Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[vorlon13]

In the infinite (theoretical) Multiverse, is there a reality where Joseph Smith and his gold tablets are the actual One True Faith ??

[The Grand Nudger]

In an infinite theoretical anything there are infinite theoretical Jospeph Smiths - which is to say, there are -theoretically- alot of assholes laying about.

[Ryantology]

Ryantology. Back in the fourth century Augustine made it clear that the Genesis account must be allegorical, based on days, morning and evening occurring before the sun was made. 6 day creationism is a minority sport in Christendom, and seems to be almost peculiarly American. Here in England I haven't actually met any 6 day creationists (though I am sure we must have some).

That's Augustine's opinion. A lot of faithful Christians don't share it.

That's just one example, in any case. There are plenty of other Christian claims that are contradictory to what science has revealed. Animals don't speak human languages, nor do burning bushes. Human life span has never even approached two centuries, much less nine. There was never a global flood in the span of time humans have occupied said globe. Walking on water, magicking fish and bread out of thin air, controlling the weather, rising from the dead.

When your religion makes a claim that contradicts the workings of the universe as we understand them, which do you side with?

[Mudhammam]

Pickup. The point was simply that not everything in our lives is within the purview of science. No-one can live consistently with the view that only those things verifiable by science can be held to be true. Rather, science has a particular scope. Personally, I use it to investigate health and disease (and how we can best alleviate the suffering caused by disease). I don't use it to judge good from bad, for example. I love science, but I think those who try to subject everything to it misunderstand it.

Science doesn't determine what things you value, but it should largely determine what you're willing to believe is true or not, the demand for evidence varying with the nature of the claim. I disagree that science does not inform your sense of morality as you would agree that disease is not caused by upsetting God, and hence you would not think it right to punish a person for becoming ill. A morality that is not informed by the actual state of natural entities is often an example of bad moral judgement.

[Jenny A]

Pickup. The point was simply that not everything in our lives is within the purview of science. No-one can live consistently with the view that only those things verifiable by science can be held to be true. Rather, science has a particular scope. Personally, I use it to investigate health and disease (and how we can best alleviate the suffering caused by disease). I don't use it to judge good from bad, for example. I love science, but I think those who try to subject everything to it misunderstand it.

I agree that no one uses science as the only method for action. Frankly the exercise would be exhausting. And I certainly don't choose my friends or pastimes based on science. Nor do I think science can establish good or bad.

But I do view the reasons I choose to do what I choose to do as natural. My moral choices may feel innate but they are informed by: instinct which is hereditary and actually innate and; culture, which also evolves and is taught formally and by immersion. If I want to know why I behave the way I do, or why my fellows behave the way they do, I don't fill in the gap with god. Instead I look at culture (which includes religion) and biology. Both the question of is there a god; and why do people believe in a god or god are ultimately scientific and historical questions.

The god hypothesis appears to be lacking in evidence. The Christian god hypothesis appears to be often at odds with the evidence. I do not entertain ideas at odds with the evidence long.

[askmewhy]

This op is a joke. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Admin: was that nice enough?

Getting banned for flaming here is like getting a speeding ticket at Indy. "apocalypse now"

call a religious person an asshole and you are a friend. Call another atheist a asshole and ya get banned.
Good job atheists ... it doesn't matter how stupid a post is as long as our post is anti religion we can be the biggest assholes around. It seems here even the truth is irrelevant.

[JesusHChrist]

^^why?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sock. lol.

[Mudhammam]

This op is a joke. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Admin: was that nice enough?

Getting banned for flaming here is like getting a speeding ticket at Indy. "apocalypse now"

call a religious person an asshole and you are a friend. Call another atheist a asshole and ya get banned.
Good job atheists ... it doesn't matter how stupid a post is as long as our post is anti religion we can be the biggest assholes around. It seems here even the truth is irrelevant.

Great points.

P.S.

Asshole.

[Jenny A]

This op is a joke. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Admin: was that nice enough?

Getting banned for flaming here is like getting a speeding ticket at Indy. "apocalypse now"

call a religious person an asshole and you are a friend. Call another atheist a asshole and ya get banned.
Good job atheists ... it doesn't matter how stupid a post is as long as our post is anti religion we can be the biggest assholes around. It seems here even the truth is irrelevant.

You've been here a day and you know all about the moderation do you? Interesting.