As I have always asserted, science is one very useful way of viewing and calculating components of nature. Nature, I would add, is the general environment and its members, animate and inanimate. Introduce aliens, for example, to a scientific discussion, people here are mostly fun-loving. Introduce a Creator God, to the equation, however, people question, resist and become defensive, which is fair. What's not fair, is when such opposition is answered of necessity, and at every turn the answer is charged with "preaching." A fair statement involving God, especially Christ, gets a fair charge of offense, but a fair and necessary diplomatic answer always gets a higher charge of "preaching," on the mere basis of being Biblical. How is this objective? It is completely subjective. Science here is objective at most to the extent that Christ is offered as evidence, at which point science subjects all such evidence exclusively to science.

Religious deities are supernatural. Therefore not natural. Therefore not measurable. Therefore not science. Please take the preaching elsewhere, as this is the wrong place for it.

Introduce a Creator God, to the equation, however, people question, resist and become defensive, which is fair. What's not fair, is when such opposition is answered of necessity, and at every turn the answer is charged with "preaching." A fair statement involving God, especially Christ, gets a fair charge of offense, but a fair and necessary diplomatic answer always gets a higher charge of "preaching," on the mere basis of being Biblical.

 

 

It is because you insist on dragging these inherently non-scientific concepts into discussions of science.

 

If you want to discuss your beliefs, do it in the Religion forum.

 

 

 

Science here is objective at most to the extent that Christ is offered as evidence, at which point science subjects all such evidence exclusively to science.

 

Christ cannot be evidence in the scientific sense.

As I have always asserted, science is one very useful way of viewing and calculating components of nature. Nature, I would add, is the general environment and its members, animate and inanimate. Introduce aliens, for example, to a scientific discussion, people here are mostly fun-loving. Introduce a Creator God, to the equation, however, people question, resist and become defensive, which is fair. What's not fair, is when such opposition is answered of necessity, and at every turn the answer is charged with "preaching." A fair statement involving God, especially Christ, gets a fair charge of offense, but a fair and necessary diplomatic answer always gets a higher charge of "preaching," on the mere basis of being Biblical. How is this objective? It is completely subjective. Science here is objective at most to the extent that Christ is offered as evidence, at which point science subjects all such evidence exclusively to science.

 

 

Since this IS a science forum I think any posts or thoughts on religion or its attendant gods and goddesses should be confined--relegated?--to the eponymous sub-forums.

 

I also think the reason you see the level of ire and irritation raised a bit in discussions of gods or religions as compared with chats about aliens is because the former have a stronger and more obnoxious lobby who has an alarming propensity to force their opinions and ethos where it does not belong and is most certainly not welcome: in a Science Forum.

 

Aliens could be construed as a science topic, you know. As in Exobiology or even Cosmology.

 

Conversely, I can think of no science discipline where talk of gods belong?

 

Hmm..maybe abnormal Psych?

 

Thanks.

!

Moderator Note

I get it! The offense is offering your religion as scientific evidence to support an argument, and the reflex is to toss it in the Trash for breaking several rules you hypocritically agreed to when you joined! Clever.