[split] Chritstianity ruined my life tbh

[Tempus]

Atheists can have a vast array of different beliefs, doesn't mean they are logically consistent with atheism.

The only belief logically inconsistent with atheism is theism. That is to say one cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in a god or gods.

So, yes. Atheism = intelligence, faith = stupidity, you don't like it, you're welcome to join us.

Not really. There's plenty of ill-informed atheists and erudite religious folk.

[StatCrux]

Obviously, the best thing to understand from this would be that scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religious conviction.

and that science and religion are compatible

[Phil]

Obviously, the best thing to understand from this would be that scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religious conviction.

Do your history books have 1000 years missing?

[Faith No More]

Obviously, the best thing to understand from this would be that scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religious conviction.

Religious people can be great scientists, but to say that the scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religion is inaccurate. You will never find a scientist that believes the earth to be less than 10,000 years old that doesn't simultaneously believe in a holy book that says the same.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Obviously, the best thing to understand from this would be that scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religious conviction.

Do your history books have 1000 years missing?

Do yours?
Well?

Religious people can be great scientists, but to say that the scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religion is inaccurate. You will never find a scientist that believes the earth to be less than 10,000 years old that doesn't simultaneously believe in a holy book that says the same.

Well, nowadays, science has proved to us that the earth is much older than 10000 years old. I'm sure that most scientists live out whatever religious convictions they have by adhering to this scientific fact.

[Welsh cake]

Obviously, the best thing to understand from this would be that scientific progress is irrelevant to a man's religious conviction.

and that science and religion are compatible

Well theists cherry-pick the Bible that they consider 'sacred' and 'holy' enough as it is, I'm pretty sure after that also ignoring significant portions of a mere "science book" (lol) is no real obstacle. Just so long as it fits in with their individual preferences and specific denomination right?

Theists can accept the medical breakthroughs as acts of god's love and reject that whole devil-inspired "evolution" nonsense or anything else that clearly contradicts their faith right?

Yeah. Science and religion. Linux and Microsoft. Oil and water. They all get on like a house on fire...

[Cyberman]

I've got nothing serious to add here either, but in the spirit of chiming in I'll turn on one of my own, Alien-style.

Unless Jesus floated into space...which is not possible because in space, the human body suffers about a dozen catastrophic failures. And Jesus, if I recall correctly, was the mortal-born son of god, and he was a human, with human physiology, so...he probably instantly froze, was bombarded by neutrino particles thus destroying his atomic structure, his body was rent asunder by the absolute vacuum, and inevitably he probably floated into the sun and was absolutely annihilated by the high heat given by the fusion process of the sun.

Actually, the main dangers of exposure to the vacuum of space are oxygen related. The obvious one is the lack of any to breathe, which would cause death in a matter of minutes, but another less well known effect (unless you're a SCUBA diver) is pulmonary barotrauma, one manifestation of which involves a lungful of deeply held breath rapidly expanding to a greater volume than your lungs can contain. Not, I would imagine, particularly pleasant.

Other than that, exposure to a hard vacuum is rather unremarkable. The human skin and circulatory system are remarkably good at maintaining a constant survivable pressure, so exploding isn't an option. Nor is blood boiling in your veins, which you didn't mention but is widely held. As for freezing: heat doesn't radiate away from a body in space all that quickly. You will freeze, eventually, but surprisingly the biggest hazard in this area is one hell of a sunburn. Incidentally, JC wouldn't necessarily go floating off towards the Sun unless he was already heading in that general direction.

You might have a point with the neutrinos, at least the non-alt-rock-band ones; but then to the best of my knowledge the odds of enough of them colliding with the atoms - which are primarily empty space, remember - in a body to do any appreciable damage are probably astronomical raised to the power of many orders of magnitude. That's why there's all those underground detectors trying to find enough of them to analyse.

To sum up: If JC ever did fly up into space, then barring accidents or spectacular but short-lived re-entry, his frozen and dessicated corpse ought to be still around somewhere.

[StatCrux]

Actually, the main dangers of exposure to the vacuum of space are oxygen related. The obvious one is the lack of any to breathe, which would cause death in a matter of minutes, but another less well known effect (unless you're a SCUBA diver) is pulmonary barotrauma, one manifestation of which involves a lungful of deeply held breath rapidly expanding to a greater volume than your lungs can contain. Not, I would imagine, particularly pleasant.

So is the scene in 2001 where he opens the pod door and pops out into the main spacecraft to confront HAL possible? Or would his lungs burst first?

[Cyberman]

Apparently Kubrick was fairly accurate, by all accounts. in the film, Dave Bowman was only exposed to space for a few seconds; so unless he took a deep breath and held it, he was in (relatively) little danger. You wouldn't want to hang about like that, though.