Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

[BurtWorm]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3567,n,n

[calimary]

1. OMG!!! One of the BEST anti-fundie slogans EVER!!!!

I LOVE this!!!!!

Should be said, read, and spread!!!

[stopbush]

7. What does fundamentalism have to do with it?

All religion is inherently superstitious goofiness. The moderates may not me the ones flying the airplanes into buildings, but they are supporting fantasy over fact, and that legitimizes the crazies to a significant extent.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

73. fundamentalism=those who interpret religious texts literally

and feel justified in flying planes into buildings. Clearly, the "moderates" are not doing this. Slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

[YOY]

101. Everything.

n.t.

[Unca Jim]

121. That was quick!

Wow, I get told what I believe almost instantly!

Cool!

[Neo Atheist]

219. I agree wholeheartedly. I find the moderates to be just as awful as the fundamentalists

The moderates will preach a good enlightened game, but when push comes to shove, they will side with their unenlightened faith rather than with rationality. Tell me, how many "moderate" Muslims came out in support of Salman Rushdie and condemned the death sentence issued against him by Ayatollah Khomeini, or condemned the Muslim perpetrated violence that erupted during the Mohammed cartoon controversy? How many "moderate" Christians came out to condemn Mel Gibson's ridiculous snuff film which further perpetrated the hideous notion that the Jews have the blood libel?

[varkam]

2. Popcorn! Get your popcorn!

:popcorn:

[nichomachus]

3. One of the times I wish I could rec something twice

[eyepaddle]

148. I handled that for ya!

Not that it wasn't doing fine on its own though! :)

[donco6]

4. LOL! Ouch. n/t

[MineralMan]

5. Oh, snap!

It's brilliant.

[WillyT]

6. K & R !!!

:kick:

[valerief]

8. Great line!

[struggle4progress]

9. People also do dreadful things and claim to be motivated by science

Mengele's experiments
http://www.mengele.dk/new_page_6.htm

Beyond mere socipaths and psychopaths, various idiots are happy to terrorize the world at large while indulging their own scientific egos:
http://static.howstuffworks.com.nyud.net:8090/gif/nuclear-arms-race-3.jpg

Science can also help you do dreadful things, if you're so inclined -- because (say) you think it will be good for the bottom line -- and then you can say it's for science!

Edison, for example, gratuitously electrocuted Topsy the elephant, and made the following cheery little film about it, because he thought it would be to his economic interest to scare the public about alternating current: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bowA1xUZpmA

This led to the electric chair: http://www.ccadp.org/electricchair.htm

People who really want to do dreadful things to other people can always find an excuse

[rrneck]

12. Yes. You display a

refreshing rationality.

[laconicsax]

16. You're missing a key distinction.

No scientific discipline tells people to commit genocide. Religious texts do.

[bos1]

18. "scientific" texts invented eugenics which implied genocide

[laconicsax]

27. Sorry, wrong.

Eugenics has existed since before it was named. You may have heard of it referred to as "agriculture."

Eugenics is selective breeding--something that people had been doing for thousands of years. The concept that you can 'improve' a species by deciding which members breed is how most modern domesticated plants and animals came into being. The proponents of human eugenics just took what had been practiced on crops and cattle for centuries and applied it to humans. It doesn't take a book describing the concept for someone to understand that if you kill all members of a population, that population will cease to exist.

Either way, eugenics isn't and wasn't an actual scientific discipline. It was pseudoscience like alchemy, astrology, phrenology, or intelligent design.

[kwassa]

95. but Eugenics was BELIEVED to be an actual scientific discipline in it's time

and this proved faulty, but not before it caused considerable damage to people.

[liberation]

97. No it wasn't

If anything it was taken as a philosophical discipline.

It doesn't help the argument of the religious people when some of you have to resort to intellectually dishonest counter arguments to defend your positions.

[bos1]

119. yes it was. you're revising history

it's not honest to dismiss the scientific support it enjoyed, just because it is inconvenient now to remember it.

[liberation]

128. Obviously you don't know what the definition of science is...

Eugenics, was/is and will be if anything more of a social philosophical current. Science is amoral, eugenics is based on a moral concept of what makes a better human being and who should pass their traits. Because it had "scientific support" doesn't make it a science. Their main proponents were politicians, philosophers, and economists (Keynes et al)... that should clue you in about where the definition of Eugenics lies.

Again, if you need to resort to intellectual dishonesty it becomes harder and harder to take you seriously.

[bos1]

143. and your Communist Che is supposed to help me take you seriously?

Sorry, people abuse Science and Religion in the same way, as means to support their own ends.

Interesting, along with your rejection of belief and embrace of science, you have your Che image. Communism, of course, rejected religious experience while constructing the most widespread dictatorship of the 20th century (and in China, into the 21st). Is this the kind of high ground you are defending?

[liberation]

152. Wow... a tangential argument having to nothing to do with the current discussion at hand

You truly are a master debater. LOL..

The point you can get through your head is that unlike religion, science is amoral. Thus you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Che has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So I won't even pretend to take you seriously (it was hard enough before).

Since you were conspicuously silent trying to demonstrate how Eugenics is a science (as you claimed) and not a philosophical/economic/political current as some of us counter argued, I take you have no argument in that regard other than recurring to ad hominem attacks.

[bos1]

156. sorry for connecting dots you would preferred ignored

Despite being a washed up excuse for racism, Eugenics had it ardent scientific defenders in its day, just like Communism, despite being a washed up excuse for totalitarianism, still has defenders to this day.

[ooglymoogly]

131. The point being it was not

no matter how much you try to put the proverbial lipstick on the pig, the fact remains it was not.

[bos1]

147. Yes, now we know it was not, but at the time it was defended as science, much the same way

that the medicalizing of things like menstruation and grief is now supported by science, peer reviewed journals, etc. In a hypothetical enlightened future, they will look back on all this as pseudoscience also, but that doesn't change the fact that right now the scientific community is in support of it.

[kwassa]

161. Like I said, it was believed to be a science and presented that way

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html

Within 20 years, the word was widely used by scientists who had rediscovered the work of Gregor Mendel. Mendel had meticulously recorded the results of cross-breeding pea plants, and found a very regular statistical pattern for features like height and color. This introduced the concept of genes, opening the field of genetics to a tumultuous century of research. One path of genetic research branched off into the shadows of social theory, and in the first quarter of the twentieth century became immensely popular as eugenics. It was presented as a mathematical science that could be used to predict the traits and behaviors of humans, and in a perfect world, to control human breeding so that people with the best genes would reproduce and thus improve the species. It was an optimistic school of thought with a profound faith in the powers of Science.

The trappings of science, anyway. Even in its day, many people saw that eugenics was a dubious discipline, riddled with inconsistencies. But it was championed by a very prominent and respected biologist, Charles Davenport, and its conclusions told many people what they wanted to hear: that certain "racial stock" was superior to others in such traits as intelligence, hard work, cleanliness, and so on. In this view of human behavior, the work of Sigmund Freud was disregarded, while the ideas of behaviorism were just gaining ground.

[bos1]

170. Great post. Charles Davenport proves your point

and a lot of these science-as-religion types here, if they had been around then, would have been proclaiming him as their hero.

[YOY]

105. So there is some science book out there that tells you to commit genocide?

Wow. That's fricking amazing.

You clearly do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

[struggle4progress]

40. In the last hundred years, there have been great cities of the dead created,

under various justifications: the real motivation seldom, if ever, appears to be religious

[laconicsax]

44. That's a stretch.

How do you define real motivation? Is it the motivation of those who plan a war? Is it the motivation of those who sign up to join the effort? If a leader wants a war to gain control of another's territory and sells it as a religious conflict, you can equally say that the motivation was religious and territorial. If not for the territorial conflict, the leader would likely not have desired the war. If not for the religious motivation, those who actually fought would likely not have taken part in the killing.

There is a persistent, concerted effort to absolve religion of any culpability in all violence, but like the big lie, repeating over and over again that religion plays no part in any of the killing that happens in its name doesn't make it true.

[struggle4progress]

163. Here's a nice long list of conflicts: I invite you to make a credible case that most of the

twentieth century ones were religiously motivated. I limit to the twentieth century just to trim the list to a more reasonable length; if you prefer, trim to further to post-WWII period (1945 - 2000)

Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

I don't claim the list is exhaustive or that the numbers at that website are correct: it's merely a convenient list. If you like, take any other long list for twentieth century wars

[bos1]

171. it suddenly got very quiet

when you asked for put-up or shut-up

[laconicsax]

172. I don't need to back up a claim I never made.

It isn't on me to make a case that most of the conflicts of the 20th century were religiously motivated since I never made that claim.

I asked you to define your terms and offered that religion should be seen as motivation if a conflict is sold as religious.

Either way, you're simply attempting to change the subject. When the OP pointed out that religion can lead to violence, you replied by saying that science can lead to violence too. When I replied to you stating that science doesn't teach violence and religion does, you responded to say that there are other causes in addition to religion. I again pointed out that religion plays a role, and you respond by inviting me to support an assertion I never made.

At no point have you offered evidence to refute the assertion that religion can breed violence, only dodged it. If I were to point out that * used cocaine, you can't refute that statement by saying that Darryl Strawberry used cocaine too. Similarly, by saying that violence can have non-religious causes, you have left intact the original assertion that religion can cause violence.

[struggle4progress]

173. I don't think that either religion nor science leads to violence: I think that people who decide

to be violent can always spout excuses -- the excuses may have little to do with the real motives

[TZ]

182. Yeah. The Palestinian Israeli conflict has NOTHING TO DO

with religion. What universe do you live in?
BTW I would invite you to say this to a holocaust survivor. I don't think you would like the response

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. But religion has very often been the justification.

How often has science been used to justify mass murder? Yes, Mengele performed horrific experiments on concentration camp internees, but were the concentration camps established to feed his experiments? Or were they created and run by Christians to eliminate the perceived threat of a Jewish minority?

[kwassa]

162. Hitler used psuedo-science to justify mass murder, but presented it as science, of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as "life unworthy of life" (German Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious, and weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed in the Action T4.<1>

......................


Adolf Hitler had read some racial-hygiene tracts during his period of imprisonment in Landsberg Prison. The future leader considered that Germany could only become strong again if the state applied to German society the basic principles of racial hygiene and eugenics. Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. In his opinion, these had to be removed as quickly as possible. He also believed that the strong and the racially pure had to be encouraged to have more children, and the weak and the racially impure had to be neutralized by one means or another.

The concepts of racist ideas of competition, termed social Darwinism in 1944, were discussed by European scientists, and also in the Vienna press during the 1920s, but how exactly Hitler picked up these ideas is uncertain.<2>

[CJCRANE]

212. Indeed, studies of suicide bombers

have shown that most of them were not religious, they were either politically motivated or reacting to family tragedy.

Also there isn't any solid proof that the 9/11 hijackers were religious.

[Zynx]

213. Science can lead the practices such a eugenics.

If I further expand on this, rationality can lead to very frightening ends. It is entirely rational, for example, to do away with the disabled if we judge our existence by how much we produce. On balance, the disabled are "a drain" on resources. A coldly rational person does not view human life as necessarily worth particularly much or at the very least that is a legitimate way of viewing the world for them.

Ayn Rand is a perfectly good example of a purely secular, scientific view of the world turned evil.

[varkam]

19. I reject the notion that the persuit of science led to the holocaust just as I reject...

the notion that the earth is flat - as should you.

Mengele's story reflects more of an allegory of the ego of man and the power of circumstance. The attempted genocide of the Jews was not based on reason and rationality, but on madness and incomprehensible megalomania.

[bos1]

20. the Nazis cloaked all they did in science and rationality. eom

[varkam]

21. Actually, they wrapped when they did in the cloak of...

in-group identity and cohesion at the price of out-group hostility. In other words, they feasted on antisemitism - it gave them a common enemy to hate - someone who was different than they were, and someone who was responsible for all their problems.

Were they truly operating under a rational framework, they would have recognized that the Jews were not the enemy of the world.

[bos1]

46. sorry, wrong. that's just the amoral scientific community covering its ass

Nazi did not stress "kill the jews" in their PR, they stressed progress, family values, a strong economy, etc -- all rational, reasonable things. They also stressed how advances in science were on their side, whether in aviation or eugenics. We can all eugenics pseudo-science now, but that's just the amoral scientific community covering its ass.

[varkam]

48. So if I say that blowing up the moon will lead us....

into a new era a peace and prosperity, I'm using rationalism to further my cause?

[bos1]

64. Sure! And I'd expect some really good pseudoscience to go with it.

Unless you were using religion, then you could call it a holy war on Diana, the lunar goddess.

[YOY]

108. Gosh the expert's preacher really told them how to think.

Don't rewrite history. You guys are not very good at it. Kind of like logic.

Quit blaming science for things that racism and religion do. Science is a tool. Nothing more. It is not regular religion's competitor. It does tell Fundies who cannot discern religious dogma/"truths" from scientific "facts" to fuck off though.

Speaking of which: fuck off.

[bos1]

125. wow, a "fuck off" from Mr. Science.

impotent rage appearing on radar.

[YOY]

145. Impotent rage from "Mr. Science"? I ain't "Mr. Science". I'm Mr. Motha-Fucking-Demonstrable-Fact.

Now if you ain't got any demonstrable facts...fuck off.

For my scrote is an awesome scrote! It's actual factual!

[trotsky]

55. "Gott mit uns."

Nothing too scientific or rational about that.

[bos1]

56. yes they used religion too, just as much as science and rationality. eom

[trotsky]

58. That is a backtrack from your post above.

Glad you somewhat realized your error, however you're still wrong.

[bos1]

65. I see being pedantic makes you happy. Another symptom of those who use science as religion?

[trotsky]

66. My, my, aren't we just the pleasant one.

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

[ekwhite]

67. I disagree

Hitler notoriously consulted astrologers. The Nazis were into mysticism, phrenology, and any number of pseudosciences. They were outwardly religious. They went on endlessly about their "destiny." To say they cloaked everything they did in science and rationality doesn't seem to fit with the historical record.

[bos1]

80. Shall we say that science and rational explanations and religious imperatives were all used?

[mikekohr]

96. GOTT MITT UNS "God is with us"

The Nazi's used religion and what ever else they could twist to serve their means. On the belt buckle of every soldier in the Wehrmacht army were the words, "Gott Mitt Uns," in English, "God is with us."

mike kohr

[struggle4progress]

164. Military service was compulsory in Nazi Germany: whatever belt buckles looked like, those

buckles were issued to people who joined under penalty of law -- and therefore nothing can be inferred about the motives of the individual soldiers from their belt buckles

[Realityhack]

210. They are not infering anything about individual soldiers.

Rather that a regime that issues such artifacts is using religion as part of its propaganda.

[liberation]

98. Wow it only took a dozen posts for the religious to bring Hitler into the fray

So according to Goldwin's law this conversation is over I guess :-)

[struggle4progress]

35. I do not say Mengele did real science: I merely say that Mengele justified his sadism by claiming

he was doing science

People will use any cultural construction they find convenient to justify their bad behavior: that they do so, does not mean that their justification would survive critical scrutiny -- but (unfortunately) a poor justification can still be politically effective

[varkam]

38. Undoubtedly people cloak themselves in all manner of nobility...

in order to justify all manner of barbarism.

I do not think that is on point, however. It is a question of motivation, in my opinion.

[byeya]

54. Gott Mitt Uns

Most Nazi soldiers had "God With Us" written on their belt buckles - nothing else was so prominently inscribed. German war planes had two Christian crosses for each swastika. Nazism was a Christian phenomenon and its leaders were practicing Christians with only a couple of exceptions.

[liberation]

107. The Swastika cross was also a religious symbol.

The problem with using nazism to support any argument, is that it can be fallacious. Nazism was wrong by its own merits, not because it used religious symbolism, myth, and pseudo-scientific principles.

Remember that the entrances to concentration camps had prominently displayed the slogan "Work shall set you free" And it would be quite a stretch to blame organized labor for the evils of nazism.

[bagrman]

120. The swastika was used by the plains indians in the 1840's

I went to a museum once and there were a lot of artifacts out where you could actually touch them. A set of gloves were laying out and I flipped them over and wow, there was a swastika on the back done in beads.

[liberation]

134. Indeed...

There are various swastika-like symbols. For example, in Asian cultures what would look like a mirrored swastika is a symbol for good luck. That was also the case in many European cultures in which mirrored swastikas were often used as good luck charms, but the symbol was sort of tainted after WWII. The swastika is actually an intrinsic decoration/religious motif in Hinduism. And it is also part of Buddhist and Jainism traditions.

Swastika-like symbols were widespread among ancient European cultures too. The national Basque symbol for example, the lauburu, does in fact look like a curved swastika. The swastika was later adapted by Christian traditions, which were quite good at assimilating pagan symbols/traditions in Europe and turning them into intrinsic parts of Christianity. I believe the nazis used the symbolism of the swastika derived from some christian traditions in which the "hooked" cross (the swastika per se) was a symbol of Christ's victory over death. Remember that nazism, as a form of fascism, relies on symbols and sort slogans rather than actual ideology. Symbols are guttural in nature, and tend to be quick and dirty to get. Which is what fascism relies on, i.e. they don't want people to think but rather act on gut instinct (does that remind you of someone we just booted from office?). Because if you have to think, you may also have enough time to question the validity of the ideology they are trying to indoctrinate you... and that would not be a "good thing" for them fascists.

Native Americans did in fact use swastikas in their symbolism. I read that the Navajos use it as the pictorial representation of the wind.

[mikekohr]

175. Native Americans used symbols that mirrored the swastika long before the Nazi's appropriated it

The four directions of the Earth (West, North, East, South) are generally represented by this symbol, which is similar to a medicine wheel symbol (a circle intersected by a cross). In the medicine wheel the circle represents the orb of the ski and the crossing of the intersection of the good red road and the black road of greed and avarice. This intersection, the point and place we find our selves as we live our lives, having to choose which path our feet walk. Each quadrant of the medicine wheel is usually associated with a color and various qualities, for example black is often associated with the West from which comes the black clouds of thunderstorms which give life as well as take it.

mike kohr

[struggle4progress]

190. How much can one infer about the beliefs and motives of soldiers from the official paraphenalia they

wear? Some Navy Seal paraphenalia includes the Trident, ancient symbol of Poseidon/Neptune. Do you think those who wear such medals or buckles are showing that they joined the military to honor Poseidon/Neptune?

[DissedByBush]

26. Not quite science

Mengele's "experiments" were for personal curiosity and a desire to play God. They had nothing to do with science.

As you note, electrocution had nothing to do with science and everything to do with Edison's fight with Tesla. It was about money.

Flying planes into buildings had everything to do with religion.

[Chulanowa]

30. You're confusing science with the ideology of its recipients

Which is often done with religion as well.

Science didn't make people commit these acts - they simply used it for such.
Religion doesn't make people fly planes into buildings - They just think it gives them an excuse

[Deep13]

68. Okay, so religion is as good as Mengele. nt

[iamthebandfanman]

117. and then you woke up

i think your confusing science with insanity.
insanity is a human trait, not a scientific or religious one.

science doesnt direct people to kill other people, people do.
unfortunately, most religious books DO infact have writings of justification to kill.

[SkyIsGrey]

149. A new sign.

"Science learns from mistakes. Religion worships them."

[rd_kent]

194. All of that PALES in comparison

to the havoc that religion has caused.

[Kolesar]

10. This atheist doesn't like it

People flock to religion when they are in despair. Don't make them feel worse. I spend zero time organizing for skepticism, but I am sure this won't help "the cause".

Is this a photoshop?

[cosmik debris]

14. It's done with a sign generator.

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus

[Kolesar]

15. Fun, fun, fun

thanks

[barbtries]

70. this one made me laugh

a lot.

[BB1]

47. It's a Dutch bus,

the generator was created after AMsterdam announced a trial with the 'There is no god' buses. The popular Dutch website Geenstijl (no style) is big with it.
It is similar to the gas-station pic-generator a couple of months ago.

[cosmik debris]

84. British, not Dutch

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/europe/07london.html?_r=1&ref=business

[BB1]

102. Compare the buses.

One is a double decker. the other one is a Dutch bus, picture taken in front of Tilburg Central station, from the Arriva company.

Dutch, not British!

[cosmik debris]

104. Oops, I stand corrected.

My apologies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. British bus in Gower Steet, London (Arriva is a British company)

Note the 'copyright Jon Worth, atheistbus.org.uk' in the bottom right, and compare with image number 6 here: http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/bus-photos/

The people inside match. That is definitely the photo.

http://www.arriva.co.uk/arriva/en/about_arriva/history_growth/overview/

[cosmik debris]

144. I give up!

I'm getting dizzy.

[BB1]

167. Now I stand corrected.

Although I must say we still have the same buses. Someone is right about Arriva being English, but in Holland the company operates under the same name.

Now I'll smoke something to get dizzy, too. Cheers!

[onager]

196. Just accept it as an atheist conspiracy.

:hi:

In fact, I masterminded the conspiracy. And I'm an American Fundamentalist Atheist currently living in Egypt.

My Muslim friends helped me.

F!ck, I sure hope the mukhabarat isn't monitoring this.

:rofl:

[onehandle]

127. You're wasting your keystrokes. Narrow minded hatred of religion defines DU. nt

[bos1]

160. Really? That's a shame. I didn't know. n/t

[damntexdem]

11. Heh heh!

Fruit flies like bananas.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Sanity created the universe ...

long before science noticed.

[Silent3]

23. Please do explain...

...how the notion of sanity could even apply in a pre-universe context, such that sanity itself could create anything.

[DUlover2909]

42. The logic of mathematics predates creation.

Even without matter, galaxies, stars, planets, or people, the preeminent truth of logic still exists, before and after time and space. It's interesting how the universe obeys mathematics once it came into being. Math rules the universe before and after. It is that it is. It is the alpha and omega. Math was and always will be, kinda like some people's idea of god.

[Silent3]

169. Math and sanity aren't the same thing.

I don't see how what you're saying applies to the post that I replied to before this, unless you're making a huge assumption that the other poster's "sanity" is your "mathematics". That doesn't seem like a good fit to me.

Besides, how can anything, mathematics included, "predate" time itself? That's using a flow-of-time word to describe conditions external to time. One could argue endlessly, and probably not very productively, whether math is proscriptive or merely descriptive, whether math, by any sensible use of the word, can be said to "govern" anything, or if math is merely incredibly useful in describing the world around us.

I don't think you can find solid answers to any of that. Our tools of language and thought are too mixed up in the very things we'd need to step outside of to make any sense of these sorts of things.

[bos1]

17. Religion Blows Your Mind. Science Blows Up Hiroshima.

I have nothing against atheists but I notice they can be haters too

[skepticscott]

25. Science tells you what you CAN do

unlike religion, which tells you what you should do or must do. And if there is a failure in the application of morally neutral scientific discoveries, which is to blame? Science, which has never claimed to be able to answer moral questions, or religion, which claims to be the sole and ultimate authority or morality?

[Deep13]

78. That's idiotic.

Hating bad and destructive ideas is not the same as hating people. So that's crap. Second, the U.S. government blew up Hiroshima and it ended the war. All science does is give a method for finding the truth. Science is also the reason you live without smallpox, cholera, plague and polio.

I don't know what you mean by blowing minds, but it does not sound very good. Religion has never found an answer to anything. So even if you someone demonstrated that being rational and inquisitive makes people evil, religion would still be a pack of self-destructive lies.

[cosmik debris]

79. There is some irony here

When theists want to pretend that there is scientific support for their belief in god, they quote Einstein.

When they want to prove the evils of science, the bring up the A-Bomb that Einstein laid the groundwork for.

[Lordquinton]

85. Science and Morality

Are also being ignored. They forget that the guys who brought us the Atomic and H-Bombs were black balled by the scientific community for what they did because it was so immoral to be that reckless.

[cosmik debris]

87. Einstein and Teller were black balled for immoral recklessness?

Do tell, that's the first I've heard of that.

[Lordquinton]

109. Teller was

Well, for something close to it at least. Ok, for testifying on Oppenhimer. That's all I can find right now, I'm rather displaced and can't back up my claims right now, but I will say that if you truly feel that way about Science, turn off you computer, go out to the wilderness and live off the land, because while there have been great wrongs committed with the products of science, there have been great advances.

Thoes that choose to use scientific progress for ill deeds are not the ones who are making the progress.

[Strong Atheist]

112. Welcome to DU. nt.

[cosmik debris]

114. What? "if you truly feel that way about Science"

I don't know what you mean.

How do you think I feel about science and what have I said to make you think that?

[liberation]

113. The person who was blackballed was Oppenheimer

And he was because Teller had a personal vendetta against him for speaking against the morality of the Atom bomb. Especially the madness that Oppenheimer considered the H-bomb (Teller's baby) to be.

Ironically, Oppenheimer was rather agnostic (as also was Einstein) and had his life literally destroyed because of his opposition to Teller's steam rolling effort to get the H-bomb. Guess who was the religious one in this equation?

Einstein was quite outspoken against war. However, he made it clear that if anyone was going to have a nuclear bomb in their arsenal (which was viewed as inevitable) it would be better to that the USA were the ones with it rather than the nazis. It was a catch 22 type of situation. And it is absurd for the religious defenders to use such complex dilemma to portrait the atomic bomb as a representation of the evils of science.

[bos1]

82. Hiroshima GOOD. Religion BAD. & you're calling others idiotic?

[Deep13]

90. Yes. The facts support both conclusions...

...even if our ideology does not.

[YOY]

110. "All science does is give a method for finding the truth." Sorry, wrong.

Science and "Truth" are not to be used together. Truth is a philosphical term. Truths can conflict.

Science uses "Fact". You cannot argue with facts. When facts conflict interdimensional wormholes open up and suck our brains out.

Fundies have been messing and interchanging these words for years.

Demonstrative facts in describing the rules of nature is all Science does. Of course those rules get complex...

[Deep13]

118. The truth is an understanding of the facts.

I don't really care how the theologists define the term. I witness who swears to tell the truth is not promising to give philosophical conclusions. The witness is promising to give an accurate account of the facts.

One may reasonably argue with purported facts.

And if truth isn't about fact, then what good is it?

Science is a way of searching for the truth.

[YOY]

142. Not quite Deep13.

When people swear to tell the truth they promise to tell things how they saw them.

Suppose three witnesses give three truths about what they saw in describing a bank robbery. They can all be telling (what they perceive as) the truth from what they witness and all point to different suspects. Now the bank camera? There's your fact showing what it shows.

Truths can conflict, facts cannot. Truth seekers are blind men touching parts of elephants and stating what they perceive the elephant to be. Fact finders can tell you how much the elephant weighs, what temperature it's body is, and classify the animal into its proper genius.

No, science is about facts. Religion and philosophy is about the truth. Can't really wiggle here. Sorry but you are quite wrong.

Science deals with facts not truths.

[Deep13]

177. So, now truth is the perception of the facts.

Well, that's pretty close to how I see it.

That's what I said it was. Facts are the truth. If fact becomes divorced from your thinking, whatever else it is, it isn't truth. Science IS a philosophy. It was once called "natural philosophy." So yes, philosophy is a means to find the truth. Science is very, very good at it because it is a way of discarding false ideas. I'm afraid religion is one of them. Religion is not and never has been about finding the truth. While science checks its ideas against objective reality, religion ignores them and requires its adherents to accept known falsehoods. If we listened to religion instead of natural philosophy we would still be digging wells next to our outhouses. The esoteric "truth" you are talking about is a useless perception with no connection to the real world. And if those blind men opened their frackin' eyes, they would see the whole elephant. Our senses are not perfect and our minds can fool us (a reason to distrust "religious" experience) but they are still pretty damn good.

[YOY]

183. Sorry, but Science is not a philosophy.

Truth and Fact are two seperate things.

Science goes by a method seperate to that is rock solid and uses demostrable fact. Philosophy does not. Perhaps it uses "demonstrable truth" but they are not the same thing.

The truth thing was a paraphrasing of Socrate's teachings and not mine. Honestly, not being dickish, but you are totally in the wrong here. Even if the blind men open their eyes they will only see what their senses tell them to be the truth about the elephant. Personally, I have never cared for "truths" as they are individually tailored and interpreted.

Say one of them opens his eyes and states that the "elephant is bigger than me." It's a truth. The fact related to it would be that the ratio of the mass difference between the two is 20.52:1 elephant:man. The statement "elephant is bigger than me." can be interpreted in many different ways though...and there religious/philisophical "truth" starts getting in trouble. Is the elephant truly bigger in all ways or just physical etc...perhaps I have it wrong but I am no philospher...

Personlly, you got me wrong. I really don't give two toots about "truth" esoteric or otherwise. I'm always about "facts". To some that makes me a bit headstrong but really it keeps me going just fine.

Religion aside, fact and truth are two seperate but often confused concepts.

[BurtWorm]

89. Religion blows your mind to bits.

Science builds it up.

[onager]

197. What a facile POS argument.

Science Blows Up Hiroshima.

You seem to be forgetting...or maybe you're just bone-ignorant...that the Manhattan Project scientists were employed by the U.S. government.

It wasn't a case of scientists demanding the nuking of Hiroshima, though religious asshats consistently frame the argument in those completely bullshit terms.

The scientists (like Leo Szilard) begged the U.S. government NOT to use nuclear weapons against Japan. That's a matter of historical record. Szilard even took a team of Manhattan Project scientists to visit US Secretary of State James Byrnes, warning against the use of nuclear weapons. Byrnes ignored them.

