With science it would be correct to use the words correct or incorrect. With religion it would be correct to use the terms good or bad-noting that good and bad are both the light and the dark. The things that make me feel good are usually good-maybe not charitable but certainly not agaisnt the law [of man][(most things ]). When I tend to do things bad I either feel bad or have caused a negative result.

Duh. Doesn’t everyone do this? If we don’t understand consequences for our actions doesn’t that make us psychopaths, a wrong number, if you will? We think more than an ant. A baboon will never be interested in the lenses supporting dark energy.

It is my belief that without the light you cannot have the dark, period. They coexist as one. If they didn’t we would all be lost; we would all be a lost cause uncapable of love, life, and wrong or right choices.

I am not blue funked by religion or science because they are clearly studies of a different family both with stories to tell. I do not however, when you take a man majoring in minors out of the equation, disagree with such an idea as to say religion is the adherent, adviser, alter ego, amigo, bosom buddy, of science and visa versa.

Mother Teresa, in a sense was only a victim of men majoring in minors…some feelings of good and bad are programmed by man from a person’s desire to just do good and help…little did she know that her first longing to help before any influenece of hell or guilt from the church was enough. She also said,

“If I ever become a Saint_I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven-to [ight] the light of those in darkness on earth,”

If I lived as she lived and saw everyday what she saw I too would be on the dark side…but the dark side is like religion to science and if Mother Teresa were to be called the Saint of Darkness, it would be an honor and at the time of her supposed faithless writing she was going through something that seemed quite logical.

Church formed law, centuries turning- the law abides now whether you are religious or not. A scientist who is athiest is nothing less than a superb being and not a psychopath because they aren’t out there doing bad. Some people without religion live a life of doing bad and its not good. Question is, why?

ah-perhaps the nurture nature theory? Mother Teresa by nature wanted to live a life of chariable help-her environment by puberty was a church with a less than a respectable and powerful history and then her immediate environemnt was filled with suffering and sadness for-the-rest-of her life. Is it really any wonder why she struggled with her faith when you think about it scientifically?

With science it would be correct to use the words correct or incorrect. With religion it would be correct to use the terms good or bad-noting that good and bad are both the light and the dark. The things that make me feel good are usually good-maybe not charitable but certainly not agaisnt the law [of man][(most things ]). When I tend to do things bad I either feel bad or have caused a negative result.

Duh. Doesn’t everyone do this? If we don’t understand consequences for our actions doesn’t that make us psychopaths, a wrong number, if you will? We think more than an ant. A baboon will never be interested in the lenses supporting dark energy.

It is my belief that without the light you cannot have the dark, period. They coexist as one. If they didn’t we would all be lost; we would all be a lost cause uncapable of love, life, and wrong or right choices.

I am not blue funked by religion or science because they are clearly studies of a different family both with stories to tell. I do not however, when you take a man majoring in minors out of the equation, disagree with such an idea as to say religion is the adherent, adviser, alter ego, amigo, bosom buddy, of science and visa versa.

Mother Teresa, in a sense was only a victim of men majoring in minors…some feelings of good and bad are programmed by man from a person’s desire to just do good and help…little did she know that her first longing to help before any influenece of hell or guilt from the church was enough. She also said,

“If I ever become a Saint_I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven-to [ight] the light of those in darkness on earth,”

If I lived as she lived and saw everyday what she saw I too would be on the dark side…but the dark side is like religion to science and if Mother Teresa were to be called the Saint of Darkness, it would be an honor and at the time of her supposed faithless writing she was going through something that seemed quite logical.

Church formed law. centuries turning Law abides now wether you are religious or not. A scientist who is athiest is nothing less than a superb being and not a psychopath because they aren’t out there doing bad. Some people without religion live a life of doing bad and its not good. Questions i why? ah-perhaps teh nurture nature theory? Mother Teresa by nature wanted to live a life of chariable help-her envirnment was a church with a less than respectable and powerful history and then her immediate environemnt was filled with suffering adn sadness. Is it really any wonder why she struggled with her faith when you think about it scientifically?

It should be here. Sorry.

I’ve written more about the fraud of Teressa here and .

“from our attempts to understand how the universe works.”

Isn’t the belief that the universe can be understood and that there is a ‘The Truth’ to be found, which is apparently what drives so many scientists to work hard, to devote themselves to science, itself irrational? If this belief is rational, why is it? If it is not or cannot be said to be rational or irrational, then isn’t science itself irrational?

In any case is there any inherent ‘value’, in a loose sense, in pursuing ‘The Truth’ as compared to other possible paths? I see no ‘value’ other than utility as defined, vaguely and of course irrationally, by the society as a whole. If then ‘utility as defined by the society’ is met by any other belief system, isn’t it as valuable as science itself?

I wish the word ‘irrationality’ is not used in so demeaning sense. Generally debates like these tend to become science vs religion. What I say is the two can coexist and if combined well can be more powerful than either.

And atheists should keep their arguments against God separate from their attempts to understand how the universe works.