-->
@Mopac
It leads me to more reliable conclusions that don’t hinge on faith.
There'll never be closure on whether God exists
Posts
Total:
554
-->
@Reece101
I don't follow.
-->
@Mopac
Just look at history. Religion and science still have problems today.
”Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions.
Critical thought is absent.
-->
@Reece101
I'm afraid that comes from a misunderstanding of what the faith is. It is a false dichotomy to put us at odds with science because our discipline makes more effective scientists, and the church has a therepeutic method that weeds out delusion better than what passes for mental health care these days.
”Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions.Critical thought is absent.
Yet most of history's great men of science have been religious. How do atheists reconcile this contradiction?
Both world wars, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's eugenics, and evolution's larmarkism were all more due to materialist thinking than to religion. Is your POV being skewed by bias?
-->
@ethang5
Yet most of history's great men of science have been religious. How do atheists reconcile this contradiction?Both world wars, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's eugenics, and evolution's larmarkism were all more due to materialist thinking than to religion. Is your POV being skewed by bias?
That’s why I placed it in quotes. Religious =/= religious thinking. Try to look at the context of our conversation. Most religious scientists weren't as devout compared to the rest of their society. Christianity for example was the only game in town for Europe.
Can we please try to stay on topic?
That being said, at least they didn’t hide behind religion. Less so for Hitler.
-->
@Mopac
I'm afraid that comes from a misunderstanding of what the faith is. It is a false dichotomy to put us at odds with science because our discipline makes more effective scientists, and the church has a therepeutic method that weeds out delusion better than what passes for mental health care these days.
I wish that was the case.
-->
@Reece101
I don't believe you know otherwise.
-->
@Mopac
I don’t believe you know anywise.
Sorry, I had to.
-->
@Reece101
What do you say is not the case?
-->
@Mopac
You made a far-flung claim that I disagree with
-->
@ethang5
Conditioning is.
Therefore religion is, irrespective of assumed belief.
And science is the appreciation of alternative data.
Nonetheless:
Religion is as religion does.
And science is as science does.
Therefore, there is the contradiction?
-->@Reece101
Your claim was...
”Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions. Critical thought is absent.
Are you now amending it to...
Devout "Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions?
Can you support this new claim better than the previous one?
Can we please try to stay on topic?
How was I not on topic? I quoted you verbatim and responded directly to what you said.
-->@zedvictor4
Conditioning is.
...is what?
Therefore religion is, irrespective of assumed belief.
Therefore religion is... what?
And science is the appreciation of alternative data.
So is astrology. So what?
Nonetheless:Religion is as religion does.And science is as science does.Therefore, there is the contradiction?
Your premises are illogical. But there is no contradiction between Christianity and science. There are sometimes contradictions between scientists and Christians, but they can easily be shown to be misunderstandings.
-->
@ethang5
Are you now amending it to...Devout "Religious thinking” tends to give way to half-baked conclusions?Can you support this new claim better than the previous one?
Can you please try not to strawman me.
Let’s look at religious thinking as a spectrum. 0% being no faith while 100% represents full confidents in what the religion/bible teaches.
Now, by “tend” I mean over 50% of religious thinking leads to half-baked conclusions.
By “Most religious scientists weren't as devout compared to the rest of their society” I mean they weren’t as confident.
Do you understand?
How was I not on topic? I quoted you verbatim and responded directly to what you said.
You responded with whataboutisms.
-->@Reece101
Can you please try not to strawman me.
How have I strawmanned you? I quoted you verbatim.
Do you understand?
I do. I still think your claim is illogical and so far unsupported.
You responded with whataboutisms.
That contradicted your claims. So they were appropriate.
If you are going to make claims, you will have to defend them, no matter how accepted they are in atheist circles. Nothing here will be taken on faith.
-->
@ethang5
How have I strawmanned you? I quoted you verbatim.
I didn’t claim you did.
I do. I still think your claim is illogical and so far unsupported.
How do you find it illogical?
That contradicted your claims. So they were appropriate.If you are going to make claims, you will have to defend them, no matter how accepted they are in atheist circles. Nothing here will be taken on faith.
How was it contradictory?
-->@Reece101
How have I strawmanned you? I quoted you verbatim.
I didn’t claim you did.
Then your comment, "Can you please try not to strawman me." was curious. Did you have a suspicion that I intended to strawman you?
How do you find it illogical?
Because reality contradicts it. Some of the worlds greatest scientists were devout religious men, men who today would be considered far right religious nuts.
How was it contradictory?
I did not say contradictory, I said your claims were illogical. And you have so far only stated them, not supported them.
-->
@ethang5
Then your comment, "Can you please try not to strawman me." was curious. Did you have a suspicion that I intended to strawman you?
Intentional, unintentional, it doesn’t matter. Just try not to.
Because reality contradicts it. Some of the worlds greatest scientists were devout religious men, men who today would be considered far right religious nuts.
What about their own societies, how would they consider them? In terms of intellectual progress, it still makes sense.
I did not say contradictory, I said your claims were illogical. And you have so far only stated them, not supported them.
You said:
That contradicted your claims.
I’m asking you how.
-->@Reece101
Intentional, unintentional, it doesn’t matter. Just try not to.
OK, then please try not to lie, either intentionally or unintentionally.
What about their own societies, how would they consider them?
As great men of science. But what does it matter? They are considered great men of science TODAY because they actually were. Your claim that they were unable of rational critical thought is obviously wrong.
I’m asking you how.
I've shown you. You claimed that religious thinking curtails critical thinking. I showed that very devout religious men throughout history have been great men of science, capable of the highest critical thinking such that much of their ideas are still studied today.
-->
@ethang5
It was you who suggested that there was a need for reconciliation.
My response was simply to suggest that religion and science are fundamentally the same. Just variations based on what is ultimately a single theme.
Conditioning, i.e. data input.
Conclusions, i.e. data output.
Conditioning results in clever religious scientists, as in just the same way conditioning also results in clever non-religious scientists.
Contradiction, is just arguing the toss over the finer points of conclusion. All of which will be continuously and instantaneously uploaded, assimilated, stored and possibly utilised at a later date.
Stored data is all essentially the same and therefore not contradictory.
Differences of opinion are simply variations in output, relative to conditioning.
-->@zedvictor4
OK.
-->
@ethang5
Never mind. Your responses are becoming twisted and out of context.
-->
@ethang5
Religion tries to answer the question of "WHY".But there is no contradiction between Christianity and science.
Science tries to answer the question of "HOW".
-->
@Reece101
You made a far-flung claim that I disagree with
What claim?
-->@Reece101
Lol. Ok Reece.
Try not to be bitter. Ok?
-->@3RU7AL
But there is no contradiction between Christianity and science.
Religion tries to answer the question of "WHY".
Science tries to answer the question of "HOW".
Both religion and science sometimes answers both how and why.
None-the-less, there is no real contradiction between Christianity and science.
-->
@Mopac
Two claims.I'm afraid that comes from a misunderstanding of what the faith is. It is a false dichotomy to put us at odds with science because our discipline makes more effective scientists, and the church has a therepeutic method that weeds out delusion better than what passes for mental health care these days.
-->
@ethang5
If you’re being genuine, read the last thing you said on post #164 and our conversation that developed after that.
-->
@ethang5
My bad, it’s 166