Convert Me!!!

[Boxy]

Whenever I feel frustrated with an argument, I like to tell my opponent exactly what I understand his argument to be. Then I tell him or her what I believe she is misunderstanding about my argument. If I may, I would like to continue that tradition in this instance.

Your main argument is that Christianity actively opposed scientific advancement in the dark ages of Europe. Through silencing dissidents and promoting theories that supported only the Church, Christianity as a whole served its own best interests by stifling any opposing opinion. The tools at Christianity's disposal were capital punishment, torture, indefinite imprisonment, exile, and censoring of one's writings.

Is this correct? Did I represent your argument faithfully? Am I missing anything or misrepresenting your opinion? If so, stop me right here and tell me.

Now, I believe you misunderstood my comments somewhat on the graph you provided. Granted, I did use some rather harsh words, of which I apologize; calling it "bullshit propaganda" was rather hasty, and I do apologize. I will try to keep wraps on my words in the future.

When we ask "how" or "why" in M&R, we are expecting a certain quality of evidence. "Evidence" provided to support an argument illustrates a point, informs us of particular facts, and offers more detail for us to pursue and to learn more about. If we are wrong, we want to know more, as we're rather curious folk. We want data to analyze, texts to read, and pretty graphs to interpret. In short, we want to know for ourselves, and providing these sources lets us convince ourselves of the truthfulness of your statements.

A good argument persuades, it does not order. You must show, not tell.

As you yourself said, the graph "is not to be taken as outright statistically accurate." We want statistically accurate information, as it helps us sort out what's what. Unfortunately, I got snippy and started making snide criticisms of the graph itself, which did not help. Obviously you did not intend the graph as a serious piece of evidence and was used only in hyperbole. We pounced like a cougar on the fat kid at a zoo.

A second point I feel misunderstood is in regarding the WWII and atheism comment. Apparently you interpreted me as saying that WWII itself was an atheist movement, which I would assume to be in reference to the Nazi and Fascist regimes in German and Italy. I did not intend as much; rather, my comment was in reference to an idea several people have cited that atheism started prevailing after WWII, particularly amongst the Europeans. Although wars can sometimes inspire nationalist fervor, the level of devastation in Europe following WWII did indeed cause some people to question the existence of a just and loving God, and (potentially) in significant enough numbers to start an atheist "awakening" in Europe.

Now, I have some questions for you that might help refine your argument and (hopefully) make some more of the M&R regulars happy. To whit:

• Does Christianity today suppress scientific knowledge? (Be careful to distinguish evangelical Christianity, which is a small part of Christianity, from Christianity as a whole)
  
  
• Are there explicit examples of people being killed, maimed, tortured, indefinitely imprisoned, exiled, and/or censored for undesirable scientific breakthroughs? Are cases like these exclusive to Christianity in particular or religion in general?
  
  
• Is it theoretically possible for religion to be a good thing for science? Are religion and science fundamentally opposed, or is all this quibbling just a matter of human egos clashing?

I believe that if you answer these questions that it will make all of us happy - you included 3nodding

[Melovelies]

Tornado_Creator

Ok. I am an atheist.

I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.

Things I definitely won't except as a reason to believe.

1. Anything written in the Bible, Qur'an, Torah or any other holy book or piece of scripture.
2. Anything obviously fallacious. If your mother survive a car crash and credits God, good for her, it isn't going to convince me.
3. Saying I need to "feel it in my heart" or "have faith", or saying that I can't have evidence of God.
4. Threatening me with Hell or any other appeal to emotions or argument from morality.

So. Please. Tell me why you believe, and convert me. If you're really right you should be able to convince me of your religion, you should have some form of evidence you can show me.

If you tell a Christian to convert you without using the word of God, do you think they have the power to convert you?
Its the same thing as telling a child to go to school and learn when there are no tachers to teach him and no text books to learn from.

[MiniSiets]

Super Hakka

Tornado_Creator

Ok. I am an atheist.

I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.

Things I definitely won't except as a reason to believe.

1. Anything written in the Bible, Qur'an, Torah or any other holy book or piece of scripture.
2. Anything obviously fallacious. If your mother survive a car crash and credits God, good for her, it isn't going to convince me.
3. Saying I need to "feel it in my heart" or "have faith", or saying that I can't have evidence of God.
4. Threatening me with Hell or any other appeal to emotions or argument from morality.

So. Please. Tell me why you believe, and convert me. If you're really right you should be able to convince me of your religion, you should have some form of evidence you can show me.

If you tell a Christian to convert you without using the word of God, do you think they have the power to convert you?
Its the same thing as telling a child to go to school and learn when there are no tachers to teach him and no text books to learn from.

He's saying that you can't use the text alone to convince him. You can use it however if you can prove that its claims are accurate. Otherwise, if you were just allowed to do that it would be like a teacher saying evolution is true because evolution exists. We already know what your text says; we want to know if it's true or not.

[I Beast I]

Only idiots will go from Atheist to Theist. But I convert Christians to Atheist all the time. Shows how weak minded you are.

[demi_zero]

I Beast I

Only idiots will go from Atheist to Theist. But I convert Christians to Atheist all the time. Shows how weak minded you are.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices." William James

Your words only show arrogance, not intelligence.

Boxy

I did not intend as much; rather, my comment was in reference to an idea several people have cited that atheism started prevailing after WWII, particularly amongst the Europeans. Although wars can sometimes inspire nationalist fervor, the level of devastation in Europe following WWII did indeed cause some people to question the existence of a just and loving God, and (potentially) in significant enough numbers to start an atheist "awakening" in Europe.

As far as I'm concerned, similar can be said of WWI. Plenty of soldiers who, after seeing atrocities of such a war, lost their faith. Not to mention the folks at home who began to question how a loving God could exist and allow such things.

[Astral Charmer]

I only have one thing to say to this.

http://www.lds.org
or
http://www.mormon.org

[Boxy]

x-Starberry-chan-x

I only have one thing to say to this.

http://www.lds.org
or
http://www.mormon.org

How is this any better than linking someone to Google?

[Tornado_Creator]

Super Hakka

Tornado_Creator

Ok. I am an atheist.

I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.

Things I definitely won't except as a reason to believe.

1. Anything written in the Bible, Qur'an, Torah or any other holy book or piece of scripture.
2. Anything obviously fallacious. If your mother survive a car crash and credits God, good for her, it isn't going to convince me.
3. Saying I need to "feel it in my heart" or "have faith", or saying that I can't have evidence of God.
4. Threatening me with Hell or any other appeal to emotions or argument from morality.

So. Please. Tell me why you believe, and convert me. If you're really right you should be able to convince me of your religion, you should have some form of evidence you can show me.

If you tell a Christian to convert you without using the word of God, do you think they have the power to convert you?
Its the same thing as telling a child to go to school and learn when there are no tachers to teach him and no text books to learn from.

If the book wasn't good enough to convince me when I first read it why the hell would someone quoting it be enough now.

People quote scripture and think "Oh, I'm so clever" and seem to fail to realise one obvious flaw. I don't accept that the book is...

1. Written by/Inspired word of God as there's no proof of that
2. Accurate in any way, especially the Bible which has been constructed and reconstructed by council.
3. Worth anything more than someone opinion.

Those books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that someone had some crazy experience or opinion and decided to write it down. That's all.

[Tornado_Creator]

Boxy

Whenever I feel frustrated with an argument, I like to tell my opponent exactly what I understand his argument to be. Then I tell him or her what I believe she is misunderstanding about my argument. If I may, I would like to continue that tradition in this instance.

Your main argument is that Christianity actively opposed scientific advancement in the dark ages of Europe. Through silencing dissidents and promoting theories that supported only the Church, Christianity as a whole served its own best interests by stifling any opposing opinion. The tools at Christianity's disposal were capital punishment, torture, indefinite imprisonment, exile, and censoring of one's writings.

Is this correct? Did I represent your argument faithfully? Am I missing anything or misrepresenting your opinion? If so, stop me right here and tell me.

Pretty much, although there is more to it than that.

Boxy

Now, I believe you misunderstood my comments somewhat on the graph you provided. Granted, I did use some rather harsh words, of which I apologize; calling it "bullshit propaganda" was rather hasty, and I do apologize. I will try to keep wraps on my words in the future.

Thanks. Only an idiot would have assumed that graph was anything other than an illustration of my point not proof of it. As they say, a pictures worth a thousand words.

Boxy

When we ask "how" or "why" in M&R, we are expecting a certain quality of evidence. "Evidence" provided to support an argument illustrates a point, informs us of particular facts, and offers more detail for us to pursue and to learn more about. If we are wrong, we want to know more, as we're rather curious folk. We want data to analyze, texts to read, and pretty graphs to interpret. In short, we want to know for ourselves, and providing these sources lets us convince ourselves of the truthfulness of your statements.

Which is entirely reasonable and is exactly what I am asking for in the original post here in relation to religions. I want all those things to prove that a religion is correct, as of yet no-one has provided me with them. As you seem to understand what I mean by evidence perhaps you could provide me some for your religious beliefs.

Boxy

A good argument persuades, it does not order. You must show, not tell.

Agreed

Boxy

As you yourself said, the graph "is not to be taken as outright statistically accurate." We want statistically accurate information, as it helps us sort out what's what. Unfortunately, I got snippy and started making snide criticisms of the graph itself, which did not help. Obviously you did not intend the graph as a serious piece of evidence and was used only in hyperbole. We pounced like a cougar on the fat kid at a zoo.

Which is why I refused to give any actual evidence. Although honestly, it's common knowledge that science was stifled and that the quality of life was reduced during the dark ages. It would take a lot of effort on both parts to show you this, and I would likely be telling you things you already know. What you want me to do is show that the reason for it was Christianity, which again if you're honest you already know was one of the major factors. If you really want me to take the time out to find multiple sources that show that Christianity in the dark ages stifled science and reduced the quality of life I will be happy to do so but it will take a little time for me to compile a list of evidence. I don't keep these things on tap.

Boxy

A second point I feel misunderstood is in regarding the WWII and atheism comment. Apparently you interpreted me as saying that WWII itself was an atheist movement, which I would assume to be in reference to the Nazi and Fascist regimes in German and Italy.

It appeared as though you where suggesting as such yes.

Boxy

I did not intend as much; rather, my comment was in reference to an idea several people have cited that atheism started prevailing after WWII, particularly amongst the Europeans. Although wars can sometimes inspire nationalist fervor, the level of devastation in Europe following WWII did indeed cause some people to question the existence of a just and loving God, and (potentially) in significant enough numbers to start an atheist "awakening" in Europe.

I would have to agree that this would be a cause for some people to question faith yes. When it come to atheism, I find I have a very strict view on it. Although I'm well aware that there are people who are atheists because they say "How can a just and loving God allow so much pain" this is a fallacious argument for atheism. Just because God isn't just and loving doesn't mean he doesn't exist. God could be a cruel b*****d, and still exist. In my opinion the only real reason to be an atheist is that there's simply no reason to believe in God, hence if someone gave me evidence I would be swayed towards belief. It's a little hypocritical and I realise it's technically a "no True Scotsman" argument, but I consider anyone who justifies their argument against believing in God with such a fallacy to not be true atheists, they are not believing for stupid reasons, and in my experience, such atheists are few. Almost all atheists I know are atheists for the same reason I am, and when I talk about atheists, I'm talking specifically about these people. Someone who is deluding themselves into being an atheist for the wrong reasons, is just as bad as a theist in my eyes.

Boxy

Now, I have some questions for you that might help refine your argument and (hopefully) make some more of the M&R regulars happy. To whit:

• Does Christianity today suppress scientific knowledge? (Be careful to distinguish evangelical Christianity, which is a small part of Christianity, from Christianity as a whole)

Yes it does. This is fact. I can prove this if you would like me to. It did in the past and it still does to this day concerning the following: Evolution, Stem Cell Research, Genetic Research and Cosmology. All are put under scrutiny by people claiming to be Christians, and all are challenged by people claiming to be Christians who know nothing of the subject. Evolution has been particularly battered and now even the average layman is questioning it when they don't have the understanding to even comprehend the words used to explain evolution. This is the fault of Christianity. I am not however blaming all Christians but I am blaming the religion as a whole. Just because one Christian doesn't support what is happening does not mean people are not using Christianity to support what they're doing.

PS: Any creationists who decide to dispute evolution in this thread will be immediately put on ignore. Everyone else, please do not rise to the bait, don't respond to them, especially as I'm on daily and they won't be able to make a counterpoint once you destroy their pathetic arguments. Creationists are not welcome. Sod off. You're idiocy makes me too angry to reasonable debate with the intelligent people.

