Futile confrontations between theists and atheists: how to eliminate them.

[kowalskil]

My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheists appeared in the April 2012 Issue of American Atheist Magazine. The link is:


http://CRAPPY Link to My own Crap.com


Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance,


Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[fj1200]

Internment camps.

[jimnyc]

My article about futile confrontations between theists and atheists appeared in the April 2012 Issue of American Atheist Magazine. The link is:


http://CRAPPY Link to My own Crap.com


Please share this link with other potential readers. Thank you in advance,


Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

Yes, share it now that I have properly edited it for you. Must EVERY single one of your posts contain links to your own site? And you NEVER want to discuss anything you write. I gather you're trying to get your name and links out there as much as possible, but this isn't the place.

[Thunderknuckles]

Thank you!

[logroller]

His conclusion I think is a good one;

The methods of validation and refutation used by scientists and theologians are sufficiently different to justify separation rather than cooperation. Separation will allow theists and atheists to rethink and reformulate basic ideas and methodologies. Until this happens, scientists should not participate in debates about the spiritual world, unless they happen to also be theologians. Likewise, theologians should not participate in debates about the material world, unless they happen to also be scientists. Debates about ways to eliminate existing conflicts might last decades, if not centuries. They are likely to be more productive if conducted separately. noncommercial source for those who give a shit (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html)
that science and theology are too vastly different in their methodology to pursue cooperation. Prerty much a big STFU to those who claim their theistic views are more valid than those of science, and vice versa....And kudos to publishing in an athiest publication as an avowed theist.

[darin]

His conclusion I think is a good one;
noncommercial source for those who give a shit (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html)
that science and theology are too vastly different in their methodology to pursue cooperation. Prerty much a big STFU to those who claim their theistic views are more valid than those of science, and vice versa....And kudos to publishing in an athiest publication as an avowed theist.

Thanks for the summary...after reading your summary I have measured my 'give a shit' meter on the subject in the OP and found the meter reading 'almost none'.

:)

[jimnyc]

His conclusion I think is a good one;
noncommercial source for those who give a shit (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/%7Ekowalski/theo/atheist.html)
that science and theology are too vastly different in their methodology to pursue cooperation. Prerty much a big STFU to those who claim their theistic views are more valid than those of science, and vice versa....And kudos to publishing in an athiest publication as an avowed theist.

His link might be non-commercial - but it still becomes "spam" when plastered onto every single thread he makes, the threads he never bothers to even return to. I'm not a fan of those who have no interest at all in engaging others here but have no problem to swing by and drop links.

[Voted4Reagan]

3496

[aboutime]

3496


3497 I am still reminding everyone I can.

[logroller]

Thanks for the summary...after reading your summary I have measured my 'give a shit' meter on the subject in the OP and found the meter reading 'almost none'.

:)
Almost none= some...So, you're saying you do give a shit.:laugh: