Total Posts:201|Showing Posts:181-201|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Religion Bad for Humanity?

Looncall
Posts: 707
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 4:16:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2016 11:24:18 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 9:57:10 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/29/2016 12:20:22 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/28/2016 1:02:10 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/28/2016 12:15:00 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:38:16 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:30:08 AM, uncung wrote:
do relationships always imply the offspring relation? do others species have no a unique relationship like with the alleged ancestor of apes or humans?
where is that alleged ancestor right now?

I can unreservedly recommend the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. It is informative, engaging, exciting and fun to read. It would help to relieve you of your profound ignorance of matters to do with evolution.

As for your question, there are patterns that get locked into DNA from time to time (check out endogenous retroviruses) and are then inherited. These can be used to work out lines of descent.

No species is guaranteed continuation. Some 99% of all species that have existed are extinct, including the common ancestor of the apes (including humans).

why do you or they consider that humans had a same ancestor with apes through DNA observation? yet the apes have no the same DNA pattern with humans's?

Wrong. Human and ape DNA are very similar. The ERV patterns show descent relationships clearly.

Your ignorance has let you down again.

Only 98% similarity of DNA between apes and humans.

That is very similar.

How about the ERV patterns?

Pigs and humans also share the similar DNA. Do we also share the same ancestors with them?


As far as can so far be determined, any two species share a common ancestor if one traces their lineages far enough back in time.

Remember, common descent gives a nested hierarchy. We are humans, a kind of primate, which is a kind of mammal and so on to the earliest life forms.

Study up and stop embarasing yourself.

so the conclusion is we share the same ancestor with pigs?

If one looks back in time far enough, one will find a branching in which one branch eventually led to pigs and the other to us. Similarly for any other species present today. That's what common descent means.

What doesn't happen, except for very simple organisms, is crossover from branch to branch. The crocoduck is a fantasy concocted by con men.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 12:40:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2016 4:16:51 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/29/2016 11:24:18 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 9:57:10 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/29/2016 12:20:22 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/28/2016 1:02:10 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/28/2016 12:15:00 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:38:16 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:30:08 AM, uncung wrote:
do relationships always imply the offspring relation? do others species have no a unique relationship like with the alleged ancestor of apes or humans?
where is that alleged ancestor right now?

I can unreservedly recommend the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. It is informative, engaging, exciting and fun to read. It would help to relieve you of your profound ignorance of matters to do with evolution.

As for your question, there are patterns that get locked into DNA from time to time (check out endogenous retroviruses) and are then inherited. These can be used to work out lines of descent.

No species is guaranteed continuation. Some 99% of all species that have existed are extinct, including the common ancestor of the apes (including humans).

why do you or they consider that humans had a same ancestor with apes through DNA observation? yet the apes have no the same DNA pattern with humans's?

Wrong. Human and ape DNA are very similar. The ERV patterns show descent relationships clearly.

Your ignorance has let you down again.

Only 98% similarity of DNA between apes and humans.

That is very similar.

How about the ERV patterns?

Pigs and humans also share the similar DNA. Do we also share the same ancestors with them?


As far as can so far be determined, any two species share a common ancestor if one traces their lineages far enough back in time.

Remember, common descent gives a nested hierarchy. We are humans, a kind of primate, which is a kind of mammal and so on to the earliest life forms.

Study up and stop embarasing yourself.

so the conclusion is we share the same ancestor with pigs?

If one looks back in time far enough, one will find a branching in which one branch eventually led to pigs and the other to us. Similarly for any other species present today. That's what common descent means.

What doesn't happen, except for very simple organisms, is crossover from branch to branch. The crocoduck is a fantasy concocted by con men.

but you emphasize it on apes-like only?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 12:44:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2016 7:36:59 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST ON THE THREAD

First, I would like to welcome everyone to this forum. I hope that you find the discussion interesting and stimulating. I would ask that all that post in this forum are respectful and polite to others in the forum. No insults or name calling please. I ask this because I have seen many an interesting debate be ruined by insults, and I do not want that to happen to this forum. I want this to be a place where people can come to exchange ideas and opinions freely. Thank you.

Now, we can get on to the topic at hand. My opinion is that humanity would be better off without religion. I think that religion has set humanity back in both technology and knowledge of the universe. Think about Galileo. When he was alive, people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. Then Galileo prove that this was not the case. He proved that Earth was just one of the planets revolving around the Sun. The Catholic church was upset by this, and they threatened him with death. He was then forced to renounce his "beliefs," and his discoveries weren't published until he was on his deathbed. That is just one major scientific discovery set back years by religion. There was also a point in time when everything was controlled by religion. This time was called the Dark Ages. Then, of course, there are the religious wars, genocides, and persecutions. Millions of people dead in the name of religion. Then there is the fact that religion started out as a way to explain the unexplainable. What is lightning? Who knows, must be the Gods. Religion was born from ignorance. Today, religion is just people clinging to outdated beliefs and telling others how to live their lives. That is my opinion. I would love to hear what other people think.

P.S. - I am finally back on this account. Hopefully, it stays that way. Have a fun debate.

