Science and morality cannot co-exist because for science and morality to co-exist scientists have to give way to morality to be the guiding force for all actions scientists take.

Example, look at how science uses animals, cruelty to animals is illegal but why can science use animals to advance their efforts?

Science uses animals to advance their research and this is immoral, but the argument against this is it is for the greater good.

Who's greater good, the greater good of general population or mega corporations? Science is steeped in greed and self glorification; greed from the business perspective and self glorification from the nobel prize perspective

Science and morality will never co-exist, because for science to advance (in one of many aspects) there always has to be a guinea pig and money, and the only way to prove the scientists efforts are worth funding is through experimentation or some profound find.

You're right, atheists do make their claim God does not exist at all, but not one atheist has proved their claim and position even "once". Here is the polemic argument of an agnostic against atheism.

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

How do you know? Is this "guess" based on observation? FYI, anyone can say anything to try and disprove something inexplicable.

If this comes from CNN why shouldn't they be shut down for egregious display of modern day oppression and slavery. They themselves are using their platform to get a rally going to shut down one voice. Could this one voice be so damaging to American belief system better shut him up? In a day and age when the main mantra of the day is equal rights and equality for everyone this is what comes out of the wood works. I don't believe in equal rights for everyone but I do believe everyone is allowed to have their say.

Agreed..............................................................................................

You don't even know who he is. Get your facts straight before you start making accusations you little twit!!!!!

Thought you were a Jew Super Stupid ????

What is wrong with Jewish people???? State your claim, but don't run down another race especially Jewish people to make your point heard. You sound like a person who loves to be heard, and to get your point out there you will use racial slurs to assist your efforts. If you can't articulate your point with class and style don't make one!

Equal rights is an illusion society uses to get the perspective heard! Here is a question: Same sex marriage is an abomination. Do I have an equal right to say what I believe without any sort of retaliation? And if so, why? However if not, why not?

Hey man, I agree with your argument for the most part however if the 2nd amendment can be amended when will the issue be resolved because everyone involved in the amending will have their opinions and expect their opinions to be encapsulated in the amendment? Another point is we are talking about politicians on both sides of the debate and they each have their personal agenda, this will be another roadblock to contend with. And here is the unknown factor which is a probability - on a scale of o 1-10 probably around 5 - what about the responsible people who suffer traumatic events which cause them to become embittered and seek revenge of some sort, sad and true we have teenagers suffering cyber-bullying and other atrocities which have a dangerous impact on their psyche etc. For those of us who are not in the seats of authority it's easy to give quick witted solutions to a very complex problem, but dealing with the inherent "person" problem is going to take far more than a few laws and amendments to effect the problems we face. Why not just ban guns altogether? Very noble idea but it won't stop people killing. And what about the people who enjoy hunting should they be banned from a sport they enjoy? Stopping people from enjoying their hobbies because of a few bad apples who ruin the environment for others is unfair. The same argument goes for weekend warriors who enjoy time at the gun range. Why not lower the price for professionals help. I.e psychologists lower their fees to give assistance to people who are mentally unstable. The problem isn't the guns, it is the people who are doing the killing, and the murderers are spiritually, emotionally and mentally unstable. They are unstable both in spirit and soul. To stop a murderer from murdering they need real help, but here is another problem the cost to get real help is really expensive, so what are they to do? Just another perspective to look at this difficult situation from.

Part A) I am simply claiming to understand things that they don't about objective reality because their beliefs happen to be wrong.

Part B) I don't know better than everyone, just people who are wrong about things that I am correct about.

My Argument: The argument against God has and will always be the writer knows better than anyone and everyone else!

You prove my argument by trying to disprove my argument. Are you stupid?

Which nation? Which God? There are multiple cultures with "proofs" of their Gods.

If there are multiple nations with proof about their god, give me another example other than Israel? And proof about the existence of God? Yeshua Hamashiach was God incarnate! Disprove this satatement.

Some things have been found to be historically accurate.

Which parts are historically accurate? I say all of history in relation to the Tanakh is and will always be historically accurate including but not limiting to the miracles contained within.

I'm done wasting my time with this hogwash poppycock drivel.

Four statements to get to the depth of your understanding? You're not even worth arguing against because the depth of your understanding and knowledge base is as shallow as a puddle. Go and read a thousand books about Jesus Christ then come back and argue other wise your a waste of time.