Smasharoo wrote:
Ya no it isn't. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive to each other. You can most certainly accept science and religion. Its quite ridiculous to see you argue the contrary though. Seriously you are a @#%^ing mong if you think one can not believe in science and religion. Then again you probably believe that religious belief is represented by the "I take this crudely translated old as balls Text literally word for word"
No, I believe that religious belief is represented by "here is something I feel to be true with no evidence whatsoever," but with magic. So basically New and Improved Ignorance, Now With Miracles! Which, unequivocally, categorically, unarguably, is what religion is. All religions. Every religion. "Here are are a some things that are true. No one can possibly understand why. No one can prove or disprove them. Also: Magic!"
The moronic special treatment we give to this idiocy is simple a flaw in human psychology. "I belive eggs cause earthquakes" -lunatic "I believe angels help me in times of need" - someone we're supposed to respect and take seriously. Give me a @#%^ing break already. No sale. Give people actual @#%^ing opiates to deal with their ennui over the human condition. It would at least be honest and I might feel some compassion for them.
Thats an interesting take, and just emphasis your narrow intellectual scope even more. Just because you don't agree with the evidence that means there is no evidence? When people were sacrificing virgins to make it rain, and then it started to rain, that is evidence that their sacrifice worked. If it didn't rain they wouldn't have spent thousands of years sacrificing virgins to make it rain. Alas observational dependency is a great human weakness. When a family prays in their cellar for a tornado to miss their house then emerge to being the only house left standing on the block is that not evidence that their prayer worked, or did they just get lucky? Just because you don't agree with the evidence doesn't mean there isn't thousands of years of events that support the notion of an omnipotent being intervening in our existence. Whether you personally subscribe to that is irrelevant, the fact that billions of people have witnessed acts of god, is evidence to support the notion that divine intervention is just as probable and explanation as ocean current dictating weather patterns across North America.
Same really applies to our science. We have countless scientific analysis that are supported by observations. We can see the data supports the model. Just because we can see this doesn't make it any more factual than a god drinking the blood of a virgin to make it rain. There is no actual confirmation that anything we have "discovered" actually is fact. Hell we could all just be getting trolled by the big guy in the sky who simply makes the system work so we can see what we want to see. Nothing we have discovered, studied, believe in, etc is based on any actual fact, because we have nothing to compare it to other than our own studies. We could be right, we could be wrong. Until we can compare notes with other intellectual and spiritual species, nothing we hold true can actually be called truth, because its all been compiled by a species that is entirely dependent on observation and experiences that we have witnessed.
Ultimately however despite your gross ignorance into what "evidence" actually is, nothing that you said supports your position that a person can not both believe in scientific analysis while at the same time hold faith in a religion. Not a single thing you have said in this entire thread supports that position, because it is unsupportable. Hundreds of millions of people trust in science and have faith in religion.
In short get bent, and stop making excuses for being antireligious. I don't care if you don't buy into religion, that is your thing, but to sit here and say you can not believe in Science, and hold faith is functionally retarded.