Faith is Equivalent to Irrationality
Yep, that's what I've concluded. I was talking to a Catholic today about Stephen Hawking's new book where he says God doesn't exist based on science. So he responded, "That's why they call it faith." Yep, faith doesn't need scientific evidence. It's irrational. I want everyone to think "Irrational" whenever someone says the word "faith" because that's what it is.
69 comments:
Excellent post. One good blog I'd recommend to freethinkers and skeptics is "Debunking Atheists", one of the most unintentionally hilarious blogs in history.
Faith isn't just irrationality, it's literally the denial of logic and evidence to allow for belief. I've never understood why it's seen as a virtue.
Well, faith can be positive; being faithful to one's principles, spouse, country, family, etc.
However, faith in the Abrahamic god is exactly as you say, Rhacoadactylus; blindly, mindlessly denying everything that contradicts your spiritual beliefs; in other words, everything.
I would say that you are equivocating a bit with the word "faith," I think it means slightly different things in those two contexts.
I am faithful to my significant other because she has given me mounds upon mounds of evidence and reason to be, it is hardly the same sentiment as being faithful to a belief system for which I have no evidence, and in fact denying evidence in order to maintain that belief system.
But, I don't want to split hairs, I think we mainly agree on the topic =)
~Rhaco
Excellent conclusion to com to John.
I got into a discusion with a Fundamentalist on his blog. I quoted the following by Bruce Bruce Gerencser.
"Inerrancy is a doctrine that can not be maintained in any meaningful way. Ultimately, the Christian is required to appeal to faith. Faith that the original texts did exist. Faith that God inspired the writers to write what they wrote. Faith that extant manuscripts collectively reveal the inspired words of God".
Here is how the christian jerk responded.
"Every discussion ends the same. The naturalistic atheists always appeals to faith in evidence and faith that their cognitive faculties correctly access, interpret, and deliver those interpretations of evidence, for that is the true foundation of naturalistic atheism. Faith is a metaphysical claim, a claim that can not be debated."
They are always trying to say that Agnostics and Aitheists have to use faith as well. I know, it's a pathetic weak argument, but it does get quite frustrating".
Am I the only the that get's frustrated by this.
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere...
----
"In life's poker game, the optimist sees the pessimist's night and raises him the sunrise." My site: Poker bonusy
It seems to me that he is appealing to the Cartesian problem, essentially: "how do we know we can trust anything."
He is totally true that we have no way of knowing that we aren't in the matrix, but it is pragmatically a point that can be ignored.
I cannot predict with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow just because it always has, but our mental faculties are all we have with which to make predictions about the future.
So, regardless of the fact that we can't be 100% sure that we aren't being toyed with by an impish and evil God, pragmatically we have to go with the best evidence we have, which says that this is an empirical universe.
I have been in more than one philosophy class where using the Cartesian problem was banned. There is no point in debating anything, if every time someone is losing a debate they just shout "but we can't really know anything," as a get out of jail free card.
The really annoying thing is that even though people will claim that "there is no objective reality," or that "we can't be sure of objective reality," I've never seen one walk out into traffic under the impression that we can't be sure if the cars are there or not.
Just curious:
Does "B.R." stand for
"Brave Robin"?
Someone should invent a time machine just so they can go into the past and shoot Descartes...
Faith is believing whats most unbelievable.
Though in response to Hawking's new book, Penrose comes out and says that Hawking is dead wrong for a variety of reasons and that he was actually disappointed that Hawking would say so matter of factly that M theory was the case when it is merely barely a theory with no observational evidence for it. I guess Hawking just have faith in it, eh?
Only reason is rational. Our feelings are also "equivalent to irrationality", if that's the way you wanna play it.
Deep down a lot of them know it's all nonsense, and that they're choosing to believe for emotional or social reasons. I've gotten a few Christians & Jews on the ropes until they cried "uncle," i.e. "It's a matter of faith"
@Rhaco-
We do. That's what I meant- Christians always yammer about how "we can't live without faith", but what kind of faith? Me being faithful to my friends is one thing, because A) I know, from personal experience and evidence, that they exist, B) I know(from the two reasons stated above) that they are trustworthy, and are who they say they are. The problem with faith, however, is that none of this criteria can applied to God at all; you have to go by an outdated book of outdated, discredited fairy tales that were plagiarized from other religions.
Actually, it's the initials of one of my favorite characters in literature.
To clarify: Stephen Hawking does not say that God does not exist. He's essentially saying that the concept of God has no scientific utility when exploring the ultimate questions – where did the universe come from, why is it "designed" the way it is, etc.
You can still believe in God, as long as you believe in a totally passive God.
"He's essentially saying that the concept of God has no scientific utility when exploring the ultimate questions – where did the universe come from, why is it "designed" the way it is, etc.
You can still believe in God, as long **as you believe in a totally passive God**."
That's absolutely false.
In the classical Christian tradition, god isn't conceived of as primarily being a temporally first cause of a finite universe, but as being the sustainer of the existence of the universe at each moment. Remember, Aquinas (and others before him) argued that reason (at that time) could say nothing about whether the universe was temporally finite or infinite, so his arguments work (assuming they do work for the moment) even if the universe is eternal, which implies that they work even if we don't need to invoke god as the temporally first cause of a temporally finite universe.
Such a conception of god is anything but "passive," and as far as I can see, neither Hawking nor any other scientist (qua scientist) has said anything that contradicts or refutes Aquinas's conception of god as ipsum esse subsistens.
As far as the OP goes, John's Catholic friend was speaking ignorantly about 'faith,' so nothing at all about the nature of faith follows from it.
You're not making any sense, Eric. It really doesn't matter what Thomas Aquinas or other eminent theologians said; the concept of an all-powerful/knowing/present god who supports the universe in every moment of time(much like Atlas holding up the sky), has no hard evidence supporting it at all.
"John's friend was speaking ignorantly about 'faith'..."
How so? When pressed over the lack of evidence, most theists say that "Knowing God exists is different from having faith in him; if we knew he existed, we would/could not have faith in him."
That more or less sums up the nature of faith. Unless, of course, you have a new revelation or piece of evidence to share with us.
By the way, GearHedEd, I finally posted some Lovecraft stuff on my blog. Now will you please come visit? I always love meeting a fellow servant of Lord Cthulhu.
Eric, if you have read the book, Hawking is merely saying it's not necessary to posit God, that physics alone can explain the universe,(this is not a new or radical idea, it's pretty much the standard view of physics) which is the harshest criticism science can deal to a topic.
It is unnecessary to posit the ether, and it has fallen by the way side. Hawking is simply saying that God is as necessary as the ether.
"You're not making any sense, Eric. It really doesn't matter what Thomas Aquinas or other eminent theologians said; the concept of an all-powerful/knowing/present god who supports the universe in every moment of time(much like Atlas holding up the sky), has no hard evidence supporting it at all."
Actually, no, it's clearly you who are not making any sense, since the issue wasn't whether there's any evidence for the god of classical theism, but whether Hawking's statements entail, if any god at all, a passive god. They don't. It's best to try to understand the argument you're addressing *before* you attempt to address it.
"How so? When pressed over the lack of evidence, most theists say that "Knowing God exists is different from having faith in him; if we knew he existed, we would/could not have faith in him."
That's about as sensible as my referring to an ignorant supporter of evolution saying, "but hey, it is just a theory" as evidence for what the term "theory" means in that context. I don't care what "most theists" say, I care about whether they understand the terms they're using.
"That more or less sums up the nature of faith. Unless, of course, you have a new revelation or piece of evidence to share with us."
I really wish some of you atheists/skeptics/agnostics would educate yourselves before you arrogantly comment on these issues. Faith, as (informed) Christians use the term, means trust, steadfastness, and commitment. It *does not* mean blind belief, or even worse, belief in the teeth of the evidence. Now sure, I can have trust, be steadfast or make a commitment based on no evidence, or even against the evidence, *but I can do so on the basis of the evidence too*. Hence, faith as such *cannot* be, as a matter of simple logic, inherently irrational, or inherently blind, or inherently against the evidence.
Sorry if I'm coming across a bit harshly, but when you start a response by telling me I'm not making sense, then demonstrate that you completely failed to understand my point, and finally arrogantly ask me if I've received a new revelation when the issue you're questioning has been answered for almost twenty centuries, I tend to get a bit peeved.
Lyke, feelings aren't irrational, they are arational. Feelings (should) make no claim about a rational issue. I shouldn't "feel" that there is a God, but I can certainly feel angry. The feeling itself of anger makes no rational claim. The problem is when people extrapolate some rational claim from just a feeling.
Uh, Eric? You're still not making sense(and please don't allow that statement to offend your delicate sensibilities). All Mr. Hawking was saying is that there is no scientific proof for god, and god is not needed to explain the universe.
And then you come here and say, "Such a conception of god is anything but 'passive', and as far as I can see, neither Hawking nor any other scientist(qua scientist) has said anything that contradicts(?? Did you actually read Mr. Hawking's statement?) or refutes Aquinas's conception of god as ipsum esse subsistens."
First off, God is not necessary to explain the universe; modern physics has been doing a bang-up job of it for many decades without using a magic sky daddy to explain their discoveries. By contrast, look at the Church; they spent centuries trying to explain the universe through god, and ended up with a flat earth that was the center of the universe and that the Sun orbited.
Physicists don't have to say anything to refute this theory; the utter lack of evidence has already refuted it, unless you theists can come up with some real evidence, and not just hypothetical possibilities. If I wanted to, I could probably postulate that the earth is just a crusty bit of excrement spinning in the diarrhea spewing forth from the holy anus of Baal, but without even the tiniest bit of proof to back that up; well, I doubt that the scientific community would be much inclined to believe me; in fact, they might have me committed.
By the way, dark matter holds the very fabric of the universe together; it's a pity that Aquinas wasn't privy to that information.
Anyway, do you now see why we can't use a disproven concept to explain the universe when what we currently have(that replaced the "Goddidit" crap) is working just fine? Now that you have grasped the profoundly simple concept that flew over your head, you won't spaz out anymore(and besides, who knows? Maybe a Creator will become necessary to physics in the future; unlikely, but still...).
And FYI; pointing out an illogical fallacy on your part does not make me "arrogant"; one could easily say that theists are arrogant for trying to shove disproven and unproven models of the universe down our throats.
Hi LadyAtheist
You say, .. "Deep down a lot of them know it's all nonsense, and that they're choosing to believe for emotional or social reasons. "
Deep down they pretty much all know that their religiose belief system is a house of cards. And their emotional attachment is largely governed by the level of enculturation and indoctrination subjected when children, that they simply are not capable of envisioning an alternative worldview. When religious people talk to others not of their faith, it is so clear in their language structure they must firstly, restructure alternative views into theo-speak because it is the only point of reference that is available to them. Religion has commandeered and pervaded language [in this case, English] that theo-babble is the only form of communication they are capable of offering in discussion. It's a language from a different planet, or supernatural planet. An example of this is Eric's attempt at defining 'faith' in his comment above. You would have thought the term would have been resolved over the last two thousand years. You will note he is conflating the 'theistic' understanding of the word with the more usual everyday-speak of the word. It demonstrates the paucity of fact and evidence in scripture, and is but one example of the millions of examples of cognitive dissonance of a bunch of writings that came from the minds of bronze-age goat herds. And all this goes as investigation and research apparently at the cutting-edge of theology in a modern society. You couldn't get a more classic example of pure obfuscation and hedging than Eric's words, "In the classical Christian tradition ...."
Lady Atheist, your other note, 'social' reasons, is equally pertinent. Church membership is by its very nature, a clan, a gang, a club of exclusive membership, so very tribal in the manner of its formation. The social pressures to conform are enormous. And for those who may have emotional issues it is a comforting prop, no doubt. But it is nonetheless tribal, with a group hierarchical structure establishing its pecking order. For those who can not fit in, they go on a mall crawl looking for another church that suits their particular bent on religion. It would make for a great study to develop a sociograph of the coming and goings of a church or two.
Cheers
"And FYI; pointing out an illogical fallacy on your part does not make me "arrogant""
Logical fallacy? What logical fallacy? Be specific: Exactly what fallacy did you point out, and exactly where did I commit it?
Ah crap, I lost my comment; oh well.
Eric, you're still not making sense(and please don't let that offend your delicate sensibilities).
First off, they don't have to say anything to refute Aquinas's view; the profound lack of evidence and the discovery of dark matter has already done that. God is not needed to explain the universe; modern physics has been doing very well for several decades(no Sky Daddy required). Also, you said that Hawking hadn't said anything to contradict Aquinas- did you even read his statement for crying out loud? God is about as to physics necessary as ether; as has already been explained. The Church spent centuries trying to explain the universe through God- and look at what they ended up with; the archaic geocentric model, the flat earth, the earth being the center of the universe; you're kidding, right? Honestly...
For example, I could easily postulate that the earth is just a crusty bit of excrement spinning in the cosmic diarrhea eternally spewed forth from the holy anus of Baal; but without any evidence, I'd probably get committed for promoting such sheer nonsense.
B.R., you've failed on your second attempt to say anything relevant, which means that you *still* haven't understood a word I wrote. And you've yet to specify my so called "logical fallacy." Want to go for a third attempt?
*sigh* Would you mind explaining how I've missed your point? And make it quick; I have to leave in a few minutes, but I'll be back in a couple hours. You said that as far as you can see, neither Hawking or any other scientist have said anything to contradict Aquinas(which I have refuted) or to refute him(God doesn't support the universe; that would be dark matter). So do you believe God holds the universe together? Do you really rely on the discredited theories of an 13th Century theologian? Can you provide any evidence for your faith, or for Aquinas's ideas? Provide evidence, or stop wasting my time. Gottaa go. See y'all in a couple hours.
Still waiting on you, GearHedEd.
B.R.
Hello John: I hope that you and your family are well. "Faith is Equivalent to Irrationality" is a good observation and one that is fatal to all faith based religions but especially Christianity as it is extremely foolish. Religious propositions accepted as true without supporting evidence cannot be held true rationally, but can be held as true by Petitio principii!.
Consider the gross circular question begging implicit in Hebrews 11:1.
"...pistis eimi hypostasis..." meaning (pistis=conviction of the truth of anything, belief) (eimi=to be, to exist, to happen, to be present) {hypostasis=a setting or placing under a) thing put under, substructure, foundation 2) that which has foundation, is firm a) that which has actual existence 1) a substance, real being b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution 1) confidence, firm trust, assurance}
So faith, according to the authors, editors, redactors, and interpolators of Hebrews 11:1 is conviction of the truth of existence of that which foundationally exists. (This has nothing to do with trust which presupposes evidence comprising direct sensory apprehension or knowledge of someone or something in which confidence is placed.)
On a different note, one of the other comment posters made a claim that the Universe is designed. This is patently false as is handily shown by Dr Victor Stenger.
Many Thanks John and All the Best
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to have total assurance in God’s promises for forgiveness, for strength and for eternity.
Is faith in this God, as the world sees it, a crutch? Yes, and more than that. Jesus is my stretcher, my chariot, my sole support in each and every circumstance. After all, to what would we look to for help if not to that which is stronger than ourselves?
Jesus has tested me over and over and I now know that in every scene of life - in joy and sorrow, in success and failure, in health and in sickness, in moments of crisis when all lesser gods give way, I have trusted Jesus and have found that He is able to carry both me and my burden and bring me safely to the other side.
Atheists mock this trust and label it as “faith” as though that somehow discounts its relevance. Let them mock and ridicule because with Paul and with believers of all ages I can say: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him until the Day when He returns."
I and all other Christians have the Divine assurance of comfort in sorrow, strength in sickness, solace in bereavement, help in distress, and ultimate triumph in the midst of dire calamity. And this assurance is signed and sealed in the blood of the Son of God Himself.
The world has known no higher guarantee.
These things were simply not mine prior to Jesus finding me and bringing me safely into His kingdom.
John, this bluster really bothers me. Hawking hasn't proven anything. There is no observational evidence for M-theory yet, it is still speculation. If you don't believe me, listen to Roger Penrose on this week's Unbelievable? podcast. I'll say it again, science's limited scope is it's power, and to go beyond the evidence is necessarily speculation and the very thing you accuse Christians of. It just amazes me that you use this "double standard" line in debates and then turn around and swallow all kinds of things without any evidence behind them.
Well, still no evidence or intelligent discourse. By the way, Thesauros, you realize, of course, that all of those things are also in the possession of other religions? Since when has a religion not guaranteed those things(or something similar)? Now me, I don't mock faith; not unless it is irrational, like Abraham. I just find it annoying when Christians tell us all about the peace they supposedly have, right before they tell us that their god is going to torture us for all eternity if we don't believe in him. In my opinion, everyone can, and should, believe in whatever they want to; if Christians would just believe in whatever they want to and leave the rest of us alone, that would be one thing. But honestly, how often do they do that? You don't see me going door to door asking people if they believe in Buddha's teachings, and ramrodding them with outdated discredited dogma if they say no. Maybe Christians should just pipe down and focus on helping people rather than preaching at them(and keep in mind that I'm not saying all Christians are like that, only that a lot of them are).
Have a good day/night/whatever it is at your location.
B.R.
I enjoy it when Papalinton weighs in on the subject being discussed.
Eric - "Faith, as (informed) Christians use the term..."
One has to wonder what percentage of Christians fit the qualifier "informed". And since one doesn't have to be "informed" to be a Christian (my oldest son became a Christian at 4 years old), the qualifier is pretty much useless.
Eric - [faith] "means trust, steadfastness, and commitment. It *does not* mean blind belief..."
Obviously "faith" can and does mean "blind belief", for by your own unintentional admission that there are uninformed Christians who obviously don't know that they are uninformed concerning the definition of "faith", they must be going about it blindly.
Eric, can you define "faith" as it is exercised by the brand new convert to Christianity? It can't be "trust, steadfastness, and commitment" because they are entering into this faith entirely blind and basing this faith on the emotional pleas of those close to them. There is nothing virtuous in blind trust and blind commitment.
How many Christians do you know who spent weeks, months, or years actually objectively investigating the claims of the Christian faith before they made the informed decision to believe? Did you do that yourself, or did you become a believer as a child or after a few hours of pressure and pleading by some Christian friends?
As for the faith that is exercised by the mature informed Christians, sure they may be committed to trust steadfastly, but what's the dif? I mean, they are committed to trust steadfastly in the absurd claims in a 2,000+ year old book.
WHY? Because they KNOW it's true?
You know, Brad, that many eminent scientists and other 'great thinkers' rejected Einstein's theories until there was evidence, too.
The Relativity papers were writen c. 1905-1915, but experimental confirmation wasn't forthcoming until at least 1919.
Patience, my friend...
GHE,
I'm fine with patience, but rhetoric won't allow it, and that is my problem.
Rhacodactylus said...
Faith isn't just irrationality, it's literally the denial of logic and evidence to allow for belief.
This is definitely not what faith is. faith can absolutely be rational and logical and is based on evidence.
I've never understood why it's seen as a virtue.
You may not realize this but, you have faith. Why is your faith better than any other?
B.R. said...
First off, God is not necessary to explain the universe; modern physics has been doing a bang-up job of it for many decades without using a magic sky daddy to explain their discoveries.
This thinking has several problems. Physics does not “explain the universe”. Physics explains some things about the universe. Science answers many questions about how the universe works but does not attempt to explain why things work or why there are things at all. There are still countless questions about how the universe works that science may never be able to answer. As if that weren’t complicated enough, science continually reworks what we already “know” and sometimes, empirical fact is rewritten therefore making knowledge more of a dynamic situation than a static one.
By contrast, look at the Church; they spent centuries trying to explain the universe through god, and ended up with a flat earth that was the center of the universe and that the Sun orbited.
You might not be aware of this but, Copernicus was a Christian. Several of the most important discoveries in history were made by Christians.
Physicists don't have to say anything to refute this theory; the utter lack of evidence has already refuted it, unless you theists can come up with some real evidence, and not just hypothetical possibilities.
I’m not sure I follow your point but, nontheists come up with hair-brained ideas all the time. do you honestly think that the many worlds theory explains the anthropic principle in a less speculative way than theism? Have you read about inflationary models or quantum gravity models of the universe? They’re right out of science fiction.
Papalinton said...
Lady Atheist, your other note, 'social' reasons, is equally pertinent. Church membership is by its very nature, a clan, a gang, a club of exclusive membership, so very tribal in the manner of its formation. The social pressures to conform are enormous.
There are people who are like this (in nontheist groups too). What you are describing is a truism. Christians are admittedly flawed and that is the reason why church exists. To help deal with those flaws. Sure, some Christians go to church for merely social reasons but, the real question is why you think those people are really followers of Christ.
First off, trae, secular astronomers have discovered more about the universe in the last 50 years than theists have in the last 500. Did I say that we know everything? No, but now that scientists are unbiased(since they're not trying to interpret every discovery into their personal mythology), god, gods, goddesses, titans, and purple unicorns are no longer needed to understand how the universe works.
Secondly, the fact that many Christians have made scientific discoveries means nothing. So many great scientists also happened to be Christians. Is this supposed to impress me(don't forget that Muslims and other religious people have also made discoveries, but this does not mean that their religions are valid). Besides, how many recent scientific discoveries have been made by Christians? Are Christian "scientists" too busy trying to validate their religion's claims to make the breakthroughs being made by people like Hawking? It doesn't matter what a scientist's personal beliefs are, all that matters is his judgment, reason, and commitment to finding the facts.
continued...
If you had actually bothered to read my comment, you would have understood me. I was referring to the musings of Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century theologian who postulated that God supports the universe at all times(like Atlas holding up the sky). However, this theory has been dis-proven by the discovery of dark matter, which binds the very fabric of the universe. For some strange reason, though, all the Christians go ga-ga over his ideas(because they support Christianity), even though they've been dis-proven and Aquinas wasn't even an astronomer.
Rob R said,
"...You might not be aware of this but, Copernicus was a Christian."
Finish the thought, Rob.
Copernicus delayed publication of " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" until he was on his deathbed.
Why?
No one knows for sure, but if it was ME, I'd take a pass on being roasted by the church for heresy.
Oh, and there's this, too:
Name one human being in Europe during the mid 16th century who WASN'T a Christian of one sort or another (and for reasons similar to the one Copernicus is presumed to have had for delaying his book!).
B.R.
First off, trae, secular astronomers have discovered more about the universe in the last 50 years than theists have in the last 500.
the problem with this response is that it fails to take into account the variables that prevent/promote progress. first, technology in many disciplines is progressing exponentially because we have prior mistakes and successes to build on whereas those before us didn't. furthermore, there are plenty of social and political reasons why those things are valued more now than they were.
No, but now that scientists are unbiased, god, gods, goddesses, titans, and purple unicorns are no longer needed to understand how the universe works.
this very much seems like sophistry.
Secondly, the fact that many Christians have made scientific discoveries means nothing.
i disagree. loftus' post implies that christians are anti-intellectual and he has stated as much multiple times. your admission here shows that loftus is patently wrong.
but this does not mean that their religions are valid).
Spiritual validity wasn't the contention made by loftus
Besides, how many recent scientific discoveries have been made by Christians?
There are christians who are making significant contributions in their fields.
this theory has been dis-proven by the discovery of dark matter, which binds the very fabric of the universe.
Dark matter does nothing to prove that God isn't maintaining the universe. Where did dark matter come from and how is it sustained?
Copernicus delayed publication of " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" until he was on his deathbed. Why? No one knows for sure, but if it was ME, I'd take a pass on being roasted by the church for heresy.
the point is that loftus' post is wrong. in the case of copernicus, faith did not equal irrationality.
Yeah, that's right, trae; one of the mistakes we learned from was letting the Church dictate to science instead of the other way around. And, of course, we now value psychology more than we used to because now the authorities don't perform exorcisms on the mentally ill.
Of course it seems like sophistry to you; you're a theist.
Was I talking about Loftus? You were the one who said, "some of the most important discoveries in history were made by Christians", as if that meant something(and it doesn't; the West was more advanced than anyone else, and most of the people in the West were Christians, so put two and two together).
Again, I personally don't give a damn what Loftus did or didn't say; as I remember, the conversation was about faith and science, not Mr. John Loftus.
Yeah? Which fields, specifically? Which scientists?
It's called the "Big Bang"; and dark matter is self-sustaining, like gravity, brain/heart and lung functions. And yet again; there is no evidence that God, Odin, or the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster either created the universe or sustains it, or that they even exist at all. Provide evidence that the claims of your cult are valid or stop wasting my time.
With Regards,
B.R.
B.R.
one of the mistakes we learned from was letting the Church dictate to science instead of the other way around.
Why is it that you focus on the few Christians who act contrary to Jesus’ ministry yet overlook the much larger number of those who don’t? if this were done to whatever belief you subscribe to, you wouldn’t accept it. what you are describing was the result of a few people trying to retain control. The people who acted in accordance with God’s will won out and truth prevailed.
And, of course, we now value psychology more than we used to because now the authorities don't perform exorcisms on the mentally ill.
And Christians played a large part in the advancement of all scientific disciplines such as this. furthermore, Christians weren’t the only ones who considered that practice medically viable at the time.
the West was more advanced than anyone else, and most of the people in the West were Christians, so put two and two together).
The point is that the claim that christians are anti-intellectual is mistaken. The claim that Christians hold back progress is mistaken. The claim that society progresses as it gets more secular is mistaken.
Which fields, specifically? Which scientists?
Here’s a short list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Humphreys
http://chemistry.lsu.edu/chan/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F._Schaefer,_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox
dark matter is self-sustaining, like gravity
Even if there were proof of this, it still doesn’t answer the question of where it came from
And yet again; there is no evidence that God, Odin, or the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster either created the universe or sustains it, or that they even exist at all.
Actually there is in both a positive sense and a negative sense
Yeah, *after* the Church had held back science, medicine, and philosophy for over a thousand years; and just where in Jesus' ministry are we told that scientific endeavor is good?
*Some* Christians did; not Christians in general, I'm afraid.
So religious crackpots and zealots tend to think alike in some matters; your point?
Well, modern-day Christians aren't anti-intellectual; just as long as you don't teach facts like evolution and the Big Bang theory in public school. But Christians
just a mere century or so ago; well, that's a different story.
"The claim that Christians hold back progress is mistaken."
See "evolution", "the Monkey Trial", and, of course, the Middle Ages.
"The claim that society progresses as it gets more secular is mistaken."
As I've pointed out on another thread, society has grown more and more secular over the last century; coincidentally, we've made more medical, scientific, and technological leaps in the last century than in the last 500 Christian centuries preceding it.
I asked for scientists; not philosophers and liars(a.k.a., "apologists").
Your first man isn't even a scientist; he's a philosopher. Philosophy is not a scientific field, trae.
Again, not a scientist.
Finally, a real scientist; I was beginning to lose hope. Funny how he holds the view of theistic evolution...
Okay, a scientist...
Uh... how do you know Miss Chan is Christian? There's absolutely nothing on her website that suggests that.
Scientist. Unethical and intellectually dishonest, but scientist nonetheless(albeit a poor excuse for one).
Scientist, who acknowledges evolution; interesting, and encouraging.
Apologist; pretty much the antithesis of a scientist.
Is this the best you could come up with? Sheesh.
Well, I am not an astro-physicist, so no, I can't tell you everything there is to know about dark matter.
Either provide this so-called "evidence" or stop wasting my time, bub.
Correction; I meant "5" centuries, not 500. I don't make typos very often, but when I do, they tend to be doozies.
B.R.
modern-day Christians aren't anti-intellectual; just as long as you don't teach facts like evolution and the Big Bang theory in public school.
Not all Christians are opposed to evolution and they are perfectly in keeping with their Christian beliefs.
But Christians just a mere century or so ago; well, that's a different story.
Some, but not all. Still, it’s irrelevant. You are still blindly focused on what a few misguided people are doing as opposed to looking at the belief systems itself.
See "evolution"
Christianity is not in conflict with evolution. Not all Christians are opposed to it.
and, of course, the Middle Ages.
So somehow christianity is solely to blame for the lull in advancement? There were no social, financial or political factors involved? And why aren’t you giving Christians credit for not only participating in the scientific revolution but also remaining Christian despite scientific advancement.
society has grown more and more secular over the last century
Even if this can be quantified, it’s such a small amount that it’s almost irrelevant. Furthermore, you are totally overlooking that one crucial aspect of this situation you are referring to is the continuing separation of church and state in western countries; not that people are becoming less religious. That means the church is deciding less in matters of funding, public policy, etc. however, Christians are part of that process and even fueling it in some ways.
coincidentally, we've made more medical, scientific, and technological leaps in the last century than in the last 5 Christian centuries preceding it.
I think you’re going to have a hard time proving that any tiny growth in secularism is primarily responsible for scientific advancement. Keep in mind that the scientific revolution was pervaded by scientists who were Christians. Also, the vast majority of those “leaps” have come from America which is still very much dominated by Christian thinking.
I asked for scientists; not philosophers and liars(a.k.a., "apologists").
I wonder if you would call secular philosophers like hawking, dennet and dawkins “liars”. Regardless, philosophy is a discipline that is not unrelated to science, e.g. philosophy of science. the main point is that Christians are contributing to growth and advancement in this field.
Your first man isn't even a scientist; he's a philosopher.
Are you referring to polkinghorne? How does him being a physicist not make him a scientist? Aside from his awards for SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT, For 25 years, he worked on theories about elementary particles, played a role in the discovery of the quark, and researched the analytic and high-energy properties of Feynman integrals and the foundations of S-Matrix theory
Funny how he holds the view of theistic evolution.
Why is that a problem?
Okay, a scientist...
Of molecular biophysics no less. AND A FORMER ATHEIST. But I didn’t expect you to acknowledge that.
how do you know Miss Chan is Christian?
from her facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/crystalgrowth?v=info):
Religious Views: christ follower,
Favorite Quotations: Ephesians 2:10, Joshua 1:9, Luke 1:37
Btw, she happens to be one of the top scientists in her field
Scientist. Unethical and intellectually dishonest, but scientist nonetheless(albeit a poor excuse for one).
Wow. no mention from you about the awards for his work in chemistry. All you did was focus on his personal beliefs with ad hominem, the favorite tactic of nontheists.
Scientist, who acknowledges evolution; interesting, and encouraging.
still a Christian though.
Apologist; pretty much the antithesis of a scientist.
No, he’s a mathematician who’s written over 70 peer reviewed articles. I’m sorry you can’t recognize the value in his contribution.
B.R.
Yeah, *after* the Church had held back science, medicine, and philosophy for over a thousand years
Christianity is not solely responsible for this. there were many other, non-religious factors present as well. I can’t believe that you think such a complex situation can be oversimplified to this degree.
and just where in Jesus' ministry are we told that scientific endeavor is good?
where in Jesus’ ministry does He discourage discovery?
*Some* Christians did; not Christians in general, I'm afraid.
First, not all atheists are contributing to scientific progress but I don’t see you railing on them. Second, it doesn’t matter if the number of Christians who contributed to the advancement of knowledge was only one. the fact of the matter is that christianity in and of itself does nothing to discourage scientific advancement and even encourages it.
So religious crackpots and zealots tend to think alike in some matters; your point?
The point is that nonchristians were also performing barbaric medical practices because that’s what was considered standard operating procedure at the time. this is again obfuscation on your part. The question is the action of individuals. The question is whether or not christianity condones immorality and prevents progress. The answer to both is negative.
Is this the best you could come up with?
Not at all. There’s certainly more, especially from the past.
Do you think your reaction to the list I provided is fair? I provided scientists who are objectively decorated by their peers. They are clearly contributing to progress and are remaining Christian at the same time. heck, mcgrath was an atheist. I must be frank. On the issue of Christians contributing to scientific advancement, you are demonstrably wrong. It can be objectively shown that Christians have contributed not in spite of, nor irrelevant to, but BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs.
Either provide this so-called "evidence"
First, I hope that my blog serves as a chronicle of evidences. Second, what would serve as evidence for you?
First off, did I say that all Christians are opposed to evolution? I'm only pointing out that most of them are, and furthermore, many of them are trying to push this garbage into our public education.
Again, did I say "all"? Not "all", but most of them were.
Se my first point, just a few inches above here.
Ugh. Thankfully, I'm not biased enough to give credit to an entire group of people just because some of them made important discoveries; otherwise, I'd be giving credit to Islam and the psychotic death-cults of the Aztecs and Mayans. Also, if Christians are remaining Christian "in spite" of scientific progress, that would mean that they are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring discoveries that contradict their beliefs; an act of delusion that will elicit nothing from me save laughter.
Wow; Epic History Fail. if people are not becoming less religious, then why are there way more atheists, skeptics, and freethinkers than there were just a century ago?
Again, people in the West are predominantly Christian, the West was once more advanced than anyone else, so put two and two together, trae; it's not that difficult to understand.
I wouldn't call them anything, since I've never read any of their books(yet). The reason why I associate the word "apologist" with "liar" is that I've yet to see a single Christian or Muslim apologist who does not exaggerate, downplay, and/or outright lie to promote their dogma.
Weird; guess I mixed him up with someone else. Sorry for the screw-up.
Did I say it was a problem, Mr. Grand Inquisitor? I just found it interesting to see a Christian scientist who didn't deny evolution.
Oh please; spare me your pathetic little insinuation that I didn't want to mention he was a former atheist. I didn't mention it because I was not trying to post a freakin' commentary on every individual you brought up; I just scanned the page, concluded from the evidence that he was a scientist and posted it on here. But thanks anyway for sharing your self-righteousness with me. Oh, and even if I had tried to conceal his status an ex-atheist, it wouldn't have worked because anyone who reads this conversation has but to click on the link you provided. Duh.
continuation...
