Yes, Jack, and our co-religionists also rebelled against our other co-religionists and showed that the earth does revolve around the sun. Is there a point in there somewhere?

Only that you're continuing the grand tradition of being hostile to progress.

Its a fine tradition, don't worry about it.

Hello Jack, how did your law paper go?

So is the fine tradition of ignoring points, as you just did.
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were all Christians (although the latter was heterodox). This, of course, proves nothing either. Just to be clear. But it does show more starkly how irrelevant your point is.

"Sarfati" is italian for "insane, lying douchebag".

No, you just failed to see it.

You seem to be preferring your bronze age stories about the origin of the world that have been discredited by pretty much the entire body of scientific evidence.

That is basically the same as the Church locking up Galileo because he dared to actually use his blood soaked dog's breakfast and question reality. (bit of Vonnegut for you there).

And to say that all these people were Christian doesn't mean squat, considering if they had ever said they weren't Christian, they would have been lit on fucking fire.

So since you prefer your bronze age myths, you are in the same category as those who did the same to Galileo and countless others who attempted to raise the sum total of human knowledge.

Good work.

OK, well.... you're a troll, with no interest in history or reason. I'm done talking to you.

So since you don't like what I'm saying, you're going to drop down to the "fingers in ears" response.

Classy.

OK, Jack. I'll refute just one of your points, lest you think that is what is going on. Then I will quit talking to you.
You say Newton was a Christian because he would have been lit on fire otherwise. This implies a reluctant Christianity. In fact -- although, as I mentioned before, he had unorthodox views on the trinity -- Newton was OBSESSED with Christianity. He spent far more time studying the Bible than thinking about physics. He considered it completely authoritative, and was outraged by what he saw as misinterpretations and mistranslations.
These are not the actions of somebody who is a reluctant theist because he is forced to be by a society that wouldn't put up with him otherwise. There were actually plenty of the people you're referring to back then. This is not how they acted.
There. Bye.

Jack, you are full of shit regarding Newton.

Oh. Semck apparently pointed that out already.

"And I'm sure there are scientists who molest little boys. But I don't hold that against scientists or those who believe in science (as I do). Analogy."

I think the more troubling aspect of the priest-molestation is the institutional complicity involved, with the church often moving rapist priests to other parishes, many several times. I don't think you could find a single similar case in all of science.

So because a few Christians bucked the overall trend of unquestioning belief in Bronze age crap, it automatically means that Christianity isn't interested in perpetuating myth?

Get real. Its still going on. I mean, there are still nutballs trying to push Intelligent Design as anything but "God did it!" dressed up slightly. Christianity probably did more to retard human knowledge than any other factor. Just because a few people manage to buck the trend doesn't absolve the religion of its problems.

And answer me the question I posed earlier: Do you buy into the 6 days of creation myth? Yes or no? The whole bit about dietary advice from a talking snake? Do you believe in that?

Btw, gentlemen... until that last post, I never mentioned Newton at all. So you politely cram your insults right up your ass.

Please keep up.

I think the Mongols were probably worse about retarding human knowledge. They kinda wiped out the Middle East as a frontrunner in scientific development.

Eh, at least a lot of Islamic scientific works helped the Renaissance.

But yeah. Mongols didn't help at all.

Here, have a fun image. It simplifies a bit, but the point stands. http://atheistpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/atheism_motivational_poster_20.jpg

ehh, I feel like putting the Dark Ages' retardation of advancement solely on Christianity's shoulders is a bit harsh

I'm sure it didn't help, but the constant waves of barbarian migration/invasions didn't help either and it's hard to put that on Christianity

still, I lol'd, and I'm nitpicking anyway, there's no doubt that the medieval Church did not help science at all

Oh, it isn't supposed to be super-serious, but it still illustrates the point.

Orangefarm - Although I agree that the Pope likes to do the pedophile shuffle, it took quite a while before his colleagues stopped defending Gajdusek.

President: I don't know that. I think the assfuck on Aristotle that the 1210–1277 Condemnations did was quite helpful.

Jack: What's the measure on the Y-axis of that graph?

Inverse goddidits.

lol

defending (or attacking) the morality of scientists as a class seems like a silly exercise... science isn't necessarily going to attract moral or immoral people preferentially compared to the general population... or, at least, someone is going to have to show me the data suggesting it - because, you know, that's actually how that works. People are presumably attracted to church related careers in part, at least, due to some ideas of morality... so stories of evil priests are interesting and particularly horrifying (much like dirty cops - or parents who kill their children...that sort of thing)... but scientists? Seems about as informative as talking about how many iron workers or accountants are immoral or moral.

Draugnar wrote: "I so love how Dawkins shows himself to be uninformed as to Christian teachings and what the Bible actually says. Catholic dogma regarding the Assumption of Mary is *not* Biblically based and he once again makes himself look the fool. "

Actually that quote is from a Richard Dawkins essay entitled "Science as Religious Eduction" (it is a very good essay). He doesn't say the assumption of the virgin Mary is in the Bible - quite the opposite in fact.

"One of the troubles with tradition is that no matter how long ago a story was made up, it’s still exactly as untrue as it was when it was originally made up. There’s a kind of attitude that pervades religious fraternities that if something has been passed down through the centuries, then somehow with every century that passes it gains a little more truth as it goes by. To take a particular example of a tradition, Roman Catholics believe that Mary the mother of Jesus was so special that she didn’t die but was lifted bodily into heaven—its’ called the assumption of the blessed virgin Mary. Other religious traditions disagree. If you go back in history and find out where this belief came from, it certainly doesn’t come from the Bible, there’s no mention of Mary’s death in the Bible. The belief that her body was lifted into heaven was invented for the first time in about the 6th Century AD. But as the centuries go by a made-up belief becomes hallowed by tradition and finally in the 1950 the then Pope decreed that it was an official Roman Catholic doctrine, it became a fact the Mary’s body, instead of dying normally, zoomed off to heaven on some particular date. So that is the tradition."

@ Draug. let me reassure you that there are several respected scientists who share you view of Dawkins in the round. He seems to have more support among atheist philosophers (e.g., Daniel Dennet) than true practioners of science (e.g., Stephen J. Gould).
Indeed even Dennet describes Dawkins gene fetish as akin to ''greedy reductionism''. In all fairness (!) he did go on to say that it was understandable and done in a good cause! Such is the science at work here.

In contrast to Dawkins at least Pasteur actually engaged in some science ''at the bench'', even if his result recording and interpretation have become a little open to doubt (reference supplied if required).

I admit that this is a little ''left field'', but the example is intended to show that there is nothing elevated about science per se. It is a human activity, just as any other, and subject to the same frialties and, indeed, wonderful insights.

I could also talk about the holding up of peer review by people in this thread as being a validatory tool, which somehow puts science on a higher plane. Unfortunately, the process is fraught with difficulties; although I do conceed that it is the best process that we have got. It is not, however, a panacea and must be analysed with a critical eye in each case. In my view, the anonymity, or otherwise, of the reviewer is a vital consideration.

Back, briefly. In response to "People are presumably attracted to church related careers in part, at least, due to some ideas of morality..." One would hope that is the case. But another factor to consider is that pedophiles are disproportionately attracted to careers where they work with children. As the Bible puts it, Mat 7:20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. 21 "Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.
22 On judgment day many will say to me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.'
23 But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'

NLT blueletterbible.org