{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Donkey_Hotay:
8/12/2013 12:36:05 AM
1
A troll thread? You have an odd definition of trolling. The OP is entirely unoffensive and is presented logically and calmly. No flaming, no absurd claims.
English
-
I don't think it's a troll thread, but I also don't think it's 'unoffensive' as you claim.
-
How is the OP offensive?
-
Saying religion and science are not compatible is offensive because it implies theism is unintelligent.
-
its not saying its unintelligent, just irrational.
-
I think you're only interpreting it that way. It doesn't mean that religious folk are stupid or anything, it's just saying that faith-based religion is inherently unscientific.
-
[quote] It doesn't mean that religious folk are stupid or anything[/quote] That's all you Atheists ever say.
-
Not necessarily.
-
No, he's right. Nothing in my OP is implying that religious people are stupid.
-
I was responding to the part where he said, "faith based religion is inherently unscientific"
-
wrong
-
That's not wrong, either. Faith-based religion is inherently unscientific. If it were scientific in any form, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.
-
I guess I assumed he was implying that that makes it incompatible with science. two-different things. But you understand that
-
That's also true. If you accept something that is inherently unscientific, how do you reconcile that with supporting the scientific method?
-
Take me for example. I follow the teachings of the Bible, yet it does not effect my ability to science... They don't necessarily conflict each other, in fact they [i]can[/i] compliment each other. That's like saying art is incompatible with science bc art is inherently unscientific.
-
As a person of science, would you agree that a hypothesis needs to be testable and verifiable in order to be considered valid? If you can't test your hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. Why does that not apply to your religion?
-
Art's not inherently unscientific, though, (at least, not in the way religion is) because it doesn't make claims not based on empirical things. It doesn't actually make any claims at all.
-
We've established that religion is not scientific(altho the bible is used as historical documentation), but that doesn't imply that they are incompatible. See what I'm getting at here? Just bc something isn't scientific, doesn't mean they are in direct conflict with each other... I believe in the Bible 100%, yet it does not make me inept to science. It actually motivates me to science :)
-
You believe in the Bible 100%? So what do you say when the Bible says the earth is 5k years old and scientists say it's 4.55 billion years old?
-
I'm well aware the Bible is full of metaphors, and that God and Jesus spoke in parables. And it shouldn't be taken super literally.
-
Well [b]in my opinion[/b] that just seems like something most religious people say to get around what the Bible says.
-
Think of the Bible as epic literature, it is an exaggeration of out world.
-
Okay.
-
They are in direct conflict with each other - you can only resolve that by compartmentalising, like you no doubt have: you assign no (or an incredibly flimsy) standard for proof to your belief in a god and assign a much more stringent one for everything else.
-
It's only compartmentalizing if science has [i]proven[/i] my belief in God is wrong and I continue to believe despite the proof, but science hasn't done that, has it?.. Having faith has nothing to do with science breh..
-
No, it's not only compartmentalising then because you're still assigning different standards for proof. I really dislike having to repeat myself, so actually read what I say next time.
