Page 25 of 29

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:03 pm
by matthew_Archive
Gramsci wrote:
DrAwkward wrote:
Gramsci wrote:Religion makes scientific claims about the universe


Huh? No it doesn't. The douchebags that follow many religions do, but the religion itself usually doesn't.



Religion claims there is a intelligent creator to the universe. A universe that has a creator God is vastly different to one without. Claiming there is a God is a scientific claim.


You're right, and for one a universe with a personal God is a moral universe, whereas one without a personal God (such as yours) is a completely arbitrary universe. Yet you are one of the most morally staunch posters on this forum.


I might also remark that claiming there is a God is indeed a scientific claim, but it not the same type of science as say chemistry or zoology in that the subject matter lies beyond the ability senses. It seems that alot of people here fall off when they encounter the fact that not all knowledge deals directly with sensible things.

You're actually quite a religious person, Gramsci...it's just that your faith is atheistic rather than theistic like mine (and thus in grave err. nothing personal).

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:09 pm
by Earwicker_Archive
Earwicker wrote:
Cranius wrote:And as the Steve says: "The man who tries to hold two cats is insane/foolish"


Where's this from? What's it's context I mean?


So Mr Steve (if that's a correct translation) What does this mean?

And happy new year to one and all by the way. I off to Edinburgh tomorrow so won't see anyone till next year so have good ones -


even the clown.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:49 pm
by Mark Van Deel_Archive
matthew wrote:You're right, and for one a universe with a personal God is a moral universe, whereas one without a personal God (such as yours) is a completely arbitrary universe.


In a universe without a personal god, the only moral standards are the ones that people devise for themselves.

With a personal god, you also get a moral standard devised by a deity. But that still doesn't mean there's any objective moral truth ... there's just one more subjective moral standard, in this case created by some non-human entity. An entity that, according to most religions, is frequently antagonistic towards humans.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:56 am
by John C3_Archive
Earwicker wrote:I just moved away from a place where a local school was teaching creationism in its science classes - this fucks me off


Their flagship 'school' is in Gatesheed.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:06 am
by Antero_Archive
matthew wrote:I might also remark that claiming there is a God is indeed a scientific claim, but it not the same type of science as say chemistry or zoology in that the subject matter lies beyond the ability senses.
So, what we speakers of English call "not science."

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:44 am
by Schadenfreude_Archive
steve wrote:Christianity was an impediment to science whenever science disagreed with dogma.


Doing away with Christians and the nuts that come with it means doing away with the following fellows:

-Sir Isaac Newton, obsessed Bible thumper, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, argued that religion and science were inseperable due to God inventing the laws of nature that scientists were studying.

-John Buridan, priest, laid the groundwork for our understanding of gravity, student of William of Ockham, a monk, known for "Ockham's Razor", a minor detour of scientific philosophy.

-Pierre Gassendi, obsessive Catholic Priest, first observed Mercury's path across the sun, would hardly have cared about the cosmos and contributed to scientifict history were he not a priest.

-Johannes Kepler, completely off his fucking rocker who had to change his scientific theories to fit his conception of what God wanted.....and gave us the laws of planetary motion which we observe to this day....As this "roadblock to science" stated once: "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics."

-Nicole Oresme, crackpot bishop who came up with the idea the Earth rotated on some sort of axis.

-Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal and lawyer for the Catholic Church proposed that the universe was infinite and that perhaps life existed on other planets. Summarily not jailed!

-Bede the Venerable, perhaps the father of modern history in his kooky plan to discriminate sources in writing a history book and citing the sources he actually uses....This idiot blocking the march of human progress was a monk who holed up, immune to the real world where no god obviously exists.

-Francis Bacon, who probably contributed as much to science in a PRACTICAL manner as anyone else, slipped out an idiotic statement such as: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

-George Berkeley, a complete unknown in the field of philosophy, sought to create colleges for ministers to convert Native Americans.

-Robert Grosseteste, who arguably provided the intellectual concept of the scientific method, was some sort of jerk off bishop.

-Roger Bacon, who beat Sir Isaac Newton by 400 years on the topic of the visible spectrum, was a Franciscan friar. His inspiration was COMPLETELY SECULAR, JUST LIKE ALL SCIENTISTS OF HIS DAY: "And indeed, since all speculative thought proceeds through arguments which either proceed through a proposition by authority or through other propositions of argument, in accordance with this which I am now investigating, there is a science that is necessary to us, which is called experimental. I wish to explain this, not only as useful to philosophy, but to the knowledge of God and the understanding of the whole world: as in a former book I followed language and science to their end, which is the Divine wisdom by which all things are ordered."

-Oh, that Arab shit? Introduced to the Western World through Pope Silvester II. Where is the Islamic world scientifically today again? I say the strength of Western Civilization (that DEFINATELY includes the Romans) lies not necessarily with original ideas, but with its ability to adapt and its ability to assimilate.

-Peter of Maricourt influenced Roger Bacon and argued that experimentation should be the basis of scientific inquiry. He also was A FUCKING CRUSADER LOOKING FOR THE TRUE CROSS.

-Giovanni Botero came up with this wild idea that kings derived their right to rule from the consent of the governed. Botero was a Jesuit influenced directly by St. Thomas Aquinas.

-Copernicus, some fucking insignificant CATHOLIC PRIEST.....who DID NOTHING.

-Rene Descartes......this roadblock to progress once tried to prove God's existence in perhaps his most famous (infamous?) work.

-Albert Magnus, an early chemist, isolated arsenic. Also claimed to have encountered the Virgin Mary in person.

-Pope John XXI wrote an influential piece on medicine, arguably one of the most read texts in history......oh, and he was a fucking pope.

-Galileo....okay, okay, this is the cherry picker, right? Well, the piece he wrote that got him in trouble was written AT THE REQUEST OF THE POPE. Now the official bullshit line on him getting in trouble claims his theory is wrong and goes against the church, but most historians agree that the real story is that the pope thought one of the characters in the book in question was meant to represent the pope and Galileo made a fool of this character in the book. In other words, the issue was personal between the pope and Galileo. So, we have the Pope REQUESTING this historic book being made.....and what happens 100 years later? The Catholic Church announces it was wrong with how it treated Galileo and FINANCES THE PUBLISHING OF THE BOOK IN QUESTION. Oh, they didn't bother to say any of that shit in World History 101, did they? All of this ignores that Galileo was a faithful Catholic. Whoops!

-Johannes Gutenberg....popularized some insignificant piece of technology and proceeded to work on some other forgotten progect....the Gutenberg Libel, the Gutenberg Child, the Gutenberg Wible.....ah, can't remember, probably not important!

-Marin Marsenne, gave us the Marsenne Primes and contributed to TUNING OF STRINGED INSTRUMENTS AS A SCIENCE.....also a friar who wrote extensively on how atheists are going to hell.

-Blaise Pascal.....what's the point? Really, what is the point?

-Gottfried Liebniz, independent of that religious quack Newton, also "invented" calculus, and anticipated by several hundred years the work of some dude named Einstein in physics. Also wrote extensively on how perfect the God-created world was.

-Theodoric of Freiberg, monk, refracted light, heard of this shit?

-Thomas Bradwardine, Oxford Calculator, also preached at the Battle of Crecy.

-Otto Brunfels....the father of Botany....also religious nut, big on the reformation.

-Bartholomaeus Pitiscus, largely noted for introducing trigonometry to the public and probably invented the decimal point. Also a Calvinist preacher.

-John Napier POPULARIZED the decimal point and gave us the idea of logarithms. This asshole also obsessed over the Book of Revelations and worked hard to figure out when the End Times were.

-Robert Boyle, probably the first modern chemist, argued the point of science was to figure out God's perfection.....a theme common to, well, all scientists.

-Charles Babbage, arguably the inventor of the modern computer, was convinced that God must exist, because the world was perfectly mathmatical.

-Gregor Mendel, popularized the idea that genetics might be something to think about....oh yeah, he was a fucking Jesus freak abbot.

Yep, yep, we can pretty much conclude that "Christianity was an impediment to science whenever science disagreed with dogma." It's really too bad that Christianity existed to get in the way of progress.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:57 am
by NerblyBear_Archive
Schadenfreude wrote:Yep, yep, we can pretty much conclude that "Christianity was an impediment to science whenever science disagreed with dogma." It's really too bad that Christianity existed to get in the way of progress.


None of your (admittedly admirable and excessively researched) post serves to reject Steve's claim because you've failed to include the massive amount of denials and rejections instigated by the Church against scientific experiments.

Also, the fact that most great scientists were religious doesn't matter much in face of the fact that most people were religious back then. For a scientist to openly admit atheism would have led to arrest and imprisonment, or possibly even rejection of his entire corpus of work. Do you think a scientist would have gambled with his career like that? No. I am sure that many scientists professed a belief they didn't feel because they had no other choice.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:09 am
by Josef K_Archive
John C3 wrote:
Earwicker wrote:I just moved away from a place where a local school was teaching creationism in its science classes - this fucks me off


Their flagship 'school' is in Gatesheed.



One of the main aims of the creationist manifesto is to debate creationism against evloution. If scientists engage in this debate then the creationist theory gets credibility. Leading scientists both in the UK and USA refuse point blank to enter into discussions. Good move.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:45 pm
by Earwicker_Archive
Antero wrote:
matthew wrote:I might also remark that claiming there is a God is indeed a scientific claim, but it not the same type of science as say chemistry or zoology in that the subject matter lies beyond the ability senses.
So, what we speakers of English call "not science."


I think we have the entire creationist argument summed up quite eloquently in this little exchange.

ideology: anti-christianity

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:46 pm
by John C3_Archive
Josef K wrote:
John C3 wrote:
Earwicker wrote:I just moved away from a place where a local school was teaching creationism in its science classes - this fucks me off


Their flagship 'school' is in Gatesheed.



One of the main aims of the creationist manifesto is to debate creationism against evloution. If scientists engage in this debate then the creationist theory gets credibility. Leading scientists both in the UK and USA refuse point blank to enter into discussions. Good move.


It is a good move. Extremely respected scientist refuse to enter a debate with creationist 'scientists' because the creationists are not scientists in any stretch of the imagination. The respected real scientists make that very publically known, not only through the media, the books they write and television programmes they appear on, but with petitions and meetings with the governments of their country (it certainly happened here). Don't give these idiots any more attention or respect than they deserve. Dawkins and co will happily enter public debate with many kinds of theologists. Those that are actually lying and presenting utter horseshit as science should not be bothered with or given any credence to, especially by the leading scientists of our day, and especially in public.