LordReed:


The laws of logic are description of something anybody can figure out ie they are a concept, anybody can experience concepts if they are taught or[b] think about them[/b]. Are you thinking experiencing an objectively existing thing means you must be able to physically touch and see them?



What tomb? That is the first question. How do we even know he was buried in a tomb and not a mass grave like all Roman criminals normally are?

Another question would be if there was the dead body of Jesus how would we know it was the Jesus of the Bible?

Thinking about a concept is experienced? Again, I rechecked definition of experienced and was wondering how you came about your word gymnastics.


If this is what you want to resort to, then I'll also end this here. Else, what was your primary source for his life and death that you said you knew? Now you are asking what tomb? Are you implying that you now reject those PRIMARY SOURCES? After all, the secondary sources cannot be trusted (if you want to claim those) if the primary sources are rejected a priori.

Anyway, do have a wonderful time

LordReed:


Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life



Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf



Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world. Just like how you anthropomorphise your god. You hear people claim your god is beyond space and time yet he has hands, eyes, ears and can eat food. It is no surprise that we describe the world around us in human terms, for instance we call ships her and say things like father land. In which other terms would we have described it if not our own. Ants don't call anthills anthills, it is we humans who call it that.

The animals are behaving just like us at a rudimentary level and while they won't describe what they are doing as morality, we who have the sophistication of language can recognise the patterns and describe it thus.



Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.



LoL. I have no problem with Dawkins views, they are his and I am free to disagree with any portion of it. Unlike what you call an atheistic worldview, the atheistic position is not a monolith and is linked by the only thing we have in common, a lack of belief. You quoting Dawkins as if his views must necessarily be mine shows a failure of yours to understand a fundamental difference between an atheist and a religious adherent, we have no dogma or priests. You are trying to read into it your own religious structures and you will continue to make that mistake as long as you do that.



You mean godless people don't care about your brand of morality, we have ours. That our morality is based on natural systems doesn't make us indifferent, humanism for instance is a position that anybody can subscribe to without becoming bogged down by religious strictures and yet shows that the universal brotherhood of man is a possibility.

Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life


I laughed hard when reading your link.
Let me put it in perspective
Me: "Show me where and when humans realized that the best way to survive is due to cooperation" (of course, which apparently birthed morality)
Reed: "We've found evidence of ancient humans in groups. Therefore, they cooperated to enhance their chance of survival"
That's funny I believe but that's what could be inferred from your link. (as related to my question?
Maybe I'm wrong sha, you could kindly show me evidence of such history when they realized that coming together is the solution.

Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf

I must confess, I was disappointed.
I was expecting to see mechanisms, that through the known path ways put forward for evolution or otherwise, would explain how organisms should develop abilities such as: abstract thinking, planning, comprehension of complex ideas and maybe languages (which are obviously the abilities that separates us from animals). I don't think anyone need paper to explain that experience is the best teacher which is the general tone of the message therein.
What we want to see is mechanisms for those abilities I mentioned, which the paper itself calls nonevolved cognitive competencies. In fact, it says in a place that this type seems designed. Implication of which I should be silent, after all, the "holy" word - evolution has been used to saturate the piece.

I may be wrong anyway, so you could kindly provide the mechanism for such abilities that I claimed that animals can never develop from the paper.

Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world.
Let me also put this in perspective (and of course, no need for the low blows. I removed them here but intact in your mention anyway)
data about chimpanzee (from journals): We discovered that Chimpanzees will prefer not to work with any individual chimpanzee which are seen to sabotage group effort of acquiring food and dominants of the group will aggressively attack the freeloader in most cases to retrieve their meals, while subordinates to the free loaders would prefer to collapse meal so that no one gets the food.
Popular science media: Like Humans, Chimps Reward Cooperation and Punish Freeloaders and other misleading interpretations.
Reed: Chimpanzees are known to punish members of group for violating social codes.

Very funny way of anthropomorphism which directly changed the meaning of observed phenomenon. In fact, what was observed was what should be expected and has nothing to do with our definition of morality.

Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.
No need to resort to the Tu Quoque fallacy, or low blows. You should only defend your claim.
Your claim: "Those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad"
Do you stand by this your claim?
If yes, using this example:
To reduce competition for food, a group attack to kill or drive another group from that source of food
Is this an example of goodness?

LoL. I have no problem with Dawkins views, they are his and I am free to disagree with any portion of it. Unlike what you call an atheistic worldview, the atheistic position is not a monolith and is linked by the only thing we have in common, a lack of belief. You quoting Dawkins as if his views must necessarily be mine shows a failure of yours to understand a fundamental difference between an atheist and a religious adherent, we have no dogma or priests. You are trying to read into it your own religious structures and you will continue to make that mistake as long as you do that.
Dawkins is being truthful to himself and I commend him for being so. But we have folks who believe that they can reject God but borrow concepts from a theistic world since they are having cognitive dissonance with many implications that arrive from rejecting God.
I'll end this part here

You mean godless people don't care about your brand of morality, we have ours. That our morality is based on natural systems doesn't make us indifferent, humanism for instance is a position that anybody can subscribe to without becoming bogged down by religious strictures and yet shows that the universal brotherhood of man is a possibility
Alright. I'll also end this also here

Workch:
It’s no surprise that I am an atheist, but one thing people don’t know about me is that I was a Christian for 28years. Yes 28years.

I was not just a Christian, I had full membership in my church and was a member of the choir. I was born into a Christian home, we had morning and evening devotions everyday as a child. My dad personally tried indoctrinating us a lot, we read the Bible every single day and then he explains but seriously even as a child a lot of the stories didn’t add up but I was scared that I was being blasphemous.
I remember a day my dad was teaching us about Noah’s flood and then we got to that point where god said he’s using the rainbow as a sign to remind humanity that he would never destroy earth with flood. Even as a 9years old, that part didn’t make sense to me, because I see it in the news frequently of flood destroying farms, properties and even killing people. I asked my dad and he didn’t give me a reasonable explanation.
As a teenager, I started teaching Sunday school to kids in church, I taught them that god never change but in my mind, I wasn’t convinced because while reading the Bible, there many instances of god changing his mind and even regretting his decisions. I always think about it that the god of Old Testament seems different from what is portrayed in the New Testament, something changed. I kept a lot of things to myself because people around were so religious and would quickly rebuke me for such reasoning.
As time goes on, I joined the choir, I learn drums and keyboard, I sang choir ministrations and even wrote songs for my church choir. All these while, it wasn’t clear, I was just scared to come out fully.

I got admitted into the university to study biochemistry. Being someone that is very inquisitive, I started asking so many questions in respect to the relationship between living organisms. After having background knowledge in genetics, molecular biology and biological metabolism, it was clear that every living thing are the same basically. At this point, I didn’t even understand the theory of evolution properly but I had seen the a fairly clear picture. I had to go back and then study the theory of evolution properly (took weeks), because the impression I had from secondary school was that an ape turned into human. Our biology teachers, just like every other biology teachers in Nigerian schools, were so bad at teaching the theory of evolution. Seems like a lot of them didn’t even understand it.

Fast forward, I graduated, I still believed god existed. since after I properly studied the theory of evolution, I started holding the notion that God presided over evolution and the Bible is somehow consistent with the theory of evolution. This idea was born out of the sheer fear of not wanting to sound blasphemous to my beloved ones. After I graduated, I started reading wide, I didn’t like physics in school but I started reading physics (specifically quantum and astrophysics), I discovered about Big Bang theory, theory of relativity, string theory etc, it took a lot of time before I could grasp them but when I did, it became clearer that the Bible is not consistent with anything in reality.

It was difficult for me to accept this truth because I didn’t want to be seen as a blasphemer, not until I had the opportunity to run my masters degree abroad in clinical biochemistry. I met with lot of renown and brilliant people in the field of biochemistry. They were realistic in their beliefs and will not believe anything unless you can back it with evidence. I became bolder with time, we shared ideas as I studied. Th society gives everyone liberty and I was very free to come out clean with my realistic traits. A lot of my lecturers didn’t believe in god. I became a full fledged atheist in Europe by the time I finished my program.


Today, I have done several works and I still keep reading to find the truth, so far I haven’t seen anything consistent with the Christian God. I am back in Nigeria and trust me, I don’t have lot of friends for this reason. I have just two friends and they are both agnostic ( I made them agnostic because they are open minded and also brilliant Phd holders in biochemistry).

I remember a day my dad was teaching us about Noah’s flood and then we got to that point where god said he’s using the rainbow as a sign to remind humanity that he would never destroy earth with flood. Even as a 9years old, that part didn’t make sense to me, because I see it in the news frequently of flood destroying farms, properties and even killing people
I'm surprised that you tried to equate FLOODING THE EARTH to LOCAL FLOODS. I want to believe that you didn't read it well, else, you must have seen the difference.
Your skepticism would be valid if you have witnessed flood destroying the earth again. But of course, it didn't happen (Whether the Bible is correct or not). I believe this should not be part of your reason as it was invalid in the first place.

