"There is no conflict between religion and science"

[petite fleur]

---

That excuse doesn't make sense. When I said "long" i meant "years". Somehow your claim that you're "not always" is below the range of the topic itself.

You mean to say that you guys go online every few years to debate about religion? kinsa man diay na nakiglalis sa mga non-catholics using YOUR usernames? Inyong kalag?

Pwede mag hinay2x rata dire noh.

[petite fleur]

how about for those people who dont believe? or the Anti-God?

Think.

Will they call themselves BLESSED or Blessed be GOD if they don't have a GOD to turn to?

This is my Faith/our Faith. HE has done many great things for us. Just leave it the way it is. Call us crazy and stupid that doesn't matter to us. You may name names but you see our Faith can never be shattered.

SO? What's wrong with it?

[nowpress*]

True, both are great intellectuals and both said those words. But I would be more circumspect in choosing characters to defend, say, Christianity. Perhaps in defense of theism in general...but still I haven't seen any intellectual debates employ this tactic. I'll tell you why.

Isaac Newton does not believe in the Trinity. He harbored the heretical anti-Trinitarian belief called Arianism. Below is Newton's criticism of this verse from 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."



* Newton's Anti-Trinitarianism is well documented in his biographies.

As great an intellectual as he is, Newton wasn't spared from believing in wacky stuffs like alchemy and he would spend nights locked up in his room, trying to transmute lead into gold. And then there's his famous exchange with Leibniz. When Newton couldn't explain why the stars wouldn't collapse into each other, he proposed that God actively intervened to put orbits on an even keel. Leibniz teased him on this by asking why God couldn't have got it working right in the first place. Of course, Einstein showed why this is so without the need to invoke divine intervention.

On Francis Bacon. Yes, another great philosopher and scientist, father of the Baconian method (the scientific method). Does he use reason for his belief in God? Apparently not, for he said in his De augmentis: "The more discordant, therefore, and incredible, the divine mystery is, the more honour is shown to God in believing it, and the nobler is the victory of faith." To put in another way, the greater the absurdity, the stronger his belief in it.

Bacon believed that religion and philosophy must be separated and he admittedly observed a positive correlation between Atheism and civil times.





Lastly, Bacon was said to be a "pederast"...a pedophile in today's terms. His own colleague at the Parliament, Simonds D'Ewes, wrote about Bacon:


Even Bacon's mom complained about his son's companions.

argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well fallacy. Not a wise move.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-the-well.html
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

try again sir.

[petite fleur]

argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well fallacy. Not a wise move.

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
The Logical Fallacies: Attacking the Person<br>(<i>argumentum ad hominem</i>)

try again sir.

ignosce illis Deus

[solderingiron]

dependi kung unsa na religion.

pero ma prove sa science na ang bible tinuod.

[tokidoki]

argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well fallacy. Not a wise move.

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
The Logical Fallacies: Attacking the Person<br>(<i>argumentum ad hominem</i>)

try again sir.

A no BS translation would be you don't agree with his insights. And this absolutely has NOTHING to do with ad hominem (which is so overused by you it has lost its meaning).

Ignore this comment, istoryans, and move on.

[Blackbeard]

only branch of Religion I know that has a problem with Science is Christianity.

the Roman Catholic Church accepts Science.

[tokidoki]

only branch of Religion I know that has a problem with Science is Christianity.

the Roman Catholic Church accepts Science.

Not true. Catholics burned scientists at the stakes and accused of worshipping the devil or practicing witchcraft.

And before anyone says this is "false", the church formally issued an apology letter ( I think almost a century later ) to the affected families for this act.

[JcBoY]

Naa gihapon, depende sa pag-gamit sa Science!

Sometimes when science with all its dreadful weapons, is employed for the extermination of the human race rather than contribute towards man’s well-being and his moral advancement.

Religion teaches love, sympathy and universal brotherhood and is thus the only way to peace, prosperity and progress. It equips man in the best possible way for the hard struggle of life.

[hitch22]

argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well fallacy. Not a wise move.

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
The Logical Fallacies: Attacking the Person<br>(<i>argumentum ad hominem</i>)

try again sir.

Is there an official debate going on? I noticed these are impromptu forums where people say their piece of mind and exchange opinions in as civilized a manner as possible. You must have noticed, by now, that nobody followed those rules of debate...so many out of topics, so many ad hominems, etc...but I don't dare make myself the police and call people to task. You seem to have made yourself the referee. Are you the official debate moderator? Is there an official debate going on? It didn't occur to me that there's going to be a referee and, all of a sudden, a casual exchange of comments would be assessed an infraction.

In the spirit of fairness, you might as well say that the poster who quoted Newton and Bacon was committing the fallacy of Argument from Authority. It does not follow that if Newton was right about the orbits, he would therefore be also right about his statements about his religious beliefs. That would be an Argument from Authority fallacy. To be a fair judge, one should not have any prejudices on the matter being debated. Are you?

In stating Newton's alchemy or Bacon's "pederast" practices, I'm merely questioning whether the poster indeed wanted these characters to be defenders of his faith. That's all there is to it. And again, this is not a proper debate.

Anyway, if you want to hold a proper debate, you should:
name the proposition
name the members of one side
name the members of the other side
state the rules (no. of lines, time limit, etc)
name the format (opening lines, rebuttals, Q&A, etc)
who should start first?
will there be polls conducted before and after the debate?
etc.

A proper debate has a fixed number of exchanges. Informal forums like this can go on indefinitely.

Get my point?