Using science and logic against us.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
Dogmatic evangelical atheism at its best.

Pitch science against Christianity as if the two are contradictory.

The spirit of Darwin's Bulldog is alive and well here.

Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 06:59 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Dogmatic evangelical atheism at its best.

Weeping

Fuck ! you are a dishonest cunt arent you..... there is no such thing as "atheist dogma", I've asked you 4 times in other threads to tell us what that means and yet you continue to use it as your catch phrase without an explaination.

Typical Xtard word salad to seem educated.... you fail !

Now, shoo fly!

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like War Horse's post
24-05-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 06:59 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Pitch science against Christianity as if the two are contradictory.
Christianity does not need science to be contradictory, it is contradictory by itself. Take a look at this christian temple built by those who have taken a vow of poverty:

[Image: vaticano-lujo.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like living thing's post
24-05-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 06:59 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Dogmatic evangelical atheism at its best.

Pitch science against Christianity as if the two are contradictory.

The spirit of Darwin's Bulldog is alive and well here.

Weeping

Facepalm

It's science and FAITH that are contradictory... and by faith, I mean belief in something absent strong evidence, so don't even try that boilerplate false equivocation argument about a faithful spouse. Insofar as Christianity is based in faith, the two are contradictory. Where Christianity is not based in faith, the two are not. How MUCH of Christianity is based on faith, depends on the particular Christian.

In any event, Paleolithic was obviously objecting to your implication that science owes its origins to Christianity by citing one of the earliest founders of the scientific method... a Muslim. His point was that the human race in general invented the scientific process, and you cannot give sole credit or even the lion's share of credit to Christians. When you cast that as an attack on the humanity of Christians, either you are being patently dishonest, or you are demonstrating the reading comprehension of a six-year-old... or you're being a pretty awesome Poe.

I'm starting to lean towards Poe. It's the most parsimonious explanation of your behavior to date.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
24-05-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 08:23 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 06:59 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Dogmatic evangelical atheism at its best.

Pitch science against Christianity as if the two are contradictory.

The spirit of Darwin's Bulldog is alive and well here.

Weeping

Facepalm

It's science and FAITH that are contradictory... and by faith, I mean belief in something absent strong evidence, so don't even try that boilerplate false equivocation argument about a faithful spouse. Insofar as Christianity is based in faith, the two are contradictory. Where Christianity is not based in faith, the two are not. How MUCH of Christianity is based on faith, depends on the particular Christian.

In any event, Paleolithic was obviously objecting to your implication that science owes its origins to Christianity by citing one of the earliest founders of the scientific method... a Muslim. His point was that the human race in general invented the scientific process, and you cannot give sole credit or even the lion's share of credit to Christians. When you cast that as an attack on the humanity of Christians, either you are being patently dishonest, or you are demonstrating the reading comprehension of a six-year-old... or you're being a pretty awesome Poe.

I'm starting to lean towards Poe. It's the most parsimonious explanation of your behavior to date.

I said many of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

This has yet to be shown to be false.

I could care less if he mentions a Muslim who championed the cause of science early on.

I did not say ALL of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

And no, science and faith are not contradictory. The only way one could argue that they are is to create a strawman of faith.

Faith is simply trusting something that you have reasons to trust in.

And as far as science and theology being contradictory, this is an antiquated view.

Dialogue between science and theology is in a veritable renaissance in the academy.

Numerous societies for promoting this dialogue, like the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, the Science and Religion Forum, the Berkeley Center for Theology and Natural Science, and so forth have sprung up. Especially significant have been the on-going conferences sponsored by the Berkeley Center and the Vatican Observatory, in which prominent scientists like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies have explored the implications of science for theology with prominent theologians like John Polkinghorne and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Not only are there professional journals devoted to the dialogue between science and religion, such as Zygon and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, but, more significantly, secular journals like Nature and the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, also carry articles on the mutual implications of science and theology. The Templeton Foundation has awarded its million dollar Templeton Award in Science and Religion to outstanding integrative thinkers such as Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, and George Ellis for their work in science and religion. The dialogue between science and theology has become so significant in our day that both Cambridge University and Oxford University have established chairs in science and theology.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-t...z32dyUCXpy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I said many of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

This has yet to be shown to be false.

I could care less if he mentions a Muslim who championed the cause of science early on.

I did not say ALL of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

Which is why I said "implication" rather than "claim".

(24-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And no, science and faith are not contradictory. The only way one could argue that they are is to create a strawman of faith.

Faith is simply trusting something that you have reasons to trust in.

Like most words in the English language, "faith" has multiple meanings. I specifically identified which meaning I was using, and also specified that the degree it was applicable to any particular Christian is variable. I would contest your definition, as it REQUIRES (rather than just allows) that the trust is justified. Your definition precludes entirely the possibility of blind faith or unjustified faith. Under the definition you offered, ALL faith is at least somewhat justified.

In any event, none of that goes to the point: That contrary to what you had earlier posted, there was not actually a claim to the effect that Christians weren't human. Since you're not contesting the correction, we're done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
24-05-2014, 09:52 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 08:23 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Facepalm

It's science and FAITH that are contradictory... and by faith, I mean belief in something absent strong evidence, so don't even try that boilerplate false equivocation argument about a faithful spouse. Insofar as Christianity is based in faith, the two are contradictory. Where Christianity is not based in faith, the two are not. How MUCH of Christianity is based on faith, depends on the particular Christian.

In any event, Paleolithic was obviously objecting to your implication that science owes its origins to Christianity by citing one of the earliest founders of the scientific method... a Muslim. His point was that the human race in general invented the scientific process, and you cannot give sole credit or even the lion's share of credit to Christians. When you cast that as an attack on the humanity of Christians, either you are being patently dishonest, or you are demonstrating the reading comprehension of a six-year-old... or you're being a pretty awesome Poe.

I'm starting to lean towards Poe. It's the most parsimonious explanation of your behavior to date.

I said many of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

This has yet to be shown to be false.

I could care less if he mentions a Muslim who championed the cause of science early on.

I did not say ALL of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

And no, science and faith are not contradictory. The only way one could argue that they are is to create a strawman of faith.

Faith is simply trusting something that you have reasons to trust in.

And as far as science and theology being contradictory, this is an antiquated view.

Dialogue between science and theology is in a veritable renaissance in the academy.

Numerous societies for promoting this dialogue, like the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, the Science and Religion Forum, the Berkeley Center for Theology and Natural Science, and so forth have sprung up. Especially significant have been the on-going conferences sponsored by the Berkeley Center and the Vatican Observatory, in which prominent scientists like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies have explored the implications of science for theology with prominent theologians like John Polkinghorne and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Not only are there professional journals devoted to the dialogue between science and religion, such as Zygon and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, but, more significantly, secular journals like Nature and the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, also carry articles on the mutual implications of science and theology. The Templeton Foundation has awarded its million dollar Templeton Award in Science and Religion to outstanding integrative thinkers such as Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, and George Ellis for their work in science and religion. The dialogue between science and theology has become so significant in our day that both Cambridge University and Oxford University have established chairs in science and theology.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-t...z32dyUCXpy

Many of the early pioneers in science where christian, at least in the west. The first notable scientists to start using experimentation in order to prove things were actually muslims in Baghdad. I don't believe your point is that christian scientists are the only ones that contributed, merely that is is possible to be both a christian and a scientists.

I am glad that a new world view of religion is starting to emerge in religious institutions. It doesn't really make sense to hold the bible as true while simultaneously believing everything it says about science and history is wrong, but I would much rather have knowledgeable christians engaging in willful cognitive dissonance than ignorant christians engaging in willful ignorance.

On a last note, faith is belief in something for which you lack significant evidence to know outright. From dictionary.com

faith [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 06:57 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:21 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  That's bullshit. It was humans who made the scientific method.

I guess Christians are no longer humans...

GaspOhmy

You sound like Taq

Quite less evolved humans, anyway.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
25-05-2014, 03:03 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
Unfortunately using the scientific method or even developing sound scientific principles doesn't prevent your mind from believing all kinds of bullshit. One would hope that it would but we have more than a few brilliant scientists who are also very religious.

This goes to show that the brain can be rational on one subject and irrational on another.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
25-05-2014, 03:52 AM
RE: Using science and logic against us.
(24-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I said many of the early pioneers of the scientific method were Christians.

That's because the church had all the money and power, and could employ people to sit around thinking. They also employed or sponsored all the best musicians and artists.

(24-05-2014 08:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I could care less if he mentions a Muslim who championed the cause of science early on.

*couldn't care less

There was a point when muslims were at the forefront of science and medicine, before Al Ghazaali shut them down because science is sorcery.

"While religions tell us next to nothing useful or true about the universe, they do tell us an enormous amount - perhaps an embarrassing amount - about ourselves, about what we value, fear and lust after." Iain M Banks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes daylightisabadthing's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: