Christianity's fallacious relationship with science

[Zhavric]

The entire world (including Christians) uses science in the following manner:

Science proves something is true - People accept it as true.

Science proves something impossible - People accept it as impossible.

Science has nothing to say on a subject - People do their best to make educated guesses based on knowledge we do have.

Then there's Christians:

Quote by: HelioPrime Science can't prove the christians wrong, all it can do is make leaps of assumptions by spewing facts and subjective opinions.

This straw man is indicative of the unhealthy relationship Christians have with science.

First, science is not an arbitrary list of facts and opinions... until Christians start addressing their religion. To be sure, Christians are too smart to state, "the internet is just a bunch of leaps of assumptions and subjective opinions". It's a real tangible thing that science has delivered to us.

Christians are happy to accept what science discovers until the topic of their religion comes up. Then, instead of holding the tenable position I posted above, they take on an entirely different set of rules:

Science proves something is true about Christianity - Christians trumpet it to the heavens. They grasp on it and continually point to it.

Science proves something about Christianity impossible - Christians ignore it completely, doing a complete 180. Suddenly, science is just a bunch of opinions & assumptions. It's okay to ignore it and stick with blind faith. Christians may even have the intellectual dishonesty to pretend their claims aren't impossible.

[HelioPrime]

Science only proves specific claims to be untrue.

It doesn't prove the existance question in any regard.

I'm not going to draw this out with you. rewording the same arguement doesn't work.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Science proves something is true about Christianity - Christians trumpet it to the heavens. They grasp on it and continually point to it. Science proves something about Christianity impossible - Christians ignore it completely, doing a complete 180. Suddenly, science is just a bunch of opinions & assumptions. It's okay to ignore it and stick with blind faith. Christians may even have the intellectual dishonesty to pretend their claims aren't impossible.

Do I have to show you how stupid this argument is for a third time?

Let me just add this to what I've already said: "Christianity" and "Christians" are hardly a united entity in belief that you can wholesale categorize as being ignorant or dishonest about science.

On the contrary, a great many Christians relish in our scientific knowledge. There is no conflict there.

Your wholesale bashing is only tolerated because it's popular. If your argument was that "Blacks ignore science" or "Jews ignore science" you'd be laughed off as a nut. Obviously, your generalizations about Christians are just as ridiculous as any of these would be, unless you claim to have a supernatural (ha!) power to read millions of minds at once.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime Science only proves specific claims to be untrue.

Yes. The specific claims it proves are any claim that has a definite yes or no... things that are true for everyone everywhere. This makes miracles (all miracles) the province of science. Either they happened or they didn't. It's to science that religion turns to validate it's claims... and it's science that religion dismisses when the results don't support their claims.

It's a lot like the Bu$h administration's policy on reports of WMD's in Iraq before the war: any report that supported the idea there were WMD's was taken as gospel while all the other reports saying how impossible it was for Iraq to have WMD's were ignored. Look where that got us.

It doesn't prove the existance question in any regard.

The existence of god? Of course it does.

As a scientific claim, they god hypothesis is like any other hypothesis. We can compare it to what we already know to be true and discard that which lacks support and contradicts our current knowledge.

For example, do you really need to boil water (at standard atmospheric preasure) to know that it doesn't boil at 50 degrees C? Or do you already know the hypothesis "Water boils at 50 degrees" is false?

It's obviously false. But theists have an unhealthy relationship with science. In this instance, Christians do one (or more) of the following:

• Ignore what's implied in the claims they're making. ("What do you mean god needs to create energy?")
• Come up with creatively nonsensical "outs" for god to get around science... none of which are valid. ("God would have to create energy to create the universe and we know energy can't be created out of nothing? Uhm... well... he got the energy from somewhere else!lol")
• Pretend science doesn't contradict what they're saying.
• Insist science can't be applied to god without reconciling the fact that it is to science that Christians appeal in attempts to prove miracles.

I'm not going to draw this out with you.

Why? Because you can't refute what I've stated?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Do I have to show you how stupid this argument is for a third time?

Considering you've never refuted the argument, I'm not sure how you think you can do this.

Let me just add this to what I've already said: "Christianity" and "Christians" are hardly a united entity in belief that you can wholesale categorize as being ignorant or dishonest about science.

If a person is a Christian, then they haven't clearly thought through what they're claiming or don't mind that their worldview is demonstrably false.

On the contrary, a great many Christians relish in our scientific knowledge. There is no conflict there.

The fact that you think this is indicative of the unhealthy relationship Christians have with science.

Your wholesale bashing is only tolerated because it's popular.

Straw man.

Is there a point coming soon or did you just want to attack me & create red herrings?

