Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

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.

Take you meds, Gerry. Or the nurses won't let you use the computer
any more.

--
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.

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
"Chris.B" wrote in
:

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.

Answered to the satisfaction of the people doing the answering, yes. But that
doesn't show the answer is an adequate one.

"The problem of evil" doesn't cease to be a problem when you bring in an
afterlife. Why?

For one thing, the afterlife is only an assertion, not an observed fact of the
reality around us. So even if a religion includes an afterlife as one of its
doctrines, suffering and injustice will drive people into despair.

Which is a serious problem for those religions - the ones we're most familiar
with - which put faith in God ahead of good works as a criterion for the
afterlife.

Basically, organized religion is an obvious scam, based on emotional
manipulation and, where possible, intimidation to enforce cultural unanimity;
efforts to claim otherwise based on theology are not simply incorrect, they are
ludicrous.

This does not mean that God in some sense could not exist, but not in a way that
would affect how we live our lives.

John Savard

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
So even if a religion includes an afterlife as one of its
doctrines, suffering and injustice will drive people into despair.

Is there any religion which does NOT include an afterlife as one of
its doctrines? If so, which religion?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:43:35 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
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".

See? You claim these usages are "wrong" and that these words have
another, single, meaning...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:41:11 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
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.

Science makes claims about the real world. So here you claim that
religion makes absolutely o claims about the real world.

You know what? I agree with you. Religion is a fantasy which many
people find pleasant - or else they wouldn't be religious.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:38:40 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

*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).

The Abrahamic deity is a good example. We can trace its development
from earlier deities. Its claimed properties are logically impossible.
Actions are attributed to it which are known beyond reasonable doubt
to have not occurred. All of this amounts to evidence against the
existence of this particular deity.

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.

Why do you think these things don't exist in my world? All of them
objectively exist.


And what major religion today makes claims that out to produce
evidnece?

You're joking, right?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:44:42 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

See? You claim these usages are "wrong" and that these words have
another, single, meaning...

No. I claim your usage of "atheist" is wrong, and I claim your usage
of "agnostic" is simply confusing and a poor choice.

Quadibloc wrote in
:

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
"Chris.B" wrote in
:

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.

Answered to the satisfaction of the people doing the answering,
yes. But that doesn't show the answer is an adequate one.

The logic is simple and complete. That you do not like it does not
change this.

--
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 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:41:11 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
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.

Science makes claims about the real world. So here you claim
that religion makes absolutely o claims about the real world.

No. On both counts. Science makes scientific claims. Claims that can
be tested using the scientific method. Religion does not.

You clearly have no ****ing clue what science *or* religion is.

You know what? I agree with you. Religion is a fantasy which
many people find pleasant - or else they wouldn't be religious.

Since your blind, irrational hatred of religin is, itself, a
religious belief, you have just admitting to being really ****ed up
in the 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.