Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

You are a cafeteria christian. You pick what you like and don't like to make it easier to contort your reasoning to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

If you don't know why, you haven't read the thread because it has been explained multiple times.

I can understand why some people would hate it, and thinking of it as "dunk on" or "owning".

If you're not enjoying it, why are you here?'

More importantly, if you can be dunked on so easily, with such poor defense that it is unenjoyable, then maybe you should re-evaluate your beliefs? At a minimum, you could stop trying to impose the products of those beliefs on the population through legislation and court action.

Then people would not want to "dunk" on you so much.

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion and science are not in conflict unless someone is trying to use supernatural forces to explain things in the natural world.

Every single thing you have ever observed in the natural world is not the result of supernatural forces. According to science.

Correct. Observations of the natural world are not the result of supernatural forces. Let's call those observations data.

It is the interpretation of that data in terms of what it means and how it may be applied where the conflict arises. There are plenty of examples of decisionmakers (law, policy, government, etc) that do not separate their beliefs from how data is utilized. Therefore, there is conflict between science and religion.

For me these are two different issues. science can also be exploited for political and commercial gains/ Statistics and data can be spun to support many immoral positions (unjustified wars/ promoting products that cause harm to health/ minimizing environmental degradation caused by various mining/ industrial or manufacturing practices.

I absolutely support separation of church and state but I also support separation of scientific research and commercial or political ventures that have conflicts with public interest.

The point is that religious and scientific knowledge are separate domains. Religious beliefs cannot be validated or invalidated via the scientific method. However that does not mean that religious bodies should not be held accountable for public harms, taxed, and kept separate from all three arms of Government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

It’s too bad you can’t grasp the very cogent point.

DP - not a cogent point at all, simply a way of avoiding the question asked.

No, it wasn’t. You are cannot comprehend the basic idea that a single word can mean two different things. It’s so elementary.

Yes, but we are only talking about one of the meanings, and you keep insisting you can't answer because words are flexible. It's dishonest and invasive.

Meant "evasive" not invasive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

It’s too bad you can’t grasp the very cogent point.

DP - not a cogent point at all, simply a way of avoiding the question asked.

No, it wasn’t. You are cannot comprehend the basic idea that a single word can mean two different things. It’s so elementary.

Yes, but we are only talking about one of the meanings, and you keep insisting you can't answer because words are flexible. It's dishonest and invasive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

It’s too bad you can’t grasp the very cogent point.

DP - not a cogent point at all, simply a way of avoiding the question asked.

No, it wasn’t. You are cannot comprehend the basic idea that a single word can mean two different things. It’s so elementary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. I think you are confusing me with another PP.

I support separation of church and state in another thread but have not mentioned religious impact on laws here.

I was addressing the fallacy that religious beliefs can be validated or invalidated via the scientific method.

Not a fallacy at all.

Many people believe a flood covered the earth. Easily disprovable by science.

Do you dispute that?

I don’t dispute that but I also don’t interpret that story literally. Neither do any Christians I know personally but there must be a lot of Christian literalists around in MAGA America. Bible studies at my church explore scriptures in social and historical context and look for underlying meanings and themes.

There are several Mesopotamian flood myths due to the fact that river settlements in that region flooded regularly. The different versions feature a Noah-like figure who builds a boat to survive a great flood. They are oral traditions that were edited by different authors but all emphasize the more dramatic aspects of the flood, such as the noise, terror, and excitement.

Ziusudra revealed the closest counterpart to the biblical Noah as survivor of a god-sent flood. When the gods had decided to destroy humanity with a flood, the god Enki who did not agree with the decree, revealed it to Ziusudra, a man well known for his humility and obedience to God.

The underlying themes for me are the need for humility and our Christian responsibility to love God and others as ourselves. It is not easy and we never get it exactly right but the stakes are high. I also believe it speaks to our spiritual responsibilities to help mitigate climate change and be better stewards of the environment and natural resources.

Anonymous wrote:Religion and science are not in conflict unless someone is trying to use supernatural forces to explain things in the natural world.

Every single thing you have ever observed in the natural world is not the result of supernatural forces. According to science.

Correct. Observations of the natural world are not the result of supernatural forces. Let's call those observations data.

It is the interpretation of that data in terms of what it means and how it may be applied where the conflict arises. There are plenty of examples of decisionmakers (law, policy, government, etc) that do not separate their beliefs from how data is utilized. Therefore, there is conflict between science and religion.

Religion and science are not in conflict unless someone is trying to use supernatural forces to explain things in the natural world.

Every single thing you have ever observed in the natural world is not the result of supernatural forces. According to science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. I think you are confusing me with another PP.

I support separation of church and state in another thread but have not mentioned religious impact on laws here.

I was addressing the fallacy that religious beliefs can be validated or invalidated via the scientific method.

I'm the PP. You are correct. I misread your post and did confuse you with the poster who thinks that science and religion are happily coexisting in different domains and thinks there is no conflict between them. My bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

It’s too bad you can’t grasp the very cogent point.

DP - not a cogent point at all, simply a way of avoiding the question asked.