not to the extent we do now. come on now. do you think these people had any clue about cancer? today we are able to cure it in a lot of cases, but for these people it was a curse.
Well as you probabbly know, according to science, cancer was extremely rare in those days so they probabbly didnt have any need for that knowledge (or maybe it was rare because they did have a cure- who knows).
it's ok to be wrong, you can't learn anything unless you make mistakes.
questioning, doubting and debating is nothing to fear, it is an innate quality within all of us. we are not subjected to live in a celestial dictatorship because of these innate qualities.
It is ok to be wrong but what isnt ok is for athiests to insist that science is the validity test to anything and everything. One thing science should show us is that we mere mortals are fallable and that to say that anything that defies science must be wrong, because science cant fathom it, is illogical, pathetic and ignorant.
i'm against it because religion offers an answer that defies logic and reason. religion gives the green light to the nutty ones who believe they are morally superior compared to the non believers. because they think they can do a moral act that a non believer cannot...and i have yet to see this act. all i see instead is the spreading of tyranny through fear.
So let me get this straight....You dont like religion because some people use it to make them superior? So what do you think science does? There are so many people on here that think they know the answers to the universe because they have read a paper written by a limited, like minded athiest. This to me seems a little arrogant but not as arrogant as those that have used science to establish their superiority as human beings. Take for example the scientific justification for racial dominace due to scientists publishing papers stating that white brains are more developed than black brains (one of which I understand spent 2 years in prison for his unsubstantiated and racially motivated claims once it was discovered that he simply lied). Or how about the days of eugenics when people such as Hitler demonstarted how the jews, blacks etc were inferior and therefore natural selection required their extermination.
There are many more examples but guess what...Im not so short sighted that I would blame the institution of science for this but rather concede that there are people out there that will use whatever vehicle they can for their own selfish gains. I call these dangerous people but I dont blame science as you should not blame religion for the freaks that abuse it.
and as i pointed out to you earlier with the example of cancer the quest for knowledge is essential.
if you haven't noticed, constant change is a part of progress, life and learning. it's when one stops learning because they think they KNOW and are WISE is when they become stagnant, which is the opposite of freedom but goes well with a bottle of fear.
Religion does not attempt to substitute science anywhere near the way in which science attempts to substitue religion. Medical science is a great thing and most of its findings are throughouly tested, obviously because it has to be proven effective and safe. The problem is the theoretical science, which cannot be proven, yet still seeks to pretend that it has all the answers and sometimes appears to be deliberately trying to disprove the bible. To me that is not real science. Please, I dont want to get into another debate about evolution verses religion now as I have come to accept that athiests think differently from me and this is near impossible to resolve. What I would like to suggest though is that you simply allow room for the fact that not everything can be scientifically tested at this point in our history which means that there are some scientific unkowns. This is where the religious books merely inform us of what the ancients all over the world knew... The Truth Is Out There lol.
