Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds

[Heywood Jahblome]

(15-12-2013 08:01 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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.

You can say the same thing about religion as you just said about science and technology.

(15-12-2013 08:01 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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?

The only problem I see is people continue to conflate "dangerous" with "evil". I already know most of you think religion is evil and science isn't. So I'm not going to bother asking that question(I don't think either is evil). What I am asking is do you think science poses a greater danger to humanity than religion? Suppose we could simulate our world and change variables as we please. Would a simulated world without religion but with science last longer than a simulated world without science but with religion?

[Free Thought]

Picking on everybody but me, eh?

Well keep it up.

[Heywood Jahblome]

(15-12-2013 05:34 AM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  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.



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.

You are conflating "better" with "dangerous". Science or religion can both be better and more dangerous.

[Paleophyte]

(16-12-2013 02:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  

(15-12-2013 08:01 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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?

The only problem I see is people continue to conflate "dangerous" with "evil". I already know most of you think religion is evil and science isn't. So I'm not going to bother asking that question(I don't think either is evil). What I am asking is do you think science poses a greater danger to humanity than religion?

Science gives us tools. Religion fails to tell us to use those tools responsibly. One might argue that it encourages us to use them irresponsibly. Too find all the unbelievers and whomp them over the head with the nastiest tool we can lay our hands on. You mentioned 9/11 in your OP. Care to bet on how that'll replay when the terrorists get they hands on a nuke?

(16-12-2013 02:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Suppose we could simulate our world and change variables as we please. Would a simulated world without religion but with science last longer than a simulated world without science but with religion?

We don't really need to simulate a world with religion but lacking science. It was called The Dark Ages. I expect a world without science and with religion would "survive" quite a while. Entirely through lack of any efficient way to kill itself. The mortality rate from preventable disease, famine, feudal warfare, etc... would be appalling. The species would carry on, but to what end?

We've approximated a world with science, at least to a limited degree, and lacking religion, at least the morally downright variety we know and love as Christianity. It was called the Golden Age of Classical Civilization. Granted, the Greeks had loads of gods but they were hardly the type you'd call moral. I figure a world without religion would do just fine.

[Sam]

A bad workman blames his tools...

Science is a tool...

I don't blame science for the existence of the bomb.

After all, if astronomers discover a big rock with our name on it, we might be bloody grateful for those weapons...

[Paleophyte]

(16-12-2013 09:49 AM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  After all, if astronomers discover a big rock with our name on it, we might be bloody grateful for those weapons...

Not "if", "when".

[Heywood Jahblome]

(16-12-2013 08:38 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  We don't really need to simulate a world with religion but lacking science. It was called The Dark Ages. I expect a world without science and with religion would "survive" quite a while. Entirely through lack of any efficient way to kill itself. The mortality rate from preventable disease, famine, feudal warfare, etc... would be appalling. The species would carry on, but to what end?

A lot of people have this idea that everyone who lived in the Dark Ages was miserable. I think most people were generally happy and enjoyed life. Sure there was misery....there is misery today...there will always be misery...but there will always be joy and happiness as well.

Suppose back in 1995 we blew ourselves up.....because science gave us the means. You could say that during humanity's existence, it experienced a certain amount of happiness. Now suppose there was no science and humanity lived on for another 50 million years. Would humanity have experienced more happiness? Just because science has helped you and people you know, doesn't necessarily mean it maximizes happiness. It could limit it.

[Gilgamesh]

Science poses a greater threat to the continuing existence of the human race than religion, yes.

[WitchSabrina]

Cannot believe this thread goes on for 6 pages.

WTF? LMAO

Science in the hands of ______________________.
Science off sitting by itself on a shelf holds no danger whatsoever. Zip.


it's really not THAT complicated - is it?

[Gilgamesh]

(16-12-2013 02:14 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Cannot believe this thread goes on for 6 pages.

WTF? LMAO

Science in the hands of ______________________.
Science off sitting by itself on a shelf holds no danger whatsoever. Zip.


it's really not THAT complicated - is it?

Without humans, the scientific method very well may not have ever existed, and without the scientific method, most knowledge that currently exists very may never have come to be. If science, as humans have defined it, exists, we must assume that humans exist, and that at least some of them understand science. Therefore, science can never be "sitting by itself." Science always exists with people, and people, with an understanding of science, always have the potential to (eventually, as science progresses) create (with knowledge acquired through science (scientific method)) a completely life-ending scenario.