Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

Did I say Science was the only good thing and can do no wrong? No I didn't. But yes Science has unquestionably made our lives better. Do you deny the impact on the lives saved by modern medicine? Do you enjoy posting on this site and surfing the web? Has Science led to new technologies, industries and business that never would have existed before? Absolutely. Science has done both good and bad. Take the Atomic bomb for example. Without we may have never discover nuclear energy if it wasn't the push for the government to make a super weapon, not to mention more live would have died on BOTH sides of that weapon was never used. However, it is also a terrible weapon capable of mass destruction. I have never denied that religion never did any good. In the dark ages in Europe the church was the only institute for education for an example.

sorry for all of the spelling and grammar errors I'm typing on my phone

Well sure, science has made our lives at least temporarily better. Who knows what will happen when enough pollution or possible man-accelerated climate change or harmful bacteria becoming immune to our drugs happens. Or maybe we become even more fat because of things becoming too easy for us. Or maybe we'll build a weapon that will destroy us. Or not even a weapon but some other machine that we think makes life for us better but ends up creating a catastrophe. Or if we slowly replace ourselves with robots.

I just mean that we shouldn't look at science as some inherently good thing. Science can be like fire. It's great and useful but in wrong hands it might get dangerous.

But is it? I don't think we know it is subject to that, there's still so much to learn about the universe and things we think we know are changed all the time. But something like say the force of gravity as far as we know has always existed, so I think it's just one example that there can be "something" that has always existed. Whether it be a force of nature or something material.

But my original point is if you believe in god and believe he has always existed and acknowledge that there is something out there that didn't need an origin point, then I think it would be hypocritical and naive to say that nothing else could have always existed that created the universe. Even if you don't believe in it personally, I think it's ignorant to say that can't happen if one already believes it has happened with a god.

Not sure about how long the force of gravity has always existed. Not sure if gravity is something that would be there even if nothing existed or if gravity only comes into existence when there are things it can have an effect on. Force of gravity isn't really a thing in itself but more of just a way to explain and calculate how things react to each other.

Of course we can say there was something else than a god before anything existed. It's just that whatever it was, it should at the minimum be spaceless and timeless. And it should have all the power and information that can make this universe where there are beings that can try to imagine and discuss and dream about that moment of the beginning of existence possible. Out of all Gods it would line up with the monotheistic Abrahamic god the most, and close second would be Brahma. Of course other ideas can be entertained too, but I don't think it's too far fetched to think that origin would be something that an idea of the ultimate god is. In any case I think that whatever is the first thing in this universe must've had a cause. And that cause must've been the cause of all causes. I just can't make myself believe in infinite causality in terms of this universe. So whatever transcends this universe, were it a personal god or some spaceless and timeless and personless blurgh or whatever other word could be used to describe it, it's eternal. It can not be traced in this universe and this reality but it goes beyond it.

Abusing scientific knowledge to to evil things has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Yeah, science in itself is completely void of any morality and what it can be used in can be good, neutral and bad.
So to say science necessarily makes mankind better isn't really true as all it takes is enough people to either study things with evil motivation or to use the findings with evil intent to make science be a tool for tremendous evil.

 

[Airola]

Yes you do. If you weren't told about Jesus, you would not believe in him. And you wouldn't have reached the conclusion of a God named Jesus must exist with that pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo, because you wouldn't have the need to invent a magical figure to explain everything that you can't explain.

Ok, here you are getting really disingenous.

Being told to believe something is not the same as being told about something and then believing it.

How much of the things you believe are things that you have been told to believe in or you have been told and then you have come to believe it?
How many things you say you know are things that you have been told to know or you have been told about and then you have come to think you know them?

 

[Jon Neu]

Ok, here you are getting really disingenous.

Being told to believe something is not the same as being told about something and then believing it.

How much of the things you believe are things that you have been told to believe in or you have been told and then you have come to believe it?
How many things you say you know are things that you have been told to know or you have been told about and then you have come to think you know them?

That's when logic enters the field.

If someone says to me: 2+2=4, and shows me the evidence, I would believe it because I have been demonstrated is that way and I can even check it myself to see if that is true.

If someone says to me: you should believe in Jesus because he is God and you should believe it despite no evidence whatsoever, it's a total different scenario. It's probably closer to brainwashing.

 

[Airola]

That's when logic enters the field.

If someone says to me: 2+2=4, and shows me the evidence, I would believe it because I have been demonstrated is that way and I can even check it myself to see if that is true.

2+2=4 is too simple.
I'm sure a lot of what you've learned at school and in life are not as simple as checking if 2+2=4 is right. Whatever you have learned about, say, bears or human bowel systems are told to you and you choose to believe what they say is right and that they have tested it enough to be believable.

What comes to Jesus there is evidence but obviously you choose to not believe it. I'm sure your reason to reject it is that it's in the Bible and that in itself makes it unbelievable. The core of this matter is that you either believe that the testimonies of the resurrection of Jesus are right or you don't. That's what is needed for a person to be a Christian. For a person to believe in a creator god in general sometimes only logical conclusions about the nature of this universe is enough. Sometimes people have experiences that are or at the very least feel metaphysical enough to make them believe.

If someone says to me: you should believe in Jesus because he is God and you should believe it despite no evidence whatsoever, it's a total different scenario. It's probably closer to brainwashing.

There's a difference in saying "you should believe" and "you have to believe" though. People can say you should believe in something without it being about forcing you to believe in anything. I could say you should believe in society and that would be because I believe it's better for you if you believed. I'm sure quite a lot of believers have that mindset when they are talking about their belief being the right way and yours being the wrong way. It's not that they are forcing you to believe in anything, but it's that they would want you to believe because they believe it's for the best for you. And they will show you evidence, but it's a completely another thing if you don't feel it's compelling enough.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Edit: Nevermind

 

[Bolivar687]

It's already difficult to take seriously anybody who believes in fairy tales, but if you don't even remember what you said two post ago, it's literally impossible.

See, you said it.

I've contended that the Jewish people have indeed played the outsized historical role described in the Old Testament covenants. You're the one who time and again keeps turning this into explicit appeals to ethnicity.

No, monotheism isn't markedly different from other "man-made" religions.

Surely you recognize at least one stark contrast between monotheism and polytheism - it's right there in the root of the words.

The bible is an amalgam of sincretisms and stories borrowed from other religions.

Every literary work always incorporates stylistic, historical, and linguistic inspirations from other sources. There's no way you seriously think that's the same as the role Judaism plays in Christianity.

But christianism exists today because white people transformed it in the most relevant religion ever.

There you go again.

Christianity is a global religion. The near east traditions are just as old as the Latin Rite.

