlassDog · 46-50, M
@suzie1960: Hmm, I think within some systems, there are elements which must be taken as logically axiomatic. Especially in mathematics, for instance.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@GlassDog: I think that's true of all proofs but the axioms are usually well founded in science.