Science and Religion: Allies Not Enemies

[jonathan180iq]

I humbly await your next instruction in what a pathetic human being those of us who understand science are. Perhaps, under your supreme tutelage, I shall come to understand that only you truly understand science, only you truly understand me, and that I can know these things only through you.

You love eugenics and are a social Darwinist who doesn't value anything at all!

 

[Marisa]

You love eugenics and are a social Darwinist who doesn't value anything at all!

I am the fittest, and I shall survive! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Thief]

I am the fittest....I will survive my last breath!

hehehehehe

 

[dust1n]

There is no surprise there is a large variety in religion, because religion is subjective, and subjectivity operates by choosing, and for choosing there are at least 2 valid answers available.

I subjective choose that God doesn't exist, and that religion is a farce. So, what's the problem?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I humbly await your next instruction in what a pathetic human being those of us who understand science are. Perhaps, under your supreme tutelage, I shall come to understand that only you truly understand science, only you truly understand me, and that I can know these things only through you.

It's correct that only creationism can be the proper foundation for science, because only creationism can distinghuish fact from opinion, by dividing between creator and creation.

You can learn creationism by looking at the structure of the discourse you use in daily life when you talk in terms of choosing things. You already know creationism on a practical level, yet you do not realize what rules you use in your discourse.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I subjective choose that God doesn't exist, and that religion is a farce. So, what's the problem?

That you are disengenious and that later you will demand answers to questions about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, to be forced by evidence, in stead of choosing the answer.

 

[dust1n]

That you are disengenious and that later you will demand answers to questions about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, to be forced by evidence, in stead of choosing the answer.

I did choose the answer.

Given no empirical observations about the world, I find God and religion to, essentially, a hoax at this point.

See, subjectivity at work.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I did choose the answer.

Given no empirical observations about the world, I find God and religion to, essentially, a hoax at this point.

See, subjectivity at work.

You reject anything for which there is, in principle, no evidence available. That means you reject subjectivity altogether.

 

[Marisa]

It's correct that only creationism can be the proper foundation for science, because only creationism can distinghuish fact from opinion, by dividing between creator and creation.

You can learn creationism by looking at the structure of the discourse you use in daily life when you talk in terms of choosing things. You already know creationism on a practical level, yet you do not realize what rules you use in your discourse.

Thank you oh wise and supreme instructor but I dare not attempt to educate myself. I shall rely on your divinely supreme knowledge to continue my education and never consider believing anything without your express and most excellent permission.

 

[dust1n]

You reject anything for which there is, in principle, no evidence available. That means you reject subjectivity altogether.

There is no evidence that God does not exist, and that Muhammad isn't a prophet (or that anyone isn't a prophet), nor could any such evidence ever exist. However, I look around the world, and there is no God, as therefore, anyone who claims to be a prophet is either lying or mislead.

See, I have no evidence. There is no God and Muhammad isn't a prophet. Subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thank you oh wise and supreme instructor but I dare not attempt to educate myself. I shall rely on your divinely supreme knowledge to continue my education and never consider believing anything without your express and most excellent permission.

You are just another evolutionist who rejects subjectivity altogether.

 

[Robert William]

I did choose the answer.

Given no empirical observations about the world, I find God and religion to, essentially, a hoax at this point.

See, subjectivity at work.

Because no verifiable evidence can be shown for evolution, it remains a hoax.

 

[dust1n]

Because no verifiable evidence can be shown for evolution, it remains a hoax.

Because no verifiable evidence can be shown for God or any prophet, it remains a hoax.

Consistency is key.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no evidence that God does not exist, and that Muhammad isn't a prophet (or that anyone isn't a prophet), nor could any such evidence ever exist. However, I look around the world, and there is no God, as therefore, anyone who claims to be a prophet is either lying or mislead.

See, I have no evidence. There is no God and Muhammad isn't a prophet. Subjectivity.

You are just rejecting subjectivity for the reason that it is not objectivity.

But you were right before in reaching the conclusion by choosing, and choosing the answer that God does not exist, and choosing the answer that you have no emotions are logically valid conclusions. Whether they are morally righteous answers is another matter.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Because no verifiable evidence can be shown for God or any prophet, it remains a hoax.

Consistency is key.

Distinghuishing matters of fact from matters of opinion is key.

 

[Robert William]

Because no verifiable evidence can be shown for God or any prophet, it remains a hoax.

Consistency is key.

That was your chance, but because there is no verifiable evidence you couldn't give us any.

 

[dust1n]

But you were right before in reaching the conclusion by choosing, and choosing the answer that God does not exist, and choosing the answer that you have no emotions are logically valid conclusions. Whether they are morally righteous answers is another matter.

It's true, I choose that God does exist, but obviously, and if you had ever lived my subjective life, you would know that, that God is most certainly no where in the universe in which I exist. By the way, I do have emotions. I feel great about God not existing. It feels good, because other peoples' subjective life does not affect my subjective life, and I would never worship or tithe to a liar. Also, of course they are morally righteous answers, of course, you are proposing that there is objectively morally righteous answer, or that, for some reason, your subjectively morally righteous answer is better than my subjectively morally righteous answer. What are you going to do about it? Kill me because my subjectivity derived conclusions different from yours?

 

[Marisa]

You are just another evolutionist who rejects subjectivity altogether.

Under your most divine tutelage even one such as myself can be made acceptable to one so divinely graced as you and through you the one from which all grace spills forth. Please, do not forsake me, oh great knower of all things! I am lost without most excellent guidance!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's true, I choose that God does exist, but obviously, and if you had ever lived my subjective life, you would know that, that God is most certainly no where in the universe in which I exist. By the way, I do have emotions. I feel great about God not existing. It feels good, because other peoples' subjective life does not affect my subjective life, and I would never worship or tithe to a liar. Also, of course they are morally righteous answers, of course, you are proposing that there is objectively morally righteous answer, or that, for some reason, your subjectively morally righteous answer is better than my subjectively morally righteous answer. What are you going to do about it? Kill me because my subjectivity derived conclusions different from yours?

I don't believe you have emotions. That's my opinion. You don't believe in God, I don't believe in you.

 

[dust1n]

Distinghuishing matters of fact from matters of opinion is key.

I'm utterly convinced that you couldn't differentiate a fact form an opinion. I've arrived at this conclusion from my experiences form you. Given these experiences, I choose to believe that you have as much if not more difficultly distinguishing matters of fact from matters opinion as any other member of this forum. Subjectivity.