Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in a society?

[RoadRunner79]

Care to give some facts to back up these claims.  You may want to read the article I posted
http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/



There's a whole lot wrong here!
You may want to know what you are talking about, before you start making claims like this.  Or is there something particular that I have said, which leads you to this conclusion?

Hey you're the one that said "By the way, I am one who could say, that I don't believe in evolution, I could also say I'm skeptical; and that I believe in evolution. All depends on what you are talking about when you say evolution."

This would be correct (I haven't been given any reasons to change my views in this regard). (kudos for quoting the context by the way). It would also be accurate to say that none of these views (depending on what you are discussing concerning evolution), have come about in regard to my religious beliefs. It's not because of a conflict with my religion. As I have stated in the past, I started out with a view of theistic evolution. Since then, I have learned a lot.

And that guy from the link you provide is not an atheist, but your classical lying-for-Jesus Christian apologetic. For instance this is what that turd writes: "the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense" - oh so this is only internet invented conspiracy that has nothing to do with scholars. I guess I could call it a blatant lie, but it's just typical statement by delusional Christian.  

---

I mean for starters if it's so obvious that Jesus really existed why doesn't he or maybe even you tell us which Jesus really existed? Ha? Tell me? Was it woo-woo New Age Jesus who embraces gays and lesbians? Or maybe Catholic Jesus and the Orthodox Jesus and those of all the eastern sects in between? Or is it the Snake-Handler’s Jesus? The Pentecostal Jesus? The liberal and the republican Jesus? KKK’s angry Aryan Jesus and the southern gospel choir’s Black Jesus? Seventh-Day Adventist Jesus? The family-friendly Mormon Jesus that also lived in America? Or is it the Jesus being peddled on your doorstep by Jehovah’s Witnesses? But it must be the gentle, loving Quaker Jesus and the dour Calvinist Jesus? Muslim Jesus that lived in Asia after he survived Crucifixion?

But these are all Jesuses of faith, right? There must be some historical Jesus underneath all the miracles bullshit that "real scholars" recognize and have proven him, but again which one? Was the Apocalyptic Prophet real Jesus? Or First-Century Proto-Communist? Or Nonviolent Pacifist Resister? Or Violent Zealot Revolutionary? Or it must be Magician/Exorcist/Faith Healer? And what about Jesus The Essene Heretic? Well it must be Cynic philosopher Jesus the real historical Jesus? Or Conservative Rabbi Jesus that insists keeping old Jewish laws? Or maybe it's Jesus Earthy Hedonist cuz he was described in the Bible as a glutton and a drunk?

---

Funny, I thought that atheism just meant just a lack of belief in a deity. I'm curious, if you consider Bart Erhman, or a number of other atheist scholars, who don't hold a high regard for the "mythers" as liars in this regard as well?
Is this the only reason, that you string him up, and question his lack of belief. On a side note, I find it interesting, that the principles and methods proclaimed by these "scholars", often don't follow into any other areas of historical studies and research. Don't you?

---

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

You compartmentalized in text form, on these boards........in realtime....in this thread....?

It could be, because some are difficult to have a discussion with; if God comes into the picture at all.   I have found this when discussing basic principles, and even when I am adamant to keep it about logic, and not a particular theological consequence.   Do you have an example in mind, perhaps I can clarify?