@frozen: not getting into all of this, but one quick comment: technically all science is up for debate. Evolution is the most scientifically sound theory we have (and I believe in evolution), but saying it's not up for debate implies that our understanding of the universe can never change or evolve

The scientific community will not seriously put Evolution up to debate. Evolution has been rigorously substantiated with over a hundred years worth of evidence, constantly piling up. Evolution explains how life on Earth began; it has nothing to do with understanding our Universe as a whole, that's moreso into Physics.

Militant atheism and militant religionism are both annoying. No one should force their belief to someone.

And there is evidence supporting religion so the "religion is fake because it has no evidence and atheism is right because it has evidence" is funny, because your basically saying that what YOU believe in is correct and what others believe in is fake because they have "holes" while atheism has the same holes in it as well.

@frozen: oh I know there's plenty of evidence, but saying it can't be debated or discussed at all isn't true. I'm not saying we're going to disprove evolution, but even just our understanding of how evolution works could always grow

@arcus: New aspects will be added to Evolution but that's the more information we unlock about Evolution as time progresses, but an alternative explanation for origin of life won't be seriously discussed by the scientific community.

Agreed. "There is no compulsion in religion." "To you be your way, to me be mine."

Two quotes from Islam.

@frozen: exactly, so it'll be open to discussion as any new evidence emerges. Without willingness to discuss new ideas we wouldn't have science

I wish it was like this. But the basis of anti-homosexual argument is often religiously backed; and religion getting pushed into the Science class is what my OP is criticizing.

Science is based on evidence; rigorous tests and analysis. Religious is based on faith, and faith is belief without evidence.

New ideas for what?

When scientists discuss Evolution, they contribute new aspects to Evolution as a whole - saying ''all Science is up for debate'' does not mean that the scientific theory of Evolution (as the basis for origin of life) is up for debate.

Since science is based on evidence and observation you can't "prove" god exists via science. But the natural order of the universe and scientific discoveries can lead to God, at that point it becomes philosophy. (i think)

@frozen:

New ideas for anything based on new evidence. As of now there's nothing to seriously debate evolution, but if there was it would have to be considered. That's how science works

@consolemaster001: Science can't prove that God doesn't exist, but Science can't also prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. And on that note, it does not mean ''just because you can't disprove it, there's a 50/50 chance'' --- it could be more in line with 90/10.

But the natural order of the universe and scientific discoveries can lead to God

I don't know what you mean by that.

Scientific theory does put a lot of things up for debate, scientific debate - Evolution just isn't one of them, like Gravity. Should Gravity be challenged too?

@frozen: if there is new evidence that could change our understanding of gravity, then yes

ON A SUNDAY THOUGH!!?

So, you are against religion? Just curious.

And this is the part where people get it wrong, religion HAS evidence, there is evidence in several different countries that support the events that has been transpired in Islam etc.

And the anti-homosexual nature of religion is BS because it isn't true, it's not encouraged in religion but no one said in religion to look down upon those who choose to be homosexual.

@frozen:

I wish it was like this. But the basis of anti-homosexual argument is often religiously backed; and religion getting pushed into the Science class is what my OP is criticizing.

Science is based on evidence; rigorous tests and analysis. Religious is based on faith, and faith is belief without evidence.

As far as the science stuff goes, if there are two decent opposing views. Both should be taught, and let the students see the full points on both and decide for themselves.

On the anti homesexual thing. Yes, as a Muslim, I believe it is a sin. I also believe you have the right to live the way you want to if it's not impending upon anyone else's rights. People being gay or two guys kissing in a bar isn't messing with anyone's rights. The gay marriage shtick is just red meat for politicians to toss out there.

@knightsofdarkness2: There is no evidence for the supernatural deities in religious doctrine.

Specifically, which 'evidence' do you refer to?

I really get annoyed by atheisms and religious people trying to get one another into their religion or beliefs with ''scientific proof''. lol

I'll be honest, I'm a muslim and I'm proud to say that, but I really think that it's annoying when atheists tries to convince other religious people into believing that God doesn't exist, just let it go for fu*ks sake.

The same with religious people, just let the atheists be and let them believe whatever they want, and the religious people whatever they want.

I just think it's funny how people can be this retarded trying to persuade other people into this when you are already happy, what's the point of it exactly?

We're all humans and that is what counts, regardless of God existing or not, we are all humans and we should respect one another's opinions, cause that's one of the things that makes freedom of speechs what it is, respecting other people's opinions.

To be honest, this blog is very, very, very unneccecary, and don't ask me why I think it's unneccecary because that's just a stupid debate to have.

I let people believe what they will because I have no right to force my way of thinking on others. I am more on the side that believes religion and science can work together. I believe in both

I once read this YouTube comment that summed up this case nicely. It was found in the comments of a Vsauce video, sadly I can't remember which. Luckily I saved it to my Google Drive

This comment is made by the user named "ByRTD yO".

1. As far as Science goes, there is no place for Religion, Science is a particularly type of methodology which is based on fact and evidence. You can present Religion, just not in the Science classroom, preferably the Religious classroom. Just because there's a gap in Science, it does not mean Religion should be presented for that sole purpose if there's no evidence or fact backing it up other than a written doctrine

2. So you believe it's sin, if two gay people get married, they aren't impending upon anyone else's right, correct?

http://www.islamreligion.com/category/33/

Apparently Einstein initially rejected the idea of the Big Bang because he was afraid of the religious implications

This is not what I said

I am against Religion being pushed into the Science classroom - where it doesn't belong.

Religion's done good in society, as well as bad - but there is no valid justification for presenting religious belief (e.g. Creationism) in Science.

