Spirituality - Why does science loath it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no discussion possible if 1 of the involved groups isn't open to anything the other group says. Yes, I'm aware that the side I'm defending doesn't have much science behind it to defend it from people like you, who seem to love to bash and burn it down to the ground because it hasn't got any evidence besides personal experiences and people's claims, which you, Spoon and Pokequaza, do. It's really sickening of both of you to do that.
 
Give me a reason to accept whatever it is your trying to present (because I've seen no decent, well-formulated claims by you in here, just vague stuff), and give me at least a little bit of evidence it exists, and I might be open to it. But claiming I'm close-minded because when you say "there's something like spirituality" and I say "I doubt it" just seems silly. You're making the claims, you have to present the evidence. I'm in the null-position, which is where every sceptic should be by default, unless there's a decent reason not to be.
 
No, I don't love to bash and burn it down to the ground (at least that's not the reason), you don't understand me. I know science isn't true about most things, but it's very close to. At least way way more to the truth than spirituality is. I don't care if people believe in it. But when they start a conversation about it with me or more people, I find it fair those people may know something way closer to the ''truth'', if there is... and in this case it's science.
 
Heavenly Spoon :F said:
Give me a reason to accept whatever it is your trying to present (because I've seen no decent, well-formulated claims by you in here, just vague stuff), and give me at least a little bit of evidence it exists, and I might be open to it. But claiming I'm close-minded because when you say "there's something like spirituality" and I say "I doubt it" just seems silly. You're making the claims, you have to present the evidence. I'm in the null-position, which is where every sceptic should be by default, unless there's a decent reason not to be.
Click to expand...

Even if I were able to 'well formulate' you wouldn't accept it. I can tell by the way you are responding to this subject (you calling it silly). I haven't seen you even remotely near the middle line, so why would you even believe any well formulated claims that I make? And I'm not going to try to win anyone over, yet you seem to expect me to do that with the 'proper evidence'....see how wrong this is? You'd be better of going to Skepsis.nl. You'll find tons of others that share your view on things.
 
The middle road isn't always the right one. I for one would not want to be on the middle road between peace and global genocide, between freedom and slavery, between democracy and dictatorship (not that I think either of them are perfect), or between science and fantasy. Just because there's 2 sides to a debate doesn't mean one side can't be the right one.
I've given more than enough reasons why I don't like spirituality, you have given me no reason to either condone or believe it, which is why I don't. I'm sorry if you have a problem with me approaching a debate rationally, instead of just picking "the middle road" by default, but to me this just seems best.
 
True, but we shouldn't even put spirituality and science on one line. They've nothing to do with eachother, of course they contradict eachother on many points, but science is about explaining things. I don't think the main goal of religion was unexplain things and providing us of false information. (it still does however).
 
Pokequaza said:
True, but we shouldn't even put spirituality and science on one line. They've nothing to do with eachother, of course they contradict eachother on many points, but science is about explaining things. I don't think the main goal of religion was unexplain things and providing us of false information. (it still does however).
Click to expand...
They are direct opposites in some ways, though. Science is about scepticism, evidence and research, whilst religion is about belief and dogma, with little to no evidence supporting it. Of course the point of religion wasn't to unexplain things (I think it's pointless, but whatever), it does explain things, it just isn't correct...
 
Heavenly Spoon :F said:
They are direct opposites in some ways, though. Science is about scepticism, evidence and research, whilst religion is about belief and dogma, with little to no evidence supporting it. Of course the point of religion wasn't to unexplain things (I think it's pointless, but whatever), it does explain things, it just isn't correct...
Click to expand...
Well okay I've to admit there's some opposite...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top