Author Topic: Science versus Sin  (Read 2115 times)

Science versus Sin
« on: November 06, 2016, 02:44:26 PM »
Amish man's Sin Science


This was posted yesterday so the comment section is fresh. It's nearly a hour so I only watched the first ten minutes and that was all I needed. Here are some highlights.

We (Christians) don't have to argue for the Bible using science
(Real, True) Christians act better then lost Atheist
A Nation Under God Will Always Prosper - (Communism has Never Worked)
If you ask questions about the Bible you're a sinner
[Classic] God cannot be experienced with your intellect. You don't have his IQ level.
Because mankind is evil, God has every right to burn them for eternity
God created Nature to prove his existence?
God is the One true God because he said he was
All things pagan are evil
Sin is real because the Bible says so

Now I'm sure you've figured out this guy was dumb by now, but what I found most interesting is that what essentially amounts to his thesis is:

Christians don't have to argue using science, and instead should question atheist on grounds of sin and fear of judgement.

I could easily see this becoming a new argument tactic. Personally I have problems because among other things it automatically presumes everyone operates under theistic values and this biased viewpoint is the main reason religious people have difficulty understanding the concept of science and theories in the first place.

Thoughts?
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

Online aitm

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2016, 02:57:54 PM »
One should not argue with stupid, they have far more ammunition than you do. One must merely nod and escape without them shooting you, do not worry about them, turn your attention to the youth, they recognize stupidity quite easily once pointed out to them.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2016, 06:35:17 PM »
The argument of theists against atheists on the basis of sin ... is very old.  The Christians used to claim that all the pagans were having orgies ... and the poor Christians were stuck with all the ugly women ;-)
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2016, 11:28:34 PM »
One should not argue with stupid, they have far more ammunition than you do. One must merely nod and escape without them shooting you, do not worry about them, turn your attention to the youth, they recognize stupidity quite easily once pointed out to them.

One of the things that frustrates me about theist vs atheist discussions is that the theists just offer a biblical citation or quote or question and answering it takes a page. 

Something like a book that replies in equal shorthand.

Like...

1.1.1 The Universe is 13.666 billion years old.
1.1.2 The stars formed from gas clouds.
1.1.3 The planets formed around the stars.

That sort of easy reply.  Maybe it would really annoy them.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Online Sal1981

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2016, 11:37:32 PM »
One of the things that frustrates me about theist vs atheist discussions is that the theists just offer a biblical citation or quote or question and answering it takes a page. 

Something like a book that replies in equal shorthand.

Like...

1.1.1 The Universe is 13.666 billion years old.
1.1.2 The stars formed from gas clouds.
1.1.3 The planets formed around the stars.

That sort of easy reply.  Maybe it would really annoy them.
Not to mention that it's, in my experience, quite skewed effort gone into each discussee argument; whereas the atheist gives pages of reasonable objection only to be met with a few passages from their holy texts.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Cavebear

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2016, 11:47:29 PM »
Not to mention that it's, in my experience, quite skewed effort gone into each discussee argument; whereas the atheist gives pages of reasonable objection only to be met with a few passages from their holy texts.

Exactly. 

OK, that was too short.  But an example of what I mean.  It used to drive me crazy to have a theist ask why there were human footprints and dinosaur footprints in the same riverbed and I had to spend an hour basically proving that the creationists bought the property and chiseled dinosaur footprints into the bedrock. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2016, 10:34:16 PM »
Any theist refuting sound science is quite confused

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2016, 07:00:12 AM »
Ohm's Law is sound science ... Big Bang is not as sound ... Multiverse is unsound.  A PhD doesn't make you smart.
שלום

Online aitm

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2016, 11:29:43 AM »
My sister in law has a doctorate....but thinks a carpenter is someone who installs carpet....so....
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2016, 11:33:55 AM »
One of the things that frustrates me about theist vs atheist discussions is that the theists just offer a biblical citation or quote or question and answering it takes a page. 

Something like a book that replies in equal shorthand.

Like...

1.1.1 The Universe is 13.666 billion years old.
1.1.2 The stars formed from gas clouds.
1.1.3 The planets formed around the stars.

That sort of easy reply.  Maybe it would really annoy them.
Consider the amount of thought that went into the statement and the reply.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2016, 03:01:51 PM »
Any theist refuting sound science is quite confused

Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2016, 08:14:38 PM »
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.

No mere theory can do that, you have to have empirical data, that has a reasonable explanation ... new data or old, new explanation or old.  Of course old data with old explanation ... isn't relevant.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2016, 12:52:44 AM »
My sister in law has a doctorate....but thinks a carpenter is someone who installs carpet....so....

Of course, who would think otherwise, LOL!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Cavebear

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2016, 12:56:27 AM »
Regardless of labels, anyone who refutes sound science is a possible candidate for a Nobel Prize.

That is quite correct.  Refutation of science errors has great value.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Baruch

Re: Science versus Sin
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2016, 07:05:05 AM »
That is quite correct.  Refutation of science errors has great value.

שלום