Re: Selling Points of the Major Religions

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:38:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<jkraus_1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On May 12, 5:16 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>> I don't have religious beliefs. How hard is that for you to comprehend?
>> I accept the discoveries about nature that have been made. I accept
what
>> scientists have learned and what society has developed, but I don't
>> accept religious claims about gods because there is no reason to
>
>Why do you accept what "scientists" -- whatever those are, exactly --
>have "learned"?  How do you know what they claim is true, IS true?

Now, you have decided to see how silly you can get. Every single claim
that scientists make is testable -- by anyone, even you if you bother to
learn enough to test it. Everyone is allowed to question and confirm.
Your religious doctrines cannot be confirmed.

>How is your faith in "scientists" any different from a faith in
>"Gods".  Aren't scientists, effectively, your Gods, by your own
>admission.

Not my gods, not my admission.

>  If not, how exactly do they differ from Gods. 

Scientists exist and claims about what they discovered can be tested.

> You claim
>scientists speak truth.  The religious claim that their religion is
>truth.  They have their standards of evidence.   You have yours.

Religions have absolutely no standards of evidence. They hate evidence.
They cower at evidence.

>There is no difference, except in terminology, and some details of
>belief.

Your conclusion is false and misleading. It is very likely a lie. If you
repeat it, it will be because you have chosen to lie.

>Please understand.  I am not saying everything in any religion is
>true.  I am saying that some things in some religions may well be
>true. 

Name them. Show us how we can test them.

> And some claims of "scientists" -- whoever they are -- may be
>false.

Name them. Show us how they are false.

> And that there does not exist any perfect method for
>distingui****ng truth from falsehood, scientific or otherwise.  

Are you ignorant of the scientific method or dishonestly dismissing it
without making any effort to show us why you dismissed it?

>So, at
>some point, we are thrown back on intuition, and the "supernatural",
>if you wish.

I'm not. Science is very real. Your ignorance of that fact, or dishonest
dismissal of it helps you not at all.

>  We have nothing else.  No one has a monopoly on truth.

But your claims have no evidence to sup****t them at all. Science is
sup****ted by evidence. I would be a fool to reject science in order to
believe nonsensical tales that are completely without substance or
evidence.