Why is science knowledge not considered more important than religious belief?

[ppp]

I guess beauty of the lack thereof is in the eyes of the beholder.

irrelevant

 

[stvdv]

That's a nicety, but I disagree. Science has no need of religion, and religion doesn't benefit from science

Then indeed we disagree on this

 

[osgart]

Nope. Same earth, same future. You will live until you die, and then sleep forever. Until then, you will be subjected to the same pandemic, and the same global warming, for example.



No less than you.



I only need to convince myself that my set of beliefs is superior to religious thinking, not you. It is proven to me.



Then at least one is wrong, and it's always religion. In every case where there is a discrepancy, religion is wrong.



Science is indifferent to scripture and religion. It often contradicts religious beliefs. What you are calling true science is that science which doesn't contradict your religious beliefs. Your scriptures are not the standard for what science is good. Science that works is good science, even if it contradicts your faith-based beliefs to the contrary.



No, it's not. Science ruins nothing. You're conflating government and industry with science. Government and industry can use science to ill effect, but science bears no responsibility for eliciting physical truth.

But religion has ruined much, and is always a threat to what I value.




Science using indefinite language? No. Embarrassing would be if they were as dogmatic as religion.

If you were ever struck by lightening and had your religious beliefs erased, from that clearer perspective, you would be embarrassed that you ever held them like a sleepwalker awakening in the streets to find that he is naked.



Yep. You missed all of the evidence for biological evolution. Blame your faith-based confirmation bias, which allows no contradictory evidence ever to be seen as such. This is why you cannot evaluate evidence. You'd have to see it first, and you'd have to know and be able to successfully apply the rules of reasoning.

And although you continually claim that there is no proof for this or that that is established scientific fact, that's true for you, not me. You referred above to coming to different conclusions about the same evidence as if all conclusions were equally valuable. They are not. Your



Nothing can be proved to you without your cooperation. One cannot teach a person that which he has a stake in disbelieving, You are too vested in your religious beliefs to allow yourself to see disproof of them, so you don't. Your faith-based confirmation bias shields you from evidence and reason, and we have nothing else to offer, and thus no way to reach you.

One needs a receptive student willing and able to dispassionately review evidence and its attendant argument, to be able to understand if the reasoning is fallacy-free and the conclusion sound, and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument properly understood.

When dealing with a person who uses faith rather than reason and evidence to decide what is true about the world, there is no burden of proof, a phrase which assumes that this is the relationship between the prover and potential provee. If it's not, there is no need to bother trying. There is no hope of success.

So, nothing needs to be proved to you.



The discrepancies can also be rectified by disregarding religion. If there is no god, there is nothing transcendent about by adding one.

Religion adds nothing to the pursuit of scientific truth (I'd say any kind of truth, but this is enough for present purposes), nor does it add anything or play any essential part in the experience of beauty, which atheists do regularly.



I agree completely. Adding a god to anything adds nothing of value, especially scientific pronouncements, which is why there is no god needed in any scientific theory, and adding one ad hoc gives it no additional explanatory or predictive power



All that would do is erase it. Religious dicta don't stand up to the light of critical inquiry. They do try to correct some of their errors, as when theists say that they accept the theory of evolution, or begin to call stories once taught as history - the questioning of which would be considered insolent and blasphemous (ask Galileo), and likely resulting in death - allegory or metaphor. A review of what those actually are reveals that biblical myth is neither. It is merely error in a book whose adherents can brook no judgment of error.

So, yeah, religions evolve, but only to the discoveries and other ideas of secular humanist traditions such as science and rational ethics. Religion has no other means of correcting its errors once they are crystallized into writing, such as the biblical moral error of not condemning slavery, rape, or genocide. Christianity has no means to correct that. Only rational ethics, which combines compassion with reason and evidence, can recognize an error in scripture and correct it.

