[Luis Dias]

Um no

"a particular system of faith and worship"
"a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion"

So what exactly it is that I'm "worshipping" here, and what "system" of faith am I espousing? I'm slightly bemused by this segway.

Wait so are you still defending the claim that religion in and of itself is incompatible with science? You say there's nothing that prevents a religious person from being dogmatic, but you don't even imply that there's anything to enforce it.

I did not use the word dogmatic, it is irrelevant in that context. My point is that even in the most positive case that Battuta can dream of, religion only gets to be almost inofensive towards anything.

Why would someone need this hypothetical pro-science religion? Well, I dunno, being pretty atheist myself, but some people like to think there's some entity in charge of the universe which gives it "meaning", or something.

Sure, good luck to them. Happy life. I'm not railing against them. I'm just saying that in my opinion, those things are incompatible, but also that they don't need for them to be compatible to live the good life.

Again conflating belief in a particular aspect with an entire religion or a person's religiosity. If someone believes in creationism, and they encounter evidence of evolution, then their belief is in conflict with the evidence.

A good scientist accepts the evidence of evolution.

A faithful person does not allow the evidence to deter his belief in god. Not belief in creationism, but belief in god.

It depends upon the "faith" involved. Either way, there is a conflict. Admit it.

A good scientist and faithful person can do both, updating his view of the universe while still accepting that it is the work of a creator.

A stupid person ignores the evidence and retains his belief in creationism. This is the kind of person I'd like to think would drive god crazy.

Sure you call him a stupid person and move on. But why are they stupid if they are only following their faith? They are not stupid, they only value different things than you do. You clearly value empirical claims over faith beliefs. Others may not (and indeed do not).

No, how about you cite some specifics instead of telling us to look for them. You're the one making the claim.

Sigh. Should I also cite why 2 and 2 is 4?

Heeeere you go: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg

(mind you, those are "official" numbers. The actual numbers are much higher, since, for instance Portugal where I live in, majority of people are agnostics or atheists. It just so happens that we are also all baptized, and since baptism, we are deemed as "catholics" and always counted as such in the statistics, inflating the numbers to +90%, while "baptism" is mostly regarded as a social traditional thing which few people take religiously seriously)

[Luis Dias]

science and the belief in an omnipotent creator are not incompatible at all.

Science and faith are incompatible almost by definition.

If there is an omnipotent being, science is futile, it is a meaningless exercise. Why should you work so hard to get some glimpses of truth, when all you have to do is die and get the whole gist of it?

[General Battuta]

no U

no UU

NO UUUUUUUUUUUU

It's clearly not going anywhere, everyone's circled back around to restating their original positions. Everyone be on their merry way.

[Shivan Hunter]

A good scientist accepts the evidence of evolution.

A faithful person does not allow the evidence to deter his belief in god. Not belief in creationism, but belief in god.

It depends upon the "faith" involved. Either way, there is a conflict. Admit it.

Yes, I admit it.

science and creationism are inherently incompatible. science and geocentrism are inherently incompatible.

science and the belief in an omnipotent creator are not incompatible at all.

[EDIT] gah too many posts

battuta has already stated many times that science is a method to gain knowledge about the universe (and therefore about god. Science is recorded and passed down, it spawns more advanced technology... blargh by that logic there's no reason for any religious person to live here in the first place.

[Luis Dias]

no U

no UU

NO UUUUUUUUUUUU

It's clearly not going anywhere, everyone's circled back around to restating their original positions. Everyone be on their merry way.

Yeah, it's clearly your fault for not admiting I'm right!

[General Battuta]

battuta has already stated many times that science is a method to gain knowledge about the universe (and therefore about god. Science is recorded and passed down, it spawns more advanced technology... blargh by that logic there's no reason for any religious person to live here in the first place.

Religious people should take the sacraments of their faith and kill themselves

ed: we should baptize/sacrament up babies and kill them

[Shivan Hunter]

MMM, BABIES

[MP-Ryan]

Uh, religion is merely codified belief.  And before you argue, the Oxford English dictionary would be considered the pre-eminent authority on the subject, which says:

religion

Pronunciation:/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]

    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion
    [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world's great religions
    [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

So you basically quoted a dictionary that falsified your assertion that religion is "merely" coded belief. So what? 

I know you're not a native English speaker so I will cut you some slack on this one, but that definition does not run contrary to my point.  At.  All.

[Bobboau]

I could very easily come up with a religion that was not incomparable with science.

[Luis Dias]

Anything that bases itself upon revelation instead of investigation is not only incompatible with science, but actually a threat to it.

You just have to remember Hamid Al Gazhali, whose philosophy of revelation ended up the most fertile period of islam, ever, never to recover.

People may be naive and think this will never happen again. I recommend more caution than that.

[General Battuta]

Only if the topics of the revelation impinge upon the empirical.

[Bobboau]

Anything that bases itself upon revelation instead of investigation is not only incompatible with science, but actually a threat to it.

let us assume this to be true, religion is not necessarily based upon revelation.

[Luis Dias]

No, it's not about inconsistencies between facts, it's about approaches to the universe.

If you tolerate that the society takes things on faith, rather than by research, you are creating a recipe for disaster.

Ask the muslims about it. They've been in the dark ages for a thousand years now. Why, is the question you should be asking.

[Luis Dias]

Anything that bases itself upon revelation instead of investigation is not only incompatible with science, but actually a threat to it.

let us assume this to be true, religion is not necessarily based upon revelation.

Ok, name me one recognizable religion that doesn't.

[General Battuta]

Anything that bases itself upon revelation instead of investigation is not only incompatible with science, but actually a threat to it.

let us assume this to be true, religion is not necessarily based upon revelation.

Ok, name me one recognizable religion that doesn't.

Dudeism

(the rest of this argument is profoundly silly now)

[Bobboau]

I said it was possible to construct such a religion, not that I knew of one off hand.

but I'll see if I can find one.
[edit]ok, there are a number of religious movements that could qualify for this, and could definitely be compatible with science. deism, pantheism, or the hybrid of the two pandeism are a few quick examples.[/edit]

[Suongadon]

Anything that bases itself upon revelation instead of investigation is not only incompatible with science, but actually a threat to it.

let us assume this to be true, religion is not necessarily based upon revelation.

Ok, name me one recognizable religion that doesn't.

Buddhism. Unless I missed the memo where it was declared to be not-a-religion. 

[Luis Dias]

Anything that bases itself upon revelation instead of investigation is not only incompatible with science, but actually a threat to it.

let us assume this to be true, religion is not necessarily based upon revelation.

Ok, name me one recognizable religion that doesn't.

Buddhism. Unless I missed the memo where it was declared to be not-a-religion. 

You got to be kidding me. Bhuddism may not be about the thunger god lightning up a pair of tablets, but it is about how Bhudda told everyone how he himself reached to be a "full enlightened being" (i.e., gain nirvana).

And there's also the whole conversation about how people are really rebirthed and stuff like that.

Bhuddism is different from the other major religions in the sense that the revelation of metaphysical reality does not happen through God's intervention, but through Bhudda's and his acolytes own meditations (iow, by being so awesome ).

[Bobboau]

yeah, but that's based on a human thinking and finding an answer himself rather than being told.

[Luis Dias]

Did you even read what I wrote?