You can't have an isolated belief; all beliefs come with a set of supporting a priori beliefs.
An isolated belief without support is incoherent."
What's "incoherent" is your babbling here.
I don't have "isolated beliefs" lacking "supporting a priori beliefs".
So you must be fantasizing & projecting your own confusions, FRiend.
angryoldfatman: "Science, theology, religion, it all ends when we end.
If we had all the answers to all of the questions we asked of the universe, whether that is via science, theology, religion, or some combination thereof, those answers would be extinct as soon as we are extinct."
Only if you believe nothing transcends the natural world.
And most people don't believe that, nor do they believe in a meaningless eschatological demise of human life.
Of course, such beliefs are not scientific, but rather are theological & religious.
angryoldfatman: "Is Darwin wrong?
Do we not share flesh and blood with other animals that have gone extinct?
If he is wrong, that puts your entire premise into question. If he is wrong, then you are wrong."
Was Darwin wrong about what?
Wrong about some small detail of his evolution theory, or wrong about its basics?
Sorry FRiend, but you have descended into babbling incoherence here.
It time for you to get a grip on your brain, and spit out a cogent idea.
angryoldfatman: "What happens when 'theological truth' contradicts science?
Does science 'win'?
In that case, theology is wrong.
In that case, if you tout theology as being superior somehow to science, you are wrong."
But in one sense, theology, by design & definition does contradict science, in every way, all the time.
That's because science, also by definition and design, only relates to the natural realm, while theology specifically studies the supernatural.
Science -- natural science -- per se does not deny the supernatural, simply by definition, cannot study or evaluate it.
Science -- natural science -- leaves such work to philosophy, metaphysics, theology & religion.
The term which incorporates this scientific outlook is: "methodological naturalism", and it refers to the basic scientific assumption of: natural explanations for natural processes.
All scientists, to work as scientists, must accept the methodological naturalism assumption.
Simultaneously, when they hang up their scientific coats, leave their labs and go home to family, they are free to believe whatever supernatural religion they chose.
But there is also a different form of naturalism, which goes by various names, including "philosophical naturalism", "ontological naturalism", and "metaphysical naturalism" and it refers to the atheistic belief that there is, in fact, no supernatural realm.
It is not scientific, but rather a religious belief which denies the existence of anything beyond the natural realm, and we have seen it publicized widely by such famous scientific atheists as Richard Dawkins.
Philosophical naturalism is widely accepted by many scientists, but unlike methodological naturalism, it's not required to be a scientist, and is very far from universal.
For example, on Free Republic threads we sometimes see astonishing lists of famous scientists, both modern and pre-modern, who were also devout Christians.
So, in a larger sense of separate definitions and realms, natural-science does not conflict with spiritual Christianity, and the Bible is not at war against science.
angryoldfatman: "Otherwise, you believe the same type of things that bucktoothed rednecks from South Alabamissipina do.
Except for that whole nagging litmus test for intelligence called Darwinism."
I'd call your comment here a brain malfunction, mindless stream-of-conscious rubbish.
So I'll say it again: you need to get a grip on your mind, force it to think in coherent, logical & connected sentences.
Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time, FRiend.
angryoldfatman: "There are lessons people learn in their pre-school years as well.
To call seemingly forgotten philosophy 'sophomoric' is the same as calling belief in God and Jesus Christ 'pre-school'."
Nothing wrong with lessons learned in pre-school, as widely popularized by such books as:
"Sophomoric", on the other hand refers to half-baked, immature but highly pretentious expressions of the kind we'd expect from a "wise fool".
Nothing about them is attractive, illuminating or instructive, but that is nearly always overlooked, considering the youth & immaturity of the person expressing them.
However, if sophomoric ideas emanate from somebody old enough to know better, then we get a bit... concerned.
angryoldfatman: "His life, your life, my life, all life -- gone. Science, gone. Theology, gone. Philosophy, gone.
Good, gone. Evil, gone. Fairness, gone. Justice, gone. Truth, gone. Falseness, gone."
Here you write like someone suffering some deep crisis, perhaps in your health at a premature age?
If so, then my suggestion is to seek spiritual help from somebody well qualified to provide it.