And even though Christians may say that they have accepted scientific evolution, if they still believe that man was made in the image of a god or has a soul implanted in him by that god, then they are not accepting scientific evolution, which requires that evolution be blind and undirected (dysteleological). Nothing is made in any preexisting image.

Dysteleology is a philosophy I do not buy into. I can accept science on a lot of matters though. Evolution I have to take on faith. I do not fully do that. I buy into science when it turns into successful engineering.

The thing with models and theories is that I do not take them as intrinsic explanations of reality.

There is a lot of territory that will forever remain unknown with science. The religions of history I have no use for. I do believe that transcendence is a possible reality.

There are a lot of scientists who have contributed majorly to modern science who are spiritual people. Science would be nowhere without them. I think it's a false idea that dysteleological scientists can claim the bulk of science's successes.

 

[George-ananda]

Religion isn't needed for that, and too often, misdirects.The religious people I encounter on these threads are not happier than the irreligious. So what is the importance of something can be successfully disregarded?

Good religion/spirituality directs correctly. And when non-religious people find true purpose and happiness they are engaging in spiritual thinking.

I think our difference here is that you are thinking of religion narrowly as the traditional dogma based traditional creeds.

 

[bobhikes]

Yes it has. Are you enjoying using the Internet? Did you get polio? Does your house light up at night with the flick of a switch? Do pumps deliver water to your faucet or do you need to drop a bucket in the well and carry it indoors? Do you like driving rather than walking or taking a wagon or carriage? Somehow, you missed all of that.

Science can preserve and prolong life (think antibiotics), preserve or restore function (think eyeglasses), make life healthier, increase the food supply, preserve or restore comfort (think air conditioning), reduce tedium (think electric saws), bring people together (think telephones and airplanes), and make life more interesting (think television).

You don't know me to know if science helped me. My happiness comes from Nature, Love and friendship none of this science has improved. I prefer walking and biking to cars. My wife comes from a 3rd world country and I have used a mechanical pump and a bucket to get water. I've also in the US had a uncle that only had an outhouse until the late 70's. As to a long life if I die tomorrow I will be fine. I definitely do not want to live forever. I grow my own food, and hunt for it. I do all my wood work with manual tools which I love.

Perhaps you find things more interesting then Nature, Love and friendship. Perhaps science has made your life enjoyable because you have the money to afford the scientific things like Flying, Driving and Television subscriptions, not everyone is as fortunate as you. Don't assume your life is like everyone's life.

 

[Deeje]

Nope. Same earth, same future. You will live until you die, and then sleep forever. Until then, you will be subjected to the same pandemic, and the same global warming, for example.

Yep, as expected....so....?
The only concession is that God says his faithful ones will wake up...its only a 'forever sleep' if you want it to be......and even those who in times past, never got to hear about the true God...they will get that opportunity to demonstrate who they are as well. Who we are at heart doesn't change....something about 'making a silk purse out of a sow's ear'....

No less than you.

As expected...so...? We do not expect to be exempt of those things....this is our life lesson too. This is what life is like when we leave the Creator out of it. This is what happens when we do not have the Creator's protection from the elements, from disasters and from ourselves or each other. Do we ever learn? For the majority, apparently not.

I only need to convince myself that my set of beliefs is superior to religious thinking, not you. It is proven to me.

And that is all that needs to happen....don't you see the entire human race are being separated into the only two categories that will exist at the end of this age...."sheep and goats". By our choices we are placed in one category or the other....Its not voluntary.....we do it because of who we are....our placement is simply an evidence of what we have chosen as our truth. Its being caught in the act of being ourselves.

Then at least one is wrong, and it's always religion. In every case where there is a discrepancy, religion is wrong.

In your opinion it is.....so what is your opinion worth? Same as mine.

Science is indifferent to scripture and religion. It often contradicts religious beliefs.

I think you need to separate religion from the Bible. You see I am not "religious" as in being enslaved to church teachings and rituals.....God never sanctioned blind faith. He wants our eyes to be wide open so he enlightens us about what is in his word...not necessarily how a "religion" interprets it.
They can't agree on how the Bible should be interpreted either.

The truth is the truth....that will not change no matter what we believe.

What you are calling true science is that science which doesn't contradict your religious beliefs.

No, what I call 'true science' is what can be substantiated by more than suggestions and assertions....or according to a theory that no one can prove is true....that is what I call faked science.

Your scriptures are not the standard for what science is good. Science that works is good science, even if it contradicts your faith-based beliefs to the contrary.

What in your opinion is "good science"? and what would therefore constitute "bad science"?

You're conflating government and industry with science. Government and industry can use science to ill effect, but science bears no responsibility for eliciting physical truth.

I am conflating nothing.....I see science used specifically for evil purposes.....many of those things are disguised as beneficial for humanity. Industry is involved because of the greed for profit, but the science is none the less to blame for the world's pathetic condition....from the standards of health, the quality of food and its production, to the standards of modern medicine, which IMO is useless in curing anything because there is no money in cures. Doctors know their pharmacology, because that is what they are principally trained in, but they know little about curing anything. Pills simply address symptoms, not causes.

But religion has ruined much, and is always a threat to what I value.

What do you value that religion threatens? Then compare that to what you value that the Bible threatens? Religion has a lot to answer for, but the religion promoted by Jesus Christ isn't one of them. Please do not mistake Christendom for that religion.

Yep. You missed all of the evidence for biological evolution.

No, I missed nothing...I read everything that was provided and took it apart bit by bit, showing how many 'suggestions' are fed to readers without them even being aware of them......suggestions are not scientific facts and no amount of argument and insults will change any of it. You can't bully people or shame them into believing something that they know is not true. Endless empty arguments are all there ever is.

Blame your faith-based confirmation bias, which allows no contradictory evidence ever to be seen as such. This is why you cannot evaluate evidence. You'd have to see it first, and you'd have to know and be able to successfully apply the rules of reasoning.

Contradictory evidence is non existent. Its the interpretation of evidence that is at the heart of the problem. Not all scientists interpret the evidence the same way. Scientists who happen to believe in an Intelligent Designer see the same evidence as the atheists, but their science degrees being equal to their opponents mean that it is only a difference of opinion. You see when there is no proof, there are no facts....just opinions. Would you bet your life on someone's opinion?

And although you continually claim that there is no proof for this or that that is established scientific fact, that's true for you, not me. You referred above to coming to different conclusions about the same evidence as if all conclusions were equally valuable. They are not.

That is your opinion.....I rest my case.

Nothing can be proved to you without your cooperation. One cannot teach a person that which he has a stake in disbelieving, You are too vested in your religious beliefs to allow yourself to see disproof of them, so you don't. Your faith-based confirmation bias shields you from evidence and reason, and we have nothing else to offer, and thus no way to reach you.

Read that back to yourself as if I said that to you.....just replace the words "religious" and "faith" with "science". There is a certain kind of "blindness" that the Bible speaks of...(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

One needs a receptive student willing and able to dispassionately review evidence and its attendant argument, to be able to understand if the reasoning is fallacy-free and the conclusion sound, and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument properly understood.

Again...read this back to yourself as if I said it to you. It works both ways. Science has no high ground here.....it is as much dependent on "faith" and "belief" as we are. That is a hard pill to swallow, I know....

 

[Mitty]

Yep, as expected....so....?
The only concession is that God says his faithful ones will wake up...its only a 'forever sleep' if you want it to be......and even those who in times past, never got to hear about the true God...they will get that opportunity to demonstrate who they are as well. Who we are at heart doesn't change....something about 'making a silk purse out of a sow's ear'....

As expected...so...? We do not expect to be exempt of those things....this is our life lesson too. This is what life is like when we leave the Creator out of it. This is what happens when we do not have the Creator's protection from the elements, from disasters and from ourselves or each other. Do we ever learn? For the majority, apparently not.



