Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Anomalocaris]

That’s bullshit.  Science studies whether logic is justified by any demonstrably effective application. Without what falls under the preview of science logic is nothing.  Science studies whether particular mode of thinking and reasoning leads to the ends by which these modes are justified.  Without that Philosophy is just masterbation.  Science studies the neurology of appreciation for beauty, that is the ultimate master of aesthetics.  Science assesses whether morality leads to the end by which morality is justified, without this morality is just opinionated assholes opinionating.   Even the ultimate desire that motivates human any aspect of behavior at its most basic level is subject to science.  Science studies what social construct will lead to the desire end, and without this human rights is so much hot air.

Science studies whether any human conceit, be it morality, language, mathematics, logic, philosophy, aesthetics, art, has any validity in the sense of doing even a little bit of that by which it is said to be justified.   And science studies why that conceit arises in the first place at the most fundamental level at which any human thoughts and conceit can be said to form.

If it is there in any sense or reality,  science studies it.

You are a poster child for an extreme version of logical postitivism--a philosophy that have been rejected for almost two generations. It's called scientism:

Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.
In philosophy of science, the term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[1][2] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[3] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[4] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[5] and Tzvetan Todorov[6] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[7]
More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[8] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[9] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
   
   
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".[11][12] Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[13] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[14]
   

It is also sometimes used to describe universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[15] The term "scientism" is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

So says a hopelessly besotted superstitionist eager to defend his superstition from science by any artifice he could grasp.

[SteveII]

You are a poster child for an extreme version of logical postitivism--a philosophy that have been rejected for almost two generations. It's called scientism:

So says a hopelessly besotted superstitionist eager to defend his superstition from science by any artifice he could grasp.

There is nothing I believe that needs defending from science. To say it another way, science does not conflict with anything I believe.  Your clearly have naive and simplistic views of science and religion that don't stand up to scrutiny very well.

[Succubus]

You are a poster child for an extreme version of logical postitivism--a philosophy that have been rejected for almost two generations. It's called scientism:

So says a hopelessly besotted superstitionist eager to defend his superstition from science by any artifice he could grasp.

He was given a good arse warming just last week for this scientism shite.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1619491

[SteveII]

So says a hopelessly besotted superstitionist eager to defend his superstition from science by any artifice he could grasp.

He was given a good arse warming just last week for this scientism shite.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1619491

And I replied at length http://atheistforums.org/post-1619590.html#pid1619590

[TheBeardedDude]

So says a hopelessly besotted superstitionist eager to defend his superstition from science by any artifice he could grasp.

He was given a good arse warming just last week for this scientism shite.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1619491

He's had that addressed several times actually:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1619420

[Little Rik]

That's absolutely false. Not even close--even if you espouse naturalism. You can study mathematics, logic, philosophy, language, art, aesthetics, morality, human rights, etc--all not science. For crying out loud, science itself relies on a particular philosophy of science to even get off the ground--which is not itself science. CL was right. Science is the study of the natural world. By definition it cannot even comment on the supernatural.

That’s bullshit.  Science studies whether logic is justified by any demonstrably effective application. Without what falls under the preview of science logic is nothing.  Science studies whether particular mode of thinking and reasoning leads to the ends by which these modes are justified.  Without that Philosophy is just masterbation.  Science studies the neurology of appreciation for beauty, that is the ultimate master of aesthetics.  Science assesses whether morality leads to the end by which morality is justified, without this morality is just opinionated assholes opinionating.   Even the ultimate desire that motivates humans in any aspect of their behavior at their most basic level is subject to science.  Science studies what social construct will lead to the desire end, and without this human rights is so much hot air.

Science studies whether any human conceit, be it morality, language, mathematics, logic, philosophy, aesthetics, art, has any validity in the sense of doing even a little bit of that by which it is said to be justified.   And science studies why that conceit arises in the first place at the most fundamental level at which any human thoughts and conceit can be said to form.

If it is there in any sense or reality,  science studies it.

Oh, boys, what garbage I have to hear.

Science, science, science all over the place but you haven't got a tiny idea where science start and when it end.
You don't even know that philosophy lead far far away from the atheistic idea that there is no God.
Science is a journey to discovering the unknown.
Every discovery is science whether it relate to the study of the physical universe, physical body, the mental stratum or the spiritual stratum.

It has no limits.
If you try to create some dogmas by putting limits to science then is clear that your mind is full of dust.
One day in the far future you will discover that there are limits with the physical science so you naturally will have to go over the border of this physical science and enter the arena or dimension of a different science that will take you over the physical limitation but considering that you are still stuck in a form of physical-mental science then it will take a long long time to exit this dogma that science has nothing to do with the discovering of the self.  

[I_am_not_mafia]

Science is the study of the natural world. 

What about Computer Science?

---

There is nothing I believe that needs defending from science.

So you don't believe in an eternal afterlife or an eternal god then?

[TheBeardedDude]

Science is the study of the natural world. 

What about Computer Science?

---

There is nothing I believe that needs defending from science.

So you don't believe in an eternal afterlife or an eternal god then?

Actually I think the bigger problem is what Steve thinks the word "natural" means with respect to the philosophy of science. 

So what is it you think the words "natural" and "nature" mean with respect to the context of science, Steve?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Actually I think the bigger problem is what Steve thinks the word "natural" means with respect to the philosophy of science. 

So what is it you think the words "natural" and "nature" mean with respect to the context of science, Steve?

As exemplified by his use of the word 'supernatural' when referring to what he thinks is real.

[TheBeardedDude]

Actually I think the bigger problem is what Steve thinks the word "natural" means with respect to the philosophy of science. 

So what is it you think the words "natural" and "nature" mean with respect to the context of science, Steve?

As exemplified by his use of the word 'supernatural' when referring to what he thinks is real.

Among other things