3 ms·

> That's like saying that because we've already debunked alchemy and astrology, being asked to debunk evolution as well is just nitpicking. Well, yes. Scienti

> That's like saying that because we've already debunked alchemy and astrology, being asked to debunk evolution as well is just nitpicking. Well, yes. Scientists around the world agree that every scientific topic should be debunked. The ones that are left -- the ones that survive an attempt at debunking -- should be taken as fact, presumably until they are debunked and replaced with something more valid. > If you asked someone at the Harvard divinity school what the most compelling arguments in favor of religion were today, they'd probably talk about Thor ... -- not at all Sure, because choosing what to believe in, without a scientific basis, is essentially fashion. And believe me -- Thor is _way_ out of fashion.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 16y ago
"Scientists around the world agree that every scientific topic should be debunked. The ones that are left -- the ones that survive an attempt at debunking -- should be taken as fact, presumably until they are debunked and replaced with something more valid." This is exactly the same as what many modern religious thinkers would say, which was my original point-- that debunking old dogma doesn't do anything to disprove the 'cutting edge' of religious thought. edit: Whatever, if you read my archive you'll see I'm probably the most atheist atheist on HN, but at least I'm willing to be intellectually honest and give the other side a fair shake.