The Decline of Christianity in the West

[DogmaHunter]

Those who don't understand that the scientific method falls short of actually trying to find truth... it merely tries to find truth under its own flawed rules.

Your random "You're ignorant if you don't believe as I do" shouts do little to help.

How do you objectively differentiate truth from fiction, if not through empirical evidence?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Ok, it is clear to me now.

You must believe what you say is true, because your fundamentalist belief structure is wholly reliant on it being true and you must protect it at all costs.

Have fun with trying to convince people, you can destroy well evidenced science, that most Christians already agree with.

I have to convince nobody. I was asked questions and answered them. It seems that the religion of evolution (even if you deny it is a religion, it is) must try to protect itself at all costs by keeping any who disagree away.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheism, by definition, is the hardened belief that there is no deity. If you tell other people that you are an atheist, then that's what they are going to think you mean, because that's what the word means.

If believe strongly that bigfoot absolutely does not exist, that is a belief I have.

Where do you come up with the term; "hardened" from?

Atheism is non belief in Gods, period.

Ain't that tough.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, they're trying to force children to hear that such belief is wrong.

It is the very scientific method which doesn't allow for anything supernatural that is flawed. I'm not saying it doesn't have good things to offer, just that it is flawed when it makes such an enormous presupposition.

Hey Brian,

For myself, and as a Christian, I would much rather think that the Nature of Science is predisposed to "Methodological Naturalism" than the "Philosophical Naturalism" proposed and upheld by New-Atheist upstarts (like Dawkins).

 

[bhsmte]

I have to convince nobody. I was asked questions and answered them. It seems that the religion of evolution (even if you deny it is a religion, it is) must try to protect itself at all costs by keeping any who disagree away.

Oh, that was predictable.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey Brian,

For myself, and as a Christian, I would much rather think that the Nature of Science is predisposed to "Methodological Naturalism" than the "Philosophical Naturalism" proposed and upheld by New-Atheist upstarts (like Dawkins).

Dawkins or any single individual has no bearing on what is taught in science class.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Where do you come up with the term; "hardened" from?

Atheism is non belief in Gods, period.

Ain't that tough.

Tough? It would be tough to disbelieve something like that, since it means you have absolute assurance that there is zero evidence anywhere in the universe to point to a deity. That's what atheism is. Sound reasonable? Not to me.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Oh, that was predictable.

I suppose you have some sort of point...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Who is trying to protect their beliefs at all costs now? Seems like anyone trying to show that another person might be right is removed immediately. That is what I meant by cultish.

Making religious assertions are not attempts to prove anything. They are merely faith based assertions. Proving stuff is something you do with evidence. Which none of the peeps you talk about are doing or even trying to do.

If you wish to 'accuse' me of valueing actual evidence over faith-based claims, i plead GUILTY with pride, honnor and intellectual dignity.

 

[bhsmte]

Who is trying to protect their beliefs at all costs now? Seems like anyone trying to show that another person might be right is removed immediately. That is what I meant by cultish.

Look at the history of science and how it has evolved.

If someone wants to prove something to be wrong, all they need to do is provide the objective evidence, that it is wrong.

No one is stopping anyone, from proving evolution to be wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dawkins or any single individual has no bearing on what is taught in science class.

bhsmte...in speaking to Brian, I wasn't referring to the issue of 'what' is to be taught in science class. I was talking about the Nature of Science (NOS), the underlying supposition(s) upon which scientists proceed.

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose you have some sort of point...

Actually, the point was made in your own post.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Look at the history of science and how it has evolved.

If someone wants to prove something to be wrong, all they need to do is provide the objective evidence, that it is wrong.

No one is stopping anyone, from proving evolution to be wrong.

Except scientists who refuse to allow even the idea to be introduced.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Actually, the point was made in your own post.

I guess they don't teach you to speak plainly in science class.

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte...in speaking to Brian, I wasn't referring to the issue of 'what' is to be taught in science class. I was talking about the Nature of Science (NOS), the underlying supposition(s) upon which scientists proceed.

At the end of the day, science works on empirical evidence.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Making religious assertions are not attempts to prove anything. They are merely faith based assertions. Proving stuff is something you do with evidence. Which none of the peeps you talk about are doing or even trying to do.

If you wish to 'accuse' me of valueing actual evidence over faith-based claims, i plead GUILTY with pride, honnor and intellectual dignity.

The accusation I make is adhering to a system which eliminates the possibility that anything supernatural, even if present and existent, cannot be proven, and then require that anyone use that system to prove such.

 

[bhsmte]

Except scientists who refuse to allow even the idea to be introduced.

There are plenty of scientists that would welcome the notoriety that would come with proving a theory like evolution wrong. They would win the nobel prize and be about as well known and revered as a scientist can be.

With the fundies that are out there, there is certainly money that can be raised, for scientists to be able to do work, to show evolution is wrong.

150 years later, the theory just keeps getting stronger and stronger:

I wonder why that is????

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

 

[bhsmte]

I guess they don't teach you to speak plainly in science class.

I guess you didn't learn science in science class.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Except scientists who refuse to allow even the idea to be introduced.

That is, as i said several times now, entirely about the grounds on which the ideas are proposed.

You can't challenge a scientifïc evidence based theory with relgious faith based assertions. How hard is it to understand?

Consider challenging the scientifc explanation of thunder with religious assertions about a certain viking god and his hammer.

When and if you understand why that will fall on deaf ears, try to understand why the fundi theist 'challenges' to biology are in the exact same boat.

You challenge established science with better science. Not with religious assertions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At the end of the day, science works on empirical evidence.

Sure, but that's not the point I was getting at, bhsmte.

If you know the difference between Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins, then you'll understand what I'm getting at...and it isn't about science curricula in schools.