Amish man's Sin Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff5MfS-L66w
This was posted yesterday so the comment section is fresh. It's nearly a hour so I only watched the first ten minutes and that was all I needed. Here are some highlights.
We (Christians) don't have to argue for the Bible using science
(Real, True) Christians act better then lost Atheist
A Nation Under God Will Always Prosper - (Communism has Never Worked)
If you ask questions about the Bible you're a sinner
[Classic] God cannot be experienced with your intellect. You don't have his IQ level.
Because mankind is evil, God has every right to burn them for eternity
God created Nature to prove his existence?
God is the One true God because he said he was
All things pagan are evil
Sin is real because the Bible says so
Now I'm sure you've figured out this guy was dumb by now, but what I found most interesting is that what essentially amounts to his thesis is:
Christians don't have to argue using science, and instead should question atheist on grounds of sin and fear of judgement.
I could easily see this becoming a new argument tactic. Personally I have problems because among other things it automatically presumes everyone operates under theistic values and this biased viewpoint is the main reason religious people have difficulty understanding the concept of science and theories in the first place.
Thoughts?
One should not argue with stupid, they have far more ammunition than you do. One must merely nod and escape without them shooting you, do not worry about them, turn your attention to the youth, they recognize stupidity quite easily once pointed out to them.
The argument of theists against atheists on the basis of sin ... is very old. The Christians used to claim that all the pagans were having orgies ... and the poor Christians were stuck with all the ugly women ;-)
Quote from: aitm on November 06, 2016, 02:57:54 PM
One should not argue with stupid, they have far more ammunition than you do. One must merely nod and escape without them shooting you, do not worry about them, turn your attention to the youth, they recognize stupidity quite easily once pointed out to them.
One of the things that frustrates me about theist vs atheist discussions is that the theists just offer a biblical citation or quote or question and answering it takes a page.
Something like a book that replies in equal shorthand.
Like...
1.1.1 The Universe is 13.666 billion years old.
1.1.2 The stars formed from gas clouds.
1.1.3 The planets formed around the stars.
That sort of easy reply. Maybe it would really annoy them.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 08, 2016, 11:28:34 PM
One of the things that frustrates me about theist vs atheist discussions is that the theists just offer a biblical citation or quote or question and answering it takes a page.
Something like a book that replies in equal shorthand.
Like...
1.1.1 The Universe is 13.666 billion years old.
1.1.2 The stars formed from gas clouds.
1.1.3 The planets formed around the stars.
That sort of easy reply. Maybe it would really annoy them.
Not to mention that it's, in my experience, quite skewed effort gone into each discussee argument; whereas the atheist gives pages of reasonable objection only to be met with a few passages from their holy texts.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 08, 2016, 11:37:32 PM
Not to mention that it's, in my experience, quite skewed effort gone into each discussee argument; whereas the atheist gives pages of reasonable objection only to be met with a few passages from their holy texts.
Exactly.
OK, that was too short. But an example of what I mean. It used to drive me crazy to have a theist ask why there were human footprints and dinosaur footprints in the same riverbed and I had to spend an hour basically proving that the creationists bought the property and chiseled dinosaur footprints into the bedrock.
Any theist refuting sound science is quite confused
Ohm's Law is sound science ... Big Bang is not as sound ... Multiverse is unsound. A PhD doesn't make you smart.
My sister in law has a doctorate....but thinks a carpenter is someone who installs carpet....so....
Quote from: Cavebear on November 08, 2016, 11:28:34 PM
One of the things that frustrates me about theist vs atheist discussions is that the theists just offer a biblical citation or quote or question and answering it takes a page.
Something like a book that replies in equal shorthand.
Like...
1.1.1 The Universe is 13.666 billion years old.
1.1.2 The stars formed from gas clouds.
1.1.3 The planets formed around the stars.
That sort of easy reply. Maybe it would really annoy them.
Consider the amount of thought that went into the statement and the reply.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 22, 2016, 10:34:16 PM
Any theist refuting sound science is quite confused
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.
Quote from: sdelsolray on November 27, 2016, 03:01:51 PM
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.
No mere theory can do that, you have to have empirical data, that has a reasonable explanation ... new data or old, new explanation or old. Of course old data with old explanation ... isn't relevant.
Quote from: aitm on November 24, 2016, 11:29:43 AM
My sister in law has a doctorate....but thinks a carpenter is someone who installs carpet....so....
Of course, who would think otherwise, LOL!
Quote from: sdelsolray on November 27, 2016, 03:01:51 PM
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.
That is quite correct. Refutation of science errors has great value.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 28, 2016, 12:56:27 AM
That is quite correct. Refutation of science errors has great value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&list=PL41Gtkh6tBEmDLzQ269H2R_mU68aEzseS
Quote from: Baruch on November 28, 2016, 07:05:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&list=PL41Gtkh6tBEmDLzQ269H2R_mU68aEzseS
Science always starts with a question. "What is that", Could this be", "What if", etc. Science is the PROCESS of measuring and evaluating questions. There always has to be a question first. People who think that it is correct to decide on an answer and seek proof afterwards are called "theists" or sometimes "biblical scientists" (which is a real travesty of the word).
