[Fichori]

One of your primary errors is in believing that you have not made any.

“Cute, but still untrue.” [excerpt]

You appear to have placed an almost religious faith in your infallibility.

But religion does not hinder scientific advancement?

“Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

Yes, in general, religion definitely hinders scientific advancement.

Sure the church sponsored science at one point, but that time is long gone. . . ” [excerpt]

The reason I asked is because there are a number of great scientist who were religious and yet they made great discoveries.

Naturalism is known drivel.

“But only to folks whose credentials are decidedly sparse.” [excerpt]

Popper rejected the naturalistic view.

Are your credentials better than his?

BTW, you didn't answer my question about Popper.

“That's 'cause I don't care. . .” [excerpt]

I noticed that you ignored a few other points I've made, too.

[Filo]

You appear to have placed an almost religious faith in your infallibility.

Working from knowledge has that effect on people.

The reason I asked is because there are a number of great scientist who were religious and yet they made great discoveries.

Which has nothing to do with what I said which is that science on the whole would advance farther and faster without religion.

I admit that there were religious scientists and that the church advanced science at times, but the overall impact is to thwart it. One step forwards, two steps back.

Popper rejected the naturalistic view.

Are your credentials better than his?

Clearly, since I'm right and he's wrong.

I noticed that you ignored a few other points I've made, too.

Absolutely. There's only so much I can do. Eventually you and the rest of the noise machine are going to have to engage your own brains.