Sure, religion was an attempt to explain the world. That's were science starts as well. Of course, with time the bible has been proved utter BS and scientists moved on to actual/better/ theories that match the evidence we have.
Anyway I just skipped to the sumamry.
Quote:
* Atheopaths often disparage the Bible, especially its account of creation.
That's probably because of all the evidence we have that it is bull...
The world was not created in 6 days. There was no great rain that flooded all the world. Humankind does not come from dirt. Etc, etc, etc...
Quote:
* Science requires certain presuppositions to work at all, and these are found in the Bible.
If the article's intention was to prove this assertion, it has failed by far.
Quote:
Europe in the Middle Ages, with its general Christian world view, advanced greatly in science and technology
And that was despite all the issues that plagued the world in that "dark age" as it is actually called thanks to the ill effects of religion. So many scientists sacrificed because they they found evidence that contradicted the bible...
Quote:
The Reformation, with its emphasis on the authority of Scripture and a historical-grammatical understanding, led to a great leap forward in science as such methods were carried over into the study of nature.
The reformation was just a masturbatury event from some guys that wanted to stop paying taxes to catholics and prefered to pay them to themselves. It had no influence on science. Tp quote google, "Perhaps you meant "renaissance" "
Quote:
Belief in a literal first man Adam and his Fall inspired science as a means to rediscover knowledge Adam had before the Fall.
If the article's intention was to prove this assertion, it has failed by far.
Quote:
* It is futile to expect continued fruits of the scientific enterprise while undermining the roots in biblical Christianity.
Science has already been quite fruitful BECAUSE it started ignoring biblical Christianity. It is futile to expect so, I agree, it is futile to expect something that has already happened.
Quote:
1. Leading misotheist Richard Dawkins often calls theistic religion a ‘virus of the mind’, which would make it a kind of disease or pathology, and parents who teach it to their kids are, in Dawkins’ view, supposedly practising mental child abuse. But the sorts of criteria Dawkins applies makes one wonder whether his own fanatical antitheism itself could be a mental pathology—hence, “atheopath”.
Makes you wonder why are 6 years old allowed to write these "articles". However, it was funny to see him put this in 'references' ...
---
One of the main differences between science and religion is that we do not become slaves to "authorities" when doing science. Newton was partidary of a lot of things that are BS, like the existence of a bible code. Science is not afraid of pointing out that its most important contributors were not perfect. We go after the theory and not after people. While Newton's physics are very useful to explain how the mechanic world works, it does not mean we are supposed to fall prey to the other 'things' that Newton believed.
It is different in the case of Jesus, theists are supposed to believe he was error-less. Perhaps the reason they suffer strokes when people claim he had sex with Mary Magdalene...
_________________
.
13 Dec 2009, 8:35 am