I taught them that god never change but in my mind, I wasn’t convinced because while reading the Bible, there many instances of god[b] changing his mind[/b] and even regretting his decisions
Again, this is false equivocation. I don't know anyone who understands language (English in this case) who would agree that CHANGING ONE'S MIND is the same thing as CHANGING ONESELF. I don't need to say much on this again but this is another reason you gave but is invalid to begin with.

I always think about it that the god of Old Testament seems different from what is portrayed in the New Testament, something changed
Nothing really changed. He is still the consuming fire (Heb 12:29), it is still a terrible thing to fall in to his hands (Heb 10: 31), we still need to behold his ...severity (Rom 11:22). Just as he yearn for us as a Father to his son (Jer 31: 20), He gathers his children with GREAT COMPASSION after chastising them (Isa 54:7) He is compassionate and gracious... and abounding in love (Psa 103: 2) and so many others.
Again we are beginning to see the trend that the reasons are mostly borne out of incomplete knowledge or invalid premises

After having background knowledge in genetics, molecular biology and biological metabolism, it was clear that every living thing are the same basically
Of course, that is the data on ground. Now, interpreting it depends on the lens with which one wants to use. The theist argue that that same raw materials can be used by a designer to produce different products - God is sovereign to use same material to produce spectrum of living things. The atheists arguing with the background knowledge that there is no God, sees same data as one thing leading to all (I just simplified it anyway).
So, this has not proved anything as both can not experimentally prove their case. It is almost unfalsifiable. So, here we go again...

I discovered about Big Bang theory, theory of relativity, string theory etc, it took a lot of time before I could grasp them but when I did, it became clearer that the Bible is not consistent with anything in reality
Though the big bang ( through which the string theory too somehow depends on) was of theistic origin and one of the Nobel laureates who confirmed the CMB did his work with a theistic motivation that the universe has a beginning, but the entire theory and its offshoot have been hijacked so that it has no theistic influence. The way data are being interpreted as I said earlier is usually based on which lens you are using.
Finally on this, your last statement is also false. It's in fact a statement of faith as all I need is to show just ONE thing in reality that the Bible is consistent with. The Bible talks about the heavens and earth having a BEGINNING and we know at least (even with so much materialist interpretation) that the universe has a beginning. I don't need to give other life lessons that the Bible teaches which is consistent with reality again.
Once again, we are yet to see any valid argument

It was difficult for me to accept this truth
Here we go again. We are to accept your "truth" which is full of invalid proofs anyway

I met with lot of renown and brilliant people in the field of biochemistry. They were realistic in their beliefs and will not believe anything unless you can back it with evidence
I expect that these brilliant people would accept abiogenesis with zero evidence. Maybe I should not jump into conclusion yet sha

I was very free to come out clean with my realistic traits. A lot of my lecturers didn’t believe in god. I became a full fledged atheist in Europe by the time I finished my program
I think we should have seen by now that those REALISTIC TRAITS were not as a result of conflict with what the Bible teaches, but could be your inner desire (The Bible said that folks in the last days will gather teachers to teach them what they want to hear 2 Tim 4:3... This could be another consistency with reality I think.)

so far I haven’t seen anything consistent with the Christian God
Well, if you ask, I believe you should see. But I have a feeling that 2 Tim 4:3 is talking about you. Even if you see, you could still fulfil Rom 1:18 and maybe to verses 21.

Fingers crossed

Workch:
Jesus and the description ascribed to him has not been proven. There’s nothing in reality to point to the fact that such man walked on this planet.

The name “Jesus” in reality even means nothing in any language

I already answered the objection in the other post. It is some atheists fanciful wish that Jesus never lived. What many contest are the miracles ascribed to him and that's because of their own belief system which FORBIDS miracles.
Your second sentence as I said earlier would mean that you have to throw virtually all works of ancient history in to the ocean. One has to be consistent and not apply double standards.

Your last sentence is invalid because the etymology of the name is known. That (j) is now pronounced (dz) which is formally pronounced as (y) should be known before making such statement. The name can be properly traced back to its Hebrew origin via Latin.
So your bias of not wanting it to be true is really telling on you my friend. There's no point in suppressing the truth just as the Bible predicted

Workch:
Jesus is also very debatable. No evidence that he ever walked this planet

Then you are now allowing your bias make judgement for you. Of course, you said you are an atheist, hence, you wouldn't want to agree to that very fact that Jesus walked this planet even when no informed scholar (even the liberal ones) would agree with that
Saying Jesus is debatable is like throwing virtually all other history into the ocean, which of course would make one sound funny.

Even if one plays the atheist game of throwing the Bible away, He was still recorded in other historical works which no atheist can throw away.

But if Jesus exist and walked this planet, then atheism mostly would be a belief system (denial) as against their recent (confused) definition of "lack of belief", hence many (though not in scholarly circles anyway) attack the scripture or deny Jesus' existence.

hupernikao:


You are here again making accusation on what you dont know anything about. If you are asked to explain now, you will disappear.

I know you are trying to develop skill to be critical and feel good among those who criticize the scriptures, but you see, you need to be studious and read well so that you wont appear shaky. When you cant explain or defend your utterances, you will be taken as not serious in discussion. That is the training i am giving you here. Because, If you are asked to explained above now, it will become a mountain.

Why is it so easy for you to rely or movies and stories you read than rely on your own proper studying and knowledge.

Please change your ways.

I had to ignore him since he mistook correcting him for his blatantly false claims, as one giving him attention.

Workch:
Thanks bro, remember that there’s no evidence that God exist

Jesus is the evidence that God exist, bro.

Workch:
Go read about Lazarus syndrome.

I want to believe that you wouldn't take Jesus' case as Lazarus syndrome. I just read some of your answers and noted that you may have found enough reasons to justify your unbelief (or simply put, found reasons so that you won't need to belief), but did you bother try looking for reasons to the contrary? I doubt that.

Phiniter:


parting of the sea? hahaha...

first of all, show me a proof other than from your Bible where seas are parted and I'll show you a flying man.

tell me what special miracles are exclusive to you the so called God serving Christians that is beyond the Chinese atheist... mention one please

This is the funny trick that wannabe atheists love to play - To show prove (mostly about Christian claims) while excluding the Bible. It is like telling an atheist to prove some of their arguments with the Bible. Sound absurd right? Yes, because both operates within certain worldview.

I already defined miracles but you either fail to see it (maybe due to your a priori bias towards Christianity, or you just couldn't comprehend what I wrote). I said miracles are special way through which God upholds his creation for SPECIFIC PURPOSE. Hence, he parted the red sea for a specific purpose; meaning that, if there is no purpose for doing that again, why should you expect to see such occurrence. It's simple and no need to invoke your flying man comparison.

There's no point telling you since you may explain it away as is common to atheists and wannabes. Just try to comprehend the explanation I gave for miracles so as not to conflate it with GENERAL blessings which was hinted in Matthew 5:45

Phiniter:


what do you call miracles? buying if cars and building houses?

countries with no affiliation to your sky daddy have better houses and cars than you...

there's nothing exclusive to you. even our forefathers before the advent of the missionaries were going into the forest to face wild animals and come back alive. they gave birth, the ate etc, things you consider miracles today...

religion is the biggest scam ever perpetuated

what do you call miracles? buying if cars and building houses?
countries with no affiliation to your sky daddy have better houses and cars than you...
I wished you had allowed him to explain what he calls miracle before you used your own definition to refute him. Of course, the second line becomes a straw man if that is not his definition of miracles.
Then, I laugh when I see wannabe atheist use the LEARNED WORD "sky daddy", that is another strawman. No Christian believes in a sky daddy. It is more reasonable to engage an opponent's argument truthfully.

there's nothing exclusive to you. even our forefathers before the advent of the missionaries were going into the forest to face wild animals and come back alive. they gave birth, the ate etc, things you consider miracles today...
You seem to elucidate on your definition of miracle but this again is another strawman from a Christian perspective. Most of us see the natural workings of the universe (such as breathing, reproduction, gravity, workings of physical constants, etc) as common way through which God upholds his creation and see miracles (such as parting the red sea, or the various events in the medical field which are beyond the reach of that field) as SPECIAL way (for specific purposes) through which God upholds his creation.

hakeem4:

Since you listed scientist who had christian faith as one of the reasons why christianity helped science.

Well you get my point and dark age is still used to refer to the early part of the middle age, when human specie were backward politically, technologically, economically and this was cause by religion being in command.

You have not said anything meaningful to show religion helped science case.

Crossing the sentence that exposed your fallacy does not change the fact that you committed a fatal error. Now, you have to show me how I have argued that Christianity helped science by listing scientists who had Christian faith.
You keep making wrong claims after wrong claims and you have refused to learn from your errors. Turns out that your 'priests' are wrong about Christianity, but you are unwilling to accept that they are wrong

Well you get my point and dark age is still used to refer to the early part of the middle age, when human specie were backward politically, technologically, economically and this was cause by religion being in command
I'm afraid that you seem not to comprehend statements easily. I showed that the usage of that time was MISLEADING because it turns out that the era was labelled wrongly and that informed folks don't call it dark ages again.
And your bias against Christianity is just astronomical that you fail to call spade a spade. How can you be coherent if Christianity being in command caused people to be backward, yet people where advanced when Christianity was still in command? What again is the definition of contradiction
Man, you need to remove your bias and be objective. Christianity has done nothing wrong as against your wishful claims. Its better you stop embarrassing what you believe or your personality as you are likely to be called out for wrong claims.

You have not said anything meaningful to show religion helped science case
I don't need to, I have mostly come to challenge your claims which you have not been able to logically defend and have provided antithesis to your claim by asking you to read because it is in black and white that Christian presupposition was the foundation of the modern science

hakeem4:
I read most of them especially from the catholic website. And they had nothing serious to offer rather than mentioning name of scientist who had christian faith. attached below are some sites I went through



Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial. I do not believe what you are saying.
the reason why he was arrested was because he went against the bible teaching. the bible supports earth centred solar system. The church thought that if Galileo was right, then it means the bible was wrong and It means god is a liar.

yes he was a very religious person! but it does not mean religion helped the advancement of science




first reason why religion and science are incompatible; one works on faith, the other on evidence.

we have Hindu scientist, muslim scientist and other religious scientist. Why don't you make a claim that hinduism helped in the advancement of science?

I read most of them especially from the catholic website. And they had nothing serious to offer rather than mentioning name of scientist who had christian faith. attached below are some sites I went through
You've only done what the Bible says folks like you will do - "suppressing truth". I advised that you may not read Christian sites and should concentrate on neutral sites but you claimed to read mostly from Catholic website which I find difficult to believe. Because, Wikipedia is on the first page and you may have read from it but now silent because you may not like what you found (if you actually read it). If you didn't, you can still visit it. At least, Wiki is not friendly to Christianity as far as I know.

Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial. I do not believe what you are saying.
Of course, you copied this (apart from the last sentence) from a site, but you should have also talked about how the site explained how he could not prove his idea and how he got his theory on tide wrong. You could have also explained the fact that he site explained that his rash behaviour got him into trouble with the egoistic pope. I believe you didn't skip all those parts, only to quote out of context to support your STATEMENT OF BELIEVE that Christianity opposes science.
Furthermore, I am surprised that you avoided the part that it was still church guys who proved Galileo right, yet nothing happened to them.

the reason why he was arrested was because he went against the bible teaching. the bible supports earth centred solar system. The church thought that if Galileo was right, then it means the bible was wrong and It means god is a liar
I explained already that the authority of the Catholic church was a means to censor him, especially by the champions of geocentricity of the time, which was why the pope only warned him as a friend to not discuss his ideas in public at first. He went on to publish a work which obviously mocked the pope and he used his authority to deal with him.
You claimed that the Bible supports earth centered-solar system, can you show this? That the earth is at the center of the solar system? You can hold dearly to your errors as much as you want, but be informed that there are those who are well informed on such topics

yes he was a very religious person! but it does not mean religion helped the advancement of science
I want to believe that you were talking of Newton here. You seem not to learn from your errors. You will have to show me where I implied that because he was religious, then religion helped the advancement of science. I repeatedly said that you have been attacking strawman but you just don't care. It is a characteristics of many wannabe atheists here on NL

first reason why religion and science are incompatible; one works on faith, the other on evidence.

we have Hindu scientist, muslim scientist and other religious scientist. Why don't you make a claim that hinduism helped in the advancement of science?
Your first statement is a statement of faith by atheists, repeated by other wannabe atheists. If science is the idea that everything comes from nothing, galaxies are formed against the laws of physics and chemistry, chance formed the most complex and amazing 'machine' known and others mysteries, then you my friend need to recheck the meaning of faith.

Lastly, you keep attacking strawman. I asked you to read about the presupposition which led to the rise of modern science. You either have read it and was not happy with what you've read or you have refused to read it and continue to wallow in purposeful ignorance. The presupposition and Christian thinking that led to rise of modern science is easily accessible

hakeem4:
you are shifting the burden of proof here. You made the claim that religion helped science and I said no.

By the way I would list some examples I can recollect off hand.
1) mother Teresa
2)during the dark ages you know it was called dark age because of the intellectual decline and around the 18th century we call it enlightenment age because the church stopped controlling things


religion poisons everything

For your first statement, I added a screen shot of who FIRST made the claim. It's good that internet does not forget

For your alleged proofs, I laugh in Swahili. How does Mother Teresa's opinion (especially, those which are not derived from the Bible) represent Christianity? Seems I need to check the fallacy of hasty generalization again. lol
Secondly, you seem to still be in the 'dark ages' for not knowing that the words are misleading and inaccurate for describing the MIDDLE AGES (which is now the accepted usage), since the accomplishments of the middle ages are now being known. But of course, any tool that discredits Christianity is welcomed even if later found to be wrong, for wannabe atheists.

Again, you have said nothing with substance against religion (I am arguing for Christianity which is also categorized as religion). But you can't give up, I guess. Just try to make informed statements and avoid fallacies in your effort to prove your case.
Thanks

hakeem4:


I took my time to go through the History of modern science. I did not see any major contribution of religion to it.

please do not twist history. Galileo was arrested for heresy. when Galileo came out with his new model, It was against some certain part of the christian scriptures, and was therefore considered heresy at that time. Then Galileo came and said His model is not in contradiction with the scripture as not every passage should be taking literally. The church stood as a barrier against science. Because in science there are no scientific authorities, anybody can be questioned, as far as you have your evidence.



No you are committing a Non- sequitur; because you said 70% are christians therefore christianity helped science
The proof of an assertion must be a logical step in reasoning with a logical relationship. Because these scientist don't go to the labs with their faith, they drop it outside. so this argument is logically incoherent

I took my time to go through the History of modern science. I did not see any major contribution of religion to it
One simple way for you to get that is to google "Christian foundation of modern science". You don't need to read from Christian sites (as I doubt you'd be willing to do that), just pick at least, 4 sites that looks neutral and read. It's not difficult.

please do not twist history. Galileo was arrested for heresy. when Galileo came out with his new model, It was against some certain part of the christian scriptures, and was therefore considered heresy at that time. Then Galileo came and said His model is not in contradiction with the scripture as not every passage should be taking literally. The church stood as a barrier against science. Because in science there are no scientific authorities, anybody can be questioned, as far as you have your evidence.
You will definitely not talk about the fact that his model was not well grounded and cannot be proven scientifically. And will avoid the part that I said that it was still CHURCH GOERS (CHRISTIANS) that firmly established Heliocentricity. I doubt if you even know what the affair was about in the first place, but just interested in him being unfairly censored by the Catholic church (IT IS IMPORTANT TO ALSO KNOW THAT THE CATHOLIC WAS NOT THE ONLY CHURCH AUTHORITY OF THE TIME).
The simple truth was that he was right, but he couldn't prove is ideas correctly (not to talk of his wrong theories about tides also) and since the church was following the BEST OF SCIENCE of the era, wrongly interpreting the Bible to fit geocentricity, it is normal for him to have enemies within the scientific circles who would definitely use the church to silence him (just as humanists use academia to silence dissenters now).
Like I advised, be well informed and not just read one sided information due to your bias against religion

No you are committing a Non- sequitur; because you said 70% are christians therefore christianity helped science
The proof of an assertion must be a logical step in reasoning with a logical relationship. Because these scientist don't go to the labs with their faith, they drop it outside. so this argument is logically incoherent
You just attacked strawman again. Seems you need to really learn about logically fallacies so as to be able to use them correctly. I argued that Christianity was instrumental to rise of modern science as against your claim that religion is a poison to science. I only supported my assertion by adding that most top scientists are Christians. because folks like you tend to imply that religion is like an opposite of science. Many anti-God sites make a false dichotomy of religion vs science, making it look like they are mutually exclusive.

IMAliyu:

You have any recommendations on where to start?

The small amount I've come across on the web weren't captivating for me.
It's often best to look at the data, then from a conclusion. Than to start at a conclusion and make the data fit that conclusion. Just my thoughts.

You may visit creation.com

It's often best to look at the data, then from a conclusion. Than to start at a conclusion and make the data fit that conclusion. Just my thoughts.
You are right, just that it is not how it really works. There is always a frame work through which the data is being interpreted which is why auxiliary hypothesis may be modified but not the core theory. A good example is the uniformitarian 'doctrine' that is accepted and through which the age of the earth and evolution timeline is being calibrated with. Different researches have been shown to deal blow on some of the theories which are built using evolution and uniformitarianism, yet, those theories are just reworked because the core theories cannot be abandoned.
Also, anomalies from data which doesn't fit the framework are always being explained away. But most YEC organization always make this known that they also have their own framework with which they interpret data. In fact, the data is always the same, it is the interpretations that vary.

So you may visit them to have a good knowledge of their literature. In fact, one Dr. Russ Humphrey scientifically predicted the earth magnetic' field and got his inspiration from his framework - the Bible and NASA later confirmed it. So it's not about the data, it's about the interpretation of the data

hakeem4:
just give me when religion helped in terms of development

You don't turn the onus on me. You made a claim and I challenged you to cite examples to back up your claim. That is what you should do and not turn it on me

hakeem4:


Yes scientists are religious people but it doesn’t mean religious brings about development.

Galileo, etc were strong Christians but we saw what the church did to them.


Newton was an alchemist does not mean that all alchemist were scientists also

Yes scientists are religious people but it doesn’t mean religious brings about development
You are quick to respond when you did not even read what I asked you to read. Else, you wouldn't give this response. Try to read it so that you may stop dishing this wrong impression of religion (Christianity especially)

Galileo, etc were strong Christians but we saw what the church did to them
Who are the etc? Then, make an extensive study of the real Galileo affair so as to have a grasp of what actually happened. He had a correct idea but does not have the scientific backing for his arguments. He was literally challenging the BEST OF SCIENCE of that era - Ptolemic geocentricity which had been accepted for more than a thousand years and has worked well. It was never an issue of science vs religion, but science vs science, and in this case, the church was following the 'BEST OF SCIENCE' of the era which had the best case for it.
It's funny that it was other Christians; Copernicus, Keppler that established Helicentricity with better arguments and evidence which over turned the reigning paradigm; yet, the Church did nothing to them AS AGAINST YOUR CLAIM. (Imagine how ridiculous it do sounds to believers of Big bang when they hear others challenging it, that was how it was during Galileo's time, just that he does not have the required evidence in his case).

Be well informed on a topic and not just read what you WANT to hear.

Newton was an alchemist does not mean that all alchemist were scientists also
You are merely attacking strawman here and trying a redherring. It doesn't change the fact that Christianity was a driving force for modern science and till date, over 70% if Nobel prize winners of science are Christians.

IMAliyu:

That comes from the people called the Young earth creationists.

I don't know how they did their math, but they seem to have gotten their number by counting the events in the bible and interval between them from Adam, to Noah with the flood to present day and came up with the 6k year.

I knew I asked you to please read a lot of their literatures so you get acquainted with their arguments. They started with how you described it but many Scientists who happen to be in such camps have found very good evidence to support such arguments and powerful ones that discredit the long age belief.
I would love that you take your time to check their literatures for yourself, as consensus is not always right.

hakeem4:
USA is not a country of faith, same as saying Nigeria is not a country of faith.
saying USA is a christian nation to me is a meaningless statement. The constitution forbids all mention of god in it. let alone of Jesus or Allah or any Hindu god. Its true to say that majority of religious people in America are christians It sounds funny that the 1st amendments contradicts the 1st commandments

You and I know that religion has Hindered the progress of science more than it has helped.

Please back up your claim with sound facts.
I hate it when folks don't cross-check whatever they read from anti-God sites, only to spread such propaganda

hakeem4:
I do not understand the bolded.

religion makes perfectly rational people do what only insane people can do. Religion does not really bring any advancement

I have been reading along but your atheistic conviction and bias is already making you to type errors.

For your last sentence, you'll need to read about what led to the founding of MODERN science (empirical method) and its advancement.
It doesn't do much good to listen to ONLY one side of the camp.
By the way, over 70% of Nobel Laureates in science are Christians - Religious people

Please, where are those Hamas sympathizers who claim to care about Palestinian Christians? Shock the world by condemning this barbarity of your folks, so you can have a moral ground to stand whenever you want to cry for Palestinian Muslims, using the Christians as cover.

Rip to the dead

DEADALIVE:

Oga whose fault....why will their parents remain in a war affected zone...mind you there are always signal warning message to evacuate the place before destruction....so if a child chooses to remain there and say there is nothing anybody can do...then dealth is inevitable in such situation.

