Progressive Christianity

[floo]

As a human Jesus would have had good points as well as bad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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

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?
Perhaps we should have exorcists on hand during drug trials to 'beat out the Devil' should experiments take an unforeseen turn.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

One interpretation. But as a firmly believing Jew, who hardened the Law, rather than softening it in some instances, it is quite likely that Jesus  would have had a stiff-necked attitude to those who were not quite of the 'Chosen race'. The text reads perfectly well as though the Syro-Phoenecian woman's intelligent reply had touched a level of compassion in him which his prejudices had blocked up. As a 'cosmic' figure, one would have thought he would have immediately been above prejudices and acted accordingly. The traditional explanation is that he was just 'testing her' - now that's spin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?
Perhaps we should have exorcists on hand during drug trials to 'beat out the Devil' should experiments take an unforeseen turn.

A litany of things I've not argued. I think that's called Straw Man.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

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?

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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...

... oh wait.

If the end result of protestantism is Western Europe, then protestantism is obviously a Good Thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I never talked about "confidence in science" read the posts will you

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…

[ad_orientem]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with?

What would a non-false prophet be, and how would you know?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Stranger]

Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with?

How do you tell a false prophet from a real one?

[floo]

Is a country which follows a false prophet the best you can come up with?

Is there such a thing as a true prophet?

[jeremyp]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Is there such a thing as a true prophet?

Yes. Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and of course Jesus Christ.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Yes. Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and of course Jesus Christ.

What in your opinion makes any of them "true"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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…

Hillside.

Science doesn't promote atheism. I don't believe I've ever argued that.
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.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

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.

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

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. 

[floo]

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. 

Oh dear, that post of JK's says it all about his mindset.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Science doesn't promote atheism. I don't believe I've ever argued that.

Your Reply 55:

I don't understand why science should promote atheism…

Which of these positions do you finally want to opt for?

Philosophy is not science. I don't believe I have linked philosophy with logic.

You said something like, “philosophy isn’t about logic”. Philosophy is precisely about logic – would would "illogical philosophy" even mean?

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?

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?

Also I think you have Category F'd, Science and the historic application of science.

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…

[ad_orientem]

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.

No, there aren't any. However, if we look to the past then definitely Byzantium.