horrors of religion

[Anti-thesisofreason]

This is almsot a copy/paste post I made in the Dawkins thread but I think it's relevant here. Engineers and politicians were strictly responsible for nuclear weapons, not science. Science is a method of inquiry, the application of that method's discoveries may be used by engineers to make weapons, but that is distinct from science. The fault lies more with the social and political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons.

So yes, science is neutral and has no moral bearing on how those discoveries are ultimately applied.

It was men of science that developed the first nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of mass destruction.

As per the OP " If this is not an example of how religion can be a poison, please tell me why."

If religion is responsible for some atrocities done to people through history then science is equally responsible for other atrocities done.

If the atomic bomb is not an example of how science can be poison, please tell me. why.

 

[richardlowellt]

It was men of science that developed the first nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of mass destruction.

As per the OP " If this is not an example of how religion can be a poison, please tell me why."

If religion is responsible for some atrocities done to people through history then science is equally responsible for other atrocities done.

If the atomic bomb is not an example of how science can be poison, please tell me. why.

I'll try this once again, only good is expected to come from religion and those involved. I have been told that anything that involves humans risks the chance of atrocities or evil doings, however religion is suppose to dictate a high level of morals, it teaches compassion, loving one's fellow humans, doing only GOOD. There is no expectation other than destruction from the Atom Bomb. No good is expected only bad, it is the humans who invented the atom bomb and put it into play that are the poison not the technology that gave us the atom bomb.

 

[Nepenthe]

It was men of science that developed the first nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of mass destruction.

As per the OP " If this is not an example of how religion can be a poison, please tell me why."

If religion is responsible for some atrocities done to people through history then science is equally responsible for other atrocities done.

If the atomic bomb is not an example of how science can be poison, please tell me. why.

I just did explain it.

Science is a method of examining the universe. What humans do with that knowledge, what they build and how they implement those products is separate from science.

Science is a method of inquiry.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is almsot a copy/paste post I made in the Dawkins thread but I think it's relevant here. Engineers and politicians were strictly responsible for nuclear weapons, not science. Science is a method of inquiry, the application of that method's discoveries may be used by engineers to make weapons, but that is distinct from science. The fault lies more with the social and political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons.

So yes, science is neutral and has no moral bearing on how those discoveries are ultimately applied.

:clap

And the same applies to religions.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'll try this once again, only good is expected to come from religion and those involved. I have been told that anything that involves humans risks the chance of atrocities or evil doings, however religion is suppose to dictate a high level of morals, it teaches compassion, loving one's fellow humans, doing only GOOD. There is no expectation other than destruction from the Atom Bomb. No good is expected only bad, it is the humans who invented the atom bomb and put it into play that are the poison not the technology that gave us the atom bomb.

Except isn't science supposed to be used for the benefit of mankind?

 

[richardlowellt]

Except isn't science supposed to be used for the benefit of mankind?

Science didn't make the Atom Bomb men did, science gave them the knowledge of how to split the atom, what men did with that knowledge is not the fault of science. Only knowledge comes from science. Only Good is suppose to come from religion.

 

[Storm]

Only Good is suppose to come from religion.

Unless you're remotely reasonable.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science didn't make the Atom Bomb men did, science gave them the knowledge of how to split the atom, what men did with that knowledge is not the fault of science. Only knowledge comes from science. Only Good is suppose to come from religion.

That doesn't answer my question. Science is the pursuit of knowledge that is supposed to be beneficial to mankind, is it not? So why are scientific discoveries used for bad things?

Please understand, I am fully aware that science is not at fault for the atom bomb, or related abominations.

And by the way, when I was in Junior High, my seventh grade teacher said that there are scientists trying to reach the absolute zero temperature. She also said that there are theories that say that if that temperature is reached, everything will end, yet scientists still strive to reach it, simply for the sake of knowledge. Is such a thing good?

"...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they never stopped to think if they should."
-film variation of a Michael Crichton quote

 

[dogsgod]

That doesn't answer my question. Science is the pursuit of knowledge that is supposed to be beneficial to mankind, is it not? So why are scientific discoveries used for bad things?

Please understand, I am fully aware that science is not at fault for the atom bomb, or related abominations.

And by the way, when I was in Junior High, my seventh grade teacher said that there are scientists trying to reach the absolute zero temperature. She also said that there are theories that say that if that temperature is reached, everything will end, yet scientists still strive to reach it, simply for the sake of knowledge. Is such a thing good?

"...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they never stopped to think if they should."
-film variation of a Michael Crichton quote

Absolute zero was reached by a couple of technicians about ten years ago. It was theorized by Einstein that gas particles at that temperature would take on jello like characteristics, he was right.

A study of Christian history will reveal that scientific discoveries are used for bad things by religious wing nuts.

 

[richardlowellt]

That doesn't answer my question. Science is the pursuit of knowledge that is supposed to be beneficial to mankind, is it not? So why are scientific discoveries used for bad things?

Please understand, I am fully aware that science is not at fault for the atom bomb, or related abominations.

And by the way, when I was in Junior High, my seventh grade teacher said that there are scientists trying to reach the absolute zero temperature. She also said that there are theories that say that if that temperature is reached, everything will end, yet scientists still strive to reach it, simply for the sake of knowledge. Is such a thing good?

"...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they never stopped to think if they should."
-film variation of a Michael Crichton quote

I don't know that I completely agree that the pursuit of knowledge is always for the benefit of mankind, many times is is just for the sake of knowledge. I'm not sure how understanding the nature of the cosmos is beneficial to mankind. Striving to reach anything for the sake of knowledge is always a good thing, its how we advance as a species, how we advance our understanding of our environment, simply understanding does not always benefit mankind.

 

[Riverwolf]

Absolute zero was reached by a couple of technicians about ten years ago. It was theorized by Einstein that gas particles at that temperature would take on jello like characteristics, he was right.

Ah. That's after my seventh grade class. ^_^

A study of Christian history will reveal that scientific discoveries are used for bad things by religious wing nuts.

Really? I didn't know Kim Jong Il was religious.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't know that I completely agree that the pursuit of knowledge is always for the benefit of mankind, many times is is just for the sake of knowledge. I'm not sure how understanding the nature of the cosmos is beneficial to mankind. Striving to reach anything for the sake of knowledge is always a good thing, its how we advance as a species, how we advance our understanding of our environment, simply understanding does not always benefit mankind.

Then why do it?

Understanding of the cosmos is beneficial because it can tell us whether or not interplanetary travel/colonization is possible.

 

[richardlowellt]

Then why do it?

Understanding of the cosmos is beneficial because it can tell us whether or not interplanetary travel/colonization is possible.

Because man has an insatiable curiosity.

We already know that we can travel to the planets of our solar system, and what it takes to colonize them, but outside of our system the distances are so great only the invention of faster than light speed travel will do us any good. so its not so much understanding the cosmos but how to span unmeasurable distances.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because man has an insatiable curiosity.

And what did curiosity do to the cat?

If that (wonderful, don't get me wrong) curiosity goes unchecked, things could get ugly. Clearly we weren't ready for knowledge of how to split the atom.

We already know that we can travel to the planets of our solar system, and what it takes to colonize them, but outside of our system the distances are so great only the invention of faster than light speed travel will do us any good. so its not so much understanding the cosmos but how to span unmeasurable distances.

Right. But we need to understand the cosmos to know whether or not such travel would be worth it.

 

[richardlowellt]

And what did curiosity do to the cat?

If that (wonderful, don't get me wrong) curiosity goes unchecked, things could get ugly. Clearly we weren't ready for knowledge of how to split the atom.



Right. But we need to understand the cosmos to know whether or not such travel would be worth it.

And why do you say we were not ready to spit the atom?

What would make such travel worth it?

 

[Riverwolf]

And why do you say we were not ready to spit the atom?

The first thing we did with the knowledge was destroy two cities in Japan.

Not to mention the fact that we can't do anything with nuclear waste.

What would make such travel worth it?

We can breed like rabbits and not worry about overpopulation. ^_^

 

[richardlowellt]

The first thing we did with the knowledge was destroy two cities in Japan.

Not to mention the fact that we can't do anything with nuclear waste.

We can breed like rabbits and not worry about overpopulation. ^_^

And in destroying the two cites in Japan we saved thousands of lives on both sides, so the bombs actually saved lives which makes beneficial to mankind.

I agree nuclear waste is a problem, maybe we can blast it off into space.

Humm!! breed like rabbits---can you sign me up for the first trip????

 

[Riverwolf]

And in destroying the two cites in Japan we saved thousands of lives on both sides, so the bombs actually saved lives which makes beneficial to mankind.

No we didn't. I've heard that the Emperor was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

Besides, the lives we were "saving" were lives who signed up to die.

Basically we killed those who had no intention nor desire to die so that we could save those who have been trained to look death in the face and spit in it.

I agree nuclear waste is a problem, maybe we can blast it off into space.

Very good.

So why haven't we?

Humm!! breed like rabbits---can you sign me up for the first trip????

I would if I were in charge of it. ^_^

 

[richardlowellt]

No we didn't. I've heard that the Emperor was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

Besides, the lives we were "saving" were lives who signed up to die.

Basically we killed those who had no intention nor desire to die so that we could save those who have been trained to look death in the face and spit in it.



Very good.

So why haven't we?



I would if I were in charge of it. ^_^

You would have to show me documentation of were the Emperor was ready to surrender, actually quite to opposite is true, the battle of Iwo Jima was a stalling tactic so the Japanese could better prepare for homeland defense. The troops on Iwo Jima were ordered to hold out as long as possible to allow for this homeland defense. Of the 21,000 japanese solders on Iwo only 216 were taken prisoner, the American forces lost 6,821 with 19,217 wounded in the fiercest fighting of the Pacific theater. With this many casualties taken on both side on an Island only 8 square miles, one can imagine how many casualties would have occurred had the Japanese defended their homeland as fanatical as those who defended a small island.

I can see you have never been in the military, one does not sign up "to Die" but to defend one's country, and I am angered that you would soil the sacrifice given by so many of those young soldiers. Many are killed in war who have no intention of dying, regardless of what you have been lead to believe the Atom Bomb did save hundreds of thousands on both sides.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Science didn't make the Atom Bomb men did, science gave them the knowledge of how to split the atom, what men did with that knowledge is not the fault of science. Only knowledge comes from science. Only Good is suppose to come from religion.

The shoe appears to be on the other foot here - so to speak - and you don't seem to like it much.