Boxy

Are there explicit examples of people being killed, maimed, tortured, indefinitely imprisoned, exiled, and/or censored for undesirable scientific breakthroughs? Are cases like these exclusive to Christianity in particular or religion in general?

Oh no they're not exclusive to Christianity. Not at all. Islam is extremely stifling of, well pretty much anything and everything, and even Fascism and Socialism can be detrimental to science, personal freedoms and liberty, so it's not even specific to religion.

HOWEVER! That said. Religion is a big key point. The best examples are how Evolution is treated today and the opposition to Gay Rights. If this is too engrained to mean anything how about Galileo. He was quite opposed by the church in his discoveries (Link). Then there's circumcision, an act of genital mutilation that serves no medial purpose whatsoever yet is widespread in USA now because it's traditional and was originally done because of religion. Now it seems normal to Americans but to me, in UK, where circumcision is NOT the norm, it seems barbaric. Cutting of the tip of a babies p***s if sick, why would you do that? If this isn't torture for religion what is?

Now honestly. I could easily come up with some examples of people who where specifically hurt by religion for their scientific claims, but it will take me a little time to compile the evidence and sources. Do you really want me to go that far?

Boxy

Is it theoretically possible for religion to be a good thing for science? Are religion and science fundamentally opposed, or is all this quibbling just a matter of human egos clashing?

Many people say religion and science can co-exist, especially religions that encourage learning. However I disagree. Religion is based entirely off faith, believing something without evidence and accepting it as entirely true without any reason for doing so that could be considered both logical and reasonable. This is faith. Science examines things we don't know and gives us answers. We can't examine if we're relying on faith. If you think you already know the answer to the question because you've deluded yourself so much that you're now unwavering in your dedication to the answer you will loose sight of the question. Science gives answers. Religion already has answers. They often disagree. You can't be a scientist and be religious. Not really. Any scientist that tells me they are religious I immediately consider unreliable, because if they can claim to believe in God without evidence, they could easily believe a scientific theory without evidence, and that is specifically the opposite of what science wants to achieve.

A religious scientist in my opinion is an oxymoron.

Boxy

I believe that if you answer these questions that it will make all of us happy - you included 3nodding

Are you happy with my answers or would you like me to elaborate further?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Tornado_Creator

Many people say religion and science can co-exist, especially religions that encourage learning. However I disagree. Religion is based entirely off faith, believing something without evidence and accepting it as entirely true without any reason for doing so that could be considered both logical and reasonable. This is faith. Science examines things we don't know and gives us answers. We can't examine if we're relying on faith.

Science only examines empirical reality; there are some questions it can't, by definition, comment on. Hence, there is scope for religion.

Tornado_Creator

Any scientist that tells me they are religious I immediately consider unreliable, because if they can claim to believe in God without evidence, they could easily believe a scientific theory without evidence, and that is specifically the opposite of what science wants to achieve.

Being religious does not necessarily mean one claims to believe in God, with or without evidence.

[Tornado_Creator]

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Many people say religion and science can co-exist, especially religions that encourage learning. However I disagree. Religion is based entirely off faith, believing something without evidence and accepting it as entirely true without any reason for doing so that could be considered both logical and reasonable. This is faith. Science examines things we don't know and gives us answers. We can't examine if we're relying on faith.

Science only examines empirical reality; there are some questions it can't, by definition, comment on. Hence, there is scope for religion.

I disagree, There are not some questions that science cannot answer, there are simply questions it has not yet been used to answer. Yes, science can only be used to examine reality, but luckily for me, I live in a real word and thus I am interested in reality. I'm not particularly fussed with fantasy and I don't intend to examine it scientifically. If your religion is a fantasy rather than a reality, then by all means keep it, I have the fantasy that I get to have sex with Hayden Panettiere every night... but it's not reality unfortunately. If that's you're only argument against sciences use then it's a poor one.

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Any scientist that tells me they are religious I immediately consider unreliable, because if they can claim to believe in God without evidence, they could easily believe a scientific theory without evidence, and that is specifically the opposite of what science wants to achieve.

Being religious does not necessarily mean one claims to believe in God, with or without evidence.

True but in the UK non-theistic religions make up less than 2% of the population. If people say they are religious in UK they are statistically either Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, all of which have a deity or deities.

I would make the claim that you're coloured in your views. You are not accepting that science and religion are opposed for multiple reasons. First, you're an intelligent and relatively scientifically minded person based on your posts. Second, I can't be sure of this, but I would guess you're a Christian, and thus don't like the idea that I'm claiming you cannot be scientific if you're a Christian... I'm sorry, you just can't, you can try, you can almost succeed. But if you believe in anything, God, heaven, souls, ghosts, reincarnation, anything at all without fact, you are not scientific.

If I made an incorrect judgement there, please do correct me.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Many people say religion and science can co-exist, especially religions that encourage learning. However I disagree. Religion is based entirely off faith, believing something without evidence and accepting it as entirely true without any reason for doing so that could be considered both logical and reasonable. This is faith. Science examines things we don't know and gives us answers. We can't examine if we're relying on faith.

Science only examines empirical reality; there are some questions it can't, by definition, comment on. Hence, there is scope for religion.

I disagree, There are not some questions that science cannot answer, there are simply questions it has not yet been used to answer. Yes, science can only be used to examine reality...

Empirical reality - reality is not necessarily detectable by the senses alone.

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Any scientist that tells me they are religious I immediately consider unreliable, because if they can claim to believe in God without evidence, they could easily believe a scientific theory without evidence, and that is specifically the opposite of what science wants to achieve.

Being religious does not necessarily mean one claims to believe in God, with or without evidence.

True but in the UK non-theistic religions make up less than 2% of the population. If people say they are religious in UK they are statistically either Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, all of which have a deity or deities.

So?

Tornado_Creator

Second, I can't be sure of this, but I would guess you're a Christian...

Nope.

Tornado_Creator

But if you believe in anything, God, heaven, souls, ghosts, reincarnation, anything at all without fact, you are not scientific.

I could, however, be a scientist.

[Tornado_Creator]

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Many people say religion and science can co-exist, especially religions that encourage learning. However I disagree. Religion is based entirely off faith, believing something without evidence and accepting it as entirely true without any reason for doing so that could be considered both logical and reasonable. This is faith. Science examines things we don't know and gives us answers. We can't examine if we're relying on faith.

Science only examines empirical reality; there are some questions it can't, by definition, comment on. Hence, there is scope for religion.

I disagree, There are not some questions that science cannot answer, there are simply questions it has not yet been used to answer. Yes, science can only be used to examine reality...

Empirical reality - reality is not necessarily detectable by the senses alone.

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Any scientist that tells me they are religious I immediately consider unreliable, because if they can claim to believe in God without evidence, they could easily believe a scientific theory without evidence, and that is specifically the opposite of what science wants to achieve.

Being religious does not necessarily mean one claims to believe in God, with or without evidence.

True but in the UK non-theistic religions make up less than 2% of the population. If people say they are religious in UK they are statistically either Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, all of which have a deity or deities.

So?

So when someone says they're religious I tend to assume they believe in God in the same way as if someone says they're male I assume they have a p***s, it may have fallen off or have been removed in a freak yachting accident, however it's still a fair assumption.

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Second, I can't be sure of this, but I would guess you're a Christian...

Nope.

Cool, then what are you? Something's telling me you're not an atheist.

Tornado_Creator

But if you believe in anything, God, heaven, souls, ghosts, reincarnation, anything at all without fact, you are not scientific.

I could, however, be a scientist.

Sure.... if you wanted to be an unscientific scientist, there's plenty of them. They're not with a piss in the wind but they're still scientists in once sense of the word.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Tornado_Creator

So when someone says they're religious I tend to assume they believe in God in the same way as if someone says they're male I assume they have a p***s, it may have fallen off or have been removed in a freak yachting accident, however it's still a fair assumption.

Not in M&R. The former assumption, anyway.

Tornado_Creator

Cool, then what are you?

Pan(en)theist; Taoist.

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

But if you believe in anything, God, heaven, souls, ghosts, reincarnation, anything at all without fact, you are not scientific.

I could, however, be a scientist.

Sure.... if you wanted to be an unscientific scientist, there's plenty of them. They're not with a piss in the wind but they're still scientists in once sense of the word.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to be with a piss in the wind...
- ninja

They're scientists in the sense of believing the apply the scientific method, due to believing that it yields valid knowledge.