This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Sat Oct 14, 2017, 06:50 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[trotsky]

1. You said: "existence IS the proof for believers"

And thus you prove Dawkins correct. Your religion has taught you to be satisfied with not understanding.

[trotsky]

9. But what YOU said was: "existence IS the proof for believers"

So not only did you prove the Dawkins quote accurate, you just claimed to speak for all believers.

Wow, this just gets worse and worse for you. Keep digging.

[trotsky]

15. The phrase may also appear in the article, but YOU said it.

"And as the above excerpt states, existence IS the proof for believers."

You proved Dawkins correct, and you claimed to speak for all believers.

Keep digging. I'm having a wonderful time.

[trotsky]

24. You bet *I* do.

But YOUR quote didn't use "I". It made a declarative statement for all believers. Here it is yet again:

"And as the above excerpt states, existence IS the proof for believers."

My agenda at this point is to expose hypocrisy. My tactics are to let you do the work for me. It's working great so far.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. So what you meant was "existence is the proof for me"

but you somehow managed to think "me" while typing "believers" - a word that normally means, without an article or other qualifier, believers in general or all of them (as in "dogs breathe air&quot .

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. The confusion is that the phrase makes a general claim, but you then denied that

OK, it wasn't a mistake; you do think that "existence IS the proof for believers". But when it was pointed out you were thus claiming to speak for believers in general, you said, at length, it's just about your opinion. But we see that your opinion is that you know how believers in general think. And it is satisfaction with not understanding the world - it's just "we exist, so that must have been God that did it".

[trotsky]

55. Yes, I agree.

Because I just told you what my tactics and agenda are. Amazing!

For your next trick, please explain why you are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt when something you say appears to be trying to speak for all believers, but you get to attack me for making a statement that you think means I am trying to speak for all non-believers?

I'll wait right here.

[saltpoint]

2. The agenda is yours, IMO.

Dawkins is one scientist. And is entitled to his opinion. Recall that the Catholic Church did not care to grant the right of thought to Galileo and took some long centuries to apologize after it was revealed that the scientist was correct.

[saltpoint]

7. Isn't that the risk we incur whenever we

engage an idea?

I think the dividends of the learning are definitely worth the risk.

[trotsky]

14. At first I was confused about where NDT fit into this.

Then I remembered how riled up he got over my sigline quote. That's why.

[trotsky]

22. OMG IT WAS THE BEST COMEDY RETORT EVAH!!!

I'M TOTES SERIOUS!!1!elevens!!

[HAB911]

3. LOL

[HAB911]

8. Definition of LOL in English:

LOL
(also lol)
Pronunciation: /lɒl/
/ɛləʊˈɛl/
exclamation
informal

Used to draw attention to a joke or amusing statement, or to express amusement.
‘I love how you said ‘coffee is not my cup of tea’. LOL!’

[HAB911]

13. No, LOL pretty much covers it

Thanks!

[manicraven]

16. Ditto!

Not wasting my time with a religious nutter, especially not right now when we're just days away from a critical election.

[TonyPDX]

102. Wise. Thank you.

[Skittles]

51. CORRECT

it is a waste of time

[safeinOhio]

18. You might expand your search.

I had some friends that invited me to theirs. The first thing they told me is "we can't answer your questions, but we can question your answers". I was hooked, most of the members were professors and old hippies and what most would call atheist.

[Jim__]

23. Some context for the quote? Heart of the Matter:God under the Microscope

I'm not sure if this is the actual source although I've seen it referenced as such. At about 8:30 into the video Dawkins says something like It worries me about religion that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding - so its not an exact match.

[center]

[/center]

[Goblinmonger]

25. That's not a strawman

[Goblinmonger]

44. There is a straw man in the OP, but it's yours not Dawkins

Now that I'm on a laptop, I can type more easily than my phone.

First, as to why Dawkins does not commit a straw man.

From Wikipedia

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

So in essence, a straw man is saying, X argues Y and Y is silly (when Y is not an argument from X).