Though some IDF soldiers do go extreme and unnecessary wild, you said my mind. IDF is known to be a force of great ethics. One British Colonel said that no army in the world go to the length of informing civilians of an attack, yet IDF does that. But some clerics have encouraged the Palestinians to embrace martyr for a better life in their paradise

BruncleZuma:


Nigerian Christians remember there are Palestinian Christians as well who exists in the places your God has given to your buddies in Christ.

As if those Christians have not been suffering persecution in the hands of islamic extremists in the first place. Keep your out of the blue sympathy for Christians that you really do not care about.

morinto:

But Jesus said u would be persecuted if u follow him.

This is just another fallacy. Has he consent to the fact that Christians are being persecuted and he doesn't care, but care suddenly when few Christians are among the many Muslims that are dying?

If he will continue to make his red herring (and ad hominem as he has done), I won't waste my time on such talks. I really don't even have this type of discussion in the first place.

samonak:


And your point being?

Parable is enough to make my point. I believe that it doesn't have to be spelt out in simple terms before it can be understood

Lukuluku69:


So Killing and burning of Muslims and Mosques in the East is what?

Like I said, I don't fall for logical fallacies. You have decided to suppress the truth of Christian persecution, you are now resorting to making use of red herring to distract from my argument. A variant of your Tu quoque fallacy won't help you

samonak:

And what's their fruit?

A mango tree can't produce apple, hence Muslim will only produce Muslim fruit. I already said you have only repeated what most muslims have been saying all along

Krismas:
Oga, u don know wot u are saying! The Egyptians closing their gates to the Palestinians is BECAUSE ISRAEL COMMANDED IT SO. Egypt has no problems with Hamas but d CAMP DAVID agreements that made[b] Israel turn Gaza over to Egypt[/b] includes that Israel must not feel threatened from Gaza. But wot was d threat that made dem call for d lockup in 2007? Hamas won election dats all! Nonsense. By now, I tot Israel shud have understood that the SOVEREIGN STATUS conferred on Palestine by the UN in 2012 outweighs any silly camp David thrash! Meaning Gaza is another country apart from Israel and not just a gift they dashed d Egyptians. Then, Israel leaving Gaza merely means they have removed their checkpoints and stopped administrating the city like a colonial master. Finish.

Else they are very much there, or wot was their police doing at d alqus dat triggered dis current faceoff?

So you that know what you are saying, Israel can COMMAND Egypt and it'll be done? I laugh in hamas

Was there hamas during Camp David agreements?

Israel returned Gaza to Egypt?

You end up dishing misinformation and even feeling fly about it


If a nation stopped administrating a city what else is the nation's significance over the city. Israel said it would allow gradually transfer power to the PA and it did, so what are you trying to say Mr. know all

Else they are very much there, or wot was their police doing at d alqus dat triggered dis current faceoff
It's this one that even made me laugh most. Is the mosque in Gaza?

Lukuluku69:


Ogbeni, no one persecutes Christians in Nigeria. It is all in your head. Lies from your Pastors swallowed by the gullibles.

So the killings in Southern Kaduna and Benue are lies from Pastors. Continue lying and crying for your Palestinian brothers, it is well with them

samonak:
Isreal is just sabre rattling and on cruise mode because the Palestinians are weak and helpless, after subjecting them to coastal, aerial and economic blockade, how do you expect the fight to be even? It's more like bringing a knife to a gunfight. If they really want a fair fight or to meet their match let them take on formidable opponents like Russia or even China. Besides, Isreal is nothing without the help of US, that gives them both Financial and military aid. Their antics are typical of a bully. I am a bonafide Christian and not in support of what they're doing.

Your claims are repetitions of what muslim and hamas apologists have being saying and you think that writing the bolded will serve as smoke screen.
By their fruit, we shall know them

Rgade:

Like I said; was the building serving as a launch site for hamas rockets?
I don’t have any problem with Israel targeting proven Hamas positions.
But a building that houses media outlets?
Even if you feel their reportage is biased against you; does that justify leveling the building?

I get your point bro. I have been asking same question since and IDF never gave reason for bombing the place. They only warn civilians to evacuate but don't tell the world the reasons. What they usually say is that they struck terror targets. Maybe the place could be one of them, according to such reasoning.
If Aljazeera is pro hamas, what won't they do to help hamas? Just asking