Progressive Christianity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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."!

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

What I actually said in Reply 57 (a different reply to the one you just mischaracterised by the way) is as follows:

You:

“I don't understand why science should promote atheism...”

Me:

“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".”

A tip for you: if you really can’t stop yourself from lying, perhaps you should consider being a bit less obvious about it. Reply 57 merely corrects another of your false charges about what science supposedly does is all. Science does not "promote atheism".

[Nearly Sane]

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



"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"."

Nope again that doesn't say it either. 4 times

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is this quote



"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.

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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 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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

NS has already done a more than adequate job of dismantling your post. What I actually did was to point out that science has come up with more cogent explanations for observable phenomena that the superstitious efforts that preceded it. This is as true for thunder and Thor as it is for evolution and creationism. That’s why your charge that “science promotes atheism” (from which you seem to have resiled now by the way to a sort of, “OK then, religion declined because of the findings of science”) is flat wrong. Science “promotes” no such thing, and the least you could do is to stop repeating the lie that I think the opposite of that. 

Oh, and you don’t understand “argumentum ad populum” either. Even if it is the case that there are many atheists who would have been religious but for the advent of scientific explanations, that would say nothing to which position is correct. All it would tell you is that there are more people in one set (atheists) than would otherwise have been in a different set (theists).

It’s just counting. It's also a consequence, not a purpose. 

As for the stuff about not enough people being interested in either topic, I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and again it says nothing of the sort. So that would be 5 misrepresentations in 5 posts.

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.
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.

[Nearly Sane]

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 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 exactly ignores religion, religion exactly fights pointless battles with an opponent that doesn't know that there is a fight.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As maybe as this all maybe…

“As maybe all this maybe” is you flat out lying again remember?

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.

Say what now? How on earth did you manage to from jump from “science has nothing to say about religion” to “resurrecting the idea of science having an effect on religion”?

Yet again, science is entirely indifferent to the claims of the religious because those claims offer nothing with which the methods and tools of science can engage.

Why is this so difficult for you?

As a secondary matter, when sometimes theists get it into their heads that it’s a good idea to play on science’s turf (creationism for example) then science falsifies their claims.

As a tertiary matter, if that causes some people not to be theists then that’s a consequence but certainly not the purpose of science as you earlier asserted.

Good grief!
 

He knows it isn't science which has led to an increase in atheism…

“He” knows it because he’s never claimed any such thing. That’s just you lying again remember?

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. 

… since there is no methodology which establishes that but still sees some merit in reviving Jack Knaves thesis.

Epic fail. Why would there be a methodology to establish something that no-one argues to be the case in the first place?

Oh, and speaking of no methodology…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Please stop lying now – it’s just dull.

First, my posts were in reply to mistakes you’d made (about science "promoting" atheism for example), not to JK’s “thesis”.

Second, I’ve said flat out now several times in a row (and consistently in the past) the opposite of saying that science equals atheism.

What goes through your head when you lie like this? That no-one will notice? That lying is fine when it’s done for Jesus? What?

In Hillsides reply to my reply to Jack He seems to acknowledge what I am saying.

No, “he” falsified it – pretty much the opposite of this claim.   

Why he introduces God as big invisible chap I know not…

“He” didn’t.

…since it doesn't change that science does not do god…

You don’t say.

…or ignores God in Hillsidian terms but introduces a bit of innuendo.

Actually it’s “indifferent to” rather than “ignoring” "God" (which would suggest that there’s something to be ignored), and there is no innuendo. It’s perfectly clear.

Isn't that called muddying the waters?

No. It’s called Vlad telling more lies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well I hope Nearly Sane is clocking this.
You seem to be saying that science could cause atheism!!!

Which part of the conditional "if" is confusing you?

Now that we have finally got that straight...

You haven't.

What makes you think that science could possibly cause atheism or to put it another way cause fewer people to be theists?

Stop lying.

And for the record science cannot cause atheism and have nothing to do with religion.

Are you feeling unwell or something?

You cannot seem to help yourself Hillside. You cannot quite break the link between equating science with atheism.

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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.

Vlad shoots and scores. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Vlad shoots and scores.

Indeed he does, and both barrels too...

...one for each foot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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.

Do you suppose that "Pants in Fire" Vlad genuinely has never come across the phenomenon of the unintended consequence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Do you suppose that "Pants in Fire" Vlad genuinely has never come across the phenomenon of the unintended consequence?

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.......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

science can't.

Got there in the end.

[Nearly Sane]

Got there in the end.

So I take it your are posting this through the Internet Spirit Provider of your choice using an iBible?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An unintended consequence of methodological materialism is philosophical materialism?  or atheism?

As you consistently abuse these terms for your own purposes, why are you attempting to use them here?

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?

Science cannot ''not do God'' and ''do for God'' as well.

Perhaps if you looked up the term “unintended consequences” it would help you make less of an arse of yourself?

I think we'll all have to look for another reason for the reduction in theism.......

You can if you like as no-one suggested science as the cause in the first place.

Well, no-one except you that is. It was you who claimed that science ”promotes” atheism after all wasn’t it.

How about Goddodging in the sense of jumping on anything to avoid discussing God....as you seem to jumping on science.

He lied, and “goddodging” is dead in the water because you have to demonstrate first the thing that’s supposedly being dodged.

Apart from that though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So I take it your are pisting this through the Internet Spirit Providervof your choice using an iBible?

Smileys with wee halos all round.

[Nearly Sane]

Smileys with wee halos all round.

My ISP crucify me for charges, and when they go down they are always back in 3 days.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

You might have a lifetime agreement with yours but mine goes from erection to resurrection.

I used to use an aethernet connection, but I found that it was transubstantially infaerior.