Religious ideas on the other hand are viral, emotionally manipulative, and usually untestable. When they are testable, believers are so confused that they ignore direct counterexamples, in other words they ignore the fact that their ideas do not even describe phenomena correctly, much less make testable predictions.

Science good.
Religion bad.

http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

Back in 1633 if someone dare to believe in something that contradicts the bible he or she must be burned to death in public after physical punishment and torment so they go to hell and keep burning and suffering forever and ever.

This is a proven Fact, hundreds of historical documents support this. Hundred Thousands where burned in the name of god.

Today they have evolved, now they don’t believe that someone must die, now they behave like civilized people they take you to court!!!!

But they still believe that your soul will burn until the end of times…

I wonder which of the hell circles is the one for secular organizations and Universities ( the eternal punishment is to read stupid creationist blogs and web sites)

You’re going to have to give us a definition of “truth” to go along with this claim. If it’s anything like the correspondence theory of truth, then “religious types” typically live their daily lives as though they “believe in truth,” but when it comes time to discuss theology or science, they switch to the team that says, in essence, Truth is whatever we want it to be, regardless of observable facts.

How did you determine this figure? Would you provide a peer-reviewed study to back it up?

“…a very small minority of religious nut-jobs are trying to ruin it for the rest of the spiritual community.”

Please define your terms “small minority”, “religious nut-jobs” and “spiritual community.”

“SO, if you read the article, science has conflicting arguments just as religion does. Just because one is incapable of higher thought doesnt mean that he or she is right. if you think about it science is as amuch of a religion as hinduism, christianity, or islam. people live by it. so dont go bashing peoples religions, you have your own, let every man have his own.”

The difference between science and religion, as if it hasn’t been said enough, is that the observations of science are capable of being falsified and independently verified. In the cases where supernatural claims follow this model, they are invariably shown to be false; otherwise, they are mere fantasy predicated on nothing but the whims of those who hold them–no submission to evidence or data, no reliable way of ascertaining their truth-value, nothing. I wish it could be gotten across to fantasists that there exists this important distinction between their baseless fantasies and observations of external reality hard-won through the scientific method.

The uneducated assertion that the “findings of science” are constantly changing, or that scientists disagree on some technical explanation for some theory you don’t understand, does not in any way support the ludicrous position that “science is as much of a religion as hinduism, christianity, or islam.”

And what is this “higher thinking” you assume the non-religious are incapable of? Do you mean “faith?” Faith is the opposite of thinking. Faith is a closing down of rational thought, a casting off of curiosity, an unexamined acceptance of what cannot be true unless it is declared true by fiat, or based on some appeal to authority or emotion. If one is to call this “higher thinking,” then we may as well throw out our dictionaries.

“…so dont go bashing peoples religions, you have your own, let every man have his own.”

Only a brain crowded with irrational cognitive structures, or one with a duplicitous agenda, could equate an argument against religious belief and/or practice with an argument against religious freedom. Do you not appreciate that one may champion freedom of religion politically while arguing academically that religion is a trap for fools and a paradise for charlatans? As Voltaire put it, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The persistence of foolish claims and retorts such as these means that we must never tire of countering them. Thankfully we have in English a singularly expressive and prolific vocabulary with which to make the repeating of arguments a somewhat less than monotonous experience.

true science doesnt get it right all the time but religion never gets it right so f**k all religion its bulls**t i’ll take fact and the real world over fantasy and bulls**t stories any day

[Moderator's note: edited out the cuss words.]