Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Malthus]

Religious stuff is at least in part about the moral lessons to be drawn from the mythology. Whether or not religious parables are literally true is sort of beside the point - you don't have to actually believe in the literal existance of talking foxes to think that Aesop's fables contain wisdom.   

[Viking]

So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?

None.

Since I have no religion.

I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.

As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.

That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.

[Barrister]

And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.

The Bible only "got it wrong" if you think of it only as a literal and accurate recording of events.

Many Christians don't think of it in only in those terms.

[Barrister]

That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.

Repeating your statement doesn't make it true.

Religion continues to accept and adopt science, and many beliefs have been changed over the years.

[Berkut]

So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?

None.

Since I have no religion.

I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.

CC, find me a post where I make that claim. I never said any such thing.

[Berkut]

As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.

Scientists cannot prove their claims. They can only disprove them.

You keep getting this wrong, and it is important, since it is the very fundamental distinction that makes all the difference.

[grumbler]

I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".

In colloquial-speak, perhaps not, but if you don't understand the difference between a statement of fact about "reality" and a statement of fact about one's self, then you probably should not be engaged in this debate, as you don't share the common understanding of "truths."

[Valmy]

And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.

I just find it funny a church that based itself on mercy and forgiveness and all that clung so determinedly to a story where there God changes the rules of nature in support of mass slaughter.

[Berkut]

Religious stuff is at least in part about the moral lessons to be drawn from the mythology. Whether or not religious parables are literally true is sort of beside the point - you don't have to actually believe in the literal existance of talking foxes to think that Aesop's fables contain wisdom.  

Indeed - although I do not accept that the religions is necessary to illuminate the wisdom.

Useful sometimes - perhaps. But not necessary. Anymore than it is necessary to have a talking fox explain the wisdom of Awesops fables.

And religion has a lot more baggage than that talking fox...

[Viking]

And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.

The Bible only "got it wrong" if you think of it only as a literal and accurate recording of events.

Many Christians don't think of it in only in those terms.

Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?

[Valmy]

Religion continues to accept and adopt science, and many beliefs have been changed over the years.

Well certainly my religion has done that but really it has nothing to do with religion.  Religion is not about finding the correct facts and putting forth spiritual theories in response to them...well ok maybe it kinda is or should be.  I was just trying to explain why religious faith and confidence in the correctness of a theory are not the same thing.

[Berkut]

I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".

In colloquial-speak, perhaps not, but if you don't understand the difference between a statement of fact about "reality" and a statement of fact about one's self, then you probably should not be engaged in this debate, as you don't share the common understanding of "truths."

Why would you presume that I do not understand the difference? I don't think I have said anything that suggests that I do not understand the difference, only that I don't think it is all that applicable to what Marty said.

[Viking]

That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.

Repeating your statement doesn't make it true.

Religion continues to accept and adopt science, and many beliefs have been changed over the years.

Berkut said it too.

[grumbler]

Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that? 

Which do you want?  Hypotheses "that do not explain anything" or for "non-existant phenomena" (which I think are both contradictions in terms) or scientists who create hypotheses about things for which there is no evidence?  Scientists do the latter all the time.  There are degrees in xenobiology even though no evidence of life off this planet even exists.

[Valmy]

Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?

You have faith in the spiritual lessons without clinging too much to the stories they came from.  I would consider the Garden of Eden story to be about human self awareness and its consequences rather than a literal story from history for example.