keppler:


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)

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

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).

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.

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.

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

keppler:

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

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

hakeem4:
this is what brings about advancement. unlike religions with authorities, making claims they know nothing about. How can someone die and come back to life and you are still waiting for him to return again after 2000 years

May God Have Mercy Upon you

kingxsamz:


So do you agree that the belief of a white man who died and resurrected and flew into the sky could be a lie? Do you agree?

Could be a life if the proof is not so evident.

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:


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.

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

keppler:

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

keppler:

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. [s]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[/s]

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

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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