where did you read that from?
it just means that john lennox has a closed mind when it comes to religion

How to explain this...

The church is not explicitly anti science. That is correct. It is however anti-anything that opposes the bible. Incidentally it runs into conflicts with science often because there are no such boundaries in the scientific quest for knowledge. Galileo being one of the famous cases of this.

Now, to keep it real, religion has played a major role as a stabilizing factor in all societies allowing for the development of science, technology and various schools of thought on a variety of subject matter. I would not deny the role it played in allowing society to progress to where it has today but im not blindly devoted to any faith to deny the very real restrictions it has placed on our growth. I don't think there are any alternatives which would have got us this far so i don't mind it so much.

This post was edited by duffman316 on Oct 1 2014 04:30am

historians reject coflict thesis, with good reason.
the first European university since Plato's academia was founded in Bologna, on the orders of the pope and clergymen dominated medieval philosophy (natural and otherwise).


well, you can thank the Romans and the Greeks for the humoral theory

the 15:th century natural philosopher and theologian Nicholas of Cusa already proposed a non-geocentric model. he was a cardinal


medieval advances in agriculture were massive, the horse collar, horseshoes, heavy plough, European wheel barrow, three field crop rotation etc. had a great effect on Europe. later medieval times saw many, many advances as well - and their architecture certainly wasn't inferior to the Romans' at all.
agricultural advances are kind of important if you like to eat, or you consider starvation to not to be an option. doubly so in the case that slaves can't be forced to toil on gigantic estates as was the case with the Roman system of latifundias


Brahe's model was better.
@bolded - rubbish

An apologetic is often a total moron who tries to argue the unarguable. You can't prove god exists... what's the point in being a christian apologetic?

John Lennox is a total buffoon and the fact you try to regurgitate his arguments so often is of constant amusement to me. Especially when you're not even capable of understanding them yourself.

There's plenty of things that no one can prove, but the important thing is to establish enough evidence so that your conclusion is at least reasonable.

John Lennox is a mathematician at Oxford, and you think he's a buffoon. This is the intellectual narcissism that is so prevalent in the atheist community.




Oh, and btw, PMing someone and then blocking them is a bitch move.

This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 4 2014 09:45am

You're not blocked. I had to unblock you to PM you.

Not a single apologetic I have seen has been able to give enough evidence to make the conclusion that their particular version of a Christian god existing is a reasonable one. Some have managed to show that it's possible that a god or godlike being could possibly exist and it's dishonest to rule it out entirely.

If you have a particular apologetic in mind that you think makes a reasonable argument to support their particular belief I would genuinely be interested to see it. Preferably as a video of a lecture or debate but if one is not available I'm not averse to reading.

Plantinga's not an apologist per se but rather a real academic philosopher, but his book Warranted Christian Belief basically ended the discussion on whether belief in God can be rational (it can). So if you feel like reading...

No, you PMed me like the attention whore you are, and when I tried to PM you back it says I was blocked.

Not a single atheist I have seen has been able to convince me that the reasonable choice is to believe God does not exist.

I listen and read many apologetics so I would just go with the popular ones. Atheists who are naturalists basically cut themselves off from the metaphysical, so there's really no point in reading more about a field you think is bullshit.

I can tell you why it's reasonable in one short post.

There is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of one particular God. Most (if not all) religions' holy books and scripture contain assertations we can verify through observation to be false. If belief in one particular god is not reasonable then belief in any god or gods to the exclusion of all others is also not reasonable. The only reasonable conclusion is to live life as if there is no god.

FYI metaphysical or not Christianity makes the claim that their god affects what happens in the physical world. If that is true there would be physical evidence to support that. There isn't.

Also - belief or non belief is not a choice. I do not choose to not be convinced by apologetics' arguments. They simply have not presented me with an argument that is convincing to me.