Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you say. Why don't you quote one?
As stated, a basic history book will evidence my claims.
Ironically, not one of the three people in opposition to my claim has offered even one source which could ably demonstrate their position of Christianity's lack of influence on the areas mentioned. Just a coincidence, I am certain...
This is your tactic: state some BS, then crow triumphantly when said BS goes unrefutedly, conveniently ignoring that it's your job to prove your BS (lack of refutation does not equal proof).
So go ahead and quote some source, at least, that shows how the degree of intellectual freedom that exists in x part of the world (your choice) is attributable to the presence of Christianity there.
That is what you're saying, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “For one, it is clear that you have no idea about the origins of what we now call science. While man has always observed, it wasn't until the Renaissance that the practice became more solidified and objectified. During those times, philosophy was considered the handmaiden of theology. There is a reason for that, which seems to be lost on you, for whatever reason. However, on thing is clear in this regard: theology was considered the highest knowledge and all other fields of intellectual pursuit flowed from, flowed after.”
You've got to be kidding.
[b]My answer over here to him is "No, no and no". I showed Freaky in detail that everything we achieve is simply a product of our philosophy and our science, and not a product of the miscellaneous religious beliefs, the Christian beliefs included.
For one, it is clear that you have no idea about the origins of what we now ...[text shortened]... is verifiable. Everything you have offered is, as used previously by you, metaphysical.[/b]
So it never occurred to you to hear about the Antekythira mechanism, amongst else? About the Pyramids? About the ancient astronomers and their scientific facts and evidence, etc? If these achievements are not an indication of a very high scientific level of our ancestors, what exactly are they? A product of theology?
On the other hand, nothing is “lost on me”. Theology and religion are totally different throughout history because from the beginning they serve totally different values, as I already showed you in detail here at this thread. It is obvious that theology is simply a false attempt to bring up solid philosophic systems due to the fact that the cornerstone of the religion is the blind faith alone; by means of theology, the theologians are able to offer solely irrational theological systems that are based on specific a priori “absolute truths” that in turn they must be followed blindly from the believers of the respected religious systems. Only after this irrational approach we see the theologians to use main philosophic tools, aiming to paint their nonsense with the essence of the philosophic values. And the Christian theologians did nothing more than using the intellectual dexterity of the ancient Greek philosophers in order to back up their absurd religious doctrine -and they failed, because the absurdity of their core theses is obvious.
So kindly please go on, prove that the Christian theology is something more that notes over Plato and Aristotle in general😵
edit: “You are attributing conclusions to me which have not been made, nor intended. Informed by our spiritual freedom in Christ, God-fearing believers have always held a relaxed mental attitude toward all aspects of life, including the intellectual pursuit of knowledge. When such men are in the majority (or in the rule), intellectual freedom has followed.”
No. I claim that the intellectual freedom that boosted the Western civilization (and our global civilisation as a whole) is always crystallised by the philosophers and the scientists alone regardless the core religious beliefs of their era at their soil. So kindly please define “intellectual freedom” as you in person understand it, if your definition is different, and prove me wrong😵
Edit: “Who is widely considered the father of modern science, if not the deeply devout Galilei?”
Not again! Galilei brought up his scientific theory based solely on scientific finds and evidence as I told you at my last post at page 8 of this thread. You are more than welcome to bring up your justified falsification😵
edit: “In fact, you can't venture far into even a casual history of science's origins in every facet without running into an inordinate amount of Christians--- men and women whose faith both informed them and inspired them to pursue the inner workings of God's creation. This isn't merely a baseless claim; it is a verfiable fact.”
No. Our science is based on scientific finds and evidence alone. The miscellaneous religious beliefs offer nothing at this field. You see, the sciences are universally valid because they transcend religion and culture. The sciences show you how nature functions instead of how a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist and an atheist fear or want to work.
On the other hand, nowdays the sciences go beyond theology and the justification of empiricism according to which the universe is constructed by a so called “creator” -just take a look at the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics😵
edit: “You use words in a manner inconsistent with their normal use and defintion. Presumably you do so to lend credibility to your statements, but it results in the opposite effect. Everything I have offered herein is verifiable. Everything you have offered is, as used previously by you, metaphysical.”
No. You did not offer the slightest scientific fact or evidence that is able to debunk my theses -you were not even able to debunk my claim regarding the nature of the “truth” and you are still hooked on your personal “absolute truth”.
Anyway, I just showed you once more that the religions, Christianity included, are social products unable to enforce the scientific abilities of the Human. Kindly please prove me wrong;
😵
I have to stand corrected: at the second paragraph of my post above, at the the forth line I wrote "Theology and religion are..." instead of the correct "Theology and philosophy are...".
Also, at the last line of that paragraph, the correct phrase is "...is something more than notes over Plato and Aristotle in general".
I am sorry for the inconvenience;
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEdit: “Ironically, not one of the three people in opposition to my claim has offered even one source which could ably demonstrate their position of Christianity's lack of influence on the areas mentioned. Just a coincidence, I am certain...”
Google has lotsa hits indicating lotsa talk on the subject matter. If, indeed, Christianity had as little impact on things as a few obstinate folks here insist, would there be so much discussion about the subject matter? Kinda doesn't make any sense, does it?
No one said anything about the quality of the information available on Google, one way or ano ...[text shortened]... Christianity's lack of influence on the areas mentioned. Just a coincidence, I am certain...
This is false.
I do not accept that I have to follow blindly somebody else’s footprints and I do not accept nobody and nothing as the source of the so called “absolute truth”. I always check on my own the sources of my knowledge in order to assure that they will not lead me to false conclusions and baseless deductions based on baseless assertions, as our friend Palynka uses to say. Then I use these sources as the backround of my personal philosophy, of my personal theory of reality that is based on scientific facts and evidence and on my personal evaluation of everything.
I remind you that you started this thread with the following questions:
-- “Wasn't it Christianity unfettered which began all of Western civilization? Wasn't it awe and adoration for God and His creation which inspired science? Wasn't it Christianity as the fountainhead before every seminal accomplishment man has achieved?”
My reply is still “No, no and no” -and I did offered you sufficient data based on verified historical, philosophic, sociologic and scientific facts and evidence; also I used the tool known in philosophy as “common sens” in order to ease you to understand that your above mentioned claim at your first post of this thread is false.
So here you are once more:
I claim that my data regarding Anaximander’s theory are verified. Can you offer any other non-falsified alternative regarding Anaximander’s theory and the backround of the pro-Socratic philosophers?
I am sure you cannot. A good book amongst many to start with, in case your AtticoIonian is not extremely strong, is “Anaximander and the origins of Greek cosmology” by Kahn, Columbia University Press 1960.
Can you prove that Galileo used religious doctrines instead of simply building on Anaximander’s theory and implying solely the scientific finds and evidence of his era in order to bring up his theory?
I am sure you cannot. In fact, his religion is not only totally irrelevant to his theory of reality, but it became the main obstacle of its verification and its spread worldwide. You can always taste the essence of Galileo’s “Confession” and the full …support of the “ruling Christian ideolody” of that period once you read the text that he offered on his own on 22 June 1633 to the Cardinals of the Holy Office of the Church.
Can you offer a single scientific and/ or philosophic achievement and demonstrate that it is caused thanks to the “ruling Christian ideology”?
I am sure you cannot, and the reason is simple. The Christian religion had a huge impact to the Western society and it was even the causation of the capitalism as it is shown perfectly by Webber amongst else, however it offered absolutely nothing to the humanity at the fields of the science and of philosophy. Every sociologist will admit on the spot that there is no the slightest connection between the religions and the science -and from the beginning I told you that in fact we advance solely thanks to our science and to our philosophy alone. Everything else, it derives solely from these fields.
Of course you can always check Giddens, Webber, Durkheim, Troeltch and Wuthnow amongst else in order to find out what exactly is “religion”, what exactly is “church” and how exactly they affected and they affect the societies in the East and in the West, therefore you can easily find how and at which fields the Christian religion affected the Western society. Well, from the beginning of our conversation I claim again and again that the Christian religion affected negatively the fields of science and of philosophy, as it is historically verified with Galileo’s case. And this is a fact even today.
Can you prove that the scientific procedure at any given historical period is based on “faith”, as you claim, and not at the specific method that I described you in detail here at this thread with my first post on page 10?
I am sure you cannot. The method I described is accurate and it is based on the well known Ancient Greek philosophic tradition of orthological criticism and dialectics, which is accepted by all the successful philosophers of science and by all the successful scientists regardless their field, their religion, their country and their nationality at every given historical period. Furthermore, a specific modern philosophic back up about the effectiveness and the validity of my approach during our conversation is associated with Karl Popper’s idea regarding the procedures of the falsification.
So I here wait for you to bring up scientific facts and evidence that they will then ease you to support your opinion efficiently
😵
Originally posted by jaywillLee Strobel is just another case of an Evangelist who fights to prove that his personal "absolute truth" is valid, however his theory is not scientifically validated and it is totally falsified, as you may check on your own after a double click at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm.
Lee Strobel on the Evidence for God from Physics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN2oc7l1mPU&feature=related
Originally posted by black beetlehttp://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CKfHhZnz7pwCFQO2sgodJyQFjw
Lee Strobel is just another case of an Evangelist who fights to prove that his personal "absolute truth" is valid, however his theory is not scientifically validated and it is totally falsified, as you may check on your own after a double click at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo if I say, for example, that the United States has been a leader in the areas of freedom for Western civilization, I would have to quote some book in order for you to accept it?
So you say. Why don't you quote one?
This is your tactic: state some BS, then crow triumphantly when said BS goes unrefutedly, conveniently ignoring that it's your job to prove your BS (lack of refutation does not equal proof).
So go ahead and quote some source, at least, that shows how the degree of intellectual freedom that exists in x part of ...[text shortened]... is attributable to the presence of Christianity there.
That is what you're saying, right?
Give it a rest, Bosse. Some things are cleary evident with just a superficial understanding of the world.
Originally posted by black beetleThis is false.
Edit: “Ironically, not one of the three people in opposition to my claim has offered even one source which could ably demonstrate their position of Christianity's lack of influence on the areas mentioned. Just a coincidence, I am certain...”
This is false.
I do not accept that I have to follow blindly somebody else’s footprints and I do not accept n ...[text shortened]... ific facts and evidence that they will then ease you to support your opinion efficiently
😵
If this was false, then instead of offering anecdotal ‘support,’ you would have offered (as has been charged against me) actual quotes from actual books. This you have failed to do.
I do not accept that I have to follow blindly somebody else’s footprints and I do not accept nobody and nothing as the source of the so called “absolute truth”. I always check on my own the sources of my knowledge in order to assure that they will not lead me to false conclusions and baseless deductions based on baseless assertions, as our friend Palynka uses to say. Then I use these sources as the backround of my personal philosophy, of my personal theory of reality that is based on scientific facts and evidence and on my personal evaluation of everything.
A veritable island unto yourself, you are.
My reply is still “No, no and no” -and I did offered you sufficient data based on verified historical, philosophic, sociologic and scientific facts and evidence; also I used the tool known in philosophy as “common sens” in order to ease you to understand that your above mentioned claim at your first post of this thread is false.
Well, then I guess we should just throw away history. It is history, after all, that informs us how modern science got its start: with men of God who were inspired by their awe of their Creator to explore and explain His creation.
Can you prove that Galileo used religious doctrines instead of simply building on Anaximander’s theory and implying solely the scientific finds and evidence of his era in order to bring up his theory?[/]b]
I never inferred that his scientific exploration was a result of building on doctrine. Rather, it was his doctrine which informed his desire to explore the creation.
[b]In fact, his religion is not only totally irrelevant to his theory of reality, but it became the main obstacle of its verification and its spread worldwide. You can always taste the essence of Galileo’s “Confession” and the full …support of the “ruling Christian ideolody” of that period once you read the text that he offered on his own on 22 June 1633 to the Cardinals of the Holy Office of the Church.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The leadership of the RCC was opposed to his theories on the basis of conjecture. And--- again--- that was a power struggle and nothing more.
And this is a fact even today.
Apples with oranges is a concept completely lost on you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'd try not to laugh in your face. And light a joss stick for Walt Disney.
So if I say, for example, that the United States has been a leader in the areas of freedom for Western civilization, I would have to quote some book in order for you to accept it?
Give it a rest, Bosse. Some things are cleary evident with just a superficial understanding of the world.
But just for the lulz, let's assume that the USA 'has been a leader in the areas of freedom for Western civilization' -- you'd still have to show an important connection between this position of preeminence and Christianity.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOr perhaps it had more to do with business.
Well, then I guess we should just throw away history. It is history, after all, that informs us how modern science got its start: with men of God who were inspired by their awe of their Creator to explore and explain His creation.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNever mind😵
[b]This is false.
If this was false, then instead of offering anecdotal ‘support,’ you would have offered (as has been charged against me) actual quotes from actual books. This you have failed to do.
I do not accept that I have to follow blindly somebody else’s footprints and I do not accept nobody and nothing as the source of the so called “a ...[text shortened]... [b]And this is a fact even today.
Apples with oranges is a concept completely lost on you.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThe talk was not about his pesonal faith but about the fine tuning of the universe for life as seen in physics.
Lee Strobel is just another case of an Evangelist who fights to prove that his personal "absolute truth" is valid, however his theory is not scientifically validated and it is totally falsified, as you may check on your own after a double click at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm.
I could not get to your website for a reply. But your irrelevant generalization and dodge of the material in Lee's talk there was not encouraging that you intended to deal with the issues of physics presented in the talk.