and the winner is...... SCIENCE

[_Some Schmo]

One of our great lies is that a whole culture can and should take up the scientific viewpoint. Few have the stomach for it. If they did it God would be pleased but to reach that state you must actually be a scientist (even an amateur one) and spend your time studying it. What most people mean by judging something by science is that they heard on TV once or read a magazine article once that led them to believe X. To have an open mind means not to judge till the information is gathered. It's a difficult life. Most are too lazy for it.

The religious viewpoint is filled with failures of the same stripe. They proclaim the holiness of books they know a few quotes from but have never completely read. They declare the divinity of a being they routinely forget to contact. They evangelize with principles they do not understand. Again, they are lazy.

A lazy generation is a damned generation. Such souls are generally not as much fun in Hell but we can herd them in in bulk.

What a complete misrepresentation of science. To have a scientific outlook is simply demanding that evidence be documented, tested and verified. whoever has their hand up your ass needs to come in for a reality check.

I do believe belial here is trolling.... Sockpuppet, maybe? If so, someone definitely has their hand up his ass (maybe this is what you meant all along).

[_Mercury]

One of our great lies is that a whole culture can and should take up the scientific viewpoint. Few have the stomach for it. If they did it God would be pleased but to reach that state you must actually be a scientist (even an amateur one) and spend your time studying it. What most people mean by judging something by science is that they heard on TV once or read a magazine article once that led them to believe X. To have an open mind means not to judge till the information is gathered. It's a difficult life. Most are too lazy for it.

The religious viewpoint is filled with failures of the same stripe. They proclaim the holiness of books they know a few quotes from but have never completely read. They declare the divinity of a being they routinely forget to contact. They evangelize with principles they do not understand. Again, they are lazy.

A lazy generation is a damned generation. Such souls are generally not as much fun in Hell but we can herd them in in bulk.

What a complete misrepresentation of science. To have a scientific outlook is simply demanding that evidence be documented, tested and verified. whoever has their hand up your ass needs to come in for a reality check.

Simply demanding? That's an impressive demand. Many (if not most) of the people who claim to have a scientific outlook know next to nothing. The few who do it have are mostly embarrassed by the rest. Same with religion.

That's Lilith's hand again by the way. She is not well grounded in reality and is rather perverse. Let's just say that this morning there were 2 hell hounds on my lawn. She hung out with them for a while. There are now 12.

Wow, bestiality and running with my fisting joke...Are you sure your puppetmaster is Mormon?

[_Some Schmo]

Wow, bestiality and running with my fisting joke...Are you sure your puppetmaster is Mormon?

Ahh, you did mean that. Cool. Carry on.

[_Belial]

One of our great lies is that a whole culture can and should take up the scientific viewpoint. Few have the stomach for it. If they did it God would be pleased but to reach that state you must actually be a scientist (even an amateur one) and spend your time studying it. What most people mean by judging something by science is that they heard on TV once or read a magazine article once that led them to believe X. To have an open mind means not to judge till the information is gathered. It's a difficult life. Most are too lazy for it.

The religious viewpoint is filled with failures of the same stripe. They proclaim the holiness of books they know a few quotes from but have never completely read. They declare the divinity of a being they routinely forget to contact. They evangelize with principles they do not understand. Again, they are lazy.

A lazy generation is a damned generation. Such souls are generally not as much fun in Hell but we can herd them in in bulk.

What a complete misrepresentation of science. To have a scientific outlook is simply demanding that evidence be documented, tested and verified. whoever has their hand up your ass needs to come in for a reality check.

Simply demanding? That's an impressive demand. Many (if not most) of the people who claim to have a scientific outlook know next to nothing. The few who do it have are mostly embarrassed by the rest. Same with religion.

That's Lilith's hand again by the way. She is not well grounded in reality and is rather perverse. Let's just say that this morning there were 2 hell hounds on my lawn. She hung out with them for a while. There are now 12.

Wow, bestiality and running with my fisting joke...Are you sure your puppetmaster is Mormon?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The great Belial has SPOKEN!!!!!!

[_Gadianton]

I don't think the argument that many who believe in science are as ignorant of science as many faithful are of their religion holds water. First of all, who are the great and knowledgeable ones of religion? What qualifies as religious non-ignorance? Being a lawyer with little interest in theology or Bible studies but acting as an "apostle" and running a church? Being a theologin? What do these people know that is all that impressive, that specifically counts as "religious" knowledge?

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

[_Some Schmo]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

They can all be tested using the scientific method. That's the point. The problem for religious types is that the results don't favor their position.

I assume Gad is referring to such core elements like, "does god exist?", "how did the earth get started?", "was Jesus divine?", "was Mary a virgin?"... that sort of thing. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Gad.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

They can all be tested using the scientific method. That's the point. The problem for religious types is that the results don't favor their position.

I assume Gad is referring to such core elements like, "does god exist?", "how did the earth get started?", "was Jesus divine?", "was Mary a virgin?"... that sort of thing. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Gad.

Well if they all can be tested what is the debate over? I'm assuming there are some core claims that (as of yet) can not be tested or else the debate wouldn't continue? Or perhaps I'm naïve assuming that the debate wouldn't continue.

Anyway, I was just curious to hear what claims were in dispute that could not be tested for scientifically.

[_Belial]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

I assume that what is meant is that when you die if you're still around and before God's throne you can poke him to see if he's real. If you go to Hell and are before Lucifer's throne, I advise you not to poke him. There can be only 2 results; he will say one of the following:

1. "Stop poking me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (He then shreds you)
-or-
2. "That was kind of nice." (The shredding would be like a mother's caress by comparison)

[_Some Schmo]

Well if they all can be tested what is the debate over? I'm assuming there are some core claims that (as of yet) can not be tested or else the debate wouldn't continue? Or perhaps I'm naïve assuming that the debate wouldn't continue.

Anyway, I was just curious to hear what claims were in dispute that could not be tested for scientifically.

The debate isn't over strictly because people come to irrational conclusions! That's what so amazing about religious folks! That's why they're often accused of stupidity! Evidence is not as important to them as their "feelings."

Let's take a simplified example: Was mary a virgin when she had Jesus?

Well, given the number of documented cases of virgin births, and the vast amounts of data that have been compiled concerning human reproduction, it can be proven with a high degree of certainty that mary was not a virgin if/when she did, indeed, give birth to Jesus.

But does all this evidence matter to someone who believes in mary's "purity?" Not in the least. They've invested many years in that belief, including time and thought energy, and it "feels" right to them. So no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to convince them, and the debate rages on... "Supernatural, I tells ya!! It was a supernatural event! God can do anything! He's like... a superhero!"

Or something like that.