Roz Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 My question still stands. Why did christianity, your religion, try to stifle scientific breakthrough? Something tells me you're going to launch the no true scottsman argument. The catholic church was somehow not true christians. How do you know they're not, how do you know you have it right and every other religious claim is wrong? And Sdelsolray is right: "Some had red hair. Obviously, science was pioneered because some people had red hair. Everyone who ate pickles before 1850 is dead. Therefore, pickles cause people to die. Do you see how silly those statements are? Again, correlation does not demonstrate causation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Have you never read about Copernicus? Have YOU read about Copernicus? http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/pre20th_europe_church.html "Copernicus' publication On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres was not published until after he died in order for him to avoid being persecuted by the Church. Often called the Copernican Revolution, this actually was not much of a revolution. The book was published in Latin, so the general public was not able to read it. Academics could, but few learned people were willing to face the Church and risk death. It wasn't even until 73 years after it was published, 1616, did the Church consider it important enough to place on its Index of Prohibited Books." And the part you did not post from the site: "However, it did put heliocentric views out in the restricted open, and it was useful to people such as Galileo to help revolutionize astronomy in Europe." Hello idot? Christianity was something scientists feared. Christianity was holding back science. That makes Christianity a negative influence. Here is why Christianity is against science: Science keeps disproving the things Christianity claims as truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtify Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I am shaking my head right now Ironhorse. Sometimes you are unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Tell me, does "zero" equal "not as much as" in your reasoning? "This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science." I agree that science has made our lives much better. My disagreement is ignoring the fact that going back centuries, it was Christians who helped pioneer advances in science that led us to the modern age. Sure, many of the people who advanced science in history happened to be Christians (who in many cases were committing hearsay to do so), but many Muslims and people of other faiths contributed to science as well. What does the scientist's religion have to do with the actual science? As said before, humans are naturally curious, rational beings who likely would have discovered science anyway, apart from religion. Just because some scientists were/are Christians does not mean Christianity causes science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 He started out saying xianity caused science then changed it to xians caused science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Ironhorse's failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation is additional evidence that his thinking is shallow, myopic and vacuous. His attempt to use a merely correlated set of facts to claim causation among those facts is further evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 He doesn't feel the need to change. He likes his fluffy security blanket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i wonder how many scientists in CERN are christians and how many christians are trying to stop CERN from running the LHC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I see BAA, there are no relationships between religion, nature, nurture, and the natural....thanks, your an idiot. Oh, I forgot: Deal with it....lol. No, End. There is no relationship between science (the study of the natural universe) and religion (the worship of the supernatural). Either you deliberately misquoted me or you simply don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Facts are facts folks....looks like y'all are screwed on this one. But I don't expect any of you quitters to take responsibility. God creates whole races of people with bad DNA so he can kill them before they harm society because they have bad DNA. Check. Got it. Makes sense. So I was watching 60 Minutes....all the college shootings....most are attributed to schizophrenia.....a genetic thing? Killing is death, death is the debil. The debil is the fallen world, What is disease? Schizophrenia is only partly genetic. Environmental factors are also in play. If you look at disease in general, a good portion of them are solely or almost entirely environmental. Environment alters genetics... ...and genetics is science, not religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-genes-make-people-evil/ Here's a scientific rag that asks the same question. Guess they are all the things you called me as well. Scientific American is a magazine about science, the study of the natural universe. Science has nothing to say about supernatural matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Interesting that the Scientific American can pose the same question, but somehow I'm deluded, crazy, etc. I wish someone would have the gonads to actually discuss the question. SciAm poses the scientific question in a scientific context. Whatever it says is not meant to be taken out of that context, to support or oppose any theological argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 it's amazing what's happening right now. It's like watching someone in deep denial trying to tie anything together. OK Roz, let's take it step by step. Certain behaviors defined as sin? Yes or no. Let me assure you Roz before we start, you will lose this one. No. Sin is a spiritual condition and therefore supernatural. It's not within the remit of science to investigate anything supernatural. Science has nothing to say about sin and doesn't even recognize it's existence. Science is agnostic, neutral and totally separate from religious matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 it's amazing what's happening right now. It's like watching someone in deep denial trying to tie anything together. OK Roz, let's take it step by step. Certain behaviors defined as sin? Yes or no. Let me assure you Roz before we start, you will lose this one. Sin is a fictional construct. You can't get off first base. Not per the definition of sin ma'am. There is no scientific definition of sin. Sin is a supernatural condition and not a natural one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 "This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one ever contributed to the betterment of society as science." Are you saying that the Christian faith had zero influence on the rise of science in history? Oh god, not this "Christianity as a system of thought contributed (largely?) to the growth of science" thing again. Ironhorse already made this claim when, over a month ago? And it was roundly refuted. Now he reasserts the same thing, as though no previous discussion had taken place, although he couches his claim in the form of a question about "zero influence". Plus misquotes Roz. Reasoning that IH might use: Trolls reassert debunked claims Trolls misquote IH reasserted debunked claims IH misquoted Therefore IH is a troll. This isn't far from an argument like: Some scientists were Christians Therefore Christianity is a (major?) influence on science 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Sin: 1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : fault 2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God We can read right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 When you stab a voodoo doll the target feals the pain because of magic . . . because science says that EM radiation exists. I can quote articles on EM radiation. See? I can prove voodoo with science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 9, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted June 9, 2014 No wonder his wife left him. This kind of personal shit is uncalled for, even in the Den. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereisnoperfect Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 End, I have tried and tried to discuss the question, and you keep ducking me. You say these things: 1) Maybe God had them kill all those people to wipe out their evil genetic traits. 2) All people have inherited sinful genetic traits and deserve death. To which I point out: a) nothing in your Bible to support your presupposition in 1. Nothing. If the goal is to wipe out their genetic traits, you'd have to kill them all, not save out the virgin girls. c) If everyone has inherited this sinfulness, then those people are no different and there's no reason to wipe them out in particular and leave everybody else. d) Contemplating a judgmental god and thinking people are inherently evil and worthy of nothing good is demonstrated to be harmful to mental health. And you haven't bothered to respond to any of those. I don't have any quarrel with science--I have a quarrel with your clumsy and illogical attempt to connect it to genocide in the bible. That you continue to try to hold up your abstractions as good and more important than the lives of the people who were killed is still deeply disturbing to me. It's much less surprising that you "despise feminism." I'm wondering what other obviously good things you're opposed to, but I don't really want to know. Here's the Spiritual answer to your question. As God also chose Noah based on Noah's intention, women/ girls who have not given themselves over to "agreement" with those genetics, in my mind might make the Noah cut. Again, that's why I contend that we all are deserving. God says he has grace on those he will have grace on. It's consistent with the story. I thought you wanted to talk about science. Instead, you are talking about story. You have completely ignored points A and D that I made. I assume you are conceding them. Your vague response to B and C has nothing to do with science and you offer no scientific support. What science can you point to that supports the idea of people needing to be in "agreement" with genetics? If people can be not in agreement with their genetics, then why would that be confined only to virgin girls? Why couldn't someone else not be in agreement with the genetics? Why would all the virgin girls be in that category? And if it's possible for someone to not be in "agreement" with their genetics and that somehow makes a difference, then why wouldn't god prefer to encourage more people to choose differently rather than asking people to go slaughter other people. Remember: we're talking about someone walking up to a mother and her 4-year-old son, both crying, clinging to each other. The boy is saying, "mama, save me," and you stick a sword into her belly and then do the same thing to the child. That's the best way a morally perfect and omniscient being can come up with to advance the cause of good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Sin: 1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : fault 2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God We can read right? These are scientific definitions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 And so far all we've seen from the christian side is basically this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Sin: 1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : fault 2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God We can read right? These are scientific definitions? feelings are science, "felt to be highly". ????? Give me the science Roz. "or moral law" We're going to label it a human construct because we can't define it scientifically? Gheeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 You're using one definition of sin and attempting to tie it in with supernatural forces, how quaint of you. You've stated that everyone sinned and is deserving of nothing less than death. Now you want to tie in all definitions of sin to suit your supernatural definition. I see what you're doing. Moral law IS a human construct, this is because humans came up with it. Whether you like it or not there was no supernatural being that brought about any moral law. This is why it's continually refined through time, with debate and reason. The difference between your moral law and secular moral law is that yours is fixed at a point thousands of years in the past, whereas secular moral law is ever changing, because new debates keep coming out about how ought we to live. This is why you're stuck trying to defend your position of killing children, raping virgin women, and killing the elderly. "Because I said so" is par for the course for christian morality. Case in point. Christianity has kept slaves while other groups have abolished it amongst their sphere of influence. Ask Ravenstar for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 End, I have tried and tried to discuss the question, and you keep ducking me. You say these things: 1) Maybe God had them kill all those people to wipe out their evil genetic traits. 2) All people have inherited sinful genetic traits and deserve death. To which I point out: a) nothing in your Bible to support your presupposition in 1. Nothing. If the goal is to wipe out their genetic traits, you'd have to kill them all, not save out the virgin girls. c) If everyone has inherited this sinfulness, then those people are no different and there's no reason to wipe them out in particular and leave everybody else. d) Contemplating a judgmental god and thinking people are inherently evil and worthy of nothing good is demonstrated to be harmful to mental health. And you haven't bothered to respond to any of those. I don't have any quarrel with science--I have a quarrel with your clumsy and illogical attempt to connect it to genocide in the bible. That you continue to try to hold up your abstractions as good and more important than the lives of the people who were killed is still deeply disturbing to me. It's much less surprising that you "despise feminism." I'm wondering what other obviously good things you're opposed to, but I don't really want to know. Here's the Spiritual answer to your question. As God also chose Noah based on Noah's intention, women/ girls who have not given themselves over to "agreement" with those genetics, in my mind might make the Noah cut. Again, that's why I contend that we all are deserving. God says he has grace on those he will have grace on. It's consistent with the story. I thought you wanted to talk about science. Instead, you are talking about story. You have completely ignored points A and D that I made. I assume you are conceding them. Your vague response to B and C has nothing to do with science and you offer no scientific support. What science can you point to that supports the idea of people needing to be in "agreement" with genetics? If people can be not in agreement with their genetics, then why would that be confined only to virgin girls? Why couldn't someone else not be in agreement with the genetics? Why would all the virgin girls be in that category? And if it's possible for someone to not be in "agreement" with their genetics and that somehow makes a difference, then why wouldn't god prefer to encourage more people to choose differently rather than asking people to go slaughter other people. Remember: we're talking about someone walking up to a mother and her 4-year-old son, both crying, clinging to each other. The boy is saying, "mama, save me," and you stick a sword into her belly and then do the same thing to the child. That's the best way a morally perfect and omniscient being can come up with to advance the cause of good? I'll will make an attempt at a considered response TINP...not ignoring you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 You're using one definition of sin and attempting to tie it in with supernatural forces, how quaint of you. You've stated that everyone sinned and is deserving of nothing less than death. Now you want to tie in all definitions of sin to suit your supernatural definition. I see what you're doing. Moral law IS a human construct, this is because humans came up with it. Whether you like it or not there was no supernatural being that brought about any moral law. This is why it's continually refined through time, with debate and reason. The difference between your moral law and secular moral law is that yours is fixed at a point thousands of years in the past, whereas secular moral law is ever changing, because new debates keep coming out about how ought we to live. This is why you're stuck trying to defend your position of killing children, raping virgin women, and killing the elderly. "Because I said so" is par for the course for christian morality. Case in point. Christianity has kept slaves while other groups have abolished it amongst their sphere of influence. Ask Ravenstar for details. Tying it to God is valid unless you can define the scientific mechanics of human construct....as you say Roz, how quaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts