Read my signature below.
Rationalism leads to Protestantism leads to atheism.
Yes, in order to be a theist, you have to be irrational. Can't argue with that....
There is a difference between being rational and rationalism.
Read my signature below.Everything leads to something else. And round and round we go.
I don't think there can be progressive Christianity any more than there can be a progressive science or a progressive second French republic.You mean dead!!! ;D
Christ is about as progressive as you can get.
I don't think there can be progressive Christianity any more than there can be a progressive science or a progressive second French republic.I thought he hated the ghey? Or is that just your fellow Christians who you think are wrong? Do you think a person having the homosexual sex is sinning by doing so?
Christ is about as progressive as you can get.
You mean dead!!! ;DHe could be as dead as anything and still be a better man than any.
He could be as dead as anything and still be a better man than any.So, for Christians, being brain dead is better than being intelligent, rational and alive?
So, for Christians, being brain dead is better than being intelligent, rational and alive?I rather think Jack, that we are at the point where you either believe Jesus death achieved something........or you don't.
So, for Christians, being brain dead is better than being intelligent, rational and alive?
Jack,Ni !
Not only does Vlad think that, he lives by it!
I rather think Jack, that we are at the point where you either believe Jesus death achieved something........or you don't.
Vlad,You'll have to take that up with him.
No, that's not the point you're at at all. I'm quite content to think that there was a Jesus (or someone of a different name) and that he (or several "hes" whose stories were later incorporated) existed, and that he/they was/were a charismatic street preacher(s)/conjuror(s)/soothsayer(s) etc (though not of course a genuine miracle performer(s)) and that their stories subsequently were written down, re-translated and heavily edited by people with vested interests in the outcome and that those stoires then happened to catch the wind more by happenstance then design did indeed achieve something - albeit no necessarily a positive something.
Will that do?
This thread started off well but is now so dreadful, dreary and pointless, i'm surprised anyone is bothering to respond because they are not saying anything.
You'll have to take that up with him.
Vlad,And resurrected.
I can't - he's dead.
And resurrected.
Vladd,It is unusual.
So I'm told some people believe. Weird innit?
It is unusual.
Vlad,Also he magicked water into wine, a few loaves and fishes into dinner for five thousand and made a dead person come alive again. And the people that believe all this have the temerity to tell us that leprechaunism is ridiculous.
So's flat earth-ism.
It gets weirder though. Can you believe that some people actually think they're "in a relationship" with him?
I know, I know - I'm not making that up, I promise.
Read my signature below.
Link here to an interesting article.Progressive Christianity isn't the Christianity of Christ.
The writer says that "progressive Christianity" will lead to the downfall of Christian beliefs.
By the phrase is meant; the diversity of interpretations of beliefs especially as they bend to encompass new historical and scientific findings.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2017/03/can-progressive-christianity-save-cure-christianity/?utm_source=[!]%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL%20Nonreligious&utm_content=14395
For example: trying to defend the Bible’s stance on homosexuality. Yes, it’s true that Jesus did not condemn it. Yes, only six verses explicitly mention same-sex relations. But there’s no getting around the fact that the Bible calls it “an abomination,” just as there’s no getting around Paul telling wives they need to be submissive to their husbands.
Vlad,Poor analogy......Just like Religion being the same as saying 2+2=5.
So's flat earth-ism.
Your signature is more offensive than the idea of progressive Christanity.
You see Protestants took away all the bad bits which God hated in the Roman Catholic Church like trying to take his place as God as if absent
and oppressing the poor and putting yokes on the believers.
They tried to take back control over the people once the Romans lost control over their own empire.
The truth is there is more Christians like Christ in the protestant church than in the Roman Catholic Church who made their own rules up and tried to force them onto others. There is nothing Christ-like about the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of God has never been a part of it,
Christ said " Love thy neighbour not torture them or frighten them into submission. Your signature will not be found in any of Gods teachings or those of Christs. Just as the truth shows that more than any religion calling themselves Christians...the Roman Catholics have the largest number of deserters who become atheists than any other Christian religion.
Time to come to your senses. The Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been the true church of God and Christ.
I find you offensive. I don't have to defend the Roman Catholic Church. I don't belong to it. And yet even though I've told you that a million times it still hasn't got through that thick heretical skull of yours. Protestantism is the result of rationalism and Protestantism leads to atheism The proof is western Europe, its secularism and iconoclasm: its apostasy.
You poor sad little person! :o
You poor sad little person! :o
Poor analogy......
Just like Religion being the same as saying 2+2=5.
Oh how we laughed at that one.
Time to come to your senses. The Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been the true church of God and Christ.
He could be as dead as anything and still be a better man than any.
Also he magicked water into wine, a few loaves and fishes into dinner for five thousand...
jeremy,
OK, so he was good at tapas - I'll give him that.
Your signature is more offensive than the idea of progressive Christanity.Philosophically and psychologically I agree with A_O. Protestantism eventually led to our modern world of materialism.
You see Protestants took away all the bad bits which God hated in the Roman Catholic Church like trying to take his place as God as if absent
and oppressing the poor and putting yokes on the believers.
They tried to take back control over the people once the Romans lost control over their own empire.
The truth is there is more Christians like Christ in the protestant church than in the Roman Catholic Church who made their own rules up and tried to force them onto others. There is nothing Christ-like about the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of God has never been a part of it,
Christ said " Love thy neighbour not torture them or frighten them into submission. Your signature will not be found in any of Gods teachings or those of Christs. Just as the truth shows that more than any religion calling themselves Christians...the Roman Catholics have the largest number of deserters who become atheists than any other Christian religion.
