Savage Belief: Oh boy. Another Christian bash-fest.

This place is getting so lame.


Did you even read the thread??

I don't really understand how science and religion are even related. There seems to be a rash of religious types (not JUST Christians but mostly Christian protestants, at least in this country) suffering from severe cognitive dissonance. It's not that hard, okay? If you believe God created everything then:

God created dinosaurs
God created evolution
God created the human brain with the ability to invent and discover
God wrote the bible on the level of bronze-age understanding so that it would be passed on and more importantly believed by people who couldn't yet count to 4 billion and hadn't yet discovered birth control.

Even though I do not believe all of these things, I don't understand why they're so difficult to reconcile. Running around with your fingers poked in your ears and your eyes stubbornly fixed upon the bible is not going to stop scientific discovery in its tracks.

/Catholic
//Yes, I believe in evolution, big bang (until a better theory comes along), and aliens
///I have yet to hear a compelling argument that God could not have created those things

pixeled: Farkonnen: The dark ages did not destroy science.

FFS: Stifle & nearly destroy.

You asked for an example, a perfect one was cited, you moved the goalpost.

you earn a FAIL.

I'm guessing you are Republican. You argue like one.

Savage Belief: Oh boy. Another Christian bash-fest.

This place is getting so lame.

You're an idiot, read the farking thread jackass

ultramarinblaa: Corpus Delecti

Atheists are inherently douchebags.

THIS

Why? Because I don't believe the same thing you do?

Farkonnen: pixeled: Farkonnen: The dark ages did not destroy science.

FFS: Stifle & nearly destroy.

You asked for an example, a perfect one was cited, you moved the goalpost.

you earn a FAIL.

I'm guessing you are Republican. You argue like one.

No, (s)he pretty much nailed you. I'm saying that as an unbiased onlooker.

phooeypapa: I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me GOD doesn't exist, just because a scientist tells you that there is no GOD does not make it true. Case in point both sides should just shut up about the whole thing because we get it already.

Scientists aren't telling you this. Atheists are. Atheism is a philosophy, not a science. Your aim is off.

I'd like to point out that you're a lying sack of shiat.

Calling people lying sacks of shiat, for Jesus.

how noble

Marla Singer's Laundry: What is your problem with a toy poodle barking at a real dog flying spaghetti monster?

You caught my intent, changed it, and made me laugh! Thanks. Though it didn't elude me that you accepted the toy poodle part :D

ZzeusS: framitz: I'm a scientist, I don't hate god. What's point in hating a mythic creature? That would be a waste of energy and hypocritical wouldn't it?

I always hated Wraiths. Stealing XP was just such a hack. I really hated those things!

And carrion slugs. Dissolving your favorite sword? Buncha crap. Gelatinous ozes sucked too.

Rust Monsters bit my shiny metal ass, and now it's gone. Why do you think I carry a quarterstaff and wear leather armor?

Batewoman: ///I have yet to hear a compelling argument that God could not have created those things

That is not where the burden of proof belongs.

Savage Belief: Oh boy. Another Christian bash-fest.

See Corpus? Here's another one to add to my list.

This place is getting so lame.

I refer the right honorable gentleman to the image in my post at 06:25:59 PM.

Selector: Farkonnen: pixeled: Farkonnen: The dark ages did not destroy science.

FFS: Stifle & nearly destroy.

You asked for an example, a perfect one was cited, you moved the goalpost.

you earn a FAIL.

I'm guessing you are Republican. You argue like one.

No, (s)he pretty much nailed you. I'm saying that as an unbiased onlooker.

What goalposts were moved? I simply disagreed with the idea that science was almost snuffed by the dark ages. I'm not reinventing the game, just partaking.

"Scientists hate God"



So true...so true.


In fact,when that apple landed on Newton's head he jumped up and shouted:


GOD IS DEAD...GOD IS DEAD...ALL HAIL SATAN!!!!


True.

"Edited by Michael Shermer"

yup...this will be a non biased debate no doubt..

t3knomanser: rockman55: Well, I'll let you do the research. I was severely agnostic, but I converted after being challenged to delve into the historicity of Christ. The debate is in no ways settled, but I realized that if I was going to keep believing that my collection of ancient philosophy books had been passed down accurately, then I'd have to come to the same conclusion about the New Testament (even more so).

While I think the evidence for the historical Jesus is debatable, I'm more than willing to concede that point. The evidence for the mythical son of god is just that- mythical.

Look, let's be reasonable here. Odin could kick Jesus's ass. It's not even a contest. They both saved all mankind by getting their stupid asses nailed to a tree, but Odin has crows! And he lost an eye! Crows > loaves and fishes.

And Odin had kids. What part of the bible mentions Jesus getting laid? Yeah, he hung out with some hookers, but did he sample the wares? We all know Odin got some poontang, from other deities as well as the occasional fling with mortals. At best, Jesus had a few friendly hugs from a couple of fag-hags.

So here we have a one eyed viking pimp of a god, and then we have this hippy dippy motherfarker in a robe and sandals who probably only ever had a handjob, and self-service at that.

Corpus Delecti:What I'm NOT doing is getting articles Greenlit for the sole express purpose of insulting Atheists, the way you guys do to insult Christians.

Oh that poor, disenfranchised, minority of Christians. How do they ever deal with all that persecution?

Scientists can be of any religion. They can be believers or nonbelievers. There are in fact teams of scientists working for the Vatican. Science does not set out to prove there is or is not a God. It would be terribly difficult to get a grant to study that.

Atheism is a philosophy. It is a theoretical argument with no observable evidence one way or the other. We're lashing out in the wrong direction.

Want to hate people who are trying to prove there is no God? Hate philosophers... the atheist ones anyway.

Don't click on the link. We don't need to encourage this.

Batewoman: Scientists can be of any religion. They can be believers or nonbelievers. There are in fact teams of scientists working for the Vatican. Science does not set out to prove there is or is not a God. It would be terribly difficult to get a grant to study that.

Atheism is a philosophy. It is a theoretical argument with no observable evidence one way or the other. We're lashing out in the wrong direction.

Want to hate people who are trying to prove there is no God? Hate philosophers... the atheist ones anyway.

Yeah, this.

This so brings me back to my freshman engineering courses where we had to read books and write papers on how much we hated mythical things for which there is zero proof. I got an 'A' with my term paper on how much I hate unicorns.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me GOD doesn't exist

The only way you can prove that God doesn't exist is through an exhaustive search; you'd have to look everywhere in existence, not just our known universe. So to prove God doesn't exist you would have to be God.

eqtworld: That is not where the burden of proof belongs.

Doesn't really matter. I can believe what I want to believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Also, in this argument it doesn't make much of a difference. Prove the ball of matter in the big bang came from literally nothing. See? Can't do it. Neither of us have a leg to stand on.

Batewoman: There are in fact teams of scientists working for the Vatican.

Doesn't the very fact that they're working for the Vatican speak to the probability of them having an agenda?? In other words, if they're Catholic scientists, don't you think they're going to try to find things that validate Catholic beliefs, and hide the findings that conflict with those beliefs??

thamike: I do! Cuddly, squeaky Nauga vengeance...


I'm in your internet, attacking your saviour!

Satan doesn't require you to pray.



Finally Fox reports the FACTS

Does anyone have the "Help! We're being oppressed!" pic?

/my GIS skillz are teh sux

eraser8
"Scientists hate God"

This is silly beyond words. Scientists do not hate fictional characters.


I don't know... I'm a scientist and I hate Harry Potter...

"Scientists hate God"

Tell that to the professor who taught my quantum mechanics and relativity courses in college- he's a Catholic priest. (Franciscan)

boot20: Farkonnen: GhostFish: Religion has already proven that it can stifle and nearly destroy any scientific inquiry and development.

Where is your proof to back that statement up?

The Dark Ages.

Batewoman: Doesn't really matter. I can believe what I want to believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

No but you posted a reason and that reason is insane. You act like you are being logical and are making an arguement. You are not, (well a fallacious one, but that is all)

If you want to say "I have faith in magic and nothing you can say will change that" fine, it's a stupid thing to do, but go nuts.

If you want to say "You cannot prove a universal negative, therefore God is real" well, that is crazy.

Perhaps they do, if this is the god of which they speak...

Batewoman: Prove the ball of matter in the big bang came from literally nothing. See? Can't do it. Neither of us have a leg to stand on.

I never said it came from nothing.

No one ever said it came from nothing.

There for I do not have to prove it "came from nothing"

/read a science book sometime, they are interesting.

Where's I hate Jimmy Page today?

Batewoman: Doesn't really matter. I can believe what I want to believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

No offense, but that is the reasoning of a spoiled four year old.

Selector: Doesn't the very fact that they're working for the Vatican speak to the probability of them having an agenda?? In other words, if they're Catholic scientists, don't you think they're going to try to find things that validate Catholic beliefs, and hide the findings that conflict with those beliefs??

Well, they run the Vatican observatory (pops), for one. AFAIK, all it does is look at stars and doesn't try to do Catholic astronomy... whatever that would be...

There's also the Pontifical Academy of Science (pops), which include Stephen Hawking, which advises the Pope on scientific matters. I'd be pretty surprised if Hawking was a biased researcher trying to tilt the playing field in the Vatican's behalf.

GilRuiz1: Selector: Doesn't the very fact that they're working for the Vatican speak to the probability of them having an agenda?? In other words, if they're Catholic scientists, don't you think they're going to try to find things that validate Catholic beliefs, and hide the findings that conflict with those beliefs??

Well, they run the Vatican observatory (pops), for one. AFAIK, all it does is look at stars and doesn't try to do Catholic astronomy... whatever that would be...

There's also the Pontifical Academy of Science (pops), which include Stephen Hawking, which advises the Pope on scientific matters. I'd be pretty surprised if Hawking was a biased researcher trying to tilt the playing field in the Vatican's behalf.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Kali-Yuga: Where's I hate Jimmy Page today?

Nawashi: Stoopid atheists are going to burn in the fires of hell.

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

rockman55: "rockman55: Maybe we can put Bevets and Richard Dawkins in a soundproof room. Then maybe the debate can go somewhere fruitful."

This is a bit of a head-scratcher. Have you ever actually listened to Dawkins speak? He's as quiet as a mouse and for the most part quite well-mannered. I get the impression that theists simply read reviews of his books (written by other theists of course) and take the titles of his books/documentaries as complete descriptions of their contents (thus negating the need to actually read/watch them).

Here's a recent interview for reference. You don't have to pay any attention to his reasoning (I know it burns your poor earses) just notice that he's nowhere near as monstrous as you describe.

Kali-Yuga: boot20: Farkonnen: GhostFish: Religion has already proven that it can stifle and nearly destroy any scientific inquiry and development.

Where is your proof to back that statement up?

The Dark Ages.

Ah yes, the Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, and Modern Science right after a flat line. Looks like it didn't keep it down. My point is, even if the dark ages did totally destroy all science (theoretically) that mankind has a mind for discovering its environs and would develop some sort of scientific concept.
And it was in no way a bash to anyone.

abb3w: Selector: Moreover, Bevets does not present his case.

Untrue. He does not do so in depth very often, or (in what appears the view of most) very persuasively, but he does detail it sometimes.

Indeed. Perhaps I should have said he does not present his case well.