Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[Minimalist]

The idea that Jesus didnt exist is held by a small minority of scholars and is ridiculous.

Translation: You don't know of any real evidence so you listen to religious con men who tell you what you want to hear.

[solja247]

What do you say about other stories prior to that of your saviour following the same narrative of, virgin births, having disciples follow them, being killed then being resurrected then ascending to their fathers in the heavens? Why don't you follow any of them god's?

I havent done any research on other 'saviours' to say anything...

It's both hilarious and show the logical falacies

Shows the Atheist fallacies, trying to refute theistic arguments in commics or theist fallacies?

If by 'minority of scholars', you mean 'majority of historians' then yes, you'd be correct.

What scholars would that be?

When it stops being true, people will stop using it as an arguement. You can't hold irrational beliefs in the same light as science and skeptical rationality otherwise you really are committing intellectual suicide.

This idea of being a skeptic is rather old. Being overly skeptic is being subjective and less likely to see what is real. If you dont believe something is real, it isnt, even if it did hit you in the face...

You believe in what is essentially magic, human resurrection from the dead, and a hyperintelligent superbeing whose only notable contribution to the modern world is religion - whose only notable contribution to the world involves killing people who offend their religion if they arent' also scamming people out of their money or attempting to convert the world into their faith.

Modern Science owes its existence to Christians. Your attempting to use an argument which is ridiculous. Why are Atheists so niave and ignorant, that if Religion was removed the world would not be a better place! People would find something else to fight about!

The difference between science and religion in terms of the creation of the universe is that religion states it has all the answers and science does not. It has theories based on what we know and some but not nearly enough answers.

SOME religious people claim they have all the answers SOME.

Even if they both get Fs on that particular test, science has done more to answer the question than religion ever can. What, after all, has religion ever done to answer these questions that have any supporting, repeatable answers to any of this?

Thats not true at all. Science and Religion are both ignorant to how the universe began. I find it fascinating what we are uncovering, Religion says, 'God did it all.' Science says, 'Ummm not to sure, will give you an answer shortly/later/never'

You certainly do but science has some answers that have allowed humankind to glimpse into how the universe began to come to be in its current form far more succinctly with each passing year and each discovery in physics, astronomy, and astrophysics.

Our understanding of the universe is so primitive, it would be hard to take any theory about the origins of the universe seriously...

67% of the entire world disagrees with that assessment.

Interesting. Lack of belief doesnt mean anything though...

---

Translation: You don't know of any real evidence so you listen to religious con men who tell you what you want to hear.

Please give me some names of scholars who dont believe Jesus wasnt a real person.

[krazedkat]

They are things that you are attributing to a god, there is no evidence those things are due to a god. It's an argument for your opinion of a god existing, nothing more. Don't try and claim those things are evidence for a god. Also, Appearance of design does not mean there is design.

We can only decide three things:

1. God did it
2. Chance did it
3. I have no dam idea

I choose number 1, although number 3 is a better stance to take though...

A) It is simply ridiculous to say there are only 3 options here. You forget many things, there are (essentially) an unlimited amount of options. For one you forgot that godS did it (polytheism).
B) If 3 is better then why in the world would you choose 1 you fool?!

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

What scholars would that be?

Trick question based on a fallacious statement of mine - it's actually completely irrelevant not one scholar has produced proof of anything like one Jesus H. Christ of Bible fame.
No bones, no dental records, no written records, no journalistic records, no credible eye witness accounts, nothing.
As far as the scholars and their opinions, I've never found a credible scientific paper on the topic. I'm sure you can find scholars who are religious but I'm also sure they'll say that they believe the accounts and I'm also certain that their professional careers will end as soon as they assert something that isn't grounded in evidence, like the existance of one Jesus H. Christ of Bible fame.

This idea of being a skeptic is rather old. Being overly skeptic is being subjective and less likely to see what is real. If you dont believe something is real, it isnt, even if it did hit you in the face...

And if you're not skeptical enough, you simply become a gullible lout who believes in honest politicians, moral lawyers, FOX news as a balanced and trustworthy news organization, that you can get that million dollars if you just send that nigerian prince a few thousand of your own dollars, and creationism.
Each person in the world is going to set their limits to whatever limit they think is reasonable and logical. The problem with religion in this regard is that it is neither but otherwise reasonable and logical people accept it as such anyway because, as one poster around here put it, mankind is not so much a rational animal as a rationalizing one.

Modern Science owes its existence to Christians. Your attempting to use an argument which is ridiculous. Why are Atheists so niave and ignorant, that if Religion was removed the world would not be a better place! People would find something else to fight about!

Have you been to the middle east lately? Have you visted the dark ages?
These places are the way they are precisely because religion and church took over. Science got it's bearings and skyrocketed in prominance "coincidently" at the same times that people figured out that secular governments work better than theocracies or when there was no religion at all (the invention of language arrived before any organized religion - as such, by default, science came before religion.)

SOME religious people claim they have all the answers SOME.

All religions make claims that are completely lacking in both empirical evidence-based support and sometimes even logic and good reasoning.
By default, a theist is already making a claim to have answers about which no human could possible know.

Thats not true at all. Science and Religion are both ignorant to how the universe began. I find it fascinating what we are uncovering, Religion says, 'God did it all.' Science says, 'Ummm not to sure, will give you an answer shortly/later/never'

That's not entirely true either. Science can give actual answers and has even already provided some. We know things about the universe when the bible tells us that light existed before the sun and stars, the earth is surrounded by a dome that, when cracked, caused Noah's flood. It tells us to believe in God's magic (aka miracles) and to do exactly as he tells us or he'll murder us all - in some cases, horrifically as well as sadistically (he turned one man's wife into a pillar of salt).
Religion has fought science at every step and every discovery.

Our understanding of the universe is so primitive, it would be hard to take any theory about the origins of the universe seriously...

A limited understanding doesn't mean our understanding is wrong. There is a great deal we know for a fact about the beginnings of our universe and we generally know where to keep looking for new discoveries.
That alone, however primative, is far more than anything religion has provided in this regard.

Interesting. Lack of belief doesnt mean anything though...

How do you figure?

[solja247]

Trick question based on a fallacious statement of mine - it's actually completely irrelevant not one scholar has produced proof of anything like one Jesus H. Christ of Bible fame.
No bones, no dental records, no written records, no journalistic records, no credible eye witness accounts, nothing.

Sigh, there were written records, you and a minority of scholars disgree with them.
I would like some proof that Socrates was a real man. Some solid evidence please...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

And if you're not skeptical enough, you simply become a gullible lout who believes in honest politicians, moral lawyers, FOX news as a balanced and trustworthy news organization, that you can get that million dollars if you just send that nigerian prince a few thousand of your own dollars, and creationism.
Each person in the world is going to set their limits to whatever limit they think is reasonable and logical. The problem with religion in this regard is that it is neither but otherwise reasonable and logical people accept it as such anyway because, as one poster around here put it, mankind is not so much a rational animal as a rationalizing one.

You are using the common slipperly slope fallacy here...

These places are the way they are precisely because religion and church took over.

Rubbish.

Science got it's bearings and skyrocketed in prominance "coincidently" at the same times that people figured out that secular governments work better than theocracies or when there was no religion at all (the invention of language arrived before any organized religion - as such, by default, science came before religion.)

You claimed that I made and religion made large assumptions, we dont know how language 'evolved' so becareful mate.
Modern Science owes it existence to Christian Scientists. Period.

All religions make claims that are completely lacking in both empirical evidence-based support and sometimes even logic and good reasoning.
By default, a theist is already making a claim to have answers about which no human could possible know.

There is no empirical evidence to say that God does exist, there would be no faith then! As Kierkegaard points out:

“But the above definition of truth is an equivalent expression for faith. Without risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe; but precisely because I can not do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith, I must constantly be intent on holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.”

That's not entirely true either. Science can give actual answers and has even already provided some. We know things about the universe when the bible tells us that light existed before the sun and stars, the earth is surrounded by a dome that, when cracked, caused Noah's flood. It tells us to believe in God's magic (aka miracles) and to do exactly as he tells us or he'll murder us all - in some cases, horrifically as well as sadistically (he turned one man's wife into a pillar of salt).
Religion has fought science at every step and every discovery.

Your wrong. Religion has coflicted with science, however, science conflicted with itself. Did you know that human anatomy went unchallenged for 1300 years, it was only until a CHRISTIAN medical student decided to do autopsies on dead people, did he discover a completely different anatomy and it wasnt even taken seriously! (to start off). Louis Pasteur, another CHRISTIAN, developed vaccines and disporved spontainous generation. Who believed in Spontainous generation? SCIENCEITSTS!
Come on mate! You cant use this ridiculous argument. Science strangled itself. It was only until courageous men and women (Mostly Christian) who challenged science, did we get new theories and understanding of the world...

That alone, however primative, is far more than anything religion has provided in this regard.

Really?

Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics)
Erwin Schrodinger (Another founder of Quantum Physics)
Werner Heisenberg (Contributed greatly to Quantum Mechanics)
Robert Millikan (Won a Nobel prize in Physics)
Charles Hard Townes (Well known for his work with lasers and Physics)
Arthur Compton (Discovered the compton effect)
Arno Allan Penzias (Discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation)

I think you get the picture

How do you figure?

The majority of the world doesnt believe in evolution, doest that make it wrong???

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Sigh, there were written records, you and a minority of scholars disgree with them.

That's nice. I'm apparently going to have to take your word for it.

You are using the common slipperly slope fallacy here...

What slippery slope? I presented no such thing.

Rubbish.

There's one particular passage in the wikipedia entry for "Dark Ages."
Here:

During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason. Kant and Voltaire, among others, were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social regress, while Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expressed contempt for the "rubbish of the Dark Ages". Yet just as Petrarch, seeing himself on the threshold of a "new age", was criticizing the centuries until his own time, so too were the Enlightenment writers criticizing the centuries until their own. These extended well after Petrarch's time, since religious domination and conflict were still common into the 17th century and beyond, albeit diminished in scope.

Here's another one:

Despite the religious conflicts, the period of the Dark Ages was seen as an age of faith. Men and women sought after God; some through the staid rituals of the Catholic Church, others in Protestant forms of worship. Intellectuals view religion in any form as, itself, a type of “darkness.” These thinkers assert that those who followed religious beliefs lied to themselves, creating a false reality. They were dominated by emotions, not fact. Religion was seen as contrary to rationality and reason, thus the move towards enlightenment -- a move away from “darkness.” Science and reason gained ascendancy, progressing steadily during and after the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment.

Here's another one:

After the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the idea arose of Europe as one large church-state, called Christendom. Christendom was thought to consist of two distinct groups of functionaries: the sacerdotium, or ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the imperium, or secular leaders. In theory, these two groups complemented each other, attending to people's spiritual and temporal needs, respectively. Supreme authority was wielded by the pope in the first of these areas and by the emperor in the second. In practice, the two institutions were constantly sparring, disagreeing, or openly warring with each other. The emperors often tried to regulate church activities by claiming the right to appoint church officials and to intervene in doctrinal matters. The church, in turn, not only owned cities and armies but often attempted to regulate affairs of state.

Here's another one:

b.The entire Middle Ages, especially when viewed as a troubled period marked by the loss of classical learning. No longer in use by historians.

Here's another one:

In 1054 there was a split between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches prompted by arguments over the crusades. This split was called the Great Schism. The Great Western Schism occurred in in Western Christendom from 1378 - 1417. This was caused by an Italian pope called Pope Urban IV being elected and establishing the papal court in Rome. The French disagreed with this and elected a French Pope who was based in Avignon. The schism in western Christendom was finally healed at the Council of Constance and the Catholic religion was referred to as the Roman Catholic Religion.

Also, let's not forget...

The Crusades were a series of Holy Wars launched by the Christian states of Europe against the Saracens. The term 'Saracen' was the word used to describe a Moslem during the time of the Crusades. The Crusades started in 1095 when Pope Claremont preached the First Crusade at the Council of Claremont. The Pope's preaching led to thousands immediately affixing the cross to their garments - the name Crusade given to the Holy Wars came from old French word 'crois' meaning 'cross'. The Crusades were great military expeditions undertaken by the Christian nations of Europe for the purpose of rescuing the holy places of Palestine from the hands of the Mohammedans. They were eight in number, the first four being sometimes called the Principal Crusades, and the remaining four the Minor Crusades. In addition there was a Children's Crusade. There were several other expeditions which were insignificant in numbers or results.[/url]
Because nothing says 'Christianity is peace and love' like 'holy war.'

And as for the middle east's relationship with science and religion...
[quote=Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science?Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science?]Fundamentalist governments in Iran and the Sudan have shown no interest in developing a specifically Islamic science. They appear more concerned about pornography or women's attire than the teaching of quantum mechanics.

While religion isnt' the sole cause of this problem (or perhaps even the primary problem), it still isn't helping. Science in the middle east has stagnated there for centuries and a combination of their fundementalist authoritarian regimes and other factors have all contributed to this problem.
This is particularly distressing, because the arabic world, before their current orthodoxy took over, once allowed the creation of things like algebra and modern medicine.

Here is a video of astrophysicist Neil Tyson giving a professional speech on why Islam is the scientific dead zone it is today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU

Here's another one from Wikipedia:

In the early twentieth century ulema forbade the learning of foreign languages and dissection of human bodies in the medical school in Iran. The ulama at the Islamic university of Al-Azhar in Cairo taught the Ptolemaic astronomical system (in which the sun circles the earth) until compelled to adopt the Copernican system by the Egyptian government in 1961.

In recent years, the lagging of the Muslim world in science is manifest in the disproportionately small amount of scientific output as measured by citations of articles published in internationally circulating science journals, annual expenditures on research and development, and numbers of research scientists and engineers. Skepticism of science among some Muslims is reflected in issues such as resistance in Muslim northern Nigeria to polio inoculation, which some believe is "an imaginary thing created in the West or it is a ploy to get us to submit to this evil agenda."

Here's another one:

Slowly, the Islamic empire began to be whittled away in the 13th century by Crusaders from the West and Mongols from the East. Only a century after, Taqi al-Din,.the Ottomans and their Muslim contemporaries in Mughal India and the Persian Safavid Empire ceased to support scientific research and innovations. As a result, Islamic centers of learning began to lose touch with one another and with the West, leading to a gradual erosion in two of the main pillars of science — communication and financial support. This change was also due in part to the shifting priorities and educational systems of these empires. Not unlike Europe in previous centuries, groups wanting to protect the status quo became more powerful than those advocating growth and experimentation. Meanwhile, building on the earlier accomplishments of Muslim scientists, Europe’s scientific and industrial revolutions began to give the West a military and economic advantage over the Islamic world. At present, in the 21st century, sufficient oil, sufficient money, lack of communication, and conflict of opinions regarding Islam and science could be other answers for why Muslim science has declined.

So... another fun fact - the reniassance came to be in part due to building on Islamic science and not christian science.
Also from that same article:

This reality coincides with the conflict of belief between conservative or fundamentalism Muslim scientists and the so-called Westernized Muslim scientists who could separate out the science and religious.

There's also this article.

Among other sociological and economic factors, like the lack of a middle class, Dr. Hoodbhoy attributes the malaise of Muslim science to an increasing emphasis over the last millennium on rote learning based on the Koran.

''The notion that all knowledge is in the Great Text is a great disincentive to learning,'' he said. ''It's destructive if we want to create a thinking person, someone who can analyze, question and create.'' Dr. Bruno Guideroni, a Muslim who is an astrophysicist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, said, ''The fundamentalists criticize science simply because it is Western.''

Other scholars said the attitude of conservative Muslims to science was not so much hostile as schizophrenic, wanting its benefits but not its world view. ''They may use modern technology, but they don't deal with issues of religion and science.'' said Dr. Bakar.

One response to the invasion of Western science, said the scientists, has been an effort to ''Islamicize'' science by portraying the Koran as a source of scientific knowledge.

Here's another one:

"You have the emergence of a new kind of religious figure who is not a cleric, and all of his authority is as a scientist," said Todd Pitock, who profiles Naggar in an article about Islam and science in the July issue of the magazine Discover. "The whole purpose of science for some Islamists is using it to reinforce faith; it really has nothing to do with science itself."

So yes, according to all of these professional historical, scientific, and journalistic articles (and one youtube video of a physicist's speech), the prominance of religion did little to further science. At best, you can argue that certain religions (Islam, in the centuries before its science-dead-zone days) was the foundation of many of the modern scientific concepts - including but not limited to algebra, modern medicine, and several other things I'm probably forgetting but as soon as they slipped into a church-ruled state, they become the opposite of an enlightened state - their own Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages of history - actually the early middle ages - had a number of causes but it was still an age ruled by superstition and religion. It was the time of conversion by swordpoint and christian religious wars and land ruled by the church hierarchy.

Now, in all fairness, I'm not about to tell you that being religious doesn't also mean you can't be scientific, but I will tell you that a perponderance of one is usually the detriment to the other. One never completely stops the other but I can't think of a single theocracy that allowed science to flourish - except possibly Islam in the centuries past when they viewed science as the same thing as getting close to god until they viewed math as the work of the devil. Though I can't say I know enough about the "golden age" of the Islamic world to say what effect Islam and the Koran has had on the deveopment of science during that time - in other words, I don't know if the Middle East was ruled by a theocracy or a heavily theocrataic government as it is today with a different outlook, or a more secular government (like most of the developed world today) that typically allows the sciences to flourish.

Even though, in places like the United States, a particularly religion administration (the Bush Jr. Administration) still gave what scientists refer to as the "Lost Years" consisting of Bush's 8 year term because of his own personal Jihad against science based on his own beliefs which he has acknowledged on multiple occasions is because of his faith.

After all, you can cite to me all day and night about Christians (or other scientists) who happen to follow a particular faith, but only with some rare exceptions can you cite to me scientific advancements which are directly responsible due to help from the church. Instead, you get instances where scientists propose something, the church refutes it as heresay (if in the past) or against the will of god (as religious leaders will often cite today) and after some struggle, the church eventually accepts it anyway.

I'm not even going to go into how far behind the churches have been in regards to human civil rights movements.

So, in conclusion after this long tirade, in response to your response of "Rubbish", I can defininitively say this (with the help of one Dr. Cox from the Scrubs television series):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

You claimed that I made and religion made large assumptions, we dont know how language 'evolved' so becareful mate.
Modern Science owes it existence to Christian Scientists. Period.

I claimed that religion and therefore you (due to your own personal religious beliefs) make large assumptions based on zero evidence.
You can claim how pertinent christianity is to science all you want. All it shows is ignorance to history.
Now, without going into the enormous perponderance of agnosticism and atheism is in the modern scientific community, I do know for a fact that modern science is absolutely not due exclusively to any one faith or even faith in general or even a particular nation.
Many of the greatest scientific achievements were done by individuals of their own accord or from public or private funding (also from individuals) throughout history due to necessity or simple human curiosity.

Your wrong. Religion has coflicted with science, however, science conflicted with itself. Did you know that human anatomy went unchallenged for 1300 years, it was only until a CHRISTIAN medical student decided to do autopsies on dead people, did he discover a completely different anatomy and it wasnt even taken seriously! (to start off). Louis Pasteur, another CHRISTIAN, developed vaccines and disporved spontainous generation. Who believed in Spontainous generation? SCIENCEITSTS!
Come on mate! You cant use this ridiculous argument. Science strangled itself. It was only until courageous men and women (Mostly Christian) who challenged science, did we get new theories and understanding of the world...

Really? This is the direction you're going in? You found a medical student who happened to be Christian, who made this discovery. Wow. You managed to find one of perhaps billions of instances where some random person makes a discovery that forces scientists to change their views on things.
Yes, solja247, that's how science works. Unlike Christianity (and most religions), the first scientist didn't come up a theory of everything by the one true word of science in a magical book that cannot be refuted with christianity making discoveries that refutes that book. That's what happens if you imagine the roles of science and religion being reversed.
Yes, reputable scientists have been wrong and have been wrong very often, but being right or wrong is irrelevant. The difference between religion and science in the field of the advancement of knowledge is that science is a naturally self-correcting process where religion has historically fought against any advancement or knowledge that has challenged their belief in any fashion. The best modern example I can think of involves stem cell research, evolution (a battle that's been waged for more than a century despite evolution being the basis for several branches of science that dominates much of modern society), and just about all of cosmology/astrophysics because it conflicts with creationism. The religious right (which is admittedly as much political as it is religious) is fighting a difficult battle against virtually all environmentalism as well as the idea of climate change because it conflicts with their world view.
I cant' think of any instance in modern times or history in which religion has saved science from 'strangling itself.' That idea is just completely wrong in every sense of the word.

Really?

Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics)
Erwin Schrodinger (Another founder of Quantum Physics)
Werner Heisenberg (Contributed greatly to Quantum Mechanics)
Robert Millikan (Won a Nobel prize in Physics)
Charles Hard Townes (Well known for his work with lasers and Physics)
Arthur Compton (Discovered the compton effect)
Arno Allan Penzias (Discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation)

You've given me a list of scientists who happen to have christian beliefs. What picture are you trying to paint? Are you trying to tell me that they became scientists because of their religion? Did they go into or recieve funding and/or jobs in scientific fields because of a particular church?
In other words, were their prominance in the scientific fields a result of a particular religion or a particular church? For example, Plank's wiki entry states him as being a "German Scientist" and not a "Christian Scientist."
Given the fact that I've already looked into a few of them, I can already tell you that you've obviosuly only pulled a group of names of scientists who happen to also be christians - which is different from a christian scientist. Hell, even most universities that are religious in nature still tend to teach science from a secular standpoint (I believe Notre Dame does this despite being a predominantly Catholic University) thanks to the fact that the Catholic religion has buckled down and accepted things like evolution, the big bang, the fact that the universe is billions and not thousands of years old, etc. (Despite only accepting such things decades and sometimes centuries after the rest of the planet and certainly the scientific community has already accepted these things.) Still, the college, like many others with similar religious connotions, generally do not research or accept certain fundemental scientific principles and thus limit the progress of science.

I think you get the picture

You've given me a picture of a group of people who've made wonderful and inexorable contributions to science who appear to have their own religious views (plank has a very different view of god than christianity does, despite apparently being a christian) and thus you've given me a group of very rational people with very rationalized irrational beliefs.

The majority of the world doesnt believe in evolution, doest that make it wrong???

Two things,
First, no. Facts are not democratically electable.
Second, the majority of the people of the world accept evolution.
The only places that have a perponderance of individuals who do not accept evolution are those who also tend to be scientifically illiterate. I should also note that the vast vast majority of scientists, even a majority of scientists who are not in the fields related to evolution accept it.

[solja247]

Wow. Thankyou for your long reply.

What slippery slope? I presented no such thing.

If you arent as skeptic as an atheist or agnostic, you are going to commit intellectual suicide, become a creationists and belive everything on FOX news. How is that not a slippery slope?
Theists use this argument really well. If you play violent video games, you are going to and kill people

So yes, according to all of these professional historical, scientific, and journalistic articles (and one youtube video of a physicist's speech), the prominance of religion did little to further science. At best, you can argue that certain religions (Islam, in the centuries before its science-dead-zone days) was the foundation of many of the modern scientific concepts - including but not limited to algebra, modern medicine, and several other things I'm probably forgetting but as soon as they slipped into a church-ruled state, they become the opposite of an enlightened state - their own Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages of history - actually the early middle ages - had a number of causes but it was still an age ruled by superstition and religion. It was the time of conversion by swordpoint and christian religious wars and land ruled by the church hierarchy.

Perhaps what I said is an understatement, John Calvin (Allegedly a great reformer) used to KILL scientists! Some religous people suffocated science. However, you may find this like interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

So, in conclusion after this long tirade, in response to your response of "Rubbish", I can defininitively say this (with the help of one Dr. Cox from the Scrubs television series):

Could one argue, that it wasnt Religion itself. It was Christianity entering a primitive place (Europe) Western Europe was where the Babbarians (Franks, Lombards, Anglo-saxons) were, With the decline of the Roman Empire, the Babarians took back the land. (Although Theodoric the Great tried to keep the Roman Empire in tact (he was an Ostrogoth). The papacy only cared that the babarians accepted the Nicene Creed, thus were not followers of arius's theology and philosophy. So perhaps the Roman Empire more so collapsed on itself, for not having their priorities right? The Babarains were primitive people and could of easily contributed to the collapse of science, philosophy, theology etc...

Yes, solja247, that's how science works. Unlike Christianity (and most religions), the first scientist didn't come up a theory of everything by the one true word of science in a magical book that cannot be refuted with christianity making discoveries that refutes that book. That's what happens if you imagine the roles of science and religion being reversed.

This isnt true at all. Theology is always being redefined! How we view Romans is being redefined by scholars like N.T Wright. So you cant say that theology is stagnent...

The religious right (which is admittedly as much political as it is religious) is fighting a difficult battle against virtually all environmentalism as well as the idea of climate change because it conflicts with their world view.

Who cares? Christians who only read KJV commit intellectual suicide, that doesnt mean that all Christians are like that. They will never win, thankfully we are a secular world today (in the developed countries)

Still, the college, like many others with similar religious connotions, generally do not research or accept certain fundemental scientific principles and thus limit the progress of science.

