Originally posted by TimelessTheist
View Post
X
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post*Sigh*
Jim. Try reading some scholarship on the Inquisition like Kamen sometime. Few were put to death and of those, I don't know of a single one that was put to death for doing science. In fact, the church usually handed criminals over to the secular state that would then enforce the death penalty on people deemed dangerous to society. Like it or not, the church provided the central cohesive unit of society and going against the church in an extreme way was attacking the very fabric of society.
I gave you some excellent resources from Tim O'Neill's site and he's no Christian fundamentalist. You could do something unusual and you know, actually study what he says.
You've got several people here who know more about this time period than you do. Might as well pay attention to them. Bruno is not the kind of person you want representing your position.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYeah, did you hear what i said? They were forced to keep their mouths shut or face the consequences.Last edited by TimelessTheist; 06-19-2014, 11:29 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostRogue. I agree the church was the main group that persecuted him, but it really started with the Aristotelians. I think they just handed him over to the church because the church had more power than they did.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post*Sigh*
Jim. Try reading some scholarship on the Inquisition like Kamen sometime. Few were put to death and of those, I don't know of a single one that was put to death for doing science. In fact, the church usually handed criminals over to the secular state that would then enforce the death penalty on people deemed dangerous to society. Like it or not, the church provided the central cohesive unit of society and going against the church in an extreme way was attacking the very fabric of society.
I gave you some excellent resources from Tim O'Neill's site and he's no Christian fundamentalist. You could do something unusual and you know, actually study what he says.
You've got several people here who know more about this time period than you do. Might as well pay attention to them. Bruno is not the kind of person you want representing your position.
Nothing made them happier than for someone accused of heretical teachings to immediately and voluntarily recant and rejoin the Church. Their objective was to secure the repentance of the accused and if that happened forgiveness was granted and a penance was imposed.
Further, historians have discovered that the secular courts and methods they employed were far more brutal than what the Inquisition employed. As a general rule the sentences and penances handed out by the Inquisition were considerably less cruel. And this had nothing to do with whether someone was handed over to them by church authorities for heresy or whether they were arrested for some non-religious crime like rape or murder. Secular courts often started the process by trying to extract a confession through torture. As barbaric as the Inquisition was they saw torture only as a last resort.
To be clear this does not excuse the brutality that they inflicted but the fact is the Inquisition almost always tended to be less savage than the secular courts and methods they employed during this time. But again I reiterate, killing people who disagree with us is indefensible.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostNo. You mean quoting Jim's words right back at him. Minds dulled by atheistic presuppositionalism have a hard time seeing objective facts.Frankly, you're just starting to bore me. Someone find a small child of five who will actually understand something please.Oh look. Someone can read on Amazon. (For Tassy, this is in-depth research) I suppose you know about all the voluminous Christian endorsements of books like "The God Delusion." How many conservative scholars endorse Ehrman's works? That game can be played just as well.
But you see, the difference is I read Ehrman's works anyway. I read the new atheists anyway. I read stuff that I know is on the fringe junk anyway. You read whatever your fellow non-Christians approve only apparently.
Okay. Let's play that game. Give me an argument against the resurrection but I will only accept books that argue against it that are endorsed by Christian scholars!
That's right, and that also deals with the idea that most NT scholars are Christians. They're not. Keener has presented an able challenge to that. Looking at his statement of faith doesn't change that. Real researchers read something that deals with their claim. Little cowards refuse to.
Big shock what camp you fall in.Keener's work. The one you ignore. Why? Too wussy to read what disagrees with you?
No, because I am not a presuppositionalist and in fact I write against presuppositionalism. You could have spent five minutes looking it up on my blog and realized that.It's in the book and I don't do spoon-feeding. If you really want to find out if your view is correct, you'll read the other side like I do. If not, you won't.
Except I read what disagrees with me. You don't. As soon as a book comes out from Ehrman, I'm rushing to the library to see if I can get my hands on it. That's what people who care about finding out truth do. They read what disagrees with them.
And Tassy once again doesn't realize I don't accept a natural/supernatural distinction.Are you jumping up and down and turning red in the face when you say this?Really? Prove me wrong. Read what disagrees with you! I do.
Or do you just already know it all and don't need to read?No. He doesn't. He was an atheist until he was convinced by the evidence. Most of the time when someone has done PH.D. research, they have strong opinions after that and will sign statements agreeing with that.
It must be nice to discount everyone just because they disagree with you.And once again, why should that be the case prior to the evidence? Why not look at the evidence first and THEN decide what the least likely explanation is?No. I do not mean according to me. I mean according to other scholars in the field. See for instance people like Michael Bird, Craig Evans, Charles Hill, Chris Tilling, and Simon Gathercole in "How God Became Jesus." See the interviews I've done with scholars like Craig Blomberg and Daniel Wallace. See the reviews by Larry Hurtado.
Bauckham is one of the leading writers of the Early High Christology Club. That Ehrman ignores that is telling. Ehrman does mention at least twice Larry Hurtado, but there is no major interaction with his massive work "Lord Jesus Christ" where he argues the earliest Christology is indeed the highest.
If you were to write a Ph.D. thesis and not write against the best scholarship against your position, it would not be accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...olars_of_Islam
Conversely, the likes of Ehrman, Burton Mack, Robert Funk, John D. Crossan and others are critical scholars, who make empirical, factual evidence (i.e. evidence open to confirmation by independent, neutral observers) the controlling factor in historical judgements.
This is as opposed to your little list of personal favourites, who put dogmatic considerations first and insist that the factual evidence confirm theological premises. Just as you do, despite your protestations to impartial scholarship.
I find this answer revealing. If there's no real answer next time, I'm definitely moving on. No need to interact with someone who refuses to really read what disagrees with them.
Nope. I can value someone even if I disagree with their work. I gave Crossan and Reed four stars on Amazon for instance because while I disagreed with their work on Paul, it contains valuable insights that should not be ignored. I even highly endorsed Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" as well. I supported much of what he had to say.
That's what you do when you read books that disagree with you.
And as for books that agree with me, I've written much against several of them because they're just bad books!How about James Crossley in debate with Bauckham on Unbelievable? Perhaps you should listen to that sometime. Note also Bauckham's thesis is that the Gospels were by eyewitnesses or were based on eyewitness testimony. It is not that Papias himself interviewed an eyewitness.Actually, it is about faith. Aristotle was primarily a philosopher and secondarily into the sciences, although much of his science was wrong, some was right, such as his writings on the gestation of chickens.This only applies when speaking about materialistic reality.
It does not necessarily follow with ethics, logic, mathematics, aesthetics, or metaphysics.
All of this is a philosophical statement that does not have empirical testing behind it. Therefore, I should just dismiss it since the premises are assumptions.Not yet. I'm just saying that you couldn't deal with a single real theistic argument if your life depended on it.Largely through the work of Francis Bacon who would be appalled at the thought of separating it from either philosophy or Christianity. Neither would make sense.Okay. Sure. Simple answer. I don't because I don't accept idealism. I accept a common sense realism. That has a good theistic foundation.
Define . Do you mean a faith-based belief system?
What is the basis for common sense realism in naturalism?And then you can get back to the actual argument itself, namely that science is able to acquire new knowledge of the physical world whereas philosophy on its own cannot.They don't. I just defined the words on my own. It's all relative after all.You actually think you're a threat? No Tassy. You're really just laughable.
One more chance and I'm done wasting my time.Last edited by Tassman; 06-20-2014, 05:55 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut Sparko, there are none so blind as those who will not see. C02 levels have been rising for decades, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. Rising C02 levels in the atmosphere prevents the energy from the sun from radiating back into space thus warming the planet. Thats why it is dubbed the greenhouse effect! Its common sense then and scientists have documented and are well aware of this process and of the decades long rise in C02 levels. Now certainly you are not going to argue that we humans are not the cause of the rise in C02 levels in the atmosphere, are you?
No, I actually look at and accept the evidence, you either don't look, or refuse to accept it.
No, you actually have faith despite the evidence to the contrary merely because you don't want to believe it.
Wrong. It had everything to do with the block universe, which you obviously know nothing of. Try googling it, you can probably get an understanding of it in about 10 minutes.
According to the growing block universe theory of time (or the growing block view), the past and present exist and the future does not exist. The present is an objective property, to be compared with a moving spotlight. By the passage of time more of the world comes into being, therefore the block universe is said to be growing. The present is supposed to be the place where this is supposed to happen, a very thin slice of spacetime, where more of spacetime is coming into being.
so there is no way to travel into the future by walking towards the earth. That doesn't even make a lick of sense anyway. Why would moving toward our planet move you into the future? It's just complete ignorance on your part.
And yet it is you who believe in an invisible being that lives beyond the universe and created said universe from out of nothing by thinking it into existence with no credible evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
To be clear this does not excuse the brutality that they inflicted but the fact is the Inquisition almost always tended to be less savage than the secular courts and methods they employed during this time. But again I reiterate, killing people who disagree with us is indefensible.
Although I think you might bend the rules and be willing to kill someone who disagreed with you on bacon.
Comment
-
I read through the first couple of pages of comments, and could see no actual substance, so did not bother with the rest; apologies if this has already been discussed, please direct me to the page if it has.
The real problem is a sort of scientism here that science is the highest way of knowing truth and sometimes the only way of knowing truth. Both of these should be rejected by everyone. Now if materialism was true and everything that was in the universe was matter, then you could perhaps have a start of a case, but that is not known through science. That is known by doing philosophy instead.
I am talking here about general truths, by the way. For specific facts, like what I ate for breatfast, clearly the senses are best. But if you want to know about generalities, science wins. It is not just that the experiments are repeatable, it is that the claims of science lead to necessary predictions, and that those predictions turn out to be right.
You bring up materialism. No, materialism is not known by doing science. It is also not known by doing philosophy - because we do not know if it is true. See, that is where science wins. We know the theory of relativity is a good model of the world. You just do not get that certainty with philosophy. We do not know if astrology is right, we do not know if the Book of Mormon is right, we do not know if the moral acceptance of genocide is right. We just have opinion.
The real problem is that science undermines certain religious beliefs, and so people are obliged to find excuses for pretending it is wrong.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
The thing about science is that its methodology does give us more certainty than any other way of knowing the truth.
I am talking here about general truths, by the way. For specific facts, like what I ate for breatfast, clearly the senses are best. But if you want to know about generalities, science wins. It is not just that the experiments are repeatable, it is that the claims of science lead to necessary predictions, and that those predictions turn out to be right.
You bring up materialism. No, materialism is not known by doing science. It is also not known by doing philosophy - because we do not know if it is true. See, that is where science wins. We know the theory of relativity is a good model of the world. You just do not get that certainty with philosophy. We do not know if astrology is right, we do not know if the Book of Mormon is right, we do not know if the moral acceptance of genocide is right. We just have opinion.
The real problem is that science undermines certain religious beliefs, and so people are obliged to find excuses for pretending it is wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostIndeed. There can be no justification for a wrong done, but let's make sure we're at least viewing the situation rightly.
Although I think you might bend the rules and be willing to kill someone who disagreed with you on bacon.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostDo you have a reason I should think this?
Oh, you did:
And they can also turn out to be wrong...
Think about that. Science makes claims that sometimes are wrong. Does philosophy do that? Theology? No. They are just opinions. But in science, things can be wrong, and when they are, science gets corrected.
See, this is why science is better.
And they can also turn out to be wrong, but there are many truths not known by science. How about right and wrong? How about existential questions? How about questions of beauty or literature or theology?
But neither does theology or philosophy - what do they tell us about gravity or quantum entanglement. We have nothing that gives us all truths, so this is a poor way to judge the best one.
The other areas are areas of philosophy and history but why should those be assumed to be in the realm of opinion? Do you really think genocide is just the realm of opinion?
I do not hold a single religious belief that is undermined by science.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostDid you notice the rest of my post?
Oh, you did:
Yes, sometimes they turn out to be wrong.
Think about that. Science makes claims that sometimes are wrong. Does philosophy do that?
Theology? No.
They are just opinions. But in science, things can be wrong, and when they are, science gets corrected.
See, this is why science is better.
That is right, science does not know everything.
But neither does theology or philosophy - what do they tell us about gravity or quantum entanglement. We have nothing that gives us all truths, so this is a poor way to judge the best one.
The thing about science is that its methodology does give us more certainty than any other way of knowing the truth.
What about genocide? What does theology tell us about genocide? The OT seems to support it, do you stand by that? It does look like a matter of opinion from a Biblical point of view.
So why care enough to blog about it? I think on some level a lot of Christians feel that their religion is threatened by science, and so do their best to belittle it.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 09:43 PM
|
0 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 09:43 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
195 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM |
Comment