“but a d*mned lie.” There, there little scientist... unless you can reference a higher order (then test that higher order reality to prove its existence) in which to judge between lies and ‘damned’ lies you run the risk of being run out of the scientist club.
You might think I’m being facetious but actually what I’ve said gets to the heart of what reasonisfaith is saying.
A statement can be proven true or false or judged a tautology by the strictest of scientific reasoning but a lie is a deliberate falsification of truth forbidden by religious moral codes, the sources of which , the scientific method would deem “untestable”.
You don’t say his statement is false or suggest that he is misinformed, you accuse him of a religious moral failing “by lying” or telling “a damned lie” there bye referring to a “fundamentalist” religious frame of reference you seem to scorn.
I think you have missed your calling. You should become a Sunday school teacher! A “fundamentalist” one at that!
Mdmathis6:”There, there little scientist...”
There, there little nincompoop...don’t bother your pretty head with matters you don’t comprehend.
What? You don’t enjoy being patronized?
The fact is, you have no clue what I believe, so you assume, and assume incorrectly.
Reasonisfaith’s statement, stripped of it’s qualifiers, is based on not just a lie, a d*mn*d lie.
Stripped of it’s qualifiers, the statement would read, in effect: “metaphysical and methodological naturalism are the same thing, and that is atheism.”
Seems to me this lie is being told today, not only by atheists themselves, but also by (instead of “fundamentalists” let me call them) literalists, who simply wish to discredit the entire scientific enterprise, by labeling it all as “atheist”.
So, in post #55, I don’t call Reasonisfaith a liar, merely point to the d*mn*d lie on which his/her statement is based.
I believe the distinctions between methodological and metaphysical naturalism need to be made and defended AT ALL COSTS.
Do you disagree?