Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[Whateverist]

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.

This is a recurring theme with you. But you don't know what you're talking about. One of my jobs is calling atheist hubris when I see it and I'm far from the only one. The mods here are excellent.

Before I call you the asshole you seem to be, I'll go ahead and humor your user name: why?

[Anomalocaris]

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

Even infinite combinations of all possibilities still will not make the impossible possible. The infinite set of the impossible remains infinitely more infinite than the infinite set of the possible. So even with an infinite multiverse, the chance of any particular conceivable random proposition eventuate somewhere is still infinitesimal.

[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.

This is a recurring theme with you. But you don't know what you're talking about. One of my jobs is calling atheist hubris when I see it and I'm far from the only one. The mods here are excellent.

Before I call you the asshole you seem to be, I'll go ahead and humor your user name: why?

My recurring theme is calling post (or posters) stupid when they are stupid. I don't really care what you think of me. Tell me where I am wrong, when I am wrong. Start with what I said in my post. We can start there.

[Jenny A]

My recurring theme is calling post (or posters) stupid when they are stupid. I don't really care what you think of me. Tell me where I am wrong, when I am wrong. Start with what I said in my post. We can start there.

Uh huh? And your other reoccurring theme is failing to say WHY you think the post or posters are stupid. For a guy who call himself Askmewhy, that's a little odd. It's a little rude for anyone.

So what's wrong the OP's opinions?

BTW: Did I miss your introduction thread?

[askmewhy]

^^why?

I agree. There is no reason.

Leave out a type of god. Take all religions as a whole. What is religion? Or better put, what function do they seem to serve in a society. leave out a non belief. What is science? But the most important thing to do is leave out all descriptive adjective that would assign a personal value on them. Either good or bad.

Stating that the two can't go together is like stating republican party and democratic party can't go together. Not only can they, they should. the word "party" is the focus here, not a person. err wait just a flippin minute ... look at our government and country.

I take it back ... op is right. So stuffed he's puffed is correct.

[JesusHChrist]

Well, I'm a scientist and a faithful Christian. I happily live in both worlds. But I don't share your view that we must approach everything scientifically. I love my science, but I see it as a tool for a particular job. I don't base my marriage on science. I don't base my music on science. I don't judge the books I enjoy reading by science. I don't derive my moral code from science. And I don't see a problem with any of that. The problem, to me, comes when one sees science as the only game in town. I know science pretty well, and I know where is useful and I know where it has little use. And I don't think that trying to derive everything from science is a position you can hold consistently in life.

That's all well and good, but when it comes to building descriptive and predictive models of reality, what other game is there? Whenever science and religion have clashed, science wins 100% of the time. Religion must scramble to invent new explanations/metaphors/workarounds to continue to claim any relevance whatsoever. Always. And it *never* goes the other way.

One could even argue that one *could* explain music, marriage and moral code with science. The things you can't explain seem nothing more than arbitrary value judgments, e.g., why are the Beatles superior to The Monkees?

Music is mathematical relationships. Love is brain chemistry. Morals are almost certainly an evolved trait.

[Dystopia]

Religion is not compatible with science, religion and science do NOT mix. However it is possible for someone to simultaneously hold religious belief and be a reputed scientist, it's just not very common, the dualism paradigm is necessary, the person would have to be rational when applying the scientific method and irrational when worshipping the personal god.

By the way, when I talk about science I'm not encompassing only physics, chemistry, mathematics and other exact sciences, I'm counting with history, sociology, psychology, economics, and other social sciences....

In fact, the best class I had that taught me the basis of the scientific method, fallacies and scientific knowledge was 'Introduction to economics', it was very amusing and I learned things I can apply to all science now.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is a recurring theme with you. But you don't know what you're talking about. One of my jobs is calling atheist hubris when I see it and I'm far from the only one. The mods here are excellent.

Before I call you the asshole you seem to be, I'll go ahead and humor your user name: why?

My recurring theme is calling post (or posters) stupid when they are stupid. I don't really care what you think of me. Tell me where I am wrong, when I am wrong. Start with what I said in my post. We can start there.

This is not up for discussion.

You were warned by the staff over Your inclination to flame people without provocation around a month ago, something you seemingly chose to ignore.

Calling someone stupid is one thing, implying that it'd been better had they never been born (http://atheistforums.org/thread-27908-po...#pid726468) is quite another, especially when you've had no interaction with them whatsoever.

So congratulations, by creating a sock, you've most likely just upgraded your temporary ban to a permanent one.

end thread derail

[Minimalist]

No-one can live consistently with the view that only those things verifiable by science can be held to be true.

That's a convenient way to sneak fairy tales into your outlook. If you are comfortable with it, good for you.

I think it is a crock.

I agree with H. L. Mencken.

The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable. To be sure, theology is always yielding a little to the progress of knowledge, and only a Holy Roller in the mountains of Tennessee would dare to preach today what the popes preached in the thirteenth century.
— H L Mencken

The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.
— H L Mencken

[Whateverist]

Yeah what a shame to get caught up in that guy's neurosis when we have precisely the kind of theist present that many of us need to know are out there.

There really is no necessary barrier between science and religion. We in the USA are simply surrounded by stupid people with stupid theology. No one has to read Jonah, Noah or Genesis literally to be a Christian. Michael here obviously has a more nuanced theology, but I don't think we're going to find out what it is if we continue to hurl outrage he hasn't earned his way.

If Michael is so inclined, I'd love to hear more about your religious beliefs, what role the bible plays in that and how you think about god, judgement, afterlife and personal identity.