Science and religion

[TromboneAtheist]

strodel is a Fallacy Jack in the Box.

Of course he is, he's Christian, right?

[jstrodel]

Life is so beautiful when you are finally free to enjoy it without guilt and self-loathing.

What you call "guilt" and "self loathing" I call spiritual growth, intentional living, consecration and being a consistent philosopher who cares about what I believe.

---

strodel is a Fallacy Jack in the Box.

Then why do most of the people who respond to me typically respond in insults rather than tightly reasoned arguments?

What is a fallacy anyways? I bet you couldn't prove what a fallacy is, from sense perception to language to grounding your presuppositions. Prove me wrong.

[Joel]

Prove me wrong.

That's not how things work.

[jstrodel]

Prove me wrong.

That's not how things work.

You're right, in the world of the atheist critical thinker, you don't have to actually prove the logic or epistemology you use, you simply apply English language debate categories over non-specialized texts written by people who will not even read the opposing side before they write.

The atheist is a critical thinker, par excellence. (as I am writing, someone is going to cite me for an 'ad populum' or a 'no true scottsman' or even use m-w.com to prove how I was wrong because the dictionary said so, just like the pros, right?

Because in real academic journals, they don't make you prove the concepts you use, they let you just cite Anthony Flew as an absolute authority of discerning nuanced truth claims. They would never make you understand the opposing positions fully either - who cares? Make a dildo joke instead.

[thesummerqueen]

1) Christians are all about guilt and suffering as "character builders"

2) People do respond. You, like a lot of the theists here, deliberately ignore what you don't like.

3) I'm not proving shit to you. Especially since you don't even know what a fallacy is.

---

The atheist isn't anything. A critical thinker, rationalist or skeptic is the critical thinker. Again, you don't fucking listen.

[jstrodel]

So today the pastor was saying how science and the bible go hand in hand, but science hasn't yet caught up with the bible.

It sounds as if he's saying that one day, science will be sophisticated enough to prove the non-scientific and supernatural and mystical content of the Bible. I would say that where this is concerned, science will never "catch up with the Bible" because so much that is in the Bible is not scientific. After all, one of the rationalizations that I frequently hear from believers is that god exists on some plane that cannot be understood or explained by science.

I know that the JWs teach that some biblical references show that it's in harmony with science, by showing some texts that can be interpreted that way or compared with what are thought to be common ideas of the time (ie, that blood circulated through the body, or that ants stored up food). Assuming that this is true (that they held views that were contrary to common understanding, but scientifically accurate) does not change the fact that many of the things described in the Bible are unlikely to be confirmed by science because they are supernatural occurrences.

There is nothing unscientific about miracles. No one has ever disproved that miracles could happen and no one ever will. If you are talking about Young Earth Creationism or flood geology or something like that, that it is a different story.

There are so many books written about the relationship between science and the Bible. It is not as if the voices of hundreds of thousands or millions of scientists over the last few hundred years who were Christians around the world have failed to provide any rebuttal to the technocrats bid for power.

---

1) Christians are all about guilt and suffering as "character builders"

2) People do respond. You, like a lot of the theists here, deliberately ignore what you don't like.

3) I'm not proving shit to you. Especially since you don't even know what a fallacy is.

---

The atheist isn't anything. A critical thinker, rationalist or skeptic is the critical thinker. Again, you don't fucking listen.

A fallacy is like a rule that you can easily apply over English language texts that will automatically tell you if a statement is valid, you don't have to do anything, you just read up on what other people consider to be fallacies and then that makes you an intellectual. Just learn from them, that's all you have to do!

[Joel]

That's not how things work.

You're right, in the world of the atheist critical thinker, you don't have to actually prove the logic or epistemology you use, you simply apply English language debate categories over non-specialized texts written by people who will not even read the opposing side before they write.

The atheist is a critical thinker, par excellence. (as I am writing, someone is going to cite me for an 'ad populum' or a 'no true scottsman' or even use m-w.com to prove how I was wrong because the dictionary said so, just like the pros, right?

Because in real academic journals, they don't make you prove the concepts you use, they let you just cite Anthony Flew as an absolute authority of discerning nuanced truth claims. They would never make you understand the opposing positions fully either - who cares? Make a dildo joke instead.

So you understand how these things work, yet you ignore them and carry on your bullshit parade.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your posts are trash Strodel, prove me wrong?

[jstrodel]

The conversational english language is the king of science and academic research. If you prove something in conversational english, man, that kills it!


Albert Einstein one day was writing in a physics journal and he turns around says, screw physics, I'm going for debate rules!

[Tonus]

There is nothing unscientific about miracles. No one has ever disproved that miracles could happen and no one ever will. If you are talking about Young Earth Creationism or flood geology or something like that, that it is a different story.

Has science proven that miracles are possible? I mean the biblical ones. Has anyone turned water to wine? Walked on the surface of a lake or sea? Cured paralysis with a word? Cured blindness with spit and dirt? If miracles are scientific, then they can be reproduced and they can be verified.

There are so many books written about the relationship between science and the Bible. It is not as if the voices of hundreds of thousands or millions of scientists over the last few hundred years who were Christians around the world have failed to provide any rebuttal to the technocrats bid for power.

And what is the essence of those rebuttals? Scientific explanations that allow us to reproduce miracles, or perform them under conditions that allow us to test and verify? Science is pretty straightforward; if miracles are scientific, then science understands the mechanics behind them and can reproduce them, or predict their occurrence reliably and record them clearly.