Communicating Atheism (pt 6) Q & A

Panel Discussion: Communicating Atheism
at the World Atheist Convention
O'Callaghan Alexander Hotel,
Dublin Ireland 2011

Rebecca Watson
http://skepchick.org/

AronRa
http://www.youtube.com/AronRa/

Tom Melchiorre
http://www.atheistalliance.org/

Richard Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• AronRa
• Rebecca
• Watson
• Skepchick
• Tom
• Melchiorre
• Secular
• World
• Atheist
• Alliance
• Richard
• Dawkins
• O'Callahan
• Alexander
• Hotel
• Dublin
• Ireland
• 2011

[caveatemp]

@thomaseshuis Are you insinuating that your view is actual/factual/true just because you wrote it? Is it a fallacy that you authored it?

You really don't need to copy my words into your comments. I know what I wrote. I know your position now. Thanks for clarifying. You don't need to keep repeating yourself.

[thomaseshuis]

@caveatemp "It's not a fallacy to say who authored the idea." No but it is a fallacy to insinuate his position is accurate/factual/true just because he is a professor or wrote a book about it.

"Seeing cause and effect patterns does not negate the fact that people see a rational mind behind them." It does negate the idea that theism is the ground for (modern science).

[caveatemp]

@thomaseshuis It's not a fallacy to say who authored the idea. Agree with it or disagree with it, it's still Whitehead's idea. Seeing cause and effect patterns does not negate the fact that people see a rational mind behind them. You see instinct, cause, and effect. Newton saw these too and he saw the rational mind of God behind them. Get over yourself.

[thomaseshuis]

@caveatemp "Argue your point with Sir Alfred North Whitehead. It's his idea." Argument from authority fallacy.

Whitehead isn't the supreme authority on the birth of modern science. There are many theories and books written about these topics.

"m talking about the development of the scientific method." Again this relied on the human instinct to see patterns, cause and effect. Not theology.

[caveatemp]

@thomaseshuis Argue your point with Sir Alfred North Whitehead. It's his idea. He wrote Mathematica Principia with Bertrand Russell. I'm talking about the development of the scientific method. Their religion did not have a creator. Chinese don't think of the world as 'made' but 'grown.'

[thomaseshuis]

@caveatemp "Conversely, China, which did not have this theological grounding did not develop science at that time." China already had a long tradition of religions and several centuries of inventions like gunpowder, the compass (B.C.) and paper.

Sorry to say but your historical knowledge is a bit lacking.

[thomaseshuis]

@caveatemp "It was the idea that nature was ordered and had the rational mind of God behind it that gave rise to the explosion of science in the west during the 16th and 17th centuries." You do realise that this idea has nothing to do with gods and everything with the human tendency to see cause and effect and patterns?

[caveatemp]

@thomaseshuis It was the idea that nature was ordered and had the rational mind of God behind it that gave rise to the explosion of science in the west during the 16th and 17th centuries. Conversely, China, which did not have this theological grounding did not develop science at that time. They got it from the west.

[thomaseshuis]

@caveatemp "All scientists have a priori bias in approaching data. .... Theology doesn't do science, it's the grounding for it." How do you figure this complete non-sequitur?

[uruson]

@caveatemp If one succeeds, it would indeed take time for the scientific community to confirm, after which the event would certainly go down in history.

I fail to see where theology enters this whole process.

Perhaps you have some definition of theology that is different from the definition provided in dictionaries?