Something to shake the very foundation of your lack of faith

[Fake Messiah]

http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-d...panek.html

"All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter."

here is God in scientific defintions

It's god of the gaps and then when dark matter starts to be more understood dumbasses like you will organize inquisitions to torture those heretics or organize suicide bombers against scientists that demystify something you think it's god.

[Brian37]

Physicists are not an authority on saying whether stories written in books, with no supporting evidence, are true. In fact, no one is.

This is what ticks me off about well intended liberals who try to treat science and religion as separate but equal. This is also why I think Dawkins "God Delusion" and morso Victor Stenger's two books "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism", combined are why the idea of splitting the baby is not a good way of looking at science. 

It is true that scientists can and do hold religious beliefs, and many can and do leave their religion out of the lab, but this apology we are needlessly having to deal with is precisely why the well intended sense of empathy and fairness is not a good thing to coddle.

If one watches the entire new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they should be able to see the the same gatekeeper fallacy throughout our species history. Humans stupidly attach our natural curiosity and ability to make discovery to the divine, the same mistake they make when attaching wealth and success to the divine. 

The believer, be they Christian, or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or whatever, point to their scientists but that is still not evidence of one religion being true or one god being real. They are still stuck with those competing claims and still stuck with a gap answer and still stuck with the problem of infinite regress.

"I am smart so therefor" is not an argument. Once you start inserting apology into a lab you poison the objectivity of the process.

[Mr.wizard]

Physicists are not an authority on saying whether stories written in books, with no supporting evidence, are true. In fact, no one is.

This is what ticks me off about well intended liberals who try to treat science and religion as separate but equal. This is also why I think Dawkins "God Delusion" and morso Victor Stenger's two books "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism", combined are why the idea of splitting the baby is not a good way of looking at science. 

It is true that scientists can and do hold religious beliefs, and many can and do leave their religion out of the lab, but this apology we are needlessly having to deal with is precisely why the well intended sense of empathy and fairness is not a good thing to coddle.

If one watches the entire new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they should be able to see the the same gatekeeper fallacy throughout our species history. Humans stupidly attach our natural curiosity and ability to make discovery to the divine, the same mistake they make when attaching wealth and success to the divine. 

The believer, be they Christian, or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or whatever, point to their scientists but that is still not evidence of one religion being true or one god being real. They are still stuck with those competing claims and still stuck with a gap answer and still stuck with the problem of infinite regress.

"I am smart so therefor" is not an argument. Once you start inserting apology into a lab you poison the objectivity of the process.

What do you mean liberals treat science and religion as separate but equal?

[Whateverist]

Just read me some Yuki.  Made me want to pukey.  

More power to those of you trying to reason with the tool.  There may be an actual human being in there somewhere but I can't get past the foul, angry nut job that greets you at the gate.

[Brian37]

This is what ticks me off about well intended liberals who try to treat science and religion as separate but equal. This is also why I think Dawkins "God Delusion" and morso Victor Stenger's two books "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism", combined are why the idea of splitting the baby is not a good way of looking at science. 

It is true that scientists can and do hold religious beliefs, and many can and do leave their religion out of the lab, but this apology we are needlessly having to deal with is precisely why the well intended sense of empathy and fairness is not a good thing to coddle.

If one watches the entire new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they should be able to see the the same gatekeeper fallacy throughout our species history. Humans stupidly attach our natural curiosity and ability to make discovery to the divine, the same mistake they make when attaching wealth and success to the divine. 

The believer, be they Christian, or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or whatever, point to their scientists but that is still not evidence of one religion being true or one god being real. They are still stuck with those competing claims and still stuck with a gap answer and still stuck with the problem of infinite regress.

"I am smart so therefor" is not an argument. Once you start inserting apology into a lab you poison the objectivity of the process.

What do you mean liberals treat science and religion as separate but equal?

Let me clarify, far too many liberals. Ok, and not just atheists, but liberal theists as well. I am very staunch about agreeing with Stenger in his position that there is no splitting the baby. The harsh fact is science is and has always been religion independent.

Far to many liberals allow their evolutionary sense of fairness to confuse human rights with being the same as weight of a claim in a scientific setting. 

You do have liberals if you talk to enough, including scientists say "Science explains one thing, religion explains another", we end up having to deal with crappy threads like this as a result.

Not all claims are equal, and things are not true by proxy of utterance by default. That is a pragmatic issue outside of law and government and human rights. You never assume going into a claim if you want to test it and verify it that it props your bias up. I have seen people from all the major religions worldwide make this mistake. And even if not all, far too many well intended liberals unwittingly give this bad tactic cover.

[Mr.wizard]

I really don't understand what you are trying to say? You said liberals say science and religion are "separate but equal" then you explain that science is "religion independent" wouldn't that be the same as "separate"? Then where does the "equal" part come into play? I'm also trying to figure out what this has to do with liberalism considering that there are plenty of religious conservatives who would like to see religion taught in science classes.

[Brian37]

I really don't understand what you are trying to say? You said liberals say science and religion are "separate but equal" then you explain that science is "religion independent" wouldn't that be the same as "separate"? Then where does the "equal" part come into play?

I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.

Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.

It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.

[Mr.wizard]

I really don't understand what you are trying to say? You said liberals say science and religion are "separate but equal" then you explain that science is "religion independent" wouldn't that be the same as "separate"? Then where does the "equal" part come into play?

I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.

Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.

It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.

What does "science and religion are separate but equal" even mean and what does liberalism have to do with it?

[Brian37]

I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.

Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.

It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.

What does "science and religion are separate but equal" even mean and what does liberalism have to do with it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEncdhmJhHM



Just being silly, in all seriousness, I am talking AVERAGES of what I run into, not all. The important thing is "splitting the baby" is not a good argument. I see that as coming from the good side of our species and liberals reflect morso that empathy for others than RWers of any religion. The downside is that it confuses the issue of rights and ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim.

[Brian37]

I am not the one making that argument. I am pointing out that that is not a good argument. Far too many liberal atheists and theists do make that argument. I didn't say ALL, just far too many.

Do yourself a favor, read Stenger's "The New Atheism" if you have not.

It is the "Splitting the baby" argument far too many make.

What does "science and religion are separate but equal" even mean and what does liberalism have to do with it?

FUKC! sorry for the double post, see prior post.