Yes. If the Atheist religion did not exist, the world wouldn't be in the chaos it is today.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
imperialchimp
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 3:07:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind.

Pretty biased. Is the science of biological weapons for the good of humanity?

Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives.

Don't forget about killing lives!

Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible.

This is fine.

What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question.

What about morals?

Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Too bad there is nothing that can accurately find the truth...
freekundli
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 11:38:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 12:45:02 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/23/2016 7:36:59 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST ON THE THREAD

First, I would like to welcome everyone to this forum. I hope that you find the discussion interesting and stimulating. I would ask that all that post in this forum are respectful and polite to others in the forum. No insults or name calling please. I ask this because I have seen many an interesting debate be ruined by insults, and I do not want that to happen to this forum. I want this to be a place where people can come to exchange ideas and opinions freely. Thank you.

Now, we can get on to the topic at hand. My opinion is that humanity would be better off without religion. I think that religion has set humanity back in both technology and knowledge of the universe. Think about Galileo. When he was alive, people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. Then Galileo prove that this was not the case. He proved that Earth was just one of the planets revolving around the Sun. The Catholic church was upset by this, and they threatened him with death. He was then forced to renounce his "beliefs," and his discoveries weren't published until he was on his deathbed. That is just one major scientific discovery set back years by religion. There was also a point in time when everything was controlled by religion. This time was called the Dark Ages. Then, of course, there are the religious wars, genocides, and persecutions. Millions of people dead in the name of religion. Then there is the fact that religion started out as a way to explain the unexplainable. What is lightning? Who knows, must be the Gods. Religion was born from ignorance. Today, religion is just people clinging to outdated beliefs and telling others how to live their lives. That is my opinion. I would love to hear what other people think.

P.S. - I am finally back on this account. Hopefully, it stays that way. Have a fun debate.

the world would be better without religion to the disbelievers. Because they would be free committing sins around. Religion, however, is required to gain salvation and paradise in hereafter.

I think the world would be better without religion to the disbelievers.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 12:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 11:38:27 AM, freekundli wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:45:02 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/23/2016 7:36:59 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST ON THE THREAD

First, I would like to welcome everyone to this forum. I hope that you find the discussion interesting and stimulating. I would ask that all that post in this forum are respectful and polite to others in the forum. No insults or name calling please. I ask this because I have seen many an interesting debate be ruined by insults, and I do not want that to happen to this forum. I want this to be a place where people can come to exchange ideas and opinions freely. Thank you.

Now, we can get on to the topic at hand. My opinion is that humanity would be better off without religion. I think that religion has set humanity back in both technology and knowledge of the universe. Think about Galileo. When he was alive, people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. Then Galileo prove that this was not the case. He proved that Earth was just one of the planets revolving around the Sun. The Catholic church was upset by this, and they threatened him with death. He was then forced to renounce his "beliefs," and his discoveries weren't published until he was on his deathbed. That is just one major scientific discovery set back years by religion. There was also a point in time when everything was controlled by religion. This time was called the Dark Ages. Then, of course, there are the religious wars, genocides, and persecutions. Millions of people dead in the name of religion. Then there is the fact that religion started out as a way to explain the unexplainable. What is lightning? Who knows, must be the Gods. Religion was born from ignorance. Today, religion is just people clinging to outdated beliefs and telling others how to live their lives. That is my opinion. I would love to hear what other people think.

P.S. - I am finally back on this account. Hopefully, it stays that way. Have a fun debate.

the world would be better without religion to the disbelievers. Because they would be free committing sins around. Religion, however, is required to gain salvation and paradise in hereafter.

I think the world would be better without religion to the disbelievers.

you are correct.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 1:46:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 11:38:27 AM, freekundli wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:45:02 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/23/2016 7:36:59 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST ON THE THREAD

First, I would like to welcome everyone to this forum. I hope that you find the discussion interesting and stimulating. I would ask that all that post in this forum are respectful and polite to others in the forum. No insults or name calling please. I ask this because I have seen many an interesting debate be ruined by insults, and I do not want that to happen to this forum. I want this to be a place where people can come to exchange ideas and opinions freely. Thank you.

Now, we can get on to the topic at hand. My opinion is that humanity would be better off without religion. I think that religion has set humanity back in both technology and knowledge of the universe. Think about Galileo. When he was alive, people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. Then Galileo prove that this was not the case. He proved that Earth was just one of the planets revolving around the Sun. The Catholic church was upset by this, and they threatened him with death. He was then forced to renounce his "beliefs," and his discoveries weren't published until he was on his deathbed. That is just one major scientific discovery set back years by religion. There was also a point in time when everything was controlled by religion. This time was called the Dark Ages. Then, of course, there are the religious wars, genocides, and persecutions. Millions of people dead in the name of religion. Then there is the fact that religion started out as a way to explain the unexplainable. What is lightning? Who knows, must be the Gods. Religion was born from ignorance. Today, religion is just people clinging to outdated beliefs and telling others how to live their lives. That is my opinion. I would love to hear what other people think.

P.S. - I am finally back on this account. Hopefully, it stays that way. Have a fun debate.

the world would be better without religion to the disbelievers. Because they would be free committing sins around. Religion, however, is required to gain salvation and paradise in hereafter.

I think the world would be better without religion to the disbelievers.

Disbelievers in alien abductions or the Yeti?
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 3:11:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2016 6:52:43 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 5:45:58 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:07:49 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:00:50 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:35:34 AM, uncung wrote:
why does you use 'ape-like' notion?
Because the ancestor that humans and modern apes evolved from was not an ape. It was like an ape, but it wasn't an ape.
why is it so called like an ape? instead of like a tiger for instance?
and what is the proof that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
Fossils and the theory of evolution
How did the fossil invention come to conclusion that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
You really should Google some of this stuff. It really is fairly simple. If you take the fossils of different species starting with that ape-like ancestor, you can see a pattern. As time goes on, the fossils slowly start to become more human-like than ape-like. This is an extremely simplified answer, of course. Again, you really should Google it for a better explanation.
and what kind of that ancestor look like or species?
You may have to reword the last question. I don't understand what you are trying to ask.

how did the science name the species of the ancestor of the apes and humans? and how did it look like?
I don't know what the name of the ancestor is, but apparently, it looked more like a modern Gorilla or Chimpanzee.

I just realized, we are way off topic.

And does it imply also that we share the same ancestor with the pigs-like since the pigs have the similar pattern with human's?.

No. Pigs are not primates. Pigs and humans have similar bones and flesh, but that is it. Animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path.

Who makes the limitation that the pigs don't share the same ancestor with the humans just because they are not primates? and who make the rule that animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path?

Nobody makes these rules. This is just how evolution works.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 9:12:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2016 1:19:49 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/29/2016 3:43:07 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:15:47 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:04:15 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 2:28:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/28/2016 4:27:25 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/27/2016 1:56:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/27/2016 2:18:57 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
Let us start will Galileo. He challenged religion by proving we are not the centre of the universe. That we are just one of the many planets in the universe and he discovered that in the 17th century.
Since then scientists have spent billions and billions of dollars looking for other planets with life like ours on it. The same money if used to eradicate poverty and diseases would have done more for humanity than the direction Galileo led us with his scientific discovery.
Also, what about the money that goes to churches and religious organizations? I think that would do more for the poor and sick than a prayer.

The churches already run charities because they believe: Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

And all of that money goes to charity? I doubt it.

Sure beats spending it on collecting rock samples from remote places like we have a shortage of rocks on planet earth.
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind. Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives. Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible. What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question. Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Religion provides an afterlife and promises of things to come. It provides hope for the millions.
Religion is good for comfort, especially when confronted with death, but that is about it.
Science on the other hand offers only deterministic materialism and a narrow definition of life and purpose.
Actually, according to science, a deterministic universe is impossible. Besides, why should you need something else to give your life purpose? Why should people act like sheep instead of finding purpose in their lives for themselves. I have purpose in my life, and I am much happier with my life than I was when I was religious. I don't need some religion to tell me what my life's purpose is.

My purpose in life is simply to make the world better and live a long and fulfilling life. This is my purpose, not a purpose placed upon me by some religion.

How is that any different from a monkey or an amoeba whose only purpose is to live out it's life?
Does an amoeba care about quality of life or making the world a better place? The amoeba has no emotions. It does not care about anything but reproduction. The monkey, on the other hand cares about quality of life, but it couldn't care less about making the world a better place.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 9:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 9:12:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 1:19:49 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/29/2016 3:43:07 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:15:47 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:04:15 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 2:28:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/28/2016 4:27:25 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/27/2016 1:56:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/27/2016 2:18:57 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
Let us start will Galileo. He challenged religion by proving we are not the centre of the universe. That we are just one of the many planets in the universe and he discovered that in the 17th century.
Since then scientists have spent billions and billions of dollars looking for other planets with life like ours on it. The same money if used to eradicate poverty and diseases would have done more for humanity than the direction Galileo led us with his scientific discovery.
Also, what about the money that goes to churches and religious organizations? I think that would do more for the poor and sick than a prayer.

The churches already run charities because they believe: Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

And all of that money goes to charity? I doubt it.

Sure beats spending it on collecting rock samples from remote places like we have a shortage of rocks on planet earth.
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind. Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives. Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible. What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question. Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Religion provides an afterlife and promises of things to come. It provides hope for the millions.
Religion is good for comfort, especially when confronted with death, but that is about it.
Science on the other hand offers only deterministic materialism and a narrow definition of life and purpose.
Actually, according to science, a deterministic universe is impossible. Besides, why should you need something else to give your life purpose? Why should people act like sheep instead of finding purpose in their lives for themselves. I have purpose in my life, and I am much happier with my life than I was when I was religious. I don't need some religion to tell me what my life's purpose is.

My purpose in life is simply to make the world better and live a long and fulfilling life. This is my purpose, not a purpose placed upon me by some religion.

How is that any different from a monkey or an amoeba whose only purpose is to live out it's life?
Does an amoeba care about quality of life or making the world a better place? The amoeba has no emotions. It does not care about anything but reproduction. The monkey, on the other hand cares about quality of life, but it couldn't care less about making the world a better place.

That is what deterministic materialism is about. No purpose beyond existence.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 9:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 12:44:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/23/2016 7:36:59 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST ON THE THREAD

First, I would like to welcome everyone to this forum. I hope that you find the discussion interesting and stimulating. I would ask that all that post in this forum are respectful and polite to others in the forum. No insults or name calling please. I ask this because I have seen many an interesting debate be ruined by insults, and I do not want that to happen to this forum. I want this to be a place where people can come to exchange ideas and opinions freely. Thank you.

Now, we can get on to the topic at hand. My opinion is that humanity would be better off without religion. I think that religion has set humanity back in both technology and knowledge of the universe. Think about Galileo. When he was alive, people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. Then Galileo prove that this was not the case. He proved that Earth was just one of the planets revolving around the Sun. The Catholic church was upset by this, and they threatened him with death. He was then forced to renounce his "beliefs," and his discoveries weren't published until he was on his deathbed. That is just one major scientific discovery set back years by religion. There was also a point in time when everything was controlled by religion. This time was called the Dark Ages. Then, of course, there are the religious wars, genocides, and persecutions. Millions of people dead in the name of religion. Then there is the fact that religion started out as a way to explain the unexplainable. What is lightning? Who knows, must be the Gods. Religion was born from ignorance. Today, religion is just people clinging to outdated beliefs and telling others how to live their lives. That is my opinion. I would love to hear what other people think.

P.S. - I am finally back on this account. Hopefully, it stays that way. Have a fun debate.

Yes. If the Atheist religion did not exist, the world wouldn't be in the chaos it is today.
Atheism is not a religion. Let's break the word down. The "A" part in this word means not or the opposite of. Like in asymmetrical, not symmetrical. The "theism" part literally means belief in God or religion. Therefore, atheism means not religion or the disbelief in God. One of my friends actually said this best. "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color." Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack thereof. Bald is not a hair color, it is the lack thereof.

Besides, where is your proof that atheism causes chaos? Statistically, atheists are the most well behaved people out there. We actually represent only 0.1% of the prison population in the U.S. That is one in every 1000 people. The rest are religious. Then, you can't forget all of the religious wars, genocides, crusades, and persecutions. None of those were ever committed in the name of atheism.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 9:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 3:07:16 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind.

Pretty biased. Is the science of biological weapons for the good of humanity?

Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives.

Don't forget about killing lives!
People have been killed in the name of scientific advancement, but that does not happen today. The scientists that experimented on people for advancement were unethical, and they did so on prisoners or people that they thought were lesser beings. Now, human experiments can only go so far, and consent is necessary. Modern science does not kill people. Modern science (especially medical science) saves people.
Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible.

This is fine.
No vaccines, no cure for smallpox (and a lot of other diseases that could wipe out humanity), less access to food and fresh water, a cancer survival rate of practically zero, and not to mention the extremely limited knowledge of our own planet and the universe. Would you like me to continue? Do you really think that this would be good for humanity? Science saves lives and increases quality of life.
What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question.

What about morals?
Morals that are forced upon people and not discovered. This is why so many lives have been lost in the name of religion. People do what their religion tells them is right without question. Even today, many homophobes, when asked why they hate gays can only say that it is because the Bible says so. They blindly follow the morals forced upon them by an outdated book full of contradictions and lies.
Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Too bad there is nothing that can accurately find the truth...
At least science can give accurate theories that agree with observations and scientific principles. Explanations with evidence and objective support.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 9:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 9:29:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/30/2016 9:12:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 1:19:49 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/29/2016 3:43:07 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 11:15:47 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:04:15 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 2:28:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/28/2016 4:27:25 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/27/2016 1:56:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/27/2016 2:18:57 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
Let us start will Galileo. He challenged religion by proving we are not the centre of the universe. That we are just one of the many planets in the universe and he discovered that in the 17th century.
Since then scientists have spent billions and billions of dollars looking for other planets with life like ours on it. The same money if used to eradicate poverty and diseases would have done more for humanity than the direction Galileo led us with his scientific discovery.
Also, what about the money that goes to churches and religious organizations? I think that would do more for the poor and sick than a prayer.

The churches already run charities because they believe: Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

And all of that money goes to charity? I doubt it.

Sure beats spending it on collecting rock samples from remote places like we have a shortage of rocks on planet earth.
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind. Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives. Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible. What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question. Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Religion provides an afterlife and promises of things to come. It provides hope for the millions.
Religion is good for comfort, especially when confronted with death, but that is about it.
Science on the other hand offers only deterministic materialism and a narrow definition of life and purpose.
Actually, according to science, a deterministic universe is impossible. Besides, why should you need something else to give your life purpose? Why should people act like sheep instead of finding purpose in their lives for themselves. I have purpose in my life, and I am much happier with my life than I was when I was religious. I don't need some religion to tell me what my life's purpose is.

My purpose in life is simply to make the world better and live a long and fulfilling life. This is my purpose, not a purpose placed upon me by some religion.

How is that any different from a monkey or an amoeba whose only purpose is to live out it's life?
Does an amoeba care about quality of life or making the world a better place? The amoeba has no emotions. It does not care about anything but reproduction. The monkey, on the other hand cares about quality of life, but it couldn't care less about making the world a better place.

That is what deterministic materialism is about. No purpose beyond existence.

Then that is not my philosophy. I am an atheist. That does not mean that I believe that my life is meaningless. Whoever told you that all atheists believe in deterministic materialism is lying to you. People can have purpose and goals to strive for without religion.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 11:49:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 3:11:38 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 6:52:43 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 5:45:58 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:07:49 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:00:50 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:35:34 AM, uncung wrote:
why does you use 'ape-like' notion?
Because the ancestor that humans and modern apes evolved from was not an ape. It was like an ape, but it wasn't an ape.
why is it so called like an ape? instead of like a tiger for instance?
and what is the proof that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
Fossils and the theory of evolution
How did the fossil invention come to conclusion that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
You really should Google some of this stuff. It really is fairly simple. If you take the fossils of different species starting with that ape-like ancestor, you can see a pattern. As time goes on, the fossils slowly start to become more human-like than ape-like. This is an extremely simplified answer, of course. Again, you really should Google it for a better explanation.
and what kind of that ancestor look like or species?
You may have to reword the last question. I don't understand what you are trying to ask.

how did the science name the species of the ancestor of the apes and humans? and how did it look like?
I don't know what the name of the ancestor is, but apparently, it looked more like a modern Gorilla or Chimpanzee.

I just realized, we are way off topic.

And does it imply also that we share the same ancestor with the pigs-like since the pigs have the similar pattern with human's?.

No. Pigs are not primates. Pigs and humans have similar bones and flesh, but that is it. Animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path.

Who makes the limitation that the pigs don't share the same ancestor with the humans just because they are not primates? and who make the rule that animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path?

Nobody makes these rules. This is just how evolution works.

How it works? (you sound like the religious people who say God did it in that way).
imperialchimp
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 4:00:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 9:54:34 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:07:16 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind.

Pretty biased. Is the science of biological weapons for the good of humanity?

Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives.

Don't forget about killing lives!
People have been killed in the name of scientific advancement, but that does not happen today. The scientists that experimented on people for advancement were unethical, and they did so on prisoners or people that they thought were lesser beings. Now, human experiments can only go so far, and consent is necessary. Modern science does not kill people. Modern science (especially medical science) saves people.

Modern science does kill people still. Drones, cluster bombs, and powerful guns now kill more efficiently. Now, because of modern science, we have learned how to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. It's not just human experiments.

Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible.

This is fine
No vaccines, no cure for smallpox (and a lot of other diseases that could wipe out humanity), less access to food and fresh water, a cancer survival rate of practically zero, and not to mention the extremely limited knowledge of our own planet and the universe. Would you like me to continue? Do you really think that this would be good for humanity? Science saves lives and increases quality of life.

Food sprayed with chemicals, pollution from our current technology, releasing certain pills to the public which can cause cancer, efficient ways to kill, and a ton of other problems caused by science. Would you like me to continue? Sciences can kill lives and worsen our quality of life.

My point was that you were being biased. I understand what good science can do but you're pretty much saying science can only do good (i.e. science is for the good of humanity). But don't worry, i support science.

What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question.

What about morals?
Morals that are forced upon people and not discovered. This is why so many lives have been lost in the name of religion. People do what their religion tells them is right without question. Even today, many homophobes, when asked why they hate gays can only say that it is because the Bible says so. They blindly follow the morals forced upon them by an outdated book full of contradictions and lies.

How about this? A man studies some religions and doesn't like most of them. He eventually finds one he likes and follows that religion. Was he forced to follow these morals? Did he blindly follow those morals without questioning it?

Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Too bad there is nothing that can accurately find the truth...
At least science can give accurate theories that agree with observations and scientific principles. Explanations with evidence and objective support.

Very true.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 5:27:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2016 11:49:13 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:11:38 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 6:52:43 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 5:45:58 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:07:49 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:00:50 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:35:34 AM, uncung wrote:
why does you use 'ape-like' notion?
Because the ancestor that humans and modern apes evolved from was not an ape. It was like an ape, but it wasn't an ape.
why is it so called like an ape? instead of like a tiger for instance?
and what is the proof that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
Fossils and the theory of evolution
How did the fossil invention come to conclusion that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
You really should Google some of this stuff. It really is fairly simple. If you take the fossils of different species starting with that ape-like ancestor, you can see a pattern. As time goes on, the fossils slowly start to become more human-like than ape-like. This is an extremely simplified answer, of course. Again, you really should Google it for a better explanation.
and what kind of that ancestor look like or species?
You may have to reword the last question. I don't understand what you are trying to ask.

how did the science name the species of the ancestor of the apes and humans? and how did it look like?
I don't know what the name of the ancestor is, but apparently, it looked more like a modern Gorilla or Chimpanzee.

I just realized, we are way off topic.

And does it imply also that we share the same ancestor with the pigs-like since the pigs have the similar pattern with human's?.

No. Pigs are not primates. Pigs and humans have similar bones and flesh, but that is it. Animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path.

Who makes the limitation that the pigs don't share the same ancestor with the humans just because they are not primates? and who make the rule that animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path?

Nobody makes these rules. This is just how evolution works.

How it works? (you sound like the religious people who say God did it in that way).

I don't want to waste my time explaining something that your sixth grade teacher already should have. If you con't remember, Google it. The knowledge of how evolution works is something that you should come armed with before you try and debate religion vs. science.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 5:43:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2016 4:00:02 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/30/2016 9:54:34 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:07:16 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind.

Pretty biased. Is the science of biological weapons for the good of humanity?

Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives.

Don't forget about killing lives!
People have been killed in the name of scientific advancement, but that does not happen today. The scientists that experimented on people for advancement were unethical, and they did so on prisoners or people that they thought were lesser beings. Now, human experiments can only go so far, and consent is necessary. Modern science does not kill people. Modern science (especially medical science) saves people.

Modern science does kill people still. Drones, cluster bombs, and powerful guns now kill more efficiently.
Developed by the military using technology developed by modern scientists. Science is not to blamed when its discoveries are misused for war.
Now, because of modern science, we have learned how to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. It's not just human experiments.
Again, nuclear weapons developed by the military, misusing scientific breakthroughs. The scientist is not to blame for the misuse of his or her discovery.
Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible.

This is fine
No vaccines, no cure for smallpox (and a lot of other diseases that could wipe out humanity), less access to food and fresh water, a cancer survival rate of practically zero, and not to mention the extremely limited knowledge of our own planet and the universe. Would you like me to continue? Do you really think that this would be good for humanity? Science saves lives and increases quality of life.

Food sprayed with chemicals, pollution from our current technology, releasing certain pills to the public which can cause cancer, efficient ways to kill, and a ton of other problems caused by science. Would you like me to continue? Sciences can kill lives and worsen our quality of life.
Misuse of discoveries and unforeseen side effects. Still not the scientists to blame. All of these problems can be attributed to greed, laziness and stupidity of people that are using scientific discoveries to fuel their greed, laziness and stupidity. Again, the scientist is not to blame for misuse of his or her discoveries. Also, not every pesticide and herbicide is toxic, many scientists are working towards clean power (nuclear, solar, etc.), and medical scientists are always working towards better medicine with fewer side effects.
My point was that you were being biased. I understand what good science can do but you're pretty much saying science can only do good (i.e. science is for the good of humanity). But don't worry, i support science.
And you claimed that humanity would be better off without science. Also, I know what damage misuse of scientific discoveries and unforeseen consequences can do. This bad is far outweighed by the good.
What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question.

What about morals?
Morals that are forced upon people and not discovered. This is why so many lives have been lost in the name of religion. People do what their religion tells them is right without question. Even today, many homophobes, when asked why they hate gays can only say that it is because the Bible says so. They blindly follow the morals forced upon them by an outdated book full of contradictions and lies.

How about this? A man studies some religions and doesn't like most of them. He eventually finds one he likes and follows that religion. Was he forced to follow these morals? Did he blindly follow those morals without questioning it?
This is a man that has actually questioned his beliefs. A man that studied and read up on different religions. Not like the majority of people that are born into a religion. Still, the man is using religion to justify his morals. Why can't he just do the right thing because he is a good person? Why does he need an entire religion behind him to justify what he does?
Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Too bad there is nothing that can accurately find the truth...
At least science can give accurate theories that agree with observations and scientific principles. Explanations with evidence and objective support.

Very true.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 5:45:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2016 5:27:39 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/30/2016 11:49:13 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:11:38 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 6:52:43 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 5:45:58 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:07:49 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:00:50 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:35:34 AM, uncung wrote:
why does you use 'ape-like' notion?
Because the ancestor that humans and modern apes evolved from was not an ape. It was like an ape, but it wasn't an ape.
why is it so called like an ape? instead of like a tiger for instance?
and what is the proof that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
Fossils and the theory of evolution
How did the fossil invention come to conclusion that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
You really should Google some of this stuff. It really is fairly simple. If you take the fossils of different species starting with that ape-like ancestor, you can see a pattern. As time goes on, the fossils slowly start to become more human-like than ape-like. This is an extremely simplified answer, of course. Again, you really should Google it for a better explanation.
and what kind of that ancestor look like or species?
You may have to reword the last question. I don't understand what you are trying to ask.

how did the science name the species of the ancestor of the apes and humans? and how did it look like?
I don't know what the name of the ancestor is, but apparently, it looked more like a modern Gorilla or Chimpanzee.

I just realized, we are way off topic.

And does it imply also that we share the same ancestor with the pigs-like since the pigs have the similar pattern with human's?.

No. Pigs are not primates. Pigs and humans have similar bones and flesh, but that is it. Animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path.

