Quote from: CoinCube on November 26, 2017, 10:56:27 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 26, 2017, 11:44:06 AM

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.

Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?

Astargath I was going to compliment you on the quality of your response when I saw the quotation marks. As a rule of thumb it is always best to cite the source and give credit when quoting people.

In any case it appears the author is not the one you linked above but John W. Loftus a former Christian turned atheist writer who has published several books about his opposition to Christianity.

Loftus Writings:
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2006/12/does-science-invalidate-religious.html?m=1

In any event I take the position that Mr. Loftus is mistaken regarding the bolded comment above.

I highlighted the reasons why in the Scientific Discoveries by Religion Thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1956497.msg19431179#msg19431179

I do not want to clutter this thread up with things I have posted elsewhere but I would draw your attention to my first and third post in that thread where I draw from the writings of John C. Wright and Bruce Charlton who challenge Mr. Loftus position. Charlton and Wright are also both writers and former atheist turned Christians so they make for good opponents to hold up against Loftus.

Quote from: Astargath on November 26, 2017, 11:44:06 AM

No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.

If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.

Insane views lack coherence.

The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanity
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1

Quote from: Bruce Charlton

To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.

To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.

It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.

*

There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.

Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.

There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.

Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).

*

Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.

In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.

This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.

But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).

*

Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.

Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.

We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.

Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.

Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.

*

So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.

In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.

''If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.'' Same applies to your god LOL. You are an atheist on all the other religions.

https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Next time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius.