It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: luthier
Here is some history on Egyptian religion. www.ancient.eu...
I am sure you thought you won the debates but there are rules to debates if your in a formal one and they get reviewed by peers usually afterword. I seriously doubt you beat any actual apologists in debates. They are trained in universities to have debates on God.
Hitchins went down in a blaze of glory when he debated Craig. Not by my opinion by his peers opinions. Sure Harris was able to debate him well but he didn't make the errors you are making in debates either.
Also I was referring to social and technical evolution not actual DNA though I am sure this is effected over time when your environment goes from starving and seeking food to living in cities.
I can't have this circular arguement anymore. If you actually believe what you are saying that a priest and the life of Mendel was not governed by his faith your rediculous. His thoughts were effected by his faith. He was a PRIEST. Thats well beyound a laypersons dealing with God.
Your Moore's law rebuttle is juvenile. Computers are the reason technology is advancing so fast. I thought that was a given but I guess not.
Digital electronics have contributed to world economic growth in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.[12] Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change, productivity, and economic growth.[13][14][15][16]
originally posted by: luthier
Clearly the definition from wiki states mores law effected technology advancements in a profound way. My brother is a particle physicists who does weather modelling he couldn't do his work at all without the equipment.
It is a fact not an assumption that priests work in the service of God only. That the divine inspires and drives a priest. To say that played nobpart in his work is just obtuse.
I am not siting anything for you the article on egyptian religion starts off first paragraph that it was part science. Read it or not. I don't care. It's there for anyone else who wants to see how you just argue from emotions .
Judiasm is one form of religion and I guess you don't understand what the story is telling. It isn't about anything we are talking about.
Christian Apologists are in fact trained philosophers and many universities teach the arguements for God. Maybe you misuse or misunderstand the word. Anslem and Craig and Aquinas those are Christian apologists. Trinity and Wheaton college for instance both teach apologists how to create valid arguements. If the person you were debating was not a theologist he was not an apologist. Period.
a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
Which paragraph? You aren't quoting anything so your post is difficult to follow.
Once again I said religion in the ancient world not today or even the recent past. So that while paragraph is useless.
You have a knack for strawmans.
Abrahamics are not the only religions.
Not everything can be proven by hard science man. Give it up. Study some sociology and humanities. You keep making uniformed arguments on these subjects?
I have you a leading sociologist who wrote numerous books on religion throughout evolution.
I also asked to show these grand non religious engineering master works from 2000 + years ago. Let's compair them to the religious emperical evidence.
originally posted by: luthier
I told you this last time I am on a cellphone. But nice deception. Perfect example of a red herring.
Post the definition of Christian apologist. Research what a Christian apologist is.
Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a field of Christian theology that presents reasoned bases for Christianity, defending the religion against objections.
Eat that one mate.
In the case of Mendel like I said not only was he a priest he never would have went to school at all without becoming one. He was a poor farmer.
I gave you an author and sociologist who is literally one of the most respected sociologists to have ever existed. He is peer reviewed and there are plenty of ways to check his work. Use Google scholar.
What does an opinion of an expert in the field we are talking about have to do with anything we are talking about? Thats a dumb question.
You love to say things as authority which I already disproved to you.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Thats your argument style.
I would absolutely love to debate you in a formal setting so you can have a rude awakening. I have the feeling you would just say you were right even if the moderators said differently.
Why don't you break down how the lack of religion directly influenced a technological revolution.
Your Moore's law debate is another red herring.
I think you know that as processing power advanced things like robotics, automation, CNC all advance as well.
The claims you make are always over Judaism and Christianity as I assume those are the only ones that fit your argument or are familiar with.
So you are saying ziguarats, massive temples, the pyramids etc all would exist without religion? How about the Vatican that paid for artists to do their work and develop in their schools?
You were wrong about what a Christian apologist is by definition. I specifically said you haven't debated Christian apologists if they were not theologists or theologians. Which you responded that I was not accurate and gave a definition of the word apologist. I was very obviously talking about Christin apologists which you had no idea got trained in schools to debate.
In your opinion they would all exist except they don't and there is no evidence of it. Your ignoring all the emperical evidence because of your bias.
Part of your strawman is to assume the only effect on research is data.
originally posted by: luthier
So basically religious people are like chimps. Good to know and perfectly explains why so many cannot comprehend incredibly basic concepts in science.
I honestly don't think religion had anything to do with the development of architecture, construction, writing, art, language or any of that.
Also I said it had nothing to do with the development or origins of those things. Obviously it influenced some buildings and some art, but it isn't responsible for the origin of art in general or the origin of architecture as you suggested.
Another strawman. Never said anything of the sort.
Never said anything about cause. I was implying the influence yeah a big one. There is lots of religious art and architecture to prove this in the ancient world and very little to discredit this.
Go back in history and you find the earliest buildings of grand scale engineering are religious.
ceremony caused engineers and thinking to go further than mud huts.
Another strawman where you provide the evidence of the fallacy directly above your post by quoting me. Go back and read.
Now you are being ridiculous. You are seriously saying that his belief in god is the sole motivator in everything he did, and without belief in god, none of his work would have happened? That's a bit of a bit assumption there.
Go back. Never said it was the sole cause. I was saying it was a major influence.
Yes I honestly believe if he was not a priest he would never have came up with his theories
I am being rediculous by saying the sole reason a priest does everything was because of God?
Never did I imply that religion was the sole responsible cause of all of humanity.
The claims you make are always over Judaism and Christianity as I assume those are the only ones that fit your argument or are familiar with.
You say
Been there, done that. Debating apologists is easy, they never make logical arguments
I disagree give examples to disprove Hitchins Craig being one. I also deny you have debated a real Christian apologist. Then you say.
I never changed the meaning you just skoffed at what I was saying about Christian apologetics. I obviously was referring to that and clearly stated so by talking about scholars. You totally ignored my arguement and pretended I was wrong or changing meaning instead of accepting you misunderstood my arguement.
I can go on but it's already a huge post.
You keep ignoring Mendel would never have even gone to higher Ed without the church paying for it and caring for him during his illnesses when he couldn't afford drs or university.
Your argument is pretty much that religion was there and part of everyone's lives, therefor it's responsible. It's not.
originally posted by: olaru12
Religion?
Another possibility is that they are making ART. Chimp aesthetics for the sheer pleasure of creation of something "new" I have heard that chimps will decorate their bodies with flowers and grass and dance. Self expression at a basic level, but still dealing in abstractions and creativity.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: luthier
I honestly don't think religion had anything to do with the development of architecture, construction, writing, art, language or any of that. Art pre-existed long before human religion as did language. Just because a religious person originally proposed the big bang, doesn't make religion part of it, nor does it make it a product of religion. In the same light it is 100% separate from evolution. Religion has nothing to do with alelle frequency.
Religion is separate from all of that, so to attribute all that stuff to religion is laughable to me. Just because religion was there first, doesn't mean it created or led to any of that. Sure it had an influence on many of those things, but it's definitely not the direct cause. The intelligence of humans created that stuff. Religion is just a crutch that people have been leaning on for centuries to come to grips with the fact that everybody dies at some point. Religion held us back from science if anything.