I didn’t say from atheists, but science has nothing to do with religion. Religion if anything, only halts new discovery and is used to create false answers to satisfy the mind. As explained and shown in my thread, with history.
You said specifically that religion impedes advancement and yet I can point to the most advanced societies and I can show that they are Christian.
The Western educational system is rooted in the monastery schools which were started and run by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also founded the first universities. Galileo was educated at the University of Pisa, founded in 1343 by Pope Clement VI.
The scientific and industrial revolutions started in Protestant England and Catholic France.
It seems that new discoveries thrive in Christian societies.
And the education system plays a role in creating a genius? That can’t be taken seriously.
You miss the entire point. I already said yes we have science that has given us advanced technologies, advanced compared to stone age. We would have much much more if religion had not screwed it all up, several times.
I did not say you couldn’t be religious and do science, but at some point they will arrive at a point where they settle for it being the works of god, like shown in the thread. So instead of them continuing on and pushing further and deeper into thinking, they die and we have to wait 100+ years or so until the next fresh mind comes along. Rinse and repeat. It does impede advancement by creating time delays.
An education system does not create a genius, the very least it can do is introduce a person to something they love, if you’re lucky.
Creationism/god creates time delays, when one is willing to settle for it being the answer for something unknown.
You’re linking statistics that LITERALLY don’t matter in terms of technology. 61% of the fucking population is not going to be creating nuclear fission, nor did they have ANY part in it what so ever, figuring out the laws of gravitation, etc. They certainly don’t say those things are the work of god when they do discover them, do you want to know why? Because they have a real answer for it and don’t have to resort to a primitive egotistical state of wanting to satisfy the mind and pretending to know.
Elite scientists make the advancements in technology, and only around 7% of them pray to a personal deity.
It’s literally like saying America is a Christian nation only because it has majority of Christians, that is not true. America is not a Christian nation.
Nono, it’s not religion that has kept us from being advanced to an arbitrary point that I think we could have reached! It’s the Jews! It’s women having the vote! It’s the free market! It’s the contraints on the free market! It’s the white man! It’s the black man!
As long as you’re projecting a fantasy of how much more advanced you imagine we should be, you can blame anybody you like for that imaginary thing we don’t have.
History doesn’t bare this out. What history shows us is that theism brings with it belief in a rational universe, and that answers can be achieved. There are neopagan and varieties of eastern mysticiism that specifically teach the universe isn’t rational, and that attempting to understand things is folly. I could see those holding back scientific advancement, but even then I don’t know that they actually do so. Hell, Greek theology taught that the gods punish nothing so much as hubris- along with shame, thinking yourself capable of understanding/mastering the natural world is as close to sin as Hellenic polytheism gets. And yet look at what their philosophers, mathematicians and etc. got done.
You’re not going to find any evidence that non-religious societies are historically more scientifically advanced, you’re not going to find evidence that through history atheists make better scientists as individuals, you’re not going to find any evidence at all of the sort that you demand other people to present to you when you’re criticizing something they believe. All you’re gonna have is “I think religion is shitty, therefore I think it has shitty effects”. You can write that with lots and lots of words if you like, but at the end of the day, that’s all you’re gonna have.
The history shows it. People come to a halt with their discovery and then say what is left unknown is god or had to be a intelligent super powerful being. It shows. Newton and Laplace as I showed earlier. It isn’t bias, it’s the history that happened. Al ghazalli as well, there is a reason the stars are arabic and arabic numerals in mathematics. Al ghazali ruined that by bringing with him some religion. He literally halted their progress in mathematics… We haven’t seen the books with what could have been genius ideas since then.
Apparently al ghazali had taught mathematics was evil so it was brought to an end, that civilization has not recovered since then. Such great potential wasted.
It’s also not about atheists or religious being better scientists. It’s about time delays and false comforts instead of continuing on in research. Also, I find it funny that you call something that HAS actual potential fantasy, but then believe actual fantasy with no proof or ways of proving it.
See we don’t want people in the science class room that don’t want to discover new things due to being satisfied with the answer “God did it”… They become useless to the advancement at that point. Then we wait another 100 years.
Maybe. But from my perspective, it gets air time because it probes the distinction between discussing God as, say, physicists might, and discussing God as say, theologians, might.
Or, sure, epistemologists.
Either discussing God [a God, the God, my God] out in the world of actual human interactions or discussing Him theoretically, scholastically, academically, theocratically, philosophically, metaphysically etc., in a world of words.
As opposed to discussing the existence of bachelors whereby all rational people are obligated to agree on what a bachelor is. Why? Because here they really do exist by definition.
Of course all of this gets tricky too. Or folks like us wouldn’t even exist.
There is no contractual agreement between an individual, one’s spiritual affiliation or the society around him. There is independence there. If a person holds certain thoughts and theories about deeper aspects of life, or if one has a particular inclination towards the existence of a god being a reality or a fantasy, he is in this material world. There is no other world here. So, even though there’s the freedom to have a belief, idea, faith or conviction in whatever area of thought and knowledge one wishes, the materialistic condition of the world he lives in requires thought to be directed and involved in that likewise material area. There is no mutual exclusivity concerning the dealings of thought in all of its various divisions.
Devotion and high levels of attachment to a part of thinking that deals with trust and reliance, even dependence, on an invisible spiritual entity, may have a restraining affect to the extent that that kind of believer probably wouldn’t look beyond the answers given by that entity. Sentimentality to that would preclude further investigation into other possibilities of human existence and destiny.
This is true, and much more. Uccisore’s argument doesn’t take that into account. Yes you can blame anyone you want “Jews, blacks,women having the freedom to vote” - but that doesn’t mean its reasonable. You Artimas, just provided reason why religion is to blame in that respect.
Right, so it’s about a bunch of stuff that only exists in your imagination that you are never going to provide any evidence for. I mean, feel free to present some if you have it! It would be easy enough to prove me wrong here.
