Why does science always upstage God?

[Mister Agenda]

When I say atheism is inconsistent and absurd that isn't an insult to the people, that's a comment on the belief system that is atheism.

Would you describe three beliefs that all atheists share that all theists don't?

---

Ok, so we can say you're an atheist materialist evolutionist humanist. That is what we call a worldview.

It seems strange that you can figure out that all those things together can add up to a worldview but the binary one at the beginning does not, by itself, equal a worldview. We haven't said atheists don't have worldviews, we said atheism isn't a world view. I've met atheists who believe in ancient aliens, astrology, ghosts, and homeopothy. The only thing they can believe in that would disqualify them from being atheists is a deity.

---

As with my original argument, the problem is not the evidence, it’s you and how you interpret the evidence. You aren’t looking for God. You’re looking for a reason for there to be no God. I did come here to learn but you have nothing to teach. You don’t even know the opposing view. You said it yourself: you don’t care what I or other Christians have to say.

But that’s atheism: ignorant, not self reflexive, arrogant, inconsistent.

It’s the same everywhere I go.

That reminds me of the story of the farmer and the two travelers:

A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.
“What sort of people live in the next town?” asked the stranger.
“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.
“They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I’m happy to be leaving the scoundrels.”
“Is that so?” replied the old farmer. “Well, I’m afraid that you’ll find the same sort in the next town.
Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.
Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. “What sort of people live in the next town?” he asked.
“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer once again.
“They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I’m sorry to be leaving them.”
“Fear not,” said the farmer. “You’ll find the same sort in the next town.”

[LadyForCamus]

Because science isn't in the business of involving itself with religion

That’s only because religious people throw tantrums and decry that god is “above and beyond” the reach of science. That doesn’t make it true.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Imagine if everyone could use the "it's just your interpretation of the evidence" excuse. Everyone would be allowed to say their right about everything because you could just accuse people who point out your wrong as having not interpreted the evidence right.

[Brian37]

Because science isn't in the business of involving itself with religion, whereas it can be argued that reason exists for the sole purpose of being the divide between reality and fantasy.

I think you should say, "should not involve itself with religion".

Don't confuse science, as in scientific method, with "scientists". Scientific method is a tool, scientists are the users of that method. Ethical scientists even if religious, will separate their religion from the lab. 

Unfortunately, in reality, there are plenty of religious people with science degrees, IN EVERY RELIGION, whom use their degrees to try to get science to point to the club they ascribe to.

All one has to do to know this is true is to "Google search" the words "Science" with words like "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Muslim" or "Buddhist" or "Hindu" and others. Every religion in the world has apologists whom try to get science to point to their club, bar none.

I'd only argue that scientific method should not involve itself in religion.

[Angrboda]

Because science isn't in the business of involving itself with religion, whereas it can be argued that reason exists for the sole purpose of being the divide between reality and fantasy.

I think you should say, "should not involve itself with religion".

Why not?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Because science isn't in the business of involving itself with religion, whereas it can be argued that reason exists for the sole purpose of being the divide between reality and fantasy.

I think you should say, "should not involve itself with religion".

Don't confuse science, as in scientific method, with "scientists". Scientific method is a tool, scientists are the users of that method. Ethical scientists even if religious, will separate their religion from the lab. 

Unfortunately, in reality, there are plenty of religious people with science degrees, IN EVERY RELIGION, whom use their degrees to try to get science to point to the club they ascribe to.

All one has to do to know this is true is to "Google search" the words "Science" with words like "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Muslim" or "Buddhist" or "Hindu" and others. Every religion in the world has apologists whom try to get science to point to their club, bar none.

I'd only argue that scientific method should not involve itself in religion.

Why not? Most religions make empirical claims about the natural world. Can you think of a better way to investigate these claims than scientific methodology?

Unrelated: you’re still using ‘whom’ wrong.

Boru

[Angrboda]

I think you should say, "should not involve itself with religion".

Don't confuse science, as in scientific method, with "scientists". Scientific method is a tool, scientists are the users of that method. Ethical scientists even if religious, will separate their religion from the lab. 

Unfortunately, in reality, there are plenty of religious people with science degrees, IN EVERY RELIGION, whom use their degrees to try to get science to point to the club they ascribe to.

All one has to do to know this is true is to "Google search" the words "Science" with words like "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Muslim" or "Buddhist" or "Hindu" and others. Every religion in the world has apologists whom try to get science to point to their club, bar none.

I'd only argue that scientific method should not involve itself in religion.

Why not? Most religions make empirical claims about the natural world. Can you think of a better way to investigate these claims than scientific methodology?

Unrelated: you’re still using ‘whom’ wrong.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Dammit. I’ve been Sho Kosugi’d.

Boru

[Brian37]

I think you should say, "should not involve itself with religion".

Why not?

I don't mean in the context of debunking religion. Just in that it ethical scientists should not mix their personal beliefs in a lab.

In both books by Victor Stenger, "God The Failed Hypothesis" and " The New Atheism", he makes the argument, and I think rightfully so, that you cannot ethically mix religion with science.

Scientific method is why passenger jets fly in America, and Iran, and Canada, and France,  and why computers work in China and Japan. Scientific method is why computers work in Australia and Argentina. Scientific method is why humans can track Hurricanes, Cyclones and Typhoons.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why not?

I don't mean in the context of debunking religion. Just in that it ethical scientists should not mix their personal beliefs in a lab.

In both books by Victor Stenger, "God The Failed Hypothesis" and " The New Atheism", he makes the argument, and I think rightfully so, that you cannot ethically mix religion with science.

Scientific method is why passenger jets fly in America, and Iran, and Canada, and France,  and why computers work in China and Japan. Scientific method is why computers work in Australia and Argentina. Scientific method is why humans can track Hurricanes, Cyclones and Typhoons.

But that would be religion involving itself in science, not science involving itself with religion.

Boru