science only provides the tools for the job
it’s still up to the people that wield those tools… policy makers, companies, families, and just people in general
keep in mind that science also provided the tools that created a lot of today’s problems … not necessarily science’s fault, but rather irresponsible abuse of it’s power… all too human
[/list]
Science cannot destroy religion. The blithering masses will continue to believe and propagate such nonsense because many of them feel the need to believe in fairy tales. Once these sheep get a taste of nihilism, they run towards religion with a fervor unmatched. 
Wow. That last comment contributed absolutely nothing, though it was well written. I think yours is a version of the “People are so stupid” argument that seems to show up a lot on these forums. I, personally, think that believing in the fundamental stupidy of mankind is a cop out. Gets ya nowhere. It’s an excuse for convulted, imcomplete, or non-existent theories (“they’re too stupid to understand me”).
Science, as you say, cannot completely destroy religion. However, the observable part that masquerades as an explanation for natural events will disappear, leaving only a set of social guidelines.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to go to bat for people, they need to go to bat for themselves.
You know, I used to be a fundMentalist Christian. I used to believe all of the silly things that I read and was taught. It wasn’t because I bothered to research all the theories and philosophies at that time, but because I closed my mind willingly, thinking this chosen path was the correct one.
From personal experience, I can say that religion taken to an extreme is a complete disaster. Religion is bad enough I think, taken with a grain of salt. I’ve also realized through interacting with religionists (the fundies), that they are willfully and intellectually dishonest about their claims. I was too. Therefore, I have no sympathy. Let them save their own minds, and think for themselves.
It’s not that people are too stupid to understand, it’s that they refuse to. That is a concious choice on their part, for which they are fully accountable. There are plenty of resources out there they can use to challenge what they believe in, if they take the first step.
Do you always think in black, and white or were you just having an off day? I did not say that bringing about a revolution in religion was uncontroversial, if so then we wouldn’t be talking about it. Consider the analogy that is so oft used, but I can’t get away from it (and neither it seems can anyone else) cause it’s just so damned good. If I were to enter the town square in 1630 trying to announce a movement, I say “There are a growing amount of well respected intellectuals such as Kepler, and Galileo who are saying that Ptolemy’s model is wrong and that the earth revolves around the sun!!”
and you then say “Yeah except all of those who still believe Ptolemy is correct”… I draw attention to this criticism because I hear it quite often.
We should give these people a fair hearing, I personally am utterly convinced, that the world revolves around the sun, and that the world would be a better place without religion. Say what you want about my views, at least I’ve listened to both sides, I find most faithful won’t dare blasphemy and pick up a book by a heretic. Its a good bloody meme I’ll give it that, Blind faith secures its own survival by having ignorance as a prereq.
Finally I’ll point out yes many great philosophers were, in the past, the most literal theologians, not so much now. Why is that???
Actually if you take into account the ancient Ionians, then the tradition of scientific inquiry would date back to 400 bc. There was a divide back then as well as now between, mysticism and science, the mystics won back then. the Dark ages were a backwards time, I have no wish to go back.
No you can’t take belief away, but you can show how it is wrong. Look at the Greeks again, anyone familiar with Aristotle’s philosophy must have some memory of being a bit taken aback and astonished at how he regards slavery as common place. Theres not an ounce of questioning behind the conception that some men are inferior, and I suppose that to question it back then would have been absurd.
Another example would be racism. Racism is wrong and unfounded, its backwards, stupid, fucking ridiculous, and it makes my stomach ache. I trust that I will find no disagreement here??
Your belief is not a sacred cow that should not be touched by the prying questions of others, as many people think it is today. You beliefs dictate your actions. Heres another one I often hear “It’s my belief, its personal, you have no right to question it”. That is ridiculous, yet that is the theme that has been protecting religion for soo long. Society’s advance when people have the courage to question their beliefs. Many people in the world believe x, should we believe x? why do we believe x? What are the consequences of this belief? If you wish your belief to remain sacred and unquestioned go climb a mountain or something, because such dogmas don’t belong in society.
We can’t study the unknown. I don’t think you will be seeing any studies on unicorns in the near future, so don’t hold your breath. That being said, science has started to study various religions, and previously viewed mystic practices, such as meditation. This is a huge step, this is why I praised the Dali lama in a previous thread. The Dali lama was protested a bit when he gave his talk, I regard this as utterly unacceptable, thank god that the majority in the scientific community feel the same way. The He was saying, hey meditation, and spirituality does not have to be separate from science, we can study meditation and see if it does have benefits, and see why, and to ultimately make our lives, and perhaps more personally your day go by a little easier. I wake up every mourning and do tai chi, and yoga. This centers me, I enjoy it, and I do not think it is mystical, but I do think it is beneficial, and possibly spiritual, yet the problem is that that word can be taken in too many distorted ways. Spiritual does not have to mean mystical, or religious, and I don’t think it should.
No I am certainly not in favor of eliminating spirituality altogether. People need to stop equating religion with spirituality, because they are from far the same thing. Nietzsche I think saw this best, and his critique of Christianity was usually dead on. My views are largely in line with Nietzsche on Christianity, and I find reading him like a breath of fresh air at times, and I think any Christian(and any religious person at all) who regards himself as being a good person should have the conviction to pick up Nietzsche, and try to understand exactly what were his critiques on Christianity. Or again I challenge any of the religious to pick up Sam Harris, or Dennett… but Nietzsche will probably be more enlightening, if you are looking for spirituality.
Again I want to stress that it is important to question your convictions, if you have a belief that you could not question, such as your sexuality perhaps, then you are doing yourself a disservice for not questioning it. I personally do this, and many times it is difficult, you do not have to take my word for it though, what does it matter if I question my beliefs, as long as the rationale behind questioning your beliefs is sound then perhaps it is a good idea.
As for spirituality, my response to Dan should make some of my views a little clearer. Personally I was brought into the philosophical world via Krishnamurti, I was looking for some meaning, some answers, and I am very pleased that I stumbled upon his book, “The awakening of intelligence”, a great book, and a wonderful method for relaxing your mind, for becoming attentive, possibly spiritual? If anything this is what spiritual should stand for, Krishnamurti’s views are not opposite of Nietzsche, albeit Krishnamurti is too simple, I find Nietzsche far more profound, and his spiritualism was not about living today as a means to get into a heaven, it was not about feeling guilty because you have sinned, it was about staring today in the face, it was about questioning, asking why, why, why?? Why do you feel guilty? Should you feel guilty? Should you feel guilty of your sexuality, or is it a part of human nature? Should we admire pity? or is pity really more a form of power? Is your empathy laudable? It was about looking with a sober eye at ourselves, and at life.
When your values are written in stone its hard to question it, life is dynamic, Nietzsche saw this, his spirituality makes christian spirituality look like burnt toast. Out of Life’s School of war…
I tried to live the eastern way for quiet some time, but I wanted something deeper, it is fine for you to be able to relax your mind, but I needed answers. I needed philosophy, and science. Things are not as simple as the eastern way, or the christian way. This might be a good spot to note Sam Harris has a lot of respect for the eastern religions. He’s saying “Hey these guys are the only people on the planet who go live in a cave to try being as attentive as possible to their phenomenological experience. Theres is a wealth of data in these religions, we just need to weed out the mythology” Krishnamurti was far from religious, but I doubt anyone would say he lacked spirituality.
So yeah, in essence dispense with the mythological bullshit, you will still have spirituality, and without the muddy waters perhaps will be able to see the human mind, for what it is. We can evolve, we just need to drop the shackles.
That’s from the Blank Slate right? I just read that not too long ago, I’m almost positive that he goes more in to depth with some examples. Anyways thats a great quote, Pinker is saying the same thing I was saying earlier, that “Religious Tolerance”, means we must tip toe around the issue, I think we should all have the heart to face the issue dead on. Cushioning the truth just impedes progress.
Dan Dennett before publishing his book attested that he received many warnings to not publish. By people with the “Religious tolerance” attitude. “You just can’t say these things!!”. Read his book, I think it was well written, and there is nothing in breaking the spell that is diabolical, or that Dennett should be ashamed of, or that is detrimental to society. Now he has gotten a fair amount of flack for the book, but it is the courage like this that we need, and thats what Pinker is talking about. Its time to stop being so uptight, I say take that skirt off and lets get down and dirty.
Well now… people thought I had lofty ideas of taking on, and eliminating religon 
You want to eliminate ignorance?? Well good luck with that, I think I’ll take on the easy task.
Again let’s look at racism, would you say the same thing? Ignorance of some form most certainly is the root, but should we have let racism go on, whilst spending our energy on trying to rid society of ignorance. Or is our enlightened state about race an incredible boon to society, making millions of lives better as a result?
Your looking to win the war friend, you should concentrate first one winning the battles. Progress comes in steps, is ignorance the cause of people not receiving condoms in Africa? Or is it religion? Or could we say perhaps that its religious ignorance? Religious ignorance is incredibly potent today, much like Racial ignorance was incredibly potent in the past. Religion pervades our politics, our science, our children… perhaps you think it is laudable to bring up your child as a Christian, or a Muslim, but I think its down right immoral. We should culture our children on all of the world’s religions, and cultures equally. We should teach it the way we teach mathematics, and science. It is their choice not yours.
I want to comment on the picture Siatd posted. A picture is worth a thousand words eh Siatd? Well how about I add a couple… Should I begin by posting pictures of young girls who have had their genitalia mutilated because of their religion? Or women who can’t show face in public because of religion? Maybe a depiction of the hangings and witch hunts? The bombing of abortion clinics? The twin towers??? The pictures of all of the people who died in the 911 incident, because their captors were so sure that they were going to heaven for their tasks that they were not afraid of death? Pictures of countless body bags that arise from the ever ensuing israeli and Palestinian war ?? Should I post a picture of Bush?? whose politics are so distorted because the man believes he’s on a mission from god.
The picture of the child is heart wrenching, yet I do not think we should give up our technology because of it, and you must stress that it is technology not science that causes these things. So is science to blame for making technology possible? I think most would argue that on a grand scale technology enhances our lives… but there is the misuse of technology to be taken into account. So again is science to blame. Well those planes that flew into the twin towers was made possible by science…is science to blame for that ignorance? If you think that when you argue against the uses of technology that you are arguing against science, you are vastly mistaken.
This whole post has that air of “the causes lie deeper”, it’s a “deeper problem”. I think I discussed the problems with this line of thinking earlier.
Microsoft is a large group-identity is Microsoft responsible for much of the worlds suffering? Well I suppose you could say that they might have a bit of a dominance in the market(and theres many people working to create some sort of equality), but is this a real threat to society? Does Microsoft cause people to murder, to disbelieve in evolution, to be nice to the person sitting next to them, to put money in a hat?? How does Microsoft effect our beliefs. I think this is an interesting question, and one that should probably be tended to (and has in part by some memeticists in my view). But I think an immediate contrast can be drawn here, is that Microsoft does not influence our actions, or our beliefs to such as scale that religion, or science does. What about the salvation army? The stock market? I admit group dynamics are very interesting, but we treat different groups in our culture differently because they have different functions. Your visual cortex is not on par with your auditory, even though they are both large systems within the whole of the brain.
Religion can be looked at on its own, and then judged for its benefits to society.
Okay then, it wasn’t the catholic church who imprisoned Galileo, or burnt Bruno at the stake 
… those are the examples I listed above… I think the its “all a deeper cause” view is dominating your thinking here. The Ku klux clan hangs black people because they think they are inferior, the church torched Bruno because he was a “heretic” I think that’s pretty causative".
Is it society that is the cause of many Africans, who live in the largest HIV epidemic on earth, not receiving their jimmy hats?? What about people protesting the use of the word x-mas, or violent riots over cartoons?? People trying to sneak creationism into public schools?
even though you state you don’t think it is the underlying ignorance of man that you are alluding to, it sure seems quite the opposite.
Same fallacy as before, so should our goal not have been to get rid of racism? because surely racism is not he root of all evil.
I’m a naturalist, a materialist, I’m a bright… nuff said.
I recieved an e-mail today asking me to come back to this thread. So I obliged. There are many days when I don’t have time for ILP. Not saying that is a virtue, that somehow I am a great person because I am busy,(I want to make this clear since I’ve got a couple of sarcastic remarks after stating I am busy) but I actually am busy, I think many of us are this day and age, next week I will be on the road for the week, so If I do not respond to this thread further don’t hold it against me.
There are some things that impede that very education , and one is religion. It has a built in defense against open mindedness the “blind faith”/Non-thinking datum that pervades religion. It has to be singled out and attacked, for it has been allowed to spread without serious criticism for far too long.
The reason they close their minds is that they value the social benefits of religion more that the benefits of science. As soon as science is obviously more beneficial all but the stupidest will stop being “fundies”.
I think it all depends on the religion and the person. From a Christian point of view, social advantages did not precipitate my conversion – it was more of an “inner need” type of thing. I would say for the most part that social benefits are an after effect, not the cause.
I think religions also have aggressive marketing tactics as well, and their sales persons (preachers) make a good sales pitch. Science doesn’t really have this for obvious reasons. Salvation isn’t a part of science. Science doesn’t pimp itself out to people’s emotional needs and wants. Religion does, with a handy worldview to boot.
Wow. Rounder, seriously, most of your arguments are complete bullshit. Utter, complete, horrible, somewhat stinky bovine feces. Yuck! Don’t make us wade through that crap to get to your point. It’s like
“I don’t agree with you-”
“Aids! Death! Microsoft! 9-11! Homeless people!”
“But-”
“Urinal pucks!”
Let me see if I understand. The essence is that people should not meditate/pray because it brings them in touch with god, but because it is good for them. Healthy.
I think I agree, but there are some questions you should answer before you decide to apply round-up to the mythology.
Religion is a social thing. It is a way of regulating a society, making it healthier. Like whoever said “When god is dead, anything is permissible”.
- Would a mythology-less religion provide enough motivation for people to act properly? (Do we need the mythology?)
Rounder,
This is laughable. So let me get this straight. Science has laid the foundations for the construction of aircraft, with aircraft being classed as technology. Technology is not possible without science, but arguing against science through inproper uses of technology is a vast mistake. The vast majority of technology causes no ill-effects you would argue and rightly so. Where does the blame lie with inproper uses of technology then, if it cannot be laid on science? Individual people is where the blame lies.
Now, these men flew planes into the twin towers because they believed their religion (Muslim) demanded it of them, or encouraged them to do it. However, the vast majority of Muslims do not go around flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to themselves or the like. So, can we blame the Muslim religion for the acts of a few? Can we blame science for the misuse of technology by a few? Of course we fucking can’t. Should we abolish religion and technology because they occasionally cause great harm? Absolutely not. Who should we blame for such atrocities? Individuals.
What’s good for science isn’t good for religion, eh Rounder? Give me a fucking break.
“Abolish religion, cause, you know, like religion makes people do bad things, and like, makes people not think about science and stuff”. What a simple and retarded solution to a whole host of very complex problems.
Well I’m glad you had a good laugh.
Indivdual people, I thought I made that point?.. anyways with the racism analogy I was trying to point out that the cause is the reasoning behind it. The blame lies in the reasoning.
Now let’s take technology for example Ancient cultures have had lots of technology, but very little science, clothes, axes, pots… etc… Science came along later, and it can explain things. It can explain what your clothing is made of, the laws of acceleration when you roll a wheel down a hill, and why water boils in your pot… It can explain technology, and technology often is a result of science, but that is because science gives you an accurate view of the world.
He knows that this knife will kill his brother Abel, He does not understand the biological causes of why this act will cease his life, yet he knows it will. If I did not know this then perhaps he would be ever frustrated, perhaps because he really wants to kill his brother, he is quite a bother.
Some biologist walks up to Cain and says did you know about chemistry!!! (this nice qwirky man with the Darwin shirt hands cain a chemisty text book)… Cain pissed off that he can’t kill his brother figures he’s got nothing better to do. Cain studies, and masters the science. He know knows more about his world, and goes on to concoct a potion, and slips his bro a mickey. Abel dies and no one is the wiser!!
Now does the knowledge of the world justify the cause? Is there any justification in understanding the chemical reactions that would take place, and why his Brothers immune system would react so violently, that could form the rational basis for such an action?
Knowledge is a weapon, if I am blind I have a deficit. If I am a blind miserable psychopath who wants to murder young boys I might have a hard time due to my deficit. Now If I could see(lets say a great technology was born that could give me sight), well I’ve all the sudden become far more dangerous. But does that sight, but does that information justify my murderous acts?
What about giving the blind man the technology? Can this be blaimed on science, or is the reasoning behind giving the blind man the “super duper ultra techno 3d find em in the bottom of your lucky charms visual appartus with techno colour”, what should be looked at? Did this person know of this man’s disposition towards young boys, or was he manly trying to comfort a miserable old man?
It is the reason that is the cause of the action, and thus it is the reasoning which must be analyzed. Science cannot give reasons, that is for the individual. Religion does give reasons, the reasons for the ongoing wars in the middle east is because of belief, that is the reason.
Religion can give reasons to do good as well. You should love your neighbour because if you don’t you might go to hell. Is this a good reason for loving your neighbour? Or is it unfounded, and can we get along without religion here? Might we be able to love our neighbour, and act with etiquette because of some other reasons? Are athiests downright immoral? Do they act poorly because of their deficit? OR is human kindess, the acts that the church is applauded for, something more basic? Possibly we can have all the kindness for other reasons, and thus without religion as my reason to do good, it seems we would only be left with religion as a reason to do harm. Now I think if this is the case then we should dispense with religion. We can have all the good that people claim religion is the cause of, without the bad. If your reasons hold no utility for society, and the only action that could not be explained without your reasoning is detrimental, then that reasoning should be abandoned.
In many game theory models altruism evolves naturally. Its possible if we understand the basis of altruism, if we get more information about why exactly we find altruism in society then perhaps we can encourage it. Foster an environment that is congenial to altruism. But this I think can only happen if we understand the cause of altruism. I think we all agree that it is a goal we should aim for? Now lets look at religions take on how to encourage altruism.
Religion gives reasons, this is its method, now man is obviously bad so we must give him a reason to be good. How about an ultimate being who would punish you if you did wrong? How about sins that pile on your head? How about a hades, suffering? What about a reward, a heaven? If you do good you might just live eternity with several sexy maidens… These are reasons to act good, and I would argue that these reasons become contorted, they get loose and become the foundation for irrational action, such as the critized 911 example.
Now we can turn this on its head. Lets say I was a diabolical scientist, who had a theory about nuclear energy and its effect on humans, but that theory needed to be tested. The only way to test my theory was to blow up new york, and I geefully do so for some new data. Now is the reasoning scientific? I would argue no, that the method is what is scientific, but the reasoning is defunct. The search for knowledge is not one that should be taken at all costs. The benifits and deficits to society must be wieghed. Yet this is the burden of ethics, politics… etc. This is not science. Science is a method for understanding the world, it can not give you a reason, religion can, and does the 7 deadly ones and 12 commandments… do we need religious reasons for good? and thus perhaps it is woth the bad? or can we be kind to one another, and pursue these good acts without religious reasons, perhaps we could foster reasons which do not lie on a supernatural basis, and thus drop the endless debate of “Well Zeus said this pal, I don’t care what that Joan of Ark chick told you”, and perhaps ground our reasons in a little more rational basis.
The reasoning was religious. There have been quite a few cases of these religious fundamentalists as of lately, its becoming an extremely volatile situation. Personnally my thoughts go along the line “This man wants to kill me… because his god tells him so???”… I think its incredibly irrational. Its the reasoning behind it that is the danger.
Now I don’t see Biology professors flying planes into buildings, or issuing fatwas. It can be argued perhaps that the pursuit of knowledge is not worth it, that what man will do with that knowledge is unjustifiable. Or perhaps the methods that this knowledge has come accross is not moral. This is for ethics to decide in a large part. But science does not give reasons son, it doesn’t tell you you must pursue knowledge, that is a human trait with plenty of reasons behind it, but it is not science. Science tells you the weight of an electron, and why a star will go supernovae. How and where we use the scientific method ss not for science to decide, that is for us. The method is sound, science is a tool, much like the axe.
CAn we blame science for the misuse of technology? Of course we can’t, should we abolish religion and technology because they occasionally cause great harm? Perhaps. What are the net benifits of religion, and the technology, or science? Can we live in a society without science? Is there some things that we would rather science not tell us? Can we do the good that religion claims without the myths, without the reasons behind it? OR is it necessary?
Anyways I’m too fucking stoned, Its the reasoning that is at question son, and I’m argueing that there is no basis for religious reason, and that the benifits are illiusory and the dangers on the grandest scale. If science is to advance, and thus our knowledge of the world enhances, the only way that we are going to survive is if that knowledge is not used for the fucked up reasoning that I see every day. A large part of irrational action I see, at one of the most dangerous is religion, its shoddy fucking reasoning all the way through, and thats what I am attacking. We don’t need it to explain daily life, the dangers don’t warrant it, I don’t care if you get your jolies praying to shivtza, it hasn’t justified its existance, and should be erradicated.
Science and religion are not at eachothers throats because they give different reasons, science and religion are at its throats because Science destroys the basis for the reasons in the first place. This is what people are afriad of, because they’ve spent their life, their whole notion of individuality, their methods of intertemporal bargaining is all cemented in it… its a shame, and it will most likely hurt to get rid of the irrationality. A lot of gays suffered until society came about, a lot of races have taken an extreme toll because of irrational reasons we used to base our actions on.
Actually I think its quiet a nice solution to one fucking retarded problem. Thanks for your insight tho, much appreciated. Like I said… I’m too stoned… I’m going to bed. peace.
Brother Dawkins,
Nope, it was just more effective at making the point and provided you with far more logical problems.
Here’s a suggestion: Since you are so obviously in favour of the scientific method and therefore couldn’t possibly be forming your opinions based on anything but the strongest research I’d like you to demonstrate precisely how many (as a proportion) of the world’s religious people endorse or condone female circumcision. Of course, if you can’t produce evidence to back up your implicit criticism then what you are doing here is nothing more than masturbatory self-reinforcement. Feel free to prove me wrong on this point by citing the wealth of evidence that there must be in the public scientific domain because otherwise you’d be a total hypocrite…
(easy peasy, England 1, Canadia 0)
Well now, you’d be assuming that they don’t persist with covering their faces through choice. Tell me, what do you make of the case of the British schoolgirl who took her legal case to the highest court in the land and even threatened to go to the European Court of Human Rights because she was denied the ‘right’ to wear the full Jilbab to school?
Of course, you just see a woman covering her face and so you automatically assume that she’s doing it because her religion forces her to, rather than because she wants to. Indeed, that you’d be ready to cite pictures (which are not anything even close to sufficient evidence for determining the motive for wearing such a thing) shows just how loose and unscientific you are being in your attacks on religion. Indeed, you are being dogmatic - making unsupported or even contradictory assertions just because you have to keep arguing for the same conclusion because you are addicted to it. It’s a classic fundamentalist-atheist mindset - in rejecting the garb and rituals of fundamentalism you overstep the mark and become fundamentalist yourself and seek to reject all religion per se. (see James, I can employ cod psychology in order to make a point, I just don’t find much pleasure in doing so)
This is so damn easy it isn’t even funny. Your arguments are so weak, so riddled with dogmatic nonsense that you are taking as true simply because you believe that it supports your conclusive. It’s religious fervour. Or you’re OCD.
Of communists or witches?
If it’s the latter - what the hell are you on about? You are against religion but in favour of witchcraft? What the fuck have you been smoking? Cannabis doesn’t make anyone this stupid…
Tell me, what are your views on the abortion issue? I’m willing to bet that they are at least as contradictory, illogical, based in supposition and not in evidence, as those Christian fundamentalists you so despise.
Until you are capable of better ideas than they are then you’ve (literally) no power to criticise them. Of course, someone so lacking in imagination as you will never understand this.
No true scientist could glibly accept the official version of events. Tell me, as a militant pro-scientist: what was your scientific reaction when for the first time in recorded history, 3 high-rise, steel framed buildings collapsed due to impact damage and fires? First time in history, despite visibly worse fires (good old observation) at many comparable buildings not producing collapse?
If I were a scientist, who worked on repetition, induction, testing, falsifying, the whole kit and kaboodle on which this game we call ‘science’ is based, then I’d wonder just how such an anomaly could occur.
But nevermind - this is getting completely off-track. You use the Twin Towers to support your argument because you’re prepared to believe that Satam al-Suqami’s passport flew out of an exploding jetliner and flew several blocks straight into the pocket of an FBI agent. That’s fine. It’s not as though there are any holes in your argument at all.
See above.
How about the religious types tortured and murdered by Stalin’s militant-atheist branch of communism? Oh, you probably forgot about those because they don’t support your argument and in fact they contradict it.
Here we go
Hmmm…
Funny, if someone you liked appealed to God then you’d probably say it was a political move, designed to appeal to the religious sections of the party and gain votes. Bush does it and you assume it’s because he’s a fundamentalist. I’ve heard people like you say that Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist, a Jewish Fundamentalist and that he’s part of some neo-Pagan Order of Death. Which one is it? You probably don’t even care because you are that shallow in your appreciation of these issues.
Right, okay. So you ‘don’t think’ something, therefore we should destroy all religion? Oh, okay, now you’ve convinced me.
I really don’t want to read what you’ve written next because I know that it’s not going to be good.
Oh dear. Another appeal to mass authority. ‘Most people’ would also argue that on a grand scale religion enhances our lives. Most people are religious, even in ‘secular’ western countries. Where’s the difference? In your phallus…
Are you a fucking moron? How, exactly, was the Chernobyl disaster a ‘misuse of technology’? It was a failure of your precious fucking science that still causes devastation and suffering and you are willing to call it a mere ‘misuse of technology’?
You are as bad as the fucking Nazis with this stuff - you are so blinded by your own fundamentalism that you downplay mass suffering simply because you don’t want to admit that what you hold dear has been responsible in a direct and simple way for one of the worst things that has ever happened in Europe. Forget the question, you are a fucking moron.
For Chernobyl? Yes. For Thalidomide? Yes. Need I go on?
No, but it’s to blame for making possible the high-altitude pollution that only big jetliners cause. Do you really want to get into this?
And you are a fucking moron. Plain as day.
One other thing, from later in your post:
Tell me, was Galileo not under house arrest? So, not really anything as bad as being imprisoned? No?
Nevermind. Your views are sick, ignorant and disgusting. You are profoundly immature in your thinking and support a ridiculous conclusion. Everything you’ve said on this thread (and I’ve only torn apart a small section) is total bullshit. The mods can tell me off all they like for the manner of this post (and in truth they probably will) but I couldn’t give a shit. Having exposed your bullshit atheist propaganda I’ll now leave you to spew out some more vomit for the other ‘brights’ (ha! - Mrs Krabapple) to lap up.
Rounder,
Precisely. That is for the individual. So what are your reasons then Rounder, for wanting to destroy religion? Where were these reasons derived from? Seeing as you’re an atheist, they can’t be derived from religion. Maybe your own experiences? Your individual experiences? So with this in mind, if we abolish religion, can you see others still justifying to themselves reasons for terrible acts? I can.
So if we take away religion, all of the problem’s in the middle east (and indeed the world) disappear overnight? What a typically simplistic view. The problems couldn’t be due to international competition for oil, territorial disputes, corrupt leadership, poor and poverty stricken populations or a vast number of other potential issues. Those problems would be too hard to solve with a quick and easy solution, so we’ll make out that the problem is actually more simplistic than it really is.
You know where simplistic solutions get us?
“The Jews are the cause of Germany’s woes, so we’ll exterminate them”
Of course, it is easier to convince the masses with basic solutions isn’t it? Oversimplification and generalisation, a great tool for any tyrant.
06.16.06.1337
A sound proposition followed by a sound resolution! I thank you for your response; for it was exactly what I hoped to read.
I need to read more Krishnamurti. I always did like his idea of being a light to yourself; not of Christ or Buddha, but of yourself. Very self-empowering… very healthy, and definitely very free-spirited!
…that which does not kill me makes me stronger! Indeed the single most philosophical line of text to be taken out of context! When we see Conan, it’s context tries to fit physically; that Arnold would push a mill for twenty years, then be thrown into pit fighting, then trained by masters, only to come out on top as the ultimate warrior. And then having been crucified and revived proves it to the point. Hah!! I wonder if John Milius ever thought Nietzsche’s aim was spiritual and not physical.
Ye, there be eyeballs deep in those muddy waters… [size=75](Tool reference for those who don’t catch on. Go listen to “The Pot” on their new album 10,000 Days - track five.)[/size]
I think I laid those out pretty strongly. Sure I can see others still justifying other reasons for terrible acts, so should we allow this justification to continue simply because there will always be other justifications? Again should we have let racism alone simply because man would always have other justification to do harm?
I never said that it would solve everything, in fact I think I’ve shown that I do not believe so. I stated above that since we got rid of racism, well at least we softened its power in most of the world, did that cure everything? Is life full of sugar and lollipops? No but its a far better place, and one I would rather live in. It is you who keeps saying “Rounder thinks religion is all our problems”… No I don’t think religion is all our problems but it certainly is a large one, and I would be happier without.
I’m not saying we should destroy religious, or we should exterminate the religious. I’m not attacking the people, but the idea. When I stated at the begging that there is an ever growing movement of intellectuals who are tackling the problem of religion, what I am saying is hey look theres a controversy. There are quite a few people who think that your beliefs are wrong, and that your beliefs are harming society. I’m saying its time to hear these people out. I think that a large part of the problem is that religious won’t hear these people out, its blasphemy. Religious tolerance does need to end.
I’ve been watching this thread with interest. Certain individuals have clearly dismantled your claims, and yet you seek to keep offering up your ideas for sacrifice.
Racism is no less in this world now, than at any other time.
What manner of empirical tool do you have for ascertaining data on socio-cultural affectations?
That we have made it a pronounced social stigma to openly represent a stance regarded as racist, does not eliminate the problem, empirically. It takes it out of the realm of observable data collection, which would actually make it counter to certifiably sound data for unfalsifiable conclusions.
Racism, like human ego and ignorance, will never change. History has shown this, and these social “reformations” are well recorded, and repeat in known cycles, thus the pendulum of social normatisation doth swing.
Racism is well known to the natural scientist, as far as regards speciation and procreation.
It would appear, even to the unschooled lay person, racism is an integral part of life, humans just need more technological devices and terminology to make it a completely incomprehensible clusterfuck, and religion to make it socially un/acceptable.
I think if one were being objective, as an empiricist should, it would become apparent that neither science, nor religion, can stand alone or unrebuked.
That you would be happier without it, is completely acceptable. That you imply an ideology that requires a following, makes you a cult leader, and as you attempt to destroy that which you hate, you will become exactly what you destroy, and help the process begin, yet again.
Invariably, the supplanter becomes the supplanted.
Sure racism is no less… What manner of empirical tool? I’m just making an observation, I have no empircal tool. I think its pretty obvious.
Yeah its a social stigma, and thats great! Does us a lot of good doesn’t it? But you seriously think that there isn’t less people in the world who are racist? You are wrong, but no I have no quantitative data at the moment to back up my claims, and I don’t think I need it. The problem isn’t eliminated its softened coniderably though.
Don’t confuse species and race. And yeah I suppose in one way you could say that racism is well known to the scientist. Its well know that genetically humans are far more homogeneous then any other species on the planet, and that I a caucasion, could be more closer related in some respects to tu pac, then I could to my whitey white neighbour.
I don’t imply an ideology. I said hey I think religion is a bad idea, others do too, maybe we should address this problem. Do the benifits of religion outweigh the costs? Do we need religion? Are religious reasons sound for dictating your actions.
I have no system to offer in replace of religion. I’m just wondering if religion is needed at all. So as for my cult… well uhmm… I got no real reasons for you to mold your actions upon… uhmm… I said that science can’t give you reasons… so uhmm… I have no rules… uhmmm maybe we should call my cult “Interest in inquiry”? We could have all my followers going around and questioning the basis for their actions, asking if their reasoning is sound. Hmm… that doesn’t sound all that bad, I don’t know if it merits the title of “cult”.
It seems to me that the very questioning of religion is what provokes such strong reactions.
“Rounder thinks that if we destroy religion it will solve all our problems” Thats stupid!!! He’s got no basis for his claims!
“Rounder wants everyone to follow the religion of science!!, he wants science to replace religion” What an idiot.
Stop twisting what I am saying, because I questioned something cherished to you. For the final time.
All I am saying is this “Many people think that religion is unfounded, there is a larger and larger voice that is growing in intellectual circles that I think should be listened to. Many don’t want to listen, and avert their eyes. I think this is wrong. I think that the questioning is valid, and should be taken on, even though there might be some hurt feelings. Science is in conflict with religion, because it debunks the very bases for the reasons which religion is founded on, and which people invoke to live their lives. Science cannot tell you what to do, I cannot tell you what to do, but it is reasons that dictate our actions. Now religious reason has somewhat of a security blanket where people do not think it is correct to question its foundations, I think this is wrong. You must question your beliefs, why do you believe that? Should you believe that, is this belief a valid reason for action?”
If you are against inquiry fine. But don’t say I’m starting a Science cult because I’m questiioning religion.
This effort to get rid of religion is well intentioned, but it is unlikely to ever succeed. Trying to get rid of religion is like trying to get rid of hammers. People find hammers useful, so people are going to use them. Even if you put an official ban on hammers then people would just use them in secret. If you melted down all of the existing hammers and destroyed all of the designs still someone would eventually recreate the hammer and people would use it again.
The only way to get “rid” of hammers would be to create something that people decided was more useful than the hammer for doing the things that hammers used to do. Something would have to supersede the hammer.
Likewise something would have to supersede religion to get “rid” of religion. Science, while it had its moments of promise, has so far been unequal to that task. It also seems unlikely that that is going to change because of a few promoter personality types working against religion.