Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

All of you are a product of an unresolved issue between the Church and Galileo but compounded further by the emergence of a clockwork solar system (RA/Dec). It is almost a cry of pain the way many here try to fit intellectual doctrine into spiritual language.

What you poor souls wouldn't give to feel normal.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:24:28 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:52:01 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Is a modern scientist the same as an atheistic scientist?

Not all modern scientists are atheists. Modern science is defined
by a
rich infrastructure, technology, an refined methodology that simply
didn't exist much before a century ago.

But if religion and modern science are mutually incompatible, could
there even be such a thing as a theist scientist?

Even a deist is a theist, and deism (unlike most religions) is, at
least, not _opposed_ by evidence. And indeed, what you find in looking
at the religious beliefs of scientists, is that belief in a personal
god is very low, but quite a few accept some sort of vague "higher
power" that doesn't intervene. Basically, they're deists.

Religion and science are incompatible because they depend upon
fundamentally different epistemologies. The former is faith-based, the
latter is evidence-based. People can hold both in their heads at once,
but they can only bring one forward at a time. The combination usually
results in cognitive dissonance, which is resolved (to some degree,
anyway) by compartmentalization.

Saying science and religion are incompatible is quite a different
thing from saying that scientists can't be religious.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:29:06 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:52:47 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
You should use that argument also on your own usage of the word
agnostic. You are far too eager to say "you are wrong" to anyone
using the word agnostic in a somewhat different sense than you do.

I'm not claiming a single usage. Nor am I saying that people are
wrong
for using different usages.

So then you don't object to my usage of these words?
Atheist = someone who claims there is no god

That is, in fact, empirically incorrect in terms of how the word is
actually used in the wild. You would be hard pressed to find an
atheist who makes that claim.

Agnostic = someone who claims we don't know if there is a God or not

That is a common usage of the term. I only object to the extant that
it's a poor choice of words when that's what you mean, because it has
enough other meanings that your own intent is ambiguous. If you want
to choose a clearer, more accurate word here, use "skeptic".

Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:326480449.546557775.146885.acridiniumester-
:

There is no evidence for the existence of any god.

I'm still waiting for the evidence there is *no* supernatural
deity that has been claimed to exist, several times.

Good thing I'm patient. I'll be waiting for a long, long time.


As I’ve already written I’m an agnostic. Precisely because I
cant prove the non- existence of something which requires faith.


You're not the one I'm waiting for.

--
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.B" wrote in
:

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 10:24:19 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:326480449.546557775.146885.acridiniumester-
:

There is no evidence for the existence of any god.

I'm still waiting for the evidence there is *no* supernatural
deity that has been claimed to exist, several times.

Good thing I'm patient. I'll be waiting for a long, long
time.


As I’ve already written I’m an agnostic. Precisely becaus
e I cant prove the
non- existence of something which requires faith. I just
don’t be
lieve in
any of the confidence tricks describing themselves as
religions. Or the travesties of logic claiming to ‘prove’
them.

All evidence

What evidence? You keep claiming it exists, but are curiously
silent when asked what it is?

How else can anyone explain the continuing misery faced by the
majority of mankind at the hands of their "loving" god? A loving
god who apparently likes a nice bit of S&M on the side?

Asked and answered thousands of years ago. Your question is stupid
because it presumes things that aren't part of the theology,
namely, that there is no afterlife. This is why you are stupid.

You're the guy who would rather die of a tooth abcess that becomes
a brain infection because going to the dentist hurts. (I really
kinda wish you'd get it over with, too.)

I'm going to keep asking you what this supposed "evidence" is until
you either shut the **** up about it, or answer, you know. And when
you do answer, everybody will laugh at you (again) because it will
be nothing more than the bullhit from the monkeys that fly out of
your butt.

--
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 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:09:33 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:14:52 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

I've never seen any presentations of evidence for the
non-existance of a deity that isn't the same.

What do you imagine that would look like?

Having never seen it, I have no idea. You're the one that
claimes it exists. What *does* it look like. I could use a good
laugh.

I don't say there's evidence against deities in general. Only
against _specific_ deities.

*What* evidence? Be specific (and make sure it's a deity someone
actually believes in, not one you invented so that you could
"disprove" it). Or not. We both know you won't. Ever. Because you
know it's all bull****. You've been laughed over this at before,
haven't you?

Do you automatically believe in everything that lacks
evidence of non-existence?

Do you automatically disbelieve in everything that lacks
evidence of existence?

Yes. Why would I believe in anything that has no evidence of
existence?

It's a very, very sad, lonely workd you live in, with no love, no
beauty, with none of the things that actually matter. I pity you.
(No, actually, I don't, because you're a sad, pathetic loser
because you choose to be, and deserve it.)

There is strong evidence against most proposed deities.

What? Be specific. (Absence of evidence isn't evidence of
absence. That is an *error* in logic. So don't even bother to
try, unless you like being laughed at as a retard.)

Absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence

You lose.

where the claim
ought to produce evidence,

And what major religion today makes claims that out to produce
evidnece? Be specific. What specific claim, and what specific
evidence should that claim produce?

You will _never_ answer that, because you know how stupid you'll
look when you do.

--
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 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.

In the same way that roses and shoes are incompatible. They're not
related in any way. They do different things, in different ways.

Your error - and make no mistake it is an *error* - is in believing
(as an act of faith0 that religions is a scientific thing. It makes
no scientific claims, it is not subject to the scientific method. It
asks questions that science *cannot* answer because they are not
*scientific* questions.

Stupid people make this mistake a lot.

--
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 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.

Only in the hallucinatory world inside your head.

--
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.

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.