Religion is horrible ?

one of the things there is out there right now is 2 books on the NY times best seller the god delusion by richard dawkins another one is letter to a christian nation by sam harris. Now, as for Mr dawkins, basically what he does is he takes the best of science and says "look how great we are" and he takes the worst of religion and he says look how horrible they are "Boo , down with religion" according to dawkins ! You know, not really fair to respected religions.Science has a lot of good in it and it also has a lot of bad.We tend to forget there's a lot of bad science in the world, for instance, there was a move in united states in the early 20th century in the 1920's, to basically sterilize poor people, because they were seen scientifically as unworthy of breeding(Google or look into public library "Buck v. bell sterilization case 1927") that was a scientific theory.

That scientific theory manifests in the nazi movement, because the nazis believed in the "Science of Eugenics" that they were actually a superior race! And they believed that the jews were an inferior race ! Thats science, thats not RELIGION.So dawkins doesn't talk about that science, science is only whats good and wondeful according to him.So science has its downside as well, now religion has its downside also, but its kind of unfair fight like when you take the best of science, the worst of religion and write a book about that ! And just say hey, science is the answer and religion is evil.Sam harris, another person he say's "Gee, isn't religion horrible, it caused all these WARS". I say Well gee, what was the 20th century? World war 1 ? was that about religion? wasn't that NATIONALISM? World war 2 was that about religion? Wasn't that Fascism? All the cold wars, weren't those about COMMUNISM? Communism is anti-religion! So the 20th century, the bloodiest century in human history is all wars that weren't fought about religion , they were fought about idealogies.So i think the problem is a human problem , it's not a problem of religion ! Humans are the problem.So religion is okay, we need to get rid of all humans....You see animals are being true to their nature ! The question is , are we being true to our nature? thats the question and religion says NO and you know why? because god expects a lot more from you than you expect from yourself.

Its not our religions that have failed us sam harris, mr dawkins....IT'S WE THAT HAVE FAILED OUR RELIGIONS!

Nope, Dawkins is right. Religion is for the weak of mind.

As far as Eugenics goes, what's so bad about it?

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters


Whenever a group of people gain power, there is corruption.

Same with every religion.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Nope, Dawkins is right. Religion is for the weak of mind.

As far as Eugenics goes, what's so bad about it?

I wouldn't use the same strong attributes... I prefer to call societies that are driven by religion immature societies that cannot yet face facts and are in need of stories that bring comfort. There's nothing wrong with stories that comfort people, as long as we treat them as just that: stories. We don't refrain from reading bedtime stories to our children so they might sleep well, do we? It's just that in this case it seems the kid doesn't want to grow up.

what is bad about eugenics is : who gets to decide? who's entitled? In the Netherlands, the brother in law of the Bilderberg representative for Royal Dutch Shell, that woman people still praise as their queen, just called for a law that would allow the state to prevent "criminals" from reproduce. This, i think, is very scary #.

We don't really need to "improve humanity" by filtering out on a genetic level, we need to empower people, educate them and give them opportunities to improve themselves. Contrary to what elites tend to believe, people can take care of themselves (well, 99% percent can, let's treat that other 1% with care and respect while preventing them from hurting themselves and/or others)

Ok for 1 religion is in itself an ideology. Second, What your referring to is Academia not science. Academics has preformed some pretty unspeakable acts. In no way should I compare the severity of the immorality of religion and Academia because it would not help one way or the other. Thirdly, Hitler's overtone was much more religious than scientific. He based his ideology almost entirely on christianity and paganism. So in no way was it Science that caused what Hitler did. In fact it was all the anti-semitic brainwashing he received while attending catholic school. For the record I would like to recall: The lives lost during the Great crusades, The building of the Pyramids, The sacrifices of the Mayans and Aztecs, and many more were all preformed under the guise of religion. Keep in mind there are no Atheists churches that need money. lol

reply to post by DaTroof



You're entitled to your opinion . Sometimes silence is deadlier than loud mouth !

Science and religion are not synonyms. So I don't know how you can relate the two, or compare the two. On the other hand, science puts in to question a lot of what religion bases its foundation on. That doesn't mean you have to "believe" in science, just look at the results the scientific method provides.

But science is just a means of understanding.

Religion is a belief that humans were passed some grand wisdom down by god, given to politically motivated people to write into text, and this wisdom somehow tells us how to live our lives.

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

We don't really need to "improve humanity" by filtering out on a genetic level, we need to empower people, educate them and give them opportunities to improve themselves. Contrary to what elites tend to believe, people can take care of themselves (well, 99% percent can, let's treat that other 1% with care and respect while preventing them from hurting themselves and/or others)

Why not both?

Also, I don't believe your 99% stat. Link to a source that proves that, or you're just spewing ignorance.

reply to post by DaTroof


Calm down. I'm pretty sure he was just using percentages as a reference, not trying to state actually statistics. He wasn't being ignorant, just stating an opinion.

reply to post by boncho


While I agree that science should not be considered synonymous with religion, there are some religious-like traits present in science.

1. A tendency to reject new thinking. Scientists have a habit of ignoring potentially controversial subjects or topics. And when a scientists does break the norm and attempts to study something nonconventional, he/she does so with a lot of derision from the mainstream scientists.

2. A tendency to cling to old, outdated beliefs. Some scientists will continue to espouse certain theories, even when said theories are conclusively proven to no longer hold water.

I am not arguing that all scientists engage in these activities, but enough do to make the comparison with religion spot on, IMO.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Once again what your referring to is not science it is Academics. Science is more the method of testing a hypothesis. When is organized in the way it is it is more Academia then science

reply to post by Renegade2283


You are correct. Thanks for the clarification.

However, the average person calls it Science....so semantics, perhaps? Anyway, star for you.

reply to post by smyleegrl

reply to post by Renegade2283


Are you laughing at me? I'll have you know.....

.....its really early in my book. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

reply to post by smyleegrl

2. A tendency to cling to old, outdated beliefs. Some scientists will continue to espouse certain theories, even when said theories are conclusively proven to no longer hold water.

Really? You are using this as an argument point in a thread pitting science vs. religion? Wow. If religion isn't outdated, then I don't know what is.

"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

*

"Modification of hypothesis" is probably the most relevant line there. Science demands that our knowledge continuously be question and re-evaluated. Yes there is some biased, pathological science, sometimes downright fraud, however, the very thing scientists are supposed to do is question these findings and reformulate ideas when evidence changes.

On the other hand you have religions, which ask people to believe in documents that are hundreds if not thousands of years old. And to believe in ideas and historical accounts that have been shown to be either misleading or false. And also to believe in supernatural events which have not been documented since. Religions actually demand that you believe in something without questioning it, and in doing so, act subservient to god. That is really the opposite of the scientific method.

As I said, the two words are not synonyms.

Oh and then we have these...







Now, the OP can do me a favor and show me where the world was taken over by different science groups. I assume there is a map somewhere where the physicists, biologists and chemists all fought each other holding different territories in the world, just so their niche in scientific method was the only one taught to the new generations.

Politics = Religion

reply to post by smyleegrl


No, I was laughing at the cleverness of your phrase. Semantics, I like that.

reply to post by boncho


Exactly what I was trying to say. Your just a lot more thorough at it

reply to post by boncho


Did my post offer any argument in support of religion? Nope.

I'm agnostic, but I happen to think that most religions are useless, outdated, and downright....well, evil comes to mind, but perhaps misguided would be a better word.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by boncho

 

Did my post offer any argument in support of religion? Nope.

I'm agnostic, but I happen to think that most religions are useless, outdated, and downright....well, evil comes to mind, but perhaps misguided would be a better word.

Well, you did actually, because you tried to compare the two. And in that, you are supporting a flawed argument. If there is bias, fraud and/or pathological science, twisting the results in scientific study... it no longer becomes science.

It is now quasi science, pseudoscience, or just plain quackery.

Now here is the kicker, all those things closely resemble religion.



And are often used by certain religions, and by con artists, scammers and charlatans.

In fact, most people that have qualms with "science" have issues with something that isn't even considered science. (And is actually the opposite)

sci·ence   [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

We don't really need to "improve humanity" by filtering out on a genetic level, we need to empower people, educate them and give them opportunities to improve themselves. Contrary to what elites tend to believe, people can take care of themselves (well, 99% percent can, let's treat that other 1% with care and respect while preventing them from hurting themselves and/or others)

Why not both?

Also, I don't believe your 99% stat. Link to a source that proves that, or you're just spewing ignorance.

i answered that already: who's to decide.
If I were to decide I would eliminate people who can't have a decent debate without being verbally aggressive
that would mean that you are out.

ignorance? You can't even figure out the difference between presenting statistics and using a figure of speech, the way I judge your reply.