07-12-2022, 07:44 PM
(07-12-2022, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Your entire point seems to be that anyone's beliefs cannot be used as a basis for opinion because God is not a scientifically proven existence. Continuing your standard, that means that any belief not backed by scientific evidence is inadmissible. Or are you saying only a single group of people have an extra burden of proof for their beliefs to be allowed?
...unless this thread isn't actually about your desire for fact and proof requirements for beliefs and governance, and really it's just a thin premise to get your clearly biased (but not necessarily unwarranted) opinions about a singular group of people out there and how you don't like them.
I guess what I am getting as is I just want you to stop using science as a shield for your "I hate religion/religious people" thread. Just own it and call a duck a duck. Like GMD and his obsession over police (which actually seems to have cooled down quite a bit), and Brad and his obsession over genders (which definitely hasn't cooled down).
God is by definition supernatural. Could you provide any current method of accessing the supernatural, let alone investigating it? Until that time comes -- why should claims and assertions from a supernatural source be applicable in any way to the natural world?
However, that's completely separate from claims and assertions made about the natural world. Any natural evidence, offered in the natural world can be investigated by natural means. Any belief about the natural world can be evaluated by any natural means at our disposal -- including the scientific method.
If one person tells you their beliefs are based on interpretations of Vishnu's desires, and another tells you their beliefs are based on societal well-being; which of those can we actually make real-world inquiries about? Which one should be given serious consideration in real-world debates, with real-world consequences, about something such as legislation.
It seems you are more comfortable making making it about me personally, rather than honestly evaluating what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what you think of me or my motives; my arguments either succeed or fail on their own merits. If you can show that my arguments aren't valid, or you have substantive counterarguments, then I'm always interested and willing to engage.
