You completely miss the point. There are no "atheistic ideologies." Ideologies may include atheism, but atheism itself includes nothing.
You can say the same in regard to theism. Claiming "There is a god or gods." doesn't say "stone the unbelievers" or "go to church" or anything. But people will rarely stop there. People will always try to build a set of values and rules. Because of that people will always develop religions or ideologies. These ideologies may include atheism and a such a ideology can be called "atheistic ideology" just like a theistic ideologies, which will usually be called religions. And just like it often has been a short way from theism to "burn the disbelievers", it also often has been a short way from atheism to "burn the believers".
When a person who is an atheist ascribes to any tenet, proposition, dogma, etc.... it's a 100% guarantee that said concept didn't come from atheism, but from something else.
The same thing is true for theism.
But atheism... it's like being bald.
Not really. Atheists still ascribe to values, morals, tenets, etc. They aren't directly from atheism, just like the values, morals, etc. of theists aren't from Theism but from their religion, but all people ascribe to some kind of values.
Actually it isn't that easy. There is no objective definition of "reason". Different people will consider completely different things to be mandated by reason. Some famous people like Kant or Voltaire believed that while there is no way to prove or disprove god, believe in the existence of god is something that is a result of reason.
Often claiming a "lack of reason" is just another way to say: If you don't share my point of view you are stupid.
Communism, as practiced in the USSR, was essentially a religion in its own right - without personified God, but with dogmas and prophets and heresies and hate.
When you use a functional definition of religion this is true, but this functional definition is tricky, because many social phenomena within highly secular countries are considered to be "religious" too, some even proven by MRI For this reason these functional definition are often abused for rhetorical tricks: If X is consired to be bad, some people will use a functional defintion of religion to show that X is a religion, if Y is consired to be good, then people will use a different definition of religion to show that Y is not a religion, because if they would continue to use the same functional defintion of religion, they used to show that X is a religion, Y would also be consired to be a religion.
Without tricks like this people are unable to keep stupid dogmas like "religion possions everything" because it is pretty easy to see, that while religions are often a force for bad, they are also often a force for good. Or as Freeman Dyson phrased it: "And for bad people to do good things—that [also] takes religion."
Atheism has no dogma; no catechism; no rules, no tenets, no nothing. All atheism consists of is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
The attempt to link atheism to the acts of Hitler, Pol pot, etc., is simply a (very poor) attempt to lessen the obvious responsibility of religion, for myriad religiously-driven murder sprees. It doesn't work unless the listener isn't paying attention. It's lame.
There is no responsibility of religion because such a thing simply doesn't exist. What exists are many different religions. Christianity, Islam or Hinduism can be responsible for murder sprees, but religion can't, because it simply doesn't exist. Or you can say I use religion as a word for the set of all existing religions., but then you need to be fair and accept that other people will use atheism as a word for the set of all existing atheistic ideologies.
You are right about Stalin being an atheist, but it wasn't atheism that motivated his actions. He just generally "eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control. The church was just one of many examples.
I don't think this is true. Clearly many or most of Stalin's crimes can be explained by motivations like greed for power. But thats also true for most of the crimes commited during religious wars. Most of it can also be explained by non-religious motivations like greed for power, resources, money, etc. But during religious wars there are also crimes commited where non-religious motivations fail to explain why people commited these crimes. I believe something similiar is also true for some of the crimes commited by Stalin: You can explain most of his crimes by ""eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control", but for some of his crimes, such an answer fails. Stalin didn't just kill religious leaders, but also killed many almost completely powerless village priests, monks and nuns. There was also the League of the Militant Godless. You'll fail to understand why these people were killed, if you don't look at the role of atheism within the communist ideology.
So atheism wasn't his motivation but communism? Not really, that is just like saying: "Oh religion wasn't part of the reasons for crusades, catholism and the pope was the reason."
Also, for what it's worth, there are color spaces which completely blow Photo CD's color space out of the water in terms of total gamut, if not overall dynamic range, because unlike Photo CD these formats are hard limited at 100% brightness. Example: ProPhoto RGB which, incidentally, was also developed by Kodak and can record many colors which the human eye cannot see!
It gets even worse: XYZ, a colorspace used for e.g. digital cinema and based on the response of the receptors in the eyes contains "imaginary colors" that can't exist in the real world. E.g.: It is impossible to find any mix of wavelengths that will only stimulate the Y/green receptor but not also stimulate the X and Z receptors at least slightly. But XYZ can express "colors" like that, that are supposed to stimulate only one receptor without also slightly stimulating the others, even through response curves of the receptors overlap. Maybe some day direct brain stimulation will make us able to see these colors that can't exist in the real world.
Unfortunately it's mostly academic for now because few displays are capable of accurately rendering a great deal of the tonality those color spaces represent, because 1) DVI is limited to 8 bits per component, and 2) at a certain point you basically need more physical color components, like yellow and violet 'subpixels'.
Well, HDMI and DisplayPort can both do up to 16 bits per component and xvYCC. Also 3 color components are fine for transmission, just for displaying some of these more extreme colors you will need more than three components.
But you've fallen into the trap of confusing the individual with the political process. Take away religion from the political process, and suddenly reason can take place.
Even taking away religion from the political process seems very hard to me, if you don't want to take away democracy at the same time. If most voters are religious, Religion will have influence on the political process.
You should also not forget that nationalism is also strong in that conflict and will also prevent reason from taking place. Even "reason" can prevent reason: The jacobins killed quite a lot of people during the french revolution in the name of reason.
Complex problems are solved by taking simple steps.
And taking away religions is a simple step? I would rather call it an almost impossible step.
Religious dogmas aren't negotiable.
They are pretty negotiable. Just look at history and you will see pretty big changes in religious dogmas. Often dogmas are even the result of negotiations. E.g.: Trinity.
Take away religions and suddenly almost everything is negotiable. See? One simple step towards a possible solution.
There are pletty of secular stuff that is almost unnegotiable. Sometimes that is even a good thing, e.g. human rights aren't negotiable.
I guess that proves you don't have to be religious to fall for overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Religion is part of the problem, but not the main problem.
It is also perfectly possible without the crutch of religion.
I didn't and won't claim otherwise.
Since it religion isn't required for it, it has no place in a discussion of whether or not science and religion are compatible. Stop going off topic.
This doesn't make any sense. This is like me saying "This Java application is compatible with windows" with you answering "It doesn't require windows. Since Windows isn't required for it, it has no place in a discussion of whether or not this application and Windows are compatible." It doesn't matter if the Java application also works with Linux, to answer the question the only important thing is if the application works on Windows.
Basically you're using "substance" as if it exists when you cannot tell it exists.
Begging the question: how do you know it exists?
I don't think it exists, but I'm not a catholic. I think they claim they know this by revelation. This was only an example to show that it is possible to make pretty strange claims without being incompatible with science. To be incompatible you would need to make testable predictions that turn out to be wrong and then still keep them.
Actually doesn't that make it completely INcompatible with science? If it can't be validated with science, it is not compatible with it. Mutually exclusive is not the same as compatible, it's apples and oranges.
Then any moral claim would be incompatible with science. If you say something like "Killing people is bad" that can't be validated with science, either. For science there is no good or bad. You can't measure good or bad. These are meaningless words for science, just like Transubstantiation.
The "substance" changes, but not the "accidents". The "substance" is something that is unobservable. The "accidents" are the observable part of the bread and wine.
You can't win a debate by changing the definition of the words mid-argument. From the dictionary:
They didn't change the definition mid-argument. This stuff is just 500 Years old and they used these words from Substance theory, which is a philosophical theory. I believe Aristotle started using these words.
That is the exact reason this claim, and miracles in general, are incompatible with science.
If I drop a basketball, the "accident" part of the ball (the orange part we can see and weigh) falls to the earth. However, I insist there is also a "substance" part of the ball that flies upward when I drop it. The "substance" rises to geosynchronous orbit, takes on the shape of a beehive hairdo, and stays there forever. However, this "substance" is made of something completely unobservable and the orbiting beehives of it will never be detected. I mean, what's the point? If I wrote a journal article on it for Gravity Monthly and said it was "compatible" with the existing science, I'd be laughed out of the field.
You did get laughed out of the field because if you submit something to a scientific journal, you are expected to publish science not just stuff compatible with science. If you can't tell the difference, you can't be a scientist.
No. Making a claim that can't be checked clearly shows Transubstantiation isn't science, but something doesn't need to be science to be compatible with science. You can't check a claim like "Eating animals is wrong" either, but that doesn't make Veganism incompatible with science. To be incompatible with science you would need to make testable predictions and these must have turned out wrong in the experiments.
Being "Not even wrong" is bad, if you are claiming to be science. Religion doesn't claim to be science. However strong atheism is "not even wrong", too. But often claims to be science. Isn't that possibly worse for science? When people fail to notice what is real science and what is just their personal world view?
Well, if the 'six thousand year' part is correct, then it's off by a factor of almost a million. If I found an economics textbook which claimed that the median annual income in the US was just under five cents, I'd get a new economics textbook, yeah. Kind of an important number to get right, and kind of a ludicrous amount to be off by.
The six thousand year number isn't really in there. People made it up by adding together ages of biblical figures. If you read a economics textbook in a similiar screwed way you could get the idea that ice on the beach is likely $100.
If I can't interpret my economics textbook literally, it sucks as a textbook.
Sure. But "Euclid's Elements" sucks as a math textbook, too. But that doesn't mean it is wrong.
If it's not supposed to be a hard science textbook, but if it's meant to be read as poetry and metaphor, then how do I know what's true and what's not? Maybe Jesus didn't literally exist. Maybe he was a metaphor for generosity, self-sacrifice, death, and renewal. Though if he's supposed to be about sacrifice, sorry, Prometheus has him beat.
Various schools of theology give different answers to that question. You can hear their arguments and decide for yourself if they convince you or not.
It's perfectly scientific to say there is not a mirror universe Earth which is totally inaccessible from our Earth which is currently the exact same as here except that Obama has a goatee, even though there is no evidence and there cannot be any evidence. Don't get caught up in the fact that the statement appears absolute. Consider a case where there can eventually be evidence: it's also possible that the first monkey given a typewriter after 2127 will produce the complete works of Shakespeare on that typewriter, but it's perfectly scientific to say that monkey will not, even though you can say that technically this is possible and you can argue that we won't really know until 2127 at the earliest.
Your examples are pretty different. We got lots of empirical evidence regarding the behaviour of monkeys. It is very reasonable to predict that a monkey given a typewriter won't produce the complete works of Shakespear. But we do nothing about mirror universes. And religions predictions are different: a better match would be there is a mirror universe and we don't know too much about it, but there is important leader with a Goatee there.
That's a strawman. We're talking about religion, not moral values. Why should we think religion and moral values are equivalent?
They aren't and I didn't claim they were identical. But moral values are a important part of all religions. But also rituals are pretty important to religions and some other stuff. Like believe "sense of life" or believe in god. Some of these believes can be incompatible with science, but many of them are compatible.
To give you a bit more of a favorable reading I'd say you personally define religion as something more akin to what most people would call "spiritualism" or something like that. Acknowledging forces greater than yourself, attempting to do good etc. etc. Most people think of "religion" as organized religion, with detailed doctrines etc. The first may or may not be incompatible with science, the second is almost always in conflict with science.
Really? You could please give an example for the later?
"No... I am definitely not christian. The reason I am not is because I do not believe in God; do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God; do not believe in the concept of heaven; and so on. These are all "wonders" and are required by the very definition of christianity."
I wouldn't call these wonders, because they can be true without causing any observable evidence.
Let me give you an example:
Catholics believe in something called "Transubstantiation". The change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of body and blood of Jesus. Sounds completely incompatible with science doesn't it?
Not if we look close enough what the actual claim is:
The "substance" changes, but not the "accidents". The "substance" is something that is unobservable. The "accidents" are the observable part of the bread and wine. This way it is perfectly compatible with science, because it doesn't make any claims that could be proven wrong be science. If there is no way to check if the substance changed, it could have changed or it didn't change. There is no way to check this claim.
