Our theists of all labels please answer....

[Neo-Scholastic]

A history of making claims does not make the claim true. Other religions have their own histories of making claims.

But not all religions are making historical claims, are they? You're making a false equivalency between different kinds of claims.

---

...No, a science lab is the only place to determine facts.

Is that a fact? Can you cite a scientific laboratory study that proves only science labs determine facts?

[Brian37]

A history of making claims does not make the claim true. Other religions have their own histories of making claims.

But not all religions are making historical claims, are they? You're making a false equivalency between different kinds of claims.

Bullshit, we can prove Mecca to be a real place. Muslims would point to that REAL PLACE as evidence for the existence of Allah.

Buddhists will point to their writings and real people and real places and claim that Buddha is the start of human wisdom.

Jews do the same.

Your stuck in the idea that "fact" and "history" and "scientific fact" the word "fact" means the same thing equally in all context. That is where your logic is fucking up. That is why you either unwittingly or willingly refuse to understand the importance of NEUTRALITY when using science to determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Religion cannot be mixed with science if the scientist wants to be neutral and objective. 

Some scientists try to escape that by claiming they are "Separate but equal".

That is simply bullshit they pull to compartmentalize to justify cherry picking the parts of science they agree with and run away from science when it points away from their claims.

The bottom line is religion and science are NOT compatible because scientific method is not a religion itself, it is a tool, a neutral tool and works regardless of any personal bias the person has. Once you try to mix religion and science you have lost all objectivity.

[Simon Moon]

But not all religions are making historical claims, are they? You're making a false equivalency between different kinds of claims.

Bullshit, we can prove Mecca to be a real place. Muslims would point to that REAL PLACE as evidence for the existence of Allah.

Buddhists will point to their writings and real people and real places and claim that Buddha is the start of human wisdom.

Jews do the same.

Your stuck in the idea that "fact" and "history" and "scientific fact" the word "fact" means the same thing equally in all context. That is where your logic is fucking up. That is why you either unwittingly or willingly refuse to understand the importance of NEUTRALITY when using science to determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Religion cannot be mixed with science if the scientist wants to be neutral and objective. 

Some scientists try to escape that by claiming they are "Separate but equal".

That is simply bullshit they pull to compartmentalize to justify cherry picking the parts of science they agree with and run away from science when it points away from their claims.

The bottom line is the to are NOT compatible because scientific method is not a religion itself, it is a tool, a neutral tool and works regardless of any personal bias the person has.

Exactly.

No matter what religion scientists are, if they measure the speed of light, they will all get the same results. There is no Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc, speed of light.

On the other hand, all those different religions will have different answers to questions about their god, the soul, an afterlife, hell, etc.

Interesting that the thing that is completely unverifiable, leads to vastly different answers to the same questions. Funny that, huh.

Not to mention that those differing answers seem to be drastically influenced by geography, and the religion of one's parents.

[Brian37]

Bullshit, we can prove Mecca to be a real place. Muslims would point to that REAL PLACE as evidence for the existence of Allah.

Buddhists will point to their writings and real people and real places and claim that Buddha is the start of human wisdom.

Jews do the same.

Your stuck in the idea that "fact" and "history" and "scientific fact" the word "fact" means the same thing equally in all context. That is where your logic is fucking up. That is why you either unwittingly or willingly refuse to understand the importance of NEUTRALITY when using science to determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Religion cannot be mixed with science if the scientist wants to be neutral and objective. 

Some scientists try to escape that by claiming they are "Separate but equal".

That is simply bullshit they pull to compartmentalize to justify cherry picking the parts of science they agree with and run away from science when it points away from their claims.

The bottom line is the to are NOT compatible because scientific method is not a religion itself, it is a tool, a neutral tool and works regardless of any personal bias the person has.

Exactly.

No matter what religion scientists are, if they measure the speed of light, they will all get the same results. There is no Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc, speed of light.

On the other hand, all those different religions will have different answers to questions about their god, the soul, an afterlife, hell, etc.

Interesting that the thing that is completely unverifiable, leads to vastly different answers to the same questions. Funny that, huh.

Not to mention that those differing answers seem to be drastically influenced by geography, and the religion of one's parents.

Alex Trebek, "You are the final Jeopardy Champion, you get to stick around we'll see you tomorrow!"

Theist, " I'll take I like what I believe for $100" Alex.

Alex, "Sorry theist, the correct answer "What is I have no scientific evidence for my club/hero"

[Neo-Scholastic]

But not all religions are making historical claims, are they? You're making a false equivalency between different kinds of claims.

Bullshit, we can prove Mecca to be a real place. Muslims would point to that REAL PLACE as evidence for the existence of Allah.

Buddhists will point to their writings and real people and real places and claim that Buddha is the start of human wisdom.

Jews do the same.

Your stuck in the idea that "fact" and "history" and "scientific fact" the word "fact" means the same thing equally in all context. That is where your logic is fucking up. That is why you either unwittingly or willingly refuse to understand the importance of NEUTRALITY when using science to determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Religion cannot be mixed with science if the scientist wants to be neutral and objective. 

Some scientists try to escape that by claiming they are "Separate but equal".

That is simply bullshit they pull to compartmentalize to justify cherry picking the parts of science they agree with and run away from science when it points away from their claims.

The bottom line is religion and science are NOT compatible because scientific method is not a religion itself, it is a tool, a neutral tool and works regardless of any personal bias the person has. Once you try to mix religion and science you have lost all objectivity.

[Brian37]

A science lab is the only place you determine scientific fact, you cannot mix that with religion. PERIOD

You can report religious history, but only as NEUTRAL, you cannot mix it with science.

You are trying to treat the word "FACT" as meaning the same and equal in all contexts.

I am talking about HOW NEUTRAL SCIENCE WORKS.

A theologian may TRY to mix religion with science, but that is not OBJECTIVE, once you start trying to do that you are an apologist, selling something, you are no longer scientifically NEUTRAL.

Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy.   Because that is what it appears you are doing. 
Can you clarify what you meaning by selling something?  How would this relate to a scientist trying to sell me on climate change (or as I like to call it... fine tuning of the atmosphere)?   Or how about your trying to sell me this idea now... are you neutral?  There may be some things on which I agree, but this wording seems awkward.

Also... wrong again, on what you imagine I am trying to do.   I should start a counter or something.  But just a tip... if you let me speak for myself, then I can't claim a straw man.

"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy= The Hindu creator God Brahama"
"Are you familiar with the genetic falacy= Allah"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy= Buddha"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy=Yahweh"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy=Apollo"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy= Yoda"

If you are going to point out this "genetic fallacy" to be NEUTRAL you would have to be willing to plug all other claims into that same claim. If you are not willing to do that you are simply mentally masturbating trying to use sciencey sounding words to eventually point right back to your own bias position.

You are speaking for yourself, but you are not speaking neutrally for yourself. Which is why I challenged you in the OP with that question which you refuse to ask YOURSELF.

[RoadRunner79]

Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy.   Because that is what it appears you are doing. 
Can you clarify what you meaning by selling something?  How would this relate to a scientist trying to sell me on climate change (or as I like to call it... fine tuning of the atmosphere)?   Or how about your trying to sell me this idea now... are you neutral?  There may be some things on which I agree, but this wording seems awkward.

Also... wrong again, on what you imagine I am trying to do.   I should start a counter or something.  But just a tip... if you let me speak for myself, then I can't claim a straw man.

"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy= The Hindu creator God Brahama"
"Are you familiar with the genetic falacy= Allah"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy= Buddha"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy=Yahweh"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy=Apollo"
"Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy= Yoda"

If you are going to point out this "genetic fallacy" to be NEUTRAL you would have to be willing to plug all other claims into that same claim. If you are not willing to do that you are simply mentally masturbating trying to use sciencey sounding words to eventually point right back to your own bias position.

You are speaking for yourself, but you are not speaking neutrally for yourself. Which is why I challenged you in the OP with that question which you refuse to ask YOURSELF.

Ok.... you don't know what the genetic fallacy is....

but do demonstrate fairly well, that you are just rambling with little coherence.

[Brian37]

Bullshit, we can prove Mecca to be a real place. Muslims would point to that REAL PLACE as evidence for the existence of Allah.

Buddhists will point to their writings and real people and real places and claim that Buddha is the start of human wisdom.

Jews do the same.

Your stuck in the idea that "fact" and "history" and "scientific fact" the word "fact" means the same thing equally in all context. That is where your logic is fucking up. That is why you either unwittingly or willingly refuse to understand the importance of NEUTRALITY when using science to determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Religion cannot be mixed with science if the scientist wants to be neutral and objective. 

Some scientists try to escape that by claiming they are "Separate but equal".

That is simply bullshit they pull to compartmentalize to justify cherry picking the parts of science they agree with and run away from science when it points away from their claims.

The bottom line is religion and science are NOT compatible because scientific method is not a religion itself, it is a tool, a neutral tool and works regardless of any personal bias the person has. Once you try to mix religion and science you have lost all objectivity.

So every religion has followers who point to their scientists.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Science

http://thecenterforappliedjudaism.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86563...ience.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationsh...nd_science

http://hinduismfacts.org/hindu-science/

All of you try to claim science points to your clubs. So what.

Again as someone said in a prior post.

There is only one speed of light.

There is no Jesus speed of light.
There is no Buddha speed of light.
There is no Vishnu speed of light.
There is no Yahweh speed of light.

There is only the speed of light.

The personal religions of scientists don't come into play in a neutral lab.

[Cyberman]

Therefore science is a religious product?

[Simon Moon]

What do you think this proves?

That the scientific method is Catholic?

I guess algebra is Islamic, then. Right?