Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2013, 03:42 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
This quote reminds of God of war 2 lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 03:50 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(15-12-2013 03:42 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  This quote reminds of God of war 2 lol

Wikipedia Wrote:J. Robert Oppenheimer, American physicist and director of the Manhattan Project, learned Sanskrit in 1933 and read the Bhagavad Gita in the original, citing it later as one of the most influential books to shape his philosophy of life. Upon witnessing the world's first nuclear test in 1945, he later said he had thought of the quotation "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds", verse 32 from chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#Appraisal

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 03:51 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(15-12-2013 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Looks like I get to post this delightful image again.

[Image: h9E0E4437]

Stop trying to engage with Heywood. He is a simple, petty, attention whore and forum troll. He did not make this thread to start an honest discussion. He does not care for honest debate or discourse. He's firmly established himself as willfully ignorant and purposely obtuse. I imagine he gets off on this, so simply ignore him. He's not here to debate, he's here to get his ego flamed.

There is the potential here, the seed of an interesting question of a debate. But Heywood is not the person to attempt it, he's simply not honest enough. This thread is simply to rile us all up, and it's working. Stop engaging with his inanity, it'll save you a lot of trouble. You are never going to convince him otherwise, we all know that, and he knows that too.

Ad hominem
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 04:05 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(14-12-2013 06:33 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I'm sorry Heywood but are you suggesting that perhaps our society is not sufficiently morally or ethically developed to safely handle our scientific and technological advances?

The only reason you can ask that question is because science is dangerous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2013 06:03 AM by ShirubaDangan.)
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(14-12-2013 04:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The following is a short clip from an interview with Robert Oppenheimer where he reflected on the Trinity test and the birth of the atomic age. Please take a minute to watch it as it frames the discussion.





It takes religion to fly airplanes into buildings but with science you can destroy the world.

What is really more dangerous? Science or religion?

Religion hands down.

Now you are saying that this is the worst science has created. While its technology and science was used it doesn't tell us to kill people with it.

Let's look at the worst the Bible has to offer. Noah's flood. Even if it did not exist God still allowed it to be within his book which he placed full knowing it was a story of eradication and genocide. One that killed plenty and wasn't targeted only at human life but everything that lived around it.

Religion is worse than any armament or bomb we could ever create. It allows ignorant humans to use it as an excuse to use those bombs and weapons against others. Science can be used to heal and help others. Penicillin alone benefited humans I believe more than religion and is even swamped more by modern medicine. If you dislike science that much than I recommend selling your house, not using your car and use your God given feet that he supposedly intelligently designed for you as well as your body. Because this Earth with a large amount of unlivable space that occupies it was certainly made for you.

[Image: syrian-atheists.jpg]

Religion does ugly things and while I believe it has helped in making some of the most fantastic pieces of art it definitely is used as a weapon of war and I fear it much more than the atomic bombs that have been created. I'm not saying it has no benefits but the benefits it has given are largely insignificant to what science provides.





I'll leave a couple pictures and this video made by the Thinking Atheist. You will see the large contributions Science has given us while you can see the white Church bus that your all knowing, all powerful, deity has given us and we can compare the two.

Also, lastly, you say that science is dangerous and not evil. You are wrong. Science is not dangerous it is the humans who use it that make it so. I would say the same to religion but unfortunately for the fact that religion is used and does describe violence against other humans I believe I cannot do so. Humans who abuse science and use it for horrendous deeds are evil but a ignorant human brainwashed to believe blowing himself up and killing innocents is also evil as well as the doctrine that told him to do so. Science never tells you what to do with it. Religion demands at times to do that which is evil. So while science can be 'dangerous' I believe it is definitely religion which is far more dangerous and abusive than science ever is.

[Image: religion-war-cartoon-02.jpg]

[Image: religion-war.jpg]

[Image: polls_v3_5255_866427_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg]

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like ShirubaDangan's post
15-12-2013, 08:01 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(15-12-2013 04:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 06:33 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I'm sorry Heywood but are you suggesting that perhaps our society is not sufficiently morally or ethically developed to safely handle our scientific and technological advances?

The only reason you can ask that question is because science is dangerous.
Science itself isn't dangerous. Technology in the hands of those who have massive ego problems and half the ethical compunctions of a rabid weasel is.

I'm just trying to find out where you figure the problem lies. Is it the fault of the self-appointed authors of scientific advance that they've been too competent over the last 200 plus years? Or is it the fault of the self-appointed authors of morality that they've been utterly incompetent over the past 2000 plus years?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 10:05 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(15-12-2013 03:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-12-2013 03:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Looks like I get to post this delightful image again.

[Image: h9E0E4437]

Stop trying to engage with Heywood. He is a simple, petty, attention whore and forum troll. He did not make this thread to start an honest discussion. He does not care for honest debate or discourse. He's firmly established himself as willfully ignorant and purposely obtuse. I imagine he gets off on this, so simply ignore him. He's not here to debate, he's here to get his ego flamed.

There is the potential here, the seed of an interesting question of a debate. But Heywood is not the person to attempt it, he's simply not honest enough. This thread is simply to rile us all up, and it's working. Stop engaging with his inanity, it'll save you a lot of trouble. You are never going to convince him otherwise, we all know that, and he knows that too.

Ad hominem

Nope, reality check. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-12-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
Killing in the name of religion has been around long before science came about. What exactly are you trying to push here, heywood?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(15-12-2013 03:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-12-2013 12:26 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  science can be used in technology
technology can be used to make weapons
and weapons can be used to kill

On the other hand, science also has saved a lot of lives
andhas made survival easier

Generally think science is better than ignorance/ religion
But if we blow up the earth with a technological advanced weapon
I am willing to change my mind

Well 1995 we came within 2 minutes of destroying half of humanity....so theres that.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this some kind
of conspiracy theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 01:00 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2013 01:20 PM by kim.)
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(14-12-2013 02:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Scientists often make blunders and it is conceivable that an experiment could be designed which inadvertently destroys the earth. There was some fear the Large Hadron Collider would create a black hole which devours the earth, or the Trinity test would ignite the atmosphere. These experiments were allowed to continue because it was determined the risk of such things actually happening were negligible.....but what if they got it wrong? For instance what if calculations that microscopic black holes would quickly evaporate failed to take into account time dilatation if the blackhole was moving at relativistic speeds? Science itself could be the instrument of our destruction in the form of a science experiment gone horribly wrong.

Now today, as I thought about this question I posed, I realized that while science could be the means by which the world is destroyed, it is also true that it could be the means by which the world is saved. For instance the world of the dinosaurs was destroyed by a meteorite 65 million years ago. The same fate is a lot less likely to befall humanity because science may give us the means to prevent such a catastrophe.

I know that if the humanity or its descendants are to live on for billions and billions of years, we must have science. The destruction of our world is inevitable. These super-good aspects of science balance out the super-bad aspects of science.

Ok. You are saying yay science. Cool. Are you asking if there is progress without risk? Are you asking for evidence that religion is less dangerous to humanity than potentially risky science?

Just as you have reasoned about the balancing act of science, I think the balancing act of religion has frequently been placed in the hands of humans who would seek to use it with harmful intent.

Has there been "progress" to humanity in the contribution of religion? Absolutely! I personally appreciate many religious contributions. However, I do find it interesting that while I have been able to appreciate religious contributions... many scientific contributions in the past have suffered greatly at the hands of religious doctrine. Who can even know how many scientific works and scientists may have been destroyed for blasphemy or espousing heresy?

Again, just as you proposed a balancing act weighing the risk factors of science, I too can weigh the risk factors of religion. One may not think "religion" to be purely bent on all out destruction of humanity but, one must acknowledge that many of it's previous "contributions" may have been a detriment to human progress.

As far as actual, physical destruction of humans...? Currently on the world stage ... maybe a Croat and/or a Serb might provide a more informed discussion than I might be able to venture. Maybe a Palestinian and/or an Hasidic Jew would be the ones to consult. If you don't think you will find different answers from a Muslim living in India than you would a Muslim living in Iran, you might ask different questions. When I look at the human landscapes of the countries which contain "religious" peoples, I see bloodshed and it is certainly the result of religious conflict.

I think when science or religion marries to politics, both may or may not become the playthings of destruction. I can tell you, from what I've encountered... most scientists get along with each other regardless of nationality. Can this be said of peoples whose lives are centered around religion?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: