I apologize for the typing Terry. The hypothetical I gave in my last post came from the news. The Astronaut was from Houston.
Posts by RWC
-
171The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
-
49
Professed Atheists who have helped society
by RWC inthere seem to be quite a number of atheists who comment here.
when they argue how bad religion has been for society they point to actions done in the name of religion that are indeed horrific, such as the inqusitions.
there are also examples of course of non believers who have done great damage to society.
-
-
RWC
There seem to be quite a number of atheists who comment here. When they argue how bad religion has been for society they point to actions done in the name of religion that are indeed horrific, such as the inqusitions. There are also examples of course of non believers who have done great damage to society. Conversely there are vast examples of good done in the name of religion or by professed believers such as Mother Theresa. So the question I have is, are there professed Athiests who have done charitable or other type work that Athiests can name?
I am asking this not for confrontation but for knowledge. I certainly agree that Athiests are capable of doing good works for others, I just don't know of any prominent ones in history. -
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
I type with spaces and different paragraphs but it comes out in one lump. How do I fix that?
-
-
-
RWC
Until the time of the REformation, the only Christian church in existence was the Catholic Church. Christianity spread throughout the world directly because of the Catholic Church. Unless of course you do not believe that the Christian church existed before the JWs came along.
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
"Religion has the same comfort quotient as lying"- That doesn't answer the premise that the person who believed in the religion did not receive comfort that came from that belief. You may view it as a lie and thus it gives you no comfort, the person who has faith that it is true does receive comfort and would receive a great benefit from talking with their priest. In the end, under this scenerio, science has let him down because he has an incurable disease and religion has offered him a benefit. Emotions come from our values? Emotions are innate. They exist long before there is a value system to tie them together. The fact that we experience different emotions based upon the support or denial of our values does not mean that one causes the other. If your idea is that the emotion of love is a logical result of your rational evaluation of the consequences, with all due respect, you must be a riot on Valentine's day. Man is not logical in all respects and there are aspects of our behavior that are innate and not explained away by a rational or even conscious thought. The best example I can think of right now is a very logical scientist astronaut driving 900 miles in a diaper to confront a rival all in the name of love. Clearly not a logic driven decision in the true sense of being rational. She was controlled by her emotions which overrode her logic and presumably her value system. I agree with you that war is war and that killing is killing. I also agree that the atomic bomb was a horrific way for thousands of innocent civilians to die. But to deny that science was not a party in these killings is to deny history. Actually, scientific advancements throughout history have made war more and more destructive and it has been the pursuit of nations throughout time to use science to make war worse for the other guy. Science may not have been the motivating factor, but you cannot deny that science was not only a willing participant but actually encouraged the notion that war would be made better through science. If truly logical scientists had stood up together and said no we are not going to use our knowledge to help kill other people we may never have gotten to the point we are now with the capability to destory all life on earth.
-
28
What will Jehovah's Witnesses do when they realize they've been lied to
by cultswatter ini think there might be a mass revolt.
imagine a mob of 100,000 angry dubs in newyork smashing down wt 25 using telephone posts as battering rams.
then the looting and the destruction of every wt property in newyork and elsewhere.
-
-
RWC
Mavie, Without getting this discussion into an area that is too far off topic, what is the reasoning you use to say that the ice caps could not have existed before the flood?
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
I have been away for the weekend and the discussion has been vibrant. Terry I have a question for you in the context of the original question, who wins, science or religion? It seems to me that you are of the belief that you can rely upon science to answer all of life's questions and that there is no need and has never been a need for religion. You have to admit that there are alot of questions that science can't answer, for example, there are certain diseases for which there is currently is no cure. When this happens there has to be a benefit to some people for the comfort they receive through their religious beliefs. You may think this is illogical and not rational, but is is a real benefit nontheless. Because when you get down to it, we are not totally logical beings. I think you would agree that our history tells us that mankind does not always act in a logical fashion controlled by reason. We have emotions and feelings. And if religion has offered no other benefit to mankind than to keep the bad emotions and desires somewhat in check, to provide an outlet and comfort for despair and depression and to provide a venue for joy and thanksgiving for the good that comes our way, than it is very valuable. If you have not had that type of religious experience, than that is not an indictment of religion, only what you have experienced. There have been many times throughout history where man has decided that they knew it all and that science had answered the questions only to find out that there was more to learn and despite all of advances of science, both good and bad, religion and a belief in a Supreme being has survived. Why do you think that is? I must answer your argument that science is not responsible for the atomic bomb. America did drop the atomic bomb under the logic that it would save more American lives than an assault on Japan. In otherwords, because of the practical notion of our survival we used our technological advantage to destroy a weaker enemy. Sounds exactly like your definition of the benefit of science.
