Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
I showed you such evidence several months ago. I guess you
didn't think it was strong enough :-)

No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 20:59:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:12:18 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
I showed you such evidence several months ago. I guess you
didn't think it was strong enough :-)

No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:23:28 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious
faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

If so, why are there people who call themselves religious but who are
reasonable and not zealot fundamentalists?

And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through his
life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:25:07 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:23:28 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious
faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

If so, why are there people who call themselves religious but who are
reasonable and not zealot fundamentalists?

They are broken. They are only able to achieve reason in some areas by
compartmentalization, the psychological protection against cognitive
dissonance. The compartmentalization is necessary precisely because
religion and reason can't coexist.

And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through his
life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist in any modern sense of the word. And
he was profoundly irrational in many aspects of his life. Note that I
did not say a religious person was incapable of reason, only that
religion and science are completely incompatible.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 07:44:30 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

If so, why are there people who call themselves religious but who
are
reasonable and not zealot fundamentalists?

They are broken. They are only able to achieve reason in some areas
by
compartmentalization, the psychological protection against cognitive
dissonance. The compartmentalization is necessary precisely because
religion and reason can't coexist.

Are they more or less broken than a zealot fundamentalist? The zealot
fundamentalist is at least consistent...


And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through his
life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist in any modern sense of the word. And
he was profoundly irrational in many aspects of his life. Note that
I
did not say a religious person was incapable of reason, only that
religion and science are completely incompatible.

Name one other scientist who found the mathematics needed to express
his new scientific ideas unavailable, and then invented the new
mathematics he needed. Not even Einstein did that.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:23:56 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

They are broken. They are only able to achieve reason in some areas
by
compartmentalization, the psychological protection against cognitive
dissonance. The compartmentalization is necessary precisely because
religion and reason can't coexist.

Are they more or less broken than a zealot fundamentalist? The zealot
fundamentalist is at least consistent...

Broken in a different way, I imagine.

And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through his
life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist in any modern sense of the word. And
he was profoundly irrational in many aspects of his life. Note that
I
did not say a religious person was incapable of reason, only that
religion and science are completely incompatible.

Name one other scientist who found the mathematics needed to express
his new scientific ideas unavailable, and then invented the new
mathematics he needed. Not even Einstein did that.

Like I said, I don't consider Newton a scientist in the modern usage
of the word. That's not to diminish his results, simply to observe
that modern science remained to be invented.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:53:10 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Name one other scientist who found the mathematics needed to
express
his new scientific ideas unavailable, and then invented the new
mathematics he needed. Not even Einstein did that.

Like I said, I don't consider Newton a scientist in the modern usage
of the word. That's not to diminish his results, simply to observe
that modern science remained to be invented.

Is a modern scientist the same as an atheistic scientist?

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:23:56 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

They are broken. They are only able to achieve reason in some
areas
by
compartmentalization, the psychological protection against
cognitive dissonance. The compartmentalization is necessary
precisely because religion and reason can't coexist.

Are they more or less broken than a zealot fundamentalist? The
zealot fundamentalist is at least consistent...

Broken in a different way, I imagine.

And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through
his life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist in any modern sense of the
word. And he was profoundly irrational in many aspects of his
life. Note that
I
did not say a religious person was incapable of reason, only
that religion and science are completely incompatible.

Name one other scientist who found the mathematics needed to
express his new scientific ideas unavailable, and then invented
the new mathematics he needed. Not even Einstein did that.

Like I said, I don't consider Newton a scientist in the modern
usage of the word.

That says far more about you than it does about Newton. Namely,
that when confronted with a truth you dont' like, youi'll
hallucinate a different world more to your taste.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:25:07 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:23:28 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious
faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

If so, why are there people who call themselves religious but
who are reasonable and not zealot fundamentalists?

They are broken. They are only able to achieve reason in some
areas by compartmentalization, the psychological protection
against cognitive dissonance. The compartmentalization is
necessary precisely because religion and reason can't coexist.

And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through his
life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist in any modern sense of the word.
And he was profoundly irrational in many aspects of his life.

Nice dodge. Newton laid the foundations of modern physics that are
still taught today.

Your hallucinationi that he wasn't a scientists suggests you need
professional psychiatric help.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:23:28 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No evidence can ever be strong enough to overcome religious
faith.

If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Science and religion are absolutely mutually incompatible.

If so, why are there people who call themselves religious but
who are reasonable and not zealot fundamentalists?

And why do so many scientists profess religous bleiefs?

And why did e.g. Isaac Newton, who was religious all through his
life, make such remarkable scientific breakthroughs?

Indeed. Perhaps he was isnpired by God.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.