Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on November 9, 2002 00:41:10 UTC

"Creationism is almost certainly wrong because observations have refuted it, but most other religious concepts are beyond our reach"

Most dogmatic religions make concrete statements about the univese, and hence can be refuted. Only smaller, personal philosophies don't make any statements about reality, and in my opinion a philosophy that makes totally unfalsifiable statements on a regular basis is one not worth having.

"All I said is that religion has been the direct and/or indirect cause of SOME suffering. I don't see how one could refute this statement."

Okay, I'm just pointing out that this suffering would have taken place with or without religion (religion is not really the cause, so much as the method used by people.)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins