Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

It is our

CIVILIZATION

that is dangerous.

Simple as that.

It takes everything, gobbles it up, and perverts it towards destructive ends. In an extremely short amount of time (10,000 years) in the planet's, life's, and even our specie's history, civilization has set out to CONQUER everything and churn it into a slave of itself.

All or most other ways of life, cultures, religions, peoples, races, ideas, products, species, land, air, sea, minds, spirits, hearts, and bodies have been more or less tainted and/or enslaved by our civilization.




"According to the mythology of our culture, the world was made for Man to conquer and rule--and Man was made to conquer and rule it."
- Daniel Quinn


"We're not strangers in a strange land here. This is the secret I learned. We're not aliens, not outsiders. We were born in the sea, three billion years ago. The deer and the beetle are our kin. We're not invaders from space. No one gave us this planet to take care of or to use as we please. We grew out of the community of life the same way shellfish did, the same way mosquitoes did."
- Daniel Quinn, Providence


"During our three or four million years on this planet it can hardly be doubted that thousands of cultural experiments have been made among humans. The successes have survived--and the failures have disappeared, for the simple reason that eventually there was no one around who wanted to perpetuate them. People will (ordinarily) put up with being miserable for only so long. It's not the quitters who are extraordinary and mysterious, it's we, who have somehow managed to persuade ourselves that we must persist in our misery whatever the cost and not abandon it even in the face of calamity."
- Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization


"What people (aside from rulers) don't like about hierarchal societies is that they don't exist for all their members in the same way. They provide a life of unbelievable luxury and ease for the rulers and a life of poverty and toil for everyone else. The way rulers benefit from the success of the society is vastly different from the way the masses benefit, and the pyramids and the temples testify to the importance of the rulers, not to the masses who build them. And so it goes, through every phase of life in a hierarchal society."
- Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization


"Saving the world can only mean one thing: saving the world as a human habitat. Accomplishing this will mean (must mean) saving the world as a habitat for as many other species as possible. We can only save the world as a human habitat if we stop our catastrophic onslaught on the community of life, for we depend on that community for our very lives."
- Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization


"The people of your culture imagine that the treasury was completely empty when you came along and began to build civilization ten thousand years ago. You imagine that the first three million years of human life brought nothing of value to the store of human knowledge but fire and stone tools. In fact, however, you began by emptying the treasury of its most precious elements. You wanted to start with nothing and invent it all, and you did. Unfortunately, aside from the products (which work very well), you've been able to invent very little that works well--for people."
- Daniel Quinn, My Ishmael


"What I've endeavored to say in all my books is that the flaw in our civilization isn't in the people, it's in the system. It's true that the system has been clanking along for ten thousand years, which is a long time in the time-scale of an individual life, but when viewed in the time-scale of human history, this episode isn't remarkable for its epic length but for its tragic brevity."
- Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization

reply to post by Jordan River

Originally posted by Jordan River
science has failed mankind in answering the question "where do we go when we die".

Actually it hasn't. Look up some of the work done by NDE researchers such as Dr. Melvin Morse (who is a legitimate general physician/pediatrician.) Or Dr. Raymond Moody. They have come about with some compelling evidence.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

I will agree that it may not be possible to prove that something does not exist, but it can be possible to prove it can't exist, at least not under the conditions prescribed for their existence. However, we as a species do not understand nearly enough of the world to do that with any certainty. We are only just discovering how things work and you can argue we are still in the infancy of science. There is still too much that is unexplained to jump to any conclusion at this point.

Also, your argument that faries, etc. defy the laws of physics. Where do you get this information? Have you examined one yourself to determine this? You are making assumptions based on an illogical common mindset. Just because something seem ridiculous or impossible, does not mean it actually IS impossible. They used to say it was impossible to travel to outer space or even visit the deepest part of the ocean. Scientists themselves stated it was impossible. We have now done both, proving that the knowledge was just limited. Our knowledge now is still very limited. We can't truly rule out anything.

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.

If you are sure beyond any reasonable doubt, it is the same thing as being 100% sure. Hence, absolute faith in your theory.

Also, what practical reasons are there to act like that astronomically small chance of being wrong isn't there? To avoid embarassment or loss of confidence? That's not a practical reason, it's an illogical, emotional one. If you ignore the 1% chance you are wrong, then what happens when the odds fall against your favor and things turn out to be wrong? Will you be prepared for the outcome? What if the theory involved a nuclear power plant and it exploded, killing millions of people? What would you say, "I knew I could be wrong but ignored the possibility?" By ignoring the possibility, in this scenario, you killed those people. It is never right to ignore the possibility of being wrong. No matter how small the chance, there is still a chance and sometimes in science, the fallout can be bigger than just your embarassment.

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.

If that is the default position, then it is illogical and backwards. In the case you describe, you are starting with a conclusion and then waiting for evidence to prove it. Science involves starting with a question and finding evidence to lead to a conclusion. What you describe is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

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

In theory, I can follow that statement, but I'm kind of getting the impression that the theory and the actual practice are two different things.

Originally posted by Xaphan
reply to post by Jordan River

 

Originally posted by Jordan River
science has failed mankind in answering the question "where do we go when we die".

Actually it hasn't. Look up some of the work done by NDE researchers such as Dr. Melvin Morse (who is a legitimate general physician/pediatrician.) Or Dr. Raymond Moody. They have come about with some compelling evidence.

edit on 15-4-2012 by Xaphan because: Punctuation.

Moody has presented evidence, statistically speaking, of consistency between a large number of different accounts. Granted, that is impressive. What Moody has not, however managed to do, (at least to my knowledge) is to offer a mechanical explanation for how life after death could occur. It is possible that quantum physics may offer that, but I am not aware of Moody referring to that explanation himself.

reply to post by Annee


Fine then. System of logic. Mindset. Ideas on the issue. The basic question I had is, what makes atheists tick? If you don't want to define it as a belief system then fine, it's your perrogorative, but there must be some way to answer this question. I think I'm getting the gist of it anyway by now, but extra opinions don't hurt.

The other thing is, if the commonly understood definition of atheist is wrong, what is your name for people who hold on to lack of god as strongly as if it were a religion? Do they even have a name? Most people I know define that as atheist, but you say that's incorrect. So what is the PC term here?

reply to post by DenyIgnorance83


I'm actually Catholic too, and I actually believe that science and God are not mutually exclusive. Both sets of theories can actually be woven together seamlessly if you know how to look at it. Evolution is actually a very easy one to explain, but some others are not too far behind.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Agreed. Religion is a product of society, not the other way around.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
I will agree that it may not be possible to prove that something does not exist, but it can be possible to prove it can't exist, at least not under the conditions prescribed for their existence. However, we as a species do not understand nearly enough of the world to do that with any certainty. We are only just discovering how things work and you can argue we are still in the infancy of science. There is still too much that is unexplained to jump to any conclusion at this point.

In the formal definition of the word "proof" I disagree, but in practical definition we can indeed "prove" stuff. And I think the practical definition is more useful.

Also, your argument that faries, etc. defy the laws of physics. Where do you get this information? Have you examined one yourself to determine this? You are making assumptions based on an illogical common mindset. Just because something seem ridiculous or impossible, does not mean it actually IS impossible. They used to say it was impossible to travel to outer space or even visit the deepest part of the ocean. Scientists themselves stated it was impossible. We have now done both, proving that the knowledge was just limited. Our knowledge now is still very limited. We can't truly rule out anything.

The information is coming from the person making the claim. So you do not need to make assumptions.

If you are sure beyond any reasonable doubt, it is the same thing as being 100% sure. Hence, absolute faith in your theory.

When something is supported with evidence and logic, its not faith. Maybe we just use a different definition of faith.

Also, what practical reasons are there to act like that astronomically small chance of being wrong isn't there? To avoid embarassment or loss of confidence? That's not a practical reason, it's an illogical, emotional one. If you ignore the 1% chance you are wrong, then what happens when the odds fall against your favor and things turn out to be wrong? Will you be prepared for the outcome? What if the theory involved a nuclear power plant and it exploded, killing millions of people? What would you say, "I knew I could be wrong but ignored the possibility?" By ignoring the possibility, in this scenario, you killed those people. It is never right to ignore the possibility of being wrong. No matter how small the chance, there is still a chance and sometimes in science, the fallout can be bigger than just your embarassment.

The practical reason is that it requires a lot more time. If both parties in a conversation are aware that nothing is 100% certain it is useless to still constantly keep saying it.

If that is the default position, then it is illogical and backwards. In the case you describe, you are starting with a conclusion and then waiting for evidence to prove it. Science involves starting with a question and finding evidence to lead to a conclusion. What you describe is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

There is not just evidence, there is also logic. I already posted some arguments, like the claimed entity defies the laws of physics, or is known to be made up by someone, things like that. But you do have a point, claiming something does not exist is not scientific, as science does not use the practical definition of "proof" but the formal one. So I agree I was not correct there. Still, science can tell us that something does not exist beyond any reasonable doubt, which in a practical conversion we would expressed as "it does not exist".

My main point is that the default position is that something is not regarded as existing until shown otherwise, also in science.

In theory, I can follow that statement, but I'm kind of getting the impression that the theory and the actual practice are two different things.

Atheism isn't telling anything about someone's believes. It is true that many atheists have their believes, but they are allowed to believe anything they want without losing their atheist status. Atheists just can not believe that god exists.

As you may have guessed, I am an atheist. But I also believe that the gods in all the god claims I have heard do not exist. This isn't a position based on faith, but based on the arguments I already put forward. (another argument would be the internal inconsistencies in the known god claims).

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...

BOY! Are you giving some here cannon fodder! I am not an Atheist...yet what I catch glimpses of....as far as what ome would call GOD...is nothing that any Mind here on Planet Earth can understand or catagorize.

I am a staunch supporter of the Scientific Method. All that Methodology is a way to discover the Truth about things and how things work and how things living or not....have developed over Billions of Years and perhaps what is beyond thing that are limited to our perception and underdeveloped minds.

I was at one time an Atheist...and the Biggest scheptic that you would ever believe. Then something happened to me...an experience...not in any Angelic or Religious manner....but something that I could not deny happened. This opened my eyes to the reality that there was more going on than I knew.

As I began doing JOBS for an Agency that I was Hand Picked for...I again was surprised with a reality that despite many on this board calls for the truth...if they had but a Glimpse of what I had been exposed or informed of or to...they would wish that they never would have. This type of reality awakening is not for the feignt of Heart.

I had a less informed experience of this when I was younger...but the second time around opened my mind for just about all possibilities that have an underlying line of Logic. Like You...I know about too many issues in the Bible as well as outright mistranslations. But we are part of something larger no matter how small our pat is....of that I am certain. Split Infinity

Originally posted by jiggerj

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?

dude. lol forget it... it's not of your taste obviously and not worth my time.. another soul missing out on the big picture.. sigh... but maybe it's for the better...

Religion only deals with what the creator has created for it.
Science is a form of new creations.
So what we have here is spiritually and physically dangerous. Wreak havoc on the mind or evaporate the body.
The most dangerous thing is what you believe in...

Science is not a bad thing by any imagination, though I will admit, many people mistakenly think it is. It is not science, but how mankind applies it that can be dangerous, much the same as religions can be.

Even Albert Einstein himself had a bit to say about Science, and it's application, as pertaining to the Atom Bomb.

Peace and War - American Museum of Natural history

Einstein and the Nuclear Age Although he never worked directly on the atomic bomb, Einstein is often incorrectly associated with the advent of nuclear weapons. His famous equation E=mc2 explains the energy released in an atomic bomb but doesn't explain how to build one. He repeatedly reminded people, "I do not consider myself the father of the release of atomic energy. My part in it was quite indirect." Nevertheless, Einstein was frequently asked to explain his role—as he was when a Japanese magazine editor Zoom in on document asked him, "Why did you cooperate in the production of atomic bombs, knowing full well their...destructive power?"

Einstein's answer Zoom in on document was always that his only act had been to write to President Roosevelt suggesting that the United States research atomic weapons before the Germans harnessed this deadly technology. He came to regret taking even this step. In an interview with Newsweek magazine, he said that "had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing."

Chain Reaction: From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb - Discovery Magazine

Science itself is innocent, to a degree, theoretical science more so, but that does not stop man from using it for terrible, or even evil purposes.

Just as religion can be used as a tool for destruction, so can science, one is no more inherently evil than the other, it is the application that is good or evil from a philosophical point of view.

reply to post by jiggerj


Fair point! However, where would humanity be without advances in science? You seem to be claiming that science causes all of the problems in the modern world. No matter what our scientific level of advancement, religion will always prove to be a major factor that results in conflict.

Science has the ability to solve and cause problems. The only reason it causes problems is because human beings are violent idiots.

Scientific discovery simply shows us how things work.
It requires engineers to apply the how and beliefs to apply the why.
That belief does not have to be religious.

The most dangerous thing there is? A human with a belief and the power to enforce it.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
The other thing is, if the commonly understood definition of atheist is wrong, what is your name for people who hold on to lack of god as strongly as if it were a religion? Do they even have a name? Most people I know define that as atheist, but you say that's incorrect. So what is the PC term here?

I simply do not understand the complexity you are adhering to: absence of belief.

I do not hold on to atheism - - it just is. How do you hold on to nothing?

Originally posted by Annee
I simply do not understand the complexity you are adhering to: absence of belief.

I do not hold on to atheism - - it just is. How do you hold on to nothing?

You see, this idea is not complex to me at all. You see, having no faith is a different thing than assuming you are correct no matter what.

Having no faith means you have no opinion whatsoever. None of any kind. It's like an empty void. There is literally nothing there.

On the other hand, once you form an opinion of any kind, that void becomes filled. Suddenly, where there was nothing, an opinion exists. When you claim that opinion is correct, even if there is no solid evidence, you are expressing faith in that opinion. Even if that opinion is lack of god, it is your opinion that you have faith in. Notice the subject in this sentence is not god or absence of god, but your opinion. You don't have faith in nothing, you have faith in your opinion. As long as the opinion exists, you can't call yourself faithless.

If you are truly neutral and have no true opinion on the subject, then by definition, you truly have no faith of any kind. The second you form an opinion that you stubbornly defend without proof, that is faith.

I seriously cannot make this any clearer. If you still cannot grasp this concept, I refer you to a dictionary.

Also, star for at least trying to communicate and expressing your confusion. Most people I talk to on the internet would have run for the hills by now.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity

Originally posted by Annee
I simply do not understand the complexity you are adhering to: absence of belief.

I do not hold on to atheism - - it just is. How do you hold on to nothing?

You see, this idea is not complex to me at all. You see, having no faith is a different thing than assuming you are correct no matter what.

I make my point in 2 simple sentences. That is uncomplicated.

You say it is not complex to you - - but take a whole page of words to explain it.

Hopefully - someone besides me will engage in this "not complex complexity".

reply to post by -PLB-

In the formal definition of the word "proof" I disagree, but in practical definition we can indeed "prove" stuff. And I think the practical definition is more useful.

The "practical definition" as you put it, has no place in science. We can only demonstrate observation and results. We can't form an opinion, just record data. Now, if the data gets to a point where it draws only one conclusion, then fine, we have proof. However, if the data is open to any chance of error or leaves open any other possible explanation, that is not proof. In simple terms, if we had absolute knowledge of a subject, we can prove or disprove anything based on the understood systems. However, there is very little in science that we have absolute knowledge in at this point. The reason I argued for faeries and the like is because it delves into a part of science we simply have no knowledge of. Until or unless we gain knowledge into this subject, we can't assume anything. That is the nature of science. Observations first, not conclusions.

The information is coming from the person making the claim. So you do not need to make assumptions.

Maybe not, but in order to fully investigate this objectively, I would need to figure out if the person making the claim was making assumptions. You say faeires could not exist based on laws of physics, but you offer no proof to back this up. Therefore, I cannot take that statement as fact and have to draw my own conclusions. That was the point of my argument. I probably needed to word it better.

When something is supported with evidence and logic, its not faith. Maybe we just use a different definition of faith.

No, I think we use a different definition of logic. You seem to act as though logic itself is evidence. It is not. It is the system of organizing thoughts and evidence. It, by definition, is not proof.

Faith, is the strong belief that your opinion is correct when you have no evidence to back up your claim. Belief without proof. That is the definition of faith. In my last post, I think I was focused more on your wording than the actual point, and that's my fault for not explaining myself more clearly.

The practical reason is that it requires a lot more time. If both parties in a conversation are aware that nothing is 100% certain it is useless to still constantly keep saying it.

Quality work takes a lot more time, yes. Are you saying it's okay to avoid doing a thorough job just because it takes more time? That's nonsense and doing a poor job can have consequences.

The other point is, not everyone automatically assumes they could be wrong. A lot of scientists these days seem to be working to prove a conclusion, not test a theory. The consequence is that they often stubbornly hold onto the idea that they are not wrong and can't be wrong because they have "science" on their side. As long as there is a chance that it is not understood, it does bear repeating.

Atheism isn't telling anything about someone's believes. It is true that many atheists have their believes, but they are allowed to believe anything they want without losing their atheist status. Atheists just can not believe that god exists.

You see, I've been hearing that atheism is a simple lack of belief and that anyone with a belief of any kind is not an atheist. Which is it?

I'm enjoying this converstaion, but in order to avoid hijacking this thread completely, let me tie this into the current point by saying that I believe that for the most part, science as it is currently practiced does not follow the true definiton of science. Therefore science is not dangerous. The current trend of pseudo-science is.

Science and Religion are the two pillars of civilized society. A knife can be used to hurt or to cut bread. That doesnt make the knife "bad".

Originally posted by QuietInsanity

You see, I've been hearing that atheism is a simple lack of belief and that anyone with a belief of any kind is not an atheist. Which is it?

atheism - - lack of belief in god (that is the only thing it means)

Atheist Philosophy - - - the personal individual belief of each individual person who is atheist.

Originally posted by Annee
I make my point in 2 simple sentences. That is uncomplicated.

You say it is not complex to you - - but take a whole page of words to explain it.

Hopefully - someone besides me will engage in this "not complex complexity".

The only point you made was that you didn't understand. You did not argue your point about faith.

I could have argued my point in two sentences, but I wanted to avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding. I thought I was being thorough, but apparently I still failed to make my point. I'm sorry for that.

I do notice you have so far failed to make any points of your own or directly answer any of my questions, but instead have pointed me towards other people's work to make your argument for you. While the links are appreciated, your lack of direct communication is very frustrating. Is it possible you actually have nothing to say on the subject? If so, please tell me so that we can stop this circular discussion. I'm genuinely trying to understand atheism here, but your lack of clarity is just confusing me more.

Edit: This was to your previous post. I did not see the one above until after I posted this. Thank you for finally being clear.