
Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by
susan

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
Your fundamental error is revealed above. Of course you can be a scientist and a theist and a philosopher at the same time.
sorry dont think so, how could you be trusted, I would never employ you as a scientist, you'd be to irrational, All that godstuff takes up alot of time and uses up alot of space in your brain that could be put to better use.
The mere fact that you state this makes me question your potential status as a good scientist.
1never said I was a scientist, but I do employ scientists.
but you most definitely would never be one in my employ.

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by
susan

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
There have been many in the past, and there still are today (myself included).
what like newton, I know of no others.
Proves my point (and disproves your above point).
2 you obviously dont understand sarcasm, are you american. (newton did some good things, but he was a religious nut job.( he secretly delved into the highly illegal pseudo-science of alchemy (turning base metals into gold). Yet he was motivated not by a desire to learn the secrets of gold, but to learn the secrets of God. Sir Isaac's deepening religious convictions led to an abiding hatred for Catholics, whom he considered to be infected by the Antichrist. He even enjoyed reading accounts of nuns being tortured.))
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/763660
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...ic1822489.shtm

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by
susan

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
What people like you with no true experience in theology do is assume that theists cannot think logically, and that science disproves religion.
you make an assumption yourself, with the first part of this, how do you know what I know about theism, you dont know me. and yes people with faith cannot be rational, so how can they be scientists, science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational.
Well your wholly unwarranted assertions that a theist cannot be rational (and of course your contradiction when you said Newton was a theist) is enough for me to draw the necessary conclusions (granted you're not just playing around).
3see above reply.

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
And, quite ironically, this statement: "science does not try to disprove religion it does'nt need to, it just show it up for what it is, wholly irrational" is as illogical as you can get. If science doesn't disprove religion, then how can it show it to be "wholly irrational"?
4because religion disproves it's self, you only have to read about it, all science/logic has to do is point out the errancys. it would be infantile for science to try to disprove that which has no proof.

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by
susan

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
You have to get rid of this frankly ridiculous idea (see how I tied in science and religion in my previous posts).
but it does'nt make them compatible, does it.
Actually, it does (if this ambiguous "it" is what I think it is) . Prove me wrong: warrant your argument.
5it's really up to you to convince people you could do a job of science without your religion getting in the way. could you work in the abortion field, or stem cell research, etc... science is totally incompatible with religion, with the irrational in control of your head your worthless as a scientist.

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by
susan

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
Perhaps you should do some research on it or ask some people about religious scientists/philosophers, if you don't want to take my word for it.
no need been there done that and brought the t-shirt, and yes you can be a pseudoscientist perhaps, or even an occult scientist
Actually, I believe you haven't (see your above Newton comment).
6 already dealt with.

Originally Posted by
scientstphilosophertheist
Also, another great theist thinker you should probably look into is Immanuel Kant.
7 and what Kant asserted is the exact same stuff you came up with in an earlier post, here,
I disagree with your assertion that God exists only in the minds of those who choose to believe it. Where is your proof of this?
Furthermore,
0 evidence =/= no existence.
There was once no evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system. But is it not?
There was once no evidence that the earth was spherical. But is it not?
There was once no evidence of other planets. But are there not?
and here,
Yes, I get what you're trying to convey. If there's no evidence, the argument isn't strong. But, even if there was absolutely no evidence that God exists (which I disagree with), that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; it just means the idea of His existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume He does exist.
my reply to those two other posts, was.
the same can be said for santa clause, the tooth fairy, unicorns, dragons, winnie the pooh, james bond 007.
no evidence that these to exist, doesn't mean that they dont exist; it just means the idea of there existence isn't adequately backed up for one to assume they do exist.
so where Kant states "no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife. But, then again, he added, no one could really know that there was not a God and an afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not." you can substitute anything you can imagine for god, and it would be equally valid.