(May 31, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Here are some of my thoughts, for anyone who is interested

Always

(May 31, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Disbelief is not a choice. If my brain does not believe a statement, that is a matter of fact. Maybe I am able to give rational reasons which my brain disbelieves it, maybe I can't. Maybe I don't even know why. Brains are complex things. But remember disbelief does not automatically equal belief in the contrary.

Interesting. But then belief is not a choice. Their brains believe a statement as a matter of fact. Maybe they are able to give rational reasons and maybe they can't. Maybe they do not even know why. So as you are not to be criticized should they?

(May 31, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if I couldn't defend my disbelief, that would not automatically change my mind and make me start believing. It may make me evaluate things again, but if nothing else has changed, it's not likely my brain will just suddenly start believing something it didn't before.

A response as acceptable as theirs. Though when they say it they are commonly called stupid, stubborn, bigot, bias, or out of touch with reality.

(May 31, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: As it happens, it's rather easy to defend. But any given atheist may disbelieve for any reason and they have no responsibility to explain why, or to even know why. Neither do theists. I do heartily encourage critical thinking and analysis of all your beliefs, though. I would hope people care that their reasons are sound and they are in touch with these reasons, but really that is up to them to decide.

By easy I take it to mean you defend it by means of your original comment of it not being a choice. We encourage a like!!

(May 31, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: And as people so often forget, saying "I haven't come to a belief about whether there is a god or not" makes you an atheist, and surely you wouldn't ask for reasons why someone is as yet undecided. Not every atheist makes their own claims of belief that the presented claim is in fact false. This is the default, sensible position to approach any claim with. And your position may remain that way indefinitely.

Actually I think those people are called agnostics. And as part of the understanding I would indeed ask them why they are undecided just as asked either side that is decided why they are so decided. I would further disagree that the default sensible position to approach any claim is disbelief. I would even state no one does. The first thing that any claim is subjected to is inquiry regarding its veracity. Such inquiry is predicated upon belief of the claim to an extent that warrants inspection of veracity. Were someone to say something utterly unbelievable I doubt anyone would give it a moments thought or question.

(May 31, 2015 at 4:54 am)robvalue Wrote: It is rather obvious that the existence of any sort of god, whatever the fuck it's meant to mean, is not obvious.

It would seem a great many people and philosophers would disagree.

"There is no argument to prove the existence of God and there is not argument to disprove the existence of God, but there is no more implied existence than that of God." - Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason

Anima, make sure when you are formatting quotes you are using a forward slash "/" for the close quote rather than a backslash "\."

I would argue that Kant was referring to the existence of the concept that is god rather than there being evidence for the existence of the being itself.

(June 1, 2015 at 10:32 am)Rhythm Wrote: A rock meets a higher threshold of proof than god does.  You, apparently, hold god to a lower standard than a rock..and all the mincing of words in the world won't disguise that simple fact - or that your claim regarding what thresholds of proof are available for things other than god -like rocks- is pure bullshit,  Anima.

Don't get me wrong, your standards are your own, that's fine...but lets not stretch that and claim that no higher threshholds are available for other things.   You have low standards, own that....don't make excuses for it.   

Indeed I do. My standard is lower than the atheist and in accordance with that of the scientific method. I hold the threshold of proof in all things to be implicit circumstantial empirical proof.

If that is bullshit than so is all the knowledge supported by it (which is all knowledge supported by experience).

(June 1, 2015 at 11:20 am)Anima Wrote: Indeed I do.  My standard is lower than the atheist and in accordance with that of the scientific method.  I hold the threshold of proof in all things to be implicit circumstantial empirical proof.

If that is bullshit than so is all the knowledge supported by it (which is all knowledge supported by experience).

Your standards are so low because you do not understand what constitutes evidence.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: And the many, many non-Catholics you simply ignore? 

So that is pretty much non-responsive as it is selective sampling.

I believe your quote was against theist which I am defending. As such I am not obligated to provide proof in defense of your position. That is your job to support your claim not mine

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: Which, had you read my response with understanding, was not what I said.

Aristotle's (or Aquinas's or Darwin's or anyone's) ideas do not take into account later ideas.  They must always be evaluated in light of newer knowledge.

They have been so evaluated and not have been considered utterly refuted.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: Because he's a pompous weasel who won't admit that he used the wrong word? 

Considering that I looked the word up before I used it to verify it is the one I wanted I think it is the word I meant to use. I have used it incorrectly before which is why I know that it did not mean magnitude. As my pomp admitted then and admitted in this thread.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: No.  You keep making this error.  It is not lack of proof, it is lack of evidence.  

There is no evidence of any gods.

I am not the one who said there was lack of proof. Do you really think you are going to be better served by the term evidence? I have no problem supplanting the word as the argument does not change. All information considered knowledge is supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence. If held to this standard than sufficient evidence does exist to support the existence of deity or deities. Appeal to a standard of evidence that is explicit direct impirical evidence would render all information considered knowledge as insufficiently evidenced.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: As stated, I have a very difficult time believe that "no" answer is not predicated on anything and is simply a no because.  Now if you wish to stress it is a simple no because, then so be it as long as you are willing to accept a yes because.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: You misunderstand (willfully?) his response.  The lack of belief is because of the lack of evidence.

They claimed it is not. Their statement is that they do not believe because they do not believe.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: [quote='Anima' pid='955826' dateline='1433165756']
How would you propose I answer the claim that religion keeps people ignorant?

By suppressing knowledge and education.

As illustrated by defending my position with various sources from educated people granting knowledge on the subject.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: That was once true of the Catholic Church when it had political power.   It no longer does and is no longer a major factor in science or education.

Islam was an educational power until it turned inward and fundamentalist.  It no longer educates, it only suppresses.

It is still true of the Catholic church world wide and even in the European and western world.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: The Catholic Church had the power, the wealth, and the purpose to educate priests and princes.  It did not extend this to everyone.

They were pretty much the only game in town, so your argument lacks any persuasiveness.

Limited resource means nothing could be extended to everyone. However, the church did extended it to all members of the clergy regardless of social status upon entering the institution. Princes and paupers were educated by the church in the same way.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: You keep making this mistake.  I only ask for evidence.  I am not a rigid thinker like you who demands 'proof'.

I am surprised your cohorts are not criticizing you for abiding by a less rigid standard of evidence
(Though what is implied is what is evidenced is proved and what is proved has evidence)

It was not I who demand "proof". That was your cohorts. But let us play the word game and supplant proof with evidence (which really does not change the argument one iota). Will implicit circumstantial empirical evidence do? That is the only evidence that we have of anything that we state is a fact. And if this will do then as stated before there is sufficient implicit circumstantial empirical evidence to support the theist position.

---

(June 1, 2015 at 11:27 am)Chas Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 11:20 am)Anima Wrote: Indeed I do.  My standard is lower than the atheist and in accordance with that of the scientific method.  I hold the threshold of proof in all things to be implicit circumstantial empirical proof.

If that is bullshit than so is all the knowledge supported by it (which is all knowledge supported by experience).

Your standards are so low because you do not understand what constitutes evidence.

Perhaps you are right. Being that I have been formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics I may have missed that understanding somehow.

Please, help me to understand by telling me what constitutes evidence.

---

(June 1, 2015 at 11:19 am)Kitan Wrote: I would argue that Kant was referring to the existence of the concept that is god rather than there being evidence for the existence of the being itself.

You could argue that. But he was referring to both the ontological and epistemological being of God.

---

(May 31, 2015 at 10:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think we are all biased.  Bias tends to ensure that, once we are headed toward one conclusion, we will keep going in the direction of that conclusion.  That's what bias is, viewing the evidence with a preference for one direction over another.  Thus the atheist reinforces her disbelief while the theist reinforces her belief.  Neither can clearly see the reasons of either side because of the working of that bias.

I became an atheist largely because I recognized that I was using reason inconsistently in support of my beliefs.  Now, having embraced atheism, I'm greeted with a host of ostensible 'reasons' for maintaining my disbelief.  Standard arguments, about the incompatibility of various religious beliefs, their geographic dispersion, objections to various theist arguments, and so forth.  To say that I disbelieve due to a lack of evidence would, I think be in error.  I disbelieve, and then I have reasons which reinforce my disbelief.  Just as a theist believes, and then has reasons for that belief.

In short, I recognize that part of my disbelief is bound up in bias against belief, which leads me to certain reasons, whereas a theist in their bias to believe is bound up in bias to believe.  I don't know what I'm trying to say, other than that I acknowledge I have a bias against theist beliefs.

An excellent post!!! I think this is likely the case for both parties. Though I would hate to think we are prisoners of our own bias. If I might ask what methods do you think one might utilize to overcome their own bias?

(June 1, 2015 at 11:20 am)Anima Wrote: Indeed I do.  My standard is lower than the atheist and in accordance with that of the scientific method.  I hold the threshold of proof in all things to be implicit circumstantial empirical proof.If that is bullshit than so is all the knowledge supported by it (which is all knowledge supported by experience).

LOL, mincing words I see.  Here you go.



-your turn.

(June 1, 2015 at 11:47 am)Anima Wrote:

(May 31, 2015 at 10:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think we are all biased.  Bias tends to ensure that, once we are headed toward one conclusion, we will keep going in the direction of that conclusion.  That's what bias is, viewing the evidence with a preference for one direction over another.  Thus the atheist reinforces her disbelief while the theist reinforces her belief.  Neither can clearly see the reasons of either side because of the working of that bias.

I became an atheist largely because I recognized that I was using reason inconsistently in support of my beliefs.  Now, having embraced atheism, I'm greeted with a host of ostensible 'reasons' for maintaining my disbelief.  Standard arguments, about the incompatibility of various religious beliefs, their geographic dispersion, objections to various theist arguments, and so forth.  To say that I disbelieve due to a lack of evidence would, I think be in error.  I disbelieve, and then I have reasons which reinforce my disbelief.  Just as a theist believes, and then has reasons for that belief.

In short, I recognize that part of my disbelief is bound up in bias against belief, which leads me to certain reasons, whereas a theist in their bias to believe is bound up in bias to believe.  I don't know what I'm trying to say, other than that I acknowledge I have a bias against theist beliefs.

An excellent post!!!  I think this is likely the case for both parties.  Though I would hate to think we are prisoners of our own bias.  If I might ask what methods do you think one might utilize to overcome their own bias?

I believe in the concept of a bias blind spot.  That being that our biases operate at a subconcious level, so it's not possible to gain insight into many of our biases because insight works through introspection, and if the bias operates at the level of the subconscious, there is nothing to introspect.  For example, I may use two different processes in reading the thoughts of someone whom I agree with and when reading someone I disagree with.  My level of scrutiny for errors is considerably relaxed when reading someone I agree with.  However, if I'm reading the arguments of someone I disagree with, I'll deeply analyze the thinking and apply great scrutiny in looking for errors.  I could try to control this double-standard, but it's natural and an unconscious choice I make when I do it.  Being aware that I do it doesn't help me to not do it.  And realistically, what are the options?  I could apply strict scrutiny to the posts of people that I agree with, but that seems like an enormous waste of time and energy.  Or I could apply relaxed scrutiny to the words of the person I disagree with, but that wouldn't serve to deliver the best counters to what the person is saying.  If I fundamentally believe that the person is wrong, then a relaxed standard may lead me to accept an erroneous argument.  So in a sense I'm trapped by my own set of interests.

Wikipedia | Bias blind spot Wrote:The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgement of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one's own judgement. The term was created by Emily Pronin, a social psychologist from Princeton University's Department of Psychology, with colleagues Daniel Lin and Lee Ross. The bias blind spot is named after the visual blind spot.


Causes of bias blindness

The cognitive utilization of bias blind spots may be caused by a variety of other biases and self-deceptions.

Self-enhancement biases may play a role, in that people are motivated to view themselves in a positive light. Biases are generally seen as undesirable, so people tend to think of their own perceptions and judgments as being rational, accurate, and free of bias. The self-enhancement bias also applies when analyzing our own decisions, in that people are likely to think of themselves as better decision makers than others.

People also tend to believe they are aware of "how" and "why" they make their decisions, and therefore conclude that bias did not play a role. Many of our decisions are formed from biases and cognitive shortcuts, which are unconscious processes. By definition, people are unaware of unconscious processes, and therefore cannot see their influence in the decision making process.

When made aware of various biases acting on our perception, decisions, or judgments, research has shown that we are still unable to control them. This contributes to the bias blind spot in that even if one is told that they are biased, they are unable to alter their biased perception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

(June 1, 2015 at 11:47 am)Anima Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: And the many, many non-Catholics you simply ignore? 

So that is pretty much non-responsive as it is selective sampling.

I believe your quote was against theist which I am defending.  As such I am not obligated to provide proof in defense of your position.  That is your job to support your claim not mine

Cherry-picking is dishonest; that is what you are doing.

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: Which, had you read my response with understanding, was not what I said.

Aristotle's (or Aquinas's or Darwin's or anyone's) ideas do not take into account later ideas.  They must always be evaluated in light of newer knowledge.

They have been so evaluated and not have been considered utterly refuted.

Their views on the metaphysical largely have been.

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: Because he's a pompous weasel who won't admit that he used the wrong word? 

Considering that I looked the word up before I used it to verify it is the one I wanted I think it is the word I meant to use.  I have used it incorrectly before which is why I know that it did not mean magnitude.  As my pomp admitted then and admitted in this thread.  

The word makes no sense in the context.

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: No.  You keep making this error.  It is not lack of proof, it is lack of evidence.  

There is no evidence of any gods.

I am not the one who said there was lack of proof. Do you really think you are going to be better served by the term evidence?  I have no problem supplanting the word as the argument does not change.  All information considered knowledge is supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  If held to this standard than sufficient evidence does exist to support the existence of deity or deities.  Appeal to a standard of evidence that is explicit direct impirical evidence would render all information considered knowledge as insufficiently evidenced.

Yes, you are. You keep talking about proof. And, yes, we are better served by talking about evidence rather than proof.

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: They claimed it is not.  Their statement is that they do not believe because they do not believe.

By suppressing knowledge and education.

As illustrated by defending my position with various sources from educated people granting knowledge on the subject.

Is that an intentional misquote?

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: That was once true of the Catholic Church when it had political power.   It no longer does and is no longer a major factor in science or education.

Islam was an educational power until it turned inward and fundamentalist.  It no longer educates, it only suppresses.

It is still true of the Catholic church world wide and even in the European and western world.

What is true of the Catholic Church is that it suppresses science that it doesn't like, e.g. condom use to prevent AIDS.

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: The Catholic Church had the power, the wealth, and the purpose to educate priests and princes.  It did not extend this to everyone.

They were pretty much the only game in town, so your argument lacks any persuasiveness.

Limited resource means nothing could be extended to everyone.  However, the church did extended it to all members of the clergy regardless of social status upon entering the institution.  Princes and paupers were educated by the church in the same way.

Proving my point. Paupers who became priests were educated.

Quote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:39 am)Chas Wrote: You keep making this mistake.  I only ask for evidence.  I am not a rigid thinker like you who demands 'proof'.

I am surprised your cohorts are not criticizing you for abiding by a less rigid standard of evidence
(Though what is implied is what is evidenced is proved and what is proved has evidence)

How do you so consistently misunderstand this? My standards of evidence are not the question, it is your demand for proof.
And, no. What is implied by evidence is not necessarily proved.

Quote:It was not I who demand "proof".  That was your cohorts.  But let us play the word game and supplant proof with evidence (which really does not change the argument one iota).  Will implicit circumstantial empirical evidence do?  That is the only evidence that we have of anything that we state is a fact.  And if this will do then as stated before there is sufficient implicit circumstantial empirical evidence to support the theist position.

---

(June 1, 2015 at 11:27 am)Chas Wrote: Your standards are so low because you do not understand what constitutes evidence.

Perhaps you are right.  Being that I have been formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics I may have missed that understanding somehow.

Please, help me to understand by telling me what constitutes evidence.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that you are "formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics" since you seemingly do not understand the difference between proof and evidence, nor what constitutes evidence.

Evidence must be objective, able to be viewed in principle by anyone.
You internal feels are not evidence.
Philosophical arguments are not evidence.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: A result of his scientific work no doubt and we will claim his religious views had no impact.  On the guy who came up with the theory that states in the beginning there was one thing for an immeasurable amount of time.  And then one day that one thing became everything for no reason whatsoever.  Yeah... That does not sound religious at all...

You really ought to educate yourself in the history of the BBT. It truly is a fascinating story, filled with amazing characters. Your misrepresentation of both these things is grating. Nobody gives a flying fox what sounds religious to you. I thoroughly recommend Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh. I know you won't bother reading it, but others might.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: How would you propose I answer the claim that religion keeps people ignorant?

At this point I would normally ask why you want me to make your case for you in order to rebut it. However, I need only cite your first quote above.

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: I can show that there are 1.3 billion Catholics, 1.7 Billion Muslims and a total of about 7 Billion people on earth.  Thus, about 43% of the worlds population is accounted for by these two religions.

And this proves..?

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: I can show that these two religions were effectively the only advocates, facilitators, financiers, and source of education, scientific, cultural, and political discovery for much of the common era (that is to say until about the 20th century) in monastaries, madrassas, and religious universities.

And this proves..?

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: I can show that most of the scientific discoveries of the common era were done or based off of the work performed by religious clerics who were educated by their faiths in numerous subjects.  As the views has been for centuries that  God is truth, truth supports truth, and one might come to know god better by understanding his creation.

As I said, educate yourself on the subject, because your summation is laughably incorrect on so many levels. Not least of which that you say that you can show this, but without actually showing this.

Last one for a bit. I need to get some work done.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Chas Wrote: Cherry-picking is dishonest; that is what you are doing.

I was not cherry picking. I did not say secular scientist have not made many contributions to science. I was providing support for my counter-position to yours which is not defeated even with the inclusion of additional information. Feel free to add information on your own.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Chas Wrote: Their views on the metaphysical largely have been.

HA HA!! Actually their metaphysical views are largely the aspect that has not been refuted. Aristotle's physics has been largely refuted due to his categorization of elements. But when adjusted for that they stand up to time rather well.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Chas Wrote: The word makes no sense in the context.

Makes sense to me. That is why I used it. But if it is going to make everyone feel better (as we are still talking about it) I USED THE WRONG WORD!! I MEANT QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS AND NOT THE QUALITIES UPON WHICH THE ARGUER (me) EMBARKED UPON THE ARGUMENTS .

Now we may we proceed? Or shall we continue

(June 1, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Chas Wrote: What is true of the Catholic Church is that it suppresses science that it doesn't like, e.g. condom use to prevent AIDS.

Just a few quick questions on this one. What is the 100% way to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS? I know it is not condom use. What could it possibly be? Would the church be okay in advocating a guaranteed 100% method? More to the point could the church be sued for advocating a non-guaranteed method should it fail?

Last I checked the educational promotion was do not text and drive (an abstinence position) rather than text carefully or with protection when you drive. Must be because if a person is not texting while driving they will not get in an accident because they were texting while driving!! Look at that...

Bear with me, this is going to come as a shocker, but the church is not obligated to teach what you think it should teach, what he thinks they should teach, or what she thinks they should teach. Especially if you, he, and she all think they should teach conflicting things. You want that what you think taught...Then teach it! Oh, and do not be like the church and only teach it to a select chosen few. Make sure you teach it to everyone.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Chas Wrote: There doesn't seem to be any evidence that you are "formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics" since you seemingly do not understand the difference between proof and evidence, nor what constitutes evidence.

Shh. Not so loud!! My boss might hear!!

(June 1, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Chas Wrote: Evidence must be objective, able to be viewed in principle by anyone.  
You internal feels are not evidence.  
Philosophical arguments are not evidence.

While I am aware that proof and evidence are not the same thing I think they were being utilized interchangeably up to this point. To change what I have written to evidence will not change my argument. But if we wish to delve further into the distinction.

"A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition... In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Philosophical arguments may serve as evidence (as argued by Aristotle).

---

(June 1, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 11:20 am)Anima Wrote: Indeed I do.  My standard is lower than the atheist and in accordance with that of the scientific method.  I hold the threshold of proof in all things to be implicit circumstantial empirical proof.If that is bullshit than so is all the knowledge supported by it (which is all knowledge supported by experience).

LOL, mincing words I see.  Here you go.



-your turn.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/d...ya3825.jpg

Haha (okay I admit to just being a smart ass with this one)

---

(June 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: A result of his scientific work no doubt and we will claim his religious views had no impact.  On the guy who came up with the theory that states in the beginning there was one thing for an immeasurable amount of time.  And then one day that one thing became everything for no reason whatsoever.  Yeah... That does not sound religious at all...

You really ought to educate yourself in the history of the BBT. It truly is a fascinating story, filled with amazing characters. Your misrepresentation of both these things is grating. Nobody gives a flying fox what sounds religious to you. I thoroughly recommend Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh. I know you won't bother reading it, but others might.

I will try to take some time to give it a read.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: At this point I would normally ask why you want me to make your case for you in order to rebut it. However, I need only cite your first quote above.

According to Chas if you do not provide evidence of my side you are cherry picking!

(June 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: I can show that there are 1.3 billion Catholics, 1.7 Billion Muslims and a total of about 7 Billion people on earth.  Thus, about 43% of the worlds population is accounted for by these two religions.

And this proves..?

That 43% of the world population is accounted for by these two religions and that they may be said to represent the majority of religious persons.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: I can show that these two religions were effectively the only advocates, facilitators, financiers, and source of education, scientific, cultural, and political discovery for much of the common era (that is to say until about the 20th century) in monastaries, madrassas, and religious universities.

And this proves..?

That both of these religions have been advocates of education for nearly 2000 years. So ones recent interaction with an ignorant theist is not representative of the 2000 year history of the majority of the religious population.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: I can show that most of the scientific discoveries of the common era were done or based off of the work performed by religious clerics who were educated by their faiths in numerous subjects.  As the views has been for centuries that  God is truth, truth supports truth, and one might come to know god better by understanding his creation.

As I said, educate yourself on the subject, because your summation is laughably incorrect on so many levels. Not least of which that you say that you can show this, but without actually showing this.

[/quote]

Already shown in other posts including links regarding the history of education and history of science. (Which I see were followed and read as much as I have read the book you recommend on the big bang theory. I am sure you will get to it.)