Your quotation from Dawkins that you claim is a strawman

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

1. Nowhere does Dawkins claim that religion is making an argument.
2. Dawkins actually says that he dislikes X because what it does leads to an undesirable outcome, Z.
3. You can disagree with whether the undesirable outcome is actually occurring, but that does not make it a strawman.
4. There is no "argument" being created by Dawkins for religion

Second, your straw man.

Your explanation of why it is a straw man

Why do I say straw man? Because the functions of religion are many, and deliberate misunderstanding of the universe is not among those functions. Among the functions of religion are to recognize man's relationship to the divine, to provide a fellowship with like minded believers, and to provide other social services.

1. YOU create a straw man of what Dawkins is saying.
2. NOWHERE does Dawkins say that religion is involved in "deliberate" misunderstanding of the universe. That is your language and changes his argument significantly. Straw man #1 by you.
3. NOWHERE does Dawkins say that "deliberate misunderstanding" is a "function of religion." That is your phrase. Dawkins is saying that "not understanding the world" is an outcome of religion. Which is significantly different than being a "function" of religion. Straw man #2 by you.

You said that a "student of debate" would recognize the straw man and this student of debate who taught argumentation and debate at the college level for 8 years did recognize it. Too bad you didn't.

[trotsky]

57. Well there you go again.

Bringing logic and sound argumentation into the Religion group.

Epic smackdown.

[rug]

37. If it had any more straw, we'd hear neighing.

[Goblinmonger]

45. ha haha ha

whatever.

[PJMcK]

26. Our Constitution guarantees your right to your beliefs

Of course, it also guarantees others to theirs as well.

This is a link to a lecture by Professor Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe From Nothing" and it's a little more than an hour long. In it, he presents a brief history of physics and astronomy. Later in the presentation he explains how scientific processes have developed detailed understandings of how the Universe could have begun without any outside influences.

He doesn't deny the existence of a supernatural power but he shows that you don't need it to create a universe.

In any event, you've articulated your beliefs exceptionally well and I respect them. Can you respect that not everyone else accepts your beliefs?

[PJMcK]

32. I've read about George Lemaitre

As an amateur interested in cosmology and astronomy, I've known of his work. I recall particularly how Einstein at first dismissed Lemaitre's work but later helped assure that Lemaitre received the proper credit for his work. This was especially important because his findings predated Edwin Hubble's discoveries.

This paragraph was in Lemaitre's Wikipedia entry:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion, though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.

This implies that he kept his science separate from his faith. Your thoughts?

[PJMcK]

38. Thank you for your response

I've enjoyed our conversation, guillaumeb. Have a nice evening.

[guillaumeb]

41. And you. And the same.

[Brettongarcia]

52. So mostly science and religion ARE separate for you?

Except for LeMaitre...?

[Brettongarcia]

84. Regarding conflict between religion and science?

I think that most religious folks who are functional, a have inwardly really given up on 3/4 of religion. The don't pray, and wait for miracles. They don't accept any literal truth to traditional religion. Instead they learn practical secular knowledge, like farming and medical knowledge, to bring them the things they want and need.

So basically? Most ""religious," "Chrustian" people today, are just 1/4 religious. In fact, if they try to do more? Then they become dysfunctional. Displaying the old magic and miracle mentality of ancient, poor, confused people.

So Dawkins is right. In that religion per se, just by itself, 100%, leads to immense problems. It is only those smart enough to disbelieve a high percentage of religion - particularly its promises of physical miracles - who can escape the confusion, delusion, poverty and disaster, of praying for things, instead of getting a practical secular job.

Many of these relatively successful 1/4 Christians call themselves religious. And defend Christianity vociferously. But they are really far more secularized, than they acknowledge..

And their defense of religion is hypocritical, and misleads others. Even their stipulation that everyone should avoid the literal, doesn't always work. THe overall support of "Christianiry" will cause many to embrace miraculous thinking; often fatally.

For that matter? Spirituality has problems too. Trusting the voices, spirits in your head....

[Brettongarcia]

90. Insistance we read LeMaitre is a power play

Trying to put us on your turf.

But Le Maitre is not even remotely the most important voice on this subject.

I am familiar with his Cosmic Egg theory. A precursor of the Big Bang theory. Which however, I regard as a still too religious theory. Similar to the Uncaused God, the big bang really has no explanation for how everything. burst into existence, out of nothing. Or just was.

[Brettongarcia]

91. Here's LeMaitre; separating religion and science

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

A very rare remark joining them, would be his noting that infinity and eternality are similar. But most of the time he maintains a very, very strict separation.

Honestly, I question Lemaitre's sincerity as a priest. Given his insistence on absolutely separating religion from science. And his career as a Belgian artillery officer in WW I. Though perhaps he allowed a God might exist before a big bang. Though left no traces of that origin.

If you have something to the contrary, though, feel free to present it.

[Brettongarcia]

95. Reconciliation? Or agreement to divorce?

"Speaking to Catholic scientists, Lemaître said:

The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague . . . In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non-believer as far as walking, or running, or swimming is concerned."18

Regarding faith, LeMaitre says "it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity."

[Brettongarcia]

100. LeMaitre and moderns abandon 3/4 of Christianity

Religion once ruled our government, in theocracies. And "all your heart and spirit and mind." It once claimed to have created and ruled the entire physical universal. But now?

Moderns like LeMaitre now define religion as just a "spiritual" faith. One that is irrelevant to much of our lives. Especially the material universe.

So God and religion have been whittled down quite a bit. And put into a corner. Ruling only invisible spirits. But not the material world. Which has been ceded to science.

[Brettongarcia]

107. Christianity, the Bible, once made huge physical claims

God created the material universe; and promised physical miracles. But at some point, many people figure out that those promises were false. And so?Religion shifted to making spiritual claims instead. And? Reading the old material promises of physical miracles, as metaphors for spiritual things.

This took place over thousands of years, and at different rates for different people. But there were moments when this "spiritualization" process accelerated for many. As growing awareness of the material world told people what was or was not common in it.

Anthoplogy, History, I suggest in my writing, confirms this.

As this happened, rather than openly say the biblical promises of physical miracles were simply false, many people began to ignore or read out or ignore, or metaphoricalize, the material claims of religion. And? Material claims, ideas, were spit off; to form secular and scientific thought. And religion became more and more associated with only mental or spiritual things.

IN my thesis, this dualistic split has meant that the original content and scope of say, Christianity, was very much reduced. Christianity for many became Lord over just mental moods, chararacter; "spirit."

Good or bad, this means religion, the human mind, split into two pieces. Into spirituality, vs.secular and scientific thought.

In some ways this was good. But it left religion a little incomplete. It claims to be a full view of life, adequate to "all" our lives. But it actually handles, sees, only a very narrow "part" of our lives, and of existence.

Philosophy is similar. Though it handles that part a little better. Even as however, philosophy is not enough to take care of all of life; we also need common sense, and Material sense; science.

The old material religion had problems, false claims. But our newer, more "advanced" spiritual religion, also has very major problems. One major problem with spirituality, is a secret vanity. It fatally exaggerates Its own scope and mportance. Misleading us, claiming often to be "all" we need. Though those who rely too much on it, will be lacking the other kinds of more practical knowledge; which people need.

(For early drafts of these ideas, see the "Woodbridge Goodman" texts).

[Brettongarcia]

116. No. The Old Testament was probably mostly literal.

Parts of the New Testament suggest metaphorical spiritual readings, optionally.

But in my rough draft book on this, I find that surprisingly, the Bible ultimately drops that. And finally favors a physicalistic religion. One that can be tested with "science" (Dan.1.4-15 KJE; I Kings 18.20-40; 1 Thesis. 5.21).

[Brettongarcia]

121. Of course I know that. I was raised rigorously on the spiritual metaphor model.

Last edited Mon Oct 31, 2016, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

But I noticed problems with spirituality in turn. As bad as the problems with literalism.

