Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Shell B]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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.