And that is all that needs to happen....don't you see the entire human race are being separated into the only two categories that will exist at the end of this age...."sheep and goats". By our choices we are placed in one category or the other....Its not voluntary.....we do it because of who we are....our placement is simply an evidence of what we have chosen as our truth. Its being caught in the act of being ourselves.



In your opinion it is.....so what is your opinion worth? Same as mine.


I think you need to separate religion from the Bible. You see I am not "religious" as in being enslaved to church teachings and rituals.....God never sanctioned blind faith. He wants our eyes to be wide open so he enlightens us about what is in his word...not necessarily how a "religion" interprets it.
They can't agree on how the Bible should be interpreted either.

The truth is the truth....that will not change no matter what we believe.



No, what I call 'true science' is what can be substantiated by more than suggestions and assertions....or according to a theory that no one can prove is true....that is what I call faked science.



What in your opinion is "good science"? and what would therefore constitute "bad science"?



I am conflating nothing.....I see science used specifically for evil purposes.....many of those things are disguised as beneficial for humanity. Industry is involved because of the greed for profit, but the science is none the less to blame for the world's pathetic condition....from the standards of health, the quality of food and its production, to the standards of modern medicine, which IMO is useless in curing anything because there is no money in cures. Doctors know their pharmacology, because that is what they are principally trained in, but they know little about curing anything. Pills simply address symptoms, not causes.



What do you value that religion threatens? Then compare that to what you value that the Bible threatens? Religion has a lot to answer for, but the religion promoted by Jesus Christ isn't one of them. Please do not mistake Christendom for that religion.

No, I missed nothing...I read everything that was provided and took it apart bit by bit, showing how many 'suggestions' are fed to readers without them even being aware of them......suggestions are not scientific facts and no amount of argument and insults will change any of it. You can't bully people or shame them into believing something that they know is not true. Endless empty arguments are all there ever is.



Contradictory evidence is non existent. Its the interpretation of evidence that is at the heart of the problem. Not all scientists interpret the evidence the same way. Scientists who happen to believe in an Intelligent Designer see the same evidence as the atheists, but their science degrees being equal to their opponents mean that it is only a difference of opinion. You see when there is no proof, there are no facts....just opinions. Would you bet your life on someone's opinion?



That is your opinion.....I rest my case.



Read that back to yourself as if I said that to you.....just replace the words "religious" and "faith" with "science". There is a certain kind of "blindness" that the Bible speaks of...(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)



Again...read this back to yourself as if I said it to you. It works both ways. Science has no high ground here.....it is as much dependent on "faith" and "belief" as we are. That is a hard pill to swallow, I know....

Can your theory of an "intelligent designer" explain why there are seven distinct bio-geographical zones on Earth with their own unique flora and fauna?

And can your theory explain why chimps and humans share over 97% of their DNA, including the same dysfunctional gene for synthesizing Vitamin C, whereas other animal species can synthesize Vitamin C?

 

[Deeje]

Can your theory of an "intelligent designer" explain why there are seven distinct bio-geographical zones on Earth with their own unique flora and fauna?

Is there some pressing need to answer that question? Is this knowledge vital to our life and survival? The Creator was in charge of what he did, when he did it and why he did it......he did not share that information with us.....does science know the answer to that question? Don't tell me let me guess (like they do)......evolution is the only answer....right?

Nope.

And can your theory explain why chimps and humans share over 97% of their DNA, including the same dysfunctional gene for synthesizing Vitamin C, whereas other animal species can synthesize Vitamin C?

Vitamin C is very beneficial for the body's immune function and apes as well as humans were big fruit eaters......I guess there was no need for them to need to synthesize Vitamin C because there was abundant supply in their food. Humans were originally fruitarians after all.

The Creator used the same basic biological materials to create all living things, just as he used a similar framework in their skeletal structure. Its engineering.....when you have a principle that works you can use it in many applications....using the same materials. Architects and engineers have to learn those principles in order to design and create structures. It happens naturally in God's creation, reflecting his knowledge and skills.

Is there significance that we share genes with other creatures and even fruit?
Apparently Gene sequencing reveals that we have more in common with bananas, chickens, and fruit flies than we may expect..... Since the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, the field of comparative genomics has revealed that we share common DNA with many other living organisms. This, to those who believe in an Intelligent Creator, doesn't suggest evolution, but fits in nicely with God's creative works.

 

[Mitty]

Is there some pressing need to answer that question? Is this knowledge vital to our life and survival? The Creator was in charge of what he did, when he did it and why he did it......he did not share that information with us.....does science know the answer to that question? Don't tell me let me guess (like they do)......evolution is the only answer....right?
Nope.

Have you asked the creator why it created seven distinct bio-geographical zones, and why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the middle east as falsely claimed in the biblical fantasy story about how most of Noah's family were drowned in a flood which was only 15 cubits high?

Vitamin C is very beneficial for the body's immune function and apes as well as humans were big fruit eaters......I guess there was no need for them to need to synthesize Vitamin C because there was abundant supply in their food. Humans were originally fruitarians after all. The Creator used the same basic biological materials to create all living things, just as he used a similar framework in their skeletal structure. Its engineering.....when you have a principle that works you can use it in many applications....using the same materials. Architects and engineers have to learn those principles in order to design and create structures. It happens naturally in God's creation, reflecting his knowledge and skills.

Is there significance that we share genes with other creatures and even fruit?
Apparently Gene sequencing reveals that we have more in common with bananas, chickens, and fruit flies than we may expect..... Since the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, the field of comparative genomics has revealed that we share common DNA with many other living organisms. This, to those who believe in an Intelligent Creator, doesn't suggest evolution, but fits in nicely with God's creative works.

Have you asked the creator why it gave humans and chimps the same faulty gene for Vitamin C synthesis, or was it just having an off day when it created humans and chimps?

Or did humans and chimps inherit the same dysfunctional gene for vitamin C synthesis from a common ancestor?

 

[Deeje]

Have you asked the creator why it created seven distinct bio-geographical zones, and why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the middle east as claimed in the biblical fantasy story about how most of Noah's family were drowned in a flood which was only 15 cubits high?

Have you asked the creator why it gave humans and chimps the same faulty gene for Vitamin C synthesis, or was it just having an off day when it created humans and chimps?

Why is every encounter with you just a regurgitation of what you have said before?.....if you have no belief in a Creator...fine. It makes no difference to me what you believe....you don't have to answer to me.....OK?

Go and ask your silly questions to someone else....I am done with you.

 

[Mitty]

Why is every encounter with you just a regurgitation of what you have said before?.....if you have no belief in a Creator...fine. It makes no difference to me what you believe....you don't have to answer to me.....OK?

Go and ask your silly questions to someone else....I am done with you.

In other words you can't explain why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the middle east as falsely claimed in the fantasy story about how most of Noah's family were drowned in a river flood.

Nor can you explain why humans and chimps have the same dysfunctional gene for Vitamin C synthesis.

 

[Mitty]

Is there significance that we share genes with other creatures and even fruit?
Apparently Gene sequencing reveals that we have more in common with bananas, chickens, and fruit flies than we may expect..... Since the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, the field of comparative genomics has revealed that we share common DNA with many other living organisms. This, to those who believe in an Intelligent Creator, doesn't suggest evolution, but fits in nicely with God's creative works.

Do you have any evidence that we share over 97% of our genome with bananas or chickens or fruit flies as well as chimps?

 

[Nakosis]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature.

But that means, and I think this is an incredibly important consideration, that although there must be somebody controlling the direction that science is taking us and will take us -- it will not be the vast majority of us. Because we refuse to know enough about it.

