I guess I just have to accept that.

Doesn't lend religion much credibility though, does it?

Sorry, which comment did I miss?

And....what?

It was a good attempt at explaining the point of view of the religious. It just didn't convince me that you had understood the scientific method.

. .

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

DanishDynamite I'm not trying to s**t on your beliefs mate I'm just trying to stop you from doing what I did which was to turn around and s**t on other peoples in response.

If you believe in science you'll understand that. It's logic.

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

Stop being more articulate than me.

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

Thanks, votetheoneyouhatetheleast. And I mean that.

The thing is though that I don't have any particular beliefs. I just have rationality.
I don't understand what you mean by "believing" in science. I trust in the scientific method. Afterall I can test it myself anytime I want. Is that what you mean?

True to an extent.

Technically nothing can be proved 100% but that's not the point. (for one thing people interpret info and people are imperfect, what we know now we might not know later)

The point maybe I'm getting at is that you're probably right, but as someone rational (perhaps more so than most) you have to take into account that you are trying to change peoples opinions. There's no other logical reason to make this thread. To change peoples opinions you have to "play ball". If you tell people "your religion is bulls**t" they wont listen. you have to sympathize with them and win their trust. If they trust you they'll trust your opinion. If you try to crush what they hold dearest to them, they will reject you outright. And actively resist you on principal.

Don't know about you, but my opinion on religion was formed over my entire life, not someone saying "you're wrong" and me saying "yeah, now you mention it you're right"

As people who think independently and don't just go with what other people say is right or wrong, if we want other people to understand, we have to rise above the same kind of rhetoric. We wont archive understanding if we directly resist a life time of conditioning and a strong desire/need to believe, instead of trying to understand and make it easy for their transition, and offer an attractive alternative.

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

re·li·gion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
(Merriam-Webster)
As in my post, I compared it to fanatical religion. Both are extreme. When you to look to science to provide all the answers, you have taken a leap of faith. Priests and symbols are not required.

In order to simply explain more that the previous one, the previous one would have to still be valid. In the example of the earth, the geocentric model and the Ptolemaic model were completely scraped for the Copernican model. At one time, the scientific community believed extinction didn't happen and the sound barrier could not be broken. I'd call that disproved.

Yes, the ancient Greeks did; and yet the scientists of the world in the 6th century still thought it was flat. Some held on to it until the middle ages. Science was invented much earlier, as you said yourself, the ancient Greeks used it. Only they called it natural philosophy.

How many theories have been presented, widely accepted, and then replaced with, sometimes radically, different ideas?

I understand it quite well.

And some people find that religion makes it easier to deal with.

Look, I'm not debunking science. But new technologies provides tremendous advances in science, and because of this what we know is constantly changing. People finding this unsettling is nothing new. "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) came from Descartes internal battle with this same issue.
Some people find an unchanging God much more comfortable.

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

Technically, some things can be proven completely: mathematical and logical tautologies. Of course, they don't directly say anything about the world... Every tautology has axioms, or prerequisites, and it is proving these true that is just as impossible as any other claim about the world.