Posted: Apr 21, 2019 10:43 am
by Pridefel Knowitelz
Spearthrower wrote:
Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:
Science, the progression of it, would it have advanced further if atheists had been the majority of scientists, is what I'm asking.

Yes, I saw you asked that, but the problem is that it is largely a meaningless question because you have failed to define any of the working pieces in your question.

As such, I replied explaining why you would need to unpack those components. Note that I didn't say 'could you repeat yourself'?

You might be reifying science.... I don't know, but as I can't be expected to engage in some half-grasped incomplete comprehension, I would need to be able to challenge any assumptions you're making... in the appropriate place which is not this thread as this thread has a clear topic and remit.

I realize you just signed up to this forum... :whistle: ... but you must have also noticed you signed a forum user's agreement when doing so? ... t-t76.html

Members of agree to:

1.2 not...

g. try to take threads off-topic

So I will ask you courteously again. Please feel free to start your own thread on a topic of your choosing in a relevant subforum where I will be happy to answer your questions once we've made some sense of them.

No problem, if you want to address my question I'm sure you know your way around here well enough to find a more appropriate thread.