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world? For myself, I would really like to be part of the decision-making process, even though my own science knowledge is limited. For that reason, as limited as it is, I at least make an effort to keep up, and to understand some of the basics.

Science can't create the meaning people desire.

 

[Valjean]

Then seek meaning outside science, but don't denounce science. Its good at what it does.

 

[rational experiences]

Is there some pressing need to answer that question? Is this knowledge vital to our life and survival? The Creator was in charge of what he did, when he did it and why he did it......he did not share that information with us.....does science know the answer to that question? Don't tell me let me guess (like they do)......evolution is the only answer....right?

Nope.



Vitamin C is very beneficial for the body's immune function and apes as well as humans were big fruit eaters......I guess there was no need for them to need to synthesize Vitamin C because there was abundant supply in their food. Humans were originally fruitarians after all.

The Creator used the same basic biological materials to create all living things, just as he used a similar framework in their skeletal structure. Its engineering.....when you have a principle that works you can use it in many applications....using the same materials. Architects and engineers have to learn those principles in order to design and create structures. It happens naturally in God's creation, reflecting his knowledge and skills.

Is there significance that we share genes with other creatures and even fruit?
Apparently Gene sequencing reveals that we have more in common with bananas, chickens, and fruit flies than we may expect..... Since the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, the field of comparative genomics has revealed that we share common DNA with many other living organisms. This, to those who believe in an Intelligent Creator, doesn't suggest evolution, but fits in nicely with God's creative works.

He and him is consciousness, which exists for each self using consciousness as about 100 years of identification as consciousness for a human.

The whole time you express he and him self scientific inferences as the engineer, who thinks as an engineer does on his own male scientific thinking self claim of I know everything, as if God is an engineer, which is self male inferred.

For lots of males in human life claim self is God, that God invented/created them, and hence if they learn the design of God then they will have it as the machine engineer for his machine as if natural cosmological evolution and history was owned/evolved just for his machine and not for his self.

Hence logical males in science like Stephen Hawkings said you had better go and look for a new Earth to live on, which you have run out of time to impose to save self....for when you say Earth you mean Earth itself. For in reality you do not have any science status to say any other Earth really exists. Nor do you have the science machines to quickly leave Earth as the thought of what science is currently by machines causing.

Stephen Hawking said science is trying to eradicate life on Earth with machines and he was correct, as a not a false God spruiker, claiming if I owned and learnt the God design I could give it to my machine is a human Destroyer confession in reality.

In human reality, which a lot of scientists do not use as information, when the biologist scientist not the occult radiation scientist said.....look you liars. A female parent and a male parent, has sex. You cannot use that identification and life continuance in string theories. Yet the evil minded Destroyer did, by his claim to learn to clone the cell taken from the parent bodies. So that was his first confession that one cell knowledge abstracted from the body was his intention.

To continue past that information into a string theory as if the string owned only one human cell. Which was not even an ovary.

Yet in reality the first one cells by their own volition were bacterias.

Our cell is owned by a whole human. We might have bacteria in our body, but if we were just thought as being one bacteria, we would die from all forms of bacteria infestation of blood and also cell. Which is already occurring. Such as limbs going missing from meningococcal disease. That sort of lying science mentality who lies in scientific biology.

So life gets removed very slowly in bits and pieces. For science thinks by bits and pieces.

Biological science said listen you lying Satanists, occult selves, in biology the Ape parents by the act of sex is the only closest fully owned ONE body that similar to ours. Which is not any act of God is an act of an ape.

Hence ancient occult healer biologists said ARK and the theme against us KRA, the name given to the Ape. As proof you tried to anti our human life in sacrifice, but attacked everything instead, and made a mountain in reverse, and made sink holes below your pyramid tip of the mountain. As the God theist.

As God the stone, the first ONE body never spoke.

 

[Mitty]

Go and ask your silly questions to someone else....I am done with you.

Do you believe that there were any kangaroos or sloths on board Noah's boat when most of his family were drowned in a 15 cubit high flood? Or is that just a silly story.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Big bang theory, evolutionary theory, and plate tectonics contradict Genesis, for example

I know where you’re going with currently interpreted evolutionary theory and it’s implications, but I’m at a loss how BB theory & plate tectonics contradict Genesis’ creation account.

Care to elaborate?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know where you’re going with currently interpreted evolutionary theory and it’s implications, but I’m at a loss how BB theory & plate tectonics contradict Genesis’ creation account.

Big Bang theory and plate tectonics contradict a literal interpretation of the creation story. Both of these theories describe the evolution of the universe and earth over eons, something that happened over six days in Genesis.

There are a lot of scientists who have contributed majorly to modern science who are spiritual people. Science would be nowhere without them. I think it's a false idea that dysteleological scientists can claim the bulk of science's successes.

That's not the claim. The claim is that the scientific theory of evolution, like all of science, is dysteleological. No purpose or intent is presumed to exist in the unfolding of reality since its inception until physics, chemistry, and biology "conspired" (please disregard the teleological connotation) to generate a life form such as man complex enough to have volition and intent.

I think our difference here is that you are thinking of religion narrowly as the traditional dogma based traditional creeds.

I like short, clear definitions. To me, a religion is a set of faith-based beliefs centered around a god, which is an entity that can create universes. Religions often contain characteristic rituals, meeting places, symbols, a set of moral dicta, a holy book, and the like. If it has no god, it's not a religion to me. If it is evidence based, like science, it is not religion to me (as science or trust in science is often called). These are the problematic people, others not, and so a useful definition of religion should include all of the one, the institutions that degrade the unbeliever's life attacking reproductive freedoms and sexual preference for example, and none of the others, like Wicca or paganism.

You don't know me to know if science helped me.

If you live in a first world country, unless you live like the Unabomber, science has helped you. That's not debatable for me. What is of interest is why you see no benefit in the fruits of science in your life, or why you don't consider the influence science has had and has in your life aren't benefits.

God says his faithful ones will wake up...its only a 'forever sleep' if you want it to be.

That might mean something to you, but not to me. I don't care what you believe by faith, just what you know and can demonstrate. I expect our fates after death to be identical, and indistinguishable from our pre-birth phase.

All of the time after we die will pass in an instant just like all of the time that came before we were born.I don't know that that is true, but I have no reason to think otherwise, and neither do you.

don't you see the entire human race are being separated into the only two categories that will exist at the end of this age...."sheep and goats"

No. Once again, that's your religious belief, one which I don't hold because I have to reason to. That's religion. Your religion. Not mine. Please assimilate that fact. I don't believe any of that. Your scripture is not authoritative to me. Nor is your god real to me. Will you ever rise above the "me" plain, which considers only your opinions, and the "we" plain, that acknowledges that your beliefs are not meaningful to others?

Even if you are right and I am wrong, does it make sense for you to continually speak as if these are shared beliefs? It undermines your credibility.Shouldn't you know these things? I just told you. Will it matter that I did?

You see I am not "religious" as in being enslaved to church teachings and rituals

You are by my understanding of those words, more so than with many other Christian denominations.

God never sanctioned blind faith

More of your religious beliefs. Why are you telling me this? It's irrelevant to me that you believe this. It's also irrelevant to my comment regarding faith-based confirmation biases and your inability to see evidence, much less evaluate it properly. It's meaningless to me that you think that there is a god and that it doesn't sanction blind faith. What is meaningful to me is that you indulge in the practice.

No, what I call 'true science' is what can be substantiated by more than suggestions and assertions....or according to a theory that no one can prove is true....that is what I call faked science.

But your judgments of what is good or properly performed science are also of no value to others. What you have deemed "fake science" is of no meaning or value to most others. It's understood how you are making these judgments.

