I have proof science is bad?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2014, 07:00 AM
Question I have proof science is bad?
Hey all, new user and extreme atheist here.

I love having conversations with theists and trying to advance my knowledge and arguments. One argument that was made was interesting. It wasn't the "hitler, pol pot and others were atheists",

*It was "Science helped promote slavery and other issues in our society, there is a lot of fraud despite peer revision."

I responded that the bible doesn't change and science evolves through new knowledge. However, at the same time, religion has gotten better when you look throughout history. Sure there are still crazy issues, but you get the point.

How would you respond to this argument?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
I probably wouldn't.

Nicely provocative thread title though. Thumbsup

Welcome to the forum, Vic.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-09-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
It has improved in a sense that human ethics and morallity is weeding out the barbaric views and practices once held to be sacred. Just goes to show who makes the rules for a better society - we do! And just because science changes its conclusions over time does not imply it is not getting better. Science and religion change over time, with one changing based on evidence, and the other changing in order to sell more snake oil.Wink

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
Hitler was a Christian and slavery was justified by bible verses for starters. Technology advancements made slave labor impractical in the north and it was happening in the south.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like wazzel's post
04-09-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
I do apologize for the crap title.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 08:43 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
Complete bullshit to say "science can be abused too"

NO SHIT, as with everything in life, everything humans do is run by humans. But the TOOL of scientific method itself is not a human, it is a tool. Ethical scientists use that tool for discovery. Governments and business misuse it to justify gaining an advantage to get resources, sell something, or defeat an enemy. That is not the method as a tool itself. That is like blaming the hammer for what the person does with the hammer.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
Welcome.

I don't know why all my spidy-troll-senses perked up when I read your OP. I sincerely hope they are misfiring.

Maybe it was the line "religion has gotten better when you look throughout history" becasue that is a crock, just ask journalist Steven Sotlof, he'll tell you...from the grave.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
04-09-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
(04-09-2014 08:47 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Welcome.

I don't know why all my spidy-troll-senses perked up when I read your OP. I sincerely hope they are misfiring.

Maybe it was the line "religion has gotten better when you look throughout history" becasue that is a crock, just ask journalist Steven Sotlof, he'll tell you...from the grave.

I hate that "Religion has gotten better" too. Human rights have improved not because of religion, but in spite of it. Humans fail to realize that when they adapt to more compassion, that is not a god or a book doing that, but their evolutionary sense of compassion doing that.

With every social progress that values human dignity that we gain, religion either fights to remain in the past out of a stupid sense of nostalgia, or it sees the way the wind is blowing to remain in tact. It has nothing to do with the book being credible or being the patent holder on our species morality.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
(04-09-2014 07:00 AM)victormarte Wrote:  *It was "Science helped promote slavery and other issues in our society, there is a lot of fraud despite peer revision."
I would ask for citations of well-accepted scientific findings that were found to be fraudulent despite peer review/revision.

Regarding science and slavery, knives can be used to kill people. Does that make knives themselves bad? Consider

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
04-09-2014, 11:10 AM
RE: I have proof science is bad?
(04-09-2014 07:00 AM)victormarte Wrote:  Hey all, new user and extreme atheist here.

I love having conversations with theists and trying to advance my knowledge and arguments. One argument that was made was interesting. It wasn't the "hitler, pol pot and others were atheists",

*It was "Science helped promote slavery and other issues in our society, there is a lot of fraud despite peer revision."

I responded that the bible doesn't change and science evolves through new knowledge. However, at the same time, religion has gotten better when you look throughout history. Sure there are still crazy issues, but you get the point.

How would you respond to this argument?

First of all, slavery has been around for the entirety of recorded human existence. Science did not create it, and I'd say it did as much to eliminate it as it did to promulgate it. I'd be interested in contrary examples. Please distinguish between science and technology/engineering here... the cotton gin is an example of technological development, not scientific discovery.

Regarding fraud despite peer review: If you mean fraud that gets caught by peer review, but reaches the public anyway (eg, the Piltdown Man), science doesn't get the rap for that. If anything, it speaks to the power of science, that charlatans are so eager to steal its mantle as an appealing cloak to wear as they sucker their marks. (Yes, Ken Ham, I'm talking about you.) If you mean mistakes that gets past peer review, that's how the system works. The idea is to reduce error as much as possible, but not to be so full of ourselves as to think we've reduced it to nothing. That's why every "proven" fact or theory is open to being revisited in light of new evidence. If you mean deliberate fraud that gets past peer review... I acknowledge that there are some examples. The gas industry's suppression of the ill effects of leaded gasoline, and the tobacco industry doing the same for tobacco smoke, come to mind. It's an imperfect system. I'd challenge anyone to show me a perfect one. But if we are discussing the topic vis-a-vis the alternative of religion and faith, I'd have to ask two pointed questions. First, how widespread is this type of fraud in science, versus similar fraud in religion. And second, does science blow the whistle on itself more, or less, often than religion? If the answers to these two questions favor the scientific process over religious faith, you've got on your hands a good argument in favor of science over religion.

That's also the key to the question of evolving religious morals and understanding. Did it improve itself? Or was it dragged, kicking-and-screaming, into a slightly-more-modern conception by forces external to it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: