Christianity; The World's most vile religion

[The Architect Of Fate]

Smart people holding irrational beliefs neither grants their irrational beliefs  credit for their intelligent ideas or vice versa

[Angrboda]

What's that saying?  It's both good and original.  Where it's good, it's not original, and where it's original, it is not good.

That's quite a goofy saying given the effect Christianity had on European ethics.

What's goofy is thinking that somehow refutes the saying.

[Belacqua]

And ancients prior to the Christian era scientifically discovered that the earth is round, estimated about how big it is, studied refracted and reflected light and sound; not to mention they figured out a great deal of geometry and mathematics. It didn't require rejecting any particular religion or religion in general, just not taking religious notions into account when making and testing hypotheses.

That's true. Empirical research didn't start with Christians, and didn't end with them. 

As for taking religious notions into account, I guess it depends on which religious notions we're thinking about. Certainly a scientist can't take religious myths literally. But educated pre-modern people were familiar with the idea that a text's true meaning is the one we get by reading allegorically. Jesus and Paul read the Hebrew Scriptures allegorically, Proclus read Homer allegorically -- it was typical. 

Remember that John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Logos. And Logos is a term from Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy which refers to the set of rational principles by which the universe operates. So the second person of the Trinity is the set of rational principles according to which the universe operates, and knowing these principles is knowing God -- according to many many Christians. 

This got a boost in the 13th century when Thomas Aquinas revived Aristotelian methods. Leonardo, for example, spent a great deal of time studying fluid dynamics, because he thought that such principles revealed the mind of God.

[Fireball]

You string words together reasonably coherently, but you're so full of shit (or yourself) that sometimes I think you're insane. Aristotelian methods set physics back for centuries. I'd call you a weasel for your rhetoric, but that would insult the entirety of the genus Mustela.

[Ahriman]

Satanism is a form of Christianity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Remember that John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Logos. And Logos is a term from Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy which refers to the set of rational principles by which the universe operates. So the second person of the Trinity is the set of rational principles according to which the universe operates, and knowing these principles is knowing God -- according to many many Christians. 

....and also a flesh and blood man who died on a stick for your sins before rising from the dead.  They don't have to believe that nonsense about rational principles the universe operates according to in order to be christians, but they do have to believe in christ.

[Deesse23]

A person is as much a set of rational principles as a banana tastes like...pink.

I don't give a fuck what John.....or jim or bob, says, especially as long as it's Jordan petersonesque bullshit bingo.

[Sheldon]

Smart people holding irrational beliefs neither grants their irrational beliefs  credit for their intelligent ideas or vice versa

This hits the nail precisely on the head, all human beings are fallible evolved apes, even a genius who advances human knowledge exponentially can and will be wrong about something. I guess where science and religion separate, is that the methods of science are designed to reflect objective reality by removing as much subjective bias as is possible, whereas religions already have one core truth, and bend everything subjectively to fit that idea. Some of them even revel in the idea of subjective bias as a virtue, like religious faith. 

Whether one reads archaic claims for the supernatural literally or as allegory doesn't really change that distinction. Ultimately do you care more about the belief (religion), or more about whether that belief is true (science).

[Belacqua]

Ultimately do you care more about the belief (religion), or more about whether that belief is true (science).

Probably instead of "true," in the above sentence, it would be more accurate to say "supported by empirical evidence and the current consensus of authorities." Because unfortunately what scientists tell us many times turns out to be wrong. 

So it's not wise to assume that something is true because it's science. As you know, the proper method in science demands that we make no such assumption.