To paraphrase ... science doesn't evolve by providing answers, it evolves by replacing old questions with better new ones (notice better, new by itself doesn't count for much). The evolution of these questions are guided by empirical and quantifiable evidence. Though there is a dialectic between what is measured and what is theorized. With "voltage" for instance, it came about as the solution to a chicken/egg problem. Before Volta, nobody knew there was a voltage to be measured. Once they realized there could be, and they measured it, then they knew they knew something.
Quote from: sdelsolray on November 27, 2016, 03:01:51 PM
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.
Yeah, as long as he's not a damned mathematician!
:arghh:
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 13, 2016, 07:03:27 PM
Yeah, as long as he's not a damned mathematician!
:arghh:
Pythagoras has polluted the spring of naturalism, from its inception (though Thales beat him to it). This is the intellectual level game of Plato vs Aristotle.
Here is a list of scientific discoveries religion has disproved...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2016, 03:28:48 AM
Here is a list of scientific discoveries religion has disproved...
That many??!!
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 02, 2017, 04:14:06 AM
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.
It is considered the job of the Catholic Church to decide what one should or should not believe ;-) That doesn't require proof or disproof, it is a part of history, The rotation of the Earth wasn't decisively proven until the Foucault pendulum was built in 1851. The Copernican system is in fact wrong, as shown by Kepler in 1609. Both Ptolemy and Copernicus had to use epicycles ... in addition to pure circles to "save the phenomena". Galileo wasn't always right ... he rejected the Moon as a cause of tides. Kepler, also in 1609 said without good theory, that the tides were caused by the Moon ... but this wasn't given a good theory until 1687 by Newton. Until 1687, there wasn't a good theory to explain the solar system, including the Earth's daily rotation, its progress around the Sun, or tides on the Earth. And per Einstein in 1916 ... Newton is wrong. So science disproves science.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 02, 2017, 04:14:06 AM
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.
Religion does not ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. Religion operates on the belief/faith system. Proof, critical thinking and reasoning is not required, and mostly discouraged or called sinful.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 02, 2017, 04:14:06 AM
Didn't realize it was the job of religion to disprove scientific theory.
It's not, but some religious people try their hand at disproving the latest scientific discovery and get burned every time.
“People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.â€
― Martin Luther
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 02, 2017, 09:37:25 AM
Religion does not ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. Religion operates on the belief/faith system. Proof, critical thinking and reasoning is not required, and mostly discouraged or called sinful.
Not considered sin or looked down upon. You are making things up again.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 02, 2017, 12:55:20 PMNot considered sin or looked down upon. You are making things up again.
The next time you're at church, try telling people you disagree with something in the Bible. Maybe not even disagree, maybe just seriously considering the merits of a different point of view. Let me know how that works out.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 02, 2017, 12:55:20 PM
Not considered sin or looked down upon. You are making things up again.
peace
This is not an unusual christian thought: "What Paul is saying here is that if you are not sure whether eating meat is wrong and you think it might be, but you go ahead and eat it anyway instead of denying yourself to avoid what you think might be sin, then you are condemned, that is, guilty of sin. The reason he gives is that such eating is not from faith and whatever is not from faith is sin. "
Maybe Pops you need to read your bible--again. And let the scales fall from your eyes so you do not read in ignorance as you are want to do. Faith is the driver of religion; without it there can be no organized religion. And like you, the most faithful are the most ignorant.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2017, 01:19:41 PM
The next time you're at church, try telling people you disagree with something in the Bible. Maybe not even disagree, maybe just seriously considering the merits of a different point of view. Let me know how that works out.
All human society operates by group-think and enforced conformity, more or less. In fact, as an individual, your own habits constrain you, sometimes dysfunctionally (these are called neuroses). I am disagreeing with Pops here. However not all things are by faith, my right hand for example. That is why I consider that, to be proof of G-d (even if my hand isn't designed intelligently ... I have no reason to believe that G-d is love or intelligent). Cows are stupid, but that doesn't mean I don't think they exist. I also know from personal experience, that people are not intelligent (and not just as some faith in Socrates).
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2017, 01:19:41 PM
The next time you're at church, try telling people you disagree with something in the Bible. Maybe not even disagree, maybe just seriously considering the merits of a different point of view. Let me know how that works out.
What? Try saying it differently please, I don't get what that had to do with the topic.
If I go to the uhm church I went to last, I am quite certain none there would attempt to refute any sound science, and would in fact reiderate the same point I have attempted to make here. That point being that faith or belief in GOD and/or religion must not and do not go against sound science.
Check the tenets of the Baha'i faith. And yes I can still claim to be Christian as well if I so choose.
peace
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 02, 2017, 01:39:25 PM
This is not an unusual christian thought: "What Paul is saying here is that if you are not sure whether eating meat is wrong and you think it might be, but you go ahead and eat it anyway instead of denying yourself to avoid what you think might be sin, then you are condemned, that is, guilty of sin. The reason he gives is that such eating is not from faith and whatever is not from faith is sin. "
Maybe Pops you need to read your bible--again. And let the scales fall from your eyes so you do not read in ignorance as you are want to do. Faith is the driver of religion; without it there can be no organized religion. And like you, the most faithful are the most ignorant.
Reference the actual verse and I will correct you.
Ignorance in itself is rather harmless and can be helped. It is the causes of continual ignorance that must first be addressed within ones own mind.
Please do reference the verse or verses. Thanks.
peace