Oh, you're thinking of Paul Tillich. A rather famous and influential theologian. His "ground of all being" marks a radical shift in ontology (think: god as a being vs god as the ground of all being). Google the name and I'm sure you'll find a better explanation.

Fun fact: Tillich was an atheist.

Let's stick to reality, please. Baseless assumptions masquerading as science aren't going to get us anywhere. Anyhow, let me explain the quote, which you clearly misunderstood:

The unstated assumption here is that, if you are a biological machine, consciousness is epiphenomenal. As an unavoidable consequence, free will would be illusory. Sentience, necessarily lacking causal efficacy, would be irrelevant to life. It could not contribute, in any way, to survival -- or anything else!

The problem, of course, is that isn't the result of some empirical investigation, That belief is based on metaphysics, not science. The only answer you'll get from science is "we don't know". "We don't know" is a very important phrase. Let's not do the world a disservice by offering groundless "conclusions" just to avoid it.

I understand. Ideology is difficult to overcome. Hopefully, with time, you'll come to see reason.

That given the social and political state of Bangladesh, the murder was likely to occur anyway as a result of the journalists political views. It's not uncommon for religion to be abused for political reasons, after all. Hence, my suspicions that the religion was used as justification, not as a motive.

Even though there is a clear political motive?

Well, there was that nasty bit during French Revolution.

It's Bangladesh. I suspect that the slated religious differences were just ad hoc justification for a murder that would have occurred otherwise.

Nerds older that you, I suppose.

That's not true at all. There are religions that don't presuppose a god or similar figure. Buddhism is the typical go-to example, though I'll also offer Raelism as an interesting example along with Jainism and various schools of Hinduism.

Even if we accept that science has "shown" that a god concept "doesn't need to exist" (Which is ridiculous, as god and similar concepts are outside the scope of science.) It does not follow that holding such a belief is a rejection of science. Just as there are many pursuits that are outside the scope of science (such as ethics, politics, and law), the practice and study of which do not constitute a rejection of science.

Further, a significant number of practicing scientists are religious. A 2009 survey of AAAS members found that more than half believed in the existence of a god. A more recent survey found that more than a third "have no doubt about God's existence". Are we to assume that our scientific institutions have been overrun by secret anti-science agents?

We have atheists that believe vaccines cause autism, that deny evolution, and similar silly things. Does that make atheism anti-science?

There is a long history of Muslim scientists and many well-respected Muslim scientists practicing today. The Hadith encourages Muslims to seek knowledge "even as far as China". Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, have been actively encouraging science through endowments and the establishment of new universities. If Islam were inherently anti-science, it wouldn't have such a long and proud history of scientific contribution, countless Muslim scientists, or the leadership actively encouraging scientific pursuits. You claimed that Islam teaches that "science must be outlawed at all costs", yet they're spending billions to support science.

The mistake in your reasoning here is that you believe religion to be wholly anti-science. This is obviously not true. (See above) While efforts to allow creationism to be taught in schools can be interpreted as anti-science, the other cases you mention (abortion and gay marriage) are not scientific issues, but ethical issues -- which, as you know, are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

In none of the cases you mention is there an attempt to outlaw science. The best case you offer is an attempt to introduce creationism along side evolution in public schools, which is not the same as trying to outlaw the study of evolution. The claim you made, by the way, was that Islam asserts that "science must be outlawed at all costs".

Just for fun: "There have been 0 confirmed black swans, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0% total strike out."

That's my point entirely. In your post, you explain your interpretation of Christianity through a parody Christain God. "because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles." In context, the claim is that Christians believe that God can't and won't show himself or perform miracles, by his own admission. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of the world's Christians would strongly disagree with that claim and assert that God can and does perform miracles. (Remember: We're talking about what people believe and what you claim people believe. It doesn't matter if those beliefs are justified as that's not the issue here.)

I like to call this "promissory science". It's closer to religious faith than anything else. Actual scientists abandoned that belief after the failure of logical positivism (a short-lived, and rather silly, movement in the first half of the 20th century). The scope of science is bounded, after all. Religions have attributed more to gods than just nature, for example, to ethics and law. (Both, obviously, outside the scope of scientific inquiry.)

To make claims that science demonstrates anything beyond its scope is anti-science at its finest, a technique used by countless charlatans over the last century to lend credibility to their nonsense claims. To claim that the scope of science is unbounded is tantamount to science denial.

We've talked about autodidacism in the past. I suspect that's where you went wrong initially. Given the above, you may want to revise your score.

Please, elaborate. What did I take out-of-context?

I could very easily go on. (Would it make you happy if I continued?) I thought those were sufficient to demonstrate that your post was little more than nonsense born of pure ignorance.

Insightful? It's completely incoherent!

I'll accept this premise just for fun. There's far too much ambiguity to consider it further.

Science has nothing to say on the subject of magic. It is simply not within the scope of scientific inquiry. You'll also find that many practicing scientists are also religious. A recent survey found more than a third claim to "have no doubt about God’s existence", a surprisingly extreme position. Another found that, among AAAS members, more than half believe in "God or a higher power".

All the same, let's pretend we accept this as well and lament that our scientific institutions have not only been infiltrated, but completely overwhelmed by anti-science agents.

How on earth do you get "causation" out of the preceding? I can't even begin to guess what you conclude causes ... some other unknown! Even if we accept the previous absurdities, without reservation, this bizarre conclusion simply does not follow.

That's completely delusional.

Theology is the study of religious beliefs and practices. You'll find no shortage of atheist theologians. Or do you mean theology in the sense of a system of beliefs? In that case, you'll find that Islam is not monolithic, but divided along theological lines. Either way, your statement is incoherent.

I can find no branch of Islam that "outlaws" or otherwise forbids science. On the contrary, there are many Muslim scientists practicing today, as well as many historically significant Muslim scientists.

Many Christians would disagree. I can't find a Christian sect that would affirm that. It's possible one exists, but it would be exceptional, not representative.

What makes "no sense" is your post. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you're going to have to offer more than nonsense like this to support your position.

Maybe. But VB developers were really inexpensive. If you found a good one, they were crazy productive as well.

You sound addicted to video games and porn.