And Byrnes was a Bible-believing Xian from my part of the Bible Belt--Spartanburg, SC.

Here's another part of the historical record--the only alternative to the nukes was an invasion of the Japanese home islands, which would have caused even more massive bloodshed than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. Just as the "conventional" firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the nuking of Hiroshima.

I love "evil scientist" threads, though. Of course, if you or your loved ones come down with a terminal disease, you will only rely on prayer and not check yourselves into an Evil Scientific Hospital, will you?

[pleah]

22. I would like to have a t-shirt with that on it.

:evilgrin:

[Sanctified]

24. WTF is that bullshit, Imperialism flies people into your Buildings.

That sign is almost as retarded as people who claim Sept 11th happened because they hate us for our freedom.

[wtmusic]

28. Could 9/11 have happened without fundamentalism AND imperialism?

Unlikely. The hijackers used the will of Allah as a motivational tool, with a hate that has its roots in imperialism.

Dawkins is sugarcoating to make the message more palatable.

[Sanctified]

29. Religion is not responsible for throwing off the shackles of Imperialism?

Those guys would have flown those planes into buildings no matter what religion they followed or even if they were atheists. Blaming religion for 9/11 makes about as much sense as blaming religion for the resistance in Iraq.

[cosmik debris]

34. Brilliant theory!

That means the Japanese are responsible for the Atomic Bomb at Hiroshima, and the Germans are responsible for the fire bombing of Dresden.

Claiming that the enemy made you kill them is a beautiful rationalization! I love it!

[Sanctified]

36. Is Buddhism responsible for Pearl Harbor? n/t

[cosmik debris]

37. Obviously American Imperialism is responsible

That's your theory isn't it?

The victim is responsible for provoking the attack and therefore the victim is to blame? That seems to be the argument you are making about 9/11.

:crazy:

[ImOnlySleeping]

59. shinto

Plus Shinto was the state religion at the time.

[Occam Bandage]

204. Surely you aren't arguing that Shinto

was the driving force behind the Japanese desire to secure raw materials to fuel their economic growth, or was behind the authorship of their desperate plan to take out the American, British, Chinese, and Dutch military presence in the Pacific in one blow.

[BigTexBlue]

154. Well, in a way, yes.

"That means the Japanese are responsible for the Atomic Bomb at Hiroshima, and the Germans are responsible for the fire bombing of Dresden."

Rounding up Jews, Poles, homosexuals, dissenters, Mentally and physically disabled, and anyone else you don't like, and putting them in camps to be worked to death or outright murdered. Meanwhile sending troops to attack an entire continent could be considered a justifiable reason to have your cities firebombed. Also, by attacking a Naval base, invading multiple island nations, murdering thousands of Chinese, a person could reasonable conclude that you open yourself up to a response. In hindsight, maybe dropping an A bomb was too much response, but there is also the school of thought that more would have died had the US tried to invade the Japanese mainland but that is a discussion for another thread. So, given that the firebombing of Dresden and the Nuking of Hiroshima was a response to the German and Japanese aggression, then yes the Germans and Japanese are responsible.

[cosmik debris]

159. The reason that is such a silly notion

Is that it completely denies the concept of personal responsibility.

You are saying that we are not responsible for our actions, that we have no free will, that we were controlled by our enemies.

In fact, we had many choices and we chose the ones I mentioned. It was our choice, our responsibility.

If we consider it to be wrong, we have no one but ourselves to blame . We did it because we wanted it done.

[BigTexBlue]

180. I see your point but I disagree with your reasoning.

Let's say you walk up on me while I am in the process of committing a murder. You try to stop me and I attack you. Now, I have forced you to defend yourself. Now let's say in the process of defending yourself and my would be murder victim, you break my nose. Who is responsible for that broken nose? It seems that by your reasoning, you would be at fault for breaking my nose. I would reason that, had I not been trying to murder someone, and not attacked you when you intervened, I would not have had my nose broken. So therefore my nose is broken as a result of my actions and I am the one responsible. I guess what I'm getting at here is that I believe the responsibility for any response, right or wrong, lies with the initial aggressor because, had the initial aggression not taken place, no response would have taken place.

[cosmik debris]

181. In every step of your hypothetical

We both had choices.

Our choices were decided by us, not the other.

If you decide to attack me, that is your choice. You had other options.

If I decide to defend myself, that is my choice. I had other options.

You can't blame some one else for your choices.

If I break your nose, it is MY action resulting from MY choice among the several options available.

I had (in the hypothetical situation) other options.

I alone am responsible for the option that I selected.

Blaming other people for your own decisions is an odd form of morality that makes me quite uncomfortable. You can only do that if you abdicate your own personal responsibility for your actions. (i.e. surrender your free will)

In a legal sense, that could be considered a mental illness. If you are accused of a crime and you plead that you are not responsible for your actions, it's off to the loony bin for you.

[BurtWorm]

100. Bin Laden viewed 9/11 as a religious act.

He may have been reacting against imperialism, fooled by his religion into believing his motives were holy, but it wasn't anti-imperialism that he appealed to when justifying himself. He justified the taking of lives of people who did nothing personal against him or his family or his country, not by appealing to patriotism or political ideology, but by appealing strictly to religion and god's will. The motherfucker is a religious nut, not an anti-imperialist. His religion doesn't mitigate his actions. It makes it all the more horrible for being so impenetrable and inhuman.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html


BIN LADEN: This battle is not between al Qaeda and the U.S. This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders. In the past when al Qaeda fought with the mujahedeen, we were told, "Wow, can you defeat the Soviet Union?" The Soviet Union scared the whole world then. NATO used to tremble of fear of the Soviet Union. Where is that power now? We barely remember it. It broke down into many small states and Russia remained.

God, who provided us with his support and kept us steadfast until the Soviet Union was defeated, is able to provide us once more with his support to defeat America on the same land and with the same people. We believe that the defeat of America is possible, with the help of God, and is even easier for us, God permitting, than the defeat of the Soviet Union was before.

[Occam Bandage]

206. I don't think it's fruitful to bicker over "religion" versus "imperialism" here,

as bin Laden believes that Western military and cultural imperialists have launched a war of extermination against Islam and the Muslim ummah. When a man believes that his religion and his society are indistinguishable, and believes that imperialists have launched a global effort to eradicate his religion/society and that he is retaliating in holy defense, I think arguing over whether that man's motives are "religious" or "anti-imperialist" is trying to form a distinction where none exists.

[Zynx]

214. Plenty of crazy crap happens in the absence of both.

[laconicsax]

31. Swing and a miss.

Koran 2:190-192

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Koran 3:151

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

Koran 4:74

Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

Koran 9:111

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

Sure sounds like imperialism promising a reward for killing and terrorizing disbelievers...that is so long as you replace 'imperialism' with 'religion.'

[Sanctified]

33. Are you serious?

Stop looking so ignorant, they did not fly those planes into the World Trade Center because of the Koran, they did it because of our Imperialistic involvement in the Middle East. There are plenty of towers in Canada or Mexico which would have been easier to hit if they only wanted to attack non-believers furthermore they killed Muslims in those buildings so you saying they did it because of religion is ridiculous.

[laconicsax]

43. Thank you for being the first to resort to name-calling.

I'm not saying that the sole reason for terrorism is religious, I'm saying that the sole reason for suicide attacks is religious. People who resort to terrorism tend to use suicide attacks when they fervently believe that by dying while killing infidels, they will secure their place in heaven.

