Atheist claims science more dangerous than religion

I can add a strange but very true titbit to this for you.

Remember when those 65 young school children in Zimbabwe saw those aliens, there was a school girl age about 9 years old, and she was told by one of the aliens, in her words, "you are too technolodged."

Now how does a nine year old girl come out with that?

Indeed, science will kill us if it hasn't already with Fukushima and other major scientific catastrophes.

Anyways, yes, religion only kills humans, science will probably kill all life but the insects.

We have had the dinosaurs ( repitillians)
We have had thr mammals ( arians or nordics etc...)
Next will be the Ants living in high radiation which will lead to mega mutations and the greys

God help us all (please)

science has failed to answer where we go after death.

Also religion birthed science.

Originally posted by Annee

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.

Thank you. You have finally made yourself clear and now I understand this perfectly. It is much appreciated. If that is indeed the case, then my original definition was about right. The whole confusion over faith or lack of faith must have gotten us both really mixed up. Maybe now we can get back on topic.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
If that is indeed the case, then my original definition was about right. The whole confusion over faith or lack of faith must have gotten us both really mixed up. Maybe now we can get back on topic.

I said early on "faith" made no sense.

Faith = belief. Atheism is not a belief.

reply to post by Annee


I do now understand that atheism is not a belief. The way you define it, it's more like a state of being. That however, has nothing to do with my argument.

Your question was, how can lack of belief be a faith? My answer was true lack of belief is not a faith. Belief in an unverified opinion is a faith.

That belief can be in god, lack of god, or belief that man eating space hamsters will take over the earth. The actual content of the opinion does not matter. As long as an opinion exists, there is faith.



Now back on topic. I've been thinking. True science creates nothing. It only observes and explains. The danger is not in the science, it is in the industry that uses that science. People seem to use the word science in place of the word industry these days because an industry may sound sciency or is run by scientists. It is still an industry. Building atomic bombs is not a science, but an industry.

So really, the danger is industry, not science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Industry is the actual use of that knowledge. That is the danger. Cut off industry and science would have no power except to inform.

Originally posted by QuietInsanity
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.

Inductive reasoning never results in proof. Not a single finite data set constitutes to proof. In other words, except for mathematics, nothing in science can be proven.

Still, when scientists talk of proof, they usually mean to say "very strongly supported with evidence" or along those lines.

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.

I am not claiming that fairies can not exist because of the laws of physics (thought it may be so for certain type of fairies, depending on the claims made). Both fairies and that argument are separate examples, and my point is not to prove that fairies do not exist, but to show that there are valid arguments to believe that something does not exist, without depending on 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.

An argument based on logic can be used as reason to believe in something. When the argument is good, this believe is not faith based. Sure it is not proof. But faith and proof are not the only two options. There is a large gray area in between. You can believe in things without faith and without proof, but based upon evidence or logical arguments.

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.

I disagree. You can have a strong believe in something without evidence, but with good logical arguments. So you don't need faith.

I would define faith as "A strong believe without good arguments". Where arguments can be based on evidence or on logic.

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.

Doing a poor job? Not sure what you mean. I am saying that when someone makes a claim, it goes without saying that this claim almost never can never be 100% certain. It is not necessary to point this out with every claim you make as both parties in a conversation are aware of this.

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.

This isn't an issue of "these days", but a "flaw" in humans. A quote that comes time mind is

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

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?

Atheists can have any kind of believe, including the largest nonsense imaginable. The only restriction is a believe in a god.

reply to post by -PLB-

Inductive reasoning never results in proof. Not a single finite data set constitutes to proof. In other words, except for mathematics, nothing in science can be proven.

I would argue that while math is solid in a lot of ways, it is still not infallible, but that is a discussion for another time.

Proof as I see it, is when all avenues and possibilities have been exausted and it leaves only one conclusion without any doubt. The problem is, this requires absolute knowledge of every variable, and in our limited understanding of the universe we do not, and can not, have that complete knowledge. So you are correct that nothing can be 100% proven with our current level of knowledge. In theory however, absolute proof is possible, if not currently achieveable.

Both fairies and that argument are separate examples, and my point is not to prove that fairies do not exist, but to show that there are valid arguments to believe that something does not exist, without depending on faith.

And my point was not to prove faeries exist. My point was that without actual measurable evidence, we can't assume they don't exist. Sure an argument can be made for their non existence, but that would still be an unevidenced theory, not a fact. To believe in this theory, even if some logical evidence points to it, because it still does not constitute proof, still counts as faith. Just because something is the most likely conclusion does not make it proven. Until it is proven, it is your faith in the fact that it is the most likely conclusion that maintains your assertion that it is true. The truly non-faith based answer would be to be completely neutral on the subject.

An argument based on logic can be used as reason to believe in something. When the argument is good, this believe is not faith based.

That statement is an oxymoron. Belief=faith. Period. There is no debate on that. If you believe in something, you have faith in it. You can't believe in something and have no faith in it. It doesn't work that way.

To be completely without faith, a good argument cannot sway your outlook or move you to an opinion. The non-faith based answer would be to consider the argument, investigate the argument if you can, and record your findings, all the while never subscribing to the idea that the subject at hand is true or false. Now if the evidence gives absolute proof of something, you can accept it as true without opinion being involved at all. However, absolute proof in many things is still unobtainable at this point.

But faith and proof are not the only two options.

You're right, there are three options. As long as you are certain about something, you have either fact or faith. The only thing in between in uncertainty. Fact, faith, or uncertainty. Those are the only choices.

There is a large gray area in between. You can believe in things without faith and without proof, but based upon evidence or logical arguments.

By definition, there is no gray area. Having faith in a logical argument is still faith. It's where you put that faith that differs. As long as there is no proof and you still maintain your argument, it is called faith.

I disagree. You can have a strong believe in something without evidence, but with good logical arguments. So you don't need faith. I would define faith as "A strong believe without good arguments". Where arguments can be based on evidence or on logic.

When it comes to provable evidence, no argument can exist. The evidence is what it is and no arguments and debates can change that. Arguments come into play when you try to put conjectured meaning behind the factual evidence. It is unproven conjecture that causes arguments. To have belief in any of these conjectures when there can be no solid proof, is the meaning of faith. So no, a logical argument does not mean no faith. the fact that there is even an argument to begin with proves faith and not fact.

it goes without saying that this claim almost never can never be 100% certain. It is not necessary to point this out with every claim you make as both parties in a conversation are aware of this.

If both parties are aware. Not everyone is that open minded. it's the closed minded people that need the repetition. Like you said, "This isn't an issue of "these days", but a "flaw" in humans."

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

This quote is an argument of the acceptance of science. Truth by definition does not change if not accepted.

Originally posted by Jordan River
science has failed to answer where we go after death.

Also religion birthed science.

Actually, magick was the predecessor of science.

Originally posted by Jordan River
science has failed to answer where we go after death.

Science says the dirt.

Your assumption that said answer is incorrect is just a belief.

Originally posted by Annee

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".

Simple enough.
There is no empirical evidence of deities therefore there is nothing to accept.
It is not hard to understand.

The problem seems to be that most confuse Atheist with Anti-Theist.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Jordan River
science has failed to answer where we go after death.

Also religion birthed science.

Actually, magick was the predecessor of science.

Only in some societies and the Scientific Method was actually used by our ancient predesessors....Cro Magnon.
Cro Magnon looked identical to us with the exception of having an average height and musculature slightly taller and weight lifter looking. Cro Magnon even had a slightly larger Brain than Homosapiens and were around 60,000 years ago...they of course evolved into us...Homosapiens...but a person today could not pick out who is the Cro Magnon out of a Line Up that had one Cro Magnon and Five Homosapiens.

They were smart but did not posses high technology but they did posses what would pass for Ancient High Tech. as compared to Neanderthals who for a period of time lived along Cro Magnon. There was some interbreading but not that much as has ben determined through Genetic Research.

Cro Magnons tech. was the Spear Thrower...the Fire Starter...a thin supple stick that when spun with the palms of both hands with it's end pressed into a round groove in a split piece of 4 inch in diameter tree branch cut about 6 inches to 12 inches long. When spun quickly it's friction causes combustion to the wood and ignites the fine tinder placed near it...then blown on the smoldering tinder recieves more Oxygen and fully ignites.

