(August 4, 2011 at 7:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: Whatever, Stat. It's there. You know it is. You responded to it.

No I don't know it is there, that's why I asked for you to provide it, especially since you have not proven particularly trustworthy on such claims. I cannot find the word outline anywhere in this discussion prior to you claiming you had been asking for one the entire time. Sounds more like you just moved the goalposts to me.

Quote:Of course you don't. You keep making statements about how shocked you are that not all atheists bow down to Dawkins. I'm not sure how you could still hold that position in this forum, but hell, think what you want. The reason I mention that my disbelief has nothing to do with a fucking book or someone else's opinions is because you keep up with the Dawkins shit. How many goddamn times does one person have to tell you that they don't read Dawkins before you figure it the fuck out and get off that horse?

So you are saying that you arrived at atheism absent of anyone else's writings or opinion? You just one day decided based upon your own original research that God does not exist? I am sorry, but that sounds pretty incredible. How much of the cosmos did you personally explore before you concluded God was not anywhere to be found? I can trace almost every single argument used by atheists on here back to some other source, whether it is Dawkins, Hitchens, Kant, Ehrman, or Russell. You don’t strike me as any different. :-)

Outline is a synonym for chart. Statler Waldorf is a synonym for troll. You are either the most arrogant and willfully obtuse human being I have ever encountered or you are a troll. Either way, I am not wasting my time with your bullshit anymore. Prove your fucking point with a direct link between religion and science. Prove that science would not exist if it were not for religion. You obviously cannot, so I have no reason to return to this thread. I realize that my assessment of you is close enough to rule-breaking to warrant a report, so go ahead and report this post. This "pseudo-mod" would rather take a warning than sit here and try to hold a conversation with someone who is obviously a troll and is not here for reciprocal conversations. I'd be better of talking to my fish.

Googled your position on this Statler. Found an excerpt from "Dance of Deception". (Top return on google no less, +1)

"No, there is no conflict between true science and the Bible, rather, they compliment each other. In general, science deals with the question of 'how' and 'when' .The Bible deals with the question of 'why' and 'who'. They both describe the works of God in different ways. In fact, without Christianity there would be no modern science. Many if not most of the early scientists were Christians i.e. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal ,Bacon, Pasteur, Kelvin, and Maxwell. It is also true that many scientists in the world today believe in God."

I like this one. Pretty sure that most of these guys wore wigs. Perhaps wigs are responsible for modern science? They're also white. Perhaps "whiteness" is responsible for modern science? I also like the "true science" bit. So creepy.

I love that position. As if those men would only have thought the great thoughts they did, and made the great discoveries they did, if they worshiped a deity. That sort of thinking might lead one to believe that the only reason Michael Phelps won so many medals at the Olympics was because he smoked pot,

I was under the impression that this was exactly the case.

But we know that you aren't so shallow as to go on a first impression.

(August 4, 2011 at 8:25 pm)Shell B Wrote: Outline is a synonym for chart. Statler Waldorf is a synonym for troll. You are either the most arrogant and willfully obtuse human being I have ever encountered or you are a troll. Either way, I am not wasting my time with your bullshit anymore. Prove your fucking point with a direct link between religion and science. Prove that science would not exist if it were not for religion. You obviously cannot, so I have no reason to return to this thread. I realize that my assessment of you is close enough to rule-breaking to warrant a report, so go ahead and report this post. This "pseudo-mod" would rather take a warning than sit here and try to hold a conversation with someone who is obviously a troll and is not here for reciprocal conversations. I'd be better of talking to my fish.

Yeah you did this last time we talked too, called me a bunch of names and then ran off. You will be back. Yes, I am sure your fish and you would have a lot in common considering it “lacks a belief” in God just like you and didn’t rely on anyone else to arrive at this position :-P

(August 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Googled your position on this Statler. Found an excerpt from "Dance of Deception". (Top return on google no less, +1)

"No, there is no conflict between true science and the Bible, rather, they compliment each other. In general, science deals with the question of 'how' and 'when' .The Bible deals with the question of 'why' and 'who'. They both describe the works of God in different ways. In fact, without Christianity there would be no modern science. Many if not most of the early scientists were Christians i.e. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal ,Bacon, Pasteur, Kelvin, and Maxwell. It is also true that many scientists in the world today believe in God."

I like this one. Pretty sure that most of these guys wore wigs. Perhaps wigs are responsible for modern science? They're also white. Perhaps "whiteness" is responsible for modern science? I also like the "true science" bit. So creepy.

---

I have never heard of that book. It’s not just my position on this; it’s the majority position with historians today. Can you provide any quotes from the original founders of Modern Science where they say being a Wig directly fueled their science? I provided quotes where they said their faith did, so horrible analogy from you, like always.

(August 4, 2011 at 10:35 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I love that position. As if those men would only have thought the great thoughts they did, and made the great discoveries they did, if they worshiped a deity. That sort of thinking might lead one to believe that the only reason Michael Phelps won so many medals at the Olympics was because he smoked pot,

Come on Epim, arguing that they would have done it without their faith is just an argument from ignorance and pure speculation on your part. The fact of the matter is, modern science arose in Western Europe for a reason. The Christian Reformation changed the way men viewed science, and gave them a logical foundation to believe that nature should be explored and was intelligible to men. Historians confirm this, and more importantly the scientists’ very own writings confirm this.

Excellent, a majority opinion, so you should have endless links to credible professionals saying exactly that. It would save a ton of time if you just went ahead and posted them here for me.

(August 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Excellent, a majority opinion, so you should have endless links to credible professionals saying exactly that. It would save a ton of time if you just went ahead and posted them here for me.

Where have you been? I already posted numerous experts ranging from church historians to science historians who profess at King's College and Oxford.

If the evidence were not overwhelming, why would someone like Richard Dawkins even concede this point? Is he just plain ignorant when it comes to the history of science?

(August 4, 2011 at 8:15 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you are saying that you arrived at atheism absent of anyone else's writings or opinion? You just one day decided based upon your own original research that God does not exist? I am sorry, but that sounds pretty incredible.

I did. I was an atheist by the time I was 15 yet I never even picked up a book on it until I was 31. Hell, I didn't even know who Richard Dawkins was until South Park did an episode on him.

As far as original research, one only needs to look at human nature and see the need for control over its environment. This means explaining the cosmos any way possible, regardless of its basis in reality. This doesn't explain lack of a deistic type god, a concept which I claim agnosticism towards, but to me, it is good enough to dismiss any specific god humans have claimed to exist.

My point is that one need not study the cosmos to become an atheist. One only needs to understand how finite the human mind is and how strong the urge to explain the unknown with anything to maintain some sort of illusion of control over it. Any concept of god that lays claim to his/her/its attributes is flawed from the ground up.