Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
What I mean to say is: it depends on the will of those who possess the knowledge. You can use it for the dark side or for good. What is good and bad? well, that is the whole duality of life. That is what Adam and Eve learned in the garden of Eden ( Adam and Eve might not be a a REAL story but the lesson is nonetheless right). You need warm to feel cold, like you need dark to detect light. They complement each other. as for good and evil I think they are somewhat interlinked. So how can something preaching to not kill be bad? Those going against those words are well going against those words which belong to a religion. How does that make them the representative of that religion when they don't follow the basic fundamentals on which the religion stands? (I am not a religious zealot, I'm just trying to make sense out of all of this like you)




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
reply to post by Annee
 


As far as I can see it, and as the article kind of implies, there are three places on this spectrum to be.
1. Having complete faith that there is a god.
2. Having complete faith that there is no god.
3. Being completely neutral and waiting for an answer, not assuming there is or isn't a god.



LOL I need to add a fourth, where I stand.
4. Having complete faith that if a god is discovered, he/she/it will conform to natural laws and scientific reasoning, with no mystical/magical/miracle involved.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Debating Atheism would be off topic.


I don't think so. Atheists side with scientific reasoning. To fully understand the topic of which is more dangerous, coming to a full understanding of what atheism stands for, or what religion stands for, and/or what is actually deemed dangerous as opposed to keeping the world safe, the topic is wide open.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Annee
Debating Atheism would be off topic.


I don't think so. Atheists side with scientific reasoning. To fully understand the topic of which is more dangerous, coming to a full understanding of what atheism stands for, or what religion stands for, and/or what is actually deemed dangerous as opposed to keeping the world safe, the topic is wide open.


OK - I just didn't want to hijack your thread. Its happened to me before.

But I am tired of the "fight" for right now.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Science is a religion of a sort. It has all the elements of one. Research and evidence are real but interpretations can have ulterior motives. Most interpretations are tied to acquisition of funding or prestigious gain. This makes science more dangerous than religion. I'm not an Athiest , I believe in a higher power with a collective communication.. That would be considered by most as god. Everything is tied together somehow.

Without belief in something there is no hope. Belief shall make you whole. These last two statements show the importance of believing in something. We need something to structure our lives.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It's not far to say if science is more dangerous than religion. There are so many more reasons out there for violence, crime, death, disease, etc... You cannot not begin to compare the two. The motives behind men go deeper than the the name of God or the advancement of science. From family, friends, social outcomes to what nation you where born in. Lack of understanding is the true crime here. We will fight until only one is left, we will debate until one is right, until some lucky one says "I told you!". Its thousands of years of going in the wrong direction of human evolution.

Look the truth is this, we can't prove a god, we can't disprove a god. All we do is try to trap each other in arguments like these to feel better about what little we know. And the worse part about it is when someone is seeing others argue about this he tells them to shut up, then the two band together because they LIKE to argue.. lol

So yea, shush up.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse

Without belief in something there is no hope. Belief shall make you whole.


Humanity makes me whole. Believing in something (as in an omnipotent intelligence) outside myself is a distraction to the importance of humanity.

We'd do better focusing on the needs of each other - - - then worrying about doing the right thing to appease an imaginary being (or energy). Or living for the reward at the end - - - instead of the every day reward of being "right now".



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Science itself isn't inherently dangerous. Some of the things that it can be used for, are. The politics surrounding contemporary science; the circlejerk, and the appeal to authority, and the priesthood...all of those things are.

Far more dangerous than the scientific method itself, is the claim that science must, by necessity, be a closed priesthood, and that only said priesthood are allow to issue edicts from on high, as to what is possible. Advocates of that scenario have forgotten where science comes from; what its' history was. Gallileo and Copernicus were both heretics; considered outcasts by the church. In terms of all of the most major and fundamental contributors, it has ever been so.

OP, I only started to realise the real value of atheism in overall terms, when I learned to seperate out things like the scientific method, from all of the BS that atheism typically (and tragically) gets drowned in. Unfortunately, atheism has its' scenesters, its' hangers on, and its' insincere, juvenile idiots as much as any other subculture of any other kind...and they do just as much damage in atheism's own case as they do anywhere else.

Dawkins can be a bit of a jerk, but read Bertrand Russell, and especially Huxley. Huxley's value as an atheist was the extent of his honesty; and that is when atheism is at its' most valuable. Not when it disbelieves in God because it has an axe to grind, but because it simply has never experienced anything that it could call "God," before, but is actually made more determined to solve life's mysteries as a result of that, rather then less.
edit on 14-4-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Mankind is littered with abuse of science for political means.
Religion is littered with idiots abusing it for political means.
Try to seperate the politics from both I dare ya!
Limbo



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


It gives us one more reason out of plenty. We'll always find reasons to kill one another.

I should elaborate: Religion can be used in a good way and a bad way, just like with anything really. A car can be used to transport somebody to the hospital, or it can be used to run somebody down. We can't hate on religion because it can be used badly unless we hate on everything else too.
edit on 15/4/12 by shadowland8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I believe you have a good point, but I also believe it is not as strong as it may seem upon initial assertion.

It could be argued, and be as plausible of the opinion you shared here, that religion was and remains the bedrock foundation for the earliest explorations of science.

People breaking things down, in the name of religion to understand them better, and as a result becoming closer the the creator Gd.

Scientific advancements see the mostsignificant advancements in time of war, we all know what is the main driving factor for the majority of wars taking place right now... religion.

So, religion requires war and war requires scientific advancement.. There is also tons and tons and tons of technoligical, scientifically based inventions that are used by the Church - for example, the light bulb, does your Church use a computer? What about the scientific advancements that produced deadly poison gases that are used by the extremist religions?

If religion can not support science and work hand in hand to find out whether the religion is real. Science is used in the name of religion in other instances as well... airplanes and cars to go on missionary trips, giving prescription glasses and medications to those in need. Providing contraceptives, virus immunizations, and treatment for other advanced health issues,

I believe science and religion should be put together and some of the largest mysteries surrounding many of the topiccs in the Bible and religions individually



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
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.


Asking proof for a negative is also a logical fallacy. Do you have proof that fairies do not exist? Bigfoot? Easter bunny? According to you it is equally logical to believe those creatures exist as to believe they do not exist, as their non-existence is not supported with evidence.


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.


This is correct. When you believe no god exist, you make a claim, and you require evidence. But being an atheist means that you lack the believe in a god, it does not mean that you claim that god does not exist. There is a significant difference here. When I claim that no god exists, you can ask me to back up that claim. You can ask for evidence. When you ask me to explain why I do not believe in a god, I can simply point out to the lack of evidence for it. One position is agnostic about the existence of a god, the other is not.

It is also possible to claim that a certain god claim is incorrect, and support that with evidence, this still leaves the option open to other god claims. In fact, almost all religious people are atheistic towards every god claim there is, even claiming they are certain that the god in that specific god claim does not exist. With the exception of the God(s) of their preference or heritage, which they do believe in. In that respect, the position of a believer includes that of an atheist minus one.

One more point, even though claiming god exist and claiming no god exists both require evidence, it does not mean that both positions require an equal amount of faith. To illustrate this with a well know example, I can claim that I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. Do you think it requires an equal amount of faith to say that this dragon indeed exists as to say that this dragon does not exist? Both lack any evidence as for now.


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 hope that my explanation clarified why this is not correct
edit on 15-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


Originally posted by QuietInsanity
I have a question I hope you can answer. If my number 3 definition, the one many people define as agnostic, is the true definition of atheism



You are confusing me. How can you have "faith" there is no god? That doesn't even sound right.


From a scientific perspective, the existence of god is a theory with no evidence to back it up. "Faith" is the absolute belief that this theory is true despite a lack of evidence.

On the other hand, some people adamantly believe that god does not exist. From a scientific perspective, god not existing is also a theory with no proof to back it up. "Faith" again, is the absolute belief that this theory is true despite the lack of evidence.

It's that simple. As long as you adamantly support a theory that has no evidence to support it, it is called faith. Faith in both cases is not faith in god or lack of god, but faith in your theory and your own rightness.

If that is still confusing, I don't know how else to explain it.


A basic problem in understanding the meaning of atheism - - is dictionaries and other references haven't caught up yet to the correct definition. Its kind of a society evolving thing - - like the definition of marriage.

atheism is a noun/adjective - - it is not capitalized - - it is simply a descriptive: lack of belief in god (I capitalize Atheism for emphases - - that is incorrect)


That's exactly why I've been trying to pin down a concrete definition here, but all I seem to find are vague philosophical comments and no hard definitions.


I am not saying it is Ok to be atheist and have a belief there could be a god.


Which is it? Do atheists stubbornly hold onto the belief that there is no god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up that claim (see the faith definition earlier), or are they neutral, not believing in either until proven otherwise? You seem to be implying both and it's betting confusing.


Atheist is "lack of belief in a god" - - - however as it can not be proven or dis-proven there can not be a 100% certainty. That's honest and realistic.


That is honest and realistic, but we still haven't properly established the grounds that the word atheist covers. That's why we're having a hard time discussing this. I'm trying to pin down the actual belief system you as atheists follow, but the definitions are vague and I'm getting mixed messages.
edit on 15-4-2012 by QuietInsanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by underduck
They are equally dangerous in the wrong hands. Its like comparing a sword and a gun.


Right! Only it's more like comparing the difference between getting hit on the head with a rock or a ten ton meteor. lol


I like that except I would say it is more like the difference between getting hit with a ten ton meteor or getting hit in the head with a brick. Both have the potential to put you down but one is far more successful at it. lol



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Asking proof for a negative is also a logical fallacy. Do you have proof that fairies do not exist? Bigfoot? Easter bunny? According to you it is equally logical to believe those creatures exist as to believe they do not exist, as their non-existence is not supported with evidence.


It is logical to believe that these creatures could possibly exist as there is no scientific proof that they don't or even can't for that matter. I base my life around the theory that nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. I'm not advocating their existance, but I don't outright dismiss it either. That's how I see logic.


One more point, even though claiming god exist and claiming no god exists both require evidence, it does not mean that both positions require an equal amount of faith. To illustrate this with a well know example, I can claim that I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. Do you think it requires an equal amount of faith to say that this dragon indeed exists as to say that this dragon does not exist? Both lack any evidence as for now.


Faith is the stubborn belief that you are correct even if there is no evidence. If I take either side of this argument and refuse to budge, I am asserting faith that I am right.

The scientific, non faith based answer here would be to investigate this dragon, and if I find no evidence note that I find no evidence, but at the same time, I can't say that there was no dragon. All I could say is just that I found no evidence of one. That would not mean that one didn't necessarily exist. Science is pure observation without jumping to conclusions. Assuming that because I found no evidence of a dragon that there was no dragon would be foolish and unscientific.


I hope that my explanation clarified why this is not correct


It did nothing of the kind, but it did clarify a few definitions for me so thank you for that. Star for your post for some interesting points.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
I'm trying to pin down the actual belief system you as atheists follow,


There is NO belief system.

Are you selectively reading or interpreting what you read?

Why are you trying to complicate this? It is not complicated.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I find this topic to be very intriguing as it is one that I often ponder. I have a strong interest in the mechanics of the universe, but being Catholic (go ahead, bash me), it is difficult to choose between intelligent design and a “spontaneous” universe.

It is widely understood that the universe developed from an infinitesimally small Singularity and expanded rapidly into the universe we live in today (the Big Bang). This Singularity is pretty much a fancy way of saying we don’t have a clue about what is happening, and the same holds true for a black hole. How can we be sure that this Singularity isn’t God? I go back and forth trying to choose between a universe dictated by God and one dictated by physics, and when I am able to really consider the complexity of intelligent life it becomes difficult to conclude that humans developed through evolution.

