legislature fouls up again & Jindal will not stop it

True, but being difficult for the sake of meeting the forum's quota of disagreement is not necessary.

Faith in God means nothing to an atheist, but I'm saying to believe that God definitively does not exist requires faith (in general) on the other end of the spectrum.

When nonbelievers start arguing the case for the flying spaghetti monster, I think it is very pompous to not put any creedence in the beliefs of your fellow man. A lot of believers are smart and to simply overlook what they believe in doesn't seem like the most intelligent course to take. I'm not saying this is what you are doing, it just seemed relevant to the discussion at one point.

I don't have a master plan or any systematic implementation in mind, I just think in general that while scientists must stick to the scientific method, I don't think it is such a bad idea to allow one's faith into science. Relevant connections may be made, inspirations for new paths of research may be realized, etc.

 

I do find debating you often to be a challenge, but for reasons that reflect well on you. On occasion, however, I've found that you get rhetorical and unyielding unnecessarily. I very much enjoy your posts as much or more than others' and discussing things with you is educational and entertaining, but I don't find you without fault.

I think religion, or really spirituality, could play a supporting role in a scientist's more creative and theoretical pursuits. But we're arguing over a fine line.

 

Several here, including Red & myself, occassionally play the devil's advocate.

We debate because we enjoy it.

 

Ok, I thought we were doing it for air miles? A blender at least?

 

You are also quite argumentative, but like Red you bring a lot to the table.

 

Don't listen to him Red! You're only flaw is being a redhead. :grin: