The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

Point out one lie

Just did. You declared that Prof Dawkins made arrogant statements in TGD, then used that declaration to assess the man as arrogant, angry and hate-filled (which you dismiss as "sad"). However, you don't actually present any of these arrogant statements to support your strawman assessment. We are thus free to speculate that you know that you cannot. Thus your declaration is the opposite of honest. The opposite of an honest statement is a dishonest one, or more generally a lie. Unless you prefer the competing interpretation, that you were being unknowingly dishonest, also termed 'gullible'?

What I said was sad was that someone could be so full of hate. I say that he made arrogant statements because he says things like religious people are gullible. He also says things like if government officials are educated, then a significant portion of them should be atheists. He also says he has doubts whether theology should be a subject at all. But honestly out of everything I've said on this forum if the only lie is an objective statement like Dawkins is arrogant, them I'm doing pretty well.

[Cyberman]

Yes, and you based all that on an assertion that Prof Dawkins made arrogant statements in TGD, none of which you quote to substantiate the original assertion.

[Cyberman]

And I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that's your only lie, if I were you. I merely don't get thrown off-track by red herrings.

[Foxaèr]

Ok, let's clear this up. Yes peer review is a valuable tool used to ensure that work is done correctly. Without it science would be nowhere. However, it is not the only indicator that science is being done. Newton did not have his writings peer reviewed, but he was definitely practicing science.

So much convolution.

You are not practicing science. You are learning about that which has already been established, supporting it through peer review.

The great thing is that if Newton had been wrong, we would not be acknowledging him today.

Would you not agree?

[rexbeccarox]

And without that it's only speculation. May be right, may be wrong. There are people with much more experience in the field, and if they don't agree, a worldwide debate will ensue, presenting what everyone has collected on any given topic and coming to a conclusion.

Ok, let's clear this up. Yes peer review is a valuable tool used to ensure that work is done correctly. Without it science would be nowhere. However, it is not the only indicator that science is being done. Newton did not have his writings peer reviewed, but he was definitely practicing science.

I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.

[IATIA]

I say that he made arrogant statements because he says things like religious people are gullible.

(my bold)

They are.  Without a shred of evidence - goddidit - and to hell with scientific fact or theory.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ok, let's clear this up. Yes peer review is a valuable tool used to ensure that work is done correctly. Without it science would be nowhere. However, it is not the only indicator that science is being done. Newton did not have his writings peer reviewed, but he was definitely practicing science.

I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.

And it's a bald-faced lie. It was before the time of scientific journals, but not before peer review. Back then, the few major intellects wrote books and then criticized the works directly, in papers/essays. From one history article about Isaac Newton I found in a quick search:


"Newton was not without his critics, however. Many in the scientific community objected to Newton’s idea of gravity. They said that since he had no logical evidence or proof, then gravity was little more than a supernatural idea. Critics were especially vocal in France where Rene Descartes was the scientific guru that everybody looked up to. The Germans at the time were not too keen on some of Newton’s ideas, either, because they looked up to Gottfried Leibniz. Of course Newton's ideas were so cutting edge that many smart people of that time couldn't figure him out. When the Principia Mathematica came to print in 1686 many of the leading scholars couldn't understand what the whole point of calculus. I'm sure most high school students can sympathize. Many questioned Newton about the practicality of a book of abtract formulas and equations that didn't seem to have much to do with anything to do with "the real world".

The English also felt that Newton’s theories left no room for divine intervention as his laws proposed that the universe ran in a strict clockwork-like operation. In some cases, he was even accused of advocating for deism or, worse yet, atheism.

Newton addressed many of the criticisms from his critics when he published the second edition of the Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1713."

- From http://www.gohistorygo.com/#!isaac-newton/c1yfd

(Bold emphasis my own.)

[AAA]

Ok, let's clear this up. Yes peer review is a valuable tool used to ensure that work is done correctly. Without it science would be nowhere. However, it is not the only indicator that science is being done. Newton did not have his writings peer reviewed, but he was definitely practicing science.

I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.

Really? Because most of his writings weren't read until after he died. Also I still don't get why we can't interpret the peer-reviewed information for ourselves. If you agree that we can, then there is no point in us arguing about it.

[AAA]

I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.

And it's a bald-faced lie. It was before the time of scientific journals, but not before peer review. Back then, the few major intellects wrote books and then criticized the works directly, in papers/essays. From one history article about Isaac Newton I found in a quick search:


"Newton was not without his critics, however. Many in the scientific community objected to Newton’s idea of gravity. They said that since he had no logical evidence or proof, then gravity was little more than a supernatural idea. Critics were especially vocal in France where Rene Descartes was the scientific guru that everybody looked up to. The Germans at the time were not too keen on some of Newton’s ideas, either, because they looked up to Gottfried Leibniz. Of course Newton's ideas were so cutting edge that many smart people of that time couldn't figure him out. When the Principia Mathematica came to print in 1686 many of the leading scholars couldn't understand what the whole point of calculus. I'm sure most high school students can sympathize. Many questioned Newton about the practicality of a book of abtract formulas and equations that didn't seem to have much to do with anything to do with "the real world".

The English also felt that Newton’s theories left no room for divine intervention as his laws proposed that the universe ran in a strict clockwork-like operation. In some cases, he was even accused of advocating for deism or, worse yet, atheism.

Newton addressed many of the criticisms from his critics when he published the second edition of the Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1713."

- From http://www.gohistorygo.com/#!isaac-newton/c1yfd

(Bold emphasis my own.)

So what having your interpretations criticized is peer-review? Well then intelligent design one of the most peer reviewed theories out there. 

No, being critiqued is not the same as being peer-reviewed.

[Foxaèr]

The entire point of peer review is to ensure that, granted, the professor is comfortable with what you have provided. Thus, the bibliography.

However, I was always smart enough to incorporate my own little tidbits into my paper that made it stand out.

Try it.