If you take away all thease small things, such as world wasn't created in 7 days, and animals were not just created, jessus was just a ordinary guy, then all those leftover bits which are compatible with science are.... Science.
This is like saying: If you take every software application created and then remove all those application incompatible with Linux, then everything that is left is Linux. But clearly a closed source commercial application running on Linux isn't Linux but compatible with Linux.
Just like "love your enemies" is perfectly compatible with science, but it isn't part of science or can be proven or disproven by science.
"If you accept that the world wasn't made in seven days, when the genesis story says it was, then... how can you trust any of it?"
If you find a error in a textbook, would that cause you to loose all trust in its whole content? But the more important question is: Is that even a error or isn't it just a completely wrong way to understand a biblical text? Most of time literal interpretation seems to completely miss the point. They are like claiming "The Fountainhead" is a book about modern architecture. Some answers aren't much smarter either, they are like claiming "There is no real Stanton Institute of Technology, therefore Any Rand's objectivism is proven to always wrong."
Also: The hebrew word used for day in the genesis story can be translated to both "day" and "time span".
I guess that's debatable. (Personally I call that the "Gould Gambit", and do not ascribe to it).
If you call this a gambit you seem to agree that stuff like wonders and virgin birth are only a small part of religions. Because a gambit is small sacrifice to get to a advantageous position. So if you still believe this argument needs debate then you must think that science can prove moral values wrong or how rituals should be done. Scientific claims always need to satisfy the criterion of falsifiability. I don't see any way how anyone could ever falsify any moral claim, unless it is self-contradictory.
I believe they are, but only if you water down the religion side so much it's barely a religion at all.
Some religions claims are incompatible, yes. But even when you water these down, it is still religion. Stuff like wonders and virgin birth are a really small part of what religion is all about. Religions care way more about stuff like values, morals and rituals. Sciene can never be incompatible with these because science describes things, it doesn't assign moral values to them.
Slashdot Mirror
You completely miss the point. There are no "atheistic ideologies." Ideologies may include atheism, but atheism itself includes nothing.
You can say the same in regard to theism. Claiming "There is a god or gods." doesn't say "stone the unbelievers" or "go to church" or anything. But people will rarely stop there. People will always try to build a set of values and rules. Because of that people will always develop religions or ideologies. These ideologies may include atheism and a such a ideology can be called "atheistic ideology" just like a theistic ideologies, which will usually be called religions. And just like it often has been a short way from theism to "burn the disbelievers", it also often has been a short way from atheism to "burn the believers".
When a person who is an atheist ascribes to any tenet, proposition, dogma, etc.... it's a 100% guarantee that said concept didn't come from atheism, but from something else.
The same thing is true for theism.
But atheism... it's like being bald.
Not really. Atheists still ascribe to values, morals, tenets, etc. They aren't directly from atheism, just like the values, morals, etc. of theists aren't from Theism but from their religion, but all people ascribe to some kind of values.
That is easy, reason vs faith.
Actually it isn't that easy. There is no objective definition of "reason". Different people will consider completely different things to be mandated by reason. Some famous people like Kant or Voltaire believed that while there is no way to prove or disprove god, believe in the existence of god is something that is a result of reason.
Often claiming a "lack of reason" is just another way to say: If you don't share my point of view you are stupid.
Communism, as practiced in the USSR, was essentially a religion in its own right - without personified God, but with dogmas and prophets and heresies and hate.
When you use a functional definition of religion this is true, but this functional definition is tricky, because many social phenomena within highly secular countries are considered to be "religious" too, some even proven by MRI
For this reason these functional definition are often abused for rhetorical tricks: If X is consired to be bad, some people will use a functional defintion of religion to show that X is a religion, if Y is consired to be good, then people will use a different definition of religion to show that Y is not a religion, because if they would continue to use the same functional defintion of religion, they used to show that X is a religion, Y would also be consired to be a religion.
Without tricks like this people are unable to keep stupid dogmas like "religion possions everything" because it is pretty easy to see, that while religions are often a force for bad, they are also often a force for good. Or as Freeman Dyson phrased it: "And for bad people to do good things—that [also] takes religion."
