I'm the Religious Left!Follow

If that's not a Freudian slip I don't know what is.

It's because they're (gasp) totally unrelated disciplines.

As soon as the Supreme Court rules that Obama was born in Kenya and removes him from office, Biden is going to dig his tunnel to the Vatican and switch out the Secret Service for the Swiss Guard.

Frankly, I'm amazed you guys fell for our trap.

Ah, misogyny. Hello there!




I think the fact that you can't recognize how we all benefit from infrastructure and you believe that the whole right wing dog and pony show has any resemblance to reality makes me worry about you and the okra.

Really. Go to a country without an infrastructure. How about Burundi? They didn't have one for years and haven't rebuilt their country. Have fun! So much freedom. Libertarian fantasyland. You can tell them that they should appreciate their freedom b/c it's much harder for you, paying your big tax bill.

What the **** is this even supposed to mean? It conveys about as much information as "false biscuts die in hell" or "magitek pumpkins vibrate beauteously." This is like asking for directions to a restaurant and being told that it's somewhere west of the atlantic ocean.

Well, not necessarily, but typically they are. I do not wish to be inflammatory, but it is intellectually dishonest to say that most major religions and science are not at odds regardless of how catchy the tag line "science tells us how, religion tells us why," is, and it's pretty darn catchy.

Here comes the spiel you've probably heard before, but apparently not thought enough about. The cornerstone of some of the most popular religions is faith. Everything depends on entirely blind belief. The scientific method is almost, or perhaps even entirely, devoid of faith, a rejection of it. These religion claim a perfect knowable and infallible truth in the absence of evidence. Science assumes nothing, or nearly nothing to avoid the possible argument, to be true and that everything requires proof.

I'm not saying many people don't simultaneously accept both religion and science, but that they are being dishonest to themselves and that their words and actions are in conflict.

Edited, Apr 6th 2009 1:31pm by Allegory

Not true in a general sense. Religion in general does not require that everything you believe to be true is based on faith. Believing in the value of the scientific method for systematically accumulating knowledge does not require me to reject all faith-based belief.

When specific tenets of a faith are in conflict with specific scientific discoveries, then one must choose between the two conflicting "facts" or exist in denial.

You know I hate it when you make me rate you up. Stop that.

If you are using general in the sense that it applies to every single case then yes you are correct. I stated before that what I said is not necessarily true, but only typically true. I also did not try to assert that that absolutely everything required faith, but only that the key components, such as an omnipotent and completely undetectable deity, required faith.

As a note this actually does tie in somewhat with what Anna was saying, although she did not directly state it, it was part of my previous discussion with her. If some parts that you had been taking on faith have been wrong, how can you assert that other parts you took on faith cannot be wrong?

Let's take the Christian flood for example. Unless you discount the entire event as completely magic, it could not have happened. The land dwelling species are far too numerous to fit on the allotted ship, not even counting the food. You need a population of about at least 40 of each species, not 2, to engender a genetically stable population or else they die out through inbreeding. The salt and fresh water areas would mix, killing off both species of aquatic life. Most of the species of vegetation would have died when submerged. This is a rather important story for most Christians. If something so important can be false, what about the crucifixion?

Don't you think you're being a little incendiary?