Glad we agree on the uselessness of theology.

No, my answer was more thoughtful than that.

Your philosophy of scientism does injury to Science.

Please change your picture back to that sexual harasser you idolize.
I feel like I'm talking to Santa Claus.

Being a lover of sci-fi and fantasy, I use this phrase all the time to justify my writing. Using a good veil of ignorance, you can create appealing magic systems that are naturalistic. The genre is mythic sci-fi.

Why didn't you thank me a couple of years back when I mentioned that phrase here?

You are so deafly biased.

ant wrote:

Glad we agree on the uselessness of theology.

No, my answer was more thoughtful than that.

Your philosophy of scientism does injury to Science.

Please change your picture back to that sexual harasser you idolize.
I feel like I'm talking to Santa Claus.

Do you want to claim that theology adds useful knowledge about the world? Doesn't sound like you're able to defend it. You just feel bad about it, because...scientism.

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote:

Glad we agree on the uselessness of theology.

No, my answer was more thoughtful than that.

Your philosophy of scientism does injury to Science.

Please change your picture back to that sexual harasser you idolize.
I feel like I'm talking to Santa Claus.

Do you want to claim that theology adds useful knowledge about the world? Doesn't sound like you're able to defend it. You just feel bad about it, because...scientism.

the definition of "scientism" and my pointing out that you are a philosopher of it speaks for itself.

um.., duh..

ant wrote:
the definition of "scientism" and my pointing out that you are a philosopher of it speaks for itself.

um.., duh..

See you next thread. At least you defeated the phantom about the Dawkins quote.

No, my answer was more thoughtful than that.

Your philosophy of scientism does injury to Science.

Please change your picture back to that sexual harasser you idolize.
I feel like I'm talking to Santa Claus.

It's interesting watching you so completely misunderstand someone else for a change. Dexter was saying that the investigation of miracles using different fields changes how we see the miracle. If it's a scientific investigation, the miracle is rightly treated as an anomaly, which aren't rare and aren't special.

You turned 90 degrees and were flabbergasted that he didn't mention how Islam had great scientists.

Even if Dexter was wrong, or you disagree, or his point was illogical, you simply didn't follow it at all. I agree with him though,and it does relate to ACC's third rule. Maybe there should be a fourth rule: Any sufficiently misunderstood phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic.

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote:
the definition of "scientism" and my pointing out that you are a philosopher of it speaks for itself.

um.., duh..

See you next thread. At least you defeated the phantom about the Dawkins quote.

Umm, what?

Again, and for the last time.., I've already addressed this a couple of times here on BT.
I made a brief theological and philosophical statement about it.
It might have been when you were absent from BT for a few months.

There's a search function that you are welcomed to utilize.
If you'd like help with it send me a private message and I can walk you through it.

This..,

I know you're trying to be politically correct, but do you consult Islamic theologians (or pick another religion) to help you understand the world? Of course not, because you know they have nothing useful to teach you unless you're trying to live as a Muslim.

is not this..,

Dexter was saying that the investigation of miracles using different fields changes how we see the miracle. If it's a scientific investigation, the miracle is rightly treated as an anomaly, which aren't rare and aren't special.

That was Dexter's initial comment/question.

Islamic scientific contributors did not practice science to "help them live like a Muslim"
He wasn't even referring specifically to miracles.
That's stupid.




I mean, really.
You'd make a horrible lawyer.

If Dexter is having trouble formulating a question he should elaborate.

Your little "Interbane to the rescue" act here is pathetic now.
Stick to your own guns and let others speak for themselves for a change.

Interbane..,

Look how much time you've spent here telling us what other people meant and telling us what you think.

You are being totally dishonest when you tell Flann that you don't have time to view his links.

The amount of time you spend per day telling other people what you think and why you think what they think is wrong is more than enough to make an honest effort to view what is generously offered to you.

You are just a hawk promoting a hawkish attitude in these discussions.

You don't fool me.

That was Dexter's initial comment/question.

Only in antland. This was Dexter's original comment:

And if there was a "Christian miracle" that was of interest to non-Christians, they would just be called scientific anomalies by everyone else. Then people do research on them.

Then he used Islam as the vehicle of the analogy, hoping you would see his point then if he used a different religion. But you misunderstood him.

He asked what Muslim theology has to teach you about the workings of the world(Not Islamic science, but Islamic theology). This is the only interpretation that logically follows from his original comment, and if you had an ounce of intellectual empathy you'd see that.

If Dexter is having trouble formulating a question he should elaborate.

You're not even in the ballpark ant. No, he should not reformulate what he's saying. Not even close. I easily understood what he meant, so the issue wasn't his. Instead, you should at least pretend to make an effort understanding him in a favorable fashion. In all your time on Booktalk, if one of the resident agnostic/atheists words say one thing, but you know his intent is slightly different, you always interpret it in the way that isn't intended. You have never once displayed intellectual empathy that I've seen.

As this tangent relates to the thread, Carrier mentioned this in the start of his book. His words should be interpreted in the most charitable fashion if there is any confusion as to what he means. It's a request for the reader to engage in intellectual empathy. Maybe this takes a bit too much intellectual courage for some.

You are being totally dishonest when you tell Flann that you don't have time to view his links.

Yep, totally dishonest. Thanks for interpreting my words charitably ant. I couldn't only have been referring to that day or couple of days. I have time to view all links, given the right day. I usually can't view video's, which is what I think you're actually referring to.