Like what?

You've given me a picture of a group of people who've made wonderful and inexorable contributions to science who appear to have their own religious views (plank has a very different view of god than christianity does, despite apparently being a christian) and thus you've given me a group of very rational people with very rationalized irrational beliefs.

I was making the point that religous people can and do contribute to science...
However, that should not be an argument. People's world view will make them religous or non religous, so even if al the scientists in the world were atheists/theists, it wouldnt matter at all...

Two things,
First, no. Facts are not democratically electable.
Second, the majority of the people of the world accept evolution.
The only places that have a perponderance of individuals who do not accept evolution are those who also tend to be scientifically illiterate. I should also note that the vast vast majority of scientists, even a majority of scientists who are not in the fields related to evolution accept it.

I should of used something with empirical evidence lol.
If the whole world didnt believe in God (or Jesus for that) doesnt mean that they are right...

[everythingafter]

The idea that Jesus didnt exist is held by a small minority of scholars and is ridiculous.

Oh, he probably existed, but not as we know him from the Bible, and certainly not as the resurrected savior. Read some of the quite in depth studies by John Crossan.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

If you arent as skeptic as an atheist or agnostic, you are going to commit intellectual suicide, become a creationists and belive everything on FOX news. How is that not a slippery slope?
Theists use this argument really well. If you play violent video games, you are going to and kill people

You initially presented me with the arguement that if someone is too skeptical then they won't accept anything. All I did was state the opposite and cited examples of the kinds of people who are all too gullible. That's not a slippery slope.

Perhaps what I said is an understatement, John Calvin (Allegedly a great reformer) used to KILL scientists! Some religous people suffocated science. However, you may find this like interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

What is this you're presenting me with? What are you trying to prove?
You've stated that one guy used to murder scientists and that some religious people suffocated science.
And... what? You need complete thoughts here because you don't appear to have presented me with anything.

Could one argue, that it wasnt Religion itself. It was Christianity entering a primitive place (Europe) Western Europe was where the Babbarians (Franks, Lombards, Anglo-saxons) were, With the decline of the Roman Empire, the Babarians took back the land. (Although Theodoric the Great tried to keep the Roman Empire in tact (he was an Ostrogoth). The papacy only cared that the babarians accepted the Nicene Creed, thus were not followers of arius's theology and philosophy. So perhaps the Roman Empire more so collapsed on itself, for not having their priorities right? The Babarains were primitive people and could of easily contributed to the collapse of science, philosophy, theology etc...

I argued that it was the entire (general) religious establishment of the time. It's also the philosophy (religion has conflicted with virtually every major advancement in astronomy and that tends to lead to the most famous examples of church v science.) How is it not "religion" itself. How does a religion entering a 'primative place' have anything to do with their actions. Moreover, it was your arguement that christianity is the cause for modern science - so why is it that during the early middle ages/dark ages that the predominance of religion means that it, for centuries, did little to bring a civilization those areas during that era?
It wasn't even until the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the renniassance (when religion, while still predominant, was not nearly as influential) for the enlightenment to take hold and scientific advancement to skyrocket and bring humanity to places it could have never have dreamed of in the centuries and millenia prior?
Both religious faith and the prominance of the churches have been waning in the developed world ever since, except in places that have held on to the power of their churches (like the middle east).
Even in the United States, which is fairly unique among developed nations due to the perponderance of the "religious right" is still one of the top nations of the world for scientific achievement and it's no coincidence that it is because this country was founded as a secular government with "seporation of church and state" clause written directly into the founding documents.

Now, just to make something absolutely clear: I'm not saying that christians and christianity is absolutely a roadblock to scientific advancement. Despite the power and affluence of the church during the dark ages, the reason it isn't actually called the "Dark Ages" anymore is because the middle ages do have some advancement, discoveries, and things that occured that isn't all negative. While I don't know of any, I'm sure there are organizations throughout the world who fund research and things of that nature (the vatican, I've recently learned, apparently has its own astronomers - but again even catholocism, despite still being centuries behind in accepting certain scientific ideas and civil rights ideas (and many other backwards beliefs, like any religion) - still accepts and promotes certain aspects of science.

However, in relation to your main point, modern science is not the solely (or even primarily) the result of christian influence. If anything, it has been the opposite of conductive to research.

This isnt true at all. Theology is always being redefined! How we view Romans is being redefined by scholars like N.T Wright. So you cant say that theology is stagnent...

Okay, then enlighten me as to one way that any one religious faith has changed in its viewpoints of the natural world in any significant way. Has any religion rewritten their bible based on new findings or discoveries? Has new theories about god and the events leading from what they believe as the creation changed over the course of the past century? The past decade?
Twenty years ago, the medical field would have said that regrowing entire organs or body parts was impossible. Nowadays, we can regrow simple body parts (ears, noses, skin, etc) while the possibility of being able to grow a human liver, a lung, or a hand is really big news in the medical field right now.
The science textbook of 1900 and the science textbook of 2000 are barely the same kind of book with completely different views of the possibilities of the natural world and the everyday natural world.

The bible I have in my room right now is a King James International english bible written and printed in 1978 with another print run done copyright 1973. Everything in that bible, save a few author notes and perhaps an appendum or preamble done in this and other variations throughout the centuries, is little different than the same version first completed in 1611, according this link.
From what I'm aware, however, it is merely a differently translated version of a prior novel of the same name, which apparently means it didn't change all that much. Modern novels go thorugh this all the time to reach different countries.

I am aware that sometimes this involves also deciding which stories are cannon and which ones are not. The History Channel has touted that there are apparently 'non-cannon' stories that were supposed to be biblical (and some have even been lost - one I would very much like to read because it repudiates the centuries long tradition of the christian love of chastity and abstinence.) Though how a story can be cannon or not cannon for a book that is supposed to be "God's Word. Period." is beyond me.

Still, science changes every day because of discoveries and advancements which can even cause some branches of scientific literature to have to completely rewrite whole textbooks - recently astronomy had to do that because we fully defined what a planet was due to the discovery of 'trans-neptunian objects'.

"Religion isn't stagnant" isn't an arguement. At best, each generation manages to rationalize their beliefs in newer and more interesting ways but the foundation of that faith is always the same - plus, you have the middle east and places like that around the world that have little or no scientific value because - despite their desire for the fruits of science - everything you need to do good science goes against their faith and their world view.

Who cares? Christians who only read KJV commit intellectual suicide, that doesnt mean that all Christians are like that. They will never win, thankfully we are a secular world today (in the developed countries)

Most christians aren't even particularly religious. They'll say they believe in god and they'll say they're christians, but most of them haven't read the bible (or much in the way of theological literature) and they'll take or leave whatever does or doesn't make sense to them.
However, the professionally religious - the priests, rabbis, and those of that nature - are precisely the ones you've stated have committed 'intellectual suicide' - assuming they still actually believe what they're preaching.
The fact of the matter is that the KJV bible is supposed to be the how-to guide to being a christian (or one of it's denominations) with or without their own books in addition or instead of the KJV bible. Just as how Muslims have the Ko'ran, mormons have their own book, I don't know what scientologists have, but my point is that generally, if you don't believe the bible, you're not christian. I'm not sure how this applies if you believe in parts of the bible but not others.
People who believe in a god but not necessarily any bible or particular faith is a deist.
People who believe in a spiritual world without necessarily a divine god are simply spiritual.
People who believe there could be a god to whatever degree but acknowledge that it's unknowable is agnostic.

In any case, I think you may have even proven a point of mine. You and I can certainly agree that christianity is intellectual suicide.

Like what?

Stem Cells.

I was making the point that religous people can and do contribute to science...
However, that should not be an argument. People's world view will make them religous or non religous, so even if al the scientists in the world were atheists/theists, it wouldnt matter at all...

Which is antithical to the point I actually was primarily responding to:

Modern Science owes it existence to Christian Scientists. Period.

However, I did look through more of thos Neil Tyson Speeches and he actually made another point to this same arguemetn as well as his overall point to the entire speech (the link was only a small segment of a much longer speech which was also a part of a much greater conference, which also, I think, included a room full of scientists and experts). Even Richard Dawkins was there, as another video from the same conference had a short discussion going on between them.

In any case, Neil Tyson made the point over the larger speech about intelligent design in our history and that it should be taught in schools from that respect.
The idea being that even as the great thinkers of history were often very religious themselves, they made tremendous contributions to society. Even Newton, a man Tyson himself seems to admire very much, attributed god as to how the motions of the planets kept in motion.
However, Tyson goes on to say that another scientist, before him, who was among the first to chart the heavens and motions of the stars, the 'wandering stars', and the moon was himself also very religious.
However, each and every one of them came to a point of saying "God is there."
For the first scientist, who postitulated of a geocentric universe (I forget his name), said that god was responsible for the motion of the heavens. Despite being very learned himself, that's about as far as he got. Newton, one of the greatest minds of the human race according to Tyson, at one point said that attributed god to being the mind that set the heavens in motion and bound the planets after he himself found the motions of the planets to be centered around the Sun and not the Earth.
Today, people are arguing that god created the universe by 'causing' the big bang.

This, he argued (I am paraphrasing,) was because God has always been the "God of the Gaps" because he can exist no where except in our own ignorance. Even our greatest minds stopped investigating when things got too difficult to figure out and all they had to do was invoke god and all the inquisitiveness and investigation ceases "becaue god was there."

In no better manner does anything ever showcase the human propensity for self-induced ignorance than the idea of intelligent design or any god of the gaps.
It's not one religion or one circumstance or 'some people' that have caused religion or religious folks to hamper science - it's the entire philosophy and there are far, far more examples of religious opression of science than there is of acceptance from it, until perhaps the modern day in secular governments. Yet, even then, only because they have to and there are still fights between science and religion over things like evolution (which is overwhelmingly evidenced for) and pretty much all of astronomy, geology, archeology, and many more due to the conflicts with the idea of creationism.

I should of used something with empirical evidence lol.
If the whole world didnt believe in God (or Jesus for that) doesnt mean that they are right...