Who makes the limitation that the pigs don't share the same ancestor with the humans just because they are not primates? and who make the rule that animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path?

Nobody makes these rules. This is just how evolution works.

How it works? (you sound like the religious people who say God did it in that way).

I don't want to waste my time explaining something that your sixth grade teacher already should have. If you con't remember, Google it. The knowledge of how evolution works is something that you should come armed with before you try and debate religion vs. science.

the answer is: I have to Google it by myself, right?
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 6:01:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2016 5:45:35 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/31/2016 5:27:39 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/30/2016 11:49:13 PM, uncung wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:11:38 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 6:52:43 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 5:45:58 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:07:49 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/29/2016 4:00:50 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/28/2016 9:35:34 AM, uncung wrote:
why does you use 'ape-like' notion?
Because the ancestor that humans and modern apes evolved from was not an ape. It was like an ape, but it wasn't an ape.
why is it so called like an ape? instead of like a tiger for instance?
and what is the proof that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
Fossils and the theory of evolution
How did the fossil invention come to conclusion that humans were evolved from the same ancestors with the apes?
You really should Google some of this stuff. It really is fairly simple. If you take the fossils of different species starting with that ape-like ancestor, you can see a pattern. As time goes on, the fossils slowly start to become more human-like than ape-like. This is an extremely simplified answer, of course. Again, you really should Google it for a better explanation.
and what kind of that ancestor look like or species?
You may have to reword the last question. I don't understand what you are trying to ask.

how did the science name the species of the ancestor of the apes and humans? and how did it look like?
I don't know what the name of the ancestor is, but apparently, it looked more like a modern Gorilla or Chimpanzee.

I just realized, we are way off topic.

And does it imply also that we share the same ancestor with the pigs-like since the pigs have the similar pattern with human's?.

No. Pigs are not primates. Pigs and humans have similar bones and flesh, but that is it. Animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path.

Who makes the limitation that the pigs don't share the same ancestor with the humans just because they are not primates? and who make the rule that animals can share certain characteristics without being on the same evolutionary path?

Nobody makes these rules. This is just how evolution works.

How it works? (you sound like the religious people who say God did it in that way).

I don't want to waste my time explaining something that your sixth grade teacher already should have. If you con't remember, Google it. The knowledge of how evolution works is something that you should come armed with before you try and debate religion vs. science.

the answer is: I have to Google it by myself, right?
It would be easier than me having to explain how evolution works to you. Plus, Google gives a much more detailed explanation than I can. Again, you should have known this before you came to this forum. This is middle-school level stuff.
imperialchimp
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 5:18:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2016 5:43:13 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/31/2016 4:00:02 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/30/2016 9:54:34 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:07:16 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind.

Pretty biased. Is the science of biological weapons for the good of humanity?

Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives.

Don't forget about killing lives!
People have been killed in the name of scientific advancement, but that does not happen today. The scientists that experimented on people for advancement were unethical, and they did so on prisoners or people that they thought were lesser beings. Now, human experiments can only go so far, and consent is necessary. Modern science does not kill people. Modern science (especially medical science) saves people.

Modern science does kill people still. Drones, cluster bombs, and powerful guns now kill more efficiently.
Developed by the military using technology developed by modern scientists. Science is not to blamed when its discoveries are misused for war.

If wasn't for science, misuse of it wouldn't happen in the first place.

Now, because of modern science, we have learned how to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. It's not just human experiments.
Again, nuclear weapons developed by the military, misusing scientific breakthroughs. The scientist is not to blame for the misuse of his or her discovery.
Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible.

This is fine
No vaccines, no cure for smallpox (and a lot of other diseases that could wipe out humanity), less access to food and fresh water, a cancer survival rate of practically zero, and not to mention the extremely limited knowledge of our own planet and the universe. Would you like me to continue? Do you really think that this would be good for humanity? Science saves lives and increases quality of life.

Food sprayed with chemicals, pollution from our current technology, releasing certain pills to the public which can cause cancer, efficient ways to kill, and a ton of other problems caused by science. Would you like me to continue? Sciences can kill lives and worsen our quality of life.
Misuse of discoveries and unforeseen side effects. Still not the scientists to blame. All of these problems can be attributed to greed, laziness and stupidity of people that are using scientific discoveries to fuel their greed, laziness and stupidity. Again, the scientist is not to blame for misuse of his or her discoveries. Also, not every pesticide and herbicide is toxic, many scientists are working towards clean power (nuclear, solar, etc.), and medical scientists are always working towards better medicine with fewer side effects.
My point was that you were being biased. I understand what good science can do but you're pretty much saying science can only do good (i.e. science is for the good of humanity). But don't worry, i support science.
And you claimed that humanity would be better off without science. Also, I know what damage misuse of scientific discoveries and unforeseen consequences can do. This bad is far outweighed by the good.

I never claimed humanity would be better off without science, I only said you were being biased. I was just giving some examples of the terrible things science can cause.

What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question.

