Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Great thread, OP. I am atheist myself but I was thinking about the same thing. I was about to post a thread on the subject but you beat me to it.
Thumbs up!


LOL A couple here have questioned whether I borrowed their words (which I hadn't), so this idea must be quite common. If you have anything more to offer I'd love to read it.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Unfortunately, nobody listen when I talk. When I explain that sience lacks ethics, a ''instruction manual'' as Dan Brown puts it, all atheist get mad, steel up like brick walls, and start to bark.
I guess it's their problem if they are blind.
BTW did you read Asimov? The greatest atheist I read. Take a look at his 4 Laws. Applied to human, you get the basis of every philosophies.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jiggerj
 




BTW did you read Asimov? The greatest atheist I read. Take a look at his 4 Laws. Applied to human, you get the basis of every philosophies.


I've only read his fiction (good stuff!). I've been watching a lot of Dawkins documentaries. The poor man tries to contain his contempt for the religious, but it always shines through. lol

Yesterday I watched Bill Maher's 'Religilous', and I thought for sure he was going to get beat up a couple of times. Now I'm going to try and google Asimov's 4 laws and see what pops up. Thanks for that!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

"At the end of the day, a discovery itself is not moral. It's our application of it that has to pass that test."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

Science is about gaining an understanding of reality, our world, our universe. Yes, science has discovered some extremely dangerous things-the power within the atom, biological weapons etc. They may be discovering these things, but scientists aren't the ones using them to do terrible things-governments are. Without science, what do you think your life would be like today? You wouldn't have your computer that you typed that post with; you wouldn't have a cell phone or even a land line; you wouldn't have a car. The list goes on and on. There is danger in knowing about some things, but I think the greater danger is not knowing. Without science, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


i'm afraid you confuse two separate phenomena: "science" and "the application of technologies created as a result of scientific insights".

but, let me follow you in this kind of reasoning... what did most of the dreadful people who used these technologies call themselves? Oh, right, god fearing christians :-)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   


Yes, I believe religion is downright stupid and for the weak-minded, but science is DANGEROUS!


Sure.
Religion is stupid, but spirituality is not!

And science is only dangerous when there is an imbalance between technological advancement and wisdom (which can be attained through spiritual practice). Unfortunately, thats undoubtedly the case here on earth - not that our species are advanced in any stretch of the imagination. Just shows you how primitive our spiritual evolution still is. Not everyone, of course....



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
edit on 14-4-2012 by Parksie because: deleted



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I don't really follow the argument that religion is deadly. The traits to kill others and be a general idiot isn't instilled in religious texts but in people as individuals and as a whole. Someone or a group might take up some religion but it's the people that kill others.

Guns don't kill people, science doesn't kill people, ect. There's science and there's applied science, same might be said for religion. What it's applied to, motivated by human nature and the outcome isn't always as pure.
edit on 4/14/2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by oggleboggle47
reply to post by jiggerj
 

"At the end of the day, a discovery itself is not moral. It's our application of it that has to pass that test."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

Science is about gaining an understanding of reality, our world, our universe. Yes, science has discovered some extremely dangerous things-the power within the atom, biological weapons etc. They may be discovering these things, but scientists aren't the ones using them to do terrible things-governments are. Without science, what do you think your life would be like today? You wouldn't have your computer that you typed that post with; you wouldn't have a cell phone or even a land line; you wouldn't have a car. The list goes on and on. There is danger in knowing about some things, but I think the greater danger is not knowing. Without science, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.


All valid points, Oggle. I just wonder if we've learned too much too soon? There's always talk about aliens visiting this planet, by using technologies way beyond our comprehension. When we think of such advances we automatically assume that these creatures have matured to the point where they are not capable of reducing us to ash - because it's not logical. It is believed that these benevolent aliens are here to help us, right? And, even if they aren't here to help us, then at the very least they aren't here to hurt us.

Now, what if in secret government facilities around the world, we humans have already developed ships with travelling faster than light capabilities, or that are able to fold space and time? And when I say, we humans, I mean we brutal, warring, selfish, self-centered, self-serving humans. If we can develop, or are close to developing this type technology, then maybe those aliens aren't as superior as we want to believe they are.

Personally, I want to believe we just aren't ready to have this technology, to Boldly go where no man has ever trashed before.

Anyhoo, my point is, there must be a way to limit access to such devastating knowledge before the masses are ready to use it maturely. Moral laws of scientific investigation and public dissemination



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by freewestray
reply to post by jiggerj
 


To add to that my father died a horrible death from cancer I was the person holing his hand at the moment of death, years later a Christian said my Father died of cancer because he was a bad man, I now ****ing hate Christianity and all the lies it tells, of course the whole consept is based on a lie, your post makes things a little worse for Christians so I thank you for believing it.



Baptist preachers came to us telling us my husband (at the time) did something to cause his son to be terminal and die.

Yeah.... there are stupid people everywhere. Just because he said it...thought it.... I didn't blame all Christians for his ignorance nor did I blame Christianity. What the experience did do for me is sent me on a journey to know where my step son went when he did pass.

I am closer to "god" and "science" than ever before and I thank that idiot for saying such stupid words...... now.

Science and Religion are organizations and each have goof balls.... so be it. Both are equally dangerous when placed in the hands of a "radical" that has no heart or reasoning.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Science doesn't kill people...people kill people.

It is those who use science(same as those using the guise of religion) for slaughtering people are the bad eggs of our society. Science has contributed so much to mankind's ability to evolve and live in relative comfort.

Yeah some of you may be pessimistic about science, but in all honesty how many of you are willing to give up your refrigerator, insulation and furnace in your home to keep you warm, your A/C, your shower, your headache pills, your knives and forks, your car, your comfy mattress, your computer, your cellphone, art, music, etc...

Look at the reality series Survivor. Those folks are only out there for 39 at most, and with the little science and the controlled enviorment knowing they have medics and such if something wrong goes bad. All of them lose a ton of weight, they become frail the longer they stay out there, and are usually miserable because they are always sitting on something hard, sleeping in cold down poors of rain, etc...

Some of you say you can live without the everyday stuff science gives us, but I call BS.

Just the internet alone has brought the common people of the world that much closer.

Yeah it sucks that alot of folks in the world are in worse shape then others, but most of that segregation was created by religious prejudices throughout thousands of years. Science didn't create the divide among cultures, and condemn cultures to a life of poverty and torture, it was men/women who controlled the science and masses of amount of people who created this division.

The thing that gets me is that people still believe gods told their 'prophets' to go and kill people in the droves because the god was either bored, wicked, merciful, etc... The people who win wars are the ones who write history, don't you ever forget that. The "Holy" books were written by men, not gods.

If everyone in the world was of the same belief with the same scientific technology that we have today, nuclear weapons would not be needed, but nuclear energy is by far the most economical and clean, renewable energy source we have atm, as long as it is controlled in the right enviorment. Solar/wind are just expensive and need way too much real estate to be viable. When we are able to make advances and harvest the Helium3 from the Moon, then we will be in better/safer shape energy wise.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I am an atheist and I stand firmly on my position that there is no biblical god. But, there are atheists, like Richard Dawkins, that claim religion is dangerous, and that science is the way to the truth.

Well, religion didn't invent nuclear missiles; science did.
Religion didn't figure out how to make biological weapons; science did.
In the pre-technology era religious wars meant the killing of humans.
Today, through science and science alone we have the capability of destroying the entire planet in just one insane war.

Yes, I believe religion is downright stupid and for the weak-minded, but science is DANGEROUS!

I find it funny how the church once kept its silly, illogical secrets away from the common man, while science opened its doors wide so that now even a child can go online and learn how to make a chemical bomb. If you follow this youtube link, you'll find a kid making a bomb and warning other kids not to use this stuff in the house - because he tried it. Yeahhh, chemicals, science, and children. Isn't REAL knowledge just wonderful?!

www.youtube.com...


Not trying to be all standoffish and such, but science is the natural born offspring of religion...and all scientific inquiry began with the priesthood; it almost seems that every area of science begins with a monk locked away in a monastery.

That being said and what I would consider completely obvious...its important to add that nuclear and biological weapons are mentioned and used in wars in the religious texts; its just that they were conceptually different.

...and I would expect that ALL of the worlds greatest thinkers are probably under the control of the priests that OWN the knowledge.

I'm happy to also mention that destroying the world isn't that easy and both science and religion also teach how to defend oneself against an individual that would use their knowledge to accomplish such a goal.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


This argument is a bit like saying that all scientific inquiry began with shoes. Almost every area of science began with a person wearing shoes.

Point being, correlation does not mean causation.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


go get a Ph.D....then you'll understand that the source and destination are one and the same.

the Priesthood;



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Native American tribes did war with one another, but not for the reasons we go to war today.

What is wrong with us? I have no idea!

But again, get rid of power and wealth, and you have a peaceful world. Its a huge mindset to change, and one so ingrained in all people that it would, perhaps, take something major to change the incorrect mindset. But it can be done, we just need to wake up.


I used to subscribe to the notion that the Native Americans were "noble savages" when I was an ignorant liberal youth. Your idealistic view of pre-contact Native Americans is fantasy. I have no sources to back this up at the moment, but if pressed, I'm sure historic sources would prove that the motivations of the native's inter-tribal conflicts were no different than any other human's for going to war. Your insights into Islam are more realistic, you ought to stick to what you know.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I had to think about this for a while before posting.

I'd say - - both science and religion are based in: WHY?

It is the road taken from that base position that maps its importance and affect on man.

God or Universal Force is one thing - - - but religion is man made. And about control. IMO religion says: "Here's the answer - now stop thinking/asking 'why'?" - I already gave you the answer.

I don't like anything that shuts the brain down.

The concept of a God/Universal Force - - such as a Deist God - - gives freedom to man to think and continue to create. BUT - - is there still the "guilt factor" - - associated with a reward at the end if you do God's will?

I personally think Ethics/Integrity is based in the responsibility of each individual as part of a whole.

An Atheist doesn't need an outside "force" to have Integrity/Ethics.

As a human being - do I really need a "parent" outside force to understand Responsibility/Integrity/Ethics? NO.

This type discussion always reminds me of one the Star Trek Traveler episodes - - when the Traveler was going to kill - - then evolved beyond that "primitive" thought. I personally think we should be much further along scientifically then we are now. And the reason we are not - - is religion. Religion is a "blockade" science does not need.


The Traveler The Traveler was a mysterious humanoid from Tau Alpha C who had the ability to alter time and space with his thoughts. It is implied that these abilities are from his understanding of the concept that "matter, energy, and thought" are related and interchangable. en.memory-alpha.org...


edit on 14-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


jiggerj, you're beginning to understand,

Keep your mind open, and seek the truth dilligently,

Ye shall discover the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free,

S&F for your thread.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck

I used to subscribe to the notion that the Native Americans were "noble savages" when I was an ignorant liberal youth. Your idealistic view of pre-contact Native Americans is fantasy. I have no sources to back this up at the moment, but if pressed, I'm sure historic sources would prove that the motivations of the native's inter-tribal conflicts were no different than any other human's for going to war. Your insights into Islam are more realistic, you ought to stick to what you know.


First - - - it is wrong to lump all Native Americans into one "group think". They were very different in culture/language etc.

IF they had been able to band together as ONE Nation - - - they would probably be the ruling force in America today.

Fact is - - they were Tribal. Not too different then in the Mideast today. Each group believed they were right and should be the "power". It is this attitude/belief that destroyed them. Many joined forces with the "white man" - - not because they sided with the "white man" - - but because they were using the "white man" to stamp out/destroy opposing Tribes.

In a way they destroyed themselves.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Sure, if we ignore the Greeks, Romans and Muslims, then all science originated from priesthood. Claiming that you require a Ph.D to understand these matters is silly by the way.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by -PLB-
 


go get a Ph.D....then you'll understand that the source and destination are one and the same.

the Priesthood;


Shouldn't it be explained what the Priesthood was in ancient times? They were the literate - - the educated.

Isn't it a rather new concept that everyone should be educated/literate?

Would Alchemists of Pagans get credit in writings by the Priests? Or would it be more likely Priests took credit for any knowledge they acquired?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join