California state senators have passed a controversial bill designed to increase school immunization rates. SB277 would prohibit parents from seeking vaccine exemptions for their children because of religious or personal beliefs.
This is a good thing because religion must NEVER be used as an excuse to escape common sense. The same way with person beliefs, fighting known, proven science, isn't rational, this is a very good Bill!
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
"Hi, I'm Muhammad, I can't write, read or preform simple math. I'm totally illiterate, have epilepsy, like to wear diapers on my head and ride unicorns. Let me tell you about Islam where women are objects, female children, much like Christianity, are rape objects and science must be outlawed at all costs, oh and don't think about drawing a picture of me, or someone could kill you"
Christianity:
"Hi, I'm God, I'm a piss poor engineer who has anger issue and love S&M. I put two or one person in a garden, they had children who killed each other, I allowed incest, rape, murder and slavery. I got really pissed off twice, once I wiped out humanity using a fable which no ration human could believe. I then sent my son to die in the greatest sadomasochist grandstanding in history for being mad at my self, oh and remember to give all your money to the church, because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles."
Mormonism is to stupid to even comment on and the same can be done for ALL religions.
So it's a good thing religious belief is falling, it made no sense back in the day and less sense now. You can't call yourself a logical adult human and believe that your sky daddy created the universe and left no evidence, that isn't rational.
This is what you're trying to argue me about, making it clear that you either can't read or lack the understanding of an adult, which if you have religious faith, is not surprising in the slightest.
The default position is I don't know, so lets find out. Except for the fact that every single attempt to gather evidence of the existence of God, or to find reasons why it would have to exist have failed. So I should correctly myself, I mis-typed, zero state is the wrong thing to say, what I should say is that, atheism is waiting for the believe to present one, single, valid reason to believe and to date that has never happened. Atheism is the exact opposite of religion, it's saying there is no God and you can't show there is, the actual definition, to play fair is:
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Religion is the belief in God or Gods, hence Atheism is the exact opposite, there is no other side to this coin, it's a one way argument, Atheism is not a religion, just like not having cancer, isn't a new form of cancer.
Again for another error in your thinking you said:
You just dug into an indefensible position. You want to stand by the statement: "The problem with Theology as a field of study is that Islam [insert criticism]"
Which I never said, claimed or attempted to imply. Theology as I admitted has two meaning, you demonstrated that when you posted them and I'm not arguing that, it really does have two meaning.
1) Attempting to explain the nature of God.
and
2) A field of study.
The original post is about religion, limiting the scope of the definition to only the first meaning, not the second. You can't drag the second meaning in because you're losing ground, which you've never had. The problem with religious theology is that it leads to people doing horrible things, in the name of a God, who can't be shown to exist, that's it, it's a one way argument.
Theology must come after religion, I already said if you disagree that's fine, but instead of accepting to bow out on that point you wanted to argue me, which doesn't change my original stance, it merely shows your impressive ignorance, which as you've already stated you believe in a God, was clear.
The theology of Christianity is summed up in The Bible, which on the very first line says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,", meaning you had to believe in God to accept that statement, th
No, The waterfall method MUST be preformed exactly like this:
1. System and software requirements: captured in a product requirements document
2. Analysis: resulting in models, schema, and business rules
3. Design: resulting in the software architecture
4. Coding: the development, proving, and integration of software
5. Testing: the systematic discovery and debugging of defects
6. Operations: the installation, migration, support, and maintenance of complete systems
We don't generally preform the Analysis, as we have the requirements, so step #2 is either gone or extremely minimized. We don't hold design meetings as those are fairly pointless for most software projects, after all the design of the software falls to the coders of the modules, no one else should make the decision on how there software should work, so step 3 is minimized. We definitely code, so we preform that step, testing is part of coding, so we don't make that separate step. We integrate then support, so we don't follow the waterfall process at all, in fact we're not even really very close.
How is science not just "judging by appearances"?
Don't you feel a little superficial looking at people and experimenting with them that way?
I'm confused what you mean? Science is a framework for testing, if you can't get repeatable results, then it isn't science, so it's anything but judging by appearance, as for the second point, I don't know what you mean.
Actually what I said was I don't follow a process like Agile or Waterfall, I have never and will never accept using a standardized development methodology, they don't work, they never will. If a project requires a ton of QA and integration, then we give it that treatment, if it doesn't we don't.
Well the requirements are passed from the project management team, which I force them to do, if they aren't up to par, I throw them back and refuse to start working until they are. Once we have them, we sit down for maybe a 1/2 hour period, break the requirements into modules and then throw modules to the teams who can handle them the best. When they're done with there part, they throw them back, I integrate, we do a little bit of integration work and in 90% of cases, we're done. Software development only gets complicated when you complicate it, it can be simple, easy and fun if you want it to be.
I still completely disagree with you, but if that's what we have to settle with then that's okay. I grew up heavily influenced with the falsehood and insanity of Christianity, I know the lies, the hate, the filth and the issues with Christianity.
To address your points, out of order, Atheism is not a theology, at least the way I was implying, which is religious theology. Atheism is not a different view point from the standard zero state system, so it's not a "new" view. Atheism simple says, "Hold on here, you can just assume a God exists and never provide evidence, we won't believe in that, it's bullshit", this does not make it a religious theology, as it's the exact opposite. Atheism rejects the very concept of God and hence breaks the definition. For Atheism to be a religious theology, it would first have to assume God exists and then set to provide it doesn't, which is backwards. Atheisms says there is no God because there is no proof, and indeed, no proof has ever been found, discovered or granted.
To be fair, given the second definition of theology, of course Atheism would fall under this, it's a field of study and interest, just like Math, Science or even Pornography. However also to be fair, I made a point of defining which point I wanted to reference, so it's against good taste to bring in a different definition and hold me accountable to it. This entire thread is about religion, not about fields of study, and hence only the first definition should apply here.
On my second point, Religious Theology has to come after Religious belief. Religious belief is the substance which postulates a God or super being. Without it, you don't have anything to apply the study of the "Nature of God", Religion simply inserts God, Religious Theology tries to explain that God. For instance a Muslim, Christian and Mormon all believe in Religion, they all agree that a God, some God, exists. However they then apply the "flavour" of God they want through Theology. Going about this the other way would make no sense, you can't apply the nature of God, to a God you haven't accepted as existing. You can't say that the Christian God is the one you follow and then say, you believe in God, that logic doesn't work, it doesn't make sense, you have to first say, I believe in God, then say, The Christian God! I honestly feel you have this backwards, but if we disagree so be it, no harm in that.
I know all about religious practices, and I know all about what they represent, the problem is when you start with a flawed assumption, why should anyone take you seriously? You can't tell me that you're sure God exists, present no hard evidence, throw a book at me, then tell me you have evidence, that doesn't work, it's insane. Using that methodology, I could take a piece of paper, write my name at the top, write I'm God, for I revealed it to my self and now I have a holy book that proves I'm God, it's flawed logic.
I disgree, I don't have an abundance of meetings, I don't have an abundance of code reviews, I don't have another developer watching me, I don't have daily / weekly releases and I don't do an insane amount of little incremental additions, so I'm not really doing "Agile" development.
Well my last project used 40 developers, 3 countries and 3 time zones and got a product delivered ahead of time.
The number of developers is completely irrelevant, look at Linux for instance, hundreds of developers, all on there own and yet the product comes together perfectly.
My last team was 40+ people and spread over 3 countries, working on 3 different time zones. We all worked this way and delivered the product ahead of the deadline. We all took modules and just hit the gas peddle, so it does work!.
There is no way to optimize the development process for software. Inserting terms such as "Agile" or "Waterfall" really just create bloat and waste time. The best software development process is to have no process and work in the way that fits you best. For instance when I write large software projects, I just start coding, I pick a place to start at and go. I wait until I have large testable blocks completed and then debug and integrate them. I don't follow and form of standard development process and yet have never been held up via a deadline of meeting request.
When developers try and add those stupid terms, they're basically saying that they can't self manage and instead of taking responsibility, they're going to throw silly management methods around in an attempt to streamline a task which is unique to each individual developer and situation.
The only things you need to write good code are the right language, the right platform and proper requirements. Once you have those, you can just start and work to completion.
Except I didn't make any error, the definitions again:
Theology: the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Islam is based on the theologic concepts presented in the Quar'an which are based on religious concepts of Allah, but without the Quar'an you don't have Islam, you just have a deity based religious forced around a being you don't care about but you admit could of started the universe.
It's the same idea with Christianity, The Bible is the foundation of the religious beliefs of Christians, without it, you're not a Christian. The religous concepts in the bible are the basis for the completely horrid stories in the book. The Bible is the theological guide of Christianity, just as the Quar'an is the theological guide of Islam and The Book of Mormon is the guide of Mormonism.
You said to me:
Religions have a theology, and so do you - when you call it "sky daddy" - you are claiming that god does not exist and is the product of human imagination.
So to say "theology is even worse" doesn't make an inkling of sense. It's a field of study, not a specific point of view on which god exists/does not exist. Nonsensical assertion.
So to reiterate, you can have religious views without holding theological views. If you hold a religious view with no theological context then you're a deist, the second you add a "holy" book in to the mix you add a label, such as Muslim or Christian, which means that Theology is really worse then just having a religious view point.
Religion makes a claim that a God or Gods exist. If you can't show us the God or Gods then your claim is debunked until you do. It's not hard, science is a testing frame work and religion has failed it's own test.
That doesn't turn science into a religion. Theology is the attempt, and a poor one, to explain Religion through texts written by the God / Gods you worship, which again no one can prove. Until the Bible is the proven word of God, it's toilet paper.
Religion makes a claim that a God or Gods exist. If you can't show us the God or Gods then your claim is debunked until you do. It's not hard, science is a testing frame work and all religion has failed it's own test.
In college I designed a system which tracked my movement in 3D space and uploaded the coordinates to a MySQL database, which using another app I wrote, could reconstruct a stick figure model of myself in the area:-). I had about 1000 people actually visit the website running it regularly for fun and only one person ever ran the modelling software. My point? It's not a big deal to give off your location, I intentionally did for months and NOTHING happened to me, my work had access, my family had access, even the police had access and look, I'm still perfectly safe. If you still think it's a big deal, just write a quick app to bypass the location tracking and give it false information when you're off work, then you don't have to worry.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
So where did I get that wrong? Religion is defined exactly as the belief in a sky daddy, which as far as science has shown this far in humanity, doesn't need to exist. Hence to believe in sky daddy means you're rejecting science, or you're ignorant of it. Point #1 correct.
Theology: the study of the nature of God and religious belief. -- Which I'm not saying you disagree with, just clarifying the definition.
As for Islam rejecting science, just google it, for the love of the FSM, we have Iman's who say the world doesn't rotate, now how is that anything but a rejection of science? You could claim, incorrectly, that you can be a scientist and believer but really you're trying to battle two view points which can't co-exist. You're trying to battle the logical, rational, mature side of humanity, with the one which wants to hold a blanket, sleep with mommy and daddy during a storm and won't grow up. This doesn't make you a true scientist, it makes you an idiot who's trying to mix your sky daddy with science. Point #2 Correct
science must be outlawed at all costs
Have you or do you live the US right now? Law's are being passed which allow the teaching and promotion of biblical ideals above proven scientific fact. Law's are being passed which outlaw gay marriage and abortions, based on the fact that the bible speaks against it. So exactly how what is false about this point? When you allow the bible to be used as the basis for law, you're directly saying that science must be rejected. The bible speaks of a 6000 year old year, which is absolutely 100% incorrect, in all possible cases, yet we teach children this in schools. Point #3 correct! (I'm on a roll).
because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles
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.
Except you can't say something exists because you can't prove it doesn't and then give that thing magic powers. There have been 0 confirmed miracles, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0%, total strike out. Christians can disagree all they want, but science has recognized exactly 0 miracles. As for God showing himself, that's never happened, he was even invited to show himself at freedom fest in front of 30,000 people, yet he didn't. So Point #4 Correct.
it made no sense back in the day and less sense now.
What did I get wrong with this statement? What question is solved by inserting God? What does God do for the question, apart from inserting another portion which needs an explanation? Science has and is explaining everything that we use to attribute to God, so what is left? God explains nothing, it's makes no sense to insert a deity where none need be. Point #5 Correct!
I have a prefect score 5/5, so where did I go wrong?
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam: "Hi, I'm Muhammad, I can't write, read or preform simple math. I'm totally illiterate, have epilepsy, like to wear diapers on my head and ride unicorns. Let me tell you about Islam where women are objects, female children, much like Christianity, are rape objects and science must be outlawed at all costs, oh and don't think about drawing a picture of me, or someone could kill you"
Christianity: "Hi, I'm God, I'm a piss poor engineer who has anger issue and love S&M. I put two or one person in a garden, they had children who killed each other, I allowed incest, rape, murder and slavery. I got really pissed off twice, once I wiped out humanity using a fable which no ration human could believe. I then sent my son to die in the greatest sadomasochist grandstanding in history for being mad at my self, oh and remember to give all your money to the church, because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles."
Mormonism is to stupid to even comment on and the same can be done for ALL religions.
So it's a good thing religious belief is falling, it made no sense back in the day and less sense now. You can't call yourself a logical adult human and believe that your sky daddy created the universe and left no evidence, that isn't rational.
This is Physiology, the field of study where you never validate your results. Once I see this exact study verified by several researchers and across isolated double blind teams then I'll believe it.
Kill someone because they drew a picture of an epileptic, diaper wearing, schizophrenic, illiterate profit who hears voices and ride imaginary animals, what does it say about how they value logic or reason?
To sum up Christianity:
Commit incestual acts, rape children and female, kill your first born, eliminate humanity and send your son to die in the greatest sadomasochistic grandstanding of all time.
To sum up Moromism:
Native american's are from Isrial and black people turns against go which is why there black.
This is what people believe, how can you honestly take anyone seriously when they say they're religion. I've always held, and it's true, that religion is the security blanket for the scared adult who's to immature to venture out into the world.
A bunch of diaper headed Muslims want to kill people because they're upset that there favourite cartoon character got drawn, isn't that what 2 year olds do?
No, you missed my point, which may be my fault, so I'll fairly explain again!:-)
Computer Science, just like Medicine has valid aspects which involve hard science, such as developing a new medication or developing a new data storage mechanism like a Tree / Link List. However where it stops being science is when you're just implementing those solutions, after they've been proven to work and have been flushed out.
If I take a Red / Black tree Library and either write it myself and use it or use an existing one, I'm not doing any kind of science, I'm just applying the existing science to my task. Just as if you take an aspirin for a headache you're not participating in science, your just applying the science to the application.
Science is defined as:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
, Which for the most part is not what programming or development is. I'm very rarely observing new behavior or studying the systematic response of a new system. I'm simply taking what already exists and reapplying it into a new solution.
It's because of this that I feel we should stop using the term science loosely and on a side note the term engineering. If you're not progressing a field of study then you shouldn't apply the term science, feel free to disagree. Just as if you're not designing something new you're engineering. The terms get thrown around in places they don't belong and I think that should stop.
Slashdot Mirror
California state senators have passed a controversial bill designed to increase school immunization rates. SB277 would prohibit parents from seeking vaccine exemptions for their children because of religious or personal beliefs.
This is a good thing because religion must NEVER be used as an excuse to escape common sense. The same way with person beliefs, fighting known, proven science, isn't rational, this is a very good Bill!
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
"Hi, I'm Muhammad, I can't write, read or preform simple math. I'm totally illiterate, have epilepsy, like to wear diapers on my head and ride unicorns. Let me tell you about Islam where women are objects, female children, much like Christianity, are rape objects and science must be outlawed at all costs, oh and don't think about drawing a picture of me, or someone could kill you"
Christianity:
"Hi, I'm God, I'm a piss poor engineer who has anger issue and love S&M. I put two or one person in a garden, they had children who killed each other, I allowed incest, rape, murder and slavery. I got really pissed off twice, once I wiped out humanity using a fable which no ration human could believe. I then sent my son to die in the greatest sadomasochist grandstanding in history for being mad at my self, oh and remember to give all your money to the church, because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles."
Mormonism is to stupid to even comment on and the same can be done for ALL religions.
So it's a good thing religious belief is falling, it made no sense back in the day and less sense now. You can't call yourself a logical adult human and believe that your sky daddy created the universe and left no evidence, that isn't rational.
This is what you're trying to argue me about, making it clear that you either can't read or lack the understanding of an adult, which if you have religious faith, is not surprising in the slightest.
The default position is I don't know, so lets find out. Except for the fact that every single attempt to gather evidence of the existence of God, or to find reasons why it would have to exist have failed. So I should correctly myself, I mis-typed, zero state is the wrong thing to say, what I should say is that, atheism is waiting for the believe to present one, single, valid reason to believe and to date that has never happened. Atheism is the exact opposite of religion, it's saying there is no God and you can't show there is, the actual definition, to play fair is:
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Religion is the belief in God or Gods, hence Atheism is the exact opposite, there is no other side to this coin, it's a one way argument, Atheism is not a religion, just like not having cancer, isn't a new form of cancer.
Again for another error in your thinking you said:
You just dug into an indefensible position. You want to stand by the statement: "The problem with Theology as a field of study is that Islam [insert criticism]"
Which I never said, claimed or attempted to imply. Theology as I admitted has two meaning, you demonstrated that when you posted them and I'm not arguing that, it really does have two meaning.
1) Attempting to explain the nature of God.
and
2) A field of study.
The original post is about religion, limiting the scope of the definition to only the first meaning, not the second. You can't drag the second meaning in because you're losing ground, which you've never had. The problem with religious theology is that it leads to people doing horrible things, in the name of a God, who can't be shown to exist, that's it, it's a one way argument.
Theology must come after religion, I already said if you disagree that's fine, but instead of accepting to bow out on that point you wanted to argue me, which doesn't change my original stance, it merely shows your impressive ignorance, which as you've already stated you believe in a God, was clear.
The theology of Christianity is summed up in The Bible, which on the very first line says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,", meaning you had to believe in God to accept that statement, th
1. System and software requirements: captured in a product requirements document
2. Analysis: resulting in models, schema, and business rules
3. Design: resulting in the software architecture
4. Coding: the development, proving, and integration of software
5. Testing: the systematic discovery and debugging of defects
6. Operations: the installation, migration, support, and maintenance of complete systems
We don't generally preform the Analysis, as we have the requirements, so step #2 is either gone or extremely minimized. We don't hold design meetings as those are fairly pointless for most software projects, after all the design of the software falls to the coders of the modules, no one else should make the decision on how there software should work, so step 3 is minimized. We definitely code, so we preform that step, testing is part of coding, so we don't make that separate step. We integrate then support, so we don't follow the waterfall process at all, in fact we're not even really very close.
How is science not just "judging by appearances"? Don't you feel a little superficial looking at people and experimenting with them that way?
I'm confused what you mean? Science is a framework for testing, if you can't get repeatable results, then it isn't science, so it's anything but judging by appearance, as for the second point, I don't know what you mean.
Actually what I said was I don't follow a process like Agile or Waterfall, I have never and will never accept using a standardized development methodology, they don't work, they never will. If a project requires a ton of QA and integration, then we give it that treatment, if it doesn't we don't.
Well the requirements are passed from the project management team, which I force them to do, if they aren't up to par, I throw them back and refuse to start working until they are. Once we have them, we sit down for maybe a 1/2 hour period, break the requirements into modules and then throw modules to the teams who can handle them the best. When they're done with there part, they throw them back, I integrate, we do a little bit of integration work and in 90% of cases, we're done. Software development only gets complicated when you complicate it, it can be simple, easy and fun if you want it to be.
I still completely disagree with you, but if that's what we have to settle with then that's okay. I grew up heavily influenced with the falsehood and insanity of Christianity, I know the lies, the hate, the filth and the issues with Christianity.
To address your points, out of order, Atheism is not a theology, at least the way I was implying, which is religious theology. Atheism is not a different view point from the standard zero state system, so it's not a "new" view. Atheism simple says, "Hold on here, you can just assume a God exists and never provide evidence, we won't believe in that, it's bullshit", this does not make it a religious theology, as it's the exact opposite. Atheism rejects the very concept of God and hence breaks the definition. For Atheism to be a religious theology, it would first have to assume God exists and then set to provide it doesn't, which is backwards. Atheisms says there is no God because there is no proof, and indeed, no proof has ever been found, discovered or granted.
To be fair, given the second definition of theology, of course Atheism would fall under this, it's a field of study and interest, just like Math, Science or even Pornography. However also to be fair, I made a point of defining which point I wanted to reference, so it's against good taste to bring in a different definition and hold me accountable to it. This entire thread is about religion, not about fields of study, and hence only the first definition should apply here.
On my second point, Religious Theology has to come after Religious belief. Religious belief is the substance which postulates a God or super being. Without it, you don't have anything to apply the study of the "Nature of God", Religion simply inserts God, Religious Theology tries to explain that God. For instance a Muslim, Christian and Mormon all believe in Religion, they all agree that a God, some God, exists. However they then apply the "flavour" of God they want through Theology. Going about this the other way would make no sense, you can't apply the nature of God, to a God you haven't accepted as existing. You can't say that the Christian God is the one you follow and then say, you believe in God, that logic doesn't work, it doesn't make sense, you have to first say, I believe in God, then say, The Christian God! I honestly feel you have this backwards, but if we disagree so be it, no harm in that.
I know all about religious practices, and I know all about what they represent, the problem is when you start with a flawed assumption, why should anyone take you seriously? You can't tell me that you're sure God exists, present no hard evidence, throw a book at me, then tell me you have evidence, that doesn't work, it's insane. Using that methodology, I could take a piece of paper, write my name at the top, write I'm God, for I revealed it to my self and now I have a holy book that proves I'm God, it's flawed logic.
I disgree, I don't have an abundance of meetings, I don't have an abundance of code reviews, I don't have another developer watching me, I don't have daily / weekly releases and I don't do an insane amount of little incremental additions, so I'm not really doing "Agile" development.
Well my last project used 40 developers, 3 countries and 3 time zones and got a product delivered ahead of time.
The number of developers is completely irrelevant, look at Linux for instance, hundreds of developers, all on there own and yet the product comes together perfectly.
Well my last project used 40 developers, 3 countries and 3 time zones and got a product delivered ahead of time.
My last team was 40+ people and spread over 3 countries, working on 3 different time zones. We all worked this way and delivered the product ahead of the deadline. We all took modules and just hit the gas peddle, so it does work!.
There is no way to optimize the development process for software. Inserting terms such as "Agile" or "Waterfall" really just create bloat and waste time. The best software development process is to have no process and work in the way that fits you best. For instance when I write large software projects, I just start coding, I pick a place to start at and go. I wait until I have large testable blocks completed and then debug and integrate them. I don't follow and form of standard development process and yet have never been held up via a deadline of meeting request.
When developers try and add those stupid terms, they're basically saying that they can't self manage and instead of taking responsibility, they're going to throw silly management methods around in an attempt to streamline a task which is unique to each individual developer and situation.
The only things you need to write good code are the right language, the right platform and proper requirements. Once you have those, you can just start and work to completion.
Theology: the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Islam is based on the theologic concepts presented in the Quar'an which are based on religious concepts of Allah, but without the Quar'an you don't have Islam, you just have a deity based religious forced around a being you don't care about but you admit could of started the universe.
It's the same idea with Christianity, The Bible is the foundation of the religious beliefs of Christians, without it, you're not a Christian. The religous concepts in the bible are the basis for the completely horrid stories in the book. The Bible is the theological guide of Christianity, just as the Quar'an is the theological guide of Islam and The Book of Mormon is the guide of Mormonism.
You said to me:
Religions have a theology, and so do you - when you call it "sky daddy" - you are claiming that god does not exist and is the product of human imagination. So to say "theology is even worse" doesn't make an inkling of sense. It's a field of study, not a specific point of view on which god exists/does not exist. Nonsensical assertion.
So to reiterate, you can have religious views without holding theological views. If you hold a religious view with no theological context then you're a deist, the second you add a "holy" book in to the mix you add a label, such as Muslim or Christian, which means that Theology is really worse then just having a religious view point.
Religion makes a claim that a God or Gods exist. If you can't show us the God or Gods then your claim is debunked until you do. It's not hard, science is a testing frame work and religion has failed it's own test.
That doesn't turn science into a religion. Theology is the attempt, and a poor one, to explain Religion through texts written by the God / Gods you worship, which again no one can prove. Until the Bible is the proven word of God, it's toilet paper.
Religion makes a claim that a God or Gods exist. If you can't show us the God or Gods then your claim is debunked until you do. It's not hard, science is a testing frame work and all religion has failed it's own test.
In college I designed a system which tracked my movement in 3D space and uploaded the coordinates to a MySQL database, which using another app I wrote, could reconstruct a stick figure model of myself in the area :-). I had about 1000 people actually visit the website running it regularly for fun and only one person ever ran the modelling software. My point? It's not a big deal to give off your location, I intentionally did for months and NOTHING happened to me, my work had access, my family had access, even the police had access and look, I'm still perfectly safe. If you still think it's a big deal, just write a quick app to bypass the location tracking and give it false information when you're off work, then you don't have to worry.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
So where did I get that wrong? Religion is defined exactly as the belief in a sky daddy, which as far as science has shown this far in humanity, doesn't need to exist. Hence to believe in sky daddy means you're rejecting science, or you're ignorant of it. Point #1 correct.
Theology: the study of the nature of God and religious belief. -- Which I'm not saying you disagree with, just clarifying the definition.
As for Islam rejecting science, just google it, for the love of the FSM, we have Iman's who say the world doesn't rotate, now how is that anything but a rejection of science? You could claim, incorrectly, that you can be a scientist and believer but really you're trying to battle two view points which can't co-exist. You're trying to battle the logical, rational, mature side of humanity, with the one which wants to hold a blanket, sleep with mommy and daddy during a storm and won't grow up. This doesn't make you a true scientist, it makes you an idiot who's trying to mix your sky daddy with science. Point #2 Correct
science must be outlawed at all costs
Have you or do you live the US right now? Law's are being passed which allow the teaching and promotion of biblical ideals above proven scientific fact. Law's are being passed which outlaw gay marriage and abortions, based on the fact that the bible speaks against it. So exactly how what is false about this point? When you allow the bible to be used as the basis for law, you're directly saying that science must be rejected. The bible speaks of a 6000 year old year, which is absolutely 100% incorrect, in all possible cases, yet we teach children this in schools. Point #3 correct! (I'm on a roll).
because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles 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.