If you want to insist that religion plays no role in any of this, then you're welcome to do so. I do suggest is that you read up on Sayyid Qutb and his role in starting the Islamist movement, especially the part where Qutb and his followers reasoned that Muslims who did not share their fanaticism were somehow not true Muslims and should be killed as nonbelievers. If you like, there's a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" that discusses the Islamist and Neoconservative movements. You can watch it online here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3.

[dpbrown]

32. One of the best slogans I've ever seen or heard.

That's perfect.

[anonymous171]

39. lol Atom bomb. nt

[krister]

41. OMG

I WANT THAT

[davidthegnome]

45. Nice

So it's somehow the fault of all religious people that some radicals flew planes into buildings? Interesting logic, but, uh, not particularly accurate.

Looks (to me) like someone trying to stir the pot and get some attention. There are millions of people all over the world who are religious - yet have never killed anyone as a result. There are countless religions and views regarding higher powers or an afterlife.

Religion is not the problem. Suffering is the problem. Suffering, delusion, egotism, pride, ignorance, hatred.

Speaking as a very non-religious person, that's a load of crap to me. It's clearly intended to be offensive and provocative, and isn't going to do anyone the least bit of good. Freedom of speech is a great thing, and you're welcome to have whatever sign you want.

But don't be surprised when people point out it's a load of shit. Just sayin.

[Joshua N]

49. I'm not taking a side here, but I find it ironic that the folks against religion are making great

effort to distinguish between the "real" science and the unflattering examples of science their opponents have given. It makes me think of overzealous religious folks who try to distinguish between "real" Christianity/religion and the "fake" kinds. Just thought I would note.

[skepticscott]

52. The difference is

that the religious folks have no objective standard for what constitutes "real" religion, as opposed to "false" religion. They just make it up as they go. True science makes actual discoveries about the real world, that can be checked against the real world by other scientists to see how closely they conform. On the other hand, pseudosciences like astrology or parapsychology are practiced for decades or centuries, and produce no new knowledge or understanding.

As far as the other stuff, you're confusing science and scientific discoveries with their use. Scientific discoveries are just tools, and like all tools, they can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. This in no way invalidates the process of discovery. And of science and religion, which one has rules of ethics for how it should be practiced?

[cosmik debris]

60. I really believe we should blame Bernoulli for 9/11

After all, his scientific invention and description of the air foil allowed the construction of the planes that flew into the buildings! And Bernoulli was a Christian, so 9/11 is the fault of Christians and scientists!

:sarcasm:

See how far I can reach when I am trying very hard to cover up something distasteful? :rofl:

[kwassa]

93. All high-tech weapons are scientific achievements, and so is their murderous effectiveness,

and scientists bear some responsibility for that.

Science and religion cover completely different areas, and comparing the two is really rather absurd. Some treat science as a belief system, but it really doesn't touch on ethics, morality, or the way humans behave in the world.

Science and religion are not always incompatible, either.

[bos1]

57. It shows that science IS their religion. nt

[Goblinmonger]

133. In one short sentence

you have shown that you know the definitions of neither religion nor science. Keep trying, though. Whatever makes you feel better about your religion is always good for a few laughs.

[bos1]

139. too bad pedantry and condescension

aren't worth any laughs at all

[Goblinmonger]

166. Wow, you used a form of "pedantry"

in TWO WHOLE posts on this thread. Which word of the day was it? I bet "condescension" was in the same week.

I don't understand how saying that you are using words incorrectly is pedantry. Perhaps condescension. But it is kind of like the Republicans bitching about Obama because he's smart and well educated so they call him a "latte liberal."

Nice attempt at a deflection from the real issues. You seem to be Olympic caliber in that regard.

[bos1]

168. i take it back

as a flailing atheist, you're very entertaining. Now, waste your life some more by going thru all my posts looking for the word "smarmy", and then meditate on it.

[Goblinmonger]

179. The irony

of you being pedantic and condescending is not lost.

Nor is the fact that you still haven't explained how me pointing out that you are not using key words in the right way is pedantic. But I'm sure I'll just get more "witty" retorts from you and not substantive discussion of the original issue.

[ImOnlySleeping]

62. Also

While Mengele while performing 'experiments', he clearly crossed a boundary that the majority of people never would and that was brought about by his government's attitude toward Jews. I put quotes on experiments since he was mostly just doing stuff and seeing what happened rather than actually testing a hypothesis.
The Manhattan project is a mixed bag. For the physicists involved, the challenge of breaking the secret to releasing nuclear energy, regardless of the use would have been tempting. It's one of the greatest scientific advances. The closest project of that scope since then would have been the moon landing. Additionally, the Germans were working to the same goal (but with less success) at the same time, so there was an atmosphere of not succeeding leading to the allies getting nuked. Realistically, the nuke could have been set off in an uninhabited area as a threat. The decision to use it in a metropolis was a military and political one, not scientific.

[santamargarita]

50. True, true

Great slogan :think:

[indimuse]

51. LOL!

2 funny! AND TRUE! ha!

[americanmutt]

53. the bard could not have put it so well....

[immoderate]

61. In science, the method of knowing is important.

In religion it's only important that you believe something.

--imm

[Soylent Brice]

63. i am LOVING these.

truth hurts. HA!

[barbtries]

69. that is GREAT

where?
ahhh, i clicked on the link and it is as i feared: not anywhere. yet. :)

[SecularMotion]

71. It's interesting that the defenders of religion

in this thread are using the same logic to parse the message that they accuse atheists of when they parse the bible.

"It can't be taken literally, it's a METAPHOR."

[donco6]

72. Except when it isn't.

And fundies get to decide which is which. :)

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

75. The more correct second line should be:

Religion uses science to fly you into buildings...

[madrchsod]

76. science flies you into buildings not religion

[cosmik debris]

77. That's right,

blame it all on Bernoulli!

:)

[bos1]

81. All Religions Suck. But it's not God's Fault.

[berni_mccoy]

83. Dumb, Divisive and Dawkins. Easily retorted with "You can't have Planes and WMDs without Science".

[mrbarber]

86. Radical non-believers..

Can be just as intolerant and hateful as the "True believers"

The one person who stopped talking to me after I came out was my best friend, an atheist, while all my other friends, many of whom are devoutly religious, I still speak to almost 10 years later.

[bos1]

130. awesome post. yes, Angry Athiests are really weird. More issues than the average religious.

thank you telling us. Glad most of your friends are supportive.

[Goblinmonger]

135. When you paint,

you are generally going to get a better, more detailed picture if you use a very narrow brush. You tend to use a very broad brush and slap paint on everything around you. I don't think I like your pictures.

[bos1]

138. medium brush. Angry athiests. Not all athiests.

I stick to what I said, that those atheists who get very angry about the subject, have issues and are weird. In my experience, more than the average, casually religious person.

[liberation]

155. Your posts, via your projection, tell us more about you than us atheists...

I fail to see any "angry" atheists in this thread.

The only reasoning I can find in your response is if by I assume that by "angry" you meant "some people have the gall to have a different point of view"...

[bos1]

157. Jeez, Che, get a new projector

and read the post I responded to and a couple of the other angry atheists on this thread. Sorry that Communism sucks but don't blame me

[Goblinmonger]

165. Wow, I was going to call him

Hector Projector in one of my responses. GMTA, I guess.

[Deep13]

88. I wasn't going to K&R or even comment.

But I am doing so because I am seeing the same anti-intellectualism and libel against rationality that I hear from Fundies and Fox viewers. I'm aware that the OP is intended to be prevocative. Still, it is not very much of an exaggeration.

[mrbarber]

91. Not very much of an exaggeration?

Thinking about the billions of religious people in the world who live peaceful lives, and compare them to the radicals.

Using that reasoning, it's safe to say that atheism causes school shootings, since the Columbine shooters were both outspoken atheists.

[Deep13]

94. No, you don't get it at all.

As a side note, please support the assertion that the Columbine murderers were atheisits.

First of all we are comparing science, the systematic search for fact, with religion, the insistence on believing the impossible. Atheism is a non-religion, not an actual philosophy of its own. It's kind of like being a nonsmoker. It's a meaningless statement except that there are smokers. When non-believers do evil things it is because they are evil, not because they are nonbelievers. Often that is true of religious people too. What makes religion insidious is its insistence that it knows the only truth and that nonbelievers are damned for not accepting it. Once holiness becomes the standard of morality, anything at all becomes justified to pursue it. If Allah is the only real god and if Allah insists on everyone believing in him, then it is perfectly reasonable to commit acts of mass murder against Allah's enemies. The 9/11 terrorists were not insane. They were intelligent, middle class, educated young men who were extremist in their actions, but not their beliefs. Their thinking on a Muslim's duty to defend and spread Islam were pretty much mainstream.

But atrocities aside, the most significant harm of religion is that it makes people suffer needlessly because they think they are "sinners" and it makes a mental and social barrier to scientific discovery.

[mrbarber]

103. There's no point in discussing this with someone so blinded by hate.

The shooters were known to be anti-religious and targeted Christians along with popular athletes.

"First of all we are comparing science, the systematic search for fact, with religion, the insistence on believing the impossible."

"What makes religion insidious is its insistence that it knows the only truth and that nonbelievers are damned for not accepting it."

"But atrocities aside, the most significant harm of religion is that it makes people suffer needlessly because they think they are "sinners" and it makes a mental and social barrier to scientific discovery."

I've decided I have no interest in arguing with someone with such a close minded and bigoted view of religion as nothing productive will come of it.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bos1]

122. One of those ex-religious (fundamentalists?) who now hates the religious.

these types are extremist whichever way they fall. like the famous hippies that went conservative. There was also a famous Commie who became big Reaganite and pro-Contra, though I cannot remember his name.

[Lerkfish]

92. well... and science makes atomic holocaust possible

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

174. The same science

also makes nuclear power possible, not to mention radiation therapy, smoke detectors and other useful and important things too numerous to mention. It may even make it possible to deflect or destroy an asteroid headed for earth. As I said above, there are no good or evil tools, only good and evil uses for them.

[Lerkfish]

176. right. and there are those who believe religion is ONLY evil here

and dont look at religion as a tool used by people for their own ends at times.

[Union Yes]

99. Modern Man/Woman predate religion 100,000 years.

Chistianity dates back about 2000 years. Islam and Judaism aren't much older.

Where was "God" for the previous 97000 years?

Why is there ZERO biblical/religious record from 50000 years ago? Or 10000 years ago?

Religion is a myth dreamed up by world leaders to control the populace.

[mrbarber]

106. Modren Man/Woman predate Judeo-Christian religions.

Not all religions.

[liberation]

115. A bit of education in the subject may be in order...

First of, Judaism predates Christianity (old testament, helloooooo) by a good couple of millennium.

There were plenty of religions before the Judeo-christian traditions, in fact Judaism is based on different predating myths in the area (Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, etc).

Civilization is 10000 years old, but there are religious expressions predating that...

Religion seems to be an evolutionary development if anything.

[bos1]

132. Exactly. :"religion" is as old as mankind

"Organized Religion" and "Good Books" are the recent unfortunate developments

[liberation]

136. I don't believe the problem with religion is the switch from oral to written traditions

The same nonsense (and probably worse) was happening during the stone ages.

Religion was probably evolved as a method by the human brain to fill in the answers of the questions that could not be solved at the time and as a tool for social control.

Probably, like the appendix religion has now surpassed its evolutionary use and it is more of a liability than anything else.

[bos1]

137. some education about religious experience and other realities

may be in order. Your definition and summary seem very reductionist.

[liberation]

153. Do you realize that your answer was reductionist to the extreme...

your projection amuses me... LOL.

[cosmik debris]

116. Has anyone else noticed how neatly these arguments dovetail

with the "No atheists in foxholes" meme?

It seems that a lot of people here believe that godless scientists create weapons and god fearing theists use them.

And both blame the other for the end result.

I think it is fuckin HILARIOUS!

[Unca Jim]

123. Indeed!

Funny as all hell!

I love it when Atheists tell me what I believe and get mad when I try to to interpret what they believe!

[Unca Jim]

124. Great Sign

I wish there was more of this kind of talk. Absolutism needs to be called out and ridiculed.

[cosmik debris]

126. That's not what I meant, but that's OK

We don't have to agree as long as we are laughing!

[aquamarina]

129. Wow, succinct and right to the point.

[The Animator]

141. Zoiks!

[Prophet 451]

146. *sigh*

The asshole will always practice his faith in a way that lets him remain an asshole. Why is that so hard to understand that all people of faith must be smeared?

[mikelgb]

150. Here's the rub: Moon Landing and 9/11 were both HOLOGRAMS!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=1">Series!

[lelgt60]

151. Science is amoral. Scientists may be moral or immoral. Religions attempt to define the difference

Science is amoral: Gravity is simply a fact on earth. Gravity can get people killed. Does that make the scientist who discovers gravity an immoral killer? Maybe, if that scientist discovered gravity in the search for ways to kill people.

My problem with religion is when it tries to claim some knowledge, especially knowledge that contradicts knowledge derived from scientific methods, with no experiments, or other applications of scientific methods, to backup their claims. For example, numerous scientific studies have shown that a human being jumping of a 10 story building onto concrete below, with nothing to cushion the fall, will very likely die. If a religion claims that by praying to its god, you will not die when jumping off buildings, and if you do die, it's because you didn't "really" believe, I have a problem.

[baldguy]

184. Science claims no special knowledge; and usually gets it right.

Religion claims all special knowledge in existence; and usually gets it wrong.

[happygoluckytoyou]

158. DEMOCRATS...Obama has a mandate.... REPUBLICANS...Criag has a Man Date.....so ends the lesson ! ! !

[cliffordu]

178. Great. Perfect!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

185. Religion creates art. Science creates cruise missiles. nt

[crikkett]

186. some other great vehicles of science

TV Detection Van, used to detect unlicensed TVs in the UK



A chinese execution van, used to administer lethal injection in rural areas, so that even poor communities can build dedicated Death Rows without the cost of sending a prisoner to Beijing ($250) and further purchasing the poison ($175).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_van


Yeah, gotta love what science brings us. Hooray for science unbridled by religion!

[laconicsax]

187. Another winner!

I certainly love what science brings us when it's unbridled from religion--just look a few minor accomplishments of the last 1000 years.
-Tripled life expectancy.
-Cures for disease.
-Modern medicine.
-Electricity.
-Synthetic materials.
-Powered flight.
-Telecommunications.
-Exploration of space and other planets.
-Exploration of the oceans.
-Knowledge of genetics.
-Understanding of the nature of cells.
-Robotics.
-Greater understanding of the Earth, our solar system, and the universe.

What exactly has religion brought us in the last 1000 years, aside from a wars and witch hunts?