Again, what a bunch of modern men say today is simply irrelevant. They can't change what the bible says, they can't change what the most widespread doctrine is.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most widespread doctrine. Also, between the two of us, I'm still the only one who has cited scripture passages to support his position.

I've told you what's specifically taught in the Bible, the Catechism, and by the hierarchy. If you're going to continue insisting you're right without making a real argument, there's nothing I can do to help you. But this might be a good time to step back and realize you've been criticizing Christianity as you subjectively assume it must be, without actually doing your homework.

And of course the bible is full of fallacies, contradictions and stupid things. Is a collection of ancient fairy tales collected to form a cult thousands of years ago.

You can't argue the Bible is illogical, then make an exclusive claim to it's most logical interpretation - you have to pick one. I would hope you recognize the absurdity in an antitheist demanding how Christians need to interpret scripture.

 

[Shifty]

All of Atheist treat atheism as a religion it seems.

wow gotem

 

[Halo is Back]

All of Atheist treat atheism as a religion it seems.

Atheism is a lack of belief

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Sorry didn't mean to say that lol

What I wanted to say was some atheist treat atheism as a religion. Jon neu certainly seems to.

 

[Rentahamster]

What I wanted to say was some atheist treat atheism as a religion. Jon neu certainly seems to.

No he doesn't. What does that even mean? If you honestly think he's treating it like a religion, then you either don't understand his arguments or don't know the definition of "religion".

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Atheism is believing in logic, reason, facts and provable things. Religion is the opposite.

This was more what I was referring to, since apparently atheism is a belief system.

I probably should've worded it differently, but this comes off as a funny thing for an atheist to say.

 

[Rentahamster]

This was more what I was referring to, since apparently atheism is a belief system.

I probably should've worded it differently, but this comes off as a funny thing for an atheist to say.

It's only funny because you're caught up on one word and not looking at the entire sentence as a whole.

Believing in something is not the same as having a belief system.

If you're going to focus on just one word, "faith" is more of a relevant delineation between those who believe in a god or gods, and those who do not.

 

[Shifty]

This was more what I was referring to, since apparently atheism is a belief system.

I probably should've worded it differently, but this comes off as a funny thing for an atheist to say.

A core difference is that science can exist separately from belief because it operates on proof. You can believe that hydrogen and oxygen react to create water, but you can also prove it by putting a bunch of it in a balloon then popping it with a burning splint and observing that water is created from the resulting reaction.

Religion lacks the element of empirical proof and is thus coupled tightly to belief, because without belief you have no religion.

 

[strange headache]

Again, how is mocking the beliefs of the person you are arguing with conducive to the conversation?

That's rich coming from somebody who supports a religion that used to literally burn people alive for not believing in their fairy tales. Tell me, how much mockery was Darwin forced to endure by the religious types such as you?

Even this very thread is proof that atheists are met with nothing but ridicule and anti-intellectual snark for presenting their arguments. Don't even try to claim the high ground in this regard, it's pure hypocrisy especially when taking into account the violent history of your religion.

I believe not because I am told to, but rather because I understand there is a cause for everything and that their would be an infinite regress otherwise.

Who made god?
As you can see, he is not immune to the problem of infinite regress.

Again, you wished someone good fortune earlier; by your own logic this is the equivalent of saying "God bless you", or making the sign of the cross.

Wishing good fortune is merely an expression of the awareness that certain things in life are simply beyond your control. It has nothing to do with being religious or believing in a higher being.

 

[strange headache]

Although it's hard to collect data about sexual assault rates, as many victims do not speak out, there is some evidence that it happens more in secular institutions including public schools.

First of all, nobody said that abuse doesn't happen in secular institutions, but that the sexually repressive approach of the catholic church does not prevent it either. Second of all, that article is highly alarmist and hyperbolic:

"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

This is blatantly false, as physical abuse happens to around 7% of students, which is still way too high but still far away from "100 times worse". Also, the author of that article is highly biased:

Tom Hoopes is executive editor of the National Catholic Register and, with his wife, April, is editorial director of Faith & Family magazine.

Lastly, all of these sexual abuse studies do not consider the perpetuator's faith, some of them are atheists, some agnostic and some religious. So even if these things happen in secular institutions, the culprits certainly are not.

So to say science necessarily makes mankind better isn't really true as all it takes is enough people to either study things with evil motivation or to use the findings with evil intent to make science be a tool for tremendous evil.

This is such a disingenious argument. Science certainly has brought many useful inventions and discoveries, too many to count. Tell me, what good has religion brought us? No inventions, no discoveries, no pertitent truths... religion has brought nothing that could not have been established through others means.

Also, you seem to forget that religion has brought us just many negative aspects as science, such as fundamentalism, sects, religious violence, wars, etc... science on the other hand has done no such thing or do you know of one single war that was the result of scientific inquiry?

P.S.: Sorry for double post, I am traveling right now and writing from my mobile.

 

[Jon Neu]

I've contended that the Jewish people have indeed played the outsized historical role described in the Old Testament covenants. You're the one who time and again keeps turning this into explicit appeals to ethnicity.

You're the one defending an ethnocentric supremacist point of view just because a religion says so.

Sorry, but the jewish people aren't the choosen ones.

Surely you recognize at least one stark contrast between monotheism and polytheism - it's right there in the root of the words.

There isn't any significant difference. Doesn't matter if you believe in fairy tales about one magical being or various magical beings.

Every literary work always incorporates stylistic, historical, and linguistic inspirations from other sources. There's no way you seriously think that's the same as the role Judaism plays in Christianity.

Yeah, but not every literary work claims to be the word of God and the narration of it's life.

When the Abrahamic religions claim to contain the creation of the world, humanity, the life of God and so on, and then turns out they are just plagiarizing other cultures and religions, their tale it's even far less believable.

There you go again.

Christianity is a global religion. The near east traditions are just as old as the Latin Rite.

Christianity is a global religion thanks to white people.

You know: colonization, the crusaders, the inquisitions, the absolute cultural dominance of the world by the western civilizations, etc...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most widespread doctrine. Also, between the two of us, I'm still the only one who has cited scripture passages to support his position.

I've told you what's specifically taught in the Bible, the Catechism, and by the hierarchy. If you're going to continue insisting you're right without making a real argument, there's nothing I can do to help you. But this might be a good time to step back and realize you've been criticizing Christianity as you subjectively assume it must be, without actually doing your homework.

The bible is the most widespread doctrine. What some catholics say now, it's pretty irrelevant in the big picture, yet you insist that the word of some old fart catholic it's the most important thing ever, more important that what the actual bible taughts you.

If you keep inventing silly arguments, maybe it's a good time to step back and realize you've been changing what Christianity is completely ignoring all the parts of the bible that doesn't suit your narrative.

You can't argue the Bible is illogical, then make an exclusive claim to it's most logical interpretation - you have to pick one. I would hope you recognize the absurdity in an antitheist demanding how Christians need to interpret scripture.

I can't argue that a book of fairy tales -that are literally impossible- is illogical, and I can't critizice the extreme rationalizations and flawed arguments to defend those illogical fairy tales?

Well, I'm sorry to inform you that I totally can.

 

[Bolivar687]

You're the one defending an ethnocentric supremacist point of view just because a religion says so.

It's a historical function. I'm not making any claims as to the underlying genetics behind an ethnicity. You very clearly are, though, with your continuous allusions to white people.

There isn't any significant difference. Doesn't matter if you believe in fairy tales about one magical being or various magical beings.

These sentences are mutually exclusive.

When the Abrahamic religions claim to contain the creation of the world, humanity, the life of God and so on, and then turns out they are just plagiarizing other cultures and religions, their tale it's even far less believable.

We started arguing about the influence Judaism has had on world religion through Christianity and Islam. I'm sorry, but this is totally incomparable to what you're talking about here.

Christianity is a global religion thanks to white people.

You know: colonization, the crusaders, the inquisitions, the absolute cultural dominance of the world by the western civilizations, etc...

It began an developed outside of Europe.

The bible is the most widespread doctrine. What some catholics say now, it's pretty irrelevant in the big picture, yet you insist that the word of some old fart catholic it's the most important thing ever, more important that what the actual bible taughts you.

If you keep inventing silly arguments, maybe it's a good time to step back and realize you've been changing what Christianity is completely ignoring all the parts of the bible that doesn't suit your narrative.

I really hate to say this, but it sounds like you're woefully confused here. The Catechism is not a person - it is the Catholic teaching, whether you can emotionally accept this or not. And I've already shown you where this position is supported by the Bible, at Luke 12:48 and Matthew 25:31-46.

If you're just going to continue insisting you're right without actually demonstrating how, I'm going to have to assume it's because you can't.

I can't argue that a book of fairy tales -that are literally impossible- is illogical, and I can't critizice the extreme rationalizations and flawed arguments to defend those illogical fairy tales?

Well, I'm sorry to inform you that I totally can.

Individually yes, but together they are incompatible. How can your interpretation be the only logically derived position if the Bible itself has no logic?

 

[Bolivar687]

This is such a disingenious argument. Science certainly has brought many useful inventions and discoveries, too many to count. Tell me, what good has religion brought us? No inventions, no discoveries, no pertitent truths... religion has brought nothing that could not have been established through others means.

Also, you seem to forget that religion has brought us just many negative aspects as science, such as fundamentalism, sects, religious violence, wars, etc... science on the other hand has done no such thing or do you know of one single war that was the result of scientific inquiry?

The nexus between these two propositions is among the most nonsensical arguments advanced by nontheists. All the hospitals, universities, science, literature, and philosophy don't count, because we could have gotten it through other means.

But all of the wars and atrocities are absolutely their fault. I'm sorry, but you just can't have it both ways.

 

[Rentahamster]

What comes to Jesus there is evidence but obviously you choose to not believe it.

What is this evidence? Is it testable? Can it be observed?

The core of this matter is that you either believe that the testimonies of the resurrection of Jesus are right or you don't.

Are heresay and third party writings enough to convince you?

For a person to believe in a creator god in general sometimes only logical conclusions about the nature of this universe is enough.

What are these logical conclusions? Do you have any examples? What are they based on?

 

[Rentahamster]

So to say science necessarily makes mankind better isn't really true as all it takes is enough people to either study things with evil motivation or to use the findings with evil intent to make science be a tool for tremendous evil.

Would you rather live in a world without penicillin? Without running water? Without electricity? Cars? Airplanes? How about refrigeration or vaccines or freshly washed hands with soap?

 

[Taxexemption]

First of all, nobody said that abuse doesn't happen in secular institutions, but that the sexually repressive approach of the catholic church does not prevent it either. Second of all, that article is highly alarmist and hyperbolic:



This is blatantly false, as physical abuse happens to around 7% of students, which is still way too high but still far away from "100 times worse". Also, the author of that article is highly biased:



Lastly, all of these sexual abuse studies do not consider the perpetuator's faith, some of them are atheists, some agnostic and some religious. So even if these things happen in secular institutions, the culprits certainly are not.



This is such a disingenious argument. Science certainly has brought many useful inventions and discoveries, too many to count. Tell me, what good has religion brought us? No inventions, no discoveries, no pertitent truths... religion has brought nothing that could not have been established through others means.

Also, you seem to forget that religion has brought us just many negative aspects as science, such as fundamentalism, sects, religious violence, wars, etc... science on the other hand has done no such thing or do you know of one single war that was the result of scientific inquiry?

P.S.: Sorry for double post, I am traveling right now and writing from my mobile.

It's genuinely hard to find an unbiased article on the topic. I chose that source because it was one of the more mainstream news sources, I've read much less alarmist articles that say there is a difference of about 2-3 percent, with Catholic priests committing less, however these are much less mainstream sources, and I thought they would be less likely to be taken seriously.


Protestants and Atheist edgelords love to say "Priests have had sex with kids therefore your religion is incorrect," as if being Catholic is supposed to somehow make someone perfect. The beliefs actually acknowledge that we are imperfect, including priests. As far as I've read Catholic priests do have a lower incidence than priests in many other religions, and a lower incidence than teachers.


In addition to the previously mentioned, the church has been implementing reforms specifically to try to lower the chance that anyone gets molested. As far as I understand most Diocese have implemented new rules specifically designed to keep any adult from having unfettered access to anyone else. I'm currently attending inquiry (the beginning steps to becoming Catholic) and even though I am the only one attending at this parish at this time, and I'm an adult, they have a rule that both a man and women must be there at the same time, so just for me there are both a man and a woman present every time I go.


I don't think you can really get large groups of people to cooperate without religion. The atheist community is as I see it slowly tearing itself apart, and basically showing us that they are not the example to look to. There was an atheist community I had a lot of respect for a long time ago, and since then it's gotten all sorts of woke, and they just can't wait for you to get some pro-nouns wrong or say something sexist so they can denounce you as a sinner. Wasn't it not that long ago that the community was trying to cancel Richard Dawkins for saying basically that a guy in an elevator inviting a women for coffee is not the same level of oppression as women getting their genitals mutilated in the middle east? As I remember large segments of the community have denounced Dawkins and attempted to de-person him on multiple occasions for not being woke enough, but he's so famous before all of this started that he's pretty much untouchable.


I don't believe we'll get another Richard Dawkins. Once him and Sam Harris are gone, I think that's pretty much goodnight for Atheism. The community is too woke, and would cancel all of the people that have made it popular today if those same people were in the early part of their career. There is no forgiveness in atheism, no reason to band together. All you have in your religion is the ability to denounce sinners, for which there is no redemption. It's all fire and fury, and the burning of heretics.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't think you can really get large groups of people to cooperate without religion.

How does Japan operate so well? Sweden? There are lots of countries with atheist/agnostic majorities that are by definition large groups of people who cooperate well without religion.

I don't believe we'll get another Richard Dawkins. Once him and Sam Harris are gone, I think that's pretty much goodnight for Atheism. The community is too woke, and would cancel all of the people that have made it popular today if those same people were in the early part of their career. There is no forgiveness in atheism, no reason to band together. All you have in your religion is the ability to denounce sinners, for which there is no redemption. It's all fire and fury, and the burning of heretics.

Your view of what the atheist community is skewed by trying to analyze it via the lens of identity politics and thinking that it is the same as just another religion. It's not.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

I'm sorry guys, I feel very confident in saying there is more to reality than the purely naturalistic world.

Evolution is real, sure, but human consciousness is not natural, something weird happened to mankind, we tapped into some sort of higher power.

The totality of the nature of reality would blow anyone's mind, if you think all there is is what we can normally perceive at the moment you're in for a big surprise, it's like a drop of water in a vast sea.

Absolutely I believe in the spiritual and God.

Where we've run into trouble with is the unfortunate reality of zealotry, I share anyone's distaste of zealotry, but zealotry does not disprove the concepts of the spiritual and God.

 

[Airola]

This is such a disingenious argument. Science certainly has brought many useful inventions and discoveries, too many to count. Tell me, what good has religion brought us? No inventions, no discoveries, no pertitent truths... religion has brought nothing that could not have been established through others means.

The thought of metaphysical mercy and justice is quite surely a thing that can't be established by science.

Also, you seem to forget that religion has brought us just many negative aspects as science, such as fundamentalism, sects, religious violence, wars, etc... science on the other hand has done no such thing or do you know of one single war that was the result of scientific inquiry?

I have never denied the pain and suffering caused by religious people.
I am not comparing religion and science here.

This is what I originally quoted: "we believe in Science because it actually produces fucking results that make mankind better."
I questioned that does science necessarily make mankind better.

The reason for me questioning that was that I'm not sure if science should be heralded as something that makes mankind better by default.
I haven't said religion is better than science. I haven't said science is bad. I haven't said religions haven't caused any bad things. I haven't compared science to religion in questions concerning morality.

Science in itself is not a thing that is there to make us better. It is wholly all about who uses it, how and why.

I don't know any wars that have started because of scientific inquiry but I know a ton of wars that have been made more destructive through science. That said, obviously a lot of science has also made many wars more safe or less painful too, at least for one of the sides. Currently science obviously also helps with lessening the amount of collateral damage by having deliberate targets killed as efficiently and quickly as possible. But again, there's the other side where people use scientific method to cause as much damage as possible.

Also, us having our lives getting better temporarily doesn't necessarily mean it causes wellbeing in a long term. Even if it causes good to us for our generation, it might not be good for generations beyond us.

I don't care if you call out religion for all of its bullshit and evil. I just don't agree with people keeping science as the be all and end all in making mankind better, because 1) it is dependent on who uses it and 2) the results are factually not necessarily for the good of mankind. Have a wrong person know about some results and things might get ugly.

That said, it in itself is not a bad thing. But it in itself is not a good thing either. It's a neutral thing that can be used for good, bad and neutral things. Its purpose isn't to destroy mankind nor it's to make mankind better either. And while some could use it to do bad things, someone might use the results to do good things (like when we have used the discoveries made by Nazis with evil practices to bring up good) and while some could use it to do good things, someone might use the results to do bad things.

For the last time, I'm not comparing science and religion here.

What is this evidence? Is it testable? Can it be observed?

There's evidence the same way there's evidence for other historical figures.

Are heresay and third party writings enough to convince you?

A lot the evidence for very early historical figures is based on that. In the case of Jesus, there are lots of different separate writings about him. Just because a lot of them have later been collected between one covers doesn't mean there aren't separate writings about him.

What are these logical conclusions? Do you have any examples? What are they based on?

Already addressed some of it in this thread.

Would you rather live in a world without penicillin? Without running water? Without electricity? Cars? Airplanes? How about refrigeration or vaccines or freshly washed hands with soap?

No, but just because I would rather live in a world with them doesn't mean all of it is necessarily for the good in the long run.

Well, I could live without airplanes though. I have never traveled with an airplane and could very well be without ever doing it, although me and the miss have thought we might take a plane trip next year, but that's no way necessary for me and I can live without doing it. Now, I've ordered a ton of things that have been delivered by airplane. It's nice to have things fast, but it hasn't been good for the environment and at one time it badly worsened my shopping addiction. I'm actually pretty glad that the shipping cost from US to Europe is really high currently as it has stopped some of my impulses to buy more stuff.

I know people who are atheists and go as far as thinking human inventions should've been stopped when the first hammer was invented. But these are more of the hyper environmentalist types who say that. One of them is Pentti Linkola. I love listening to him talk about his views even though I oppose a lot, perhaps even most, of them. He's not a 100% atheist anymore though, but he used to be. I don't if him taking a small step back from his absolute atheism has made him less or more hardcore in his views. People who endorse his views seem to be mostly atheists though. This is just an example of people who don't see scientific advancements and breakthoughs as necessarily good things but who are not religious either.

I'm not against science here. My top three favorite inventions are a bicycle, flushing toilet and a refrigerator. I used to live summers in a summer cabin where there weren't any fridges or modern toilets so I know how to live in an environment like that. We had a little trap door on the floor we could use to put stuff that needs to be kept in cool temperature underground (sure, science has helped with understanding that need too). So yeah, I could live in a place without a fridge and I have experience from that too, but of course I love the convenience of an electric fridge.
But again, just because I like something doesn't yet mean the thing in itself or the things that have brought that into existence are necessarily good in the long run. I'm not 100% sure that even using controlled electricity is a good thing in the long run. It could be, but I'm not 100% sure about it. Does it make my current life easier? 100% surely! Is it necessarily a 100% good thing. No.

What comes to penicillin, that's one of the examples of passing problems to the future and having a risk of things biting our asses twice as hard later. Am I glad that penicillin has helped people so far? Sure. Am I sure there isn't going to be a huge problem with bacteria getting resistance for it in future? No.

Again, all I'm saying is that science is not inherently a good or a bad thing. It is not absolutely certainly there for making mankind better. It just is and it can and it will be used for both good and bad, both intentionally and accidentally.

 

[Jon Neu]

It's a historical function. I'm not making any claims as to the underlying genetics behind an ethnicity. You very clearly are, though, with your continuous allusions to white people.

