Organized Religion Discussion Thread

[Twin-Skies]

@Sforza

Careful there - you might be committing the error of arguing from ignorance.

http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an intelligent creator prove that it isn't.

And as far as brains are concerned, there is a way to read it: MRIs, and CAT scans.

Moving on, the RCC and CBCP have a lot to answer for now:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerhea...ed-on-govt

If it weren't to their constant railroading and moralistic bullshit, we would have a more solid samily planning program by now.