something that i think may be a good counter force to the "all religion is evil" position held by some athiests. my opinoin is that science has a purpose to maintain a balance of realism in the physical v spiritual debate.
however one of our greatest scientist albert einstein towards the end of his life said if he could choose his career in another life he would be something simple like a plumber or electrician. not only this but the penultimate achivement of this scientist has been the abomination witnessed at hiroshima and nagasaki.

what do those individuals who demonize religion and idolize science think about the results of the life work of this genius?

We now know that E=MC^2
We now know that time is not a constant

These are fundamantal properties of the universe.

As to the atomic bombs that were dropped - they stopped a major world war and saved countless thousands of lives.

Science is the vehicle to knowledge, which can indeed be used to discredit many spiritually based arguments.

Did Einstein conceive of the bomb?
Did he design it?
Did he build it?
Did he give the order to drop it?
Did he drop it?

If you really want to play connect-the-dots, you have to remember to add in all the dots.

Ellion,
What do you think about the countless lives lost because religion asked their followers to kill non-believers, witches...where was religion when salvery was established, where was religion when coutries were/ are ruled by dictators ...The good that has come from science is the only yard stick we have to show that we have progressed as a community ... Religion no matter which ..has lots of skeleton in their closet so please do not bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was a political decision and not made my scientists ...

And Chris just to be fair ...the Bombs were dropped on unarmed citizens and one would have been enough ..it did stop a war but destroyed generations of kids ...I would rather have the soldiers who signed up for war die rather than unborn kids..

We now know that E=MC^2
We now know that time is not a constant

fantastic discoveries but have these been utilised for enhancement of the race or is it just knowledge with out any useful purpose?


As to the atomic bombs that were dropped - they stopped a major world war and saved countless thousands of lives. i wont get into the politics of dropping the bomb and killling humans that is a different arguement

Science is the vehicle to knowledge, which can indeed be used to discredit many spiritually based arguments.the vehicle to knowledge yes but knowledge is not always utilised to best effect. i dont agree that man should stay ignorant to knowledge but i seek to draw comparisons with knowledge that is misused whether in science or religion.

http://www.jet.efda.org/

Did Einstein conceive of the bomb?
Did he design it?
Did he build it?
Did he give the order to drop it?
Did he drop it?
i am not having a crack at the man himself, he lived his life and was without question a a truely great thinker. more broadly the field of science in general is as much of a threat to the health and the future of our species as religion has been to previous civilizations and our current society.

more broadly the field of science in general is as much of a threat to the health and the future of our species as religion has been to previous civilizations and our current society.

Surely, you don't think that. Science may be used for 'evil deeds' but it has also brought you out of the caves, my friend.

Please note that it has been primarily theists who have used science to render those 'evil deeds,' not science itself.

Atheists are using science to help mankind, not wipe it out.

Surely, you don't think that. Science may be used for 'evil deeds' but it has also brought you out of the caves, my friend.

Please note that it has been primarily theists who have used science to render those 'evil deeds,' not science itself.

Atheists are using science to help mankind, not wipe it out

no, i do think that science that science carries a potentially huge destrutive charge.

and it was more religion (the older religion [the science of the soul]) that brought us out of the caves, science in its true form being a comparetively modern invention.

how can you say "athiests are using science......." as though every athiest is morally and ethically scrupulous. and also implying with that statement that all religious are the epitome of immoral maleficience.

http://www.jet.efda.org/


http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/

i am really busy just now will get back to this later

I think we have to realize that individuals of either stripe can be just as good or evil as the next guy. The philosophy of religion is the problem. Blind acceptance of doctrine and decrees of the high holy. The religious leader says frog, 99% of the followers jump with nary a question (because religion generally punishes questioning. Many times with death). The philosophy of science is one of constant questioning and exploring.

If people decide to use the knowledge gained by science without questioning it, they're as bad as any theist. We live in a comparatively quiet time of religious semi-tolerance. Who here thinks it would be impossible to revert to the good old days of witch hunts and inquisitions? Holy knights on crusade? I don't. I think it's just a few elections away without the vigilant efforts of thousands of secularists.

So, the gaining of knowledge by science is neutral. What we do with it is not. I would rather see a rational government driven by scientific principles than a theistic one any day. Terrifying thought huh? A theocracy.

What do you think about the countless lives lost because religion asked their followers to kill non-believers, i think it is appauling, absolutely fucking disgusting, it sickens me to think that humans will manipulate other humans encourageing the killing of each other to serve religious, political, economical or whatever aggenda. religion no longer has the monopoly on controlling the minds of the public and the science of psychology is another threat to the liberty of humanity.


where was religion when salvery was established,
what do you mean?


The good that has come from science is the only yard stick we have to show that we have progressed as a community

perhaps the good that we have from religion enabled civilization to maintain an atmosphere of peace in which humanity developed the responsibility and the degree of compassion for fellow humans which have allowed us to evolve thus far.
i hope you see what i am saying here? maybe those principles and morality that are the foundations of all religions are the reason humanity is responsible enough to have invented nuclear war heads without destoying the itself first opportunity.


Religion no matter which ..has lots of skeleton in their closet so please do not bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was a political decision and not made my scientistsi dont think this is a fair and open minded atitude. to say you should not mention some negative aspect of science because religion has some negative aspect is would get us nowhere would it? should we only discuss the positive and pretend that no negatives exist?

If a God created the universe (which pressumably is what you think), then we evolved to gain knowledge about the very world we live in. If the knowledge we gain from our findings is used to kill, then why are we quick to blame science rather than God him/her/itself?

Most of life as we know it, is kill or be killed... what kind of a place is that for someone to create who supposidly loves his children?

Science...like religion, is an evil of neccessity. Many require religion to fulfill the needs of the soul. Others require science to explain the reality they see. Both will have black and white reflections in the mirror of individual observation, if only because they are the creations of Human minds.

ellion:

perhaps the good that we have from religion enabled civilization to maintain an atmosphere of peace in which humanity developed the responsibility and the degree of compassion for fellow humans which have allowed us to evolve thus far.
i hope you see what i am saying here? maybe those principles and morality that are the foundations of all religions are the reason humanity is responsible enough to have invented nuclear war heads without destoying the itself first opportunity.

I think you are wrong. The human way of living has remained essentially unchanged since before the first egyptian dynasties. In fact we were more advanced at such times, then religious wars knocked us back down. Only with the advent of science and the rejection of the supernatural have we seen a fundamental change in our way of life. Good or bad, dosen't matter. I happen to think it's much better that the "bad old days".

Morals don't come from religion or a god. They are an inherent part of us as they are of all creatures to varying degrees. Religion just gives certain humans the ability to control others.

If a God created the universe (which pressumably is what you think), i dont think god did create the universe, mostly because the universse as a completed system is yet uncreated. i think if i saying god is in the process of evolving the universe would be closer to my understanding.

then we evolved to gain knowledge about the very world we live in.
if god did create the universe (as you say above) could there be another reason we evolved other than to gain knowledge about the world we live in?


If the knowledge we gain from our findings is used to kill, then why are we quick to blame science rather than God him/her/itself?
well i am not really blaming science, playing devils advocate with a bias toward religion, my desire is to see why the scientist in this community are so quick to blaming god/religion for all the evil in the world.


Most of life as we know it, is kill or be killed... what kind of a place is that for someone to create who supposidly loves his children?it maybe like a father who lets his children out in to the street to play but waits eagerly for them to return home. if the father has always been at home, the children will have a warm welcome when they return from the cold.

Science...like religion, is an evil of neccessity. Many require religion to fulfill the needs of the soul. Others require science to explain the reality they see. Both will have black and white reflections in the mirror of individual observation, if only because they are the creations of Human minds. i'd agree with this. both movements have devloped as necessities of culture, both could be viewn as containing the potential for good and evil, as both are creations of humanity. they are the expressions of humanity in its search for its identity and a place in the universe. humanity itself containing this balance of what we call evil and that known as good its expressions are bound to contain this all within this spectrum.

I think we have to realize that individuals of either stripe can be just as good or evil as the next guy.this is exactly what i am saying.

The philosophy of religion is the problem. is it not more like how that philosophy is misused?
if you have read any religious texts and given any thought to the meaning, then i am sure you must recognise the value of the philosophies.


The philosophy of science is one of constant questioning and exploring.this is how it should be with religion also. an authority wich spoon feeds its consituents is creating its own demise, by nurturing dependence you propogate weakness.


If people decide to use the knowledge gained by science without questioning it, they're as bad as any theist. where do you get the idea that theists are bad?



We live in a comparatively quiet time of religious semi-tolerance. Who here thinks it would be impossible to revert to the good old days of witch hunts and inquisitions? Holy knights on crusade? I don't. I think it's just a few elections away without the vigilant efforts of thousands of secularists.

So, the gaining of knowledge by science is neutral. What we do with it is not. I would rather see a rational government driven by scientific principles than a theistic one any day. Terrifying thought huh? A theocracy.this is religion that is serving politiacl agendas, and i would agree this dfeinitely needs to be kept in check. this is not religion though this is misuse of power. as i said above as science will enhance this capacity to control the minds of people empirical methods applied to psychology mean more measurable ways of control more effeicent means of control will be developed more rapidly. this is is evident in all commercial forms of the medai now, to any one who as an understanding psychology.



I think you are wrong. The human way of living has remained essentially unchanged since before the first egyptian dynasties. In fact we were more advanced at such times, then religious wars knocked us back down.the egyptians had highly developed religious structure too. there rites and rituals are still studied and practiced today, their gods are still evoked.

Only with the advent of science and the rejection of the supernatural have we seen a fundamental change in our way of life.i suspect what you refer to as the supernatural is really the superficial aspects of religion, such things as the blind unquestioning acceptance of doctirne. the contol and manipulation of indivfduals by the use of authoritative scripts. there is nothing supernatural about such things. rejecting the superficiality of religion was a necessity the birth of science a necessity. the truth can not be hidden and those who see through lies will always question why those lies exist.



Morals don't come from religion or a god. if you accept that we are all from god(i understnad that you dont accept this, but if you do) then everything that is within us and everything that is without comes from god also.

They are an inherent part of us as they are of all creatures to varying degrees.yes, an inherent part of us, of all that exists, our nature.

Religion just gives certain humans the ability to control others.so do guns, bombs, money and politics i will stop that list there as it is potentially endless. it is man that takes control not the knowledge, knowldege confers power and power requires responsibilty, it is unfortunate that power is saught by those who care little for their responsibilty to humanity. this is not the fault of religion, though is it?

and heres me thinking this was going so well!

(q) i am astounded you have reneged the opportunity for rational discourse.

"to investigate fusion's potential as a safe, clean, and virtually limitless energy source for future generations."
taken from http://www.jet.efda.org/


" * Increase In Thyroid Cancer. Between 1981 - 1985, the five years preceding the accident, the average thyroid cancer rate was 4-6 incidents per million Ukrainian young children (birth to 15 years). However between 1986 - 1997 this rose to 45 incidents per million.

*Reachers also found that 64% of all Ukrainian thyroid cancer patients age 15 of younger lived in the most contaminated regions (the provinces of Kiev, Chernigov, Zhitomir, Cherkassy, and Rovno and the city of Kiev)"
taken from http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/

is this our future?
.

You have a problem with fusion recearch?

ellion:

Please get it straight. Fission and Fusion are two different things. Chernobyl was a fission reactor not fusion. Also, the Chernobyl disaster was an accident. It was caused by the poor judgment of inexperienced technicians running a test that they probably shouldn't have been authorized to run on a Soviet reactor lacking the fail-safe mechanisms used in the US and Europe. It is not the consequence of a properly designed and run fission reactor.

~Raithere

Get out the broadswords and the lamp oil boys! We're goin' back to the dark ages...

welcome back!

i think it is appauling, absolutely fucking disgusting, it sickens me to think that humans will manipulate other humans encourageing the killing of each other to serve religious, political, economical or whatever aggenda. religion no longer has the monopoly on controlling the minds of the public and the science of psychology is another threat to the liberty of humanity.
Well religion does that exactly ...good to know we are on the same page


what do you mean?
When I talk about salvery ..I did not read that Church or any religious missionaries sect tried to prevent/intervene the on going slavery or killing of innocent south americans or the native americans..this is because these were non-believers in their version of fairy tale..HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE TORTURED OR KILLED..


i dont think this is a fair and open minded atitude. to say you should not mention some negative aspect of science because religion has some negative aspect is would get us nowhere would it? should we only discuss the positive and pretend that no negatives exist?

I never said we should not discuss ..but why attack science ..science is just saying what is the truth ..and not asking you to believe in something. Religion not only wants you to believe it also wants you to judge people who do not believe in your version of you imaginary friend.

Well religion does that exactly ...good to know we are on the same page
i do know this. my hope is that our intelligent community can find some positive (as well as negative) in both directions without becoming paranoid about being brainwashed and converted etcetera.


