In any case, I've seen Dave's recap of it, and James Tour spent a lot of time screaming and ranting...
Well, that does not give dave the right to be rude, nor say nothing good about Tour.
Well, I don't set out to be rude, but sometimes there just isn't a polite way to say, "You are completely wrong and it is painfully obvious to everyone who has even a basic knowledge about this particular subject that you are too ignorant of this topic to have a reasonable discussion regarding it."
It gets even harder when people have to deal with the same PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) again and again.
There is always a polite way to say anything, it might be harder to say, but it is the right thing to say.
Working off your study and experience with God and Mary isn't going to be of any help when it comes to science.
Most likely, unless there is some thought that is divinely revealed to you, such as St. Thomas Aquinas's talks with Our Lord during his writing of the Summa.
But for me to just say, "You're just misguided," comes across as rude.
And yet this is exactly what you said about secular people. So it seems to me that you have absolutely no justification for claiming that I and other secular people are "misguided." All you have is the fact that you hold a particular belief that secular people do not. And because of that, you just conclude they must be wrong and misguided.
It would be rude if I were to say that on a secular forum like Atheist forums, but you are on a Christian forum, where Christians congregate and discuss. It is like walking into a rally of an opposite political faction and preaching your beliefs, then being offended they, at their rally, are going to call you wrong or misguided. Moreover, I explained where I said you were misguided, it was not an insult for all secular people.
Are you suggesting that your religious beliefs have no intellectual basis?
You misunderstand the
act of faith versus the
understanding of the faith. The Church Fathers, theologians, and philosophers have long provided rigorous intellectual frameworks for the
understanding of the faith; but the
act of faith is rooted in fundamental human drive to understand
our purpose, which them drives us to understand
the purpose
itself, that being God. This is specifically said in the Scriptures by Solomon: "I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens" (Ecclesiastes 1:13). It is just as philosophy is not based purely and fundamentally on science, so to is the
act of faith not based purely and fundamentally on science. As AV would say: "Science says it, you question it, but if the Bible says it, that settles it."
I find this hard to believe. Are you really indifferent to Christianity? If so, then why are you a Christian?
And if you are not indifferent to Christianity, then isn't it possible that your beliefs are biasing your views? How then can you claim indifference?
I said
emotionally indifferent. If I am discussing something with someone, I try not to resort to the emotional connection, rather sticking to the intellectualism of a certain topic. I am not indifferent to Christianity, no. I do not claim indifference in the braud spectrum, I said I am
emotionally indifferent when in discussion, not in my own faith, as I said in the parthenesies "all within Christianity."
Only if you think that Christianity is illogical. Do you think that?
What I meant is that you will not get far in discussion if you are to use titles such as that, nothing more was being implied.
Why can't it be the believers who go and present themselves in peace to the scientists?
You speak in plurals, and that is not good. Not all believers are abrasive about their personal beliefs, just as most secularists are not abrasive about their beliefs. I think they should, and all sides should be peaceful in discussion and understanding that no one will change their view from one conversation or one proof text, especially when that view is so close to their heart, like Christianity or Atheism.
And what exactly does this mean? Does it mean to present myself to believers and just sit there without disagreeing as they tell me their position?
Well, what exactly is your purpose on CF other than to confuse the faithful? Wouldn't it be better for science, as it always has been, to leave those who reject science in the dust and work with those who are orthodox in their science? Why spend so much time chiseling foundations with toothpicks?
So in what way exactly am I misguided? What have I said that indicates to you that I am misguided?
"Defeater of Illogic" for one, is that really a necessary title? You quote Euripides and Russel, which implicate the faith as being foolish or without evidence; in that sense, you are misguided in your approach.
It would also take this thread off topic.
I don't know about that, it is important to build off of the topic, one note that should be given to the people who are reading the thread is that neither side looks down on the other, and that this discussion is done in peace and good-tidings to all. I am trying to spread peace!