Atheism's in no position to talk. Nobody who Sgt Schultzes against evidence is.
Even evidence - what of it? Evidence doesn't say anything until it is interpreted. Are we to suppose all interpretations perfect? Craig's advice to stick with what on knows to be true is sound.
According to scoffers themselves, the "evidence" once told us all the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth, and that's irreconcilably and unequivocally wrong, and Christians all believed it. Seems they can't get their story straight about what's trustworthy. Scoffer history sure isn't!
27 comments
It has been known since Eratosthenes that the Earth is round and has a circumference, which he calculated fairly accurately. Meanwhile the Bible coming after his time managed to give us all sorts of cretinous scientific assertions, made more ridiculous by the claim that it was divinely inspired.
Also, science makes progress by correcting itself if new evidence comes to light. That's how it ditches incorrect hypotheses, such as the luminiferous aether, or phlogiston. The point is to find the truth, even if it means admitting mistakes.
You would do well to try it some time, as opposed to 'interpreting' away anything you don't want to hear.
I think the key sentence here is "Christians all believed it", some still do, because the Bible supports that.
However some people ignored the Bible, some because it hadn't existed yet others because they didn't think it was relative and even believers who didn't see it as literal. These people dragged the western world piece by piece out of the dark ages while religion tried it's best to stop them.
The bible still says the earth is flat. Not only that it also says there's a "firmament" in the sky.
It's funny how Danny mentions that common knowledge said the sun orbits the earth, when it was the church persecuting Galileo for discovering that the earth orbits the sun, and keeping that knowledge secret for centuries.
In fact, even today if you google geocentrism you'll discover that it's mainly just the religious who believe the universe revolves around the earth because that's what the bible says.
"Nobody who Sgt Schultzes against evidence is."
"Craig's advice to stick with what on knows to be true is sound. "
What then will you stick to? You don't know anything.
(emph-ass-is added):
"Atheism's in no position to talk. Nobody who Sgt Schultzes against evidence is. "
The Honourable Judge John E. Jones III would like a word with you, Danny-boy.
Even evidence - what of it? Evidence doesn't say anything until it is interpreted. Are we to suppose all interpretations perfect?
Judge Jones knows infinitely more - certainly about the subject - than you .
"According to scoffers themselves , the "evidence" once told us all the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth, and that's irreconcilably and unequivocally wrong, and Christians all believed it. Seems they can't get their story straight about what's trustworthy. Scoffer history sure isn't! "
That's our line, I think you'll find. And dare to call Judge Jones a 'scoffer', nay, a liar to his face? Making allegations of Perjury against someone (especially Judge Jones) is an extremely serious crime in the eyes of the court, so better have money - and lots of it, Danny-boy. After all, his ruling on a certain case in late 2005 has annihilated Creationism (certainly the Religious Reich's edicational 'agenda'), which [i]you[/i] lot can't get your 'story' straight about , post-Sputnik 1 in 1957 destroying the Bible literal (ist) model of the universe. But keep moving those goalposts, Cre(a)ti(o)nists, it's now the only thing you're good at.
...oh, and one more thing: Judge John E. Jones III is a Conservative Christian himself.
anothga: Assuming you don't get the reference, it's to a character from the TV show Hogan's Heroes who, when presented with something he didn't want to see or hear, would say, loudly, "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing!"
So the (ludicrous) accusation is that atheists are seeing things things they don't want to see, and loudly saying they don't because what we see disagrees with our worldview.
Rob
the "evidence" once told us all the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth
No it didn't. That was the "common sense" of the day. Anyone who was a sailor or a merchant (you know, people with observed EVIDENCE) could tell you that the Earth being flat was utter nonsense. It was the clergy and nobility that believed the Earth was flat because they couldn't be arsed to get off their fat asses and look around. Also, there was evidence that the Ptolemaic system was wrong, unfortunately, the weight of Ptolemy's influence outweighed the evidence. But let's say all of the evidence was wrong. So what? It takes time to gather evidence and make solid conclusions and science has vastly improved since its roots. If you think 21st century science is just as likely to be wrong as the knowledge of Ptolemy then why is it that most of our new technology works and new technology is being produced within a matter of months rather than generations?
"Craig's advice to stick with what on knows to be true is sound."
The obvious question, then, is how can we best go about identifying what is and is not true.
And guess what? It turns out there's a process that involves the gathering of observations, the proposing and testing hypotheses to explain observations, and with sufficeint testing we can finally, from the body of corroborated hypotheses we've collected, derive a comprehensive, predictive and tentative model (called a theory) which explains all observations within its scope.
And because it's tentative, we'll revise these model when new observations require we do so.
Sound familiar?
What the hell does "Sgt Schultzes against evidence" mean? Did this guy invent his own language?
Danny is still confusing religion and science. Science is a methodology which reaches provisional conclusions based on evidence. Those conclusions can change based on new evidence. Religion doesn't change based on new evidence; that evidence is either ignored or explained away.
Tim Minchin out it best when he described faith as "the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved",
What the hell does "Sgt Schultzes against evidence" mean? Did this guy invent his own language?
Danny is still confusing religion and science. Science is a methodology which reaches provisional conclusions based on evidence. Those conclusions can change based on new evidence. Religion doesn't change based on new evidence; that evidence is either ignored or explained away.
Tim Minchin put it best when he described faith as "the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved",
Craig's advice to stick with what on knows to be true is sound.
Ok; I know your ilk to be willfully ignorant fucksticks, spreading lies and suppressing truth.
Glad we got that settled!
evidence - what of it? Evidence doesn't say anything until it is interpreted.
image
Right, I mean it's only a flesh wound, right? The Black Night should know, he's the one with the flesh wound. That's his interpretation of the evidence. Who's to say he's wrong?
Evidence is not what you think it is. It's not an opinion open to interpretation. The flat earth was not based on evidence, but in the thought of people with limited resources. That's the magic of science, that you can always rectify.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
