4 ms·
You're ignoring my point. I can group religions together, it's not fallacy. You obviously don't understand what a fallacy is. I'm just grouping based on a commo
by proc0 5y ago
You're ignoring my point. I can group religions together, it's not fallacy. You obviously don't understand what a fallacy is. I'm just grouping based on a common trait, to make an over-arching point.
> We don't claim that we know everything in Islam
Did I say this? Who said religions claim to know everything? Not me.
> Once he accepts them (and subsequently accepts Islam), it doesn't make sense to doubt them once more does it?
You are dancing around my point. "Once he accepts them" = not doubting.
Please read my arguments carefully. They are subtle, and it seems you think I am attacking religion, when I'm not.
> My point is that the false dichotomy that some people try to claim between "science and religion" totally depends on which religion is being discussed.
My argument does not depend on a specific religion, they all share things in common. If you deny that they all share SOME things in common, then I don't know what to tell you. Why are they called "religions" if they are so different? Why do they share the same label since before both of us were born.
- gher-shyu3i 5y agoEverything requires faith at some point, even science. You have to accept certain axioms that you are then able to build science and math on top of, there is no way around it. Are you going to call science a form of religion then? We know that scientism definitely is, and it's emerging these days.
- proc0 5y ago> We know that scientism definitely is, and it's emerging these days. I agree, and I tried to make the distinction between that and the science that produces results. Whether science also requires faith, would be a lengthy tangent. I don't necessarily disagree with that, it would depend on pinning down what exactly we mean by faith, which I think was beyond this thread. Good discussion though.