.
Rather than attempting to denigrate science, Religionists would be well advised to examine their own evidence (if any) and conclusions (or beliefs) -- "find the log in their own eye".
Perhaps the more astute realize that they cannot do anything but go over and over the same ancient text or its derivatives – with NO way to verify that claims and stories are truthful and accurate.
Others may not realize that their favorite religious tales and dogma are based on nothing more than taking someone's word that certain (often implausible) things happened or that Bible characters actually spoke words attributed to them.
Many are shocked to discover that Christian scholars and theologians do not know who wrote the gospels -- and that famous names were assigned to them later by church officials.
Before offering the typical apologetic "You take someone's word about Caesar" ask yourself if you / anyone makes life decisions that depend upon stories / accounts of Caesar being accurate and truthful.
I, for one, would consider myself VERY naive and gullible if I based important decisions on unverifiable word of anyone -- let alone anonymous people writing stories thousands of years ago.
Also before attempting to denigrate science (when its findings contradict Bible tales) it is worth considering that when errors or deceptions are found in scientific work they are discovered and exposed by scientists -- not by theologians.
Rather than attempting to denigrate science
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Rather than attempting to denigrate science
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
benchwarmer
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2336 times
- Been thanked: 959 times
Re: Rather than attempting to denigrate science
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]
I also find it amusing and sometimes shocking how some will try to twist actual science or part of what a scientist has said to shoot down science itself. It's like what comes out of one side of their mouth doesn't know about what comes out the other side. Usually along the lines of "Look, science has proven science is bunk" thereby committing multiple errors of understanding what science is and/or what it can do.
I've probably got fingerprints permanently embedded on my face now from all the face palms
I also find it amusing and sometimes shocking how some will try to twist actual science or part of what a scientist has said to shoot down science itself. It's like what comes out of one side of their mouth doesn't know about what comes out the other side. Usually along the lines of "Look, science has proven science is bunk" thereby committing multiple errors of understanding what science is and/or what it can do.
I've probably got fingerprints permanently embedded on my face now from all the face palms
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #3
More than once, I've seen firsthand just what happens when Creationists get the one thing they ask for: a platform on which they can claim Creationism is just as good a theory as any other.
I then asked them to actually apply that "theory" to science.
The hilarity ensued when they simply tried to assert that Creationism was true by attacking evolution. It's not that they want to denigrate science, it's that the only form of dialogue they actually know is the attack on evolution. They haven't even prepared their speeches for the next logical step in their "scientific crusade" for Truth.
I then asked them to actually apply that "theory" to science.
The hilarity ensued when they simply tried to assert that Creationism was true by attacking evolution. It's not that they want to denigrate science, it's that the only form of dialogue they actually know is the attack on evolution. They haven't even prepared their speeches for the next logical step in their "scientific crusade" for Truth.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Post #4
From the OP:
As always Zzyzx, your wisdom is well 'preciated.
Our problem here is that the theist does have their 'evidence', only they goofed up on their conclusions of it.Rather than attempting to denigrate science, Religionists would be well advised to examine their own evidence (if any) and conclusions (or beliefs) -- "find the log in their own eye".
That'n kills me. Book's been writ unchanged for two thousand years, and, well...Perhaps the more astute realize that they cannot do anything but go over and over the same ancient text or its derivatives – with NO way to verify that claims and stories are truthful and accurate.
As they reject fanciful tales of other religions.Others may not realize that their favorite religious tales and dogma are based on nothing more than taking someone's word that certain (often implausible) things happened or that Bible characters actually spoke words attributed to them.
Exactly. It's kinda goofy to think we can rely on tales by anonymous sources - or sources we have no way to cross examine.Many are shocked to discover that Christian scholars and theologians do not know who wrote the gospels -- and that famous names were assigned to them later by church officials.
I abhor this argument - as if believing one tale makes another'n true.Before offering the typical apologetic "You take someone's word about Caesar" ask yourself if you / anyone makes life decisions that depend upon stories / accounts of Caesar being accurate and truthful.
Yep.I, for one, would consider myself VERY naive and gullible if I based important decisions on unverifiable word of anyone -- let alone anonymous people writing stories thousands of years ago.
Heck, I'm willing to admit some errors may be corrected by theologians / religious folks. It's just that in all this time, ain't nobody bothered to correct biblical errors.Also before attempting to denigrate science (when its findings contradict Bible tales) it is worth considering that when errors or deceptions are found in scientific work they are discovered and exposed by scientists -- not by theologians.
As always Zzyzx, your wisdom is well 'preciated.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
god claims
Post #5A few weeks ago I decided to launch an effort to see if theists could prove their claims of god. As I suspected they cannot, at least not so far. I think this is a far better point of attack than any other because it is the weakest point. If they cannot prove their god everything else is moot.
If they are on the defensive about their god they won't continually try to change the debate to evolution.
This won't convert the creationists, but it might cause less radical elements to wake up to the truth of all religious claims. I don't want to push to hard and scare all the theist off but I want to debunk their god claims visibly enough to give some of them cause to pause.
I'd welcome your thoughts on this.
If they are on the defensive about their god they won't continually try to change the debate to evolution.
This won't convert the creationists, but it might cause less radical elements to wake up to the truth of all religious claims. I don't want to push to hard and scare all the theist off but I want to debunk their god claims visibly enough to give some of them cause to pause.
I'd welcome your thoughts on this.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: god claims
Post #6[Replying to post 5 by RonE]
The rather comical part about all of it is that the cultists at this site and at every other site I've ever haunted do not comprehend that defeating evolution, or science in general for that matter, does not prove their god! The two topics are not actually related. If evolution was shown tomorrow to be completely wrong, that wouldn't change the fact that there is exactly zero empirical data for the existence of the supernatural (including god creatures). They seem to illogically think that defeating evolution makes their god claim the default winner...when that isn't the case at all.
I say keep attacking them on the point. The seed needs merely be planted in their subconscious so that their mind can start chewing on it. You are making a valid argument that they can't defeat (and truth be told I think they know that which is why they avoid it every time you bring it up), but you aren't just posting for them. You are posting for every visitor that might read that thread who is on the fence about religion and gods. You never know who you might help...
The rather comical part about all of it is that the cultists at this site and at every other site I've ever haunted do not comprehend that defeating evolution, or science in general for that matter, does not prove their god! The two topics are not actually related. If evolution was shown tomorrow to be completely wrong, that wouldn't change the fact that there is exactly zero empirical data for the existence of the supernatural (including god creatures). They seem to illogically think that defeating evolution makes their god claim the default winner...when that isn't the case at all.
I say keep attacking them on the point. The seed needs merely be planted in their subconscious so that their mind can start chewing on it. You are making a valid argument that they can't defeat (and truth be told I think they know that which is why they avoid it every time you bring it up), but you aren't just posting for them. You are posting for every visitor that might read that thread who is on the fence about religion and gods. You never know who you might help...
Re: god claims
Post #7[Replying to post 6 by Kenisaw]
I agree one-hundred percent. Creation science is bad science and bad theology. Even if science found an alternative to evolution, that would not support creation science. The quest for knowledge always moves forward, not backward to pick up again on ideas already ruled out. Actually, evolution was in part born out of the original belief that eighteenth and early nineteenth science could move forward and and prove the Genesis account, the Flood, etc. When the hard evidence came it, that idea went right out the window.
I agree one-hundred percent. Creation science is bad science and bad theology. Even if science found an alternative to evolution, that would not support creation science. The quest for knowledge always moves forward, not backward to pick up again on ideas already ruled out. Actually, evolution was in part born out of the original belief that eighteenth and early nineteenth science could move forward and and prove the Genesis account, the Flood, etc. When the hard evidence came it, that idea went right out the window.