It doesn't mean they're wrong either.
Persionally, I'd rather live my life the way I want to than enter the crap-shoot of picking a religion, devoting my life to that religion adn those religious beliefs and find out I'm going to hell (or whatever equivelent punishment there is) for picking and choosing the wrong one. Every one of them has miracles, saviors, a creation story, and each one of them claims to be the 'one true path' in some fashion or another. They can't all be right and I find it far more likely that they're all wrong.
If god existed and he wrote a book, it wouldn't be anything like the bible. God (as theists often define it) is omnipotent and omnicient with infinate intellectual attributes.) If this being existed and it chose to write a novel, it would be consistent, eloquent, simple but with a depth that would test the limits of human understanding, and it awe-inspiring to such a level that no human writing could ever compete with it. The actual bible - any of them at any time in history - is not that novel. It's not even close.
I've read the bible and I've read (most of) the lord of the rings. Tolkein is far better at the craft of hte written word than the bible's authors could ever hope to be.
No human should EVER be able to compete with the written word of a deity or even a sufficently advanced intellect and I find it hard to believe that if any of the written texts are actually the word of god, then there wouldn't be thousands of faiths varying by the individual so widely as it does - there would be one religion and there would be no such doubts, but even with centuries of the written word of god, we mortals have figured out far more about our world, the universe, our origins, and the facts of life with far greater eloquence and beauty than any story in the bible.
It's certainly nothing to base your life around.

[solja247]

You initially presented me with the arguement that if someone is too skeptical then they won't accept anything. All I did was state the opposite and cited examples of the kinds of people who are all too gullible. That's not a slippery slope.

Well, it appeared like you had commited the slippery slope fallacy, howver, perhaps I didnt understand you.
Im not against skeptism. Im against over skeptism, I dont think it is healthy to doubt everything and can one really know anything if they are overly skeptic?

What is this you're presenting me with? What are you trying to prove?
You've stated that one guy used to murder scientists and that some religious people suffocated science.
And... what? You need complete thoughts here because you don't appear to have presented me with anything.

Perhaps I should say, 'Science flourishes in a secular country, even if the majority of scientists are religous?'

Okay, then enlighten me as to one way that any one religious faith has changed in its viewpoints of the natural world in any significant way. Has any religion rewritten their bible based on new findings or discoveries? Has new theories about god and the events leading from what they believe as the creation changed over the course of the past century? The past decade?

Very much so! Due to the evolution/creation controversy a lot of effort has been in seeing Genesis one as a Jew back in the good old days, truly incredible! They didnt care about structure, they cared about purpose...

However, the professionally religious - the priests, rabbis, and those of that nature - are precisely the ones you've stated have committed 'intellectual suicide' - assuming they still actually believe what they're preaching.

How so? Im attending to spend my entire life as a Pastor, I couldnt think of anything better (Either going into youth ministry or apologetics/philosophy)

In any case, I think you may have even proven a point of mine. You and I can certainly agree that christianity is intellectual suicide.

I disagree. Without Christian, I would be a normal young Australian, getting drunk on the weekends doing stuff with women...Christianity has kept my mind sharp, I have read the Bible for myself and looked deep into certain theology. If I wasnt a Christian I would of commited intellectual suicide...

This, he argued (I am paraphrasing,) was because God has always been the "God of the Gaps" because he can exist no where except in our own ignorance. Even our greatest minds stopped investigating when things got too difficult to figure out and all they had to do was invoke god and all the inquisitiveness and investigation ceases "becaue god was there."

Is it 'God of the Gaps' fallacy or is there infact a creator? To my knowledge, more scienists are seeing the evidence that there was most likely some sought of being who created the universe.
I think Marcelo Gleiser makes a good point:

Some of these models of creation make predictions about measurable properties of the universe, which can be used to test and refine them. Yet it may be hard to rule out all alternative models, which may also be compatible with these measurements. The best that we can hope for is a workable model of cosmic origins, compatible with observations but open to changes. Scientific inquiry is after all an ongoing process—there is no final truth, only approximations to the truth. Furthermore, science, at least as it is formulated at present, cannot answer questions concerning its own origin: we do not know why the universe operates according to the laws we have uncovered and not others. This essential incompleteness of science suggests a new form of complementarity between science and religion; religion does not exist to cover the holes of our scientific knowledge, but as a driving force behind scientific inspiration. Through our search for knowledge we uncover our true nature, fuelled by the same sense of mystery which filled our ancestors with awe.

Persionally, I'd rather live my life the way I want to than enter the crap-shoot of picking a religion, devoting my life to that religion adn those religious beliefs and find out I'm going to hell (or whatever equivelent punishment there is) for picking and choosing the wrong one. Every one of them has miracles, saviors, a creation story, and each one of them claims to be the 'one true path' in some fashion or another. They can't all be right and I find it far more likely that they're all wrong.

I agree wtih you, however, the resurrection has considerable weight for me. I was more so convinced by the evidence than some sought of 'experience'




In my honest opinion, the only thing one should get from the Bible is the plan for redemption, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22...
The Bible doesnt tell us what happens when you die
Or give us morality (As Dawkins points out)
Doesnt explain the problem of evil

It shows a plan for redemption, a plan I want to apart of, that is why I will put my desires on hold and live my life the best I can...