Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theists should stop using Science

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

Kleptin, long time no see. I suppose the title should be amended to "Members of some branches of Christianity should stop using science"? The term theist seems far too broad for your current purposes.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:21:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:13:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

Kleptin, long time no see. I suppose the title should be amended to "Members of some branches of Christianity should stop using science"? The term theist seems far too broad for your current purposes.

Yes, but there's a character limit for the thread titles XD

I am, however, prepared to argue against those who subscribe to other religious beliefs who attempt to use science to validate their beliefs.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 6:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:21:17 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:13:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

Kleptin, long time no see. I suppose the title should be amended to "Members of some branches of Christianity should stop using science"? The term theist seems far too broad for your current purposes.

Yes, but there's a character limit for the thread titles XD

I am, however, prepared to argue against those who subscribe to other religious beliefs who attempt to use science to validate their beliefs.

So far as I remember, you are prepared to argue against anyone, even if they agree with you. lol
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 7:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't actually need to discredit the individual arguments that Theists make, attempting to use science to validate their religious beliefs. I've been doing that for over a decade now and the conclusion that I have drawn is that there are simply fundamental differences between what an Atheist and what a Theist considers to be acceptable as truth and fact.

I think a more crucial observation, the one that I am making now, is that any theist who chooses to use this method of validating his own faith lacks spiritual and intellectual integrity. Though many run under the notion that they somehow strengthen their faith through these scientific perversions and falsities, all they really do is demonstrate their reliance on self-deception as a way of maintaining their faith.

The quest of this pretentious type of Christian is never selfless and never in accordance with what scripture dictates as an acceptable form of evangelism. It is done out of pride and is extremely self-serving. Attempting to prove yourself right and beyond argument is fundamentally different from spreading the message that Christ died for each and every one of us on the cross.

I would highly recommend that any self-proclaimed Christian who continues with this perverted Crusade look deep within themselves and ask whether they value argumentation more than their connection with Christ, and whose interests they truly serve by pursuing this course of action.

There will be a lot of anger and a lot of denial, but the answer is pretty simple.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Nonsense, why would a theist not use science?

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended.

I don't convert anybody with science, and what do you know about the way God intended evangelism?

A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

Does anyone really convert to Christianity by way of science? I don't think so. And science is bad ideas? Nonsense.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love.

People that do that are doing it out of ignorance.

are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

Christ didn't evangelize.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You don't seem to know very much about Christianity either.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Looking foolish should not make a person feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

There's always going to be whackos, in every category of people. These people only make themselves look bad,
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 8:43:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

Right, sounds like propaganda from a lost cause. As a philosophy of science major I couldn't help but just roll my eyes when reading this, the scientific revolution was held under the context of namely Christian convictions of worshipping God with our minds as we study the book of God's works on their own terms rather than using interpretations of the book of God's word to do so. (A fine distinction made by Francis Bacon, in fact Darwin quoted his words inside the front cover of On the Origin of Species). John Ray, the father of natural history, was himself a convicted Christian and set forth the natural project of explaining the geographical distribution and diversity of life.. were it not for him Darwin probably never would have had anything intelligent to say, he read his massive volumes of observation while on the Beagle.

Newton, would also roll his eyes at this naive view (at least the one he didn't poke out in the name of science while trying to see different wave lengths of light). Newton derived his distinction of absolute space and relative space under the context of his theistic reflections of God's relation to time and space. He was a substantivalist who thought God co-eternal with time and space, which were thought of as an immanent effect of God's very being. No doubt Einstein later came along and corrected what Newton couldn't have seen, that moving clocks run slow.. but that still didn't undercut absolute space.. it was just made superfluous. However there's recent developments that indicate that going back to an absolute frame would be a fruitful venture.

I could go on and on how folks like Lamarck, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, William Thomson Kelvin, Planck, Francis Collins, John Snope, Lennox, etc, I could continue on how most of the scientific revolution-ers just naturally fell into the invention (discovery) of science out of their religious convictions.

Atheistic naturalism on the other hand, doesn't fair so well. It's been argued in the past that although there's superficial conflict between science and religion (highly speculative evolutionary psychology), there's nevertheless deep concord. But there seems to be only superficial concord between naturalism and science, but deep conflict. Namely between evolution and naturalism.

Anyhow, science is a wonderful thing and like all such things can be abused, even by folks who are called to a better standard. Nevertheless the proper role of science in the theistic question is this; scientific evidence can be used to support, as confirmation, a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a theistic conclusion.

But to tell theists that they are obligated to stop using science is to forget what Anselm said, that ours is a faith which seeks understanding. Here there's no greater tool than that of scientific inquiry to understand God's creation.

Lastly, the project of natural theology, using arguments for the existence of God, is similar to science- arguments for theism have always been consistent with scriptural command to "always be prepared to give a reason for the hop in you, but do this in gentleness and respect." 1.Pet.3:15

Sure this can also be abused. Folks can put too much weight on a knowledge by description of God (arguments) and miss out on the knowledge by acquaintance of him. What these arguments ARE useful for, is for keeping a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still a reasonable intellectual option, and also strengthening believers convictions of what they already know.

So to tell the theist to lay down their best weapons of reason and argument and just "preach your narrative," would be asking us to commit intellectual suicide for no reason other than you intellectual discomfort. This cheap ploy of propagandistic nihilism is therefore most telling of the bankruptcy of atheism.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 8:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How exactly do you know "what God wants" or what the Christian faith is all about? Have you ever touched a book on theology or history?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 8:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not being sardonic, btw, that's a sincere question.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 9:20:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 8:43:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:

Right, sounds like propaganda from a lost cause. As a philosophy of science major I couldn't help but just roll my eyes when reading this,

When I read it I sure did roll my eyes...I gagged several times too.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
S/O to OP for saying something that Christians, Atheists, and Discordians can all agree on.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 9:39:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 9:26:25 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
S/O to OP for saying something that Christians, Atheists, and Discordians can all agree on.

I wonder if he will take that as a sincere compliment.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 9:47:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 8:04:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Nonsense, why would a theist not use science?

It depends on what they happen to be using science for. If they were using it to make a scientific discovery, that seems appropriate. If they are trying to use it to validate their beliefs with it, then they will fail due to the fundamental differences between how Religion and Science define truth. They will either recognize their failure or misinterpret their results and go on to fail even harder later on.

I don't convert anybody with science

That's right, you can't convert someone with science. Why do theists keep trying? As for what God intended with evangelism: What does evangelism entail and for what purpose does it serve?

and what do you know about the way God intended evangelism?

Matthew 28:18-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always unto the end of the world. Amen.

Evangelism necessarily entails two things:
1) Preaching of the Gospel, which is the message that Christ died for the sins of man and that acceptance of his sacrifice leads to salvation.

2) Spreading the teachings of Christ

Evangelism has never been about proving things right or wrong, using *any* system such as science. Evangelism has never been about testability, facts, figures, or more aptly, the misinterpretation and perversion of those things. Scripture is CLEAR on what constitutes evangelism and what constitutes self-serving validation.

Does anyone really convert to Christianity by way of science? I don't think so.

They don't, but that doesn't mean people don't try. They falsely equate "disproving" science with "proving" Christianity. The mechanics of fallacies such as this escape me, but it's observable to anyone on this forum who has more than a few months under their belt that its widespread.

And science is bad ideas? Nonsense.

Clarification: Any attempt by a Christian to make an argument invalidating a scientific notion that contests with Christianity, or any attempt by a Christian to use science to validate a religious tenet, is usually nothing but a perverted and misleading use of science. Those are the "bad ideas" I reference. Those who are convinced of those arguments have then "opened their minds to bad ideas".

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love.

People that do that are doing it out of ignorance.

Ignorance implies that they don't know what they are doing. These people know exactly what they are doing. What I am emphasizing is that they don't know *why*. They are doing it out of pride, not out of love, and definitely do not do it for the purpose of their religion.

Christ didn't evangelize.

Semantics, but I'll respond anyway. Christ's life and teachings comprise the Gospel, and evangelism is definitively the spreading of the Gospel. In a broader sense, Evangelism is the spreading of the message of salvation through Christ, and by that definition, Christ evangelized.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.
You don't seem to know very much about Christianity either.

This truth does nothing but strengthen my point about what terrible Christians they make. I'm far more open to Christianity than a non-Christian should be, and I understand and respect Christians much, much more than your average atheist. Note that I haven't actually attacked core Christian beliefs at all in this entire post conversation. I respect Christianity enough to know my boundaries, I just wished the feeling were mutual.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Looking foolish should not make a person feel better.

The individuals I speak of don't seem to notice how foolish it makes them look. And the FACT that attacking science makes them feel better is an indication as to how wrong this is.

There's always going to be whackos, in every category of people. These people only make themselves look bad,

Unfortunately, that is not the case. They are the most vocal, because they garner the most secular attention (due to the fact that they keep trying to fight science with science), they become the face of how the secular world views Christians. This generates animosity and resistance.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 9:49:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Being one of the more outspoken critics here, I can't help but feel that you're addressing this to me, so I'll respond. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but with respect, I couldn't disagree with you more on these points.

Faith- It doesn't demean faith at all because if you know anything about my perspective, you realize that there is that area of faith that I admit is based purely on faith that Christ died for the sins of mankind. However, Christ showed through Doubting Thomas that we are not expected to have just pure blind faith, but a reasoned faith. That leads into the issue of perverting science.

Science- Romans 1:20 says...

" For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Evidence for the creator is evident in the creation itself. We should be able to study nature, and our universe, and find evidence that what the Bible says, is true. In other words, true science should lead us toward God. An examination of hard science does just that.

What we can actually see in nature supports what we are told in Genesis. It takes life to create life, and kinds bring forth after their kind. Anyone who says that science shows us something different than that is injecting a philosophical objection to the idea of a creator, or has allowed themselves to be decieved, and it is that person who is perverting science.

Spiritual Growth- You seem to be advocating some kind of blind faith, but not even the Bible advocates blind faith. The Bible tells us to be ready to defend our faith, to give reason for the faith that is in us. How can one give a reason for his faith if that faith is purely a blind faith, and without justification??

Allowing atheists and evolutionists to claim that science proves the Bible wrong is very counter-productive to the spiritual growth of an individual, or a society. Confronting that claim and pointing out its failures and absurdities, and showing that it is indeed possible to be a Bible-believing Christian and a believer in science at the same time, fosters spiritual growth.