Well, thanks for providing the actual link that shows she's a Christian; you might have done that on your earlier post and saved both of us time and energy.
"wow. No mention from you about the awards for his work in chemistry." Let me give you the full story, Mr. McCarthy.
I noticed them, was duly impressed, and was about to label him as a "real scientist", until the title "Controversy" caught my eye...
"All you did was focus on his personal beliefs with ad hominem, the favorite tactic of non-theists."
Yeah, I just love that last bit where you lump all the non-theists of the world into one group, trae; not a bit of arrogance or hubris was involved, I'm sure. And of course, not a single theist has ever done exactly that. Perhaps you'd know where I was coming from if you'd actually bothered to read your own link. The guy was supposed to give a lecture on science, and instead he proselytized, and rambled about how all religions except Christianity are futile; an extremely biased, unethical and inappropriate action. Of course, if he was Muslim, you would be agreeing with me. But since he happened to promoting your cult, oh, that makes it okay.
Tell you what; take that hypocritical double-standard of yours, and ram it up your posterior region. I don't have to sit here and be insulted by some petulant theist who doesn't even bother to consider the full context of my comments before he launches unfounded criticisms at it.
Trae, you're testing my patience. Did I say he wasn't a Christian? Personally, I just thought it was a pleasant surprise to see an intellectually honest Christian scientist, that's all. Sometimes you almost wonder if there's any left, but that's only because loud-mouthed Creationists drown them out. It's a pity that they have to deal with the reputation that Creationists have given them.
Again, I must have mixed him up with someone else. I was rushed for time when I posted that comment, but that doesn't excuse; I should taken my time, I suppose.
In conclusion...
Project much, trae? Did I actually say that the Church was the only cause for the deplorable conditions of the Middle Ages? It was not the only one, not by a long shot, but it was still a major contributing factor. For example, the Church forbade doctors to dissect cadavers for centuries, keeping medical science in the dark and dooming countless people to painful deaths.
Did I say he did? That's a very nice to avoid answering the question, trae.
My patience with your childish antics has snapped. Did I say that all Christians are obligated to contribute to scientific research and discovery? How inane this is. As I've clearly shown, Christians in general have spent far more time resisting progress than aiding it. The reason why I'm railing on Christians is that you guys want preferential treatment for your religion. Not only are many of you still trying to impede scientific and social progress(like gay rights, for example), but you also try to deny that your religion has ever been responsible for such behavior.
By the way, all that stuff about "Christianity does not condone immorality"? Read through the O.T and then get back to me. Oh, and if these weird religions that promoted exorcisms didn't exist in the first place, than these barbaric practices would have been discontinued after a while; but all the Church could do was add to the problem. Maybe it's because the Bible says that Christians have the power to throw out demons...
From the past? Again, a scientist who makes a discovery and happens to be a Christian living in an almost entirely Christian country means about as much as a Muslim scientist in a predominantly Muslim country.
How have you demonstrated that I'm wrong? As any person with a rudimentary grasp of medieval history can clearly see(not to mention world history in general), Christians in general have done more to stifle progress than to succor it. And yet again, there are also Hindu and Muslim scientists who have made discoveries in the names(s) of their faith; so what, exactly, is your point?
Okay, I've had enough, trae. I simply do not have enough time to read through every single post on your blog and dissect it; I am waaay too busy. Anyway, if you had any real evidence, you would have posted; instead, all you do is waste my time with pathetic word games. If someone told you that Muhammad is the only prophet of God, and that Allah(God) loves you like a child, but will have you burned and tortured for all eternity if you don't reciprocate this love, what kind and how much evidence would you require in order to believe it? Eh?
By the way, don't even bother posting another comment on here if you don't
A; Prove that Jesus was a son of god,
B; That the Cosmic Tyrant of the Bible is not merely an imaginary friend,
C; That Jesus rose from the grave, causing earthquakes(which was never documented by any historian), an eclipse(which we know never happened), and a zombie outbreak(which likewise was never recorded). Then provide the thousands of first-hand accounts from the masses who supposedly witnessed this stuff, and e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c....
B.R.
many of them are trying to push this garbage into our public education.
Pointing out the flaws in evolution is not a crime. Also, when evolution advocates claim that God is not needed to explain the diversity of life, they are pushing the theory of evolution past it’s boundaries and they should be checked by people who understand the limitations of the theory. So, it’s not like evolution opponents aren’t without good reasons for their actions.
Again, did I say "all"? Not "all", but most of them were.
But you still haven’t responded to the point I made. You are trying to claim that the actions of a few people mean that christianity is necessarily opposed to scientific progress. That is demonstrably not the case.
I'm not biased enough to give credit to an entire group of people just because some of them made important discoveries
Again, this is distraction. All I’m doing is responding to the charge that christianity is anti intellectual. As far as “credit”, that’s a different issue. christianity has plenty going for it.
ignoring discoveries
What Christians are doing this? there are Christians that are scientists. How can they continue their enterprise if they are doing this?
contradict their beliefs
Name the scientific discoveries that contradict christianity.
if people are not becoming less religious, then why are there way more atheists, skeptics, and freethinkers than there were just a century ago?
Perhaps you’re unaware of the polls that indicate that Americans are as religious now as they have ever been.
Again, people in the West are predominantly Christian, the West was once more advanced than anyone else, so put two and two together, trae; it's not that difficult to understand.
What you are overlooking is the fact that the two go together, not apart as you are saying. If you are correct, then people should have started to abandon christianity in droves once the scientific revolution started. That clearly didn’t happen and even now, America is still dominated by Christians. Evangelical protestants and mormons scored as high on the religion “test” as atheists so it’s not like theists are ignorant.
The reason why I associate the word "apologist" with "liar" is that I've yet to see a single Christian or Muslim apologist who does not exaggerate, downplay, and/or outright lie to promote their dogma.
Do you have an example?
an extremely biased, unethical and inappropriate action.
Unless he’s right in which case we should be thanking him. I invite you to read Alvin plantinga’s article about methodological naturalism constraining science.
http://store.rzim.org/product/tabid/61/p-50-philosophy-christian-perspectives-for-the-new-millennium.aspx
For example, the Church forbade doctors to dissect cadavers for centuries, keeping medical science in the dark and dooming countless people to painful deaths.
I’m glad you gave an example. What’s important to note is that while “the church” might have made such a decree, not all Christian doctors would have agreed with it. the reason why this is important is because you are blaming christianity for the actions of a few Christians. You wouldn’t like it if I did the same with atheists.
The reason why I associate the word "apologist" with "liar" is that I've yet to see a single Christian or Muslim apologist who does not exaggerate, downplay, and/or outright lie to promote their dogma.
Do you have an example?
an extremely biased, unethical and inappropriate action.
Unless he’s right in which case we should be thanking him. I invite you to read Alvin plantinga’s article about methodological naturalism constraining science.
http://store.rzim.org/product/tabid/61/p-50-philosophy-christian-perspectives-for-the-new-millennium.aspx
For example, the Church forbade doctors to dissect cadavers for centuries, keeping medical science in the dark and dooming countless people to painful deaths.
I’m glad you gave an example. What’s important to note is that while “the church” might have made such a decree, not all Christian doctors would have agreed with it. the reason why this is important is because you are blaming christianity for the actions of a few Christians. You wouldn’t like it if I did the same with atheists.
That's a very nice to avoid answering the question, trae.
If you’re going to make the claim that christianity is in conflict with scientific progress, let’s see you make your case starting with the founder of christianity. Where does he discourage discovery? Incidentally, it’s a mistake to ask where Jesus advocates scientific discovery because there really wasn’t a “science” then as we now understand it now. regardless, Jesus clearly participated in debate and in the dialectic method. He showed no aversion to examining His beliefs by engaging others from differing viewpoints.
As I've clearly shown, Christians in general have spent far more time resisting progress than aiding it.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think you’ve shown that. when I finally get you to stick to specifics instead of your generalizations, you begrudgingly acknowledge that there are some smart Christians contributing to scientific progress.
you guys want preferential treatment for your religion.
Could you provide an example of your point?
Not only are many of you still trying to impede scientific [progress]
Again with this mistaken generalization. What can I do to get you to clear this up?
social progress(like gay rights, for example)
You’re going to have a hard time proving that gay rights equals social progress.
you also try to deny that your religion has ever been responsible for such behavior.
I wasn’t aware that I had done this.
By the way, all that stuff about "Christianity does not condone immorality"? Read through the O.T and then get back to me.
Where does the OT condone immorality? I wish I could get you to stop using these mistaken generalizations.
if these weird religions that promoted exorcisms didn't exist in the first place, than these barbaric practices would have been discontinued after a while
You might be unaware that paganism was responsible for some pretty awful practices regardless of what Christians were doing
From the past? Again, a scientist who makes a discovery and happens to be a Christian living in an almost entirely Christian country
The point is that these people were contributing to scientific progress because of their Christian beliefs, not in spite of them. therefore, Christianity is not anti intellectual or barbaric as it is being made out to be.
How have you demonstrated that I'm wrong?
To repeat, It can be objectively shown that Christians have contributed to human advancement not in spite of, nor irrelevant to, but BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs.
Christians in general have done more to stifle progress than to succor it
This is also demonstrably false. Name the movement/religion/group that can claim to have created more schools, universities, hospitals, charities, missions, humanitarian aid, etc, than christianity. Not only has christianity been one of the greatest forces for good in the history of the world but, christianity has also done way way way more good than harm.
If someone told you that Muhammad is the only prophet of God, and that Allah(God) loves you like a child, but will have you burned and tortured for all eternity if you don't reciprocate this love, what kind and how much evidence would you require in order to believe it?
One way of looking at this issue is that as long as the case for Jesus’ birth, crucifixion and resurrection exist, there is nothing about islam that could be convincing.
By the way, don't even bother posting another comment on here if you don't
A; Prove that Jesus was a son of god,
B; That the Cosmic Tyrant of the Bible is not merely an imaginary friend,
What would be proof to you?
C; That Jesus rose from the grave, causing earthquakes(which was never documented by any historian) and a zombie outbreak(which likewise was never recorded)
Who specifically should have recorded this (other than the account we already have)?
an eclipse(which we know never happened)
We do? How do we know this?
Then provide the thousands of first-hand accounts from the masses who supposedly witnessed this stuff
Why don’t we see thousands of first hand accounts denying the Christian accounts?
Part I.
One last time, trae; if god was needed to explain the diversity of life, then why do we need the theory of evolution? Surely the word(s) of God should be sufficient to explain this. Also, as for pointing out flaws in the T.o.E., secular biologists are already doing this; besides, you know and I know that this is NOT what most Christians are doing; they want to completely do away with evolution and replace it with religious indoctrination called "Creationism". Also, evolution opponents do NOT have any good reason whatsoever; while certain parts of the theory are under debate, fossil records and dating methods have proven beyond any doubt that our planet is billions of years old and that life has evolved in order to survive. The only "good reason" that modern-day mystics have to reject evolution(a proven fact that only fools and imbeciles deny) is that it jars with their religious view that god created the world and everything in it just as they are today.
The vast majority of Christians, both past and present, believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis; which is false. Tell me, why is it that most Christians completely reject T.o.E., even though we know that's how life developed? Why do they prefer Bronze Age creation myths, I wonder? If you support teaching I.D. or Creationism is public school, guess what? You're resisting progress.
"Distraction"? Uh-huh. Anyway, the point here is moot. Guess what? Islam is one of the most anti-intellectual cults on the face of the earth(in fact, it's much worse than Christianity); but that hasn't stopped Muslim scientists from making important discoveries in the past.
"What Christians are doing this?"
Um... do you, by any chance, read the newspaper, or... watch news on T.V.? Surely, I shouldn't even have to mention the likes of Kent Hovind, or point out that over half of the adult population of the United States refuse to accept evolution?
"[T]there are Christians who are scientists."
Yup. Do you have a point?
"How can they continue their enterprise if they are doing this?"
Wearing a lab coat does not make one a scientist. If you deny evolution, or believe the world is 6,000 years old, you're not a good(or even real)scientist.
Part II.
Well, let's see. Evolution and carbon dating have disproved the book of genesis, the discovery of genetics and D.N.A. have disproved the "Adam 'n Eve" myth, and with the Adam myth, so ends the "Original Sin" dogma as well.
Exactly what poll, trae? Besides, look at Europe; once, more Christian than anyone else; now, almost entirely secular(except for parts of Eastern Europe).
Again, trae, there were Aztecs and Mayans who made important discoveries in the name of their sacrificial cults; but that does not make their cults any less barbaric or anti-intellectual. Also, delusion and millenia-old traditions run deep; look at all the Fundamentalists, for crying out loud. Yeah, America is still dominated by Christians, unfortunately, but as more and more people wake up, this will slowly change.
Ever hear of one Jack T. Chick? Or Rony Tan? Of Steve Cioccolanti? Joshua McDowell? How about John Holzman, author of "The Church of the East", in which he accuses Buddhism of copying Christianity and worshiping demons, or D. James Kennedy, author of the craptacular "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?", in which he claims(like you)that Christianity is the single greatest source of good in history, that everyone who has ever done anything bad in the name of Jesus was not a True Christian(TM), that less than 30 million people have been murdered in the name of Jesus(actually, the toll is at least 50 million or more), that Hitler was an atheist(he was a Born-Again Christian), and that more people have been murdered in the name of atheism than any other cause.
Which is, of course, pure bullshit.
Hopefully, I'll be able to provide more examples on my blog this November, if possible. When I do, I'll let you know.
Why didn't you provide me with the article, then? I'm not planning to buy a book, you know. Also, as I will show, he's not right because Christianity(or, the Church of the Jewish Cosmic Zombie)is completely false and patently absurd on ever level. By the way, thanks for proving that lots of Christians want special, preferential treatment for their cult; it's nice to know that Christians are willing to do half the work for me.
Part III.
Well, of course not all doctors, but that was not my point. If the Jewish Zombie Cult hadn't existed in the first place(or at least, had not claimed supreme power), then untold millions of people might have been spared horrific, slow, painful deaths. Well, considering the attitude and dogmas of the Cult, it's not all that surprising that they acted like that. If you're willing to believe that every single human being who does not share your beliefs is going to be burned and tortured by a perfect, loving god for eternity, based on fraudulent claims of the Gospels, and with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, well, total insanity is sure to follow, in one fashion or another.
That's because you can't do it with atheists, Einstein. Atheists do not have any documents or creeds or guidelines for their behavior; Christians do. Atheists have never committed atrocities in the name of atheism; thousands of Christians have(in the name of their religion, that is. Atheists have no excuse, whatsoever, for such behavior, and no justification for genocide, slavery, etc.; Christians do. It's called the Old Testament. Read it.
First off, Jesus is only the founder of Christianity in the minds of Christians; there is so very little evidence for this, that no one can say for sure. Did I say he did? Again, my point is that Christians are not compelled to make scientific discoveries; unless, of course, you've got some scripture that supports this.
If presenting facts is a "generalization", then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Once again, Einstein, have I said that Christians were not contributing to science? Seems like I'm not the one making generalizations here...
Gee, I don't know; how about YOU? And your rather pathetic defense of the unethical Christian "scientist". And the fact that a lot of Christians demand that the Ten Commandments be displayed outside courthouses(even though this is not a Christian nation. Or the fact that lots of Christians demand that religion be taught in school. Or that some Christians get pissed off if you suggest taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Or that lots of Christians are trying to ban homosexuality, and a handful(following the "Word of God") want to make it a capital crime. Ans etc., etc., etc....
Part IV.
Well, seeing as how I am presenting facts, there's nothing for you to do except, of course, admit that lots of Christians are trying to impede progress instead of mindlessly denying the obvious.
Wow. Only a Christian would say something like that. Hey, let's make illegal for certain people to get married since they don't measure up to the moral standards of the the Bible, the same book that says it's okay to beat your slaves t death as long as they don't immediately die as a consequence.
Was I referring to you personally? Most Christians have come to terms with their dark past, but lots of them refuse to, and a handful even claim that these crimes were justified. And guess what? Going by the morality of the Bible, it's the last view that is correct. Read the O.T.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/tony_kuphaldt/word.shtml
The above link shows beyond any doubt that the Bible is anti-intellectual and barbaric to the point of making Conan look like a wet nurse.
Okay, 'tard, if I wasn't aware that some pagan religions were brutal, barbaric and backwards, then why did I mention them? And why did I write "religions"? You're just waving your hands here because you know that your religion ruined countless lives, and contributed to a horrific, primitive superstition for millenia instead of abolishing it. Just like slavery...
Yeah, some Christians have indeed contributed to science in the name of their faith, just like the Muslims and Mayans. But that doesn't make your religion any less barbaric and anti-intellectual.
Yep. But that doesn't validate their beliefs, nor acquit all the Christians who have tried to squelch progress, and the ones who continue to do so to this day.
Yeah, over the past century or so, Christianity has done more humanitarian work than any other group, due in no small part to the fact that they had the most funding. But that doesn't acquit the crimes they committed for over a thousand years before that, crimes that were ordained in the Bible. As for their schools... have you ever researched Christian mission schools? Some of it is inspiring, and some of it reads like something out of Stephen King.
Part V.
As for the last part of your comment, well...
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html
...whatever helps you get to sleep at night, pal.
You're forgetting one little thing; there is no case for any of these events. And even if there was, you're basically saying that you would ignore any and all evidence in favor of Islam for the sake of remaining a Christian.
Thanks for proving that Christianity is anti-intellectual.
*Snort* Too easy. You know what? I'm feeling rather magnanimous tonight, so I'm going to reserve comment on this rather pathetic display of delusion.
Hey kids! Guess what? It's time for a crash course in history!
You see, kids, when something important happens, historians will record as soon as possible. For example, five hundred years from now, people will still remember the Twin Towers. How?, you might ask. Well, because within just a few months, people were already writing books and essays on what had happened on that day. Not to mention all the documentation of the event when it occurred. However, some events that people try to pass off as historic never happened. But how can we know since these events happened long ago? Well, it's simple, kids; by examining the historical records of the time and evaluating their dependability. For example, Jesus was NOT a living god. How do we know? Because the only record(s) for his divinity are self-contradictory on several key points. For example, we are given two separate dates for his birth, two clashing genealogies for his family, different accounts of his arrest and trial, different accounts of his death, and completely differing accounts of his resurrection(in fact, we're even given contradicting accounts of his last words, as well).
On top of this, there is no evidence for any of his so-called "miracles". You see. the Gospel(s) claim that thousands of people saw him heal the sick, feed many people from a little food, and even raise the dead. However, there is not one single testimony from even ONE of these crowds; in fact, no historians even mention Jesus until a century after his alleged time of death; and no miracles were mentioned. The Bible claims that there was an eclipse on the day of Jesus' death, but this not the correct time for an eclipse, and if one had occurred, then countless millions of people would have seen it and recorded it. Because these records don't exist, and Christians have yet to overcome this burden of proof, we know that this event is fictional.
The Bible also said that there were earthquakes and that chasms opened in the ground, but since no one recorded these events(and there is no physical sign of these "chasms"), we know that these events never happened, and only a gullible peon would believe otherwise.
Part VI.
In conclusion...
The Bible also says that at Jesus' death, people actually rose from their graves; but no one ever recorded this incredible event; not. One. Single. Person. Ever.
And on top of that, Jesus was a zombie. Yep, you heard me. A zombie.
You see, the bible says that Jesus was whipped and beaten until he was unrecognizable as a human being, and when he rose from the dead, the wounds were still showing(of course, none of this ever happened; but if it had you'd be worshiping a putrid walking corpse, instead of shooting it in the head like an intelligent person).
Remember everything we learned today, kids, and maybe you'll avoid getting brainwashed into some weird cannibalistic cult that demands 10% of you overall income.
Well, disproving Christianity is even easier than I thought. If, for some masochistic reason you feel compelled to continue this discussion, trae, feel free to reach me at my blog. I'm sure my followers will appreciate the free entertainment.
Until then, adieu.
With Regards,
B.R.
Post a Comment