Atheism has no dogma; no catechism; no rules, no tenets, no nothing. All atheism consists of is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
The attempt to link atheism to the acts of Hitler, Pol pot, etc., is simply a (very poor) attempt to lessen the obvious responsibility of religion, for myriad religiously-driven murder sprees. It doesn't work unless the listener isn't paying attention. It's lame.
There is no responsibility of religion because such a thing simply doesn't exist. What exists are many different religions. Christianity, Islam or Hinduism can be responsible for murder sprees, but religion can't, because it simply doesn't exist.
Or you can say I use religion as a word for the set of all existing religions., but then you need to be fair and accept that other people will use atheism as a word for the set of all existing atheistic ideologies.
You are right about Stalin being an atheist, but it wasn't atheism that motivated his actions. He just generally "eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control. The church was just one of many examples.
I don't think this is true. Clearly many or most of Stalin's crimes can be explained by motivations like greed for power. But thats also true for most of the crimes commited during religious wars. Most of it can also be explained by non-religious motivations like greed for power, resources, money, etc.
But during religious wars there are also crimes commited where non-religious motivations fail to explain why people commited these crimes. I believe something similiar is also true for some of the crimes commited by Stalin: You can explain most of his crimes by ""eliminated" anybody who had power he could not control", but for some of his crimes, such an answer fails. Stalin didn't just kill religious leaders, but also killed many almost completely powerless village priests, monks and nuns. There was also the League of the Militant Godless. You'll fail to understand why these people were killed, if you don't look at the role of atheism within the communist ideology.
So atheism wasn't his motivation but communism? Not really, that is just like saying: "Oh religion wasn't part of the reasons for crusades, catholism and the pope was the reason."
It doesn't improve the regular FFT but only sparse variants. Image or Audio compression nearly always uses the regular non-sparse FFT.
Also, for what it's worth, there are color spaces which completely blow Photo CD's color space out of the water in terms of total gamut, if not overall dynamic range, because unlike Photo CD these formats are hard limited at 100% brightness. Example: ProPhoto RGB which, incidentally, was also developed by Kodak and can record many colors which the human eye cannot see!
It gets even worse: XYZ, a colorspace used for e.g. digital cinema and based on the response of the receptors in the eyes contains "imaginary colors" that can't exist in the real world. E.g.: It is impossible to find any mix of wavelengths that will only stimulate the Y/green receptor but not also stimulate the X and Z receptors at least slightly. But XYZ can express "colors" like that, that are supposed to stimulate only one receptor without also slightly stimulating the others, even through response curves of the receptors overlap. Maybe some day direct brain stimulation will make us able to see these colors that can't exist in the real world.
Unfortunately it's mostly academic for now because few displays are capable of accurately rendering a great deal of the tonality those color spaces represent, because 1) DVI is limited to 8 bits per component, and 2) at a certain point you basically need more physical color components, like yellow and violet 'subpixels'.
Well, HDMI and DisplayPort can both do up to 16 bits per component and xvYCC. Also 3 color components are fine for transmission, just for displaying some of these more extreme colors you will need more than three components.
But you've fallen into the trap of confusing the individual with the political process. Take away religion from the political process, and suddenly reason can take place.
Even taking away religion from the political process seems very hard to me, if you don't want to take away democracy at the same time. If most voters are religious, Religion will have influence on the political process.
You should also not forget that nationalism is also strong in that conflict and will also prevent reason from taking place. Even "reason" can prevent reason: The jacobins killed quite a lot of people during the french revolution in the name of reason.
Complex problems are solved by taking simple steps.
And taking away religions is a simple step? I would rather call it an almost impossible step.
Religious dogmas aren't negotiable.
They are pretty negotiable. Just look at history and you will see pretty big changes in religious dogmas. Often dogmas are even the result of negotiations. E.g.: Trinity.
Take away religions and suddenly almost everything is negotiable. See? One simple step towards a possible solution.
There are pletty of secular stuff that is almost unnegotiable. Sometimes that is even a good thing, e.g. human rights aren't negotiable.
I guess that proves you don't have to be religious to fall for overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Religion is part of the problem, but not the main problem.
It is also perfectly possible without the crutch of religion.
I didn't and won't claim otherwise.
Since it religion isn't required for it, it has no place in a discussion of whether or not science and religion are compatible. Stop going off topic.
This doesn't make any sense. This is like me saying "This Java application is compatible with windows" with you answering "It doesn't require windows. Since Windows isn't required for it, it has no place in a discussion of whether or not this application and Windows are compatible."
It doesn't matter if the Java application also works with Linux, to answer the question the only important thing is if the application works on Windows.
Basically you're using "substance" as if it exists when you cannot tell it exists.
Begging the question: how do you know it exists?
I don't think it exists, but I'm not a catholic. I think they claim they know this by revelation. This was only an example to show that it is possible to make pretty strange claims without being incompatible with science. To be incompatible you would need to make testable predictions that turn out to be wrong and then still keep them.
Actually doesn't that make it completely INcompatible with science? If it can't be validated with science, it is not compatible with it. Mutually exclusive is not the same as compatible, it's apples and oranges.
Then any moral claim would be incompatible with science. If you say something like "Killing people is bad" that can't be validated with science, either. For science there is no good or bad. You can't measure good or bad. These are meaningless words for science, just like Transubstantiation.
The "substance" changes, but not the "accidents". The "substance" is something that is unobservable. The "accidents" are the observable part of the bread and wine.
You can't win a debate by changing the definition of the words mid-argument. From the dictionary:
They didn't change the definition mid-argument. This stuff is just 500 Years old and they used these words from Substance theory, which is a philosophical theory. I believe Aristotle started using these words.
That is the exact reason this claim, and miracles in general, are incompatible with science.
If I drop a basketball, the "accident" part of the ball (the orange part we can see and weigh) falls to the earth. However, I insist there is also a "substance" part of the ball that flies upward when I drop it. The "substance" rises to geosynchronous orbit, takes on the shape of a beehive hairdo, and stays there forever. However, this "substance" is made of something completely unobservable and the orbiting beehives of it will never be detected. I mean, what's the point? If I wrote a journal article on it for Gravity Monthly and said it was "compatible" with the existing science, I'd be laughed out of the field.
You did get laughed out of the field because if you submit something to a scientific journal, you are expected to publish science not just stuff compatible with science. If you can't tell the difference, you can't be a scientist.
Making it absolutely incompatible with science.
No. Making a claim that can't be checked clearly shows Transubstantiation isn't science, but something doesn't need to be science to be compatible with science. You can't check a claim like "Eating animals is wrong" either, but that doesn't make Veganism incompatible with science.
To be incompatible with science you would need to make testable predictions and these must have turned out wrong in the experiments.
Being "Not even wrong" is bad, if you are claiming to be science. Religion doesn't claim to be science. However strong atheism is "not even wrong", too. But often claims to be science. Isn't that possibly worse for science? When people fail to notice what is real science and what is just their personal world view?
Well, if the 'six thousand year' part is correct, then it's off by a factor of almost a million. If I found an economics textbook which claimed that the median annual income in the US was just under five cents, I'd get a new economics textbook, yeah. Kind of an important number to get right, and kind of a ludicrous amount to be off by.
The six thousand year number isn't really in there. People made it up by adding together ages of biblical figures. If you read a economics textbook in a similiar screwed way you could get the idea that ice on the beach is likely $100.
If I can't interpret my economics textbook literally, it sucks as a textbook.
Sure. But "Euclid's Elements" sucks as a math textbook, too. But that doesn't mean it is wrong.
If it's not supposed to be a hard science textbook, but if it's meant to be read as poetry and metaphor, then how do I know what's true and what's not? Maybe Jesus didn't literally exist. Maybe he was a metaphor for generosity, self-sacrifice, death, and renewal. Though if he's supposed to be about sacrifice, sorry, Prometheus has him beat.
Various schools of theology give different answers to that question. You can hear their arguments and decide for yourself if they convince you or not.
It's perfectly scientific to say there is not a mirror universe Earth which is totally inaccessible from our Earth which is currently the exact same as here except that Obama has a goatee, even though there is no evidence and there cannot be any evidence. Don't get caught up in the fact that the statement appears absolute. Consider a case where there can eventually be evidence: it's also possible that the first monkey given a typewriter after 2127 will produce the complete works of Shakespeare on that typewriter, but it's perfectly scientific to say that monkey will not, even though you can say that technically this is possible and you can argue that we won't really know until 2127 at the earliest.
Your examples are pretty different. We got lots of empirical evidence regarding the behaviour of monkeys. It is very reasonable to predict that a monkey given a typewriter won't produce the complete works of Shakespear. But we do nothing about mirror universes. And religions predictions are different: a better match would be there is a mirror universe and we don't know too much about it, but there is important leader with a Goatee there.
That's a strawman. We're talking about religion, not moral values. Why should we think religion and moral values are equivalent?
They aren't and I didn't claim they were identical. But moral values are a important part of all religions. But also rituals are pretty important to religions and some other stuff. Like believe "sense of life" or believe in god. Some of these believes can be incompatible with science, but many of them are compatible.
To give you a bit more of a favorable reading I'd say you personally define religion as something more akin to what most people would call "spiritualism" or something like that. Acknowledging forces greater than yourself, attempting to do good etc. etc. Most people think of "religion" as organized religion, with detailed doctrines etc. The first may or may not be incompatible with science, the second is almost always in conflict with science.
Really? You could please give an example for the later?
"No... I am definitely not christian. The reason I am not is because I do not believe in God; do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God; do not believe in the concept of heaven; and so on. These are all "wonders" and are required by the very definition of christianity."
I wouldn't call these wonders, because they can be true without causing any observable evidence.
Let me give you an example:
Catholics believe in something called "Transubstantiation". The change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of body and blood of Jesus. Sounds completely incompatible with science doesn't it?
Not if we look close enough what the actual claim is:
The "substance" changes, but not the "accidents". The "substance" is something that is unobservable. The "accidents" are the observable part of the bread and wine. This way it is perfectly compatible with science, because it doesn't make any claims that could be proven wrong be science. If there is no way to check if the substance changed, it could have changed or it didn't change. There is no way to check this claim.
If you take away all thease small things, such as world wasn't created in 7 days, and animals were not just created, jessus was just a ordinary guy, then all those leftover bits which are compatible with science are.... Science.
This is like saying: If you take every software application created and then remove all those application incompatible with Linux, then everything that is left is Linux. But clearly a closed source commercial application running on Linux isn't Linux but compatible with Linux.
Just like "love your enemies" is perfectly compatible with science, but it isn't part of science or can be proven or disproven by science.
"If you accept that the world wasn't made in seven days, when the genesis story says it was, then... how can you trust any of it?"
If you find a error in a textbook, would that cause you to loose all trust in its whole content?
But the more important question is:
Is that even a error or isn't it just a completely wrong way to understand a biblical text? Most of time literal interpretation seems to completely miss the point. They are like claiming "The Fountainhead" is a book about modern architecture. Some answers aren't much smarter either, they are like claiming "There is no real Stanton Institute of Technology, therefore Any Rand's objectivism is proven to always wrong."
Also: The hebrew word used for day in the genesis story can be translated to both "day" and "time span".
I guess that's debatable. (Personally I call that the "Gould Gambit", and do not ascribe to it).
If you call this a gambit you seem to agree that stuff like wonders and virgin birth are only a small part of religions. Because a gambit is small sacrifice to get to a advantageous position.
So if you still believe this argument needs debate then you must think that science can prove moral values wrong or how rituals should be done. Scientific claims always need to satisfy the criterion of falsifiability. I don't see any way how anyone could ever falsify any moral claim, unless it is self-contradictory.
I believe they are, but only if you water down the religion side so much it's barely a religion at all.
Some religions claims are incompatible, yes. But even when you water these down, it is still religion. Stuff like wonders and virgin birth are a really small part of what religion is all about. Religions care way more about stuff like values, morals and rituals. Sciene can never be incompatible with these because science describes things, it doesn't assign moral values to them.