DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[giblets]

So the writers were mostly right about the stuff that was going on while they were alive? That doesn't exactly require divine intervention.

[Jon Miller]

Well, during some of the critical analysis time period during the last 200 years, theologians didn't believe it. I think some of them still question that books of the Bible were written during that time period.

The central issue is one of mindset and how people think. Particularly men of science (and theologians, actually). It isn't about 'new discoveries in science invalidating or giving evidence against Christianity'.

JM

[Elok]

It's more like he's saying that dogs aren't a substitute cats, but as more people own dogs they like them better than cats.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "substitute," but the basic statements "A is not a substitute for B" and "As A increases, B decreases" do not appear contradictory to me.

EDIT: For example, "Living in an urban environment is not a substitute for owning a car" and "As population density around one's home increases, one becomes less likely to own a car" are not contradictory statements.

[Asher]

Last I read, atheists/agnostics were somewhat more prevalent in the scientific community than the general population (in America), but still not a majority. Somewhere around a third, IIRC.

EDIT:

Your edit shows that even in one of the most Religion-happy nations on earth, in the US 2/3 of scientists are not believers.

Also note that your study indicates the more intelligent scientists (physicists, engineers, etc) are less likely to believe. The weaksauce scientists like biologists or chemists are different.

[Asher]

A) Scientific knowledge is not a substitute for faith.
B) The more scientific knowledge one has the less faith they have.

I can see why you are so religious if this is an example of your thought process...

I wonder if as a society we will eventually ban religion on the pretense of preying on the stupid?

(Only half joking...)

[Kidlicious]

They've certainly made the stuff in Genesis seem absurd...

I disagree. There is a level of absurd that can't be surpased. How do you get more absurd than talking snakes?

[Asher]

At any rate, my point stands that science has not made any religious beliefs seem more absurd than they previously were.

Have you even ****ing read the bible?

[Wezil]

I prefer to watch the movies.

[Asher]

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "substitute," but the basic statements "A is not a substitute for B" and "As A increases, B decreases" do not appear contradictory to me.

EDIT: For example, "Living in an urban environment is not a substitute for owning a car" and "As population density around one's home increases, one becomes less likely to own a car" are not contradictory statements.

I think this point is too complex or nuanced for Kid.

FWIW I think people who have 'faith' in science (hardcore atheists) are no better than those who have 'faith' in religion.

Science does not replace religion for most people, it does for a few (like Dawkins). The reason it's not really replacing religion is because it doesn't hold the same prevalence in our lives. We don't go to the chemistry lab each Sunday, for instance.

Science just informs us. And informed people tend to choose not to do things they know to be absurd or highly unlikely to be true.

I consider myself agnostic because I can't say for 100% certainty if there is or is not a God. I can say that the religions as we know them today are all absurd. Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, whatever. They don't pass the sniff test.

[Kidlicious]

It's not a substitute for faith, it shows us that religious concepts are extremely unlikely, pretty ****ing absurd, and almost wholly illogical.

Expain how science has shown religious concepts to be unlikely? They were already considered unlikely. Do you not even understand what faith is? That's why I'm saying that there is a difference between believing that the sun will rise in the morning and offering everything you have and have ever dreamed for as a sacrifice to God. The latter is religious faith, the former is simple faith.

[Kidlicious]

Have you even ****ing read the bible?

Of course I have. I meditate on the Bible. It's my lifestyle. You are a hypocrite.

[Asher]

Expain how science has shown religious concepts to be unlikely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Do you not even understand what faith is?

Faith is blindly believing in what you don't know to be true or why it is. Faith is ignorant belief.

This is true for both religion and a simpleton's uneducated understanding of the sun rising.

[Kidlicious]

Faith is blindly believing in what you don't know to be true or why it is. Faith is ignorant belief.

This is true for both religion and a simpleton's uneducated understanding of the sun rising.

WRONG! Faith is believing in the absurd. That is why reason is no substitute for faith.

[giblets]

WRONG! Faith is believing in the absurd. That is why reason is no substitute for faith.

Insane asylums are full of men of faith, then.

[Asher]

WRONG! Faith is believing in the absurd. That is why reason is no substitute for faith.

Where the **** do you get that definition?

When I say "I have faith in you" does that mean "I believe you are absurd"?

Sweet Mary Murphy, your stupidity is endless. MOBIUS is definitely right when he says you are the New Ben.