[Skybird]

And more unproven hear-say.

The one ting I learned, slowly, is that trying to rationally discuss with believers about the object of their belief, is absolutely useless, pointless, fruitless, because every rational argument, ever logical conclusion, even every solid undeniable evidence in the end gets rejected by saying: "Well, but I believe it all is different. That's my belief. evidence, logic, a process of falsification or varification does not interest me, because I know that what I believe is the truth anyway. and I know it is true because my holy book tells me that it is true."

This is strange becaseu everybody understanding the basic methdology of science knows that serious science never makes absolute statements about "truths", but only developes hypothesis, theories, at best: paradigms of mostly limited ruabiliuty, on the absis of what has been observed and put tgether in empirical evidence. Nevertheless it gets often accused of stating something as if it is engraved in stone. I admit soemtimes academics give the appearance as if they are doing right this, but that is no good habit in science, for science only says: "this is our best possible current conclusion on the absis of ehat we have been able to find out so far." - On the other hand, religion is all about unchecked, unverifiable, dogmatic statements whose original authors cannot be asked anymore, issued in absolute terms that claim eternal truth and validity as if this claim would be the most natural thing. Religion and science could not be more different, the absurdity of the religious attack on science over accusation to practice what religion with great fanatism practicses itself, is most absurd.