I stumbled upon this thread. Made me chuckle.
Just one comment:
I've always been curious as to why any intelligent person would attempt to debate scientific facts such as gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, the boiling point of ammonia, or WHATEVER with those who subscribe to the myths and rituals of illiterate, bronze-age, nomadic goatherders who practiced ancient Judaism, and are now retold via the modern cults and incarnations of that religion (Islam, Christianity, and modern Judaism).
If you argue with someone who actually BELIEVES in a magic, invisible god that lives in the sky (and worries about the important things: Like how often you masturbate, or if two guys kiss each other), you are fighting a losing battle - because he can make up the rules as he goes along; whereas you are bound by the rules of logic and physical evidence. Even if he acknowledges the physical evidence, he will often try to make it fit somehow with the odd constructs of whatever "holy" book he swears by, and his unique perception of the magic, invisible god. (Example; Christian, "young-earth" creationists who attempt to explain the fossil record in light of the biblical myth of Noah's flood.)
It's a battle you're never going to win. It's like arguing with a child who will stamp his feet, cry and insist the sky is green even though he is not color-blind and you point out the sky to him on a clear day. Even worse than a child - you are arguing with a scientifically illiterate adult whose foundational world view is built upon a delusion. In many cases a dangerous delusion, because it has a nasty way of entering politics when enough people join the cult.
So why bother arguing science? Isn't it more reasonable to fight them in the political arena - where they do the real damage? |