To get back to the topic at hand, I do think that science is more dangerous than religion. Although I am a confirmed Catholic, I haven’t been to church in over a year and I don’t see myself going very often, except for holidays. Having said that, I do like the idea of religion because of the values that are stressed, and without religion, I think that a lot of hope would be lost. Without a fear of Hell, what makes killing or stealing a problem? Religion, to me, puts constraints on our activities and makes us evaluate our decisions in a moral manner. I also feel the OP is spot on when mentioning the dangers developed through science, even though numerous breakthroughs have led to the improved well-being of everyone. Religion may have stifled innovation in the past, but it never killed 66,000 people in a single day. Religion provides us an overview of how to live life in a moral and just manner.

Check out this video, it may alter your views as it did mine: www.youtube.com...

I just want to reiterate that I have yet to choose a side as I feel that I can make arguments either way.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River

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...


science has failed mankind in answering the question "where do we go when we die". Since that is not answered the collection of ancient text, psychics, prophets (now probably psychics) are all we have left . not so much as to the conformity of religious text (religion) turning religion in a billion dollar corporation (the original bank vatican). I am talking about a metaphysical/spiritual awakening
edit on 13-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)


Where do we go when we die? Welcome to modern days fear and belief in religion. People are scared of dying and always have been. Unfortunately a long time ago someone figured out that everyone is afraid of dying so they came up with great idea that " hey, don't worry. After you die there is something beyond this", and found out you could make money on it and control people. Sorry folks when you die you die. There is no paradise there is no hell this is it. You can die today or tomorrow or right now so hopefully you've had a good time cause there is no mulligan. When you think about it, the concept of when you die your "soul" travels to live for eternity in paradise is kinda wishful thinking. I don't hear rationalization, I hear fear. I lean towards the Lion King theory. When you die your body becomes grass, and the antelope eat the grass, and lions eat the grass. Welcome to the circle of life.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
It is logical to believe that these creatures could possibly exist as there is no scientific proof that they don't or even can't for that matter. I base my life around the theory that nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. I'm not advocating their existance, but I don't outright dismiss it either. That's how I see logic.


That is not at all practical. It can be logical to believe those creatures do not exist, for example for the reason that they contradict known physics, or the fact we know they are made up. Your position is more or less "nothing is impossible" period. Its not possible to prove the non-existence of something.

But still, I think we are on the same page here. However, I just word it a bit differently. Since it is never possible to prove something does not exist, it means that when say something does not exist, I am not 100% sure of it, but I am sure of it beyond any reasonable doubt. This is in fact the case for any claim you make. You can never be 100% certain of anything, but for practical reasons we do not explain every time we make a claim that there is some astronomical small chance that the claim is not correct.


Faith is the stubborn belief that you are correct even if there is no evidence. If I take either side of this argument and refuse to budge, I am asserting faith that I am right.

The scientific, non faith based answer here would be to investigate this dragon, and if I find no evidence note that I find no evidence, but at the same time, I can't say that there was no dragon. All I could say is just that I found no evidence of one. That would not mean that one didn't necessarily exist. Science is pure observation without jumping to conclusions. Assuming that because I found no evidence of a dragon that there was no dragon would be foolish and unscientific.


I disagree here. The default position is that something does not exist until shown to exist with evidence, also from a scientific perspective. In the example, the claim that the dragon does not exist can be supported with all kind of arguments. It is not a matter of faith, or at least not a matter of equal faith.



It did nothing of the kind, but it did clarify a few definitions for me so thank you for that. Star for your post for some interesting points.


In summery, the atheist position is not "the theory that god doesn't exist".



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:44 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...


Science, or more accurately, the scientists who run the show, has done nothing for humanity but create monstrous inventions. When you think about it, it's really contributed little to humanity's betterment compared to how it has placed us on the edge of total destruction. Look at the unending story in Fukishima, for example. As an athiest, I too believe what you've stated. Those who are up the *** of science are as religious as Jesus freaks and contribute as much to society.





top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join