Re: Feynman's fallacy

From: jcamjr (johncamjr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 18:22:56 -0800

Sorry I meant no offense I simply see no difference in superstition and
religion they are both based upon the acceptance of things for which we
have no data to support the existence of. If religion is the belief in
an unknown and unkowable god then there can be no way to to
scientificly test the validity of any claim made by the religion on his
or her behalf thats why I said it had no place in science if something
requires us to accept it with no data to back its authenticity it is
unworthy of our notice.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Intelligent Design
    ... > ID does not require religion, just a logical acceptance of evidence ... face of evidence, not the "logical acceptance of evidence". ... > can accept the designer as my God. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT - Intelligent Design
    ... >> ID does not require religion, just a logical acceptance of evidence ... not the "logical acceptance of evidence". ... YOU are the one who is assigning the status of deity to the designer. ... > also relentlessy ignoring well-established science. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Wintrolls killed CSMA
    ... acceptance and recognition for homosexual ... >We could apply the Mayor's argument to religion. ... >do not believe in modern medicine, ... "Maybe atheists would have an easier time winning ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Ridiculing religion
    ... when seeking the acceptance and implementation of a naturalistic ... that Dawkins has done more to raise the profile of atheism, ... Overall, he has been good for atheism, surely. ... give to religion, ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Wintrolls killed CSMA
    ... acceptance and recognition for homosexual ... > We could apply the Mayor's argument to religion. ... > do not believe in modern medicine, ... "I would not be a good liar, being that I have little if any practice." ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Quantcast