[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

That clash only exists for the few Biblical literalists out there. It would be illogical to project this same conflict on all theists.

[Besoeker]

..
I understand the concept, which is why I clarifed that I do not think religion is designed.

No. You stated what is was not designed for.

[Pants-of-dog]

If your only argument is to ignore what I explicitly said, and to insist that I believe something that I have clearly denied, then you have no argument.

[Besoeker]

If your only argument is to ignore what I explicitly said,

I posted explicitly what you said.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

That clash only exists for the few Biblical literalists out there. It would be illogical to project this same conflict on all theists.

And perhaps I would be inclined to sympathize with your point if the biblical literalists were a very rare breed but they are not. They are fairly common and more importantly they are the loudest of the bunch and the most determine to convert and convince unsuspecting people to their views.

[Pants-of-dog]

In the US, yes. Fortunately for those of us who do not live there, these people are almost non-existent.

[XogGyux]

In the US, yes. Fortunately for those of us who do not live there, these people are almost non-existent.

Well, then you are a bit more lucky than myself in this aspect. Not being surrounded by fanatics is always nice. On the other hand we are the single most influential country in the world.
I am happy to see that you now understand that the conflict is actually real and not something made up.

[Pants-of-dog]

And I am glad that you understand the foolishness of comparing science and religion in terms of how well they do the job of science.

[XogGyux]

And I am glad that you understand the foolishness of comparing science and religion in terms of how well they do the job of science.

Oh i have always been aware of the foolishness of religion, in particular when it tries to elevate itself to the proposition of facts.
That however do not prevent people from being foolish.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the observation that religion is not as good as science at doing the exact same thing as science is an old one that everyone knows, and is acknowledged by anyone with basic reasoning skills.

This is why I find it odd that people think this is a significant criticism of religion.

[Nonsense]

We do not need proof of something to believe in it.

Religion is based on faith. It was never concerned with evidence.

How do we know that there is not something beyond our material world?

How do you know that there is 'something' beyond our material world?

It's just pure conjecture.

There is known to be some 200+ 'gods', according to research, most 'religions' preach that theirs is the only 'god'.

It seems to me, on that basis, one pays your money(in the offertory' box) & takes your 'choice'.

It's funny how you mention 'something' beyond the 'material' world, how many multi-millionaire's do you think that there are, who 'own' their own 'religious' churches in America?

ALL 'religion' is just a business, it brainwashes the weak, naive or gullible , in order to extract their financial & material wealth from them by means of 'control' in the use of that tool called 'faith'.

In my opinion, ALL 'religious' institutions should be banned & their 'leaders' incarcerated.

That tw*t, the 'pope' even took it upon himself to claim the origin of the universe for his 'religion', now there's another super-'rich' criminal, if ever there was one, a leader of a religion that once killed non-believers, a church that betrayed people to the NAZI's during WW2.

There has NEVER,EVER been the slightest evidence to prove the existence of any 'god' in ALL of history, a claim that lies with the 'faithful' to prove their LIE is 'true'.

'Science' is the tool that debunks the criminals that brainwash the gullible with the organised SCAM, called, 'religion'.

'Faith' is NOT 'evidence', neither is 'belief', 'mystery', 'miracles', or any other fanciful observation.

It is unacceptable in todays world, that any 'religious' leader or practitioner of 'religion', can invoke the word, 'god' in their speeches, because they CANNOT prove that statement, it is therefore, a deception on their audience that they do so.

[jakell]

Yes, the observation that religion is not as good as science at doing the exact same thing as science is an old one that everyone knows, and is acknowledged by anyone with basic reasoning skills.

This is why I find it odd that people think this is a significant criticism of religion.

Because science has impressed lay people into thinking that it has the final word on everything. This is not surprising as technology has changed our lives for the better in many ways, it has delivered the 'miracles' that some religions hinted at, but failed to deliver.

The question is will the same people notice when it eventually fails to deliver? eg failure at tackling superbugs, failure at developing sustainable energy and overcoming resource depletion, failure at producing sufficient food and clean water from deteriorating ecosystems....
Probably not so much as this is more about perception management than reality.

[Besoeker]

Because science has impressed lay people into thinking that it has the final word on everything.

In what branch of science is your degree if you don't mind saying?

[Nonsense]

[quote="jakell"]Because science has impressed lay people into thinking that it has the final word on everything. This is not surprising as technology has changed our lives for the better in many ways, it has delivered the 'miracles' that some religions hinted at, but failed to deliver.

WRONG, 'Science' never, ever attempts to do what ALL 'religion' does, fool them into believing that FALSE 'gods' are the Alpha & Omega of everything.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/po ... ar-BBbFNam

The Pope(Francis),"The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared".

You can see just how criminally deceitful these 'religious' SCAMMERS are by the way the 'pope', invokes a 'god' into the 'creation' of the universe.
It was not 'creation' at all, it is merely a consequence of physics, at the time of the Big Bang that gave the conditions for stars, black holes, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, meteorites & everything else between to exist.

It's nuclear fallout,encapsulated from Einstein's E=MC2 that explains it all, no 'reason' at all to invoke 'magicians', 'miracles', 'divine intervention', the 'fairies', 'supernatural wizards, or any other NONSENSE to take 'ownership' of the universe.
The very reality of the universe is about 'imperfection', for had it been 'created' by a 'god' as posited by these 'religious' scammers, the result would have been a 'perfect' universe, would it not?

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

The above is utter stupidity, as well as an utterance of a LIE from the leader of an institution founded on sand.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.
He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.
“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.
“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Again, more NONSENSE from the 'pope', no 'creation' is needed, just simple, or complex EVOLUTION, no longer a 'theory', a FACT.
One day the penny will drop for religious folk, but not until they are either broke, senile, or dead.

[jakell]

Because science has impressed lay people into thinking that it has the final word on everything. This is not surprising as technology has changed our lives for the better in many ways, it has delivered the 'miracles' that some religions hinted at, but failed to deliver.

WRONG, 'Science' never, ever attempts to do what ALL 'religion' does, fool them into believing that FALSE 'gods' are the Alpha & Omega of everything...

Actually, you are right here and my statement is a little misleading, in my defence I talked of 'lay people', people who are seeking a replacement for religion as the yearning for this never really went away.

It's not just lay people though. There have been plenty of scientists who will have got carried away and made unwise claims about how science (via technology), given time, will solve our problems, and I don't blame them as science is heady stuff, I would say that most of these, if they are genuine thinkers, will have matured into something more realistic.
I put the blame, not so much on scientists, but on science commentators and enthusiasts, people who will enthuse to the public and look the part, but don't really have to do the work.

So, I'm not really laying the blame on 'science' (which would be wrong anyway as it is not such a thing), but on how it has been perceived.

[Besoeker]

So, I'm not really laying the blame on 'science' (which would be wrong anyway as it is not such a thing), but on how it has been perceived..

How it has been perceived is quite varied. GM crops are are an example of an adverse reaction by many.