Saying that the jews are "the choosen people by God" has nothing to do with an historical function, it's all about ethnocentric supremacy, one that you defend because a religion says so.

And then you even tried to argue that history proved that the jewish people were the most important ever, a ridiculous claim that was easily defeated with the inclusion of another ethnic group whose relevance is far beyond that of the so called "choosen people".

These sentences are mutually exclusive.

Like religion and logic.

We started arguing about the influence Judaism has had on world religion through Christianity and Islam. I'm sorry, but this is totally incomparable to what you're talking about here.

Again, Judaism is a sincretism of borrowed religions and cultures. You want to atribute christianism and islam to jews to try to give some kind of credibility to the "choosen people" remark, and I'm just telling you that if you use those slippery slop arguments, then by the same logic, what you are atributing to jews, you should atribute actually to the religions and cultures the jews based their religion in the first place.

You can't use the argument when it suits you and disregard it when it doesn't.

It began an developed outside of Europe.

Actually, it's actual real development started with the roman empire.

I really hate to say this, but it sounds like you're woefully confused here. The Catechism is not a person - it is the Catholic teaching, whether you can emotionally accept this or not. And I've already shown you where this position is supported by the Bible, at Luke 12:48 and Matthew 25:31-46.

If you're just going to continue insisting you're right without actually demonstrating how, I'm going to have to assume it's because you can't.

I hate to say this, but you are repating yourself with different words to try and make the same false claim over and over again.

I refer you to the same argumentation I gave before, because still stands against your claims and still resonates with the obviously evil nature of christianism, despite what some "modern" individuals want to cherry pick.

Individually yes, but together they are incompatible. How can your interpretation be the only logically derived position if the Bible itself has no logic?

Precisely because the Bible having no logic is the only real objective interpretation.

The rest of the interpretations are just damage control, cherry picking and extreme rationalizations in the hope of not alienating the people who are faced with the facts that the Bible says stupid, contradictory and false shit all the time.

2000 years ago, you could fool people by saying that the Earth was created in six days or that humanity grow from a single man and female, but nowadays that kind of stupidity doesn't fly with the knowledge we have, so then we have to claim that all that was a "metaphor".

Maybe the Bible is a satiric metaphor made with the intention of making fun of the people who literally believe in anything without evidence and logic.

Who knows? Anything is possible!

 

[Bolivar687]

Saying that the jews are "the choosen people by God" has nothing to do with an historical function,

I've only ever said they were chosen to perform a historical function. I'm sorry, but you're not even remotely making any sense at this point.

Again, Judaism is a sincretism of borrowed religions and cultures. You want to atribute christianism and islam to jews to try to give some kind of credibility to the "choosen people" remark, and I'm just telling you that if you use those slippery slop arguments, then by the same logic, what you are atributing to jews, you should atribute actually to the religions and cultures the jews based their religion in the first place.

You can't use the argument when it suits you and disregard it when it doesn't.

Any modicum of sincretism you can find within in Judaism is absolutely nowhere near the incorporation of the Hebrew canon into the Christian Bible, or the citations to Hebrew scripture within the New Testament, or the influence on literary style and themes.

I hate to say this, but you are repating yourself with different words to try and make the same false claim over and over again.

I refer you to the same argumentation I gave before, because still stands against your claims and still resonates with the obviously evil nature of christianism, despite what some "modern" individuals want to cherry pick.

You haven't made any real argument in this thread because you have yet to provide a single source of evidence for even one of your claims. You still have yet to direct us to a single verse in the Bible to substantiate anything you've said so far, let alone anywhere it says that those who will never hear of the Lord, due solely to geography alone, will eternally burn in hellfire.

Again, if you can't back up any of your arguments, we're going to have to assume it's because you can't.

 

[Rentahamster]

here's evidence the same way there's evidence for other historical figures.

You didn't answer the questions.

A lot the evidence for very early historical figures is based on that. In the case of Jesus, there are lots of different separate writings about him. Just because a lot of them have later been collected between one covers doesn't mean there aren't separate writings about him.

You didn't answer the question.

Already addressed some of it in this thread.

You didn't answer the questions.

No, but just because I would rather live in a world with them doesn't mean all of it is necessarily for the good in the long run.

Think further of why it is you want to live in that world. It is because it is a world that improves the quality of lives of humans. It is a world that makes humans healthier. That prevents childhood diseases and infant mortality. it is a world that allows more humans to prosper. To be fruitful and multiply.

This is not necessarily a good thing?

 

[strange headache]

The nexus between these two propositions is among the most nonsensical arguments advanced by nontheists. All the hospitals, universities, science, literature, and philosophy don't count, because we could have gotten it through other means.

Just to make it clear, hospitals, science, universities, literature and philosophy are not an invention of religion.

Protestants and Atheist edgelords love to say "Priests have had sex with kids therefore your religion is incorrect," as if being Catholic is supposed to somehow make someone perfect.

Catholics like to boast with their higher religious morality, so yes, it is worse if they are found committing wrongdoing.

In addition to the previously mentioned, the church has been implementing reforms specifically to try to lower the chance that anyone gets molested.

For a long time the church was very reluctant to even acknowledge the problem, doing everything in their power to keep it under the rug for decades. Only after they were subjected to enormous mediated public pressure, did they finally do something. Make no mistake, the church was first an foremost preoccupied with its public image, not the victims.

I don't believe we'll get another Richard Dawkins. Once him and Sam Harris are gone, I think that's pretty much goodnight for Atheism.

Atheism existed long before Christianity and will continue to exist long after it.

The thought of metaphysical mercy and justice is quite surely a thing that can't be established by science.

Metaphysical does not equal religious. You can establish a sense of justice through secular means. In fact, most philosophical theories about ethical rules are completely secular and do not rely on faith, such as the golden mean, the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, the ethics of compassion, etc...

I have never denied the pain and suffering caused by religious people.
I am not comparing religion and science here.

The only reason why you refuse to compare these two directly is because you know damn well that religion will absolutely draw the short end of the stick.

I haven't said religion is better than science. I haven't said science is bad. I haven't said religions haven't caused any bad things. I haven't compared science to religion in questions concerning morality.

So basically you've said nothing at all really. Because the only way to prove that science hasn't done humanity any favors is by comparing it to other epistemological approaches, which you clearly refused to do. In relation to any other system of knowledge, science and reason are clearly the most efficient. One only needs to take a look at their advancements they have made, which are completely absent for religious belief systems.

Science in itself is not a thing that is there to make us better. It is wholly all about who uses it, how and why.

That is not true, unless you don't consider philosophy and ethics not a science.

I don't know any wars that have started because of scientific inquiry but I know a ton of wars that have been made more destructive through science.

