Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.
Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 864 times
- Been thanked: 1266 times
Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #1
Last edited by Diogenes on Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #2Moderator ClarificationDiogenes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 4:30 pm Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.
Please take note of this tip on starting a debate topic:
7. Have a clear question for debate in the opening post.
If there is no question for debate, it will be moved to RR. If the thread title contains the question, reiterate the question in the post.
Tips on starting a debate topic
Please add a question for debate.
______________
Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 864 times
- Been thanked: 1266 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #3[Restated]
Isn't it intellectually dishonest for Christian apologists to only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they think the evidence agrees with some Biblical claim, while at the same time reject science and proclaim the value of 'divine revelation' when the scientific evidence refutes their claims?
Isn't it intellectually dishonest for Christian apologists to only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they think the evidence agrees with some Biblical claim, while at the same time reject science and proclaim the value of 'divine revelation' when the scientific evidence refutes their claims?
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #4Isn't that kind of a "Well duh" thing? Of course it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick like that.Diogenes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:57 pm [Restated]
Isn't it intellectually dishonest for Christian apologists to only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they think the evidence agrees with some Biblical claim, while at the same time reject science and proclaim the value of 'divine revelation' when the scientific evidence refutes their claims?
I'll be shocked if anyone shows up to disagree.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #5There's a myriad of things dishonest christians do and get away with (at least they think they do). This shouldn't come as surprise to anyone, really:Diogenes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:57 pm [Restated]
Isn't it intellectually dishonest for Christian apologists to only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they think the evidence agrees with some Biblical claim, while at the same time reject science and proclaim the value of 'divine revelation' when the scientific evidence refutes their claims?
"Science helped create the machine I'm using right now but no, all that portrays my chosen lifestyle agenda in a negative light isn't correct."
And so what? Do they care they're caught in hypocrisy? Nah, they just 'pray it away' and POOF they're fine (in their eyes).
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #6The phrase "the use of science" defines science as a tool. People can put whatever use they want to any tool. For a believer, the best use that can be given to any tool is to glorify the Creator of the material Universe and of our mind to observe it, analyze it and produce things from both.
Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.
Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #7No, atheists don't deny God, we lack belief in god/gods.Eloi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:06 am The phrase "the use of science" defines science as a tool. People can put whatever use they want to any tool. For a believer, the best use that can be given to any tool is to glorify the Creator of the material Universe and of our mind to observe it, analyze it and produce things from both.
Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #8Thank you for saying how some of you want to express how you feel about it. Some people don't know how other people perceive them, and science cannot decide that.Tcg wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:17 amNo, atheists don't deny God, we lack belief in god/gods.Eloi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:06 am The phrase "the use of science" defines science as a tool. People can put whatever use they want to any tool. For a believer, the best use that can be given to any tool is to glorify the Creator of the material Universe and of our mind to observe it, analyze it and produce things from both.
Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.
Tcg
Interestingly, and to readjust an earlier comment, atheist members of the scientific community have also committed many dishonest acts to deny God. Does anyone remember the famous Piltdown man?
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #9Oh, my. Faking evidence of evolution is not a denial of God. A great many theists accept the fact of evolution. Besides that, the Piltdown man was exposed as a fake long ago. And guess what was used to do so... yep, science.Eloi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:23 amThank you for saying how some of you want to express how you feel about it. Some people don't know how other people perceive them, and science cannot decide that.Tcg wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:17 amNo, atheists don't deny God, we lack belief in god/gods.Eloi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:06 am The phrase "the use of science" defines science as a tool. People can put whatever use they want to any tool. For a believer, the best use that can be given to any tool is to glorify the Creator of the material Universe and of our mind to observe it, analyze it and produce things from both.
Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.
Tcg
Interestingly, and to readjust an earlier comment, atheist members of the scientific community have also committed many dishonest acts to deny God. Does anyone remember the famous Piltdown man?
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #10True ... except for the fact that at that time the theory of evolution was the atheist's favorite weapon for denying God... like the knife in the hands of the murderer, not the butcher's.Tcg wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:32 amOh, my. Faking evidence of evolution is not a denial of God. A great many theists accept the fact of evolution. Besides that, the Piltdown man was exposed as a fake long ago.Eloi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:23 amThank you for saying how some of you want to express how you feel about it. Some people don't know how other people perceive them, and science cannot decide that.Tcg wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:17 amNo, atheists don't deny God, we lack belief in god/gods.Eloi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:06 am The phrase "the use of science" defines science as a tool. People can put whatever use they want to any tool. For a believer, the best use that can be given to any tool is to glorify the Creator of the material Universe and of our mind to observe it, analyze it and produce things from both.
Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.
Tcg
Interestingly, and to readjust an earlier comment, atheist members of the scientific community have also committed many dishonest acts to deny God. Does anyone remember the famous Piltdown man?
Tcg