At one time for instance, some spiritual Christians did not help the poor with physical welfare, on the theory that Christians don't have to give anything but spiritual help. (James 2.14-26).

Seeing many problems with spirituality - .including warnings about "false spirits" - I looked more into the Bible. And came to the surprising conclusion that it finally rejected spirituality as "delusion" and "dreams." In favor not so much literalism. As ending in favor of science. Over spirituality.

What do you make of the parts of the Bible advocating science? Those show that the Bible finally asks to be judged by physical, material outcomes.

Yes, my findings are unconventional. But I think they are correct. If you can disprove my biblical quotes above, you would prove your spiritual reading is allowable. But you need then, to address my quotes above.

The same way I addressed your interest in LeMaitre.

So what about say Dan. 1-4-15 KJE? Which advocates experimental method, as a way of finding which religion is true?

[Brettongarcia]

128. Dietary restrictions were established by God, and are religious

In the Old Testament, and elsewhere, God says that certain foods like pork and so forth are forbidden. In testing his diet, Daniel is using science, to test whether his religion leads to physical health.

This command to scientifically test our religions, to see which ones are physically fruitful and therefore true, is even clearer in 1 Kings 18.20-40. Where the Bible tells us for believers in God to ask for a physical miracle. And then believers in Baal to ask for one. THen we are told to believe in whichever god actually produces a miracle on demand.

So it is clear here: we are told that experiments should be used to find out which religions are true, and which are false. As determined by experiments which tell us which ones produce physical results or fruits.

Do you also agree with this reading of 1Kings 18.20-40, founding religion on science, and on observing material results or fruits?

[Brettongarcia]

144. Science should judge religion. Says the Bible

(Suddenly you're an extreme literalist? If Jesus does something, do you say that's what Jesus did, so it has no bearing on how ordinary people should act? Or if Jesus tells a story about lillies, do you say that he's only talking about flowers?)

But you are essentially right on 1 Kings 18.20-40. Which tells us that science should tell us which religions, which parts of religion, are true, and which are false. Or in effect, science is the greater power or say, judge, of religions. Or the major, governing component in them, say.

Science is supposed to look at religions, including Judaism and Christianity, and evaluate them as good or false, according to their physical "fruits," "works," "signs," deeds, and "proofs." As evaluated by scientific experiments, the scientific method. Expert witnesses looking to see if they can produce physical wonders in a timely way: "soon," "at hand, "quickly." Here in front of our literal "eyes." In this "earth." AS evaluated by "science" (Dan. 1.4-15)..

We should not "test" God's patience by breaking his rules. And among his rules is his command to "test everything, " (1 Thess. 5), with "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

Many Christians claim you can't put Christianity in a test tube. But the Bible commands us to, in dozens of ways. "Put me to the test says the Lord" (Mal. 3.10).

So you are roughly right. Science should be a very major, the determining part and judge, in Religion. Religion should become a science, you might say.

[Brettongarcia]

152. Which is divorce, separation of science and religion.

However? Read Woodbridge Goodman on the Science of God. He says the Bible supports science finally. Even against our highest Christian, biblical fixtures.

LeMaitre mostly goes for separation.

[Brettongarcia]

158. Science gets all material things; religion gets spirits

Ghosts.

Some remaining overlap though, in anthropology, sociology and psychology. Not noted by LeMaitre?

[dvduval]

27. Creation or Infinite?

We lack incontrovertible evidence that the Universe was created at all. Time and space and matter may be infinite. In such a scenario, a Creator is not required. The big bang is a theory. There may have been something here or elsewhere before the big bang （if it occurred). There may have always been something. And of course a concept of a creator is "something" too that somewhat invalidates its own argument, because you would need a creator to create creator, and then you have to go right back to infinite in your model.

So how can you create a creator out of nothing?

[Brettongarcia]

49. The notion that God was not created, but always was...

Is finally either 1) incoherent; or 2) when looking for the origin of things, question-begging. And 3) no better than saying the universe always was.

[trotsky]

64. So you're satisfied with not understanding it, then?

Fascinating.

