Muslim store clerk pointing rifle at robber shows mercy to him by giving him $40 and a loaf of bread

[Zaya]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44795640]

...Uh, what?

Can I point to proof that the preliminary form of a theory is not what we currently base our theories on? Okay, well I guess if you really are that scientifically and historically ignorant

[/QUOTE]

Uh what? I didn't ask for proof that the theory isn't what it was based on, I asked for proof that the calenders were changed to a heliocentric model, and the Galileo proved it. The primary argument against it is from Aristotle that Galileo couldn't prove was "If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars." It was impossible to see the parallax shift in stars from such primitive telescopes.

And in Galileo’s time nearly every major thinker had geocentric view, can you really blame them for being suspicious to something that contradicted the writings of almost every Greek philosopher?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44795640]
Whilst he came up with an early version the theory, theories change massively over their life times. Lemaitre pointed in the right direction. Scientists followed. But of course, it's a [B]"religious" discovery [/B]every time someone argues this even though 3 of the participants in the theory aren't religious.[/QUOTE]

When did I say this?

[QUOTE]

well I guess if you really are that scientifically and historically ignorant

[/QUOTE]No need for insults.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44801988]Why should people have to believe them?[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they had to.

[QUOTE]How can you test whether the physical world you observe exists? How can you test that there is ultimately a consistent cause for each effect? How can you test whether we are capable of comprehending the universe? Also perhaps the universe merely appears to have rules and structure to you, how can you prove those rules exist without relying on them?[/QUOTE]

I guess you can't ever prove anything in any sense at all. That's very true. I just think that is a waste of time.

[QUOTE]The scientific method is not a product of Muslim society.[/QUOTE]

It's not a product of christian societies either.

[QUOTE]I never said Christianity is an approach to science, I'm not quite sure what that means in fact.[/QUOTE]

You stated that it's where science came from and that many aspects of christianity are the basis of science's philosophical start(not true)

[QUOTE]Where's the double standard? I am just recognizing that without the philosophical basis for Christianity we would not have the scientific method as it is. I can tell you that science came from the underpinnings of Christianity because not only was it devised by Christians with a strong basis in Christian culture, but because its rudimentary assumptions about how the universe works are the same.
[/QUOTE]
Without the underpinnings of Aristotlian thought, science wouldn't exist, why are you so quick to give it to your own religion, while curiously denying one of the greatest scientific societies of earth(The golden age of the islamic empire) because of their religion?

[QUOTE]I think you would have a hard time defending the claim that I have ever remotely implied this.[/QUOTE]

I'm having a hard time understanding how you're giving your own religion the entire credit of sciences history without understanding how it severely impeded it in it's own right as well. That it took knowledge, hoarded it, and even made some of it illegal.

How. Is. This. Scientific.

[editline]13th May 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Fayez;44802213]Uh what? I didn't ask for proof that the theory isn't what it was based on, I asked for proof that the calenders were changed to a heliocentric model, and the Galileo proved it. The primary argument against it is from Aristotle that Galileo couldn't prove was "If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars." It was impossible to see the parallax shift in stars from such primitive telescopes.

And in Galileo’s time nearly every major thinker had geocentric view, can you really blame them for being suspicious to something that contradicted the writings of almost every Greek philosopher?

When did I say this?

No need for insults.[/QUOTE]

Okay then. You should have made that clear.

Proof is that the calenders were changed in 1582(sorry, I got the year wrong by a decade, my bad) for accuracy.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei[/url]

[QUOTE]In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[53] despite the use of Copernican theories to reform the calendar in 1582.[54][/QUOTE]

Yeah, Galieo kind of invented telescopes that could do that

You said specifically [QUOTE]Wasn't it a Catholic who proposed the Big Bang Theory and the Catholic Church one of the first religious institution to accept it?[/QUOTE] making it clear to me at least that it's a religiously important discovery.

[Ghosevil]

Pointing a rifle at his head and then converting him? I thought we Americans had some kind of a copyright on that..

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44802988]I didn't say they had to.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss]It's basically all anyone has to go on...[/QUOTE]

This quote implies that people are forced to come to the axioms I mentioned.

[QUOTE]I guess you can't ever prove anything in any sense at all. That's very true. I just think that is a waste of time.[/QUOTE]

So it's only a waste of time to contemplate whether those specific beliefs are true?

[QUOTE]It's not a product of christian societies either.[/QUOTE]

Surely you do not mean that the scientific method did not emerge from a Christian society?

[QUOTE]You stated that it's where science came from and that many aspects of christianity are the basis of science's philosophical start(not true)

Without the underpinnings of Aristotlian thought, science wouldn't exist, why are you so quick to give it to your own religion, while curiously denying one of the greatest scientific societies of earth(The golden age of the islamic empire) because of their religion?[/QUOTE]

Aristotle was certainly a brilliant man and came to conclusions about the universe that were startlingly similar to Judaism and later Christianity, but as much as the Scholastics influenced western society, it was all done within the context of Christianity nonetheless. Aristotle's conclusions simply affirm what Judaism (and again later Christianity) has claimed.

[QUOTE]I'm having a hard time understanding how you're giving your own religion the entire credit of sciences history without understanding how it severely impeded it in it's own right as well. That it took knowledge, hoarded it, and even made some of it illegal.[/QUOTE]

Certain historical figures in the church certainly impeded scientific research, the doctrine of Christianity does not however.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44803284]This quote implies that people are forced to come to the axioms I mentioned.[/QUOTE]

No. It however is the only constructive basis to go off of.

[QUOTE]So it's only a waste of time to contemplate whether those specific beliefs are true?[/QUOTE]

Whether reality is real or not is irrelavent if what we experience as or in place of reality is as real as we can understand. For all you know, there is nothing, and you have hallucinated the screen in front of you. Trust me, you couldn't tell the difference with a real hallucination that was convincing enough.

[QUOTE]Surely you do not mean that the scientific method did not emerge from a Christian society?[/QUOTE]

It didn't. You keep saying it did but you've yet to point out one reason it relied on christianity specifically to become what it is. To me, when you say that science wouldn't have come about without your specific religion, you're saying your religion is the only way we learned to see "truth" and that your religion is responsible for all the good things you can attribute to science.

I've studied the history of science. The philosophy of science. Yet, none of my courses or learning material says what you're peddling as truth ever came about.

[QUOTE]Aristotle was certainly a brilliant man and came to conclusions about the universe that were startlingly similar to Judaism and later Christianity, but as much as the Scholastics influenced western society, it was all done within the context of Christianity nonetheless. Aristotle's conclusions simply affirm what Judaism (and again later Christianity) has claimed.[/QUOTE]

Uh, okay but you'll have to source some of this cause besides the church later adopting aristoltian theories and ideas, I don't know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE]Certain historical figures in the church certainly impeded scientific research, the doctrine of Christianity does not however.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't? I'd say any document that says it is the one and only truth and the words contained therein are the only true ones to be said is very anti scientific. I'd say drawing up your conclusion and then fitting the evidence to it is very unscientific.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44804571]No. It however is the only constructive basis to go off of.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by "the only constructive basis"?

[QUOTE]Whether reality is real or not is irrelavent if what we experience as or in place of reality is as real as we can understand. For all you know, there is nothing, and you have hallucinated the screen in front of you. Trust me, you couldn't tell the difference with a real hallucination that was convincing enough.[/QUOTE]

So there are certain beliefs that shouldn't be questioned then?

[QUOTE]It didn't. You keep saying it did but you've yet to point out one reason it relied on christianity specifically to become what it is. To me, when you say that science wouldn't have come about without your specific religion, you're saying your religion is the only way we learned to see "truth" and that your religion is responsible for all the good things you can attribute to science.

I've studied the history of science. The philosophy of science. Yet, none of my courses or learning material says what you're peddling as truth ever came about.[/QUOTE]

I believe my religion to be the only way to find ultimate truth, otherwise I wouldn't really be following it. That however does not mean that I believe that truth cannot be found outside of it, only ultimate truth (who God is, the fundamental human condition, the path to salvation).

Certainly the scientific method that was developed required other forms of knowledge, but Christianity was a vital part in the interpretation of this past knowledge.

[QUOTE]Uh, okay but you'll have to source some of this cause besides the church later adopting aristoltian theories and ideas, I don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Aristotle's divine mover (his concept of a god) was unusually similar to what Christianity claims God to be, he even hinted at a concept of original sin whereby humanity is naturally inclined towards chaos. It is true that the church adopted certain writings of his, but the writings on such issues were essentially asserting and extrapolating on what the Christians already believed.

[QUOTE]It doesn't? I'd say any document that says it is the one and only truth and the words contained therein are the only true ones to be said is very anti scientific. I'd say drawing up your conclusion and then fitting the evidence to it is very unscientific.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by anti scientific? I of course agree that theology is not science, but what doctrine of Christianity actually impedes scientific advance?

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44812887]What do you mean by "the only constructive basis"?[/QUOTE]

asking if reality is real is a great question. actively trying to disprove all the world views you disagree with by saying it might as all well not be real is not.

[QUOTE]So there are certain beliefs that shouldn't be questioned then?[/QUOTE]

Nope. Just certain ones that don't yield any results past "well I guess we doubt everything"

[QUOTE]I believe my religion to be the only way to find ultimate truth, otherwise I wouldn't really be following it. That however does not mean that I believe that truth cannot be found outside of it, only ultimate truth (who God is, the fundamental human condition, the path to salvation).
[/QUOTE]
Based on? What a faith based book says, one event in history you take to be literal and true without any proof of. Faith.

[QUOTE]Certainly the scientific method that was developed required other forms of knowledge, but Christianity was a vital part in the interpretation of this past knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Explain. You say this with no further explanation. Nothing i've learnt tells me this.
[QUOTE]
Aristotle's divine mover (his concept of a god) was unusually similar to what Christianity claims God to be, he even hinted at a concept of original sin whereby humanity is naturally inclined towards chaos. It is true that the church adopted certain writings of his, but the writings on such issues were essentially asserting and extrapolating on what the Christians already believed.[/QUOTE]

Okay.

[QUOTE]What do you mean by anti scientific? I of course agree that theology is not science, but what doctrine of Christianity actually impedes scientific advance?[/QUOTE]

Faith requires belief in something without proof. When you're confronted with scientific knowledge that the religion disagrees with, faith should prevail in a religious persons mind as faith is truth and the knowledge that contradicts it cannot be right. I think that is by its very nature unscientific

[cucumber]

Islam is religion of peace

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44813135]asking if reality is real is a great question. actively trying to disprove all the world views you disagree with by saying it might as all well not be real is not.[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to disprove anything, I'm showing you that science is still ultimately based on faith.

[QUOTE]Nope. Just certain ones that don't yield any results past "well I guess we doubt everything"[/QUOTE]

So just to be clear, you're saying that we should not doubt everything?

[QUOTE]Based on? What a faith based book says, one event in history you take to be literal and true without any proof of. Faith. [/QUOTE]

Ultimately based on faith, yes, just as any world view. That faith is heavily supplemented by current knowledge of the natural world and history though.

[QUOTE]Explain. You say this with no further explanation. Nothing i've learnt tells me this.[/QUOTE]

Well if Aristotle's world view was so similar to Christianity's, who else would have been able to properly adopt his conclusions?

[QUOTE]Faith requires belief in something without proof. When you're confronted with scientific knowledge that the religion disagrees with, faith should prevail in a religious persons mind as faith is truth and the knowledge that contradicts it cannot be right. I think that is by its very nature unscientific[/QUOTE]

Faith is when you believe in something that is not proven, it is not necessary to have no proof for something in order to have faith in it.

Also you have still not shown any doctrine of Christianity that impedes science. I have never contested the point that theology is not science.

[Amber902]

Don't you just love how people start needlessly bashing religion in a thread that only marginally relates to religion?

Lets just leave it at a dick is a dick regardless of beliefs and vice versa.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44820131]I'm not trying to disprove anything, I'm showing you that science is still ultimately based on faith.

Ultimately based on faith, yes, just as any world view. That faith is heavily supplemented by current knowledge of the natural world and history though.[/QUOTE]

Why is it your beliefs get to be supplemented by those knowledges but science can't? Why do you get to claim that your particular belief in say, the resurrection is reasonable based on nothing but accounts that most people can't even remotely agree on, but you draw literal conclusions from these.

It seems like a really bad level of intellectual dishonesty to say that, to make the goal posts so misaligned you can't be wrong.

[QUOTE]So just to be clear, you're saying that we should not doubt everything?[/QUOTE]

We can question it, we should. But you're not. You have solid faith in your beliefs whilst asking anyone else to acknowledge they might just be heads in vats with sensory input faked. You're not picking this argument for any reason I can understand because it's a double edged sword against your own beliefs.

I just can't understand why you bring up this argument at all.
[QUOTE]Well if Aristotle's world view was so similar to Christianity's, who else would have been able to properly adopt his conclusions?[/QUOTE]

This isn't really evidence or an argument. His thoughts were written down and well regarded long before the Church came about. You don't think that had anything to do with the church adopting some(not all) of his beliefs and arguments.

[QUOTE]Faith is when you believe in something that is not proven, it is not necessary to have no proof for something in order to have faith in it.

Also you have still not shown any doctrine of Christianity that impedes science. I have never contested the point that theology is not science.[/QUOTE]

No just said that christianity is solely responsible for scientific thought

not another view, not another religion, or another people, christianity is behind modern science were your words. unfounded.

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44821676]Why is it your beliefs get to be supplemented by those knowledges but science can't? Why do you get to claim that your particular belief in say, the resurrection is reasonable based on nothing but accounts that most people can't even remotely agree on, but you draw literal conclusions from these.[/QUOTE]

The base assumptions of science can never be supported by scientific evidence. That's like me supporting my claims by saying, "because I said so."

What do you mean by, "why do you get to claim that your belief... ...is reasonable?"

Also just because scholars in an area may disagree on a matter does not mean it is unreasonable to take a position on the matter.

[QUOTE]It seems like a really bad level of intellectual dishonesty to say that, to make the goal posts so misaligned you can't be wrong.[/QUOTE]

You use the goal post analogy a lot, but I can never get a good idea of what you are referring to with it.

[QUOTE]We can question it, we should.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44804571]No. It however is the only constructive basis to go off of.[/QUOTE]

So you think that we should do what you deem as nonconstructive?

[QUOTE]You have solid faith in your beliefs whilst asking anyone else to acknowledge they might just be heads in vats with sensory input faked. You're not picking this argument for any reason I can understand because it's a double edged sword against your own beliefs.

I just can't understand why you bring up this argument at all.[/QUOTE]

This is a misunderstanding of why I initially brought up the argument at all. As I have stated, I am not trying to propagate lack of confidence in the fundamental axioms of science, I am trying to show you that science is ultimately based on faith (which you notably said science could not exit in the presence of).

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44804571]You can't have the scientific method with faith. Period.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]This isn't really evidence or an argument. His thoughts were written down and well regarded long before the Church came about. You don't think that had anything to do with the church adopting some(not all) of his beliefs and arguments.[/QUOTE]

Yet they were not embraced by the other societies that had access to them, he was ultimately exiled from Greek society and his teachings deemed incompatible with Islam (interestingly enough, based on his very fundamental claims about the universe) by a majority of medieval Muslim philosophers. Yes Christianity is ultimately not the same as what Aristotle believed and not all of his conclusions were adopted, but none-the-less it just happened to be the perfect religion to come about as his writings were resurfacing.

It seems to me somewhat useless to try and down-play the connection between Aristotle's writings and Christianity when the Church fathers, some of the most influential figures in Christendom, were the ones that adopted his philosophies.

[QUOTE]No just said that christianity is solely responsible for scientific thought

not another view, not another religion, or another people, christianity is behind modern science were your words. unfounded.[/QUOTE]

In a way it is, as every other culture before it (although making its own scientific discoveries) failed to develop a formalized method like the Christian west.

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44828360]The base assumptions of science can never be supported by scientific evidence. That's like me supporting my claims by saying, "because I said so."[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. If you observed the moon repeat a pattern every month for 12 months 12 years in a row and you made an observation about that, in your eyes as you just said, it's literally not backed by anything and you could come up and say "well the moon can't rise tonight" and by all accounts because evidence doesn't seem to work in a way that supports science, you'd be right? Or what? I'm not sure how you can say "scientific evidence can't back up science". So what can? So how do we do complicated electronics? You're saying we can't really understand those things from scientific evidences because science can't make science work. How does anything make sense in your world view?

[QUOTE]What do you mean by, "why do you get to claim that your belief... ...is reasonable?"[/QUOTE]

You've always maintained that your belief is rational and reasonable with the amounts of evidence you give. You give very little lee way on that point in my opinion. You do not admit your faith in a ancient event that cannot be properly corroborated is possibly even minorly out of the realm of "reasonable". My point from there is that you claim your belief is reasonable with these lax criteria and criticize mine and anyone else for the same thing.

[QUOTE]You use the goal post analogy a lot, but I can never get a good idea of what you are referring to with it.
[/QUOTE]
The goal posts in an argument are how much evidence someone has to give you for you to agree on a certain point. It seems when you argue, the goal posts for the evidence you require from me or anyone arguing with you are progressively higher the longer the argument goes on making it seem that it's not an argument, it's a sermon of sorts.

You make this big appeal to faith, that we all simply must have faith in something as all beliefs are at their heart faith and non existent and not supported by anything. But then you make this caveat for your views that they are evidenced and supported by evidence, as well as faith. But if faith is all that matters and your faith is strong enough, why does any evidence matter? I just don't get the point.

[QUOTE]So you think that we should do what you deem as nonconstructive?[/QUOTE]

Answer me this simply. Is a view point that insists reality is not real and results in a person sitting in place never moving and doubting the very reality in front of you, in any subjective sense you can make, is that "constructive"?

No, i'm not saying that. There is no objective standard. There is no subjective standard we can all agree on. You cannot give me an objective one that doesn't seem to be purely subjective. What is constructive in your view?

[QUOTE]This is a misunderstanding of why I initially brought up the argument at all. As I have stated, I am not trying to propagate lack of confidence in the fundamental axioms of science, I am trying to show you that science is ultimately based on faith (which you notably said science could not exit in the presence of).[/QUOTE]

Everything is based off of faith by your argument. I do not agree. Agreeing with the images your brain gives you is generally going to be better off than doubting that reality exists. Science while it requires a variety of our own senses to understand, and whilst you'll maintain this requires faith, does its best to remove those biases, to make our understanding of the universe from the basest point it can come from, understanding the widest range of subjects.

[QUOTE]Yet they were not embraced by the other societies that had access to them, he was ultimately exiled from Greek society and his teachings deemed incompatible with Islam (interestingly enough, based on his very fundamental claims about the universe) by a majority of medieval Muslim philosophers. Yes Christianity is ultimately not the same as what Aristotle believed and not all of his conclusions were adopted, but none-the-less it just happened to be the perfect religion to come about as his writings were resurfacing.[/QUOTE]

So christianity picking and choosing aristoltian, ptomelian, and some platoian ideas is proof of that? It's proof that science is reliant on christianity, not just the correct culture, but your specific culture?

Christian leaders in the 1500's executed people who did not renounce the plurality of worlds view, that is not different from the muslim society in the least. You want to make some exceptions that history says we just shouldn't be making.

[QUOTE]It seems to me somewhat useless to try and down-play the connection between Aristotle's writings and Christianity when the Church fathers, some of the most influential figures in Christendom, were the ones that adopted his philosophies.[/QUOTE]

Yes, by picking and choosing them as they fit with christian beliefs. I see it as ridiculous to up play that like they're solely responsible for the history of inquisitive thought. That's just wrong.

[QUOTE]In a way it is, as every other culture before it (although making its own scientific discoveries) failed to develop a formalized method like the Christian west.[/QUOTE]

Which the church didn't particularly like at the time? Are you still denying the discoveries of the golden age of the muslim kingdom?

[bIgFaTwOrM12]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44829389]No it isn't. If you observed the moon repeat a pattern every month for 12 months 12 years in a row and you made an observation about that, in your eyes as you just said, it's literally not backed by anything and you could come up and say "well the moon can't rise tonight" and by all accounts because evidence doesn't seem to work in a way that supports science, you'd be right? Or what? I'm not sure how you can say "scientific evidence can't back up science".[/QUOTE]

Your scenario really doesn't address what I said at all, a more accurate example is if you were to first assume the axioms of science and apply them to trying to predict when the moon will rise. You cannot use that evidence to then prove that the axioms by-which you came by that discovery are true because you had to assume them in order to make it.

[QUOTE]You've always maintained that your belief is rational and reasonable with the amounts of evidence you give. You give very little lee way on that point in my opinion. You do not admit your faith in a ancient event that cannot be properly corroborated is possibly even minorly out of the realm of "reasonable". My point from there is that you claim your belief is reasonable with these lax criteria and criticize mine and anyone else for the same thing.

The goal posts in an argument are how much evidence someone has to give you for you to agree on a certain point. It seems when you argue, the goal posts for the evidence you require from me or anyone arguing with you are progressively higher the longer the argument goes on making it seem that it's not an argument, it's a sermon of sorts.[/QUOTE]

Your arguments against the validity of my evidence involved assuming that the early church managed to completely destroy any document dispelling the resurrection without leaving any evidence of it ever happening.

You also argued that Jewish authorities of the time would not have been bothered writing against the claims of the resurrection because in your eyes Christianity was a small movement like the other messianic movements of the time. The fact of the matter is that Jewish authorities of the time did write about the Christ and tried to come up with alternate explanations for the where-abouts of his body though.

The biggest issue is that you made both of these claims beside each other even when both could not be simultaneously true. If the Jewish authorities of the time did not write about Christianity then there would have been no documents for the Church to destroy. The dissonance is clear and makes it seem more like you are placing the proverbial goal posts further than I can reach as opposed to me, especially since you cite the absence of evidence in my favor as being a sign that the Church must have simply destroyed the evidence that would be in your favor.

[QUOTE]You make this big appeal to faith, that we all simply must have faith in something as all beliefs are at their heart faith and non existent and not supported by anything. But then you make this caveat for your views that they are evidenced and supported by evidence, as well as faith. But if faith is all that matters and your faith is strong enough, why does any evidence matter? I just don't get the point.[/QUOTE]

I consider faith and reason to be both equally valuable, faith creates a basis for reason and reason can support faith.

[QUOTE]Answer me this simply. Is a view point that insists reality is not real and results in a person sitting in place never moving and doubting the very reality in front of you, in any subjective sense you can make, is that "constructive"?[/QUOTE]

No

[QUOTE]No, i'm not saying that. There is no objective standard. There is no subjective standard we can all agree on. You cannot give me an objective one that doesn't seem to be purely subjective. What is constructive in your view?[/QUOTE]

Note that I did not say, "So you think that we should do what is nonconstructive?"

I said, "So you think that we should do what you deem as nonconstructive?"

The wording is vital as I realize that you do not believe in any objective standards, so I specifically asked about your own thoughts on the matter. You stated a certain activity to be nonconstructive and then later said that you think we should engage in this activity, do you actually think this?

[QUOTE]Everything is based off of faith by your argument.[/QUOTE]

Ultimately, yes.

[QUOTE]I do not agree. Agreeing with the images your brain gives you is generally going to be better off than doubting that reality exists. Science while it requires a variety of our own senses to understand, and whilst you'll maintain this requires faith, does its best to remove those biases, to make our understanding of the universe from the basest point it can come from, understanding the widest range of subjects.[/QUOTE]

Except you cannot do science without blindly accepting its base axioms, just because you think it is a good thing to blindly accept them does not make their acceptance anything other than faith.

[QUOTE]So christianity picking and choosing aristoltian, ptomelian, and some platoian ideas is proof of that? It's proof that science is reliant on christianity, not just the correct culture, but your specific culture?[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, what do you consider the difference between Christianity and the "correct culture?"

[QUOTE]Christian leaders in the 1500's executed people who did not renounce the plurality of worlds view, that is not different from the muslim society in the least. You want to make some exceptions that history says we just shouldn't be making.[/QUOTE]

The 1500's was long after the philosophical acquisitions that we have been discussing in reference to the early Church fathers and Aristotelian thought. Not to mention you are picking one of the most corrupt periods of the church in its history, way to paint with a broad brush. Also there were plenty of other scientific developments in that time that the church was perfectly tolerant of.

It is interesting that you should bring up the 1500's though as certain events in the Christian west at that time solidify my point. It is quite significant that the scientific revolution happened to begin at the very center of the reformation and that Martin Luther, the man to spark it, encouraged the theological and metaphysical rejection of Aristotle's works in favor of his writings on nature only (stripping it of any theological authority). In fact, his very first actions were to criticize the deep-seated Aristotelianism in the church.

Coincidentally, the scientific revolution (which ultimately shed a lot of Aristotle's conclusions) emerged after this, another way that Christianity has significantly influenced the development of science.

[QUOTE]Yes, by picking and choosing them as they fit with christian beliefs. I see it as ridiculous to up play that like they're solely responsible for the history of inquisitive thought. That's just wrong.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed them to be as inquisitive thought existed long before science and did not really need to be devised.

[QUOTE]Which the church didn't particularly like at the time? Are you still denying the discoveries of the golden age of the muslim kingdom?[/QUOTE]

The church did not like the new conclusions of science at the beginning of the scientific revolution because it was strongly connected with Reformed Christianity, so it wasn't the Roman catholic church that supported it, but Protestant Christians.

I also do not claim that other cultures have not made discoveries scientific in nature, however, none of them were able to create a methodology to successfully study the physical universe like the Christian West.