Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

Originally posted by eNumbra
Science gives us the tools to destroy each other.

Religion gives us the reason.




Which is more dangerous?

Sums up whole argument

Also science is not the cause of destruction and suffering as said, if anything it would be a contributing cause, but not the suffecient cause unlike a person justifying a killing because of a reward in heaven. I guess you can forgive religious suffering under human ignorance, and blame scientific suffering because it is calculated evil. Some irony in there.

reply to post by eNumbra


Well said

There are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all species: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as countless smaller infections - Daniel Dennett

True, science and the advances we make in this area can pose great threats towards society. However, so can religion. It wasn't science that caused planes to be flown into the twin towers.

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...

well the obvious course of action would be to ban science, you know..


p.s. i'm not religious but i think you're extremely foolishly arrogant in your prejudice against religion. you have no idea what you are missing within the wonders of wisdom kept under the riddles within most religions. Gnosis, (the root wisdom of all world religions) is entirely practical, reasonable, and scientific...

reply to post by Annee


i'm using priest and priesthood in a generic sense...without regards to a specific organization.

i grew up on a university campus and have met or been around at one time or another dozens of Ph.Ds, but it was only after getting to that point in my own education that it became apparent to me that Ph.D. is Priesthood.

I know one in particular that is certainly a high priestess for someone and she's the most dangerous human being i've ever met, and i've met serial killers...she calls herself a speech pathologist, which in all actual fact means she is a priestess who makes a path to God via the spoken word...she's a flatterer and abuser of women and children.

the entire process of initiation into this dark priesthood occurs on campuses nationwide and is very secretive. the only person who would deny it must already have their Ph.d. and are trying to protect their hidden agenda. and to be honest the worst thing that could happen to priests is for people to somehow acquire knowledge and science without having to wear the yoke that comes with priesthood. and for the record...all priests are atheists in a manner of speaking in the sense that their goal is to make atheism true whether its true or not in fact.

Originally posted by eNumbra
Science gives us the tools to destroy each other.

Religion gives us the reason.

Which is more dangerous?

Science can be used for good and bad.

Nuclear physics has given us the atom bomb. It's also given us nuclear power stations to power your home and medical isotopes used in x-rays and many other fields.

Biology has given us biological weapons. It's also given us the cure for polio, penicillin, and the means to defend ourselves against many illnesses.

ALL of the sciences have many positives in our lives. It's amazing to me that you apparently don't see any irony at all in posting this bit against science on a device that wouldn't be possible without scientific advancement, your computer.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

I'm talking about something entirely different...and the notion that any of those groups originated anything is what's silly.

but you should get a phd....you'd fit in great with them.

Originally posted by prevenge
p.s. i'm not religious but i think you're extremely foolishly arrogant in your prejudice against religion. you have no idea what you are missing within the wonders of wisdom kept under the riddles within most religions. Gnosis, (the root wisdom of all world religions) is entirely practical, reasonable, and scientific...

From Wiki: Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In the context of the English language gnosis generally refers to the word's meaning within the spheres of Christian mysticism, Mystery religions and Gnosticism where it signifies 'spiritual knowledge' in the sense of mystical enlightenment.

Funny how the very first description decribes gnosis as knowledge; that's it. Only when it is described in the English context does gnosis become a belief in the non-sensical. Can you give us an example where mysticism and mystical enlightment has been put through, and validated by, the rigors of science?

Originally posted by Epicurus
There are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all species: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as countless smaller infections - Daniel Dennett

True, science and the advances we make in this area can pose great threats towards society. However, so can religion. It wasn't science that caused planes to be flown into the twin towers.

If we took away religion, could those planes still be flown into the twin towers by a bunch of lunatics? Yes.

If we took away the science of making planes, could the religious fly into the twin towers? No.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
. . and to be honest the worst thing that could happen to priests is for people to somehow acquire knowledge and science without having to wear the yoke that comes with priesthood. and for the record...all priests are atheists in a manner of speaking in the sense that their goal is to make atheism true whether its true or not in fact.

A bit too "Eyes Wide Shut" for me. Not that I don't believe in such.

Very self-serving and mind manipulating.

In this thought direction - - - it makes no difference what religious belief - - - as they are all the same for purpose.

Atheism is the only truth. Because eyes are open.

reply to post by Annee


if atheism is truth then i don't know much about atheism.

based on what I saw with my eyes wide open, I can only conclude that most people don't have the slightest clue concerning the true nature of reality.

the people that do know the truth...they own the reality. everyone else sits around pissed.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Annee

 

if atheism is truth then i don't know much about atheism.

based on what I saw with my eyes wide open, I can only conclude that most people don't have the slightest clue concerning the true nature of reality.

the people that do know the truth...they own the reality. everyone else sits around pissed.

Who's reality?

For all I know we are a very advanced virtual electronic game called: Humans on Earth.

IMO - - few people have any interest in taking the Red pill. Which gives "your" priest/priestesses an almost blank canvas to paint any way they choose.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Annee

 

if atheism is truth then i don't know much about atheism.

based on what I saw with my eyes wide open, I can only conclude that most people don't have the slightest clue concerning the true nature of reality.

the people that do know the truth...they own the reality. everyone else sits around pissed.

Who's reality?

For all I know we are a very advanced virtual electronic game called: Humans on Earth.

IMO - - few people have any interest in taking the Red pill. Which gives "your" priest/priestesses an almost blank canvas to paint any way they choose.

the reality that allows you to type into a machine and send a message that is retrieved by a total stranger and answered.

the reality that produces food and medicine and clothes and modern living facilities. a reality where people don't have to watch their families ripped apart and see their children die of starvation.

i don't know what the 'red pill' is, but this priestess has an excellent reputation, causes desolation and if people had to choose between her and something better...they'd choose her 100% of the time.

and would celebrate their own despair.

the truth of that is what is interesting...science is no where near as dangerous as human desire...a human being can face 100% certainty of failure and will continue on despite what they know and then be mad because the very thing they knew would happen actually occurred.

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is the only truth. Because eyes are open.

Religious believers use that same line and believe equally that they are right. The only thing that statement shows is how closed your eyes actually are. The truth is that no one knows for sure. All anyone has is theories. Religion is a theory just as Athesim is a theory. Neither has been proven as correct with absolute certainty. They both have some kind of "evidence" to support them after all. Atheists, as much as they don't want to think so, are relying on faith just as much as religious are. To claim that your theory is correct over all others with no tangible proof is the definition of faith based blindness.

Back on topic.

Science doesn't cause killing. Neither does religion. Killing is caused by greed, anger, desperation, delusion, or simply sadism. No other reason. It all boils down to emotion. People can and will use anything to justify causing harm to others for their own satisfaction. They've used religion as a tool to do this, and others have used science to justify unlawful actions.

To tie this into my previous statement, I just want to say that whether it be religion or science, as long as people follow it blindly and don't think for themselves and constantly question, then both science and religion hold the same danger. As long as people accept anything without question, whether that source is science or religion, there is the danger of taking lies or mistakes as fact and allowing themselves to be manipulated into doing illogical things, such as religious wars.

Religion has done it for years and even now we see the start of it with science in our current society as leaders, politicians, and corporations pull out study after study of shaky science that is often discredited in order to fulfill whatever agenda they are pushing. People blindly accept this and do/buy/vote for things that they wouldn't normally do because they blindly believe because the word science is attached.

In short, religion and science are equally dangerous when they are used to manipulate the blind or stupid. The danger comes from blindness and people giving into their emotions unwisely.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is the only truth. Because eyes are open.

Religious believers use that same line and believe equally that they are right.

"Atheism is the truth" - - specific to the concept of the discussion I used it.

Followers are lead. Eyes Wide Shut.

Atheists are not lead. Eyes Open. Truth is in Eyes being open.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
Religious believers use that same line and believe equally that they are right. The only thing that statement shows is how closed your eyes actually are. The truth is that no one knows for sure. All anyone has is theories. Religion is a theory just as Athesim is a theory. Neither has been proven as correct with absolute certainty. They both have some kind of "evidence" to support them after all. Atheists, as much as they don't want to think so, are relying on faith just as much as religious are. To claim that your theory is correct over all others with no tangible proof is the definition of faith based blindness.

Atheism is a lack of believe, not a theory. The reason why someone lacks that believe is irrelevant. In general, atheism is not based on evidence, but based on the lack of evidence of a god claim. So in general atheists are not relying on faith, but on logic. It is illogical to believe in things that are not supported by evidence.

It does not make much sense to say that atheism is "correct" either, as "atheist" describes a state someone is in.

reply to post by jiggerj


Knowledge misused can be dangerous.

Yes knowledge can be dangerous, arguably more dangerous than the faith of religion if it is misused. However I think if you list the benefits of sciences versus the cons and then on the other side the benefits of faith versus the cons you'll find science has more positive effects. Sure it gives us the methodology with which to invent bombs, but then it also gives us the methodology to invent cures and medicine. While religious faith causes people to bomb each other while faith-healing gives them no cure and no medicine.

Really though the issue is in how we USE these things. If people are using religion to feed the hungry or using science to cure the sick then there's not a big problem, the issue is not everyone who is in power has such noble intentions.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Atheism is a lack of believe, not a theory. The reason why someone lacks that believe is irrelevant. In general, atheism is not based on evidence, but based on the lack of evidence of a god claim. So in general atheists are not relying on faith, but on logic. It is illogical to believe in things that are not supported by evidence.

It does not make much sense to say that atheism is "correct" either, as "atheist" describes a state someone is in.

Then I ask the question, is there any more evidence that there isn't a god than evidence that there is a god? Neither claim has any proof to back it up. You say it is illogical to believe in things that aren't supported by evidence, yet there is no evidence that god doesn't exist. Therefore it is equally illogical to refuse to believe in god as it is to actually believe in god. Both viewpoints are completely illogical by your own statement.

I may have misused or misunderstood the literal definition of atheist. What I meant was, god not existing is a theory, just as god existing is also a theory. Neither can be completely proven true or false at this time. Man simply does not have the knowledge or understanding yet to figure it out.

As far as atheists relying on faith, they have faith in the theory that god doesn't exist when they can't prove it for themselves. You can say that have faith in their lack of faith. It is illogical to believe in anything that can't be proven, even if that anything is a lack of something.

I get tired of explaining this.

Myth: A Lack of Belief is Still a Belief, so Atheism is a Belief in No God

Do Atheists Really Have a Belief or Faith Despite Claims to the Contrary?

By Austin Cline

When religious theists are informed that atheism is not "belief that God does not exist," as they previously assumed, but rather that atheism is really defined as the "lack of belief in the existence of any gods" or simply "disbelief in gods," many get defensive. Perhaps they cannot accept being mistaken about something, or perhaps they realize how many of their assumptions and arguments about atheism and atheists fall apart in light of the real definition. Either way, be prepared for a fight.

What's especially disconcerting about the above myth, commonly offered in response to being told that atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, is how insanely incoherent it is. If I told someone that lacking hair is still having hair, or lacking a hobby is itself a hobby, they'd probably ask whether I've been feeling OK and might even suggest counseling.

They would surely doubt my ability to think and reason coherently. Such claims represent a complete separation from both reality and the most basic rules of logic: if something is absent, then it cannot also be present at the same time. By definition, something absent is not present — and that counts as much for beliefs as it does for hair and hobbies. atheism.about.com...

I personally think money is far worse than both religion and science. If we as a race were more sensible we could live in harmony with each of those but we are too greedy(money), conditioned(religion) and arrogant(science).