You are deliberately obfuscating the reasons for war with the methods it is executed. Science has never been a reason for war, simply because it is not dogmatic in its approach and because its rational methodology is universal. Religion has been the direct cause of many wars and even contributed to their violent escalation. Religious fundamentalism has made many wars more destructive through the sacramental dehumanization of the opposing side.

Even worse, since their religious doctrine actually promises a hollowed land after death, religious nutjobs are much more likely to blow us all to smithereens.

What comes to penicillin, that's one of the examples of passing problems to the future and having a risk of things biting our asses twice as hard later. Am I glad that penicillin has helped people so far? Sure. Am I sure there isn't going to be a huge problem with bacteria getting resistance for it in future? No.

So you're willing to let billions of people die, because the use of penicillin might lead to resistant bacteria in the future?

That's the dumbest argument against science that I've heard in a long time. Considering the way science is structured to make efficient progress, you don't know if it won't come up with a solution to that new problem. In the meantime, you've helped literally billions of people who needed help right now. Doing nothing certainly won't help anybody and will never make things better. According to your line of reasoning, we should have just stuck to the middle-ages apparently.

 

[Jon Neu]

I've only ever said they were chosen to perform a historical function. I'm sorry, but you're not even remotely making any sense at this point.

I understand you are trying to get out of the hole you digged yourself, but you are just being intellectually dishonest.

It's ok, people do all kind of evil shit for religion. Doesn't matter if you tried to prove that jews were "the choosen people" because history "proved it".

Any modicum of sincretism you can find within in Judaism is absolutely nowhere near the incorporation of the Hebrew canon into the Christian Bible, or the citations to Hebrew scripture within the New Testament, or the influence on literary style and themes.

Again, it's literally the same. The style and themes aren't from Judaism in the first place, they are much more ancient.

You haven't made any real argument in this thread because you have yet to provide a single source of evidence for even one of your claims. You still have yet to direct us to a single verse in the Bible to substantiate anything you've said so far, let alone anywhere it says that those who will never hear of the Lord, due solely to geography alone, will eternally burn in hellfire.

Again, if you can't back up any of your arguments, we're going to have to assume it's because you can't.

I haven't had the need to post evidence because there is already very popular biblical stories in which the most absolute violence happens to those that don't act according to the Abrahamic religion. Did the people in Sodom went to heaven? Did the people who died outside the Noah's ark (the entire world) went to heaven? I don't think so, they were brutally murdered by God for their horrible "sins", so therefore he decided basically almost the entire human race had to be wiped out. Yes, all the infant babys in the world who weren't in the Noah's ark too.

God is literally a genocidal maniac according to the bible.

But here you have some of the verses of the Bible:

Spoiler

"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. "

"The wicked (impious) shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

"A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

"You must not allow a sorceress to live."

"Tell the Israelites, 'Any Israelite or foreigner living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the land are to stone him."

"The Lord replied, "When the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you and you cried to me for help, did I not save you from their hands? But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!"

"But the Israelites said to the Lord, "We have sinned. Do with us whatever you think best, but please rescue us now." Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the Lord. And he could bear Israel's misery no longer."

I could literally cite more, I grow up hearing this shit all the time. But with these I already demonstrated with evidence (not only logic) that I am right and you are wrong.

The Abrahamic religions are pure evil.

 

[Bolivar687]

Just to make it clear, hospitals, science, universities, literature and philosophy are not an invention of religion.

Medelita Blog

Medelita

www.medelita.com

Public hospitals were still not available at this time, but as the Roman Empire began to build its foundation upon Christianity, the church began to establish its role in caring for ill and injured patients. Many monasteries were constructed with wards for poor and sick people, and the great emperor Charlemagne decreed that a hospital must be attached to every cathedral built in his empire. At this time, around 400 AD these religious hospitals provided healthcare to the poor while the upper class continued to receive house calls from physicians.

The spread of Christianity played an immense role in expanding healthcare provisions for the public. The ward system of these early religious institutions, which would house multiple patients in common spaces, became the standard layout of public hospitals for hundreds of years.

Who invented the university?

Tim O'Neill's answer: Institutions of learning date back many thousands of years and, as Anubhav Srivastava has said, the oldest known are probably those in ancient India. But the modern university, with its system of degrees recognised by a network of other such institutions across the world,...

www.quora.com

But the modern university, with its system of degrees recognised by a network of other such institutions across the world, has its origins in Europe in the Middle Ages.

Roman education had been in decline in the western Empire since the Third Century and all but collapsed with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the Fifth Century. In the centuries of invasion and chaos that immediately followed the only institution which maintained systematic education was the Catholic Church, with monasteries educating their novices and cathedrals maintain schools to educate priests and provide literate clerks for the administration of the Church and of local government. As medieval Europe recovered from the fall of the Roman Empire, populations rose, economic activity increased and greater political stability was established.

The development of law and the increasing complexity of government required more and more sophisticated levels of education. The Church also increased in the complexity of its administration and together these needs provided a market demand for more education.

From The Triumph of Christianity by atheist biblical scholar Bart Ehrman:

As Christians came to occupy positions of power, these ideals made their way into people's social lives, into private institutions meant to encapsulate them, and into governmental policy. The very idea that society should serve the poor, the sick, and the marginalized became a distinctively Christian concern. Without the conquest of Christianity, we may well never have had institutionalized welfare for the poor or organized health care for the sick. Billions of people may never have embraced the idea that society should serve the marginalized or be concerned with the well-being of the needy, values that most of us in the West have simply assumed are "human" values.

If you were being honest, you would have also clarified that religion did not invent war or fundamentalism, either.

 

[strange headache]

Medelita Blog

Medelita

www.medelita.com

Lol, a random blog is your source?
Quick question, who was the first doctor?

I'll give you a hint, he predates Christianity by almost 500 years.

Who invented the university?

Tim O'Neill's answer: Institutions of learning date back many thousands of years and, as Anubhav Srivastava has said, the oldest known are probably those in ancient India. But the modern university, with its system of degrees recognised by a network of other such institutions across the world,...

www.quora.com

A Quora link is all you have? Really?
Fact check, the first academic schools were founded by the ancient Greeks, Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, Epicurus' Garden, etc...

Medieval universities stand firmly in that tradition, even if they were mostly abused for religious indoctrination and as a means for your religion to hold its hegemony over knowledge and public education in order to suppress the population. The first "university" in your narrow sense wasn't even founded by Christians but by Muslims in Morocco by Fatima al-Fihri in 859, predating the University of Bologna by about 300 years.

You seem to forget that many scholarly texts came back to the western world through the oriental world, where they had been preserved. This allowed universities to develop in medieval times and explains why their scholastic method was mostly founded upon ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and science.

 

[Airola]

You didn't answer the questions.

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the questions.

