Nice slut-shaming.

It doesn't matter if the plaintiff enjoys sex, or is flirty with some people, or anything else. If she was sexually harassed at work, she has a case. Her dress, her sexual conduct outside the office, and her general attitudes make no difference to the question of sexual harassment.

Nate Silver's use of statistics is geeky. Really. That's about all he talks about -- not politics, but statistics. (Well, and sports, but even there, he's all about the statistics.)

Bwah? 97.7%? I'm only seeing an 86.3% chance.

Or is the "Chance of winning" sidebar item incorrect?

Ah, yes. Argument by dictionary. That's an excellent strategy: it allows you to avoid the substance of an argument by focusing instead on specific word-use.

Let's try this instead: no religion has been shown to be true. In fact, no religion has demonstrated a basis by which its truth-claims can be evaluated. Religion has no epistemic footing.

You indicate this yourself when you mentioned, "There are over 4,200 religions in the world." (This ignores the various nuanced schisms that exist in many of those 4,200 religions, but we'll let that slide for the moment.) This number indicates there is no real epistemic foundation on which to build a reliable religion. Basically, it's all just gut-feeling, social mechanisms for control, pareidolia, and a desire to know things that are effectively unknowable (or, without answer because the question is bad, such as, "Why are we here?")

So, yes, I think I can say that all religions are wrong, even if they are right in some details. It'd be like the claim, "The earth is warming." That is a correct statement of fact. However, one can be wrong in stating it: "The earth is warming because Hell is getting closer," would simply be wrong.

Religious statements are effectively without basis. Every religious statement that is not grounded in observation and logic (basically, science) can be summed up thusly: "I believe this thing, but I have no basis to assume this thing is true." Asserting a thing as true without a solid basis in observable reality is worse than being wrong. At best it is misleading. At worst, it papers over ignorance, effectively vetoing reason and inquiry.

This would put patent renewal in the hands of the wealthiest, further tipping the balance in the favor of the rich.

Wow. That's some mighty fine straw you used to build that strawman.

Do you want to come back to the real discussion, or are you gonna play outside and joust at it some more?

I believe AC was being sarcastic. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the scare-quotes, or even to mention tolerance, since that has nothing to do with the article.

Or send death-threats to kids who take a communion wafer out of church, or raise a stink about billboards or bus ads mentioning atheism, or (if you are a relatively recent President) say that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

Exactly.

And since religion is essentially impotent without those explanations, they are fundamentally in opposition.

This is in spite of the fact that many people are able to compartmentalize these two disparate epistemologies. The fact that people are able to hold two conflicting ideas in their heads does not mean the ideas do not conflict.

Science and religion are fundamentally in opposition. This is easily demonstrated.

While science is just an epistemology, and so might seem to be compatible with the metaphysics of religion, the basic epistemology of religion is exactly the opposite of science.

Science makes only three assumptions about the universe: that it is objective, that it is observable, and that it is consistent. Any metaphysics that embraces these three principles is compatible with science. The application of the epistemology of science requires skepticism and empiricism. It also requires the minimum possible assumptions. This is a tedious process, one that inherently recognizes that each result may be wrong, and assigns a measurement of the probability of correctness. In practice, this has given us a fundamental understanding of ourselves, the universe, and the reality around us.

Science is based on this: evidence first, tentative conclusion second, prediction of unknown evidence, testing of prediction. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Religion, on the other hand, requires a lack of empiricism. It is an epistemology that encourages rational thought about irrational assumptions. This is because religion assumes the conclusion: that there is a god. Religion is predicated on this. It requires this assumption, and it requires that no evidence is necessary for this assumption.

These are two epistemologies that are diametrically opposed. The only way they can coexist is in with the metaphysical assumptions of theology, and well-compartmentalized. But when one encroaches on the other, they are in conflict.

They will always be in conflict.

This is because all religions make specific claims about the nature of reality. And the nature of reality is the purview of science. When a religion makes a specific claim about reality, science can test that claim. That is, after all, what science is good at. In fact, it's the only known successful epistemology for probing the nature of reality. So, science can test any claim religion makes about reality.

And religion must make specific claims about the nature of reality. Otherwise, the religion's god is impotent and worthless -- and then what's the point of it?

Morality? How does the assumption of the existence of a god contribute to morality? There's no way to probe the mind of this god without making even more irrational assumptions -- that this particular holy book is true, or that holy book is true. And then, are the laws laid down in the arbitrarily-chosen holy book really morality, or just law? How would you judge?

That's easy -- you'd judge based on whether or not it seemed moral. The same way people without religion judge morality.

Religion is, ultimately, a disjointed epistemology that can provide no real knowledge. Look at all the different religions in the world to see evidence of that simple truth. The epistemological framework of religion disposes of the exact things that make the epistemology of science successful -- the only way to gain knowledge is through the systematic observation of the attributes of reality.

So, yes. Religion and science are always in conflict. The fact that many people are able to compartmentalize these two opposing epistemologies doesn't negate that fact.

Jesus says several times that he was not there to do away with the old laws. So your interpretation certainly ignores much of the New Testament.

In one location Jesus says he's there to pay the debt for sinning. Whether that means stoning, or just the penalty of hell, is up for debate. He wasn't really clear on that point. But breaking the Old Testament rules is still a sin.

I mean, if you believe that codswallop.

And how is science a "religion?"

Oh, wait. I suppose you're going to give a bunch of unsupported assertions in an attempt at character assassination.

Which science was that?

They didn't use science as a justification. They used breeding. We've been breeding animals for "purity" for thousands of years. What do you think domestication is all about?

How so? In what way had socialism been tested (as is required for a basis in science).

Again, what science? It's a social issue, not a science issue.

Interesting. The only "philosophy" of science is the epistemology of science. And while morality can be studied through the application of science and logic, an epistemology only describes how you know things. It cannot give a logical framework for determining what to do with that knowledge.

Really? So it's not religion that encourages a large percentage of the US population to fight against the teaching of evolution? It's not religion that keeps fighting against same-sex marriage? It's not religion that drives the ideology of the majority of the Tea Party?

These aren't just extreme people in extreme situations. These are people who are willfully ignorant because of their religion. And they make up a sizable portion of the US.

Really? And how is the stoning related to science in any way? The application of science would certainly not call for stoning. Sterilization, perhaps, depending on the population pressure -- but that would merely be the application of science based on social, not scientific, issues. So maybe sterilization. But not stoning.

Religion, on the other hand, demands stoning for certain crimes -- you know, such as the crime of getting gang-raped by a group of men. (Or, if you are Christian, children that talk back.)

So don't give me your fucking false equivalence. I don't buy it. "Science" is neutral -- it's an epistemology, and a methodology based on that epistemology. That's it. It doesn't demand action of anyone. All it can do is give you a clearer model of reality than you had before.

Religion, on the other hand, outlines horrible sets of laws and calls them "morality."

Yeah. The one level in Modern Warfare 2 that people objected to? Yeah. That was shooting civilians.

It seems censors don't like shooting civilians.

Or worse, the grammarians!

Rob,

I'd just like to pile my thanks on top of all the others here. This site helped define the geek community just when we needed it most. Your hobby turned vocation has made the world a better place.

I wish you good fortune. May your hours be pleasant, and your years many. May Cthulhu eat you first.

Hey! I had a bag of pot. I turned my back for a second and it went missing. Anyone seen my pot? I'm getting pretty desper...

Found it!