What about morals?
Morals that are forced upon people and not discovered. This is why so many lives have been lost in the name of religion. People do what their religion tells them is right without question. Even today, many homophobes, when asked why they hate gays can only say that it is because the Bible says so. They blindly follow the morals forced upon them by an outdated book full of contradictions and lies.

How about this? A man studies some religions and doesn't like most of them. He eventually finds one he likes and follows that religion. Was he forced to follow these morals? Did he blindly follow those morals without questioning it?
This is a man that has actually questioned his beliefs. A man that studied and read up on different religions. Not like the majority of people that are born into a religion. Still, the man is using religion to justify his morals. Why can't he just do the right thing because he is a good person? Why does he need an entire religion behind him to justify what he does?

Maybe because he couldn't find the right words to explain it. If not, he could have also had his own set of belief but decided to call himself a _________________, since the religion provides the same morals as his own. But I'll agree, he does not need a religion. Religion is just a preference.

Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Too bad there is nothing that can accurately find the truth...
At least science can give accurate theories that agree with observations and scientific principles. Explanations with evidence and objective support.

Very true.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 6:52:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2016 5:18:42 PM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/31/2016 5:43:13 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/31/2016 4:00:02 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/30/2016 9:54:34 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/30/2016 3:07:16 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
That is not all that science does. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the good of mankind.

Pretty biased. Is the science of biological weapons for the good of humanity?

Science has provided humanity with countless advancements that have saved countless lives.

Don't forget about killing lives!
People have been killed in the name of scientific advancement, but that does not happen today. The scientists that experimented on people for advancement were unethical, and they did so on prisoners or people that they thought were lesser beings. Now, human experiments can only go so far, and consent is necessary. Modern science does not kill people. Modern science (especially medical science) saves people.

Modern science does kill people still. Drones, cluster bombs, and powerful guns now kill more efficiently.
Developed by the military using technology developed by modern scientists. Science is not to blamed when its discoveries are misused for war.

If wasn't for science, misuse of it wouldn't happen in the first place.
And neither would all of the good that the same discoveries made.
Now, because of modern science, we have learned how to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. It's not just human experiments.
Again, nuclear weapons developed by the military, misusing scientific breakthroughs. The scientist is not to blame for the misuse of his or her discovery.
Science has provided humanity with immense knowledge about the universe around us. To crave knowledge and understanding is to be human. Science provides us with the means to gain that knowledge and understanding. Science isn't just collecting rocks. Without science, practically nothing from modern life would have been possible.

This is fine
No vaccines, no cure for smallpox (and a lot of other diseases that could wipe out humanity), less access to food and fresh water, a cancer survival rate of practically zero, and not to mention the extremely limited knowledge of our own planet and the universe. Would you like me to continue? Do you really think that this would be good for humanity? Science saves lives and increases quality of life.

Food sprayed with chemicals, pollution from our current technology, releasing certain pills to the public which can cause cancer, efficient ways to kill, and a ton of other problems caused by science. Would you like me to continue? Sciences can kill lives and worsen our quality of life.
Misuse of discoveries and unforeseen side effects. Still not the scientists to blame. All of these problems can be attributed to greed, laziness and stupidity of people that are using scientific discoveries to fuel their greed, laziness and stupidity. Again, the scientist is not to blame for misuse of his or her discoveries. Also, not every pesticide and herbicide is toxic, many scientists are working towards clean power (nuclear, solar, etc.), and medical scientists are always working towards better medicine with fewer side effects.
My point was that you were being biased. I understand what good science can do but you're pretty much saying science can only do good (i.e. science is for the good of humanity). But don't worry, i support science.
And you claimed that humanity would be better off without science. Also, I know what damage misuse of scientific discoveries and unforeseen consequences can do. This bad is far outweighed by the good.

I never claimed humanity would be better off without science, I only said you were being biased. I was just giving some examples of the terrible things science can cause.
Again, I know the damage that people can cause when they misuse scientific discoveries.
What does religion provide humanity? An easy explanation that people can follow blindly without question.

What about morals?
Morals that are forced upon people and not discovered. This is why so many lives have been lost in the name of religion. People do what their religion tells them is right without question. Even today, many homophobes, when asked why they hate gays can only say that it is because the Bible says so. They blindly follow the morals forced upon them by an outdated book full of contradictions and lies.

How about this? A man studies some religions and doesn't like most of them. He eventually finds one he likes and follows that religion. Was he forced to follow these morals? Did he blindly follow those morals without questioning it?
This is a man that has actually questioned his beliefs. A man that studied and read up on different religions. Not like the majority of people that are born into a religion. Still, the man is using religion to justify his morals. Why can't he just do the right thing because he is a good person? Why does he need an entire religion behind him to justify what he does?

Maybe because he couldn't find the right words to explain it. If not, he could have also had his own set of belief but decided to call himself a _________________, since the religion provides the same morals as his own. But I'll agree, he does not need a religion. Religion is just a preference.

Religion gives people an easy way out when they don't understand something. Why try and learn about the beginning of the universe when you can just blame God?

Too bad there is nothing that can accurately find the truth...
At least science can give accurate theories that agree with observations and scientific principles. Explanations with evidence and objective support.

Very true.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.