Oh for fucks sake man

There are several letters with historical accounts and testimonies about Jesus. These were put together in one book. You know what that book is. Apart from that there are mentions of Jesus in other books and letters outside of that collection of books and letters.
Just as with most, if not all, accounts of that old historical figures, the evidence of them are in super old writings from a time where people didn't even write down that much things. If you call for "observable" and "testable" evidence for them, well, you can observe the books. Don't know how you test them in scientific sense. We know those texts are authentic. Of course it's a completely another thing how much you can believe in the details of the more metaphysical stuff written there. Jesus was cruficied, he was buried in a tomb, his tomb was found empty, a lot of people claimed to see him after his death and a lot of people were willing to die before denying what they had witnessed. You can choose to believe or not believe it, just like with any other old historical text. It's up to you. But you can't say there isn't any evidence unless you say that about other historical texts from that time too. You may or may not believe the evidence, but it is evidence, like it or not.

Here is in short what you don't care to go back and read in this thread:
This universe in its causal nature must have a beginning. This cause must be spaceless and timeless, at the very least, and it has to have all the information and power that can put this universe into existence, this universe that includes thinking beings who can wonder about that first moment and a whole lot of abstract thoughts.

Think further of why it is you want to live in that world. It is because it is a world that improves the quality of lives of humans. It is a world that makes humans healthier. That prevents childhood diseases and infant mortality. it is a world that allows more humans to prosper. To be fruitful and multiply.

This is not necessarily a good thing?

Again, I don't say I dislike science and that I don't like to be with all the conveniences and I don't deny any more or less temporary improvements we have got. I don't want a world without science. But it in itself is not a thing of goodness or badness. It has evidently brought both good and bad and it will definitely continue to bring both good and bad. All I'm saying is that science is not inherently a force for good or a force for evil, and what we have already done with it doesn't change that for one way or another.

 

[Airola]

Metaphysical does not equal religious. You can establish a sense of justice through secular means. In fact, most philosophical theories about ethical rules are completely secular and do not rely on faith, such as the golden mean, the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, the ethics of compassion, etc...

Sense of metaphysical mercy and justice is different than secular sense of mercy and justice. As a seemingly completely irreligious and antitheist person you probably just don't or can't understand that.

The only reason why you refuse to compare these two directly is because you know damn well that religion will absolutely draw the short end of the stick.

Why on earth you are so adamant in forcing this religion vs. science to this discussion?

So basically you've said nothing at all really. Because the only way to prove that science hasn't done humanity any favors is by comparing it to other epistemological approaches, which you clearly refused to do. In relation to any other system of knowledge, science and reason are clearly the most efficient. One only needs to take a look at their advancements they have made, which are completely absent for religious belief systems.

You think this because you saw my initial post as attacking science to defend religion. I have not said science hasn't done humanity any favors. I have not said religion hasn't caused bad things. You are looking for a fight from an empty ring.

That is not true, unless you don't consider philosophy and ethics not a science.

I'm glad that you consider philosophy a science. Not all do.
I would disagree though that they are there to inherently make mankind better. They can help doing that though.
I wouldn't even say that religion is here to make mankind better.

You are deliberately obfuscating the reasons for war with the methods it is executed. Science has never been a reason for war, simply because it is not dogmatic in its approach and because its rational methodology is universal. Religion has been the direct cause of many wars and even contributed to their violent escalation. Religious fundamentalism has made many wars more destructive through the sacramental dehumanization of the opposing side.

Even worse, since their religious doctrine actually promises a hollowed land after death, religious nutjobs are much more likely to blow us all to smithereens.

It doesn't matter if something is a reason to start a war if the means to do destruction comes from something else.

I don't deny religion's involvement in war.

So you're willing to let billions of people die, because the use of penicillin might lead to resistant bacteria in the future?

That's the dumbest argument against science that I've heard in a long time. Considering the way science is structured to make efficient progress, you don't know if it won't come up with a solution to that new problem. In the meantime, you've helped literally billions of people who needed help right now. Doing nothing certainly won't help anybody and will never make things better. According to your line of reasoning, we should have just stuck to the middle-ages apparently.

Where have I ever implied I would want to let that happen?
It was an example of things that are intended to do good things, and things that do good things, to possibly end up doing bad things. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is another example of you reading your own things from between the lines and not understanding my position at all.

 

[strange headache]

Sense of metaphysical mercy and justice is different than secular sense of mercy and justice. As a seemingly completely irreligious and antitheist person you probably just don't or can't understand that.

Well duh, of course they are different. One is derived from authorial godly figures, the other is derived from reason and humanistic qualities. But that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong in thinking that metaphysical concepts such as justice cannot be explored through scientific means. If derived from reason and humanism, they can very well be metaphysical notions and established through scientific reasoning.

I have not said science hasn't done humanity any favors.

No?

Does scientific truth necessarily make mankind better?

I just mean that we shouldn't look at science as some inherently good thing.

You literally put the beneficial aspects of science into question. As if to imply that science needs religion in order to create a better world.

I'm glad that you consider philosophy a science. Not all do.
I would disagree though that they are there to inherently make mankind better. They can help doing that though.
I wouldn't even say that religion is here to make mankind better.

Geez, I've never seen anybody type so much text without saying anything at all really. Stop wasting our time and get straight to the point.

It doesn't matter if something is a reason to start a war if the means to do destruction comes from something else.

If there's no reason to start a war in the first place, then we don't need to fear the means of destruction either.

Where have I ever implied I would want to let that happen?
It was an example of things that are intended to do good things, and things that do good things, to possibly end up doing bad things. Nothing more, nothing less.

You were quite literally criticizing science for having possible undesirable outcomes in the future. The only real consequence to get from this is to either accept these unforeseeable consequences as a necessary and unavoidable side-effect of human action, or to not act at all.

Hence why your example is faulty by design and not a real argument against science.

 

[Taxexemption]

How does Japan operate so well? Sweden? There are lots of countries with atheist/agnostic majorities that are by definition large groups of people who cooperate well without religion.


Your view of what the atheist community is skewed by trying to analyze it via the lens of identity politics and thinking that it is the same as just another religion. It's not.

I used to consume a lot of atheist content and watched a lot of the more well known content creators go from being politically neutral to extremely woke. From a lot of them seeming like regular guys and gals who simply did not like certain aspects of religion, thought they were harmful and wanted to explain why, to being far leftists obsessed with identity politics.

 

[Rentahamster]

From a lot of them seeming like regular guys and gals who simply did not like certain aspects of religion, thought they were harmful and wanted to explain why, to being far leftists obsessed with identity politics.

So what?

 

[Taxexemption]

So what?

If regular people don't have a home in the atheist community it has no future. If it's just a bunch of left wingers advocating for abortion, and saying that it's a virtue not to have kids, and you should feel sorry if you happen to be born white and straight, well that's kind of self defeating don't you think?

