Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[La Xinga]

Didn't I already tell you a proof a decent amount of time ago that you dismissed because "it cannot be reproduced" even though religion doesn't work that way?

Claiming that something 'doesn't work that way' is a cheap evasion. If you can't meet our standards, you have no business claiming equivalent stature.

So tell me a proof about Atheism, this time it should involve cherries dropping atomic bombs on Toyota, Japan.

You can't? Well, if you can meet my standards, you see where this is going?

You never disproved that, so it remains as a proof. Just because it doesn't meet your "standards", that does not meet it is not a proof.

[Godular]

Claiming that something 'doesn't work that way' is a cheap evasion. If you can't meet our standards, you have no business claiming equivalent stature.

So tell me a proof about Atheism, this time it should involve cherries dropping atomic bombs on Toyota, Japan.

You can't? Well, if you can meet my standards, you see where this is going?

You never disproved that, so it remains as a proof. Just because it doesn't meet your "standards", that does not meet it is not a proof.

Oh look, you're trying to paint my requirement that any proof that you have must be independently verifiable and reproducible as some kind of unreasonable requirement. Another cheap evasion.

[Albrenia]

Claiming that something 'doesn't work that way' is a cheap evasion. If you can't meet our standards, you have no business claiming equivalent stature.

So tell me a proof about Atheism, this time it should involve cherries dropping atomic bombs on Toyota, Japan.

You can't? Well, if you can meet my standards, you see where this is going?

You never disproved that, so it remains as a proof. Just because it doesn't meet your "standards", that does not meet it is not a proof.

I'm sure you think you're making a stunning point here, but you just sound silly.

[La Xinga]

So tell me a proof about Atheism, this time it should involve cherries dropping atomic bombs on Toyota, Japan.

You can't? Well, if you can meet my standards, you see where this is going?

You never disproved that, so it remains as a proof. Just because it doesn't meet your "standards", that does not meet it is not a proof.

Oh look, you're trying to paint my requirement that any proof that you have been independently verifiable and reproducible as some kind of unreasonable requirement. Another cheap evasion.

Please state your meaning by "cheap evasion". What proof do you want? One that could be done over, we know. But religion doesn't work that way, science is the one that you can have fun with experiments.

[Estanglia]

Claiming that something 'doesn't work that way' is a cheap evasion. If you can't meet our standards, you have no business claiming equivalent stature.

So tell me a proof about Atheism, this time it should involve cherries dropping atomic bombs on Toyota, Japan.

You can't? Well, if you can meet my standards, you see where this is going?

You never disproved that, so it remains as a proof. Just because it doesn't meet your "standards", that does not meet it is not a proof.

If this is a glimpse of what your standards of proof are, enjoy believing every random person's tall tales.

[Godular]

Oh look, you're trying to paint my requirement that any proof that you have been independently verifiable and reproducible as some kind of unreasonable requirement. Another cheap evasion.

Please state your meaning by "cheap evasion". What proof do you want? One that could be done over, we know. But religion doesn't work that way, science is the one that you can have fun with experiments.

You are trying to sidestep the requirement by saying your religion does not work that way. If you refuse to meet commonly held standards, then there is no functional reason to consider your position as holding equivalent standing.

You are attempting to argue on the presumption that your religion is true. You have no evidence to support it being so.

[La Xinga]

So tell me a proof about Atheism, this time it should involve cherries dropping atomic bombs on Toyota, Japan.

You can't? Well, if you can meet my standards, you see where this is going?

You never disproved that, so it remains as a proof. Just because it doesn't meet your "standards", that does not meet it is not a proof.

If this is a glimpse of what your standards of proof are, enjoy believing every random person's tall tales.

not really.

Please state your meaning by "cheap evasion". What proof do you want? One that could be done over, we know. But religion doesn't work that way, science is the one that you can have fun with experiments.

You are trying to sidestep the requirement by saying your religion does not work that way. If you refuse to meet commonly held standards, then there is no functional reason to consider your position as holding equivalent standing.

You are attempting to argue on the presumption that your religion is true. You have no evidence to support it being so.

It's not a commonly held standard! In your religion, maybe, but in mine, that's impossible!

I'll continue a little bit more, what CAN be reproduced?

[Godular]

It's not a commonly held standard!

Yes it is. How do you know that your religion is true and not some other religion? Where does that come from? What evidence have you to support your position?

In your religion, maybe, but in mine, that's impossible!

As an Atheist, I have no religion. If it is impossible in your religion, then mayhap that should be seen as a warning sign.

I'll continue a little bit more, what CAN be reproduced?

Any kind of physical phenomenon. If your god has any impact on the universe in any way, then that impact can be replicated.

[Albrenia]

If this is a glimpse of what your standards of proof are, enjoy believing every random person's tall tales.

not really.

You are trying to sidestep the requirement by saying your religion does not work that way. If you refuse to meet commonly held standards, then there is no functional reason to consider your position as holding equivalent standing.

You are attempting to argue on the presumption that your religion is true. You have no evidence to support it being so.

It's not a commonly held standard! In your religion, maybe, but in mine, that's impossible!

I'll continue a little bit more, what CAN be reproduced?

Even if something cannot be directly reproduced, we can test for the effects of such a thing happening in the past.

For example, we have DNA in us which confirms that our ancestors were not always human. If we were made from clay and formed into our current shape, this would not exist.

[La Xinga]

It's not a commonly held standard!

Yes it is. How do you know that your religion is true and not some other religion? Where does that come from? What evidence have you to support your position?

In your religion, maybe, but in mine, that's impossible!

As an Atheist, I have no religion. If it is impossible in your religion, then mayhap that should be seen as a warning sign.

I'll continue a little bit more, what CAN be reproduced?

Any kind of physical phenomenon. If your god has any impact on the universe in any way, then that impact can be replicated.

I literally gave you my evidence, just you're not even answering any question! xD
No, I don't think it is a warning.
And what about a specific example? I dunno, cherries!

[Godular]

Yes it is. How do you know that your religion is true and not some other religion? Where does that come from? What evidence have you to support your position?



As an Atheist, I have no religion. If it is impossible in your religion, then mayhap that should be seen as a warning sign.



Any kind of physical phenomenon. If your god has any impact on the universe in any way, then that impact can be replicated.

I literally gave you my evidence, just you're not even answering any question! xD

You gave me jack, shit, and everything in between. I wish I could say I didn't expect it, but I would be lying.

[Twilight Imperium]

And what about a specific example? I dunno, cherries!

I'm pretty sure we know how to make more cherries.

[Albrenia]

Yes it is. How do you know that your religion is true and not some other religion? Where does that come from? What evidence have you to support your position?



As an Atheist, I have no religion. If it is impossible in your religion, then mayhap that should be seen as a warning sign.



Any kind of physical phenomenon. If your god has any impact on the universe in any way, then that impact can be replicated.

I literally gave you my evidence, just you're not even answering any question! xD
No, I don't think it is a warning.
And what about a specific example? I dunno, cherries!

You literally have shown no evidence that is either convincing or provable.

We can replicate the process which formed cherries from whatever sort of berry they evolved from. In this case it's likely that cherries were created intentionally by humans by selecting the plants which produced the most desirable produce.

[Bombadil]

Reading this page and I have no idea what this current strand of debate is about.

[La Xinga]

I literally gave you my evidence, just you're not even answering any question! xD

You gave me jack, shit, and everything in between. I wish I could say I didn't expect it, but I would be lying.

I didn't. Seriously dude, stop saying that.

I literally gave you my evidence, just you're not even answering any question! xD
No, I don't think it is a warning.
And what about a specific example? I dunno, cherries!

You literally have shown no evidence that is either convincing or provable.

We can replicate the process which formed cherries from whatever sort of berry they evolved from. In this case it's likely that cherries were created intentionally by humans by selecting the plants which produced the most desirable produce.

I just used cherries cuz I like them, but anyone can easily say the Lord made them, and you are able to say he didn't!

And what about a specific example? I dunno, cherries!

I'm pretty sure we know how to make more cherries.

Yeah, we do. I didn't say we didn't. Check my post before. But cherries do taste good, not he point, just saying.

[Albrenia]

Reading this page and I have no idea what this current strand of debate is about.

It was Astrophysics a page or so back, now it is if requiring evidence for your worldview is fair or not.

[Bombadil]

\I just used cherries cuz I like them, but anyone can easily say the Lord made them, and you are able to say he didn't!

Anyone can say anything they like, only science can back up what they say with provable, testable evidence.

[Estanglia]

Reading this page and I have no idea what this current strand of debate is about.

It was Astrophysics a page or so back, now it is if requiring evidence for your worldview is fair or not.

Basically it's another religion-related thread that went off the rails at some point.

[Godular]

You gave me jack, shit, and everything in between. I wish I could say I didn't expect it, but I would be lying.

I didn't. Seriously dude, stop saying that.

Yes you did, and no I won't.

[La Xinga]

It was Astrophysics a page or so back, now it is if requiring evidence for your worldview is fair or not.

Basically it's another religion-related thread that went off the rails at some point.

Not a surprise,

*yawns*

I'll come back tomorrow, bye! (Cherries!)

[Alvecia]

It was Astrophysics a page or so back, now it is if requiring evidence for your worldview is fair or not.

Basically it's another religion-related thread that went off the rails at some point.

I wouldn't say it's that off the rails. This is the natural end point of every thread on religion really. Doesn't matter what the initial question is, you're eventually gonna scratch past the facade and get down to the nitty gritty.

[La Xinga]

I didn't. Seriously dude, stop saying that.

Yes you did, and no I won't.

I think I realized!
See you tomorrow, good night, if you want it to be good.

[Godular]

Basically it's another religion-related thread that went off the rails at some point.

I wouldn't say it's that off the rails. This is the natural end point of every thread on religion really. Doesn't matter what the initial question is, you're eventually gonna scratch past the facade and get down to the nitty gritty.

This is true. In the end, any thread about where they stand relative to each other will inevitably devolve to this particular debate.

I wonder if I should start a megathread on the subject...

[Alvecia]

I wouldn't say it's that off the rails. This is the natural end point of every thread on religion really. Doesn't matter what the initial question is, you're eventually gonna scratch past the facade and get down to the nitty gritty.

This is true. In the end, any thread about where they stand relative to each other will inevitably devolve to this particular debate.

I wonder if I should start a megathread on the subject...

I'm sure it would eventually fall out of use, followed by several separate threads months later, 77 pages in which someone would suggest a megathread for this type of discussion.

Such is the way of NSG.

[Albrenia]

Yes you did, and no I won't.

I think I realized!
See you tomorrow, good night, if you want it to be good.

Good night.