My post did sound rude but it was because of dealing with the topic and not directed personally at you. Also, the part where I mentioned the white lie - vs. - rational thought wasn't directed at this conversation. So relax.
Again, this conversation is so interesting, that's why I am keeping it rolling.
The only sad part it is that typing it isn't the best way to conduct it(1). Still, I'll try to concisely try my hand at a few blaring flaws(2) in your position.
there can only be one answer to this glaring non-truth: "What?!??!?! My foot has more body of rational and logical knowledge than every man-made religion ever, and it's only like a size 11 foot, not even like a basketball players size 15 or something!"
on a serious note, please, please, please
show me one logical, rational thing about religion(3). I hope you're not talking about 'don't steal, don't pillage' kinds of instructions because they're self derivative from one simple rule of 'do unto others...' - I'm talking about the defining things in Islam, Christianity or Judaism etc.
There is no logic or rationale in 'iman-bil-ghaib' which is what most religions are based on. How, I mean how, can you see a great body of logic and reason in something which is founded on the exact opposite of that?
...I don't know, maybe us 'mulhids' have not had a chance to convert all of them gay yet?...
Joke aside, what I want to point out is that when
you ask the wrong kind of questions(4) you can't get to the right kind of truths. What you state is a wrong question and therefore has no answer or can't be explained.
My definition of scientific evidence is the same as what is generally accepted to be. Maybe read here and here for a start(5)?
Of course there are when
you listen to Zakir Naik, Hamza Tortoise or Molana Tariq Jameel(6). But how can a self-refining process which exists to wade through ignorance and correct itself on an on-going basis (i.e. science) be regarded as having great fallacies?
Sure, when you evaluate scientific process on subjective, artistic, poetic, metaphysical stadards (which religions are justified on); yes science would seem to be fallacious. But that is like expecting a tomato to fly a boeing 747 and calling it's flying ability fallacious when the plane doesn't arrive at its destination at Las Vegas strip and @desicad's holiday is ruined.
I cringe at the thought that a person writing this on a computer communicating thousands of miles to another still sees more fallacy in science than in the fantastic mythical concoctions of religions.
Completely wrong. First of all, Atheists / Agnostics don't rape, pillage and sleep all day. They are regular folk who actually kill less in the name of religion while being equally beneficial citizens as believers in rest of the things. Secondly, if you think that all morality was brought into this world through religion only, then you're assuming too much again. A simple rule of 'do unto others...' get's it done easily. For the rest, even a comedian knows better(7).
huh?
What are those(8)?
All along the few posts you've been shafting me with the onus of not talking with evidence. However, what I've seen in your few posts is that there is a lot of unproven things like para-sensory knowledge, fallacies of science (without talking about which one) or Atheists leading undisciplined, easy and conscious-free lives.
hehe - I knew it man, I knew it. The childhood-brainwashing is strong with this one.