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
Terry, although I completely disagree with you I have enjoyed our discussion. You are correct that I believe that there is one source for the basis of morality and from my point of view that is God. I do not believe that the need for morals in a society grew simply and exclusively out of a practical need to survive. That can't be the ultimate reason because every person has the same right and human nature need to survive. So if I need to kill you to survive or to steal your "slave" asset to survive, I would have the right to do so. Your right to survive is no greater than mine.
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
Thank you for the thoughtful response, but I think you missed my point ot I did not make myself clear. To say that morality is practical and then to argue that a person will adhere to the moral code of his society in order not to be shunned, to me is saying two different things all together. One does not support the other. First, your arguement appears to be that morality in a society is something that society determines what it will say is right or wrong. But there has to be a basis for that morality and those societial decisions. They are not just survival. To use your example, there are some communities that would not arrest you for going out in public in the nude. There are some communities that are exploring and even debating legal sanction of euthanasia of the elderly or sick (If my memroy serves, I think that was in Swedan or Norway). It was clearly the debate that arose in the Terry Shivo issue- Did her husband have the right to starve her because he said that was what she wanted. Killing has not always been against the norm of society. Just look at Nazi Germany, within that society it was not only legal but encouraged to kill Jews under the morality of that culture. What was practical about that morality? If your argument is that morality is practical because people will adhere to the moral code for their own survival, than you have to ask the next question, who establishes the moral code. What makes one moral code any better than another one? If it comes down to what one group decides is right for them, how small or big does the group have to be before it is recognized as a moral code? If it comes down to each individual's decision of right and wrong and they just have to find the right goup to fit in, than it is completely random. If there is no group that fits what I think is morally right, I will just make my own group only to be extingushed by a bigger group with more power so that they may place their moral code on me. The end result is that morality is not practical at all, it is just who has the power at the time to impose their version of it on the rest of us. For example, a slave may not run away because the moral code he lives under tells him he will be put in jail or killed for doing so, but that does not make his slavery or the moral code that permits it practical for him or anyone else. Why do you think that society, and as you have argued for all time societies, have made killing another human being immoral and something that would not be tolerated? Why do some societies think that cannablism is moral and others do not? They certainly aren't our societies but they do or at least did exist. And do you think that the role of a religious belief has played absolutely no role in steering soceity from allowing killings, murder, adultry, etc.? What early society that had these prohibitions did so without basing them upon a relgious belief?
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
Can I name some scientists who made great discoveries because of religion without their scientific training? Of course not. Their scientific training does allow them to make these discoveries. But does that mean that a scientist's religious belief does not play a part in his scientific endeavors? Attempting to limit religion to a motivation and discounting its influence is a fallacy. Religion is not designed to make scientific discoveries but the original question was which has benefited society the most. Science without a religious motivation to help mankind behind it is very limiting. To use your example of the poverty stricken village, science may provide the technology to plant and harvest, but what provides the thought to share that technology with others so that their suffering may be relieved? It can't be money because it is a poor village with no ability to pay for the technology. It can't be to benefit the human race because of the notion of survivial of the fittest would dictate that the weak go and the fittest survive and scientific logic would dictate that the less people to share limited resources the better. It must be something intangible, something that tells men to help others that are less fortunate then them even though they receive no tangible benefit from doing it. That arises from religion and the moral code that comes with it, not science.