Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

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).

---

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)

---

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.)