You do realize that science only tell us what is possible, right? Science doesn't say, "build a van that can administer lethal injections." Science doesn't say, "build an atom bomb." Science only provides the knowledge and people decide what to do with that knowledge. Religion, however, tells us what to do. Religion says, "kill witches." Religion says, "cut some of your foreskin off." Religion says, "If someone doesn't believe in God, kill them."

To be fair, religion also provides knowledge like "the universe is 6000 years old," "The sky is holding back water," "bats are birds," "rabbits chew their cud," "the Earth is the center of the universe," "dragons and unicorns exist," "the Earth is flat," "stars are tiny objects that exist to make astrological readings," "clouds are dust from God's feet as he walks," and "Mute people are possessed by the devil." You know...if not for science being unbridled from religion, we might still believe these things to be true.

[crikkett]

188. You sure are putting a lot into my mouth.

If only it were food. Instead it's bullshit.

I'm hungry. And I'm not pro-religion just because I think science w/o a moral base is dangerous.

Nice to see the brotherhood here.

[cosmik debris]

189. "...science w/o a moral base..."

I can't even imagine that concept.

Just as I can't imagine science with a moral base.

[laconicsax]

191. I only work with what you give me.

Do you realize how ridiculous the idea of 'science with a moral base' is?

How about math with a moral base?
How about spelling with a moral base?

Science is a systematic method used to uncover the workings of the universe by creating theoretical models that explain existing facts. Morals don't enter into the picture at any point, nor should they.

There's nothing moral or immoral about studying electromagnetism or radiation. The application of knowledge in those fields lead to the creation of the TV Detector Van. There's nothing moral or immoral about studying biology or chemistry. The application of knowledge in those fields lead to the creation of the Execution Van. I don't see you railing against math, which was clearly needed to create both those vans.

The execution van is also little more than a big ambulance in terms of construction and contents, so unless you're taking issue with the role science played in creating the internal combustion engine, stretchers, lethal injection chemicals, and syringes, I have to wonder how it's a result of science without a moral base and even then, since all the components of the van have valid uses outside of administering executions, I don't see how you can insist that it's an issue of science without morals.

What's also funny is that you seem to consider a van filled with electronics used to determine if someone is breaking the law to be immoral. Either way, I fail to see how Britain chooses to enforce its laws is an issue of science without morals.

[cosmik debris]

192. Actually I was thinking about

Asparagus without a publisher or velocity without bay windows. There is no way it makes sense either with or without.

But you are right, ionic bonds are not more moral than covalent bonds. And moons do not orbit for moral reasons.

[crikkett]

193. The examples I gave showed that Religion isn't the only tool of oppression

and the bus presents us with a false choice.

And you still put words into my mouth. And you still think you're right to do it.

So I'm done talking to you.

[laconicsax]

195. So, let me get this straight...

You make a comment blaming "science" on a couple of vans and assert the need for science to be checked by religion.
I call your comment ignorant and explain why.
You accuse me of putting words in your mouth and insist that you aren't 'pro-religion' and that 'science without a moral base is dangerous.'
I inform you that there's nothing moral or immoral about science, explain why, and ask you to explain how your examples show science without morals.
You change your line to say that science is a tool of oppression, that your buses present a false choice, and that I'm putting words in your mouth.

So I'm seeing ignorance from you, explanation from me, accusation from you, explanation from me, accusation from you. No wonder you want to call it quits.

[Marrah_G]

198. Depends on the religion

[sam sarrha]

199. religion is based on something, what if science explains it..?? >Link>

http://users.skynet.be/sky50779/mohammed.htm
"snip...A better scientific examination of the sources has made clear that all symptoms of acromegaly are present with some psycho-pathological paranoid traits. Acromegaly is caused by a small tumour of the hypophysis, beginning most of the time about the fortieth year and ending in the sixtieth year with an apoplexy of the hypophysis...snip"

as for the resent hysterical and violent reactions to an image of the Prophet, it is pecular..there are many..
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/

but later in life he wore a veil, the afore mentioned disease can cause serious facial deformatives..

i hesitate to adhere to any bronze age interpretation of what what some individual or their Oligarchical hangers on profess.. especially a Channeler, or someone who hears voices of god telling him to kill his children.. too many Schizophrenics and their doctors today have proved that not to be a plaintiffs valid testimony in court..

i'll stick to science ..

[Marrah_G]

200. I was stating that not all religions fly you into buildings.

Or rather: Not all religions are filled with zealots who are sure they have found the "right" way and demand others on pain of death to believe the same way.

There are other religions other then those based on Abraham and his god.

There are religions that cause harm and those that do not.

[sam sarrha]

201. but they keep try'n to fly into my home, my bedroom and our schools/government

[Occam Bandage]

202. Wiccans are flying into your home?

Put up landing lights so they can steer their broomsticks away in time.

[sam sarrha]

207. i live in North Carolina.. all the Wiccans have been BBQ'd and eaten by the Fundies who now have air

superiority...

[Rabrrrrrr]

203. Science gives you nuclear bombs and mustard gas, religion gives you the civil rights movement

Seriously, what's the point of making such assholish one-sided ignorant statements?

The truth is, evil fucks will use science, religion, or whatever is at hand to do evil fuck things.

Good people will use science, religion, or whatever is at hand to do good things.

[sam sarrha]

208. Oh Please... religion gives us intolerance, self indulgent Narcissism, gay murders... i live in the

South, Bible Bang'n self righteous Rethuglican Zealot Land...

Religion both Heals and Harms.. that makes it questionable.. where i live it harms.. i grew up in the Free Holiness Pentecostal Church.. i want NOTHING to do with ANY church, i was a Devout atheist at age 6. even at that age i knew what crazy was..

when i found out Santa was a Cruel Joke.. it being related to Xmas led me to believe The crazy shit i heard about Jesus was also Bogus, and i have to date not been impressed with any defense of religion. i am however very impressed with Buddhism.. straight talk, logic, practical, no bullshit bronze age goat herder camp fire mixted up Sumerian folk tales.

[Rabrrrrrr]

209. Try reading my whole post.

[Zynx]

215. If you live in a third world country near a dirty factory, science harms.

[Realityhack]

211. Not quite.

Good and Bad things exist outside of science and religion. However the two differ in a couple of key ways.

Religion encourages people to ignore evidence in favor of faith. This is in the opinion of a lot of people a very bad thing. Science does not do this.

Science doesn't judge killing people as ok or not ok (good/bad moral/immoral). It doesn't say punching someone is good or bad. So while it can be used as an excuse science does not actually make judgments on wither these things are ok and so the very definition of science must be twisted to use it to justify anything.
Religion OTOH does make specific statements about what is ok and what is not ok (good/bad moral/immoral). Thus the definition of religion need not be changed for it to define something as good/moral/ethical etc.

So Science can not say it is good to kill off group A. It can only make predictions about the costs and outcomes that people then add good and bad meanings too. One can argue about the moral implications of the predictions. Claim that the benefits make it good. But that is debatable, and is NOT something that science says, but rather something people add to it.
OTOH Religion can (and does) say it is good to kill off group A. And this is a declarative statement. No evidence of any kind, no moral argumentation of any kind can change the declaration that killing off group A is good.

Science can not say flying a plane into a building is good. It can not say going to the moon is good.
Religion can (and some have) say that flying a plane into a building is good.

So yes, bad people will use both. But they are not equally innocent.

[Occam Bandage]

205. Science gives you gas chambers. Religion gives you chamber music.

Whee!

[SarahJohn]

216. But without science

we couldn't fly. So the motto is flawed.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

217. LOVE IT!!!

[RetiredTrotskyite]

218. LOVE IT!!!