Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Chas]

No, we don't.  We use the modern scientific method which is the result of not just Aristotle's thinking, but includes the contributions of others.

You are correct sir!!!  Enjoy the following list:

The Clerics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

The Catholics, but not necessarily clerics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists

And the many, many non-Catholics you simply ignore? 

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

---

That's not what I said at all. I asked how you can be certain that older 'theories' carry more wisdom than later writings by virtue of them being older, as you appear to be suggesting?

My response was to chas statement about holding onto old theories.  I am not saying they carry more wisdom by virtue of them being old.  I am saying he is not justified in saying a theory carries more wisdom by virtue of it being newer any more than I would be justified in saying by virtue of it being old.

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.

---

A very understandable and laudable ambition. I'm just left wondering why you chose a word which didn't convey a meaning suhhested by the context.

Because he's a pompous weasel who won't admit that he used the wrong word? 

---

Once again.  If I ask why you do not believe god claims your answer would be unjustified in saying because.  So the common answer has been "lack of proof".  To which my response is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite you should not believe any claims which fail to meet that standard of proof. Then when asked what standard of proof the general answer is direct explicit empirical proof.  To which I respond that only tautologies shall meet such a level of proof.  Nothing else reasoned or experienced will meet such a threshold of proof.

No. You keep making this error. It is not lack of proof, it is lack of evidence.

There is no evidence of any gods.

---

That -is- all that people are expressing to you, when they tell you that atheism is a only a no answer regarding their status of belief in gods (not whatever other things you might be tempted to attach..like "darwinism" or "scientism" or even skepticism......)  It's useful to remind people of this, because we see no end of statement such as:

"Atheism can't be true, because I've never found a crocoduck in my peanut butter jar!"
-not atheism (just in case you were wondering)

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.

You misunderstand (willfully?) his response. The lack of belief is because of the lack of evidence.

---

How would you propose I answer the claim that religion keeps people ignorant?

By suppressing knowledge and education.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But, because various people on this forum have anecdotal evidence of ignorant religious people (most of whom I suspect would be evangelical, CHRISTIANS ARE NOT A MONOLITH!! ) they would like to say that religion as a whole keeps people ignorant.

So be it, but by that same argument the great majority of anecdotal evidence I have of atheistic people (who are not a monolith) is that atheism deprives them of a full set of consideration and understanding that science, culture, art, politics, and yes even reality demand from them.  I see atheist contorting themselves to hold their views far more than I see theists.  I see the view of atheists ignore more evidence with the "prove it" requirement than I see theist with the "I do not believe it" statement (I also have it on good authority from Robovalue that they had no choice in believing it or not).  So might I say atheism keeps people ignorant?

You keep making this mistake. I only ask for evidence. I am not a rigid thinker like you who demands 'proof'.