China: Putting Muslims into concentration camps for reeducation away from Islam - Polidicks

Or this is what happens when you don't warn about the possibility of something turning into a Holocaust-like situation.

To my knowledge both those examples tend to focus more on internal monologue and personal improvement than worshiping deities or adhering to strict beliefs without any explanation for why you need to adhere to those beliefs. Being educated doesn't equate to atheism, it equates to secularism which is a different concept that doesn't exclude religions that aren't focused on worshiping gods, nor does it exclude more personal religious beliefs that aren't grounded in any one religion or things like deism.

Genocide is the word you're looking for.

Just because the church says faith and the scientific method aren't incompatible doesn't mean they aren't. If they weren't, then that would mean faith could cohabit with the principle of going with the hypothesis that requires the least assumptions, a principle that necessarily leads to either deism or non-deism, and not to any of the current prominent religions that are very specific on what the characteristics of god(s) are and the surrounding mythology. So no, there are plenty of discrepancies between faith and reason, and when you believe that the former is above the latter, you do expose yourself to dogmatic bias and manipulation.

Depends on how you define faith and what the object of your faith is. Accepting the Bible as factually true is objectively and demonstrably in active conflict with science. Attaching any label to a belief in a God that is anything other than deistic automatically gives you extra baggage. If the Bible, the Torah and the Koran are factually incorrect about some things, what reason is there to think they are not also factually incorrect about the existence of God.

It was an older quote though, not the ones you presented. I really need to find it.

So you're saying that, just because religions have details and not just a mere belief in God and nothing further, they automatically are not compatible with science? Kinda bullshit when, specifically posted, there is an actual dogma of one of the largest and oldest Christian churches in the world saying that their faith is always compromising and compatible with science.

On that subject, it would probably shock some people here that the scientist who first came up with the big bang theory was a devout catholic priest. And keep in mind this was back when the majority of scientists, a large number of whom were secular, still held to the idea that the universe had always existed.

Even poetry can be factually incorrect. My point wasn't about how many people are bible thumpers vs casual "go to church but otherwise don't give a shit" christians. My point was that if elements of the Bible can be shown to be factually incorrect, how can the veracity of its claims about God (an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis) be believed without having double standards of evidence.

I'm saying that the scientific method implies that you assume the hypothesis that is the most probable given the available evidence. There's no evidence towards either deism or non-deism, because those are metaphysical statements that are unprovable by definition. But it is by design more probable that some form of deity exists than that a specific deity with its given traits exists. The scientific way of doing things would be to assume that a deity either exists or not, not that the specific deity as portrayed by a human religion exists. A religion fully compatible with science would thus be simple deism. Bullshit? The mere fact that the catholic church claims that its dogmas are compatible with science doesn't mean they are. This statement holds no value of its own, and that you believe that it is a sufficient counter-argument to my point is pretty telling. You're simply showing faith towards the church's stance.

You both focus on Catholicism while ignoring that there was an explosion of nondenomantional christian religions that came out of the liberal christian revolution of the 1960s. I mention being a UU but that's not the only one. Also you guys are focusing the wrong priority here.

I only mentioned Catholicism in response to a quote, what I said applies to any other religion as well.

You can't apply it to UUism and others like it because we have agnostic and atheists in our congregation. My minister is an atheist.

I'll admit I have no idea what UUism is.

Because nondenominational are a very small minority of Christianity as a whole. And along with that liberal Christian thought also came the fundamentalism Christianity with it (that is also a minority).

That's a fair point. Still I feel like we've gone off track here.

Unitarianism is fundamentally not Christian. The core belief of Christianity is the trinity. Without that, it's a different religion altogether. It may have similarities and grown out of Christianity, but it is not of it.

Unitarianism is fundamentally Protestant.

There some Christians can belief their no spiritual connection between Jesus, God and Holy Spirit while retaining their Christian identity and nature which they are called 'Nontrintiarianists' like Arianism (which was earliest known Christian sects) and there some Protestant denominations like most of Restoration and Unitarian groups follow their own version of Nontrintarian theology. And there know group made by former formers of two Unitarians denominations formed Unitarian Universalism used be just Nontrintarian Christian until some point they become 'Liberal' new religious movement since 1960s.