Scoffers would have us believe that we can't believe the Bible and science at the same time, that they are mutually exclusive, and that couldn't be further from the truth. One can't experience spiritual growth if that doubt is always present. There are many of us out here who know better, and are trying to spread the word, and show people that it is indeed possible to be an intellectually fulfilled, Bible-believing Christian, who doesn't need to compromise God's word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

I can't think of a better way to get people to open their hearts to Christ than showing them the word of God is indeed supported by simply looking at the world around them.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I read the Bible and frankly I disagree with your interpretation of how Christ approached evangelism.

I love to debate, and there is indeed a certain degree of pride there, when you feel that you've presented a better argument, I have no problem copping guilty to that charge. However, I don't believe that God will have a problem with me taking pride in trying to break down the walls that atheists and evolutionists have built between science and the Bible.

I could just as easily debate politics, sports, etc., etc., if it were just my pride I was trying to feed, but there's a reason that I argue the issues that I do and I don't believe that reason is a selfish one, in spite of what you might think.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

Ok so you're not a Christian, yet you think that by criticizing those who argue in favor of the Bible, that makes you a better Christian than one who promotes and argues in favor of belief in the Bible, and God?? I'm sorry but I can't even figure a way to twist that statement into something that even resembles a rational thought.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

I don't attack something if it is actually science. What I attack is the assumptions, and misinterpretations of evidence, that those opposed to creation try to push off as actual science. As for my lack of integrity or pride, you're free to level whatever charges you'd like. I'll leave that to God to sort out.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

Obviously we have differing opinions on what makes a Christian an intelligent Christian. As I said earlier, I respect your right to have your opinion on the issue, but I do not share that opinion.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 10:36:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 8:43:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Right, sounds like propaganda from a lost cause. As a philosophy of science major

Oh, you're an undergraduate student. *sigh* I know what's coming next...

I couldn't help but just roll my eyes when reading this, the scientific revolution was held under the context of namely Christian convictions of worshipping God with our minds as we study the book of God's works on their own terms rather than using interpretations of the book of God's word to do so. (A fine distinction made by Francis Bacon, in fact Darwin quoted his words inside the front cover of On the Origin of Species). John Ray, the father of natural history, was himself a convicted Christian and set forth the natural project of explaining the geographical distribution and diversity of life.. were it not for him Darwin probably never would have had anything intelligent to say, he read his massive volumes of observation while on the Beagle.

Newton, would also roll his eyes at this naive view (at least the one he didn't poke out in the name of science while trying to see different wave lengths of light). Newton derived his distinction of absolute space and relative space under the context of his theistic reflections of God's relation to time and space. He was a substantivalist who thought God co-eternal with time and space, which were thought of as an immanent effect of God's very being. No doubt Einstein later came along and corrected what Newton couldn't have seen, that moving clocks run slow.. but that still didn't undercut absolute space.. it was just made superfluous. However there's recent developments that indicate that going back to an absolute frame would be a fruitful venture.

I could go on and on how folks like Lamarck, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, William Thomson Kelvin, Planck, Francis Collins, John Snope, Lennox, etc, I could continue on how most of the scientific revolution-ers just naturally fell into the invention (discovery) of science out of their religious convictions.

Maybe if your eyes were focused on my words instead of rolling about in that vacuum between your ears, you'd recognize that I made no stance about Christian scientists and their contributions to science, but focused exclusively on Christians who use science to validate religious tenets or invalidate science itself; points that none of your class note recitation had anything to do with. Inspiration to further the fields of science through religious conviction has nothing to do with it. Looks like the only thing that college has taught you so far is how to skim and recite. Back to wikipedia and ramen noodles, please.

Atheistic naturalism on the other hand, doesn't fair so well. It's been argued in the past that although there's superficial conflict between science and religion (highly speculative evolutionary psychology), there's nevertheless deep concord. But there seems to be only superficial concord between naturalism and science, but deep conflict. Namely between evolution and naturalism.

"It's been argued" basically indicates to me that nothing afterward has any value since you don't care to include the arguments. The second thing is that you're basing your argument on how well philosophies mesh together, which doesn't add to the truth value of the individual conclusions of the respective fields. On paper, it makes it *sound* like when two philosophies agree, it lends credence to both, but that's simply not the case. What is true is true, what is false is false.

Anyhow, science is a wonderful thing and like all such things can be abused, even by folks who are called to a better standard. Nevertheless the proper role of science in the theistic question is this; scientific evidence can be used to support, as confirmation, a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a theistic conclusion.

Okay, I can grant you that. But only because I firmly believe that there can be no philosophical argument that leads to a theistic conclusion.

But to tell theists that they are obligated to stop using science is to forget what Anselm said, that ours is a faith which seeks understanding. Here there's no greater tool than that of scientific inquiry to understand God's creation.

I'm undecided on this point. One argument I want to make is that scientific inquiry, while a great tool for understanding the universe in a naturalistic sense, is not necessarily the best tool for "understanding God's creation" in a way that legitimately progresses the faith. The second argument I want to make is that Anselm is wrong in declaring Christianity a faith which seeks understanding. I'll blend the two and say that Christians should not seek to "understand" their religion the same way a physicist seeks to "understand" physics.

Lastly, the project of natural theology, using arguments for the existence of God, is similar to science- arguments for theism have always been consistent with scriptural command to "always be prepared to give a reason for the hop in you, but do this in gentleness and respect." 1.Pet.3:15

Similar to, but vastly perverts. I've yet to see a theistic argument run to a valid conclusion, yet, I do not discredit the Christian faith.

Sure this can also be abused. Folks can put too much weight on a knowledge by description of God (arguments) and miss out on the knowledge by acquaintance of him. What these arguments ARE useful for, is for keeping a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still a reasonable intellectual option, and also strengthening believers convictions of what they already know.

There's no argument that can make Christianity a "reasonable intellectual option", nor any reason why it needs to be classified as one. That's the same as saying that flavored gasoline makes it a good tasting fuel for your car. As for your point about strengthening believers, it does so via false knowledge. As I said, there exists no legitimate argument that leads to a theistic conclusion, nor any framework or basis for anything even remotely resembling such now, in the past, or in the future.

So to tell the theist to lay down their best weapons of reason and argument and just "preach your narrative," would be asking us to commit intellectual suicide for no reason other than you intellectual discomfort. This cheap ploy of propagandistic nihilism is therefore most telling of the bankruptcy of atheism.

This is exactly the problem, theists are attempting to wield science as a weapon for their crusade. Whatever happened to compassion and service to the needy? If you held a spoon at a soup kitchen as long as you typed on the macbook your parents bought you, you'd do Christianity a much bigger service.

Don't point to the atheists and accuse propaganda for the rising failure of your faith to spread. Look at the ever increasing distrust that society places on your religious leaders and the focus that organizations place on fighting atheism, attempting to discredit evolution, and propagating an agenda intended to force religion into schools. Examine the issues of birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Everywhere you see criticisms of Christians, you will find that Christians are dabbling in the perversion of science.

Preach your narrative. At least it worked in the past. The second Christians picked up "science" is the second it all went downhill. This atheist is actually doing you a favor.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 10:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What happened to the medieval mystics who claimed they could control the weather in order to get money from peasants, I wonder? Were they burned as heretics by the church?

No. The Christians elected to refute the superstition via Socratic Method.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 11:05:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In my experience, science is only ever used in arguments for certain religious beliefs to establish that a phenomenon really obtains (such as that the universe had a beginning, that the constants are fine tuned for life, or that the neocortex was inoperative during an NDE). Then, the argument tries to infer the religious belief from that phenomenon. Thus, the use of science is generally uncontroversial. Perhaps you mean to attack the inferences from their scientific premises, but it seems entirely irrational to do so in such a generalized sense: there's no way you have the evidence you'd need to justify this generalization.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2013 11:43:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 9:49:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Being one of the more outspoken critics here, I can't help but feel that you're addressing this to me, so I'll respond.

I actually don't know you, but I do write my posts to make people feel like it was directed exactly at them, so I guess that works out just fine.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but with respect, I couldn't disagree with you more on these points.

Faith- It doesn't demean faith at all because if you know anything about my perspective, you realize that there is that area of faith that I admit is based purely on faith that Christ died for the sins of mankind. However, Christ showed through Doubting Thomas that we are not expected to have just pure blind faith, but a reasoned faith. That leads into the issue of perverting science.

Science- Romans 1:20 says...

" For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Evidence for the creator is evident in the creation itself. We should be able to study nature, and our universe, and find evidence that what the Bible says, is true. In other words, true science should lead us toward God. An examination of hard science does just that.

I read this passage differently and disagree. Romans is a letter from Paul/Saul, correct? It seems to me that Paul is simply *stating* that the presence of God in creation is self-evident, not that we should go and seek evidence for it. In fact, it seems like the theme of the verses around your citation seem to be "Hey, you better believe in God, because it's obvious he exists and bad stuff will happen if you don't."

What we can actually see in nature supports what we are told in Genesis. It takes life to create life, and kinds bring forth after their kind. Anyone who says that science shows us something different than that is injecting a philosophical objection to the idea of a creator, or has allowed themselves to be decieved, and it is that person who is perverting science.

That's a straw man. There's a very big difference between finding correlative truths between the contents of the Bible and science, and using science to derive and prove religious tenets. Example: I have no issue with theists trying to use science to locate Noah's ark, but I do have qualms with theists trying to use science to prove that God exists. Mostly because their attempts either lead to failure or their inability to understand their failure. There can BE NO theistic conclusion through science or philosophy. It's like trying to test the depth of the ocean with a yardstick.

Spiritual Growth- You seem to be advocating some kind of blind faith, but not even the Bible advocates blind faith. The Bible tells us to be ready to defend our faith, to give reason for the faith that is in us. How can one give a reason for his faith if that faith is purely a blind faith, and without justification??

Give me the passage that specifies the manner in which one defends his faith. This may or may not lead to me scrapping my current argument.

Allowing atheists and evolutionists to claim that science proves the Bible wrong is very counter-productive to the spiritual growth of an individual, or a society.

No, no, no, stop that right there. I am heavily against that as well. Perhaps even more so than I am against Christians using science. Science can negate certain things that coincide with religious teachings, but it is likely incapable of disproving a religious tenet and certainly incapable of disproving God. Let's expand on that now that you're aware of where I stand. Comments?

I can't think of a better way to get people to open their hearts to Christ than showing them the word of God is indeed supported by simply looking at the world around them.

It's a shame that looking at the world does nothing to prove God in a purely intellectual/philosophical sense. If it somehow divinely inspires them, that's outside my scope of comprehension, but in terms of pure logic, no.

I read the Bible and frankly I disagree with your interpretation of how Christ approached evangelism.

I love to debate, and there is indeed a certain degree of pride there, when you feel that you've presented a better argument, I have no problem copping guilty to that charge. However, I don't believe that God will have a problem with me taking pride in trying to break down the walls that atheists and evolutionists have built between science and the Bible.

And what walls would those be? How high do they reach and are they of any consequence? Furthermore, is there a right or wrong way to break them down?

I could just as easily debate politics, sports, etc., etc., if it were just my pride I was trying to feed, but there's a reason that I argue the issues that I do and I don't believe that reason is a selfish one, in spite of what you might think.

As that's a personal stance of yours, I'll admit this a personal stance of mine: I believe that the particular theists I have in mind debate religion *because* debating other topics would simply be recognized as an issue of pride. It's a pretense.

Ok so you're not a Christian, yet you think that by criticizing those who argue in favor of the Bible, that makes you a better Christian than one who promotes and argues in favor of belief in the Bible, and God?? I'm sorry but I can't even figure a way to twist that statement into something that even resembles a rational thought.

I'll clarify: Though *our* interaction here is civil, you must admit that there are an increasing number of prolific Christians spouting pseudo-science on this site in a much less civil manner. I made this post under the assumption that they defined their actions as "evangelism" and my main point was that this form of "evangelism" was purely *against* Christian values.

Depending on what you provide for the portion on "defending the faith", I may drop this argument altogether, but for now, I maintain that the methods by which these individuals try to "evangelize" are self-serving and represent a lack of integrity.

I don't attack something if it is actually science. What I attack is the assumptions, and misinterpretations of evidence, that those opposed to creation try to push off as actual science. As for my lack of integrity or pride, you're free to level whatever charges you'd like. I'll leave that to God to sort out.

From my viewpoint, Scientists do not have an agenda to discredit the Bible, but Christians have every motive to deliberately discredit all scientific discoveries that seem to point in another direction as their faith. I think that fair analyses show that all attempts by Creationists to question evolution will turn up more misinterpretations and falsifications than the other way around on that basis. I'll be happy to contest any examples you can bring up.

As a side note, I concede that there are some arrogant atheistic blowhards that deliberately target Christians, but I am against them as well.

Obviously we have differing opinions on what makes a Christian an intelligent Christian. As I said earlier, I respect your right to have your opinion on the issue, but I do not share that opinion.

I believe an Intelligent Christian can defend his faith and inspire others to follow without misleading them or relying on half-truths to mislead them. I believe an Intelligent Christian can accept truths and find a way to cohesively infuse reality with their beliefs in a way that keeps his integrity. I believe an Intelligent Christian knows that while faith can be boundless, Philosophy, Logic, and Science can only go so far in validating something defined as infinite and beyond human comprehension.

Side note: Thanks for being civil.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 10:36:31 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/3/2013 8:43:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Right, sounds like propaganda from a lost cause. As a philosophy of science major

Oh, you're an undergraduate student. *sigh* I know what's coming next...

Nope, I'm a graduate sir. But do go on...

I couldn't help but just roll my eyes when reading this, the scientific revolution was held under the context of namely Christian convictions of worshipping God with our minds as we study the book of God's works on their own terms rather than using interpretations of the book of God's word to do so. (A fine distinction made by Francis Bacon, in fact Darwin quoted his words inside the front cover of On the Origin of Species). John Ray, the father of natural history, was himself a convicted Christian and set forth the natural project of explaining the geographical distribution and diversity of life.. were it not for him Darwin probably never would have had anything intelligent to say, he read his massive volumes of observation while on the Beagle.

Newton, would also roll his eyes at this naive view (at least the one he didn't poke out in the name of science while trying to see different wave lengths of light). Newton derived his distinction of absolute space and relative space under the context of his theistic reflections of God's relation to time and space. He was a substantivalist who thought God co-eternal with time and space, which were thought of as an immanent effect of God's very being. No doubt Einstein later came along and corrected what Newton couldn't have seen, that moving clocks run slow.. but that still didn't undercut absolute space.. it was just made superfluous. However there's recent developments that indicate that going back to an absolute frame would be a fruitful venture.

I could go on and on how folks like Lamarck, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, William Thomson Kelvin, Planck, Francis Collins, John Snope, Lennox, etc, I could continue on how most of the scientific revolution-ers just naturally fell into the invention (discovery) of science out of their religious convictions.

Maybe if your eyes were focused on my words instead of rolling about in that vacuum between your ears, you'd recognize that I made no stance about Christian scientists and their contributions to science, but focused exclusively on Christians who use science to validate religious tenets or invalidate science itself; points that none of your class note recitation had anything to do with. Inspiration to further the fields of science through religious conviction has nothing to do with it. Looks like the only thing that college has taught you so far is how to skim and recite. Back to wikipedia and ramen noodles, please.

The rest is all but fluff, the bold is what I focussed on. Do respond to that?

... First, I made mention of how science can be used to validate religious beliefs but only after I discussed the OP, which was "Theists should stop using Science." Which is mad given the contextual history of science, indeed it's even arrogant and misguided. And I think I argued that swimmingly... I'd challenge you on this but it seems I'd be doing more teaching and less learning, pharmacist. ;-)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 12:54:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 10:36:31 PM, Kleptin wrote:


Atheistic naturalism on the other hand, doesn't fair so well. It's been argued in the past that although there's superficial conflict between science and religion (highly speculative evolutionary psychology), there's nevertheless deep concord. But there seems to be only superficial concord between naturalism and science, but deep conflict. Namely between evolution and naturalism.

"It's been argued" basically indicates to me that nothing afterward has any value since you don't care to include the arguments.

What else are forums for? Debates are for this argument, but if you're interested check out Plantinga's "where the conflict really lies" in it he discusses his Evolutionary Argument against naturalism, a lengthy argument for a forum, but I'd be more than happy to enter the arena with you after my debate with Dakota.

The second thing is that you're basing your argument on how well philosophies mesh together, which doesn't add to the truth value of the individual conclusions of the respective fields. On paper, it makes it *sound* like when two philosophies agree, it lends credence to both, but that's simply not the case. What is true is true, what is false is false.

I fail to see how this undercuts anything whatsoever. False philosophies don't 'mesh' with true ones.


Anyhow, science is a wonderful thing and like all such things can be abused, even by folks who are called to a better standard. Nevertheless the proper role of science in the theistic question is this; scientific evidence can be used to support, as confirmation, a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a theistic conclusion.

Okay, I can grant you that. But only because I firmly believe that there can be no philosophical argument that leads to a theistic conclusion.

Yes, and that is obviously where we disagree, but as long as you see that this is the role of science, then the OP up there (and subsequently that diatribe against natural theology), should be given up unless you can actually show that all the theistic arguments (5 good ones, about 13 stable other ones) in fact lead to no [positive] theistic conclusions. But I'm glad you see my point, hopefully we can get clear of the typical ad homs now- myself included.


But to tell theists that they are obligated to stop using science is to forget what Anselm said, that ours is a faith which seeks understanding. Here there's no greater tool than that of scientific inquiry to understand God's creation.

I'm undecided on this point. One argument I want to make is that scientific inquiry, while a great tool for understanding the universe in a naturalistic sense, is not necessarily the best tool for "understanding God's creation" in a way that legitimately progresses the faith.

As a working geophysicist, I can tell you from experience that my experience of God has been enhanced by learning more about his creation. Simply put, I've learned that spirituality constrained by sound theology makes philosophy redundant and science somewhat trivial, though nevertheless pragmatic. BUt they all flow into each other at times and other times they don't. Biology is one in which it's very hard to separate theological matters from scientific ones. Same thing with history from religion in the early Christian period. This reductionistic attitude that all fields are non-overlapping magisteria is, often, a pipe-dream.

The second argument I want to make is that Anselm is wrong in declaring Christianity a faith which seeks understanding. I'll blend the two and say that Christians should not seek to "understand" their religion the same way a physicist seeks to "understand" physics.

Haha, out of all the things to leave unsupported by rational argument you choose this wild claim? C'mon, grace us with reasons behind this...

Or at the very least show how the three Christian understandings of the word faith to be illusory:

Whenever a Christian is talking about faith and it's benefits in life, there are altogether three types of faith she's referring to. The first faith is that God created us with good, properly functioning cognitive faculties so that we can ultimately have knowledge of our creator. This then is a reasonable faith, since it grounds our reasoning and the laws of logic in a reliable way. At least more so than that of naturalism, where the naturalist would have to owe us an account of properly functioning noetics without a designer. This has yet to be done.

The second faith stems from the first faith in that we have trust that our experience of God is true for the person who really experiences him. This faith also confirms scripture, morality, the external world, the ability to have knowledge of ourselves, etc.

Finally, the third faith simply trusts that God will fulfill his promises that he spoke of through his personal witness to us and in scripture. This is the common, "man on the street" usage of the term faith, but all three are a type of faith.

Ultimately everyone must have faith, it just boils down to how reliable their ground is.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 12:58:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 10:36:31 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/3/2013 8:43:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:

Sure this can also be abused. Folks can put too much weight on a knowledge by description of God (arguments) and miss out on the knowledge by acquaintance of him. What these arguments ARE useful for, is for keeping a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still a reasonable intellectual option, and also strengthening believers convictions of what they already know.

There's no argument that can make Christianity a "reasonable intellectual option", nor any reason why it needs to be classified as one. That's the same as saying that flavored gasoline makes it a good tasting fuel for your car. As for your point about strengthening believers, it does so via false knowledge. As I said, there exists no legitimate argument that leads to a theistic conclusion, nor any framework or basis for anything even remotely resembling such now, in the past, or in the future.

Yea, you also say,

[I've yet to see a theistic argument run to a valid conclusion, yet, I do not discredit the Christian faith.]

... but like I said above, faith isn't blindly trusting without doubt what's superfluous. Rather it's what John Calvin said,

"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity ... a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men"s minds"

-Calvin, Institutes 1.2.1, 3

We can call this the sensus divinitatus, a mental faculty that produces theistic beliefs in a wide variety. It"s a set of dispositions to form theistic beliefs in various circumstances. In turn these circumstances or stimuli trigger its working. And since perceptual beliefs aren"t based on arguments from more basic beliefs, they arise spontaneously when one"s in the circumstances of, say, being appeared to redly whenever one sees a red apple, so likewise, the belief "God exists" arises spontaneously in appropriate circumstances, say, times of guilt, awe of nature, etc- all as a result of the sensus divinitatus' function.

Such circumstances form the context in which the sensus divinitatus operates to make a properly basic belief. Thus belief in God isn"t arbitrary, but grounded in the proper circumstances. On this model, the theist violates no epistemic duty and is justified.

Now warrant inherently involves properly functioning cognitive faculties or noetics (PFN). And noetics are functioning properly only if they"re functioning in the way they"re designed, and properly functioning in the particular environment they were designed for.

God has so constituted us that we naturally form this belief under certain circumstances; since the belief is this formed by PFN in an appropriate environment, it is warranted for us, and, insofar as our cognitive faculties aren"t disrupted by the noetic effects of sin, we shall believe this proposition deeply and firmly, so that we can be said, in virtue of the great warrant accruing to this belief for us to know God exists.

So if God exists, then theistic belief is warranted. Thus the question of whether belief in God is warranted isn"t epistemological: It"s metaphysical / theological. Thus, there"s no de jure objection to theistic belief independent of de facto objections.

Now since we clearly live in a fallen world, then at some point we lost or forfeited the sensus divinitatus because we sinned (fell away from God- made an unjustly seeking self forming choice), the instigation of the Holy Spirit was required to redeem mankind to the original knowledge by acquaintance of God. Our fall into sin and away from God had disastrous cognitive & affective consequences. Our sense of the divine was deformed and its deliverances muted, our affections skewed. We resist what deliverances of the the sensus divinitatus remain: Being self-centered rather than God-oriented. But here the instigation of the Holy Spirit comes into play.

God in his grace needed to find a way to inform us of the plan of salvation that he has made available, and he has chosen to do so by means of (1) the Scriptures, inspired by him and laying our the great truths of the gospel, (2) the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in repairing the cognitive and affective damage of sin, thereby enabling us to grasp and believe the great truths of the gospel, and (3) faith, which is the principal work of the Holy Spirit produced in believers" hearts.

So the instigation of the Holy Spirit produces in a person, who"s informed of the gospel, assent to its truth if he"s willing. And so the instigation of the Holy Spirit is thus a source of belief, a cognitive process that produces in us gospel belief. The instigation of the Holy Spirit is a belief forming mechanism-analogue to the sensus divinitatus. As such, a belief formed in this way meet the conditions for warrant:

(1) belief formed with PFN
(2) environment + the contamination wrought by sin environment
(This is the environment that this process was designed to function)
(3) process is designed to produce true beliefs

Thus one can be said to know the great truths of the gospel through instigation of the Holy Spirit! They"re properly basic for us wholly apart from evidence and so they're self-authenticating.

Now if Christianity is true then something like this model is probably true. But now what about Atheism? How in the world do we have properly functioning cognitive faculties aimed at producing true metaphysical beliefs if naturalistic evolution is true? For atheism this is the only game in town for an epistemology, and so atheists are to give a non-statistical account of properly functioning noetics without a benevolent designer if they're to give any reason for why theism isn't true.

Thus wholly apart from any external evidence, theism can be rationally affirmed. But wholly apart from evidence, atheism cannot be rationally affirmed.

Now there are about 5 good arguments amounting to a cumulative case for the Christian God. This counts as reasonable external evidence, a knowledge by description for Christianity atop of the internal, knowledge by acquaintance of God through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

In this way, I know God exists. I have a reasonable faith.


So to tell the theist to lay down their best weapons of reason and argument and just "preach your narrative," would be asking us to commit intellectual suicide for no reason other than you intellectual discomfort. This cheap ploy of propagandistic nihilism is therefore most telling of the bankruptcy of atheism.

This is exactly the problem, theists are attempting to wield science as a weapon for their crusade.

Same with atheists.. hell just look at Dawkins my point is why think on atheism that science is YOUR arbiter of truth to be welded against those who disagree? As said before, scientific evidence can be used in a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a theistic conclusion. Whether those premises are more plausibly true is up for debate of course.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 1:11:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 12:58:08 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/3/2013 10:36:31 PM, Kleptin wrote:


(Sorry for breaking this up peace meal, it was just too fun to pass up ;-)


Whatever happened to compassion and service to the needy? If you held a spoon at a soup kitchen as long as you typed on the macbook your parents bought you, you'd do Christianity a much bigger service.

More ad homs, who's to say I don't give and serve the needy? Have you any idea what I do in my spare time? Where I give my money? Even so, Jesus didn't spend his whole time with Altruism.. he also sought to win over the minds of folks as well as the hearts. For the Christian, evangelism is a multi-facetted crusade, as you call it. But it's a worthy crusade unlike the wars a Pope Urban insighted thousands of years ago. Rather the Christian's burden is for the salvation of his fellow humans! The message isn't we're better than you, it's we're all kinda messed up- thank God saved us spiritually! It a good news worth hearing, not to throw out with the bathwater the moment a Christian annoys you.. we're humans.


Don't point to the atheists and accuse propaganda for the rising failure of your faith to spread. Look at the ever increasing distrust that society places on your religious leaders and the focus that organizations place on fighting atheism, attempting to discredit evolution, and propagating an agenda intended to force religion into schools. Examine the issues of birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Everywhere you see criticisms of Christians, you will find that Christians are dabbling in the perversion of science.

Right, and at best these are Christians ignorant of science and what they ought morally to do! We're all epistemically groping for what's right. But what you can't do is require a theist vote contrary to their religions convictions! THAT would itself be immoral and unconstitutional.


Preach your narrative. At least it worked in the past. The second Christians picked up "science" is the second it all went downhill. This atheist is actually doing you a favor.

I don't really know what this means here, you charged irrelevancy earlier for my discussing the Christian context of the scientific revolution but then you turn around and imply, yet again, that theism and science have nothing to do with each other -

[The second Christians picked up "science" is the second it all went downhill], you say.. but is that so? Wasn't it by virtue of the fact that Christians picked up science as a project that a revolution of mind occurred over the world? What on earth are you talking about?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 3:44:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First you can not attack people intentions and say that they do whatever they do for the sake of pride, cause this is something you ignore totally.

Second there are things mentioned in the scriptures: Torah, Gospel, Quran that science is trying to burry, so that people either believe science or scriptures, not both. eventually human evolution from apes, while we believe the first man was created from clay or dust . those are theories not observed but taught is schools as truths. so if you think we should be quiet about it you're wrong. This is a war, a keyboard war , and our guns are evidence, science, reasoning.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 8:47:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2013 6:08:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
It demeans faith, perverts science, and contributes nothing to the pursuit of spiritual growth or the spread of the good word.

Any person you manage to convert to Christianity through the use of "scientific" arguments is not converted in a way that maintains the integrity of evangelism the way God intended. A person converted in this manner comes into the faith through deceit; it's more apt to say that they opened their mind to bad ideas instead of saying they opened their hearts to Christ.

It is plainly visible that the vast majority of Christians on this site who frequently drag out ancient arguments attempting to refute Evolution or scientific theories, are doing it out of pride, not love. They are seeking self-satisfaction by using an unnecessary system to validate their beliefs. A Christian who truly loves and evangelizes the way Christ did would *not* waste their time and energy using this method to do their duty.

I'm not even a Christian, and I'm a better Christian than those who do this.

You do not do the Christian community a favor by attacking science. It doesn't spread the message, it only serves to make *you* feel better.

Please have some integrity. Stop cheapening the Christian faith, and stop making Christians appear superficial and pretentious. I have many intelligent Christian friends, and you all make them look bad.

If only the children of DDO understood this.
Tsar of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 8:57:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2013 12:35:41 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Nope, I'm a graduate sir. But do go on...

Then start acting like one. Believe me, I've been both an undergrad and a graduate student not many years ago. I remember how I spoke and how I came across. I understand you're proud of your "major", but you aren't exactly demonstrating expertise befitting your claim. I've noticed from the long history I have had on this site that any person who feels the need to start a response with their "expertise", tends to have much less to contribute than someone who doesn't feel that need.

My issue with your response is that it is filled to the brim with recitation that doesn't actually lend much weight against my argument. It gives me the sense that you are simply scrambling to collect and dispense whatever knowledge you have and hope it makes me go away.

The rest is all but fluff, the bold is what I focussed on. Do respond to that?

My response is that your statement is false. The majority of your post was simply a litany of material completely unrelated to what you bolded, despite the fact that you say it is what you focused on.

A Christian, inspired by his beliefs to further the field of science, *using* science, is far different from a Christian who attempts to use science to specifically prove a religious tenet or disprove something that goes against a religious tenet.

Please, for the love of God, no more copy-pasta until we address this fact.

... First, I made mention of how science can be used to validate religious beliefs but only after I discussed the OP, which was "Theists should stop using Science." Which is mad given the contextual history of science, indeed it's even arrogant and misguided. And I think I argued that swimmingly... I'd challenge you on this but it seems I'd be doing more teaching and less learning, pharmacist. ;-)

Your MO is this: Read topic, skim OP, recite whatever you think seems appropriate. If I were to write a philosophical treatise on the existence of God, and put the title as "Apples are bad", I would inevitably find your response to be a pretentious recitation of the history of apples instead of a response that indicates that you take the time and care to read someone's actual post.

I'm not telling you how you are, I'm telling you how you come across to me, that's all. I'm sure you're a swell guy, but you need a different approach. Look at Medic0506's approach. That's appropriate. He's one response away from discrediting my OP, because he *reads* and makes the right responses, and he does it without patting his ego or the product of his degree mill.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2013 9:06:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Much as I enjoy seeing Aperion learn to ride his bike without the training wheels, his arguing with Kleptin is like watching him ride that same bike down a double black diamond ski slope.
Tsar of DDO