(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Truth of the matter is, if you required such proof to believe everything in life you would believe nothing

If you had stopped right there, you would have described me very accurately.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Red herring. The two are synonymous.

No, they are not. However, my objection is not necessarily with that lapse in wording, but in a barrage of them. It is as if you are arguing a different point every time I come back here.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is obviously not the author’s intent. Just shows how biased you really are on such matters though if you really believe that.

The little snippet you provided did not suggest the author's intent. Therefore, you can hardly be surprised or make accusations of biases when I find your interpretation of a statement made by another person insufficient as "proof" of your point. I am not biased, despite my atheism. If religion is to blame for something, I will give religion credit for it.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: He is pulling for the same horse in this race as you, but admits the evidence is overwhelming that science owes its existence to religion.

Are those his words or your interpretation of them? Again, I have not read Dawkins and don't plan on it.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Indeed, unfortunately you have only been engaging in the former.

That's bullshit. You are simultaneously replying to my replies whilst accusing me of ignoring your "proof." Do not make baseless accusations against me, Statler. I am one of the rare few here who have the patience to actually reply to you point by point. When enough people lose their patience, you will have to bring your horse and pony show somewhere else to get the negative attention you crave. If you are going to accuse me of ignoring your posts whilst I am replying to them, I am going to lose my patience fast. Then, who will you throw out other people's thoughts and ideas too while avoiding having any of your own?

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hence why I used the term modern science….wow.

Wow yourself, Stat. You can add the spontaneous change from modern science to science to the list of terms you have changed in this argument. Go back and read your posts, Stat. Furthermore, modern science has its origins in science that is not so modern. You are talking about the origins of modern science, yes? Well, that predates the reformation and the ideology that you cited.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Bacon is the father of the empirical method, hence why I quoted him. It’s obvious that his pursuit of knowledge through observation (the foundation of modern science) was a direct result of his Christian faith.

Is he the father of all science? Can you prove that he would not have sought answers were it not for his being Christian? No, you obviously cannot.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I will try and find a really simple one for you next time, forgive me but I thought it was clear.

Suggesting that I am stupid makes you no better than those you are consistently complaining about. Apparently, it is okay to imply stupidity, but if someone comes right out and says it, but isn't immediately banned, I'm biased. You should take the plural out of your standards.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Quoting an appropriate authority on the subject is completely appropriate.

Only if it at least supports a complete argument. You have yet to provide the proof that I said would convince me. If you are correct, that proof would have taken you less time than your posts thusfar. You cannot possibly provide it, so you are playing hopscotch. You would obviously be leaving huge gaps in the origin of modern science if you only used religion based thinking.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Please do. Or is this just talk?

You literally want me to post one thousand quotes when you are the one making a claim which requires proof? I'm surprised this thread can contain your hubris. Tell you what, you give me what I asked for, without gaps leaving out pre-modern thinkers whose work obviously laid stepping stones to "modern science." Don't forget that it must support your outrageous claim. Then, I will give you a thousand links to quotes that refute your claim.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: *face palm* No he is referring to the literal exegetical styles developed by the Christian Reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries. I assure you, they were not atheists.

Oh, is that was he is referring to? See, you should have just put it in your own words so this dummy can understand it. Then, you wouldn't have had to amuse me by slapping yourself in the face.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: He goes on to say that not only was it a positive role but also a “vital role”, which of course you ignored. Truth of the matter is, if you required such proof to believe everything in life you would believe nothing, you are simply engaging in special pleading because this is an inconvenient truth for you as an atheist who admires science.

I did ignore it, because it was contradictory to his first statements. Thus, he is a contradictory retard, which is why I am not surprised you admire him enough to quote him. Please, do not attempt to define my reasoning. No truth is inconvenient for me. As for admiration of science, I am actually more of a history person. I appreciate science and am often awed by it, but I am not "scientific" enough for science to color my ability to see truth. I have simply yet to see you write the truth, for more than a few sentences, of course. Even monkeys could type the truth, given enough time.

This is like the old days at Wimbledon, with Bjorn Borg versus Jimmy Connors.

Well, maybe like Nadal versus Dee.

Was the ancient greek philosphers quest to understand the world down to christianity?

The fact is that people have always wanted to know how stuff worked. some people tried to work it out (often geting it wrong but thats beside the point).

The other explanation people came up wih was 'god did it' which as an argument retards further investigation and stiffles research, there are many examples of the church railling against scientific advances. evolution, cosmology, stem cell research to name just a few.

There was a period in he victorian era when he idea of studying nature to 'discover the work of god' became popular in some churches, most notably the C of E.

Its in this period that some intrepid country vicars managed to make some interesting discoveries.

It is interesting to note that initially darwin was one of these seekers after the work of god, he found no trace of god though and his work actually led to his atheism.

The scientific method is he only way to finally prove the truh of something and no trace of god has ever been found wih it.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, they are not.

Proof?

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: The little snippet you provided did not suggest the author's intent.

He is talking about a “paradox” and says “as strange as it may sound”, so it is obvious he is talking about science, which today is very anti-religious, arising from religion. This is why he uses such terms. Everyone else I have shown that quote to understands it immediately, even other atheists; you are just purposely dragging your feet on it.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Are those his words or your interpretation of them?

I guess it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider Dawkins a reliable source.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: That's bullshit. You are simultaneously replying to my replies whilst accusing me of ignoring your "proof." Do not make baseless accusations against me, Statler. I am one of the rare few here who have the patience to actually reply to you point by point. When enough people lose their patience, you will have to bring your horse and pony show somewhere else to get the negative attention you crave. If you are going to accuse me of ignoring your posts whilst I am replying to them, I am going to lose my patience fast. Then, who will you throw out other people's thoughts and ideas too while avoiding having any of your own?

I never said you were ignoring my posts, I said you were ignoring the evidence I provided in them, which you have. Trust me, you are hardly the pillar of patience on this board, there numerous posters on here with more patience.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Wow yourself, Stat. You can add the spontaneous change from modern science to science to the list of terms you have changed in this argument. Go back and read your posts, Stat. Furthermore, modern science has its origins in science that is not so modern. You are talking about the origins of modern science, yes? Well, that predates the reformation and the ideology that you cited.

You see, this is what bothers me about you. You are just being dishonest, when I actually did go back and look at my original post; this is what I found…

Quote: That's a completely speculative argument, you don't have any idea how many lives WW2 ended up saving, or how many Religion has saved either. Anyways, I was talking about atheism, not modern science (which of course owes its very existence to religion).

So you can accuse me of moving the goalposts all you want, the facts don’t lie though.

As to your second point, modern science’s roots are more in religion than they are the science of the Greeks. The modern scientists (Kepler, Newton, Bacon, and Galileo) viewed nature completely different than the Greeks and put an emphasis on empirical methodology that was absent from the Greek science movement (and all other early science movements). This is why the science/modern science distinction is made, they are very dissimilar.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Is he the father of all science? Can you prove that he would not have sought answers were it not for his being Christian? No, you obviously cannot.

Yes he is, modern science is based upon the scientific method. You are just committing the arguing from ignorance fallacy when you make those speculative arguments. No, I cannot prove he would not have been motivated by something other than religion, but I did just prove with his own words he was motivated by his religion which is the whole point we are discussing.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Suggesting that I am stupid makes you no better than those you are consistently complaining about. Apparently, it is okay to imply stupidity, but if someone comes right out and says it, but isn't immediately banned, I'm biased. You should take the plural out of your standards.

I didn’t ever call you stupid; you implied it when you called a very clear quote I posted “ambiguous”. I think it is more of a pretended ignorance than actual stupidity, you don’t want to own up to what the quote was saying so you pretended to not understand it. So I just said I will find a simpler one next time so you can’t do this. If I thought you were actually stupid I would not waste my time with this discussion, apologies if you took it that way. I have never asked for anyone to be banned for calling me stupid, so that's just a red herring.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: You have yet to provide the proof that I said would convince me.

You have never said what proof would convince you, quotes from historians and the very scientists themselves have not convinced you, it appears nothing will. Now is your chance to tell me exactly what you require though.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: You literally want me to post one thousand quotes when you are the one making a claim which requires proof? I'm surprised this thread can contain your hubris. Tell you what, you give me what I asked for, without gaps leaving out pre-modern thinkers whose work obviously laid stepping stones to "modern science." Don't forget that it must support your outrageous claim. Then, I will give you a thousand links to quotes that refute your claim.

That’s ok, I was just calling your bluff; I knew you didn’t actually have the quotes.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Oh, is that was he is referring to?

Yes, several of the quotes were quite clear there was a change in exegetical style at the time of the Reformation.

(August 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: I did ignore it, because it was contradictory to his first statements. Thus, he is a contradictory retard, which is why I am not surprised you admire him enough to quote him

You are misusing the term contradiction (A and not A in the same time and in the same relationship); something can play both a positive and a vital role, so it is not a contradiction at all. At least you admitted you are ignoring evidence though.

I understand your frustration here Statler. How upsetting it must be to you, to be unable to coerce a group of people into saying what you want them to say. Especially considering those people owe their very livelihoods to the organization which you represent.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I understand your frustration here Statler. How upsetting it must be to you, to be unable to coerce a group of people into saying what you want them to say. Especially considering those people owe their very livelihoods to the organization which you represent.

Shell B is not part of the scientific community, so her livelihood owes nothing to religion. Dawkins is already on board with what I am saying; you guys will all come around eventually.

Prophecy?

(August 3, 2011 at 4:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Prophecy?

No, induction. Where DickDawk leads, atheists follow.

I like how you accuse a guy you don't know of being a dick then proceed to call all atheists his blind followers. I mean, you're a dick, and how many people do you see following you?

(August 3, 2011 at 4:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: you guys will all come around eventually.

We won't. Repeating the same thing doesn't make people believe it. For example, I have persistently insulted you since first bumping into you on this forum, and you still don't believe yourself to be a moron, asshole or idiot.