What the hell is that? "Oh, I'm a christian scientist." Isn't that like a ... well what's that phrase for that one thing that doesn't go with the other thing? Contradiction, that's it. Isn't that a contradiction? christianity and Science. They don't complement each other very well IMO. The only way they go together, the second one proves the first one wrong.

What the hell is a christian scientist? And are they unsure of themselves? Do they wake up every day and look at themselves in the mirror and think "what the hell am I? I'm like a freak of religion."? I'd hate to be a christian scientist. First of all, I wouldn't know what I was, and secondly, I'd be unsure about what I was.

A Christian Scientist is a Christian who likes to read and hates to go to the doctor.

How is that science though? Doctors use medicine which they used science to determine ... that the medicine was ... medicine. You can't have medicine without science. Do these people know they're ****ing insane and aren't really even people? They're like people (but not really people) who only exist to contradict themselves. WTF?

Don't take the label at face value. That might get you off life tilt.

Well if they're christian scientists, but they're not really christian scientists, what the hell are they? This is becoming the death of me. I used to be ok, but ever since I've started pondering this question, my arms have fallen off, my legs have become creaky, my voice is weak, my hair is falling out, this is my life and it's coming down in on or about itself and these christian scientists don't even know about the contradiction or something.

... or am I just confused? :mad anon:

It's a term that when used in seriousness shows complete lack of tolerance and extreme bias on behalf of the one using it.

Or to explain; A person using the term "christian scientist" is usually either claiming that having a specific religion makes a better scientist OR that scientists in general are not to be trusted unless they belong to your specific belief category.

As the astute reader might see BOTH expressions will enable the user to only take into account information that supports his position REGARDLESS of other qualities of the material in question.

Maybe in a few instances the person is actually referring to a scientist who happens to be a christian - but I'll admit to having seen this usage of the term extremely rarely. Besides that should never be a relevant piece of information, so who cares.

They aren't scientists. They are one of the reasons that almost nobody outside of the natural sciences understands the meaning of the term "science." Which would be fine, we could just have different uses of the term, except that people continue to invoke "science" and "scientific" as a defense of the legitimacy of their claims. Contemptible.

Hi, I'm a heterosexual gay man and I'd like to be friends!

The Wiki entry on Christian Science will help you. And yes they are as far from scientists as you can get. They dont believe in anything material, only spiritual reality.

That said, this:

isnt true. Science doesn't disprove Christianity.

christian sciences and christians scientist are NOT christians. Just another one of the numerous occults that are out and about operating in the world we live in.

It’s a noun clause not a noun plus a adjective.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...an%20scientist

Christian Science
Function: noun
Date: circa 1867
: a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 that was organized under the official name of the Church of Christ, Scientist, that derives its teachings from the Scriptures as understood by its adherents, and that includes a practice of spiritual healing
— Christian Scientist noun


Thanks, I did not acutally know what one was until now.

O RLY?


The virgin mary magically got pregnant with gods child. Were they doing in vitro fertilisation back then?

How about moses parting that pesky red sea, how in the name of science did he do that?

How about jesus rising from the dead? Were the doctors really that good back then?

I think science does disprove christianity, because you obviously can't get pregnant without getting semen inside you, you obviously can't part a ****ing sea with the wave of your hand, and you can't rise from your death bed from the touch of angels.

Science doesn't work that way though. It no more disproves Christianity than it disproves that there are thousands of invisible unicorns under your bed right now.

Some Christians would argue that you're using a 'narrow epistemology', and that science can't prove that divine intervention can't happen, so therefore it is reasonable to believe in the resurrection.

Others would ramble about 'the spiritual world' and how in this magical realm faith is more important than logic.

Personally, I like the 'literal or figurative' game: we pick and choose which fantastic events were poetic renderings of some ethical principle and which events were actually supposed to have happened. Of course, as the likelihood of an event happening --> 0, the probability of it being figurative --> infinity. You could probably graph the phenomenon.

Yes it does. You set up an experiment, perform it, and study the results.

Lets do our own experiment. I'll go to a sea, and I'll extend my arm and point my finger towards the vast water. You go stand waste deep in the water in the area I'm pointing. I'll try my hardest to use my mind, and part the water. (I promise, I'll try my hardest. I'll try really ****ing hard, as hard as I can.) We'll see if the water parts and spreads and leaves you standing on solid ground with no water around you or not.

We can also try to get a virgin pregnant. (this one sounds more fun). We'll take a virgin to church or something, like a really big ****ing church, we could even make it one of those televised churches, because we all know god does miracles in them because there's always people speaking in tounges and getting freed from their wheelchairs and all that crap. So we'll take a virgin girl, and we'll have every single person in the church prey as faithfully as they can, we'll invoke god and ask that "he" get her pregant.

Then we'll lock her up in a room or something. We'll put her in a prison type invironment and keep a close eye on her to make sure she doesn't have sex with anyone. If in 9 months she's not popping out a kid, the test has resulted in a negative. Not possible to get pregnant by god and never having sex.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

I'm not sure if I can put it more simply, but none of your experiments disproves the possibility of those events.

Yes they do. None of those events are even remotely possible. They are impossible.

Now, if you were to say, "science can't prove heaven or hell exists or doesn't exist." Then sure, you have an argument. But you're not saying that. What you're basically saying is that it's scientifically possible for a man to part a sea with the power of god, and for a virgin to get pregnant because god wanted her to. It's not possible, science proves it wrong.

Claudius is correct. The experiments you describe only prove your inability to accomplish the events you describe.

You cannot prove there is no god through scientific experiment because you cannot prove a negative. However, the more science discovers and reveals about the natural universe, the smaller the portion of the world ascribed to superstition becomes.

Personally, I don't believe in gods any more than I believe in faeries, unicorns, and honest politicians, but it's not because science has proven it.

Personally, I don't believe either of the Christian claims your experiments are designed to test are true. That said, you don't understand how science works.

Suppose you take 10 people with some form of terminal cancer, and withhold any medical treatment. All 10 die. Have you proved that this type of cancer never goes into spontaneous remission?

Perhaps my tests were poor examples, but I stand by my statement. Science can prove that it is impossible to part a sea with the wave of your hand, science can prove that it is impossible for a virgin to get pregnant without I.V.F. or sex, and science can prove that a dead man in a cave can not come back to life by divine miracle.

science is about objectively inquiring about reality, and not about incorporating one's own beliefs when conducting it, whether it be Christianity, atheism, or w/e . therefore a "christian" scientist is just a label and holds no merit when measuring someone's status as a scientist. unless they somehow incorporate God into explaining a phenomena (I.D), then obviously there's a problem. A great example of a theistic scientist is Ken Miller, though he's a roman catholic. but you get the point.

You can stand by your claim all you want, but it is false. By your standards, science could have proven in the past that it was impossible for carriages to move without horses, or that it is impossible for two people to communicate verbally while miles apart.

edit: which is exactly why science does not prove negatives

I don't think you understand. I'm right, and that's final!

Yes it does. Thanks to science and medicinal studies, we have learned that you can check a pulse to see if someone's heart is still beating, and if they are alive or dead.

A body is laying on the ground, the doctor checks his pulse. "Is he still alive doctor?" "Negative."

How about STD tests.

"Doctor, do I have herpes?" "No, your test results came back negative."

Sigh, I guess I should have defined what I meant by a negative. Science (as in the use of the scientific method to gain information) cannot prove that something is impossible. It can only prove that the experimenter/experiment being performed was unable to accomplish it.

Furthermore, neither of your examples even represents the proving of a negative. In one case the doctor is determining that the heart is no longer beating (i mean yeah it is a huge negative for whoever owns the heart but that's not the right context ) and in the other he is affirming that the immune system is herpes free. Neither one is an experiment designed to test a hypothesis so I'm not really sure why you took the time to write them.