They also burried their dead with flowers and had the ability to build Homes that were round mud and stone short foundations with a angled Teepee like wooded roof frame woven with plant leaves and reeds or long grass or hay.

They lived in communities and much like us had idividualised skills passed down from generation to Generation like a Blacksmith in the 1500's would have a Son who also trained to be a Blacksmith. They were very much like us...and they became us...Homosapien. Split Infinity

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The OP of this thread might be interested in my own most recent thread.

OH! And as it applies to this topic....Religion has caused more death and destruction than ant other form of concept or reality. It is like having the Scientific ability to develop Gun Powder. The Ancient Chinese used this for Fireworks and they also used it to create Rocket Launched Spears.

Now...in Feudal China...their were several Kingdoms that had Religions that worshiped their Leader as a GOD. In fact it is still going on TODAY in North Korea! The WARS in those ancient Chinese times were determined by their "GODS" decision to Conquer the Rival Chinese Kingdoms "GODS" lands and people...thus making the winner all the more Mighty and powerful of "GODS'.

Now was it the Gun Powder that was responsible for the Deaths of their very ingenious Multiple Spear Launchers...Hundreds could be launched in a single salvo...or was it their belief in their RELIGION or GOD?

Science is defined as a METHOD of certain logical observations....experimentation....evaluation and the ability to prove a theory by repeating the experiment with a control group as to elliminate possibility of contamination by any source of the experimentation. If the experiment is repeatedly confirmed....a theory becomes a fact.

I had a rediculous arguement TODAY in the Studio with a friend who...after allowing the water for tea to evaporate so he had to refill it...and he said...OOPS! I turned all the water into gases of Oxygen and Hydrogen! He said it as a joke...but I explained that just Heating water does not do this...the water in the pot was turned into Water Vapor and is STILL WATER! He looked at me like I was crazy and said...WHO told you that...everyone knows water is H20 and the Hydrogen seperates from the Oxygen so thats why the water dissapeared. I had to go on the WEB and show him that it remains WATER and does not seperate just because you heat it...heating it just seperates the Water Molecules Further away from each other and as they begin to boil...you get STEAM...AND IF YOU PUT YOUR HAND OVER THE STEAM...your hand will be WET with water. If they were seperated into seperate Gases...this could not happen. I then explained that to do what he was saying was happening...you would need either an ELECTRIC CHARGE or UV-RADIATION like their is in Sunlight. Either of the two will change the sharing of an ELECTRON ORBIT were the Hydrogen Molecule and the Oxygen...which by itself usually is a Molecular Elemental pair O2....but in water H20...there is only one Oxygen Atom so if you use Electrolysis...a process of electrifying Water....THEN it will seperate into two gases....or if you use a UV Light...the Photons at that frequency...will do the same.
Now...we had a little tiff over what he thought was reality and what IS REALITY but he could himself perform the experiments himself and arrive to a conclusive fact. IF WE WERE ARGUING RELIGION...there is NO POSSIBILITY in THAT ARGUEMENT for any way to perform an EXPERIMENT to PROVE either of our beliefs!

THIS IS WHY RELIGION IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN SCIENCE....you can't arrive at a FACT no matter how hard you try....only a belief...that people have KILLED, MURDERED AND DIED TO PROTECT OR EVANGELIZE to the point of...Death To the Infidels...or Kill the Heathens...or Burn the witch. It is a known fact that the Church accused people that had wealth or land that they desired or the Churchs attempt to Burn to Death all the Midwives as they felt that this ancient practice of Helping Deliver a Child was cutting into their PROFITS as a few hundred years ago...a Priest would be called in to PRAY as a woman gave birth and was paid to do so as the Church stated that to not do so would possibly bring SATAN or a CURSE or BIRTH DEFECTS! So they did the Christian thing and Murdered by BURNNG TO DEATH women of Medical Knowledge and skill or a Scientific Practice of Medical Treatment. RELIGION IS EVIL! Split Infinity