 

[Rentahamster]

If regular people don't have a home in the atheist community it has no future. If it's just a bunch of left wingers advocating for abortion, and saying that it's a virtue not to have kids, and you should feel sorry if you happen to be born white and straight, well that's kind of self defeating don't you think?

You're taking a small, personal experience of yours and extrapolating the consequences way further than is realistic.

 

[Tesseract]

i still don't see conflict between science and faith (faith seems indeterminate, both are outlets for apprehension and tools for moral guidance)

the overlap between the two among giants in science and technology (especially math) runs deep and one cannot say dudes like euler or heisenberg would be successful without their piety

uncertainty and doubt are key to morality i think, feynman knew this better than anyone, said as much in his caltech forums, tho he was no doubt an avowed agnostic near the end of his life

this is an area where i frequently butt heads with more philosophicallyminded folk since i don't find distinctions like implicit v. explicit atheism all that useful

qualifying what you believe in the unknown, why bother? if the thing cannot be defined (nor charted), why on earth are you scaling it

 

[Bolivar687]

I understand you are trying to get out of the hole you digged yourself, but you are just being intellectually dishonest.

It's ok, people do all kind of evil shit for religion. Doesn't matter if you tried to prove that jews were "the choosen people" because history "proved it".

I'm only denying that fulfilling the task assigned to them makes them genetically superior to anyone else, which is implied when you call this "ethnocentric supremacy." If you mean something else by this term, let me know, and maybe we can come to an understanding.

Again, it's literally the same. The style and themes aren't from Judaism in the first place, they are much more ancient.

No, borrowing an idea from another tradition is most certainly not "literally the same" as including 42 books from them. There's no way you seriously believe that.

I haven't had the need to post evidence because there is already very popular biblical stories in which the most absolute violence happens to those that don't act according to the Abrahamic religion. Did the people in Sodom went to heaven? Did the people who died outside the Noah's ark (the entire world) went to heaven? I don't think so, they were brutally murdered by God for their horrible "sins", so therefore he decided basically almost the entire human race had to be wiped out. Yes, all the infant babys in the world who weren't in the Noah's ark too.

God is literally a genocidal maniac according to the bible.

But here you have some of the verses of the Bible:

Spoiler

"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. "

"The wicked (impious) shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

"A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

"You must not allow a sorceress to live."

"Tell the Israelites, 'Any Israelite or foreigner living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the land are to stone him."

"The Lord replied, "When the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you and you cried to me for help, did I not save you from their hands? But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!"

"But the Israelites said to the Lord, "We have sinned. Do with us whatever you think best, but please rescue us now." Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the Lord. And he could bear Israel's misery no longer."

I could literally cite more, I grow up hearing this shit all the time. But with these I already demonstrated with evidence (not only logic) that I am right and you are wrong.

The Abrahamic religions are pure evil.

I'm not going to follow your subject change, and none of the quotes you posted deal with the question of the remote savage. Only the first one appears to superficially do so, but the beginning of the sentence, which your quote omits, establishes that he is talking about those persecuting the Thessalonian Church:

For it is surely just on God's part to repay with afflictions those who are afflicting you,7and to grant rest along with us to you who are undergoing afflictions, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels,8in blazing fire, inflicting punishment on those who do not acknowledge God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

 

[Airola]

Well duh, of course they are different. One is derived from authorial godly figures, the other is derived from reason and humanistic qualities. But that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong in thinking that metaphysical concepts such as justice cannot be explored through scientific means. If derived from reason and humanism, they can very well be metaphysical notions and established through scientific reasoning.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying you can't look at metaphysical concepts through reason. I'm not even saying you can't explore them at all through scientific means. I don't hold science against faith/religion/whatever or vice versa. But I do believe that, at least at the current moment until we come up with means to calculate and measure things we have never calculated and measured before, to really get the sense of metaphysical justice and mercy, one has to look at it by philosophical means instead of ending where calculations and measurements can bring you.

Or are we even talking about the same things here? I'm not sure anymore.

No?

Yes, still no.

Look at those quotes you included.
Where do I say science hasn't done humanity any favors?

Criticism about people seeing science as inherently and necessarily good thing does not equal science not having done humanity any favors.
Goodness or making mankind better is not in the root of science's nature.
Learning how and why things work have zero to do with making things better. General curiosity is something I would put way above moral reasonings for the existence of the scientific method.

You literally put the beneficial aspects of science into question. As if to imply that science needs religion in order to create a better world.

So you are so defensive about this just because you think criticizing science or what people think about science is all about is giving religion too many undeserved points. As if criticism should always mean religion gets bonus points.

And no, I don't put the beneficial aspects of science into question. I put some beneficial aspects of science into question.

Geez, I've never seen anybody type so much text without saying anything at all really. Stop wasting our time and get straight to the point.

That's rich coming from a guy who has gone up in arms for things I have not said.

If there's no reason to start a war in the first place, then we don't need to fear the means of destruction either.

People often start a war when they think they have the upper hand. And they often have that because they have better and more destructive weapons and better skills and stronger men.
I'm not saying people aren't using their religious beliefs to start wars or do other bad things. Just from the past few years ISIS has been quite a thing to show that.

I have no issue with saying some have used, are using and will use religious beliefs to do shit. And I have no issue with saying some have used, are using and will use science to do shit.
We as humans are sometimes terrible in keeping things good and using things for good. Even love as a concept isn't immune to that. People kill to have love and keep love.

You were quite literally criticizing science for having possible undesirable outcomes in the future. The only real consequence to get from this is to either accept these unforeseeable consequences as a necessary and unavoidable side-effect of human action, or to not act at all.

Hence why your example is faulty by design and not a real argument against science.

It just shows that we can't put absolute 100% trust in science being 100% for good even when it looks like all it does is help people. At some point you have to accept that creating something seemingly good may have been a mistake. Now, I don't say penicillin is a mistake. At least not yet. "But we thought we made all the right calculations and tested it enough" is not something you want to have to say after, say, some vaccine with all the possible good intentions suddenly causes something bad (like with the narcolepsy situation some flu vaccine caused). Of course we shouldn't be shy from trying to help a lot of people with medicine either.

The fact just is that sometimes good intentions with positive initial results cause bad things in the long run. This has been the case with science too. You don't have to think science is valueless or bad if you tell this. And this is how it is with religion too.

It bugs me when people make these comparisons where they dismiss science in favor of religion or religion in favor of science. They have their own values and sometimes they overlap too, so they aren't even completely separate from each other. If someone oversells science, I'm ready to show him the other side of the coin. If someone undersells science, I'm ready to show him the other side of the coin. And the same goes with religion too.