Vlad,
Nope I was challenging Jack on his point that science promotes atheism.
Nope. You said it, and were called out on it. Stop lying.
Then you pitched in with agreement….
Agreement with what? That science promotes atheism? Nope – I said the opposite of that – very, very clearly. Stop lying.
…and then qualification of that agreement, a qualification I must say you have continued to reinforce.
You can’t “qualify” something you didn’t say in the first place. Stop lying.
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.
That’s wasn’t my “qualification”. I merely said that, when science provides answers that previously were provided by superstitious alternatives (Thor and thunder for example) then a plank that supports the superstitious belief is removed. It’s hardly a stretch therefore to suggest that the incidence of those kind of beliefs has declined as a result.
That though just means that there have been unintended effects incidental to the practice of science, not that it was the goal of “antitheistic scientists” as your bonkers paranoia has it.
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..........
Another
non sequitur. Do you think that more people believed in Thor or in a flat earth before or after the real answers were discovered? That’s the unintended consequence bit – science didn’t set out to discredit Thor-ism or flat-earthism; it just set out to find out how things really were.
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.
It does no such thing because your position is fundamentally dishonest.