If your argument was that "Blacks ignore science" or "Jews ignore science" you'd be laughed off as a nut.

Red herring.

Obviously, your generalizations about Christians are just as ridiculous as any of these would be, unless you claim to have a supernatural (ha!) power to read millions of minds at once.

So the answer to my question is a resounding "no". You're not going to support your argument and just came to the thread to troll. Post reported.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Zhavric Why? Because you can't refute what I've stated?

Because hypothesis built by hardcore atheist thinkers are not scientific.

And mostly because you will never convince anyone to change their view. You'll just keep posting untill people stop responding and you declare a win.

[5010]

So what.

Observation proves something is true about Atheism - Atheists trumpet it to the heavens. They grasp on it and continually point to it.

Observation proves something about Atheism impossible - Atheists ignore it completely, doing a complete 180. Suddenly, the observation is just a bunch of lies & errors. It's okay to ignore it and stick with blind faith. Atheists may even have the intellectual dishonesty to pretend their claims are universal.

[rez]

Quote by: 5010 So what. Observation proves something is true about Atheism - Atheists trumpet it to the heavens. They grasp on it and continually point to it. Observation proves something about Atheism impossible - Atheists ignore it completely, doing a complete 180. Suddenly, the observation is just a bunch of lies & errors. It's okay to ignore it and stick with blind faith. Atheists may even have the intellectual dishonesty to pretend their claims are universal.

What does observation prove something about atheism impossible?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime Because hypothesis built by hardcore atheist thinkers are not scientific.

Please. Support or retract your claim. Stop trolling my thread.

And mostly because you will never convince anyone to change their view. You'll just keep posting untill people stop responding and you declare a win.

What a cowardly and dishonest reply? Effectively what you're stating is you're unable to offer a cogent rebuttal to my argument and attempting to characterize this as a failing on my part. Sorry, my friend, but this is a debate forum where logic and argumentation hold sway. If you have no counter-argument then concede.

[5010]

Quote by: rez What does observation prove something about atheism impossible?

Any supernatural revelation will do.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: 5010 Any supernatural revelation will do.

Your attempt to switch the argument by switching christian with atheism, in this instance doesn't work and here is why.

Atheism for the most part is merely a lack of belief, not a supernatural claim. Also, there is NOTHING about atheism that discounts all things supernatural. There are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, reincarnation, spirituality and souls. The only requirement of Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.

Personal observations of any supernatural claim have never been verifiable. We don't even need to use the supernatural as an example of extraordinary claims being dismissed as false or unknown. Plenty of people have claimed to be abducted by aliens who like butt probes. We have plenty of claims of Sassquatch and the Loch Ness Monster. Yet to this day, there is no evidence OTHER THAN A CLAIM of observation. And theists and atheists alike dismiss those claim outright.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Zhavric Please. Support or retract your claim. Stop trolling my thread.

God is not a sceintific Hypothesis
-On evolution, but on why god can't be considered in a scientific explanation. Apply the reverse, how science can't make a judgement on religion in general, only specific claims.

Falsifiability is essential in forming a scientific hypothesis
- Science can't prove false every religion or claim. All it can do is prove single claims such as the earch was made 5000 years ago. Thus you can't take a single proven claim and apply it globally to prove every faith false.


What a cowardly and dishonest reply? Effectively what you're stating is you're unable to offer a cogent rebuttal to my argument and attempting to characterize this as a failing on my part. Sorry, my friend, but this is a debate forum where logic and argumentation hold sway. If you have no counter-argument then concede.[/quote]

Debate: Defined

I guess as the creator of the thread you can set the type of debate you want. So in your strict logic only debate supernatural has no place. So in your debate, according to your terms god is dead and or never existed.

You've proved the logical god doesn't exist.

You havn't proved a thing about the supernatural god.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime Falsifiability is essential in forming a scientific hypothesis - Science can't prove false every religion or claim. All it can do is prove single claims such as the earch was made 5000 years ago. Thus you can't take a single proven claim and apply it globally to prove every faith false.

(science proves the earth is much older than 5000 years old)

Also, proofs and theories apply where they apply. When science proved that the earth is more than mere thousands of years old, it disproved claims of a young earth by only religions that made them. I've never ONCE heard of carbon dating being used to disprove Norse mythology. I hate to pull a Zhavric here but support this or retract it.

Also, a religion is a structure. If you pull out the support beams of a religion with science, you've then used science to debunk the ENTIRE structure, but not it's components. You don't need to disprove virgin births to debunk Christianity. All you need to do is AT LEAST disprove components that are ESSENTIAL to the validity of the whole.

Suppose you propose a new creature. It has five stomaches, flies, but has no wings.

I don't need to disprove that it has five stomaches to disprove that it doesn't exist. All I have to do is disprove a component that is ESSENTIAL to the validity of the whole. In this case, if no method of how it flies is given.. and what is given is enough to prove that it cannot fly, you've then disproved the creature. Did you have to disprove that it has five stomaches? NO. Did you prove that it's impossible for a creature to have five stomaches? NO.

[5010]

Quote by: ItsDarts Your attempt to switch the argument by switching christian with atheism, in this instance doesn't work and here is why.

The point is that hypocrisy is not isolated to Christians, as Zhavric seems to imply.

Quote by: ItsDarts There are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, reincarnation, spirituality and souls. The only requirement of Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.

Agreed. And there are plenty of Christians who don't believe everything in the bible is literal. They notice that even stories told by Jesus are symbolic. So Zhavric's point applies to all Christians as badly as my response applies to all Atheists.

Yet to this day, there is no evidence OTHER THAN A CLAIM of observation. And theists and atheists alike dismiss those claim outright.

Yep, but not all claims are dismissed. Just the ones that don't jive. Both Atheists and Christians and pretty much most people on the planet do this.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer (science proves the earth is much older than 5000 years old) Also, proofs and theories apply where they apply. When science proved that the earth is more than mere thousands of years old, it disproved claims of a young earth by only religions that made them. I've never ONCE heard of carbon dating being used to disprove Norse mythology. I hate to pull a Zhavric here but support this or retract it. Also, a religion is a structure. If you pull out the support beams of a religion with science, you've then used science to debunk the ENTIRE structure, but not it's components. You don't need to disprove virgin births to debunk Christianity. All you need to do is ATLEAST disprove components that are ESSENTIAL to the validity of the whole.

According to whom? What criteria of components need to be disproven to prove an entire religion false. How does disproving one line in the bible disprove the Unitarian's view that all religions are correct?

And fine I retract the general statement. Norse mythology hasn't beed tested. So because we proved the bible wrong is Islam 100% fake as well by default?

Science is still failing to deal with the supernatural aspect. It defaults a faith false by rules of logic which can't measure the supernatural. Hate to continue the arguement based on this.

If intelligent design can't be considered in science because it is not scientifc and has no evidence or experiement to study, then how can you turn around and claim religion false when it can't study or experiement.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime If intelligent design can't be considered in science because it is not scientifc and has no evidence or experiement to study, then how can you turn around and claim religion false when it can't study or experiement.

Intelligent design has no supporting evidence. As an explanation it supplies no new information or discoveries. It is a dead end explanation. It is not scientific because it does not work. If it worked, it would be used. Why would any scientist waste their time on something that doesn't work? Wouldn't you want to find an explanation that does work?

What it is so hard to understand about that?

[rez]

Quote by: 5010 The point is that hypocrisy is not isolated to Christians, as Zhavric seems to imply. Agreed. And there are plenty of Christians who don't believe everything in the bible is literal. They notice that even stories told by Jesus are symbolic. So Zhavric's point applies to all Christians as badly as my response applies to all Atheists. Yep, but not all claims are dismissed. Just the ones that don't jive. Both Atheists and Christians and pretty much most people on the planet do this.

You are completely missing the argument.

supernatural/superstitious people only disagree with science when it contradicts their spiritual sensibilities. When it does not contradict their spiritual sensibilities, then they accept scientific claims.

It makes no sense. When you reject one explanation over the other, you do it because you actually observe that one explanation explains more about something then the other explanation does.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: rez supernatural/superstitious people only disagree with science when it contradicts their spiritual sensibilities. ... It makes no sense.

It makes sense if those people truly believe they have witnessed a miracle, heard the voice of God, or felt God's presence in some way.

If they truly believe that's what they saw, regardless of their scientific knowledge, it makes perfect sense.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime And fine I retract the general statement. Norse mythology hasn't beed tested. So because we proved the bible wrong is Islam 100% fake as well by default?

Not at all, and I don't know any atheists that think that. I assume you have some friends that are like that?

[rez]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It makes sense if those people truly believe they have witnessed a miracle, heard the voice of God, or felt God's presence in some way.

And what do we call people that ignore the large amount of real possibilities in favor of improbable possibilities? Yes, we call those people mentally challenged.

If they truly believe that's what they saw, regardless of their scientific knowledge, it makes perfect sense.

And no, I was not talking about revelation actually. I was talking about the creation account. The reason why theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution is because it contradicts their mythological story

they do not disagree with Evolution because they have a better explanation that explains more. They disagree with it because their mythology says a supernatural god created everything.