How do white knights for religion address its rejection by actual scientists?

science is two things
1. the scientific method, which is a methodology based on naturalism
2. the body of knowledge obtained by point 1

being religious and accepting science only becomes a problem when they overlap
like with young-earth creationism

And yet Egyptian records don't mention any mass fleeing of Jews.

>rambles a bunch of names

>can't show the acceptance in the scientific community

I disagree with the last statement.

Creationism and evolutionism are both historical science - we are trying to figure out what happened in the past when nobody was there. Evidence is interpreted based on preconceived notions and prior assumptions. Both evolutionists and creationists have "evidence" for their beliefs. The question is which worldview makes more sense.

The problem is that this is such a sensitive topic, and humans are prone to
>cognitive dissonance
>confirmation bias
>hidden agendas
>desire and will
which makes honest debates without logical fallacies very hard. It also doesn't help that we're on Veeky Forums, a mongolian shitposting board, or that we live in a culture largely dominated by philosophical naturalism and atheism.

The Habiru and Hyksos are mentioned, which are probably the Hebrews. The Canaanites talked about how the the Hebrews were overrunning their country, which affirms the book of Joshua.

That's because there is no consensus among scientists. There is a majority opinion (largely evolutionists) but an appeal to popularity is a fallacious argument. Facts are facts, regardless of how many people believe or don't believe in it.

> The Habiru and Hyksos are mentioned, which are probably the Hebrews

>can't show this is accepted by the scientific community

> That's because there is no consensus among scientists. There is a majority opinion (largely evolutionists) but an appeal to popularity is a fallacious argument. Facts are facts, regardless of how many people believe or don't believe in it.

>no guiz how rejected something is by the scientific community has nothing to do with whether or not it actually happened

What are you even saying?

source for the canaanite amarna tablets:
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-maps-conquest-amarna-tablets-letters-akhenaten-habiru-abiru-hebrews-1404-1340bc.htm

destroys the myth that israelites were from canaan and originally pagans. this shows that the israelites came from somewhere else (egypt) and invaded canaan

ncse.com/list-of-steves

Not even scientists/Best of:
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr Tim Gilmour, Electrical Engineer
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

and about a dozen others

>Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
>, Dentist
>Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
>, Plastic Surgeon
>PLASTIC
>SURGEON

>"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline."

>"One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere 'aoutomata mechanica,' but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."

>devout Lutheran

>Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
I think Ken Ham used him as a talking point in his debate/sermon with Nye

>it's another shitty /rel/ shitflinging thread

religious teachings and beliefs are the nonscientific equivalent to a theory. they can neither be proven nor disproven. Unless a deity comes down from the heavens and starts smiting the nonbelievers, you can't completely denounce religion as false or true.

>We Wuz

>How do white knights for religion address its rejection by actual scientists?

They make false flag threads linking to non-scientists as strawmen.

>the founders of modern science were Christians.
The old Greeks were Christians?

He said modern, not ancient.

And one of the earliest churches were founded in Greece, by the apostle Paul.

Shit tier, one and all. And most of them in a field that doesn't qualify them to judge the age of the solar system.

>this shows that the israelites came from somewhere else
No, this shows there are ancient stories about the israelites coming from somewhere else.

>He said modern
Einstein was a Christian?

Are you retarded..?

>Einstein was the only scientist that ever lived
Nikola Tesla was better than him by the way.

...

The evolution is true guy is missing

>Intellectual Disability
apex kek

>Einstein
>space, gravity

>Tesla
>electric power

Two different, yet connected branches of physics.

Tesla was leagues ahead of Einstein.

I know that Tesla (maybe our guy if you ignore the bullshit autistic triggering of Yugoslavia) is smarter than Einstein, but I said that they are two different branches of physics.

>It's an edgy athiest calls himself scientific episode

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists."

Not according to Tesla.

holy shit this thread is some weak bait
>muh a priori rationalism ;^)
heathens OUT

Cute chart. Here's mine.

rly
mak
u
thnk

wow

...

Yours sucks.

missing some names

Replace the fedora-lord with a Osteen-type megachurch and we have reality

...

Peterson have made a few good arguments for religion. My favorite one is that science tell us how things work, but it doesn't tell us what to do wuth that knowledge and that's the job of religion and morality. I'm an atheist btw

I don't believe in God and i still call bullshit on you, OP.

you dingus, the Habiru/Apiru are not Hebrews. Hebrew in Hebrew is Ibri. now does that sound like Habiru? Apiru are literally just outlaws/bandits who were used by various city-states as mercenaries. even should we assume that Habiru refers to the Hebrews, the tablets don't depict a conquest but a social category in canaanite society that's loathed yet used by different rulers when it's convenient.

>scientists represent science.
Scientist are just people, show me the science that accepts your crazy dogma.
Even critical history makes you look retarded.
t. Ecology & evolution postgrad

It's like you just hit keys on your keyboard at random.

maybe you should give it a second try

Are you? Text are, of and by themselves, not evidence for any historical event.

They're all a bunch of creeps

(snerk) the Egyptains records also say Kadesh was a decisive victory.

>religion=creationism

atheist "knowledge" at work kek

>How do white knights for religion address its rejection by actual scientists?
Simple. Religion isn't supposed to make a scientific claims. The statement "God exists" or "God created the universe" can't be verified scientifically.

>Actual Scientist
>Reject god
Lmao

what's the context to this pic?

>evolutionary biologist
>press hack
>cognitive '''''''scientist'''''''
>????
The scientific community

Ayy

this t b h

you can acknowledge the social benefits of religion without believing in it

How many religion supporters believe in We Wuz Kangz?

>KANG OF HEAVEN AND ERF
>KANG OF KANGZ

...

No, but the statement "God intervenes in the universe" could, unless you go the Last Thursdayism route where he cooks the books and prevents himself from being detected.

>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

Yeah the problem with the Bible is that its shit if you take it litterally. This quote is from early Christians who realized that and were dismayed every time a fanatic tried to espouse literalism.

I mean Chrisitanity can work if you throw that shit out. Sort of.

Said he to them: "If the law is as I say, may it be proven from heaven!" There then issued a heavenly voice which proclaimed: "What do you want of Rabbi Eliezer -- the law is as he says..."

Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said: "'The Torah is not in heaven!'1" ... We take no notice of heavenly voices, since You, G‑d, have already, at Sinai, written in the Torah to 'follow the majority.'"2

Rabbi Nathan subsequently met Elijah the Prophet and asked him: "What did G‑d do at that moment?" [Elijah] replied: "He smiled and said: 'My children have triumphed over Me, My children have triumphed over Me.'"

This seems like the kind of thing Jesus came down to fix.

...

>It's another "Atheists get BTFO" episode

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

>Refuting the Atheist view of Biblical History
youtube.com/watch?v=SbmDO3-0GtU

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

"Don't take it literally" up to a point. Perhaps certain things in it are metaphorical, true, and the coherence of the Bible with science demands a certain metaphorical application of some of the books.

But at the same time, if you're a true, genuine Christian, there are certain things you have to accept as true. If Christ is the Second Adam, for example, you have to accept the existence of the first Adam, and accept the truth of the Fall and the Original Sin. When Jesus talks about "the days of Noah," you have to accept that this was something real that happened in history, because Christ, who is God, alludes to it.

Basically, there's a point at which you have to dig in your heels about the Bible, by virtue of your faith. You have to assert that, by faith, certain things are true, and eventually science will not only fail to disprove it but will admit its correctness, as it did when it acknowledged the reality of the Trojan War and the Mycenaean civilization.

>Anglos and Jews
Opinion discarded

I tell you the truth, you can say to this mountain, 'May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and it will happen. But you must really believe it will happen and have no doubt in your heart.

>it's a christian spams his youtubes for the hundredth time episode

By being morons.

Facts, science, philosophy and theology are on the Christian side.

Atheists only shitpost and throw ad hominems.

Found the Nigger.

Science can't tell you what's true

It can only approximate what seems to be commonly true, and it does so quite poorly

Atheism implies that reality is an infinite regression which is an untenable position

There must be an a priori and its essence is existence

Can you elaborate on why infinite regression isn't possible

Science requires physical evidence, religion requires faith.

Why am I supposed to rely on science to tell me not to have faith.

>be Neo
>enter the matrix
>approach user with fedora
>"user, that's not a fedora, that's just ones and zeroes"
>gets filled with euphoria, grabs telescope made of ones and zeroes and examines the fedora
>naw, its tissue
Why are atheist so retarded?

>gets filled with euphoria, grabs telescope made of ones and zeroes and examines the fedora
>naw, its tissue
So just glitch his fedora. Since it's "actually" just ones and zeroes, and not actually cloth, there must be methods or situations in which its actual nature is revealed ("mentally" bending it like a not spoon, perhaps). And since it is always ones and zeroes and never actually a cloth fedora, you should be able to do so consistently, while the user investigates.

If miracles actually held up to investigation, the landscape of the conversation would be very different. But double-blind prayer doesn't change disease outcome, owners of crying statues refuse to take DNA tests to compare their blood to the tears, and nobody has detected the gravitational anomaly that would have been generated if the sun actually danced.

How do white knights for scientists accept that priests do not accept the paradigms championed by scientists?
You're question presupposes a greater inherent value in science to th religious. The fact of the matter is, science is a form of description. It does not know truth in any higher sense, it draws its circle and names what's inside. Religion does the exact same thing. To posit the two as different would be like saying "Hegel and Hume were different, therefore Hegel/Hume is correct while Hegel/Hume is incorrect." It's just arbitrary.

wtf I hate being saved now

>Einstein
Newton is considered far and more the founder of modern science than Einstein. And even Einstein held belief in an impersonal Deity of order.

>Facts, science, philosophy and theology are on the Christian side.
Despite Kurt Wise (Dawkins' "honest creationist") and Todd Wood, both YECs, saying that the only reason they reject evolution is purely on theological grounds and that it has a firm scientific basis?

Then there's this:
This, too:
scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2014/07/biologos-ken-ham-and-david-menton.html?m=0

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2vrmieg9tO3fSAhvbAsirT2VbeRQbLk7

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

When religion improves our cancer treatments, then we can talk.

Gish galloping isn't a valid form of argumentation. The arguments contained in those links could be pure gold, they could be pure garbage, but expecting people to address them all is effectively demanding they concede by default. You're just demanding people stop talking by burying them in bullshit. Make the arguments yourself, or fuck off.

Also none of the philosophical arguments for god stand up to scrutiny if you don't accept their basic premises because they never deal with anything that's necessarily true.

Bump

>Cancer is bad
[citation needed]

Read Moldbug

>t. Ecology & evolution postgrad
Lol, how's the buyers remorse going?