Religion: Real or Fake

[Wezil]

Actually, Wezil was, in this thread, explicitly saying that Religion and Science were inherently incompatible.

JM

Quit putting words in my mouth Jon.

Thanks.

That was your argument not mine. I said (like homeopathy) religion is BS and I haven't the time or inclination for multi-page debates on it. I've debated your ilk in the past and its akin to banging one's head against the wall. Others at this site have the tolerance for it (this thread is a good example), I don't.


Ben
Kid
Jon
...

[Jon Miller]

And apparently you aren't literate.

JM

[giblets]

Where did Wezil implicitly imply that science and religion are inherently incompatible? I must have missed it...

[Wezil]

Cite where I said it or STFU.

I intentionally avoided your nonsense for a reason.

[Jon Miller]

Sorry Jon. Saying it (and believing it) doesn't make it so.

Both are BS.

Show that my Religion makes claims contradictory to the claims that Science makes. Or, that would be too hard because you don't know me well, ask me questions where you think that my Religion makes claims contradictory to those made by Science.

Or show that Polkinghome's Religion makes claims counter to those made by Science. Or other well known Christian Scientists (as you are more likely to know what their religion is, as you can read about it online/in books).

JM

It is not my duty to disprove your claims Jon.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Present your evidence.

Homeopathy supporters can also go on at great length in support of their belief. They ardently believe it and nothing, absolutely nothing, will convince them otherwise. If you still disagree after they have painfully explained it to you it can only be because you simply don't understand.

I'm against homeopathy as well (for many of the same reasons). I don't need further study to know it's a crock. It can't pass initial muster.

Homeopathy makes claims that are counter to the claims that Science makes. You can not be consistent and think that Homeopathy is true and Science is true.

(Some) Religions make claims which are not counter to the claims that Science makes. You can be consistent and think that (some) religions are true and Science is true.

Entirely different.

JM
(Note that Kids version of Christianity does likely make claims that are counter to the claims that Science makes. The (some) is important!)

Are you incapable of even understanding what you write?

JM

[Wezil]

Yes, I said one thing and you said another.

Quit putting YOUR words in my mouth.

[Wezil]

Did Jon really just spend several pages arguing against a point I wasn't making?

[Jon Miller]

Sorry Jon. Saying it (and believing it) doesn't make it so.

Both are BS.

Show that my Religion makes claims contradictory to the claims that Science makes. Or, that would be too hard because you don't know me well, ask me questions where you think that my Religion makes claims contradictory to those made by Science.

Or show that Polkinghome's Religion makes claims counter to those made by Science. Or other well known Christian Scientists (as you are more likely to know what their religion is, as you can read about it online/in books).

JM

It is not my duty to disprove your claims Jon.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Present your evidence.

Homeopathy supporters can also go on at great length in support of their belief. They ardently believe it and nothing, absolutely nothing, will convince them otherwise. If you still disagree after they have painfully explained it to you it can only be because you simply don't understand.

I'm against homeopathy as well (for many of the same reasons). I don't need further study to know it's a crock. It can't pass initial muster.

Homeopathy makes claims that are counter to the claims that Science makes. You can not be consistent and think that Homeopathy is true and Science is true.

(Some) Religions make claims which are not counter to the claims that Science makes. You can be consistent and think that (some) religions are true and Science is true.

Entirely different.

JM
(Note that Kids version of Christianity does likely make claims that are counter to the claims that Science makes. The (some) is important!)

How is the claim that my Religious claims and the claims of Science are not contradictory an extraordinary claim? I have spent a lot of time thinking about what I believe.

A lot of other well known and famous (living) scientists, among them Freeman Dyson, Polkinghome, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Barrow, Francis Collins, Jim Gates, Stephen Barr, Martin Nowak, John Lennox, Donald Knuth have done similarly. I could keep going on and on....

You are being entirely unreasonable. You can't just ignore, out of hand, such people and maintain that the claims of Religion and Science are inherently incompatible.

Your extraordinary claim requires some extraordinary evidence. Please provide.

JM

Shall I post a list of atheist scientists? OR perhaps a list of Scientologists since we seem to be deferring to others?

Most atheist scientists, the only exception I can think of at the moment is Dawkins, do not believe that the claims of Religion and the claims of Science are in inherent opposition. Your response is not a counter to my argument at all, even if you had a list of scientists who thought that the claims of Religion and the claims of Science were in inherent opposition.

Are you able to think rationally on this subject at all?

JM

Actually, that is a much better idea, since I should be working.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polkinghorne and show that his religion makes claims counter to science. He is a smarter man than I.

JM

To further quote Wezil's retardedness.

JM

[Wezil]

And apparently he's not done.

[Jon Miller]

Did Jon really just spend several pages arguing against a point I wasn't making?

And now you claim that you weren't arguing with me.

I posted a post, you respond, I posted again. And so on.

Your response being things like 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and other garbage like that.

Any non-retarded person would see that you disagreed with my post.

Don't hide behind the 'I wasn't talking to you', 'you were putting words into my mouth' and other garbage. You addressed me by name, even if you didn't quote my posts.

JM

[Jon Miller]

And apparently he's not done.

You are literally retarded.

Yeah, your responses weren't to me. You saying you disagreed weren't in response to my posts.

Sure.

JM

[Wezil]

You are taking my non-argument and trying to make a position out of it Jon. I don't take the subject (or you quite frankly) seriously. You omitted the pertinent quote in the thread.

I have no intention of engaging in a multipage argument on BS Jon. I haven't the time or inclination for it. Some subjects will do it, but not this. I've no use for the "that's not what my faith is" and "you don't understand" routine.

Call me retarded if you want but I don't believe in fantasies. I may only be warming the bench but at least I'm playing for the Yankees. You share space with Ben and Kid.

[MOBIUS]

Don't tell me you being in homeopathy as well Jon?

[Wezil]

No, he finds that to be silly.

[Jon Miller]

I called you retarded because you stated you weren't responding to me earlier.

Perhaps you are just dishonest instead.

You said Homeopathy was similar to Religion.
I said it wasn't, that the claims of Homeopathy were inherently contradictory to the claims of Science while this isn't true for Religion.
You disagreed.
We argued for a while, you disagreeing with my statement that many current famous scientists didn't find Science and Religion to be inherently contradictory and so it was not.
Finally you said that you had no time for arguing, not being able to argue against any of my points you just gave up and said it was over.

Later, when Imran and I were showing rah (and someone else?) that there was more to life than reductionism (at least, that most people believe so), we mentioned that we were in part arguing against those who claim that the claims of Science and Religion are inherently contradictory.

Whereupon you said that you never argued against the position that the claims of Science and Religion were not inherently contradictory, and then that you weren't arguing with me at all!

For future reference, if you statements towards someone are always of the form 'no, you are wrong' then you are arguing against their positions even if doing so is retarded.

JM