[XogGyux]

Oh, you are trying to switch burden of proof.

I am not trying to do anything. I don't even care for the claim that you made. It is meaningless. As I said, as so long as the loudest voice of "theists" are those of fundamentalists, all theists will continue to suffer from identifying themselves in the same group as those fundamentalists. I don't care if you think its fair or not. If I identify myself as a NAZI you will automatically think i am a despicable asshole even if I do not agree for all the shit they did and only agree with some silly economic or social policy they did at some point (hypothetical).

Fine.

https://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-c ... rld-006634

A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as "evolutionists" and 28% as "creationists," with 31% indicating that they "simply don't know what to believe," according to a press release issued by Ipsos on April 25, 2011.

....

The "evolutionist" view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the "creationist" view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).

....

So, 28% of the population are Creationists. That seems to confirm the claim that most theists are not interested in pushing their religon onto cosmology.

This is what "passes" as scientific evidence to you? A poll? A poll that only includes 24 countries:
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States of America.
Ignores most(all?) of the Arab word btw.
And even then it comes up to 28%.... a massive number of people that still believes in magic, a disgrace.

I know you do not care about how many believe one thing or the other. You prefer to believe that all theists want to interfere in science.

I don't even care how many want to interfere in science, and more specifically in reality (government/morals/etc). I care about how many actually succeed in interfering. And even 1 guy is 1 guy too many because it means 1 guy whose believes are not based in reality is making policy decisions about reality, that is absurd.

Actually, I asked younwhy you thought it was wrong. And you replied it was because theists are all trying to impose their religion on science. I have now provided evidence that this is not the case worldwide or in North America.

You have not. Tell me this do you think the push about teaching creationism in science classes is not a religious agenda and is not in direct conflict with science?

I have no idea why you are refuting a philosophical position based on social behaviour.

Because society has taken it upon itself to disprove this position a long time ago.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Besoeker

I am almost certain that you would not want me to make pants out of your dog, though I thank you for the offer.

How does this relate to your incorrect generalisation?

-----------------

@XogGyux

So regardless of the majority of theist thought, you are going to take the most absurd and antagonistic school of thought and dismiss all others, and this is somehow a refutation of the idea of non-overlapping magisteria.

[XogGyux]

-----------------

@XogGyux

So regardless of the majority of theist thought, you are going to take the most absurd and antagonistic school of thought and dismiss all others, and this is somehow a refutation of the idea of non-overlapping magisteria.

Let me put it this way. The fact that someone had to come up with that term on itself proves that the spirit the term is proposing does not exist. Nobody had to come with a term to describe the relationship between "science and history", or "history and literature" or "science and art". etc. Stephen Jay Gould invented this term because he perceived the clash that exists between science and religion, in fact he spent a great deal of his life arguing against fundamentalist creationists.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have no doubt that this phrase was coined to describe a philosophical position that contrasted with the antagonistic stance that you see as overwhelming. That does not disprove the validity of the concept.

[XogGyux]

I have no doubt that this phrase was coined to describe a philosophical position that contrasted with the antagonistic stance that you see as overwhelming. That does not disprove the validity of the concept.

Society already took care of making that argument useless.
Tell you what. Help me and those that want to make the world reality based on reason rather than faith and perhaps your NOMA view might become an actual valid argument. Until then it is useless.

[Pants-of-dog]

Society already took care of making that argument useless.
Tell you what. Help me and those that want to make the world reality based on reason rather than faith and perhaps your NOMA view might become an actual valid argument. Until then it is useless.

I have no idea what society you live in, but where I live, religion has no significant conflict with science.

So, does that mean the concept is useful here, but not wherever you live?

[XogGyux]

I have no idea what society you live in, but where I live, religion has no significant conflict with science.

So, does that mean the concept is useful here, but not wherever you live?

What does it matter so much to you what I think regarding this specifically?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am enjoying the debate. That is the entirety of my involvement.

Now, do you think the truthfulness of a philosophical concept is dependent on the cultural context?

[XogGyux]

I am enjoying the debate. That is the entirety of my involvement.

Now, do you think the truthfulness of a philosophical concept is dependent on the cultural context?

This is not a concept. It is perhaps a view or proposition. And yes it is dependent on cultural context as it is making claims about a reality that is non-factual because of the culture we live in.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would say that the applicability of this concept is limited by cultural factors, such as the social capital of local creationists, but is still true regardless of cultural factors.

[XogGyux]

I would say that the applicability of this concept is limited by cultural factors, such as the social capital of local creationists, but is still true regardless of cultural factors.

Whatever you say boss.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker

I am almost certain that you would not want me to make pants out of your dog, though I thank you for the offer.

How does this relate to your incorrect generalisation?

t doesn't.

[Pants-of-dog]

t doesn't.

You should really read the forum rules. Deliberately trying to take threads off topic is a rule violation.

[Besoeker]

You should really read the forum rules. Deliberately trying to take threads off topic is a rule violation.

You asked me a question. I gave you a diret answer. Ask me the same question again and you will get the same answer.
Think about the question you asked.

[Pants-of-dog]

You asked me a question. I gave you a diret answer. Ask me the same question again and you will get the same answer.
Think about the question you asked.

Which question was that, exactly? And how did you answer?

Also, the last few posts were about your dog, not about the topic.

[Besoeker]

Which question was that, exactly? And how did you answer?

"How does this relate to your incorrect generalisation?"

It doesn't but I think you missed the point.

[Pants-of-dog]

I obviously know that your reply had nothing to do with the topic.

This is why I pointed out that changing the conversation to something that has nothing to do with the topic is frowned upon.

As fun as it is to discuss how you incorrectly believe that I do not understand anything, let us return to your incorrect generalisation.

Do you understand why it is incorrect?

[Besoeker]

I obviously know that your reply had nothing to do with the topic.

This is why I pointed out that changing the conversation to something that has nothing to do with the topic is frowned upon.

As fun as it is to discuss how you incorrectly believe that I do not understand anything, let us return to your incorrect generalisation.

Do you understand why it is incorrect?

It isn't an incorrect generalisation.

[Pants-of-dog]

So that is a "no, you do not understand".

Do you realise that some atheists believe that god does not exist?

[Besoeker]

So that is a "no, you do not understand".

No, it is not an incorrect generalisation.

Do you realise that some atheists believe that god does not exist?

Then they wouldn't be atheists. Without theism means without theism.