Fractelle,

I’m starting to wonder if the issue is the history I point to or the fact that it relates to Christianity. If I was Chinese I could point out that noodles are originally from China and that they must be useful food because they have spread throughout the world. Would someone challenge this saying that Mesopotamians baked bread so noodles aren’t from China and avoid answering me if I asked if their concept of noodle was different from mine? Would someone point to partial noodle bans once every couple of hundred of years in China and argue that noodles are in spite of China rather than because of it? Would someone turn on me telling me I am ignorant and I need to come down off my high horse and stop thinking my culture is superior just because I cited something positive that China produced?

I don’t think so. This doesn’t seem to be about the facts. Hopefully you aren’t prejudiced and don’t think that Christians are ignorant and intellectually backward and feel threatened by contrary information. Hopefully the problem is just a breach of atheist dogma. I’m the one who is supposed to be religious but I’m just trying to point to history. You seem to be getting very emotional about the issue as if atheism or another non-Christian belief system is more of a religion to you then Christianity is to me. This type of reaction reinforces in me that I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I just hope I have enough faith to be a Christian. I am otherwise Christian but do I have enough zeal?

I agree with Philo’s comments about stem cell research. Claiming it is interference in science is like saying criticizing Nazi experiments on Jews is interference in science. Bear with me. If you look past the rhetorical nature of the comparison (honestly the only one that came to mind) the point is just that Christians offer one of many ethical opinions that relate to a subset of stem cell research. That is incomparable with Gallileo interference.

The noodle analogy is pure sophistry. Why does the Flying Spaghetti Monster spring to mind?

mjpb: "I agree with Philo’s comments about stem cell research. Claiming it is interference in science is like saying criticizing Nazi experiments on Jews is interference in science"

There you go. Once again, Godwin's Law comes into play. Withdrawal from this excuse for a discussion is perfectly permissible.

Mjpb & Philo

I couldn't have made my points without you.

Thank you

Quod erat demonstrandum

CJ,

“The noodle analogy is pure sophistry. Why does the Flying Spaghetti Monster spring to mind?”

Because if, with wishful thinking, you convince yourself that the noodle analogy is sophistry then other sophistry involving spaghetti would come to mind.

Is the noodle analogy sophistry or a reasonable comparison? One group is responsible for one thing and another group another. Not much room for sophistry. But people inadvertently make invalid analogies all the time. If you stop chanting sophistry and have a go at a genuine critique you never know your luck.

”There you go. Once again, Godwin's Law comes into play. Withdrawal from this excuse for a discussion is perfectly permissible.”

“Coincidentally”, that extreme application of that version of Godwins law conveniently suits your previous post even though it seems to go against the grain of the obvious purpose behind the termination rule.

I guess the question is whether Godwins law tradition for discussion groups applies or should apply only when the first person compares the other with a Nazi (the normal grievance) or whether it applies in completely different situations as in this case. Heck it isn’t even hyperbolic just rhetorical and that is acknowledged and worked around. Christians believe the relevant types of experimentation kill babies so the depth of feeling about the ethics is similar. It is still the only other example of human experimentation being criticized on ethical considerations that I have thought of.

Maybe there is automatic termination if the word Nazi pops up. However it has been suggested that using a Nazi comparison for yourself is outside the rule because you are not attacking your debate opponent as a Nazi. This suggests that the usual use falls within the rule but my type of use does not. Indeed it has been argued that Godwin’s law can be abused fallaciously as a distraction or diversion… analogous to your sophistry claims.

Fractelle,

umm you are welcome...presumably after revisiting the posts I'll admire the subtlety...see you next time

Will creationists automatically disown more highly educated and more knowledgeable christians who affirm the following:

"We are convinced the masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and the other primates beyond serious dispute." (PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES)

Oooh......was the Pope happy about that?

Interestingly enough, Christians do try to tell you where you're going...I demand answers and evidence from their Masters. If they know where we're going, then they should treat their own claims with the same expectation of evidence that they want from science.

mjpb, of course your noodle analogy is sophistry, this is beacuse you have made a serious category error. Noodles are a thing, an object, science is not. Science itself is a multifactorial process not an object or invention, as such it cannot have been "invented". The "scientific method" may have been invented somewhat, but even that isn't fully acknowledged to have been by "Christian Europe" (google: Al-Biruni + scientfic method)

In fact many sciences predated Christianity (eg astronomy, even if the purposes were not strictly scientific, the descriptive measurements and predictive values are still considered scientific) and many of the ideas that science incorporates in the accumulation of knowledge are ancient.

Science is not like "noodles", science is more like "cooking" - who invented "cooking"?