No, I didn't say that you were against it, even said I was just curious as it says in the sentences you quoted.

I am against Religion being pushed into the Science classroom - where it doesn't belong.

You are against religion being teached to other people in school, or not? If you are, then that's ok, I have nothing against that.

I don't see why not. Science doesn't disprove religion and vice versa.

Science doesn't say God doesn't exist opinions do.

@knightsofdarkness2: That's not evidence. That's an Islam information site which selectively chooses what to contrast and interpret in a particular line of view. On that note, we can use:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

Or:

Religion says that the world was created approximately 5000 years ago. Science may not disprove God, but it often contradicts the specifics of religion.

@frozen:

1. As far as Science goes, there is no place for Religion, Science is a particularly type of methodology which is based on fact and evidence. You can present Religion, just not in theScience classroom, preferably the Religious classroom. Just because there's a gap in Science, it does not mean Religion should be presented for that sole purpose if there's no evidence or fact backing it up other than a written doctrine

2. So you believe it's sin, if two gay people get married, they aren't impending upon anyone else's right, correct?

1. I don't know why they have to be separate. If that's how you feel, shrugs***. God and science all one to me, I don't find them to be competing beliefs.

2. The sin is being gay. I think drinking alcohol, and eating pork is sinful as well.

If Science is inclined to teach everything it cannot disprove then should it also teach Santa Claus and Unicorns?

Science is based on evidence and fact. Religion is based on faith - belief without evidence.

I'm against it being taught in Science and being used as substantiation for laws to oppress, such as anti-Homosexuality.

@frozen said:

@knightsofdarkness2: That's not evidence. That's an Islam information site which selectively chooses what to contrast and interpret in a particular line of view. On that note, we can use:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

Or:

Anyone who spells Koran with a K...I already don't take that ish seriously. Seems like a pretty anti Islamic website.

The biggest issue I see is that militant atheists (or militant religious folk) are dicks.

We don't have to agree. You don't need to be a jerk about it. Imagine if everybody treated you like you were a child because you liked fictional superhero comics. Not a fan of others being condescending? Well atheists often act just like that when dealing with people of faith. "Ohh you believe in an imaginary bearded man. Awwww, so cute."

The atheists I see often are not mature enough to say "I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to dwell on it." Opting instead to more or less push the vibe of "You may as well go play tea party with God, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, child."

When atheists are dicks (and most on this site I've seen are) it just creates friction where none need exist. So go ahead, be a "militant" whatever. Rack up your self serve superiority points and keep your mind open. closed.

I can see this thread turning into a sh*t-storm.

@frozen: Ok, but I would just like to point out that in Islam, we do not ''hate'' and want to ''murder'' all gay people, we just don't think it's the right thing.

Btw, I'm not against homosexuality.

Most I've seen are the same as well. Only an handful I've seen are different. I'm most definitely not generalizing but stating my own personal experience.

@greatcaesarsghost: I mean I think both sides can agree that how old this earth is really isn't an essential. I know Christians who believe the same thing.

I had a class with a professor who studied the bible and the context. Basically arguing the of creation is pointless because it can be interpreted in different ways.

For example:

Sally hit Johnny and Jill found out.

Johnny ran to jill and found out sally hit Johnny.

Jill found out that sally hit Johnny because Johnny ran to Jill.

We all know something happened between Johhny Jill and Sally we just don't know the exact order because the story seems to always change. I don't know if I was completely accurate but I think understand what I mean.

Yep, being Militant doesn't help share ideas. On either side, it just shows arrogance.

You Muslim yo?

@risingbean: I'm fine with Religion as a whole - but what I am not fine with, which can be justified, is forcing Religion into Science. The quote applies:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Should Scientists/Teachers gleefully allow Religion into Science just because people want it there, when Religion completely goes against Scientific foundation?

Allowing Religion into Science isn't being ''open minded'' at all. Being militant in the sense of forcing Religion away from where it should not be is justified. It's not about sharing the idea, but separating Religion and Science. They are fundamentally, not the same.

Hell, the Scientific period occurred hundreds of years after the Religious period/origin.

Science and fiction don't always mix.

@chillxpill: Fair enough.

Basically this.

@lukehero: yes, and I' not a terrorist. Lol. Jk.

Also, I agree with some atheists being real dicks to religious people, most or them are always rude because they can't just respect what you believe in.

Some religious people also try to get people into Jesus, but at least they are not being some huge douchebags in the proccess, and while we are at it, it's even worse to spread propaganda about Islam throughout medias like USA likes to do, rather than involve religion into science.

USA always portrays Islam in a bad way, they make us seem as if we are bad people, in fact, if you go to Afghanistan (my homecountry), you would see how peaceful it actually is, they aren't at war 24/7 like USA is trying to make it seem like.

I'm trying to jump all over you or put words in your mouth. But, if you are alluding to religion = fiction. That's exactly the condescending attitude risingbean was talking about.

@chillxpill:

I mean I think both sides can agree that how old this earth is really isn't an essential.

The Scientific side assert The Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. Religion can differ but Christianity wrongly assert it is 6,000 years old. The age of The Earth is essential.

@lukehero: This video explains why Atheists are irritated by people forcing Religious belief (Homosexuality part).

Assalamualaikum. Hugs, high fives. I don't know people can't just disagree about life style choices & beliefs, and just leave it at that. I work side by side gay men and woman. We place children(straight & gay) into gay foster homes. I can disagree with what someone is doing without trying to force my beliefs upon them.

That's good.

But that does not stop those who cite Religion as justification to go out and stop Homosexuality in law; or actively campaign against it based on Religious doctrine, that is where Atheism must be militant rather than ''respecting their beliefs''.