Time to come to your senses. The Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been the true church of God and Christ.
Philosophically and psychologically I agree with A_O. Protestantism eventually led to our modern world of materialism.I think that was trains.
Philosophically and psychologically I agree with A_O. Protestantism eventually led to our modern world of materialism.
I think that was trains.Are you trying to be funny, 'cause that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I think that was trains.Don't forget the advent of the printing press.
Are you trying to be funny, 'cause that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.Neither does any simplistic James Burke's Connections (Google if you are young) x caused y caused j sense of history. Further if you do follow that then it's all deterministic anyway so no particular selection starting point makes any sense. But I tried to make the point shorter in the vague hope that this is obvious to anyone thinking about causality here.
Don't forget the advent of the printing press.See answer to Jack Knave. I get the randomly select something and claim everything else comes from it. Effectively that creates a regress to the start of time. The selection of the starting point is, umm well, pointless
I don't follow that at all, please explain.What Protestantism did was to give access to the masses the mystery and numinousness of the spheres of the gods. They were left to choose and work things out for themselves. Hence the endless schisms the church has had. Some of those schisms for the individual was to reject God and religion all together (it should be noted here that many, within themselves, would have rejected or doubted the catholic faith and/or God etc. long before the Reformation came along, just that the threat of the authorities would have kept the "poll" on this mute). With the nascent influence of science (reason etc.) and the enlightenment the means to make a safe public stand on atheistic positions, with arguments for this, grew and so groups and gatherings developed. Once groups form so does social pressure as they became dominate in the society they are in and following generations are then "trained" to take this atheistic position as the norm. Very few things are wholly successful, so we have to day a situation where atheism is dominate in most social institutions - science, politics etc. - and where religious views are held in these institutions they are very much watered down versions of true spiritually; a token gesture, and as such has a very weak influence on matters. Religion, therefore, today, in the West, is a peripheral institution (especially in psychological terms) and plays no real part in social-political matters.
As people have changed over two millenia,knowledge more widespread, new discoveries every day. If they have a faith it is bound to be different to that of their grandparents or earlier.That is what I see as progressive Christianity.
I don't follow that at all, please explain.
As people have changed over two millenia,knowledge more widespread, new discoveries every day. If they have a faith it is bound to be different to that of their grandparents or earlier.That is what I see as progressive Christianity.
See answer to Jack Knave. I get the randomly select something and claim everything else comes from it. Effectively that creates a regress to the start of time. The selection of the starting point is, umm well, pointlessSo nothing causes nothing else. They just randomly jump into existence do they?
The Reformation, which was essentially an exercise in rationalism, throwing the baby out with the bathwater led to the Enlightenment > Modernism > Atheism.I thought the Reformation was an exercise in a rejection of religious despotism that went against the word of the NT.
I thought the Reformation was an exercise in a rejection of religious despotism that went against the word of the NT.
The Reformation, which was essentially an exercise in rationalism, throwing the baby out with the bathwater led to the Enlightenment > Modernism > Atheism.Not sure about people being atheists because of somebody elses churchmanship or heterodoxy.
No. It was Iconoclasm raising its ugly head again.Again?
Not sure about people being atheists because of somebody elses churchmanship or heterodoxy.To understand that you have to throw in the growth of science and rationalism etc.
So nothing causes nothing else. They just randomly jump into existence do they?No, and lovely strawnan.
To understand that you have to throw in the growth of science and rationalism etc.I don't understand why science should promote atheism when, as we are about to find I think, the British have not been into science for ages, not many have wanted to be scientists and have merely enjoyed it's consumer products as diverting toys from a true and rounded intellectual life......and that includes diversion from an actual understanding of science.
Again?
You're going to have to explain to me what the big deal of Icons is. You surely can understand why they rebelled against such things and the way that they were used etc. in the Catholic church in those days.
I don't understand why science should promote atheism...
It was an application of rationalism which ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
ad,
What baby?
No. It was Iconoclasm raising its ugly head again.-
The faith of the Apostles.
ad,
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that answer. I'm familiar with the term, but rationalism finds more cogent answers than the superstitious ones that precede it. What baby was thrown out by that?
I've already gone into this. By attempting to strip the faith down to its bare essentials through their contempt of tradition (their rationale being they were ridding the faith of useless accretions) they ended up rejecting much of the faith itself, even things approved by the college of bishops under the Holy Spirit. In reality all they did was act on personal whim.
One should utter contempt and rejection of a faith, which has permitted and turned a blind eye to all the evil done in its name over the centuries. >:(
I've already gone into this. By attempting to strip the faith down to its bare essentials through their contempt of tradition (their rationale being they were ridding the faith of useless accretions) they ended up rejecting much of the faith itself, even things approved by the college of bishops under the Holy Spirit. In reality all they did was act on personal whim.
ad,
Several problems there:
First, rationalism didn't "attempt to strip faith down to its bare essentials" at all. Insofar as it considered faith at all it examined the arguments for its claims of fact and found the wanting, and for the most part it was concerned rather with finding out how things actually worked.
Second, any "contempt" was for bad arguments for faith. That faith in general suffered from that was a consequence.
Third, you seem to think that "things approved by the college of bishops" should be immune from enquiry and challenge. What if they were wrong?
Fourth, you've a assumed a "Holy Spirit" - essentially the fallacy of reification.
Fifth, why would you think enquiry and reason that led to discoveries like electricity and functional medicines were a matter of "personal whim" rather than an honest and remarkably successful attempt better to understand the world?
Zzzz! You're such a bore, floo.
No, and lovely strawnan.
I'll have you know that my nan was never made out of straw. ;)gets stuck in your teeth when eaten with the tikka masala ;)
You seem to be somewhat confused and assuming that rationalism can only be applied in one way, that is, by questioning the very basis of faith rather than a method by which one may also decipher the faith.
Both are acts of rationalism, even if one takes faith as granted and the other doesn't.
With regards to the Reformers their rationalism was that if something is not directly found in the scriptures then it is not necessary for salvation. That is a rationalism.
Gordon Bennett! Another person who doesn't understand what rationalism is as opposed to reason or being rational. They're all related to some degree, of course, but there are subtle differences.
lad,Bad
It doesn't. Science is indifferent to religious beliefs. What it does do though is to provide more cogent explanations for many phenomena that previously were explained by "god did it".
Bad
Science doesn't do God.
Also not all religion is failed science and let's not forget that even with the most cogent scientific explanation, God could still have done it.
Vlad,I believe you've misunderstood what this fallacy entails, That HASN'T been a while.
Anything "could have" done something. Are you attempting a negative proof fallacy here? It's been a while.
I believe you've misunderstood what this fallacy entails, That HASN'T been a while.
Vlad,I'm not talking to you.
Then, as ever, you believe wrongly. I'll grant you that the pointlessness of "anything could have done anything" isn't a head on NPF, but it leaves the sentiment hanging in the air. What point did you even think you were making if not for "you can't discount God as a possibility"?
I don't understand why science should promote atheism when, as we are about to find I think, the British have not been into science for ages, not many have wanted to be scientists and have merely enjoyed it's consumer products as diverting toys from a true and rounded intellectual life......and that includes diversion from an actual understanding of science.It is the culture and philosophy of it that seeps into the everyday world of the people over many generations and then becomes the norm. You know the philosophical materialism you keep going on about. People/our modern culture has replaced the spiritual with the material god.
As far as rationalism and the GBP is concerned.......Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha He He He He He Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho.......
I'm using the term "Iconoclasm" in a much broader sense here but it's essentially the same mentality. The Iconoclasts sought to strip the churches of religious imagery. Protestantism sought to strip the faith to its bare essentials, though quite who gets to decide what is essential and what isn't is another matter, though related of course. It was an application of rationalism which ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not saying that the reformers didn't have any legitimate grievances. At the very least the Pope had become a tyrant. Not only did he claim to have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church but he also claimed to be a secular king. What really happened was everybody ended up being their own pope, their own little tyrant. Indeed, some of the worst acts that happened during the Reformation occurred between rival Protestant sects. They jumped out of the frying pan straight into the fire. All they had to do was look East, but the East had become a mere distant memory in the mind of the West. I think Melanchthon did go and see the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople though, thinking that the Reformer's rejection of the papacy would automatically endear them to the Patriarch, but Melanchthon was promptly told to get on his bike.But you haven't explain the significance of icons. What is the big deal about having icon and why throwing them out caused problems, in your view? It could have just been a correlation, and that iconic loss had no effect on the situation. To me, as an atheist, they are just picture and statues etc.
I'm not talking to you.
But you haven't explain the significance of icons. What is the big deal about having icon and why throwing them out caused problems, in your view? It could have just been a correlation, and that iconic loss had no effect on the situation. To me, as an atheist, they are just picture and statues etc.
Also, though it may be a bit of a large topic, from your post the question arises how is your church run to avoid tyrants and the like? Who leads it and governs it?
Vlad,That people are atheist because of science shows that they have confused science with atheism, confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
The loss is all mine.
That people are atheist because of science shows that they have confused science with atheism, confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
That either is somehow justified because this has increased overtime is the fallacy of modernity and possibly argumentum ad populum.
That people are atheist because of science...
...shows that they have confused science with atheism, confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
That either is somehow justified because this has increased overtime is the fallacy of modernity and possibly argumentum ad populum.
Link here to an interesting article.
The writer says that "progressive Christianity" will lead to the downfall of Christian beliefs.
By the phrase is meant; the diversity of interpretations of beliefs especially as they bend to encompass new historical and scientific findings.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2017/03/can-progressive-christianity-save-cure-christianity/?utm_source=[!]%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL%20Nonreligious&utm_content=14395
That Jesus and Paul fit into the category of failed “apocalyptic prophets” in significant ways is more of an unstated premise in academic work than something that’s consciously explored; but that’s beginning to change.
The truth is that in some ways, we’re still in the historical infancy of critical academic analysis of the Bible, and particularly in our understanding of the theological implications that might emerge from this. In my most recent post, I’ve highlighted some of the unexplored areas here, and what both Christians and non-Christians can do to help break new ground in this regard. For now, though, there are many senses in we simply still don’t know what the implications of critical Biblical interpretation might be.
I rather think Jack, that we are at the point where you either believe Jesus death achieved something........or you don't.
With regards to the Reformers their rationalism was that if something is not directly found in the scriptures then it is not necessary for salvation. That is a rationalism.
The seventh ecumenical council against the Iconoclasts goes into some detail regarding images but in a nutshell, images confirm to us that the Word became flesh and is why the Old Testament prohibition no longer applies. Again, it's a case of lex orandi lex credendi. Also the veneration payed to the icon traverses the image and reaches the one depicted in it. So in otherwords, if we believe that the Word actually became flesh then we should depict him. To us icons are not an optional extra but an integral part of how we pray because prayer reflects belief. In the same way one might say, if you don't celebrate the Ascension (just as an example) don't you believe it?Pictures were for those who could not read. It was a practical policy for the ignorant and has now become something more which it wasn't at the start. It also is something material for the simple who would have found metaphysical ideas too "out there" to hold on to. Probably the lack of items to project onto may have not helped the burgeoning Protestant movement; plus leaders often provide this kind of unconscious projection phenomena, but I very much doubt it caused any real harm as you are claiming.
As for Church governance, then in the East we emphasis episcopal collegiality and here the ecumenical councils reign supreme. Any hierarchy that exists between the bishops of the East is really just an administrative convenience but at the end of the day they're just all bishops. It might make things a bit messy at times, bishops quite often fall out with each other but then that was always the case. What unites them all is their orthodoxy.
We're certainly at the point of needing to decide whether Jesus' life achieved something (with the proviso of deciding which of the several portraits of Jesus in the NT is the most authentic). Cynic sage or Jewish End-time apocalyptic prophet seem to be the most likely to have any historical accuracy. Everything else is what was foisted on him by his adoring followers.But the accounts of JC are so worldly unreal that in the end it has to be seen as symbolic and collectively psychological.
Vlad,Hillside
I thought you weren't talking to me? Oh well.
Oh dear. "People" aren't atheists "because of science". People are atheists because there's no evidence for theism. That theists sometimes try to play on the turf of science (creationism for example) and science falsifies the effort is a secondary matter.
It shows no such thing because your premise is false, and the only confusion here is your confusion about what methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism actually entail. That you've had these terms explained to you countless times only for the explanations to fall on deaf ears though suggests that you'll never get it.
Stop digging!
Well I don't confuse science and atheism any more than I confuse knitting with ski-jumping and unlike your good self I do understand the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.Really? I thought you just sat there going:
..."People" aren't atheists "because of science"...
Hillside
....To portray the increase in atheism as the march of science is pure delusion on your part. ....
I'm afraid when I say there are more atheists now I'm saying it like it is a bad thing.
But it is a bad thing because it is not because of science or rationality. I'm afraid religion is tolerated for it's weddings and punch at Christmas.....just like science is tolerated because of it's goodies. Not many want to be clergy and alas and alack not many want to be scientists.
To portray the increase in atheism as the march of science is pure delusion on your part.
A modern myth easily blown.
The reasons are simple people aren't religious, just like they are not scientific at heart or ''rational''......... (goodness knows is there not enough evidence for that).........but because they cant be ''arsed'' to be.
Blue hillside states:
Quote
..."People" aren't atheists "because of science"...
Vlad replies:
Quote from: Emergence-The musical on Today at 06:09:55 PM
Hillside
....To portray the increase in atheism as the march of science is pure delusion on your part. ....
Mmmm
Pictures were for those who could not read. It was a practical policy for the ignorant and has now become something more which it wasn't at the start. It also is something material for the simple who would have found metaphysical ideas too "out there" to hold on to. Probably the lack of items to project onto may have not helped the burgeoning Protestant movement; plus leaders often provide this kind of unconscious projection phenomena, but I very much doubt it caused any real harm as you are claiming.
Blue hillside states:Yes if only he had stopped at that without going on to suggest that maybe science did have something to do with it.
Vlad replies:
Mmmm
Yes if only he had stopped at that without going on to suggest that maybe science did have something to do with it.You mean when he wrote this "That theists sometimes try to play on the turf of science (creationism for example) and science falsifies the effort is a secondary matter."!
Yes if only he had stopped at that without going on to suggest that maybe science did have something to do with it.
Really? I thought you just sat there going:FALLACY: FALLACY: FALLACY: FALLACY: FALLACY: FALLACY: FALLACY: FALLACY
You mean when he wrote this "That theists sometimes try to play on the turf of science (creationism for example) and science falsifies the effort is a secondary matter."!Jack Knave suggests the rise in atheism as a product of science and rationality and Hillside is there defending him.....Reply No 57.............. Hillside on science on religion.
Because that doesn't say anything you have stated he said either.
So that's at least three times you have stated bluehillside has said the opposite of what he actually wrote in three posts. It's not exactly a way to have a discussion.
Jack Knave suggests the rise in atheism as a product of science and rationality and Hillside is there defending him.....Reply No 57.............. Hillside on science on religion.
Jack Knave suggests the rise in atheism as a product of science and rationality and Hillside is there defending him.....Reply No 57.............. Hillside on science on religion.Which is this quote
Which is this quoteWhich suggests support for the idea that science has lead to the demise of religion, a phenomenon which would be an argumentum ad populum and the religion vs science fallacy.
"It doesn't. Science is indifferent to religious beliefs. What it does do though is to provide more cogent explanations for many phenomena that previously were explained by "god did it"."
Which suggests support for the idea that science has lead to the demise of religion, a phenomenon which would be an argumentum ad populum and the religion vs science fallacy.and again it says nothing of the sort. So that would be 5 misrepresentations in 5 posts.
Hillside here has backed the notion that science has smashed religion. I disagree that science has. A misunderstanding of what science is may have notionally contribute in a small part as a justification....but science doesn't.
Thee public have held science and religion in a similar place......best left to those who are interested.
Which suggests support for the idea that science has lead to the demise of religion, a phenomenon which would be an argumentum ad populum and the religion vs science fallacy.
Hillside here has backed the notion that science has smashed religion. I disagree that science has. A misunderstanding of what science is may have notionally contribute in a small part as a justification....but science doesn't.
Thee public have held science and religion in a similar place......best left to those who are interested.
and again it says nothing of the sort. So that would be 5 misrepresentations in 5 posts.As maybe as this all maybe, Hillside is effectively saying ''science has nothing to say about religion(he uses the term 'ignores') but.............''. He thus immediately resurrects the idea of science having an affect on religion.
As to how you misrepresent, and the rest of your post. All the statement from bhs does is note that where in the past there have been claims of supernatural causes for natural effects, that on investigation there gave been natural causes. Note that says nothing about either the demise of religion - one misrepresentation, or even mentions numbers, a further misrepresentation in your incorrect mention of the ad pop.
You also mention a religion vs science fallacy. While it's not a fallacy that I am aware of, I am guessing that you are using it in some sense related to Non Overlapping Magisteria idea touted by Stephen Jay Gould. Now leaving aside my objections to the idea, let's allow you to use it. In which case you be wrong to do so because Gould would point out that the claims of natural effects by religion was it acting outside its 'magisterium'
You then just repeat the misrepresentation of what bhs has said.
Your last sentence is a non sequitur to the specific discussion but your previous comments seems to be a tangent about 'Some people are religious and they don't really think about either their religion or science, and some people are atheists and they think about neither religion or science'. Is this then you trying to say that the misrepresentation you have made from bhs is affected by the numbers who actually care? If so you would appear to be attempting to counter your own strawman of a charge of using the ad pop, with your own ad pop.
Of course, it may not be that, since you write as if half the sentences in your posts are missing. Please make some effort to make them comprehensible, and not a series of misrepresentations with a few sentences that make no sense internally, or in relation to the rest of your post.
As maybe as this all maybe ''Hillside is effectively saying science has nothing to say about religion(he uses the term 'ignores') but.............''. He thus immediately resurrects the idea of science having an affect on religion.there is a difference between saying it has no effect on religion, and that it won't have an impact on religious claims about naturalistic effects. It's not doing it, in relation to religion. Galileo didn't set out to disprove church doctrine, he just did science, and it was then, as with creationism now religion putting itself against that process that causes the issue. Science exactly ignores religion, religion exactly fights pointless battles with an opponent that doesn't know that there is a fight.
He knows it isn't science which has led to an increase in atheism but still sees some merit in Jack Knaves thesis.
there is a difference between saying it has no effect on religion, and that it won't have an impact on religious claims about naturalistic effects. It's not doing it, in relation to religion. Galileo didn't set out to disprove church doctrine, he just did science, and it was then, as with creationism now religion putting itself against that process that causes the issue. Science I exactly ignores religion, religion exactly fights pointless battles with an opponent that doesn't know that there is a fight.Unfortunately Hillside mentions what he believes about science and religion in the context of Jack Knave's thesis linking atheism with science. However he cannot make science equal atheism.
As maybe as this all maybe…
Hillside is effectively saying ''science has nothing to say about religion(he uses the term 'ignores') but.............''.
He thus immediately resurrects the idea of science having an affect on religion.
He knows it isn't science which has led to an increase in atheism…
… since there is no methodology which establishes that but still sees some merit in reviving Jack Knaves thesis.
Unfortunately Hillside mentions what he believes about science and religion in the context of Jack Knave's thesis linking atheism with science. However he cannot make science equal atheism.
In Hillsides reply to my reply to Jack He seems to acknowledge what I am saying.
Why he introduces God as big invisible chap I know not…
…since it doesn't change that science does not do god…
…or ignores God in Hillsidian terms but introduces a bit of innuendo.
Isn't that called muddying the waters?
Well I hope Nearly Sane is clocking this.
If science has caused fewer people to be theists than would otherwise have been the case, that’s just an unintended consequence of people doing science.
Well I hope Nearly Sane is clocking this.
You seem to be saying that science could cause atheism!!!
Now that we have finally got that straight...
What makes you think that science could possibly cause atheism or to put it another way cause fewer people to be theists?
And for the record science cannot cause atheism and have nothing to do with religion.
You cannot seem to help yourself Hillside. You cannot quite break the link between equating science with atheism.
Vlad,Vlad shoots and scores. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Which part of the conditional "if" is confusing you?
You haven't.
Stop lying.
Are you feeling unwell or something?
Your correct reply here should have been: "Dear Hillside. I'm very, very sorry that I keep lying about your posts. I promise not to do it in future".
You're welcome.
Well I hope Nearly Sane is clocking this.science can't. Religion can, however, cause fewer people to be religious by making claims that it isn't in the ground of making. If someone reads of Galileo, and thinks mmm if the Pope could get it so wrong because of dogma, maybe this infallibillity stuff is all nonsense. Then it's religion's doing.
You seem to be saying that science could cause atheism!!!
Now that we have finally got that straight. What makes you think that science could possibly cause atheism or to put it another way cause fewer people to be theists?
And for the record science cannot cause atheism and have nothing to do with religion.
You cannot seem to help yourself Hillside. You cannot quite break the link between equating science with atheism.
Vlad shoots and scores.
science can't. Religion can, however, cause fewer people to be religious by making claims that it isn't in the ground of making. If someone reads of Galileo, and thinks mmm if the Pope could get it so wrong because of dogma, maybe this infallibillity stuff is all nonsense. Then it's religion's doing.
NS,An unintended consequence of methodological materialism is philosophical materialism? or atheism?
Do you suppose that "Pants in Fire" Vlad genuinely has never come across the phenomenon of the unintended consequence?
science can't.Got there in the end.
Got there in the end.So I take it your are posting this through the Internet Spirit Provider of your choice using an iBible?
An unintended consequence of methodological materialism is philosophical materialism? or atheism?
Science has no unintended consequences. What is the matter with you?
Science cannot ''not do God'' and ''do for God'' as well.
I think we'll all have to look for another reason for the reduction in theism.......
How about Goddodging in the sense of jumping on anything to avoid discussing God....as you seem to jumping on science.
So I take it your are pisting this through the Internet Spirit Providervof your choice using an iBible?Smileys with wee halos all round.
Smileys with wee halos all round.
My ISP crucify me for charges, bBut anf when they go down they are always back in 3 days.You might have a lifetime agreement with yours but mine goes from erection to resurrection.
You might have a lifetime agreement with yours but mine goes from erection to resurrection.
I think you underestimate the ancients. Faith and prayer is much more than reading, hearing and understanding. It involves all the senses, including sight, smell, taste. Posture also. I always thought that how a church and its liturgy look (that is if they have any liturgy at all) fairly accurately reflects its faith. Bare church, minimalist liturgy, long dull sermons....well, you get the picture.So you want a church and a religion with a razzamatazz? Something to keep you entertained. In other words I can't see how a "duller" (in your words) approach could cause such a loss of faith.
As maybe as this all maybe, Hillside is effectively saying ''science has nothing to say about religion(he uses the term 'ignores') but.............''. He thus immediately resurrects the idea of science having an affect on religion.All it is is a battle of ideas. And as the intellectual capacities of mankind increased; an increase in consciousness, religion had to gradually adjust its perspective as science or the investigations of people debunked the previous explanations of religion that God did this and that. This has been the process for the last 500 odd years or so. This led essentially to Darwin's ideas that dealt a significant blow to the God brigade, and as we know have been fighting back ever since.
He knows it isn't science which has led to an increase in atheism since there is no methodology which establishes that but still sees some merit in reviving Jack Knaves thesis.
All it is is a battle of ideas. And as the intellectual capacities of mankind increased; an increase in consciousness, religion had to gradually adjust its perspective as science or the investigations of people debunked the previous explanations of religion that God did this and that. This has been the process for the last 500 odd years or so. This led essentially to Darwin's ideas that dealt a significant blow to the God brigade, and as we know have been fighting back ever since.What is the scientific measure of an 'increase in consciousness'?
All it is is a battle of ideas. And as the intellectual capacities of mankind increased; an increase in consciousness, religion had to gradually adjust its perspective as science or the investigations of people debunked the previous explanations of religion that God did this and that. This has been the process for the last 500 odd years or so. This led essentially to Darwin's ideas that dealt a significant blow to the God brigade, and as we know have been fighting back ever since.well I'm not sure about a battle of ideas, nor that the intellectual capacities of mankind have increased,
What is the scientific measure of an 'increase in consciousness'?That's the psychological background that enabled man to see the world in a new light.
That's the psychological background that enabled man to see the world in a new light.mi'lord, mi'lord!!! What is it, Knave? I believe, mi'lord that we have discovered the purest WOO!!!!!
Science has no unintended consequences. What is the matter with you?
How on earth can anyone respond to ignorance as deep as that? Of course science has unintended consequences – Thalidomide? The banning of DDT? The introduction of cane toads to Australia?
Is any of this ringing a bell for you?
Anything?
mi'lord, mi'lord!!! What is it, Knave? I believe, mi'lord that we have discovered the purest WOO!!!!!As you would say that's a tu quoque.
well I'm not sure about a battle of ideas, nor that the intellectual capacities of mankind have increased,The roots of all this stems from around the Greek time 2500 years ago or so. Consciousness etc. doesn't just change and hey presto everything appears. It's a gradual process. The ground work has to be laid which is often than not unconsciously formed. And it is a battle of ideas, what are you doing now but battling with your ideas against others.
I am even less sure about an increase in consciousness. Science may be against Godsliteralrighthandism but American Biochemist, Darwinian and theist Martinez Hewlett has pointed out that fundamentalism of that type is a relatively recent phenomenon.
So I think your version is an urban myth.
Organised religion as Nearly suggests does itself in by siding with oppressive forces and party politics such as the Spanish Falange and in this country the practice of landlords insisting on worker tenants attending church as part of a package of subservience including King country, party and elders and betters. But as we now know church attendance was always a dispensible feature for the powerful who now insist on internet connectivity with and of a worker for every waking moment.That doesn't explain why breakouts from the traditional system happen at a given time, and these breakouts can't be just a reforming of the old ideas and customs etc. but new and progressive approaches that move to new "territories" and genres.
As you would say that's a tu quoque.I wouldn't say it is a tu quoque, because it isn't. You could argue it's an ad hominem attack, not fallacy, but I think that it just attacks the deepity that you had attempted.
Just because you are too stupid and blind to understand and see these things doesn't make it woo. How would you explain how people think? And how would you explain what they think, its content?
I wouldn't say it is a tu quoque, because it isn't. You could argue it's an ad hominem attack, not fallacy, but I think that it just attacks the deepity that you had attempted.It is a tu quoque but you can't see it because you are working on an assumption to your position that makes you think you understand things but in fact makes your position just as much woo, or not, as mine.
I don't think we have a full understanding of how and what people think. I definitely wouldn't try and sum it up in a meaningless one line deepity though.Some of the wises words have be done as one liners!!!
It is a tu quoque but you can't see it because you are working on an assumption to your position that makes you think you understand things but in fact makes your position just as much woo, or not, as mine.Just to help you out with your misunderstanding of the tu quoque
Some of the wises words have be done as one liners!!!
And again, 'meaningless' is your relative judgement, and not a good one.
Just to help you out with your misunderstanding of the tu quoqueNo, it's you that don't understand why it applies to your comment and so think it has been misused.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
What foolishness made you bring this up?
How on earth can anyone respond to ignorance as deep as that? Of course science has unintended consequences – Thalidomide? The banning of DDT? The introduction of cane toads to Australia?
And again, 'meaningless' is your relative judgement, and not a good one.
What foolishness made you bring this up?
These aren't the consequences of science they are the consequences of the lack of it!!!
This kind of thing happens when we get overconfident that we understand science sufficiently as in the hands of the new atheists who are flattered by acolytes who make parrot noises such as ''our understanding of science means that we can dispense with religion''
JK,It's not my fault that other people are ignorant.
I assume that by “meaningless” NS means “meaningless for other people”. Any notions can be meaningful for those who have them, but that meaning is just subjective until and unless they can build a logical path to “true for you too” objectivity. Now in some cases that’s easy – for gravity for example I can set out various tests that will do the trick – but when people assert “God” etc there are no such logical paths.
That’s why “meaningless” is more than a “relative judgment” here.
Yes, Yes , Yes Hillside.....Too much confidence in ones own and societies handle on science.
Seriously? Seriously seriously though?
It's not my fault that other people are ignorant.
Thin at one end, fat in the middle, thin at the other end?
Is it also not my fault that you're ignorant of my certain knowledge about leprechauns?
No, it's you that don't understand why it applies to your comment and so think it has been misused.
Yes, Yes , Yes Hillside.....Too much confidence in ones own and societies handle on science.
Evidence Thalidomide, The Milgram experiment............ list is endless
Vlad,I never talked about "confidence in science" read the posts will you
Dear god but you're slippery. Your claim remember was: "Science has no unintended consequences. What is the matter with you?" (Reply 117)
I then suggested to you Thalidomide as precisely an example of science having an unintended consequence. Now you shift ground entirely from, "science has no unintended consequences" to "people sometimes have too much confidence in science" (a completely different issue) and then have the gall to quote back to me the example I used to falsify your previous mistake!
Have you any idea how scummy this makes you look?
Anything?
Jesus appears to have been progressive for his time, he spoke to strange women for a start.
Something men generally didn't do.
And suggested that one at least was a variety of dog. Jesus may have been an exceptional chap, but the records (especially Mark's gospel) do not portray him as whiter than white.I think you're spinning it Dicky. I thought he was just talking like a red neck since he then outlined faith as being above parochial prejudices.
What foolishness made you bring this up?
These aren't the consequences of science they are the consequences of the lack of it!!!
This kind of thing happens when we get overconfident that we understand science sufficiently as in the hands of the new atheists blaa blaa blaa
I think you're spinning it Dicky. I thought he was just talking like a red neck since he then outlined faith as being above parochial prejudices.
It's like reading Dave Spart. Do you think Christian (rather than atheist) scientists would automatically have been more cautious in the research and application of Thalidomide in its control of morning sickness during pregnancy? Do you know the faith position of the scientists involved in manufacturing the drug? Or those who were testing a drug for arthritis, in which the volunteers thought their heads were about to explode - among other unfortunate symptoms?A litany of things I've not argued. I think that's called Straw Man.
Perhaps we should have exorcists on hand during drug trials to 'beat out the Devil' should experiments take an unforeseen turn.
JK,Am an atheist, but I could ask you a similar question. What makes you think that you're not the one who's ignorant? And that was the underlining point of my comment some posts back that started this with NS.
What makes you think that you're not the one who's ignorant? If, say, you believe in something you call "God" what tests would you apply to satisfy yourself that you're not mistaken?
Is it also not my fault that you're ignorant of my certain knowledge about leprechauns?
Your explanation of why it applied is in conflict with the definition.That's not making any sense so you're going to have to elucidate on it.
Am an atheist, but I could ask you a similar question. What makes you think that you're not the one who's ignorant? And that was the underlining point of my comment some posts back that started this with NS.which again illustrates that you do not understand the tu quoque fallacy.
Protestantism is the result of rationalism and Protestantism leads to atheism. The proof is western Europe, its secularism and iconoclasm: its apostasy.And Western Europe is such a terrible place to live compared to such bastions of religious law law Iran and Saudi Arabia...
Am an atheist, but I could ask you a similar question. What makes you think that you're not the one who's ignorant? And that was the underlining point of my comment some posts back that started this with NS.
I never talked about "confidence in science" read the posts will you
And Western Europe is such a terrible place to live compared to such bastions of religious law law Iran and Saudi Arabia...
... oh wait.
If the end result of protestantism is Western Europe, then protestantism is obviously a Good Thing.
Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with? ::)
Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with? ::)Which country would you hold up as a good example of your non rationalist beliefs?
Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with? ::)
Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with? ::)
Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with? ::)I was trying to think of any countries that are run according to religious principles. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, in fact) all the Christian theocracies realised that running a country on religious principles is a terrible idea at around the time of the Enlightenment so there aren't any left.
Is there such a thing as a true prophet?Yes. Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and of course Jesus Christ.
Yes. Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and of course Jesus Christ.
Vlad,Hillside.
You can split hairs about the difference between “confidence in science” and “confidence in ones own and societies handle on science” (sic) as much as you like, but it’s still a big ol’ distraction tactic to get you out from behind your ludicrous claim that “"Science has no unintended consequences.”
Looks like another one of your mistakes we need to file along with “philosophy isn’t about logic”, “science promotes atheism” etc that you later pretend haven’t been falsified at all.
I think we’re gonna need a bigger filing cabinet pretty soon…
JK,If they don't understand what I'm talking about then they are. If someone doesn't understand the basics of life and what it means to be human then they can be seen as being ignorant or naïve or something.
You're missing it. The point rather was that you (or I or anyone else) cannot assume that others are ignorant of our personal truths when those truths are only personal. One man's "god" and another man's leprechauns are epistemically equivalent for this purpose. My gravity and your gravity on the other hand share the common ground of intersubjective experience - so our opinions on it don't matter - and thus we call gravity objectively true.
I wouldn't say it is a tu quoque, because it isn't. You could argue it's an ad hominem attack, not fallacy, but I think that it just attacks the deepity that you had attempted.Now that I know what you are saying then yes I would agree that minions like yourself shouldn't try it and that it should be left with the mighty and gods of this world to do it, as I successfully did. ;D
I don't think we have a full understanding of how and what people think. I definitely wouldn't try and sum it up in a meaningless one line deepity though.
Now that I know what you are saying then yes I would agree that minions like yourself shouldn't try it and that it should be left with the mighty and gods of this world to do it, as I successfully did. ;D
Science doesn't promote atheism. I don't believe I've ever argued that.
I don't understand why science should promote atheism…
Philosophy is not science. I don't believe I have linked philosophy with logic.
Surely logic in philosophy proceeds from it's premises. It's then up to people like Gordon to spot where the fallacy lies, see my quote form the Blessed Bertrand below. Could you cite the particular post you are basing your take on my attitude from?
Also I think you have Category F'd, Science and the historic application of science.
I was trying to think of any countries that are run according to religious principles. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, in fact) all the Christian theocracies realised that running a country on religious principles is a terrible idea at around the time of the Enlightenment so there aren't any left.
If they don't understand what I'm talking about then they are. If someone doesn't understand the basics of life and what it means to be human then they can be seen as being ignorant or naïve or something.
You're 'gravity' is worthless as it says nothing about what it means to be human.
Vlad,Nope I was challenging Jack on his point that science promotes atheism.
Your Reply 55:
Which of these positions do you finally want to opt for?
You said something like, “philosophy isn’t about logic”. Philosophy is precisely about logic – would would "illogical philosophy" even mean?
The one when you said philosophy isn’t about logic? Probably if I could be bothered to look for it – it was a reply you made to Wigginhall I think.
Can you really not see though that “proceeding from its premises” is itself an approach in logic?
Presumably you’ll be along soon to demonstrate this claim?
Incidentally, when looking for references for your various errors I typed “Emergence the musical” and “science” and came across a site called “Fundies say the Darndest Things” – essentially a compendium of daftnesses posted by the logically challenged – and guess what? Yup, it contains a whole stack of your quotes from this mb!
The good news? You’re famous!
The bad news? Erm, not in a good way…
Argumentum ad populum.
Incidentally, when looking for references for your various errors I typed “Emergence the musical” and “science” and came across a site called “Fundies say the Darndest Things” – essentially a compendium of daftnesses posted by the logically challenged – and guess what? Yup, it contains a whole stack of your quotes from this mb!
The good news? You’re famous!
The bad news? Erm, not in a good way…
Nope I was challenging Jack on his point that science promotes atheism.
Then you pitched in with agreement….
…and then qualification of that agreement, a qualification I must say you have continued to reinforce.
Both Jack's suggestion that there is less theism because there is more science and your qualification of your agreement with me are incorrect IMHO.
Increase in atheism or the reduction in theism are not a happy (nor unhappy) consequence of science... and therefore can be neither intentional nor unintended..........
You either come out and agree with Jack's original suggestion or me...
....Which I think puts you between a rock and a hard place.
Argumentum ad populum.
Well I'm not famous....Emergence the musical is.
Thanks for bringing this up and I knew about it anyway.
I was surprised though at who was behind it.
Argumentum ad populum.
Well I'm not famous....Emergence the musical is.
Thanks for bringing this up and I knew about it anyway.
I was surprised though at who was behind it.
Just in case anyone is wondering you mean me. FSTDT is a site I've been submitting to since BBC board days. Not sure why you might find it a surprise.Why have you put our posts on that site?
Why have you put our posts on that site?as I said I've been submitting posts since the BBC days for things I thought fitted there.
Why have you put our posts on that site?
Vlad,
Perhaps if you bothered looking up what argumentum ad populum means you wouldn't make this mistake again? I wasn't making an argument at all; I was just noting that you're a hit on a site that complies fruit loop religious postings.
Infamous is a better fit I think.
I have no idea who is "behind it".
As confirmed to Vlad, it is I that have submitted stuff. Note it isn't exclusively religious quotes by any means on the site.Apparently Lord Lucan was on FSTDT for several years and that enabled him to avoid detection.