My run-in with a pastor
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: My run-in with a pastor
Not sure if this will fit with this thread or not, . . . but from another site, someone asked the theists:

"Name one thing that used to be considered 'supernatural' that now has a naturalistic mechanism. Now, name one thing that once had a naturalistic mechanism that now has a 'supernatural explaination'."

Science and religion seem as far apart as you can get.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DeavonReye's post
21-03-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: My run-in with a pastor
As far as I know the closest thing to a religion of science was put forth by the members of the french revolution. Called the Cult Of Reason, or Religion Of Reason. Sadly thought it was changed to the Cult of The Supreme Being by Robespierre who hated atheism. It leaned towards natural philosophies, reason through logical deduction/induction, and the idea that all people have liberty which is the value of individuals to have control over their own actions.

The Cult of Reason was explicitly humanocentric. Its goal was the perfection of mankind through the attainment of Truth and Liberty, and its guiding principle to this goal was the exercise of the human faculty of Reason. Though atheism was at the core of the cult, it defined itself as more than a mere rejection of gods: in the manner of conventional religion, it encouraged acts of congregational worship.

The cult fostered frequent devotional displays to the ideal of Reason. A careful distinction was always drawn between the rational respect of Reason and the veneration of an idol: "There is one thing that one must not tire telling people," Momoro explained, "Liberty, reason, truth are only abstract beings. They are not gods, for properly speaking, they are part of ourselves."

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: My run-in with a pastor
(21-03-2013 07:44 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Mr. Bill: You asked serious questions, and as is typical, got blustery air for it from freethinkers. The "separation of magisteria" are a necessity as long as mainstream modern science is completely naturalist. In some ways, this is GOOD. I appreciate the scientists who help debunk the talk shows where people "talk to the dead" and all that nonsense. And the Bible asserts that God speaks today primarily through the scriptures and not by revelation. But for the individual, the wise scientist will keep certain things out of his lab but not out of his heart IMHO. Many scientists do--and are afraid to speak their hearts for fear of loss of research dollars, tenure, etc.

The main problem with non-overlapping magisteria is that the bible makes claims about things that happened in the past. Whether or not you want to attribute these to natural or supernatural causes, the bible is still maintaining several facts about what happened in the past. Many of the historical claims, such as the conquest of Jericho by the Israelites, are clearly false whether or not you believe that noise alone caused a stone wall to collapse. But even if we're considering simply what God is allegedly doing now, science can still shed light on whether those things are actually happening (such as demonic possession ) or not, even if you would rather not take the scientific route.

The obvious reason that you (along with many other theists) don't want to evaluate your truth claims with science is because you know they'll fail under scientific scrutiny. After all, do you believe that Islam is outside of science? Should its claims be believed no matter how much they conflict with science?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
21-03-2013, 05:56 PM
RE: My run-in with a pastor
Quote:
(21-03-2013 07:44 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Mr. Bill: You asked serious questions, and as is typical, got blustery air for it from freethinkers. The "separation of magisteria" are a necessity as long as mainstream modern science is completely naturalist. In some ways, this is GOOD. I appreciate the scientists who help debunk the talk shows where people "talk to the dead" and all that nonsense. And the Bible asserts that God speaks today primarily through the scriptures and not by revelation. But for the individual, the wise scientist will keep certain things out of his lab but not out of his heart IMHO. Many scientists do--and are afraid to speak their hearts for fear of loss of research dollars, tenure, etc.
Interesting. What would be an example of a science not based on naturalism?

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheMrBillShow's post
22-03-2013, 01:52 PM
RE: My run-in with a pastor
(21-03-2013 05:56 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  
Quote:
Interesting. What would be an example of a science not based on naturalism?
pseudo science ._. Yes this is sarcasm. Seems its kind of satire to me, yet since a lot more people probably "believe" in pseudo sciences then natural science. This makes shivers run down my spine.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: