|
Science is definitely easier because you can use cold hard evidence. No one is going to change their
religious beliefs just because you have evidence that suggests they're wrong. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Exactly as you said it Bacchus. With science, you can bring up evidence, but with religion, it's
all unknown and guessing. I'm a lot more comfortable in a debate on science than on religion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Really depends.
If you're arguing with someone scientifically ignorant who also refuses to learn, scientific
debating is almost impossible (of course, the same people are often impossible to debate with
religiously, too).
If you're arguing with someone who at the least admits the subject exists, especially if they grasp
it, scientific debates are generally not that hard (unless you're arguing something unknown to
either person, in which case it can be much more difficult) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree that Science is generally easier to debate, but I also think Science and Religion are very
similar topics. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Ignorant religious people are so difficult to debate with,
i tried once and they just produced a bible on me and tried to perform an exocism... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Actually, it's usually harder, especially when you're trying to debate with people who are
scientifically ignorant or who have a religious bias against logic and rationality. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Easier? Hmmmm. Some great debates have been conducted along theological lines. Not all debates
concerning religion has religion pitted against science. You may not find them interesting if you
are scientifically minded, and this would also be true of many philosophical debates that have taken
place. Not sure about "easier" but they can be a good practice of sophistry. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
02 May 2008 23:02
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