Except you can't say something exists because you can't prove it doesn't and then give that thing magic powers. There have been 0 confirmed miracles, as in none, zip, zilch, notta, 0%, total strike out. Christians can disagree all they want, but science has recognized exactly 0 miracles. As for God showing himself, that's never happened, he was even invited to show himself at freedom fest in front of 30,000 people, yet he didn't. So Point #4 Correct.
it made no sense back in the day and less sense now.
What did I get wrong with this statement? What question is solved by inserting God? What does God do for the question, apart from inserting another portion which needs an explanation? Science has and is explaining everything that we use to attribute to God, so what is left? God explains nothing, it's makes no sense to insert a deity where none need be. Point #5 Correct!
I have a prefect score 5/5, so where did I go wrong?
Oh I know, its insane.
Excellent job reading my post like a Christian, you cherry picked out of context sections and then used those to prove your point, well done!
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
"Hi, I'm Muhammad, I can't write, read or preform simple math. I'm totally illiterate, have epilepsy, like to wear diapers on my head and ride unicorns. Let me tell you about Islam where women are objects, female children, much like Christianity, are rape objects and science must be outlawed at all costs, oh and don't think about drawing a picture of me, or someone could kill you"
Christianity:
"Hi, I'm God, I'm a piss poor engineer who has anger issue and love S&M. I put two or one person in a garden, they had children who killed each other, I allowed incest, rape, murder and slavery. I got really pissed off twice, once I wiped out humanity using a fable which no ration human could believe. I then sent my son to die in the greatest sadomasochist grandstanding in history for being mad at my self, oh and remember to give all your money to the church, because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles."
Mormonism is to stupid to even comment on and the same can be done for ALL religions.
So it's a good thing religious belief is falling, it made no sense back in the day and less sense now. You can't call yourself a logical adult human and believe that your sky daddy created the universe and left no evidence, that isn't rational.
This is Physiology, the field of study where you never validate your results. Once I see this exact study verified by several researchers and across isolated double blind teams then I'll believe it.
Religion should never be tolerated or accepted.
To sum up Islam:
Kill someone because they drew a picture of an epileptic, diaper wearing, schizophrenic, illiterate profit who hears voices and ride imaginary animals, what does it say about how they value logic or reason?
To sum up Christianity:
Commit incestual acts, rape children and female, kill your first born, eliminate humanity and send your son to die in the greatest sadomasochistic grandstanding of all time.
To sum up Moromism:
Native american's are from Isrial and black people turns against go which is why there black.
This is what people believe, how can you honestly take anyone seriously when they say they're religion. I've always held, and it's true, that religion is the security blanket for the scared adult who's to immature to venture out into the world.
A bunch of diaper headed Muslims want to kill people because they're upset that there favourite cartoon character got drawn, isn't that what 2 year olds do?
Why does it matter what you use to test your CS homework, if a centerfold bothers you then maybe you need to mature abit.
Don't they ever switch the planes off? If all you have to do is reboot the system once every 200 days, then just reboot it.
Computer Science, just like Medicine has valid aspects which involve hard science, such as developing a new medication or developing a new data storage mechanism like a Tree / Link List. However where it stops being science is when you're just implementing those solutions, after they've been proven to work and have been flushed out.
If I take a Red / Black tree Library and either write it myself and use it or use an existing one, I'm not doing any kind of science, I'm just applying the existing science to my task. Just as if you take an aspirin for a headache you're not participating in science, your just applying the science to the application.
Science is defined as:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
, Which for the most part is not what programming or development is. I'm very rarely observing new behavior or studying the systematic response of a new system. I'm simply taking what already exists and reapplying it into a new solution.
It's because of this that I feel we should stop using the term science loosely and on a side note the term engineering. If you're not progressing a field of study then you shouldn't apply the term science, feel free to disagree. Just as if you're not designing something new you're engineering. The terms get thrown around in places they don't belong and I think that should stop.