You'd do yourself a big favor to recognize that your beliefs are not facts to most others. It's tiresome reminding you of that repeatedly, but it doesn't seem that this will ever change, so I'll just keep reminding you when you tell your beliefs like they're facts that I don't believe what you do because I have no reason to.

what would therefore constitute "bad science"?

I don't use that phrase. The is only science and not science. That which pretends to be science can be called pseudoscience. Science makes mistakes,which it eventually corrects. That is not bad science. That is the path of the best science. Good science can't guard against a short-term error or misinterpretation of data. It can't. I recall a team claiming for a time that it had detected subatomic particles moving in excess of the speed of light, later shown to be due to a measurement error, but ultimately resolved and corrected as all good science does. But good science does prevent long-term error through self-correction.

What do you value that religion threatens?

Freedom from religion. The secular state.

 

[rational experiences]

Real motivation, I want the Holy Grail, Hitler never found it....science statement.

Yet he did, nuclear, a force in the stone concealed and hidden that he had to build out of the stone by converting it...to magically transform the highest ONE God body mass stone, by pre historic reason for chemical dusts....radiation.

Male psyche says, stone is fused and is not a particle, a chemical or mineral. Bodies that are separated yet fused were held by pressure of space, the vacuum and water in the radiation Sun time conversion. The only reason of pre knowledge...from a history, O God a self consuming body, who comes to own holding mass form by removing of mass, to consume to then become mass by spatial increase, and vacuum cooling.

For the laws state, vacuum cooling state always existed. To own cooling more space has to be introduced to increase the state space to create.

The law of One history, as taught, the covenant of the stone mass. Stone being the highest held spatial vacuum fusion status.

What you are looking for, removal of God, by particle to particle removal also, back to complete and utter nothing, the spatial vacuum, for your fake artificial science law today is to own space, the nothing creator.

Yet all the creator themes, said by a living male, in his natural life whilst talking about every single body and form that exists PRESENT.

Totally ignoring the gift of life, self and self presence.

Fact of reality a male as per STephen Hawking review of self, scientist and male, owns a robot that he has sex with. Studying every single human concept in secret conscious occult sciences, by mind contact and coercion themes, AI, he has been trying to give the robot, machine his theme ownership of Jesus, as if the other half of Jesus destroyed/sacrificed that allowed Jesus to remain living will be given to a machine.

Real human history, you already gave it to the machine and the machine attacked irradiated our life with metal radiation mass and destroyed one half of it.

So having by conscious world male community as sex with his female robot, he wants that robot in his sexual act, to own everything that a female quotes expresses as her self...without owning the chemical bio life, or cell or presence, just what a robotic female would quote.

Whilst his life, as per status female Abomination, would still be alive having sex with a robot. So then he congratulates scientists such as Stephen Hawkings who his fake AI psyche says, oh he told me I will be successful, and win my occult conditions of robots taking over the human life, but I will be safe, and the machine will be resourcing the female spirit.

Who in real life and lying pretends is Mother Holy of God presence, its inceptual conception, a planet in space, and the Mother Abomination thesis which is totally fake, stated to be a fake story about how a baby was Immaculately conceived, when no baby was ever Immaculately conceived.

The thesis was discussing why the healthy human baby DNA was given back to the ovary, due to the wandering asteroid star gases being put back.

O historically he looks at moons, says the moon was once the origin wandering star and now knows how much mass is removed to be the Saviour of the Earth gases out of stone. By the small amounts of stone rubbish floating in space that keeps nearly hitting the Earth.

The theme, I know everything, I am a God by self established male occult science reasoning. You can never tell me that I am wrong he says, I eventually will know God and I will know everything and then rule over it all as a human male scientist.

As the sort of male mentality everyone, both religious science and natural science is arguing against.

 

[chinu]

Ridiculous. Do you have formulas in your holy book?

Don't be angry