{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Seggi:
8/8/2013 10:48:34 AM
1
You don't have to understand what a scientist is saying to recognise that it's the consensus opinion among scientists in the field. From there, it's perfectly reasonable to think their conclusion's pretty accurate - science has a very good record of, you know, being right. The Pope, on the other hand, does not.
English
-
But you understand what I'm getting at right? People who don't understand the science and "taking their word for it" are using the same train of thought a Christian would use when he's "taking the Pope's word for it". Except the Atheists turn around and say theists are dumb for doing it, and Atheists aren't. It's just hypocrisy.
-
I understand perfectly what you're saying, and it's not valid for the reason I already outlined.
-
The Pope seems to be quite okay when he stays out of Science. And Science seems to be doing quite well when they stay out of the subject of morality. One is subjective and the other is objective. And most of the time the masses just take the heads' of the Church/Scientific-communities words for it. On THIS ground I feel like my statement is valid. Now if it's a Church vs. Science on the how old the Earth [i]really[/i] is...well, that's a one sided match lol.
-
You didn't actually say anything different.
