ironhorse Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony. christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right? And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery. So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc. With that in mind, my question is this: Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal? "And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery. So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc." Your statement misrepresents my view. My view is that during the middle ages Christian thought and aid helped in the rise of science in the Western world. I have agreed with you several times on this topic but you seem intent on not agreeing with me on any part of this topic. I will post my last comments from a previous post for you and others to consider: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error. I will post a few quotes below and the link. I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements. I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion. (Snip!) What is the cause of science's origin and development, Ironhorse? Please factor the following indisputable historical facts into your answer. Science originated outside of the West and outside of the influence of Christianity, before either one existed. Therefore, neither of these factors was involved in it's origin or it's development. They are incidental, not causal. Identify the cause, Ironhorse. OK, let's sweep all religions aside East and West... What would be the cause for the origin of science? My answer: A human looking around the world or up into the sky and wondering why? Wonder and curiosity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony. christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right? And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery. So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc. With that in mind, my question is this: Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal? "And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery. So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc." Your statement misrepresents my view. My view is that during the middle ages Christian thought and aid helped in the rise of science in the Western world. I have agreed with you several times on this topic but you seem intent on not agreeing with me on any part of this topic. I will post my last comments from a previous post for you and others to consider: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error. I will post a few quotes below and the link. I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements. I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion. (Snip!) What is the cause of science's origin and development, Ironhorse? Please factor the following indisputable historical facts into your answer. Science originated outside of the West and outside of the influence of Christianity, before either one existed. Therefore, neither of these factors was involved in it's origin or it's development. They are incidental, not causal. Identify the cause, Ironhorse. OK, let's sweep all religions aside East and West... What would be the cause for the origin of science? My answer: A human looking around the world or up into the sky and wondering why? Wonder and curiosity The cause of science lies in the evolved skills of observation, analysis and logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony. christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right? And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery. So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc. With that in mind, my question is this: Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal? "And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery. So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc." Your statement misrepresents my view. My view is that during the middle ages Christian thought and aid helped in the rise of science in the Western world. I have agreed with you several times on this topic but you seem intent on not agreeing with me on any part of this topic. I will post my last comments from a previous post for you and others to consider: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error. I will post a few quotes below and the link. I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements. I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion. (Snip!) What is the cause of science's origin and development, Ironhorse? Please factor the following indisputable historical facts into your answer. Science originated outside of the West and outside of the influence of Christianity, before either one existed. Therefore, neither of these factors was involved in it's origin or it's development. They are incidental, not causal. Identify the cause, Ironhorse. OK, let's sweep all religions aside East and West... What would be the cause for the origin of science? My answer: A human looking around the world or up into the sky and wondering why? Wonder and curiosity See, no need for your imaginary sky fairy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Hey Ironhorse! Check out the little green '12' under LongWayRound's opening post in the "Thank You Ironhorse" thread. . . . That's all your doing, buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Oops! Make that '13'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Hey Ironhorse! Check out the little green '12' under LongWayRound's opening post in the "Thank You Ironhorse" thread. . . . That's all your doing, buddy! Oops! Make that '13'. Currently it is 16 and climbing. Edit: 26 now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Ironhorse, Do you agree that the cause of science is attributable only to the skills of observation, analysis and logical deduction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Ironhorse, Do you agree that the cause of science is attributable only to the skills of observation, analysis and logical deduction? (Bump!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Ironhorse, Do you agree that the cause of science is attributable only to the skills of observation, analysis and logical deduction? (Bump!) (Re-Bump) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. But his answer was based on two logical fallacies - an argument from incredulity (Life is so complex I can't believe life could exist without a creator) and a strawman fallacy (I can't believe life is totally random). It's an irrational answer, plain and simple. Why should someone get any credit whatsoever for irrationality? Credit for an attempt, sure, perhaps, I suppose. But the content of the answer deserves no credit at all. None. Placed in context, Tin Pony has raised these same two fallacies before (among others) more than once. The irrationality of his statements has been pointed out to him before, more than once. In simple and plain English. Still, he continues to make them. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. Yeah, I knew he said that. I didn't think it deserved credit as a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. But his answer was based on two logical fallacies - an argument from incredulity (Life is so complex I can't believe life could exist without a creator) and a strawman fallacy (I can't believe life is totally random). It's an irrational answer, plain and simple. Why should someone get any credit whatsoever for irrationality? Credit for an attempt, sure, perhaps, I suppose. But the content of the answer deserves no credit at all. None. Placed in context, Tin Pony has raised these same two fallacies before (among others) more than once. The irrationality of his statements has been pointed out to him before, more than once. In simple and plain English. Still, he continues to make them. Why? Because HE doesn't see that it's a fallacy. He's got his God goggles on. For him, faith is the answer. You can't condemn him for being honest about what he believes. Edit: typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. But his answer was based on two logical fallacies - an argument from incredulity (Life is so complex I can't believe life could exist without a creator) and a strawman fallacy (I can't believe life is totally random). It's an irrational answer, plain and simple. Why should someone get any credit whatsoever for irrationality? Credit for an attempt, sure, perhaps, I suppose. But the content of the answer deserves no credit at all. None. Placed in context, Tin Pony has raised these same two fallacies before (among others) more than once. The irrationality of his statements has been pointed out to him before, more than once. In simple and plain English. Still, he continues to make them. Why? Because HE doesn't see that it's a fallacy. He's got his God goggles on. For him, faith is the answer. You can't condemn him for being honest about what he believes. Edit: typo Noting his statements as fallacious and irrational is not condemnation, unless you wish to see it as such. It is merely identifying irrational thinking. Rational thinking generates reason. Irrational thinking, not so much. In your OP, you asked for "reasons" other than faith. Irrational statements are not reasons, they are emotional excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. But his answer was based on two logical fallacies - an argument from incredulity (Life is so complex I can't believe life could exist without a creator) and a strawman fallacy (I can't believe life is totally random). It's an irrational answer, plain and simple. Why should someone get any credit whatsoever for irrationality? Credit for an attempt, sure, perhaps, I suppose. But the content of the answer deserves no credit at all. None. Placed in context, Tin Pony has raised these same two fallacies before (among others) more than once. The irrationality of his statements has been pointed out to him before, more than once. In simple and plain English. Still, he continues to make them. Why? Because HE doesn't see that it's a fallacy. He's got his God goggles on. For him, faith is the answer. You can't condemn him for being honest about what he believes. Edit: typo Noting his statements as fallacious and irrational is not condemnation, unless you wish to see it as such. It is merely identifying irrational thinking. Rational thinking generates reason. Irrational thinking, not so much. In your OP, you asked for "reasons" other than faith. Irrational statements are not reasons, they are emotional excuses. They are. Have some compassion for the dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. There are so many threads relating to Ironhorse that I can't keep track of them. Two days ago, I think, IH said that he looks at nature (was it some sort of mollusk? I forget.) and just can't believe that it all got started without a god. Someone asked him, you mean, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Already can't remember whether IH answered that. Anyway, here's a guy who looks at the world and just can't imagine how it came to be without a creator god, and then decides to believe and express his beliefs and feelings at great length and with much repetition. Despite his protestations, he doesn't work by observation, analysis and logical deduction. He doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, equating as he does scientific uncertainty with faith. But to admit all this would be to admit that his leaps of faith have nothing to do with science, and that admission he does not want to make. So, I'm not confident that you'll ever get an answer, BAA. But you are reminding everyone else of IH's failed promises. Your last sentence is my prime motivation, F. IH did give an answer to why he believes on my thread: creation is so complex it required a creator AND it takes a leap of faith to decide there is a creator. He didn't really get credit for that and should have. It's a faith answer, but it's an answer. But his answer was based on two logical fallacies - an argument from incredulity (Life is so complex I can't believe life could exist without a creator) and a strawman fallacy (I can't believe life is totally random). It's an irrational answer, plain and simple. Why should someone get any credit whatsoever for irrationality? Credit for an attempt, sure, perhaps, I suppose. But the content of the answer deserves no credit at all. None. Placed in context, Tin Pony has raised these same two fallacies before (among others) more than once. The irrationality of his statements has been pointed out to him before, more than once. In simple and plain English. Still, he continues to make them. Why? Because HE doesn't see that it's a fallacy. He's got his God goggles on. For him, faith is the answer. You can't condemn him for being honest about what he believes. Edit: typo Noting his statements as fallacious and irrational is not condemnation, unless you wish to see it as such. It is merely identifying irrational thinking. Rational thinking generates reason. Irrational thinking, not so much. In your OP, you asked for "reasons" other than faith. Irrational statements are not reasons, they are emotional excuses. They are. Have some compassion for the dude. Sorry Orbit, but I can't have compassion for someone who makes a promise to answer questions and then breaks it. My compassion is reserved for others. For the lurkers, the waverers and the newly-deconverted who are reading these threads. They deserve to see how Ironhorse behaves, so that they can compare his deeds to his words and make their own judgments accordingly. Just as LongWayRound did. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64182-thank-you-ironhorse/#.VAV96vldVzM Thanks, BAA 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 They are. Have some compassion for the dude. Nope. This is the same type of guy who hates me in the real world. This is the guy who would persecute me if I came out as an atheist or even an ex-Chrstian. If he were interviewing me then I wouldn't get the job due to religions discrimination. If he was my boss then he would find a way to fire me - same thing. If he was a cop and he knew I was an ex-Christian then he would find an excuse to write me a ticket or make something up and have me arrested. If he was my inquisitor during the Dark Ages he would send me to the stake to have my soul purified in the fire. They have no compassion for you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I am willing to give IH, or any Christian who gives faith as their reason for belief, credit for an honest answer. Because there are no logically sound reasons to accept the existence of god as true, faith is pretty much the only way to believe it. What I will not give him credit for is his dishonest statements about arriving at his beliefs via skepticism and his fallacious attempts to equate scientific uncertainty with faith, so as to suggest that we all believe what we do based on faith. People who try to assert that we are all equally uncertain in our beliefs are incorrect, for one thing. But they also fail to understand that, by saying so, they are tacitly admitting that they aren't really sure their beliefs are correct. They try to reduce all other forms of knowledge to faith in order to bring everyone else down to their level of uncertainty. It's like they are saying, "I think I'm right; you think you're right. No body really knows who's really right so let's just accept all opinions as equally valid." Actually, many Christians are saying exactly that. But then, they turn right around and claim that they have real knowledge that their beliefs are correct. This type of dishonesty is something I will not excuse in debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because it is an honest opinion does not make a good or logically valid opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I am willing to give IH, or any Christian who gives faith as their reason for belief, credit for an honest answer. Because there are no logically sound reasons to accept the existence of god as true, faith is pretty much the only way to believe it. What I will not give him credit for is his dishonest statements about arriving at his beliefs via skepticism and his fallacious attempts to equate scientific uncertainty with faith, so as to suggest that we all believe what we do based on faith. People who try to assert that we are all equally uncertain in our beliefs are incorrect, for one thing. But they also fail to understand that, by saying so, they are tacitly admitting that they aren't really sure their beliefs are correct. They try to reduce all other forms of knowledge to faith in order to bring everyone else down to their level of uncertainty. It's like they are saying, "I think I'm right; you think you're right. No body really knows who's really right so let's just accept all opinions as equally valid." Actually, many Christians are saying exactly that. But then, they turn right around and claim that they have real knowledge that their beliefs are correct. This type of dishonesty is something I will not excuse in debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because it is an honest opinion does not make a good or logically valid opinion. Yes, the bankruptcy of the attempt to put science and religion on a level is seen in the ability of these disciplines to help us make predictions. It's also seen in the ability of science to "correct itself." Religion, on the other hand, brings in auxiliary assumptions so that none of its predictions can be falsified (well, you weren't healed because you didn't have enough faith or God has another plan or ... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I am willing to give IH, or any Christian who gives faith as their reason for belief, credit for an honest answer. Because there are no logically sound reasons to accept the existence of god as true, faith is pretty much the only way to believe it. What I will not give him credit for is his dishonest statements about arriving at his beliefs via skepticism and his fallacious attempts to equate scientific uncertainty with faith, so as to suggest that we all believe what we do based on faith. People who try to assert that we are all equally uncertain in our beliefs are incorrect, for one thing. But they also fail to understand that, by saying so, they are tacitly admitting that they aren't really sure their beliefs are correct. They try to reduce all other forms of knowledge to faith in order to bring everyone else down to their level of uncertainty. It's like they are saying, "I think I'm right; you think you're right. No body really knows who's really right so let's just accept all opinions as equally valid." Actually, many Christians are saying exactly that. But then, they turn right around and claim that they have real knowledge that their beliefs are correct. This type of dishonesty is something I will not excuse in debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because it is an honest opinion does not make a good or logically valid opinion. Yes, the bankruptcy of the attempt to put science and religion on a level is seen in the ability of these disciplines to help us make predictions. It's also seen in the ability of science to "correct itself." Religion, on the other hand, brings in auxiliary assumptions so that none of its predictions can be falsified (well, you weren't healed because you didn't have enough faith or God has another plan or ... ) Oooo... That's a really good point! Nail on the head. The lack of falsifiability is probably the central problem. If there is always an excuse and never any logical way it could be shown to be false, then there can never be any degree of certainty that it is true. It's like the praying to the milk jug test. You take the claim that god always answers prayer with either a yes, no, or not yet. This covers all possible outcomes! With or without god, the outcome of your prayer will always be one of those three outcomes. You can pray to a milk jug and get the same results. It does not exclude the logical possibility that perhaps a god or a milk jug is answering your prayer, but without falsifiability, there can never be any degree of certainty that it is indeed the case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 18, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted September 18, 2014 Ironhorse, Do you agree that the cause of science is attributable only to the skills of observation, analysis and logical deduction? (Bump!) (Re-Bump) Bumped on BAA's behalf. Ironhorse, please make good on the promise you have made to address all of the issues put before you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts