Religious extremists hate/fear of modern science

[flamingjimmy]

Oooh lets nit pick, So you are now contradicting my claim that no religion can stop science, would you also provide examples where religion has indeed stopped progress of science. Was it the religion that tried to stop the progress of science or the people who interpreted it as such?

 

How did a religion that already exists stop something that came on the scene hundreds of years late Jimmy boy? Surely it would be some followers of some religions who would take that view and even then it would seem as I suggested they were unable to stop the progress of science.

 

It's very simple, you said "there is no way any religion can stop or even has tried to stop progress of science" Seeing as you seem to have deliberately misunderstood my objection to that statement I will have to clarify further. What I object to is this part:

 

"there is no way any religion ... has tried to stop progress of science"

 

But I'm sure that you knew that already.

 

I have given you 4 examples of religious people trying to stop the progress of science because of their religion, you have still addressed none of them and instead have chosen to deliberately misunderstand me and to try and bring unrelated things into the debate.

 

Oh and remind us where this taking place the East or the West? If it is the West then where does that leave the OP's argument that somehow the West is in conflict with people from the East because the Easterners are trying t stop science?

I've already told you I don't agree with the OP and I have no interest in your squibbles with him about east this and west that. I don't care and it's not relevant.

 

Very childish to start being nasty when there is no call for it, but hey if you wish it to be so then tango I shall.

I'm not being nasty, I'm just telling you like it is. What you said was utter nonsense. If you think that's being nasty then that's your problem I'm afraid.

 

You are choosing to ignore my request to educate us all about the principle of first cause as it seems you may be out of depth on your own but happy enough to act the chuawa yelping at the heels when others more senior Athiests are doing the expllaning, figures.

No, I'm refusing to explain the first cause to you because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're arguing about, go start a thread on it and I'll gladly join you. I would never shy away from an argument with you tabby, it's just so easy.

[tab1]

So how does your tripe contradict my statement oh wise one?

 

From your reply this objection is not proven, you said

What utter nonsense.

If you don't understand the context then it indeed would be nonsense, to you. In this case you certainly don't understand the context nor the argument but posted some tripe taking the thread way off topic into plek territory of train track posting.

 

. Exhibit A gallileo

Exhibit B cloning

Exhibit C stem cells

 

Smoking gun - the intelligent design movement. What is this if not one big attempt to suppress the scientific theory of evolution?

A list of scientific disciplines of inquiry is that is nothing more, where do you prove religion has stopped progress of science? A few people raising objections have not actually stopped science have they? If they had then they would not exist to be on your list.

 

You failed to address my question to you in the post you quoted, how can a religion stop science? People making their own interpretations is not religion as these disciplines are not prohibited in any scriptures of any religion that I know of, do you know different? Evidence please.

 

Of course many religious people try to suppress science. It took me 20 seconds to think of 4 obvious examples.

Admirable work, you are just too good for us, that is why I requested you educate us on the principle of first cause. You may even win over a few more to your cause of abusing religion and religious types. I hope you do find it easy enough to explain as it would then be easy for us to understand.

 

I made a point to say no religion can stop the progress of science and the problems of conflict faced are political, and that was the gist of the discussion, do you find that to be nonsense? To that end your intervention was off topic and unnecessary

, but now that you are in it would be nice to get an explanation.

[flamingjimmy]

So how does your tripe contradict my statement oh wise one?

Because I gave you 4 examples of religious people trying to suppress scientific progress because of their religious beleifs, oh not-so-wise one.

 

From your reply this objection is not proven, you said If you don't understand the context then it indeed would be nonsense, to you. In this case you certainly don't understand the context nor the argument but posted some tripe taking the thread way off topic into plek territory of train track posting.

I tried to keep it simple, but you decided to go off on several tangents, bring in unrelated things into the discussion, and deliberately misunderstand me, so I had to resort to multi-quoting. The crux of our argument is still very simple, you said something, I gave 4 examples that showed you to be wrong. I am still waiting for comment on any of these examples.

 

A list of scientific disciplines of inquiry is that is nothing more, where do you prove religion has stopped progress of science? A few people raising objections have not actually stopped science have they? If they had then they would not exist to be on your list.

 

You failed to address my question to you in the post you quoted, how can a religion stop science? People making their own interpretations is not religion as these disciplines are not prohibited in any scriptures of any religion that I know of, do you know different? Evidence please.

Please don't try to turn this into an argument about semantics, the question 'how can a religion stop science' is worthless. It was very obvious what was meant earlier. I put into plain language in my last post so there can't really be any misunderstanding, here it is again:

 

"I have given you 4 examples of religious people trying to stop the progress of science because of their religion, you have still addressed none of them and instead have chosen to deliberately misunderstand me and to try and bring unrelated things into the debate."

 

Admirable work, you are just too good for us, that is why I requested you educate us on the principle of first cause. You may even win over a few more to your cause of abusing religion and religious types. I hope you do find it easy enough to explain as it would then be easy for us to understand.

I ask you again, what does that have to do with what we're arguing about now?

 

Like I said start your own 'first cause' thread and I will gladly join you on it. However it has no place in this discussion and merely represents an attempt from you to distract from my original intentions in this thread, which was, and still is simply to challenge your assertion that "there is no way any religion ... has tried to stop progress of science". An assertion that you still haven't even attempted to defend, all you've done is try to move the argument onto other things, well it's not happening. That is still the one and only thing I'm arguing about here on this thread.

[pininsho]

Because I gave you 4 examples of religious people trying to suppress scientific progress because of their religious beleifs, oh not-so-wise one.

 

I tried to keep it simple, but you decided to go off on several tangents, bring in unrelated things into the discussion, and deliberately misunderstand me, so I had to resort to multi-quoting. The crux of our argument is still very simple, you said something, I gave 4 examples that showed you to be wrong. I am still waiting for comment on any of these examples.

 

Please don't try to turn this into an argument about semantics, the question 'how can a religion stop science' is worthless. It was very obvious what was meant earlier. I put into plain language in my last post so there can't really be any misunderstanding, here it is again:

 

"I have given you 4 examples of religious people trying to stop the progress of science because of their religion, you have still addressed none of them and instead have chosen to deliberately misunderstand me and to try and bring unrelated things into the debate."

 

I ask you again, what does that have to do with what we're arguing about now?

 

Like I said start your own 'first cause' thread and I will gladly join you on it. However it has no place in this discussion and merely represents an attempt from you to distract from my original intentions in this thread, which was, and still is simply to challenge your assertion that "there is no way any religion ... has tried to stop progress of science". An assertion that you still haven't even attempted to defend, all you've done is try to move the argument onto other things, well it's not happening. That is still the one and only thing I'm arguing about here on this thread.

 

Your flogging a dead horse there I'm afraid FJ.

Tabby knows very well that he made a mistake in saying that no religious people have ever tried to stop the advancement of science, he's just too childish and ignorant to admit as such which is obvious by his poor and childish attempts to deflect attention from his faux pas.

[tab1]

Because I gave you 4 examples of religious people trying to suppress scientific progress because of their religious beleifs, oh not-so-wise one.

 

I tried to keep it simple, but you decided to go off on several tangents, bring in unrelated things into the discussion, and deliberately misunderstand me, so I had to resort to multi-quoting. The crux of our argument is still very simple, you said something, I gave 4 examples that showed you to be wrong. I am still waiting for comment on any of these examples.

Jimmy, bringing unrelated things into discussion is exactly what I am asking you, why bring in an out of context argument in such a high fluted way when it wasn't called for. Religions have not managed to stop progress of science so why are you claiming they did? The examples you gave show that science is progressing quite well and no religion has stopped these disciplines because if it had you wouldn't have listed them as examples, in all honesty you wouldn't have known what they are.

 

Please don't try to turn this into an argument about semantics, the question 'how can a religion stop science' is worthless. It was very obvious what was meant earlier. I put into plain language in my last post so there can't really be any misunderstanding, here it is again:

Semantics was brought you into the thread Jimmy boy, when clearly the thread was about the so called Eastern religions being accused by h2m of suppressing science. I have misunderstood nothing here kido, honestly you just take things too seriously if not off topic.

