Quote from: Harvey on July 27, 2020, 11:53:40 amMuch of what drove science stemmed from Christian theology. It seems to me you're not a student of either global religion or history.No, Islam has had the largest impact on science than most any other religion. Much of Aquinas' thinking is merely an extension of Ibn Rushd's natural theology. Maybe some time have a look at what the Islamic community has done in the advance of science.Your awareness of a world outside of your credulous Christian bubble is appallingly thin.
Much of what drove science stemmed from Christian theology.
No, you can't hop around like that. The RCC represents Christianity as much as Protestantism, their actions in curtailing scientific advancement as mush as those of the Protestants. Whoever introduced evolution did not so on behalf of Christianity, that much is blatantly obvious. And scientific advancement in the East and under Islam renaissance, while it was suppressed under Christian rulers, is very relevant in order to prove your assertions wrong.
I will give you the chance to recant the above since you are clearly speaking from ignorance.
The thing is that when you consider the extreme unlikeliness of the survival of the Christian religion (I cited 11 miraculous events not even counting post-Roman events), the extreme unlikeliness of the Jews surviving, and then consider the impact that Christianity had on modern science (and let's not even talk about Jewish impact on science) then I think it is quite obvious that we're only an advanced scientific society as a result of miraculous events. Atheists have already used up their Wyatt Earp objection to account for fine-tuning of the physical constants, so that explanation has gotten old. But if being an advanced scientific culture is miraculously due to the survival of the Christian religion, then it seems one ought to believe in Christianity given that miraculous result. Even if Christianity provided very little input to our being an advanced scientific age, the fact remains that many persecutions ended quickly because the persecutor died, or was captured, or taken ill, or converted to the religion. If it happened a few times I could see why that's not a big issue. But for it to happen so many times in such dramatic fashion requires belief on the part of the skeptic.
Quote from: TheCross on July 28, 2020, 08:30:27 amI will give you the chance to recant the above since you are clearly speaking from ignorance.We were just talking about Galileo having to recant his views under threats by the Vatican. Hopefully you don't mean that kind of recant.
Beyond that, I'm not even convinced that Christianity's survival was particularly improbable.
With regards to getting from these observations to Christianity's truth, I'm going to suggest that there are probably better arguments to pursue, at least if you're interesting in persuading those who aren't already persuaded.
Quote from: Lucian on July 28, 2020, 08:45:42 amBeyond that, I'm not even convinced that Christianity's survival was particularly improbable. It's hard for me to understand how you can hold that view.
Quote from: Lucian on July 28, 2020, 09:12:47 amWhy?It just more than obvious that all of those attempts to persecute both the Christians and Jews ended badly for the persecutor (except for Paul who converted).
I mean that the claim of Islam and science, I do not care about topics aslong as it remains historically accurate, the claim that islam contributed to the scientific boom in any way is a historical lie.
Well, hardly: you've listed the persecutions of Nero and Diocletian, for example, but neither of those 'ended badly' for the emperor in question, as far as I can tell.
Why is it that religious people talk about things they don't know about and do so with such absoluteness?You do neither yourself nor Christ any favors.
Dude, keep up ... this comment wasn't even directed at you.