[trotsky]

72. So your answer is yes.

Thank you.

[trotsky]

108. LOL can't blame you for trying (again). n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. What a weird 'take' on religion and science - albeit characteristic. Dickie is

definitely not 'playing with the full deck', imagining a blind watchmaker, and the universe coming together by chance, gazillions of them actually.

Another Chris Hitchens, who seemed to want to cast Mother Theresa and Padre Pio as some sort of Bonnie and Clyde, wild outlaw- figures, 'living on the edge'. A familiar and enforcer of evil dictators, Papa Doc, Somoza, Pinochet and the likes. Well I made that up about Padre Pio, but you can just see poor Mother Theresa trying to reach those high-up, long-horn Harley handle-bars, swanning around in the demi-monde of drug barons, pimps and hustlers - setting an appalling example to her novices.

As a wise person of the female persuasion once opined : 'To vice, innocence just seems merely a superior form of chicanery.' I can just imagine Cristobal with a faraway look in his eyes, stroking his chin and musing : 'What's her game, eh ? That crafty old harridan, she must have an angle, some scam up her sleeve. Well, it's all those millions of greenbacks she was collecting, eh... Must be'.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-is-intelligent-design/

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. No - we don't want a creationist blog thinly disguised as 'intelligent design' here

It's pseudoscientific nonsense, that has been thoroughly discredited. It can be summarised by "God Did It". ID's attempts to get more sophisticated than that have all fallen flat on their faces.

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. It's not meant to be disguised. Only atheists are sufficeintly wilfully blind

to fail to see the design in the whole of creation.

[opiate69]

43. Pimping right-wing homophobes is OK now?

Arrington has also blogged about his thoughts on homosexuality: “A man’s body is designed to be complementary with a woman’s body and vice versa. All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth.”

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/153706/polis-fire-lawyer-for-maoist-style-thought-reform-camp-jab

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/denying-the-obvious/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Barry_Arrington

[opiate69]

76. Silly me....

Here I always thought "diversity" and acceptance were progressive values, and as such, to be expected on a progressive message board. If you have such an issue with "diversity" and "rainbows" mayhaps you would find more right-leaning online communities more comfortable. I hear RaptureReady has some scintillating conversation.

[Goblinmonger]

46. "Dickie is definitely not 'playing with the full deck'"

Yeah, sorry to point out the obvious, but when it comes to evolution and the way in which life came to be, I'm going to have to go with the guy that's one of the foremost experts in the world on the matter rather than your random musings. Hope that doesn't come as a shock to you.

"not 'playing with a full deck'" Sweet Jesus the hubris of some people in this discussion group.

[trotsky]

56. What do you think should be done with the New Atheists?

I mean, if they're responsible for propping up all the evil dictators in the world, perhaps they should be punished?

[Brettongarcia]

50. "I don't know much, but I'm satisfied knowing God made it all"

Last edited Fri Oct 28, 2016, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Who says such things?

" I don't know all the answers now. But I'm not troubled. Because my faith is all I need. And one day, I will stand before God, and he will tell me all want to know."

"My faith in God is all I need in life. Fame, riches, mere human'knowledge,' is just chaff, straw."

"Vain professors, scientists, think they know what makes the universe tick. But I know their answers are mere vanity and empty wind. The only true answer, all I need to know, is ...JESUS!"

Who talks like that?

Nobody I guess?

[Brettongarcia]

66. Which to your mind says what?

You're just rehashing the watchmaker argument. But the whole complexity of the natural universe points if anything, to a natural origin. Given so many problems with Uncaused Cause.

[vlyons]

53. The true purpose of religion

"The true purpose of religion is to teach self discipline."

- The 14th Dalai Lama

[AtheistCrusader]

111. What qualifies him to ascribe purpose/limits to other religions?

[vlyons]

129. What qualifies him?

You obviously don't know very much about Buddhism or the lineage of the Dalai Lama. Go read some books. The foundation of Buddhism is acquiring the self-discipline to behave ethically. Do no harm. Surely even an atheist believes in living an ethical life and to not harm others?

[AtheistCrusader]

130. He didn't say 'buddhism'. He said 'religion'.

So I ask again whence he derives his authority to speak for other religions?

I can think of a few religious leaders that would disagree with his sentiment.

[vlyons]

132. You obviously don't know much about the Dalai Lama

Almost all his adult life, since he fled to exile in India, the Dalai Lama has worked tirelessly for inter-religious freedom, tolerance, and understanding. For many years, he has met with leaders from all the major religions to forge relationships and work on mutual projects for world peace, to benefit nuns, monks, and priests from all religions to practice meditation and transform agitated minds into tranquil minds, as well as cooperate on projects that support world peace, help the poor, and elevate the status of women and education of children.

He has some interesting things to say about freedom of, and freedom from religion, especially its bigotry.
See http://www.dalailama.com/messages/religious-harmony

[AtheistCrusader]

134. I know all that. None of that answers my question.

What makes his opinion more valid, more real than any other religion?

If he had said 'MY religion' etc, that would be fine. He can make all the claims he wants about his own religion. He has no authority or credibility to speak for other religions.

[Act_of_Reparation]

142. Because trite saccharine bumper sticker-league anecdotes give us the warm and fuzzies.

And some people will take the warm and fuzzies over the hard truth any day of the week.

[vlyons]

143. Sure he does

Do you think that he is ignorant about other religions? Hasn't studied the ideology of other religions? Hasn't compared notes with the leaders and leading theologians of other religions? My particular answer to your question -- well I doubt that you will like it, much less accept it. The Dalai Lama is a living Buddha, possessing an omnescient mind. To me, he manifests as a fountain of happiness and joy. But that's just what I see. What you see is what you see.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. He has no such mind, or he could demonstrate it. He is a man.

A man afforded special status by other humans, and that is all. Period.

[Albertoo]

65. This is one damn funny thread, especially when the holy books are so full of mistakes

I especially like the statement at the end of it (not a conclusion as it's an added opinion)

My view is that any statements that imply that faith in the divine is inconsistent with science is evidence only that the one making the statement is revealing an agenda.

Now, that's cute. Faith in the divine is doubly inconsistent with science (at least)

-1- because the divine is usually not defined: what is it? what is it made of? where is it?
As religion is unfalsifiable, it is unscientific.
To venture that religions can be reconciled with science is pseudoscience.

-2- because most people believe in a divine codified in religions which are anti-scientific.
About two thirds of humanity believe in two upgrades of the original Judaism: Judaism 2.0 (Christianity) and Judaism 3.0 (Islam). Both upgrades stuck to the original statement of Judaism 1.0. i.e. that the Earth was created in 6 days. It is so at odds with science it's funny, but the believers in Judaism 2.0 and 3.0 stick to it adamantly (hello, Ken Ham).

Sometimes, the dissonance between religion and science is so great the chamans of the religions have to bend science in amazing ways to make it fit. Witness religion and evolution:
- in Judaism 2.0, the Vatican says believers can 'believe' in evolution or not. Religion tells people they are free to accept reality or not. How scientific.
- In Judaism 3.0, it's even funnier: leading imams now accept animal evolution, but draw the line at humans which would be different beings directly created by god. That is sooo bizarre.

"My view is that any statements that imply that faith in the divine is inconsistent with science is evidence only that the one making the statement is revealing an agenda."???

I wonder what the agenda is of people who do their damn best not to see the incoherence between religions and science. Or reality in general.

[Albertoo]

78. Evasion and deflection: I wonder if you're confused or obfuscating?

You wrote a thread claiming that the 'divine' and science should not be viewed as at odds.

I gave you evidence that they are, and you did not address the points I made.

Rather, you make four further claims which have no more basis than your OP

-1- "Religion and science deal with two different areas. Religion attempts to deal with morality and behavior."
If it were so, it would immediately make your OP's sentence which I took to task irrelevant: why would you have needed to try to claim that religion and science were not at odds if they were of different realms?

-2- "Religion is not sui generis anti-scientific."
I explained why in Karl Popper's framework, religion is sui generis unscientific: because it is un-falsifiable.

-3- "Yes, one can find examples of individuals who deny some scientific discoveries in the belief that science is at odds with religion, but those individuals do not define religion."
Non sequitur + straw men.
The fact believers might make mistake is not an indication of anything, one way or another.
What IS proof that religion is at odds with science is the example I took that the three monotheisms have it in their texts that the Earth was 'created' in 6 days. Which is patently false. Unscientific, if you will.

-4- Georges Lemaître. And? For millenia, religion was -among other functions- mandatory. It is therefore no surprise many, probably most, great men of the past 'believed'. Doesn't establish any link between religion and science.

Gee, even when you're not inventing quotes, your arguments don't work quite well..

[Act_of_Reparation]

109. There is a major objection to the "Non-overlapping Magesteria" argument

1) Religion and science are not at odds because they do not argue two sides of the same question. They deal with different questions. I hope that is clear enough.

2) Religion has nothing to do with science. Your point attempts to frame religion as sui generis in opposition to science. Patently false.

With due respect, it is difficult to reconcile your earlier complaints of "broad brushing" religion with the above quotes, as you're essentially doing the same thing here (albeit in a way more flattering to religion). Religion is defined as a cultural construct comprised of shared beliefs, behaviors, symbols, stories, and ethics. As we've established elsewhere, even the Big Three religions vary so wildly from place-to-place and person-to-person that it is virtually impossible to define them in propositional terms. Religion isn't monolithic. It doesn't serve a singular purpose. Your religion might not have anything to do with science, or seek to answer naturalistic questions, but it's more than obvious that many other religions do.

Just a few years back, Ken Ham and Bill Nye argued for creationism and naturalism respectively. Ham isn't doing religion wrong because he's injecting himself into the realm of science. His religion is simply different from yours.

[opiate69]

80. "There is no reconciling the two because they are not dealing with the same things. "

Riiiiiight...

[NeoGreen]

82. "Turtles all the way down"...

....

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

[saidsimplesimon]

101. guillaumeb, k&r for discussion

and the perfect sermon on a Christian day of rest? As for your closing statement, how provocative. Until science/math has closed the gap of current time limitations, I will keep an open mind.

My view is that any statements that imply that faith in the divine is inconsistent with science is evidence only that the one making the statement is revealing an agenda.

[Angry Dragon]

122. I wonder where god came from??

[Angry Dragon]

133. I do not know if she exists ................ just wondering

[Leontius]

125. And he swings and misses again.

He needs to get back to the lab and his microscope.

[Leontius]

127. Your condescension is noted

I'm so glad you approved of my comment, it makes me feel so much warmth.

[leftyladyfrommo]

145. Has he not heard of Buddhism? nt

[rug]

146. He says he has a "small understanding".

[Act_of_Reparation]

150. Have you checked out the Four Noble Truths lately?

Because I'd say it takes a lot for granted.

[Act_of_Reparation]

156. That's precisely the criticism.

In many cases these self-evident truths are not self-evident, or even true.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. ..all men are created equal

'Except those black men. You can own them as property.'

Oh wait, we'll fix that fuck-up some 84 years and 500,000+ dead after the ratification of said document.
No big deal, still a 'self-evident truth' right?

Except those women, they don't get to vote.


scratch-scratch/scribble-scribble fix that fuck-up some 139 years after the ratification, still SELF EVIDENT RIGHT?! What's 139 years between friends?


It's a shame we have to point this shit out. It's almost like it ought to be .... self evident.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Many religious leaders don't consider Buddhism a religion at all.

If the religious cannot agree on what is or is not a religion, how is anyone else supposed to know?

Take it up with them.

[SHRED]

151. "The only difference between a cult and a religion...

...is the amount of real estate they own."

- Frank Zappa

[SHRED]

157. Frank

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/357959-the-only-difference-between-a-cult-and-a-religion-is