Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goliath · 06-07-2003, 02:43 PM

luvluv,

Wow, you love ending sentences with the word "atheist", don't you?

Quote:

But if the historian's methodology is so fraught with difficulties, how can you reach any conclusions with any degree of confidence, atheist?

By looking at the evidence, of course.

Quote:

More to the point, why enter into the fray of a historical dispute at all, atheist?

Because the sacking of the Great Library was relevant to the topic brought up in the OP.

Quote:

How could you construct a historical argument supporting the notion that Christianity is inhibitive of science AND IN THE SAME THREAD denigrate historical argument, atheist?

Since I have constructed no such historical argument, your question is moot.

Quote:

And if your conclusions are only based on what you've read, and you admit you haven't read much scholarly opinion on the subject, why should anyone put any stock into your opinion at all over that of folks like Hobling and Bede who seem to have put a little bit more effort into their arguments, atheist?

When did I say that I read nothing scholarly about the sacking of the Great Library? Moreover, why should I put any stock into the opinions of Bede and Hugo, when they just retort with the logical equivalent of "Nuh-uh!!! This dude who wrote a book says you're wrong, so you're wrong!! Nah-nah-nah-boo-boo!!!"

Sincerely,

Goliath

Luiseach · 06-07-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath
Moreover, why should I put any stock into the opinions of Bede and Hugo, when they just retort with the logical equivalent of "Nuh-uh!!! This dude who wrote a book says you're wrong, so you're wrong!! Nah-nah-nah-boo-boo!!!"

I was under the impression that both Bede and Hugo Holbling were offering some helpful historical resources as a valuable contribution to the discussion.

Goliath · 06-07-2003, 03:10 PM

Luiseach,

Not I. Perhaps you've read posts of theirs that I have not?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Luiseach · 06-07-2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath
Luiseach,

Not I. Perhaps you've read posts of theirs that I have not?

Sincerely,

Goliath

They provided links earlier in the thread to secondary resources that could be considered within the context of the discussion. Some of these were very interesting indeed!

Goliath · 06-07-2003, 03:16 PM

Luiseach,

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
They provided links earlier in the thread to secondary resources that could be considered within the context of the discussion. Some of these were very interesting indeed!

I've only managed to stomach about half of Bede's article, and I found it full of unsupported assertions, nothing more than a bunch of arguments from authority strung together.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goober · 06-07-2003, 08:01 PM

How about a specific example?

Evolution and abiogenesis are scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a matter of christian faith. All the evidence points to evolution being correct.

Creationism hinders the acceptance of evolution, hence it is hindering science.

Radorth · 06-07-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

When did I say that I read nothing scholarly about the sacking of the Great Library?

By all means, give us your links. I missed them.

Rad

Goliath · 06-07-2003, 10:19 PM

Radorth,

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
By all means, give us your links. I missed them.

Rad

You also must've missed the two or three times when I said that my sources are not links, but books, and that I don't have said books on me right now! You remember books, don't you?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Radorth · 06-07-2003, 10:24 PM

Re: Goober

Quote:

All the evidence points to evolution being correct.

I guess you missed the part where we talked about Augustine postulating evolution 1400 years before Darwin.

In any case, the question is which of the 400 theories should we believe? BTW, the latest one is that humans evolved from an aquatic ape. Sheesh. Apparently there were big problems with humans evolving from land animals (For example, how come babies know instinctively how to swim?)

Keep the faith.

Rad

Radorth · 06-07-2003, 10:28 PM

Quote:

You also must've missed the two or three times when I said that my sources are not links, but books,

Surely someone on the web has given us the same information. But OK, can we at least read reviews of these books? What are their names and who wrote them?

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2003, 03:10 PM	#203
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Luiseach, Not I. Perhaps you've read posts of theirs that I have not? Sincerely, Goliath

06-07-2003, 08:01 PM	#206
Goober Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,202	How about a specific example? Evolution and abiogenesis are scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a matter of christian faith. All the evidence points to evolution being correct. Creationism hinders the acceptance of evolution, hence it is hindering science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.