The fallacy of theist debating science is self-evident. People that deny science cannot and will not grasp the logic of science. People who hold unsubstantiated claims as facts cannot properly debate science or logic by virtue that everything that the offer as a counter to fact, is either hearsay or histrionics.
Most theists use the bible as a reference to contradict science. The bible is not reliable for so many reasons.
1) It is hearsay.
2) Translation is circumspect.
3) Most of the stories if not all are parables stolen from older and different cultures.
4) Most theists twist or alter the bible to fit their political aims.
That leaves only science as the facts that are reliable. Therefore if you are denying the only thing that is reliable, then your argument isn't valid.
Now these limitations don't stop theist from engaging in what they call debates (they are really rants and monolog arguments). In fact, most theists are avid about engaging in these so-called discussions. Lately, there is a surge in theists trying to twist facts and applying known scientific fact (but altered to fit their agenda). For example the fascination of theists with the age of the Earth and the Big Bang.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Not to seem rude, but........what is the point of pointing out something we already know? I'm pretty sure the term "Captain Obvious" applies here.
@Xavier de Forres
Perhaps this thread isn't targeted at you.
Perhaps the idea of specific targets for threads that all can read is nonsense.......
I'll spell it out for you.
I started this thread so theist could PROVE that they could actually debate. The people that they would have to prove that to, and debate with just happen to be you and other members of the board.
If you have noticed, I have been driving the board as well as others. I find it necessary to have threads that can last longer than a minute or two. Sometimes I fail, and sometimes I'm successful.
I chose this topic because it has been my experience that theists actually need help in understanding why their point of view CAN'T be taken serious.
So you don't like the thread. You don't have to post on every thread. I certainly don't.
I don't see why you've gone hostile. You could have pointed all that out without treating me like an ignorant child.
Sorry if you took it as hostile. It wasn't meant to be. I don't think you are an ignorant child. My manner is quite rough, it is just my personality. Too old to change my ways. Sorry.
"Translation is circumspect."
Translation is certainly suspect. The wider the cultural gulf between languages, the more suspect it becomes. If you translate across multiple languages--say Hebrew-Greek-Latin-English--the errors multiply. The Bronze Age Middle East is pretty far removed from the globalized world of the 21st century. Yet theists confidently base their arguments against science on a highly suspect text. If theists won't listen to physics, chemistry and biology, perhaps linguistics is the science to hit them with.
Every person sees the world through the lens of their own experience, so the meanings of the words we use to describe the world also vary according to the individual. And that's just within the same language. Imagine the inaccuracies that will creep in when you're translating the words of a nomadic goat-herder who lived 3,000 years ago into a 21st century or even 16th century European language. I can tell you with scientific certainty, that there can never be a perfect translation.
@Algebe
Absolutely!
"Most of the stories if not all are parables stolen from older and different cultures."
I've yet to see a religion that is [Edited due to a mess up] that is close to Christianity at all.
@Hawk Flint
"I've yet to see a religion that is made up fully, without taking from Christianity, that is close to Christianity at all."
That makes no sense. What in the world do you mean? Do you mean that all religions come from chrisianity, or that only fully developed religions come from christianity? In both cases, you are completely wrong! Sikhism, Hinduism, are very large fully developed religions that take nothing from christianity. In fact, christianity has STOLEN a great deal from Hinduism. Christianity has stolen most of its design from the cultural religions of the area of the middle east at the time.
@Mykcob,
I misread something that I thought said a religion took from Christianity. My bad.
What I mean is this: Every time someone claims that a religion is copied by Christianity, I research it, and find out that it is false, exaggerated, or manipulated.
Surely you are not saying that the concept of the dying and resurrected savior god was unknown until the rise of Christianity? There is scarcely a symbol or ritual in all of Christianity that doesn't trace back to earlier pagan religions, and that includes the cross. The parallels between ancient vegetation gods, sun gods, savior gods, and Jesus are many. Some of the early church Fathers were disturbed enough by these parallels to propose that the devil invented them as a means for confusing later Christians!
Hawk Flint - "I've yet to see a religion that is made up fully, without taking from Christianity, that is close to Christianity at all. "
And you never will. Because no matter what is brought up you have already laid 2 escape routes: "Fully made up" and "close to Christianity". You should be able to push anything you don't like into one of those two categories, no problem.
mykcob4,
There is an unstated perspective to your thread. Science begins with solid evidence and the well-tested laws of nature, and then works towards the BEST conclusion. That conclusion is not written in stone, and any important new evidence may actually overthrow it in principle. If there is no clear winner in the present hypotheses, then scientists consider the matter open. "We don't know." is often heard in scientific investigations at the frontier. Science is all about testing and uncertainty.
Compare that to theology. Conservative theologians begin with their conclusions (cherished doctrines) which are accepted with certainty. They then deduce the particulars of interest to their group. Outside doctrines are considered blasphemous or erroneous. The "best answer" has no meaning for a conservative theologian since there is no real evaluation process except in terms of the accepted doctrines. Theology is not about testing and uncertainty.
So, the procedures used by scientists and theists are wholly contradictory in most respects. Using theological methods to debate science would be meaningless. Thus, mykcob4, your point. That's why religious scientists (the competent ones) set aside their theology when doing science.
@Greensnake
I could not have said better myself. Excellent!