 

"I have given you 4 examples of religious people trying to stop the progress of science because of their religion, you have still addressed none of them and instead have chosen to deliberately misunderstand me and to try and bring unrelated things into the debate."

I said religions and you say religious people and call my post nonsense, semantics indeed, you don't see any difference?

 

I say again no religion has ever managed to stop progress of science.

[tab1]

Your flogging a dead horse there I'm afraid FJ.

Tabby knows very well that he made a mistake in saying that no religious people have ever tried to stop the advancement of science, he's just too childish and ignorant to admit as such which is obvious by his poor and childish attempts to deflect attention from his faux pas.

Seems you are bitter about something eh? I can't recall saying religious people tried to stop the advancement of science, in fact here is what I did say to save you trawling back through the thread

......there is no way any religion can stop or even has tried to stop progress of science and your impression of that being the case is wrong. It's all political I tell ya!!!

And you and Jimmy pretend I say religious people

"I have given you 4 examples of religious people trying to stop the progress of science because of their religion,

[Bloomdido]

If there aren't as many people joining the faith as there are leaving it, that faith will die. The leaders need to recruit fresh young blood to keep their religion alive. Too much science or reason is not good for faith so it is much better to supress, confuse or contradict it.

 

People still believe in UFOs, talking to dead people and astrology despite science. Many believe what they see in adverts and will spend the weekly income of a 3rd World family on one beauty product.

 

I don't think humans are designed to be rational or logical. People want to believe in 'stuff' even if there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.

[flamingjimmy]

I said religions and you say religious people and call my post nonsense, semantics indeed, you don't see any difference?

 

I say again no religion has ever managed to stop progress of science.

 

That is a stupid distinction to make, religions are concepts, they can't really do anything. religious people can do things because of them though, which is clearly what you meant. Religions only exist inside people's heads, so religion can't do anything, but people can do things because of religion. But then again you are the guy who argues that suicide bombers who explicitly say that they're doing it because of their religion aren't doing it because of religion.

 

Congratulations on wearing me down I can't be bothered to argue with you about this anymore, anyone reading our full discourse will know what's up.

 

Anywho I'm off out now, have a nice night.

[hard2miss]

Like the "118 118 chaps", h2m, I think we've got your number, 100%. we definitely have your agenda worked out.

 

I don't need to steer you into the rocks, you are quite close enough to the wind in the comments you make.

 

And yes, even before the title of this thread was changed to a less controversial theme, it was more than obvious what your agenda was.

And I have your number, I changed the word west to science so that wasnt the big change you make out. The fact that your actually admitting your hatred of the west by your statement means no one even has to shirlock homes you, why is the word west confrontational to you as a Muslim then ?

[hard2miss]

Oooh lets nit pick, So you are now contradicting my claim that no religion can stop science, would you also provide examples where religion has indeed stopped progress of science. Was it the religion that tried to stop the progress of science or the people who interpreted it as such?

 

How did a religion that already exists stop something that came on the scene hundreds of years late Jimmy boy? Surely it would be some followers of some religions who would take that view and even then it would seem as I suggested they were unable to stop the progress of science. Oh and remind us where this taking place the East or the West? If it is the West then where does that leave the OP's argument that somehow the West is in conflict with people from the East because the Easterners are trying t stop science?

 

Very childish to start being nasty when there is no call for it, but hey if you wish it to be so then tango I shall.

 

You are choosing to ignore my request to educate us all about the principle of first cause as it seems you may be out of depth on your own but happy enough to act the chuawa yelping at the heels when others more senior Atheists are doing the explaining, figures.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

This is what the topic is about, so you can call off the anti Muslim brigade, I have found something to read up on rarther than sit here arguing about your self importance as being a Muslim and how much the world hates you for it.

 

By the way, check the link out, It kind of up holds the topics theme and may shed some like for you that religion does in fact have problems with science.

 

good look on weeding out any other closet Islamaphobes on your quest to stifal any debate that may be about religion and yours imparticular.