Which side makes a better case?
avatar
22 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • woodox87
  • Draw
  • briandubdub
  • a year ago

    I'm on stand by!

    • a year ago

      Alright you guys are up in 8 min @woodox87 and @briandubdub

      • a year ago

        I'm ready

        • a year ago

          ...? Any issues?

          • a year ago
            • a year ago

              @woodox87 one sec, Brian is restarting his browser

              • a year ago

                Guy on the left knows his stuff

                • a year ago

                  you guys are both awesome for your knowledge and studies in this subject.. i say Woodox87 wins due to in our history we had to come to a belief and reason for fundamentalism. So thus creating a common reason for the importance of starting to record data in the first place....religion is scientific processes predecessor.

                  • a year ago

                    Not being able to hear Brian's reply really stifled my chances. I definitely had rebuttals for the ending comments, but, alas, no time to share them. :/

                  • a year ago

                    @woodox87 feel free to leave a video comment if you want to leave a closing statement or rebuttal

                    • a year ago

                      The scriptural references for the geocentric views I spoke of: http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric/

                      • a year ago

                        So sorry about the technical issues. If I win this whole thing I'll buy a decent mic. :)

                        • a year ago

                          A rebuttal is to come, just got to put the offspring to bed.

                          • a year ago

                            @woodox87 makes great points... I do have one major objection to his argument though.

                            Just because science rose in Christian ideologies or during times when religion was prevalent, doesn't necessarily mean religion catalyzed scientific findings. this is a classic case of confusing causality vs. correlation.

                            Unfortunately i could not hear the whole first argument that briandubdub made..

                            • a year ago

                              urrrmmm... can't hear the guy on the right.

                              • a year ago

                                Brian had the easier side to argue. He did not articulate himself very well and did not bring up the most brilliant scientist of all time who surely was not religious. Tesla

                                • a year ago

                                  Ccvc

                                  • a year ago

                                    Religion is fundamental to scientific progress and reasoning?Historically, it might have been. I'll go so far as to say it probably _was_. But nowadays? No.

                                    If the proposition had been, "Religion _was_ fundamental to scientific progress and reasoning," I probably would have agreed with it.

                                    • a year ago

                                      Taoism is the foundation of modern quantum physics...You really just say science didn't arise in China? China had some of the strongest engineering of it's time. Dynasties existed while most of Europe were still just tribes.

                                      I am very aware of the scientific discoveries Christianity, The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic Priest...

                                      I don't devalue the Science Christianity has brought us...but where do you get the notion that they are the only Religion that has Scientific discovery @woodox87 ?

                                      To say that the rise of Science happened in the "Western Christian World" has got to be the most miseducated notion ever...Taoist priests talked about Quantam Mechanics that are being affirmed by Quantum Physicists today...

                                      • a year ago

                                        Nothing @woodox87 ?

                                      • a year ago

                                        I apologize, I didn't get your message.

                                        Firstly, I make no claim that Christianity is the sole founder of Scientific achievement. Considering I labeled Islam, Judaism, and Greco-Roman polytheism as nations that contributed to Science. I'm definitely not excluding India, who contributed massively to Medicine and Physics.

                                        Engineering is not Science. As I also stated, technology is not Science. It's actually notoriously difficult to define what science is. A simplistic definition is a series of processes and methologies employed to deduce the nature of the physical world. Exceedingly broad, and comes with its own problems, but shows that technology arises out of need, not as a direct result of scientific process.

                                        Secondly, modern Science DID arise out of the western world. Modern Science being the system of Science, not the pursuit of Science. Lots of countries wondered about the world, but very few progressed in developing advanced systems of scientific operations. Becareful with the uneducated shit, you have no idea what it is that I know. I was allowed 20 minutes to explain something that took me 7 years to understand. There is a lot I didn't cover.