You see, Huggy, I don't shame you for writing goofy things because you're a Christian and so you have the excuse of being at least mildly brainwashed.
Again, I'll repeat why asserting that Enlightenment comes from Christianity is fallacious:
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy:
1. "Sir Issac Newton believed in alchemy."
2. "Sir Issac Newton made great discoveries in physics."
3. "Ergo, Sir Issac Newton's belief in alchemy enabled his discoveries in physics."
Now replace "alchemy" with "Christianity" and the fallacy is the same. I pointed this out and yet he still continues to claim that because some scientists and other thinkers of the Enlightenment were Christian, that Christianity is what led to the Enlightenment. If he his mind was addled by Christianity, I could understand this behavior. I don't know what his excuse is.
It's kind of like how you wouldn't blame someone who lived in the Dark Ages for being a geocentrist. You also wouldn't blame a four year old for being a geocentrist. But if a grown man in today's age is a geocentrist and he's been educated but still insists on a different conclusion from remedial science, that's not a difference of opinion. That's shameful.
It's also like how saying "Elvis is still alive" is not a matter of personal opinion.
It's not that freethinkers can't have different opinions. It's that we don't have the excuse of our minds being addled by religious indoctrination.
Again, I'll repeat why asserting that Enlightenment comes from Christianity is fallacious:
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy:
1. "Sir Issac Newton believed in alchemy."
2. "Sir Issac Newton made great discoveries in physics."
3. "Ergo, Sir Issac Newton's belief in alchemy enabled his discoveries in physics."
Now replace "alchemy" with "Christianity" and the fallacy is the same. I pointed this out and yet he still continues to claim that because some scientists and other thinkers of the Enlightenment were Christian, that Christianity is what led to the Enlightenment. If he his mind was addled by Christianity, I could understand this behavior. I don't know what his excuse is.
It's kind of like how you wouldn't blame someone who lived in the Dark Ages for being a geocentrist. You also wouldn't blame a four year old for being a geocentrist. But if a grown man in today's age is a geocentrist and he's been educated but still insists on a different conclusion from remedial science, that's not a difference of opinion. That's shameful.
It's also like how saying "Elvis is still alive" is not a matter of personal opinion.
It's not that freethinkers can't have different opinions. It's that we don't have the excuse of our minds being addled by religious indoctrination.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
