Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
It is factually incorrect? in brackets, like you are just sliding it in there, unnoticed? Do you really think that is promoting understanding and useful dialogue. That right there is some of the reason why people like T@T and myself have a problem with religion.
|
Well to be fair, he's mostly right. T&T said God is imaginary and and that Science has proven that, which is as mystical of a belief as believing in god himself. It is factually incorrect to say that Science has disproven God.
Science has not proven the existence of God, but a lack of evidence toward existence of something is not the same as evidence towards it's inability to exist.
So to say God is imaginary, well, that is a belief system like common in any religion. It is without proper sound evidence in Science, and requires a leap of faith rather than dependence on evidence.
Regardless, people who dislike religion would be better off attacking religion than they would be attacking God. God as a concept was invented to be infallible, there are untestable elements to it's existence on purpose. Even whatever God may be is not necessarily called God everywhere, but it's the same rough sketch. Attacking religion however, is concrete and is something you can do using facts and history.
Belief in a "God" has never been an issue in society, but rather what organised religion tells people what the belief is supposed to mean.
EDIT: or pretty much what MarchHare said.