When I talk about salvery ..I did not read that Church or any religious missionaries sect tried to prevent/intervene the on going slavery or killing of innocent south americans or the native americans..this is because these were non-believers in their version of fairy tale..HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE TORTURED OR KILLED..
where were the japanese and the eskimo, the russians and the mongols? seriously though, i understand that you may feel the religion could do more and didnt. do you realize how many problems american government have caused over the last few years?


I never said we should not discuss ..but why attack science ..science is just saying what is the truth ..and not asking you to believe in something.and i am sking why attack religion when science is just as fallible. both parties are saying what is the truth, whether you see it as the truth depends on which party you stand with.

no, i do think that science carries a potentially huge destrutive charge.

Only if theists continue to use science for destructive purposes, then I would agree with you.

(the older religion [the science of the soul])

I don't know what that is?

how can you say "athiests are using science......." as though every athiest is morally and ethically scrupulous. and also implying with that statement that all religious are the epitome of immoral maleficience.

The proof is in the putting, as they say. The world we live today is the result of centuries of religious thought. Atheism brings to the world rationale and reason, but it will take a long time to preclude religion.

Why not allow the world to be ruled by atheism for a change? What have we got to lose?

Only if theists continue to use science for destructive purposes, then I would agree with you. this will happen when scientists stop using theists as scapegoats.

I don't know what that is?then is your opinion a fully informed one?

The proof is in the putting, as they say. The world we live today is the result of centuries of religious thought. Atheism brings to the world rationale and reason, but it will take a long time to preclude religion.do you really see this world as being the result of religious thought. with no scientific influence, with no political influence with no economical interests being served. everything in your world, your reality was created by those nasty theists and their sky fairies was it?

Why not allow the world to be ruled by atheism for a change? What have we got to lose? you mean replace capitalism and consumerism with a disbelief in god?

how would that work?

anyway, why would i want to be ruled by anyone.

why not rule your own world? let those who want to rule, rule those who want to ruled.

this will happen when scientists stop using theists as scapegoats.

If the shoe fits...

then is your opinion a fully informed one?

Not that, I simply don't what you refer?

your reality was created by those nasty theists and their sky fairies was it?

No, their version of reality has been thrust upon the world for centuries, it most certainly is not reality. It has infiltrated every aspect of our lives, political, economical and otherwise. Its only the last couple of centuries or so that we've finally begun to shed the slavery and ignorance of religion (only somewhat) and make small strides forward.

you mean replace capitalism and consumerism with a disbelief in god?

No, just replace religious thought with reason and rationale.

why not rule your own world? let those who want to rule, rule those who want to ruled.

Unfortunately, my world has been and most likely will always be ruled by religious thought.

What I meant was replace religious thought with reason and rationale.

Science does not manipulate anything, only the state and religious leaders manipulate, science finds facts of life, while these two evil entities use the knowledge of science to their destructive ends. While reading this thread I found a good article that pertains to our content of conversation:

Delusional Madness, True Believers, Reptilian Brains and Fatuous Apes
By Norman B. LeClair

Whether we like it or not, whether we approve of it or not, we have been consigned, through no fault of our own, to spend our life in the world of reality. The dictionary tells us that "reality is neither derivative nor dependent," reality is simply that which exists. It's the given, the actual, the undistorted, the true. Moreover, there is only reality, only nature. There is no such thing as a super nature, no such realm, no such domain, no such pale as the supernatural.

The unreal, the mythical, the fabled, the chimerical exist only in our very fertile, often overactive, imaginations. They are the by-products of our hopes and fears, a way of ameliorating the cold, hard uncertainties of a short and burdensome existence. They are our rejection of things as they are, our musings of how things could have been, should have been, if only we had had the power and the opportunity to fashion a world more to our liking. A world free of pain and suffering, free of disease and death, free of loss and despair and all the other adversities which reality imposes on every life form, but especially on that hapless and hopeless creature we have labeled Homo Sapien. So here we are, stuck in the world of reality, for the plain and simple fact it's the only world we have. There is no other.

Most of us would give a nod of approval to that moving observation made by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860): "If God made the world I could not be that God, for the misery of the world would break my heart." History makes clear that the human race is basically made up of two kinds of people: those who work timelessly to make the world a better and less threatening place, a more livable, harmonious and productive environment in which humankind can not only survive but thrive and flourish; and those hell bent and determined on keeping humanity forever mired in the misery, the degradation and the abject depravity of the Dark Ages.

read the rest here (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=leclair)

Godless