No doubt you've read about the replication crisis in scientific journals now. There seem to be several reasons for this. First, research funded by for-profit corporations often expects that the researcher will get certain results, which introduces serious bias into the findings. Second, for-profit scientific journals and research done by university scientists who want to further their careers will often lean in a particular direction, also introducing bias. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

For example, Denis Noble, who for many years taught and researched biology at Oxford University (where he supervised Richard Dawkins' PhD research), says that certain assumptions made these days about how evolution works should be seriously questioned. He and other specialists in the field say there is sufficient evidence to throw doubt on what used to be the main consensus. However, he said that as a research scientist he knew he would not get funding if he proposed a project to test the new theories. Despite the new ideas being completely scientific and grounded in objective investigation, the prejudice in favor of current models dictated where the money would go. This I think should be worrying to anyone who cares about objective research. 

Also you are begging the question about whether religious people care about truth. Of course they want to believe what is true. They just reach their conclusions in ways that you don't approve of.

[Sheldon]

Ultimately do you care more about the belief (religion), or more about whether that belief is true (science).

Probably instead of "true," in the above sentence, it would be more accurate to say "supported by empirical evidence and the current consensus of authorities." Because unfortunately what scientists tell us many times turns out to be wrong. 

The two are synonymous obviously, as the many successes of science demonstrate, and science is not just remarkably successful in a very short space of time, it is demonstrably the most reliable method we have for understanding reality. So this tired old chestnut is risible, especially since I have never known anyone to (falsely) claim science is infallible. unlike religions of course. 

So it's not wise to assume that something is true because it's science. As you know, the proper method in science demands that we make no such assumption.

Sigh, I did not assume, nor do I assume, any such thing, another straw man. 

No doubt you've read about the replication crisis in scientific journals now. 

And this has what to do with my point contrasting the objective nature of the methods of science with the unevidenced subjective nature of religions? How many deities and religions have humans imagined? The adherents of archaic superstition's don't seem bothered at all with religion's inability to replicate the endless deities imagined in various epochs and locations and cultures. See the difference?

For example, Denis Noble, who for many years taught and researched biology at Oxford University (where he supervised Richard Dawkins' PhD research), says that certain assumptions made these days about how evolution works should be seriously questioned. 

Since that supports the point of my post, I am at a loss as to why you are telling me what I already know, or why? Yes a vital aspect of the methods of science, and one of its greatest strengths, is that no idea can ever be ringfenced from critical scrutiny, and all ideas must remain tentative in the light of new evidence, in stark contrast to religions that have long claimed to possess immutable truths.  

He and other specialists in the field say there is sufficient evidence to throw doubt on what used to be the main consensus. 

Groovy, and when there is a consensus on that, after his claims have been properly validated by the methodologies of science, it will change if needed. Science doesn't bend to the whims  and opinions of scientists, this tired old canard is trotted out by creationists all the time. However if the objective evidence demands it, there is no idea science won't amend or discard. Again in stark contrast to religions. 

However, he said that as a research scientist he knew he would not get funding if he proposed a project to test the new theories.

Well he would wouldn't he, what's your point? 

Despite the new ideas being completely scientific and grounded in objective investigation, the prejudice in favor of current models dictated where the money would go. This I think should be worrying to anyone who cares about objective research. 

A conspiracy theory, really, you are funny fair play. lets stop using the methods of science, and base what we think on conspiracy theories and subjective opinions, that's bound to improve the method. Try and understand, I have not, nor do I imagine, that the scientific methods are infallible. It would help again, if you read what i actually posted, instead of charging off into straw men ideas that are nothing to do with me. 

Also you are begging the question about whether religious people care about truth. Of course they want to believe what is true. They just reach their conclusions in ways that you don't approve of.

I think it is fitting you finish with a straw man. I never claimed nor implied theists don't want their beliefs to be true, or care about whether they are true, try reading it more carefully and you might post less of these awful straw men. Caring more about the belief, than whether you can validate it in any objective way, does not suggest you don't care at all about whether it is true, but the subjective nature of religious "evidence" is wholly unreliable, or we'd likely not have it being used as faith to produce countless different deities and religions. In stark contrast to the methods of science, as these facts change only in line with the objective evidence, and not according to subjective anachronistic and cultural beliefs.