Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Statler Waldorf]

Stop the train, Waldorf, you just said depends on religion. First, you said "owes its existence to religion." The two are different. I agree with neither, but find it difficult to converse with you because of inconsistencies such as these that mutate the conversation periodically

Red herring. The two are synonymous. I owe my very existence to my parents and my existence depended on my parents. No difference. If you want you can change depends to the past tense, but you really were just grasping at straws here.

Dude, if superpowers included leaps in understanding, you would kick Spiderman's ass. They could be referring to the fact that these doofuses make scientists look even more intelligent

This is obviously not the author’s intent. Just shows how biased you really are on such matters though if you really believe that.

I have told you before, Statler, I have never read a fucking word by Richard Dawkins. What he thinks matters nothing to me. Like I said, give me a fucking chart that links the origins of modern science conclusively to religion. Stop giving me some bullshit about someone else's theory and think for your fucking self

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.

Ignoring and refuting are different

Indeed, unfortunately you have only been engaging in the former.

Excellent, how does he explain science that predates Puritan ideology? I might add that he sounds kind of like a dipshit, given that Puritanism is not that old and science clearly predates it.

Hence why I used the term modern science….wow.

You really don't see that this quote is irrelevant, do you? This only demonstrates that Bacon believed in god. I knew that. Tell me something I don't know.

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.

Hardly surprising that you chose an ambiguous and hokey sounding quote to prove your point

I will try and find a really simple one for you next time, forgive me but I thought it was clear.

So, one dude in the multitude you have quoted actually said what you are trying to say -- though he is entirely incorrect. You really think that a quote is proof of anything?

Quoting an appropriate authority on the subject is completely appropriate.

I could give you a thousand quotes contrary to this

Please do. Or is this just talk?

So, in other words, atheists are responsible for modern science?

*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.

Holy fuck, that isn't even close to what you said. "played a positive role," "may not have arisen."

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.