Are Science and Atheism Compatible? v Are Religion/Science Mutually exclusive

The General Synod this morning held a debate on science and religion, full of ordained scientists arguing that of course they are, and indeed the final vote was 241 to 2 in favour of the motion.

That is just a commentary on the earlier consensus that: religion and science not mutually exclusive
Which is crap! (I thought it had already been posted)

Views: 171

Replies to This Discussion

I believe P.Z. Myers would agree they are. Particularly Biology.
Really honest Christians, at least, admit that the Biblical descriptions of the creation and the origin of human beings, are wholly mutually exclusive from scientific findings. Those Christians who believe they are compatible believe the Bible is largely allegorical. Fundamentalists believe the Bible is literal.

Actually, if you think it through, an evolutionary universe is wholly incompatible with notions of original sin and the Fall of human beings from an original state of grace, which means the entire reason for Christianity becomes nonsensical. Why have a savior when humans never needed saving?
I have asked myself this when people say we needed saving from "original sin." Original sin? What did I do? And just because the church defines something as a sin, that is their opinion.

Ok, I admit illegal things like killing someone aren't good, and if someone wants to call that a sin, fine. So "illegal" and "sin" are just different words for the same crimes.
I like this joke: If Adam and Eve engaged in original sin, what do we engage in, derivative sin? Are we nothing but a bunch of copycats?
Sally, of course. And we find sex so delicious! Idiot misanthropes just made up that stupidity.

Gee, sin is a theological term that rational people don't use as it refers to Yahweh's evil commands.He is the Supreme Sinner for the Deluge and the genocides.
Theistic morality is fatuous.

Ignostic Morgan
I have asked myself this when people say we needed saving from "original sin." Original sin? What did I do?

See, it's not about what you do. It's about being punished for what your ancient ancestors supposedly did:

"Why have a savior when humans never needed saving?"

Good point. The realization of "good" and "evil" as subjective terms, pretty much knocks the legs out from under religion of any kind.
Sally, you are wiser than Michael Ruse. See the thread contradiction in an agnostic@ Skeptic Society Forums.
The atelic or teleonomic argument maintains that as the weight of evidence presents teleonomy- no planed outcomes rather than planned ones - God's intent- telos- teleology- then evolution cannot perforce be compatible, and so creation evolution is vacuous!
In his writings Victor Stenger keel hauls God as explanatory and as compatible with science.

The argument from pareidolia notes that theists see intent and design where there are only teleonomy and patterns as peiople see Yeshua in a tortilla.
Know God= No God
And Michael Ruse, naturalist himself, erroneously defends original sin and all that stupidity.
Carneades; ignoostic morgan
Thanks for the quote from Ruse. Do you have a link to the Agnostic Skeptic Society forums?
Sally, it's the Skeptic Society. I've his book on Darwin and Design.
Ignostic Morgan
I'm now @ Atheist Bloggers as Inquisitive Lynn and already @ Bloggers as naturalist.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service