That is a long list Kid -A Thank you.
But I can't say that I agree that they have all benefited society. Is it your position that all on this list have provided a benefit to society?
Posts by RWC
-
49Professed 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
-
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
I am not proposing that only religious persons can do good deeds for society. I am only asking for professed atheists who have supposedly done good deeds to be identifed.
As for Christopher Hitchens, I believe that his take on Mother Teresa should be taken with a large grain of salt. He is an admitted anti Cahtloic, alcoholic Marxists. Hardly the type of person who would admire her work. -
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 looked at some of these and I think they can be summarized as follows:
God is imaginary because God is imaginary -
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 apologize for the typing Terry. The hypothetical I gave in my last post came from the news. The Astronaut was from Houston.
-
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.