Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
cerebus wrote: "New study raises questions about religion as deterrent against criminal behaviour"
Just read this ....
My first thought ...? Does anything serve as a deterrent against criminal behavior? I don't know. For example, I've heard people say the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent, so it should be abandoned. Hmmm....
But, as I read this piece, I had two more thoughts ....
First, I wonder if interviewing 48 gangsters and other criminals is adequate. Limited in math and science so I don't know. But, ... I found myself wondering. Can interviewing 48 people give you a broad enough ... what ... what is the scientific word ... baseline ... or something?
Second, I read the following and found it to be interesting. It seems, based on my reading, that the researchers aren't suggesting that religion should be thrown out of the mix or that it will never help in deterring crime. It seems like they're saying the religious programs in prisons should be tweaked and that other things, education, should be added. Needless to say, I found a bit of a disconnect between the title and this portion of the text.
"The interviews show that criminals will often employ “elaborate and creative rationalizations” to reconcile their belief in God and their serial offending, the researchers concluded.
They suggested that those who run faith-based programs in prisons could play a role in trying to correct some of the distortions or misunderstandings.
However, that’s not to suggest that these programs should be all about “hellfire and brimstone” because that would just turn inmates off, Topalli said Monday.
Instead, religion should be a “subtle, background, authoritative force” for making change, he said, adding that faith-based programs work best in reducing recidivism when done in conjunction with educational, vocational and life-skills training."
Just read this ....
My first thought ...? Does anything serve as a deterrent against criminal behavior? I don't know. For example, I've heard people say the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent, so it should be abandoned. Hmmm....
But, as I read this piece, I had two more thoughts ....
First, I wonder if interviewing 48 gangsters and other criminals is adequate. Limited in math and science so I don't know. But, ... I found myself wondering. Can interviewing 48 people give you a broad enough ... what ... what is the scientific word ... baseline ... or something?
Second, I read the following and found it to be interesting. It seems, based on my reading, that the researchers aren't suggesting that religion should be thrown out of the mix or that it will never help in deterring crime. It seems like they're saying the religious programs in prisons should be tweaked and that other things, education, should be added. Needless to say, I found a bit of a disconnect between the title and this portion of the text.
"The interviews show that criminals will often employ “elaborate and creative rationalizations” to reconcile their belief in God and their serial offending, the researchers concluded.
They suggested that those who run faith-based programs in prisons could play a role in trying to correct some of the distortions or misunderstandings.
However, that’s not to suggest that these programs should be all about “hellfire and brimstone” because that would just turn inmates off, Topalli said Monday.
Instead, religion should be a “subtle, background, authoritative force” for making change, he said, adding that faith-based programs work best in reducing recidivism when done in conjunction with educational, vocational and life-skills training."
cerebus wrote: "Mother Teresa: anything but a saint..."Penn and Teller did one of their shows about Mother Teresa and got a bit of grief for saying some of the same things.
I would rather live in a world without religion. Religion is something that is important but we can live with out it. I am a person who believes in god being a supreme force whom people call with different names like Ram, Vishnu, Jesus, Allah. Religion now a days has become a divisive force rather than making people live a happy life which it should be. People are fighting that their god only is true and supreme. There is no logical sense in that. My opinion of religion - Religion imparts some faiths in god. Take for exmaple. You have some money. You save it in a bank. When ever you have some problem you feel confident that you can go to the bank and get some withdrawl from there. There is nothing else you can do. Here different banks are different gods. The money you deposit is your prayers and faith. And the withdrawl gods mercy. Irrespective of banks the system is the same. Then why fight for religions. [P.S. Please dont say some banks offer higher interest rates.. ;)]. But as a 21st century person, I cant live with out science for sure.
Actually, belief in god is like being told that you have money in your bank, but that you mustn't check your balance, you just have to believe that its there. Becoming an atheist is like checking the account, and finding that the money was never there, but thats ok, because if it was never there, you haven't lost anything.
Hazel wrote: "Actually, belief in god is like being told that you have money in your bank, but that you mustn't check your balance, you just have to believe that its there. Becoming an atheist is like checking t..."
In your opinion....
@Varma ... Thanks for sharing your opinion and stating it was your opinion. Never thought of the bank analogy but have also always thought "God" is called by different names by different people, etc.... Glad we, at least some of us, aren't forced to choose between religion and science.
In your opinion....
@Varma ... Thanks for sharing your opinion and stating it was your opinion. Never thought of the bank analogy but have also always thought "God" is called by different names by different people, etc.... Glad we, at least some of us, aren't forced to choose between religion and science.
Hazel wrote: "Actually, belief in god is like being told that you have money in your bank, but that you mustn't check your balance, you just have to believe that its there. Becoming an atheist is like checking t..."I liked the poker analogy from a couple pages back better, but that's probably because I enjoy poker more than balancing my check book.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Actually, belief in god is like being told that you have money in your bank, but that you mustn't check your balance, you just have to believe that its there. Becoming an atheist is l..."Who is being forced to choose?
Travis wrote: "Who is being forced to choose? "
When I was doing research on various claims posted on this thread, like the percentage of non-believers in the world, etc..., I read it's very, very difficult to come up with an accurate number and people who give numbers aren't necessarily accurate. Supposedly, some countries "encourage" their citizens to say they're believers AND some countries "encourage" their citizens to say they're non-believers. Of course, by country, I mean authoritarian government leaders who get off on power and control. I was a bit shocked by that. Well, I wasn't shocked that some people get off on power and control; that's pretty obvious. While I knew some are forced into belief, I had no idea that some are forced into non-belief. Hmmm.... At least currently .... There have been times throughout history when ..., but .... Currently? Shocking that people would be forced to claim that they're atheists, in my opinion.
Then, of course, we have ....
I'll be honest. I'll call it. As always, I'll admit the dark side of religion, though, when convenient, some attempt to paint me with an different brush ....
We have extremist religious countries who force their citizens to choose religion over science and religious extremist groups and believers who do the same ... as I'm sure we're all aware.
Before 9/11, for example, I followed the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan. I remember reading of a woman who died without medical care. Why? Her husband and male relatives were dead. If she ventured outside her home, she would have been seen as a rebel and sinner. She would have been picked up by men in a white truck and taken to what used to be a soccer field and brutally murdered as a sinner against Allah.
I actually followed RAWA for some time before 9/11, signed petitions on their behalf, etc.... But, that's just one example, of course. There are some fundamentalists who won't allow their children to have medical care and who teach creationism over science, etc.... As we know.... In fact, as I've mentioned before, I think, I've gotten into some pretty heated rows over creationism/evolution. One led to my grandmother, who never went to church once she became an adult, yelling, "If you want to say you come from monkeys, FINE! I come from people." I don't know. Pretty sure I was in my teens at the time.
When I was doing research on various claims posted on this thread, like the percentage of non-believers in the world, etc..., I read it's very, very difficult to come up with an accurate number and people who give numbers aren't necessarily accurate. Supposedly, some countries "encourage" their citizens to say they're believers AND some countries "encourage" their citizens to say they're non-believers. Of course, by country, I mean authoritarian government leaders who get off on power and control. I was a bit shocked by that. Well, I wasn't shocked that some people get off on power and control; that's pretty obvious. While I knew some are forced into belief, I had no idea that some are forced into non-belief. Hmmm.... At least currently .... There have been times throughout history when ..., but .... Currently? Shocking that people would be forced to claim that they're atheists, in my opinion.
Then, of course, we have ....
I'll be honest. I'll call it. As always, I'll admit the dark side of religion, though, when convenient, some attempt to paint me with an different brush ....
We have extremist religious countries who force their citizens to choose religion over science and religious extremist groups and believers who do the same ... as I'm sure we're all aware.
Before 9/11, for example, I followed the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan. I remember reading of a woman who died without medical care. Why? Her husband and male relatives were dead. If she ventured outside her home, she would have been seen as a rebel and sinner. She would have been picked up by men in a white truck and taken to what used to be a soccer field and brutally murdered as a sinner against Allah.
I actually followed RAWA for some time before 9/11, signed petitions on their behalf, etc.... But, that's just one example, of course. There are some fundamentalists who won't allow their children to have medical care and who teach creationism over science, etc.... As we know.... In fact, as I've mentioned before, I think, I've gotten into some pretty heated rows over creationism/evolution. One led to my grandmother, who never went to church once she became an adult, yelling, "If you want to say you come from monkeys, FINE! I come from people." I don't know. Pretty sure I was in my teens at the time.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Who is being forced to choose? "When I was doing research on various claims posted on this thread, like the percentage of non-believers in the world, etc..., I read it's very, very..."
Gotcha.
That sentence just seemed out of place in the context of the chat going on around it.
Felt like I'd missed something.
John wrote: "Belief is not derived from proof. If it were, it would be perception. Science is a search for proof. It is not an absolute truth in and of itself. If it were, there would be no theories, no gathe..."
I'm not worried about disproving a deity, since as far as I can tell nobody has actually proven one.
belief is no longer belief if its required to provide a proof is basically the same as saying "belief is when you don't care if what you're believing is true or not"
John wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm not worried about disproving a deity, since as far as I can tell nobody has actually proven one. "nor was I asking you to. But you make a good point, which however seems to hav..."
My thought is since you can't disprove a negative, your example doesn't work until there is evidence to dispute.
Since belief doesn't require proof talking about evolution disproving it is a pointless debate.
Which is why I get grumpy when people treat science and religion as two sides of the same coin.
Religion wants to be treated as an equal, while playing by its own set of rules.
faith is belief without or despite evidence to the contrary. Proving belief is easy, some people believe something, that belief exists. I know I'm arguing semantics here but the way you phrased what you put made me think of the semantics involved.I agree with the last statement, conflict does occur when someone tries to equate religion to science. The two are not comparable, one is based on whims and stories, the other is based on evidence and testing. When wanting to understand the universe, testing and evidence is the only way to do it and actually find a remotely correct answer. Peple can believe whatever they want, but the fact is, scientific theory is correct even if barely anyone "believes" it to be so.
Of course proof isn't required to believe in anything, but if you someone has no proof to support their belief, then their assertions made relating to that belief can simply be rejected, even more so when the evidence directly contradicts what they believe.
John wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Of course proof isn't required to believe in anything, but if you someone has no proof to support their belief, then their assertions made relating to that belief can simply be reject..."If we could keep them seperate, then I'd be a happy guy, but we haven't had much luck with that.
The conflict arises, as people want to use religion to either prove stuff about the world or use it to disprove science.
We then have the problem that people want to counter science with what amounts to magic, but they want to be treated with respect and they want to dictate terms for how that conflict should occur, because religion works by different rules, while they claim it is the equal of science.
I would respect religious belief if it would either stay away from science and let it do it's job or decide if it wants to join the game that it at least respect the rules.
Heathen is derogatory? Really, I always found it kind of catchy myself.
Respect is wonderful, I agree, but I am as yet to find anything about religious belief that I can respect that can't be achieved without that belief. People are good because they're good and not because of religion, and so the religion is not something I respect, because religion is usually immoral and divisive. Respecting a person is different to respecting their belief, belief is appended on to someone, it is not an intrinsic part of who they are, if it were, it wouldn't need to be taught and ingrained into people. As such, the belief is not necessarily worthy of my respect, even if the person who holds it may be, but they have to prove they're worthy of it first, I see no reason to respect someone just for the sake of respecting them, just like I don't expect to be respected just for the sake of it. I may use the terms you mentioned to describe a belief, but never to describe the believer (except maybe Mickey, who's madder than a bag of hats ;P ), if they cannot see the difference, then thats not my problem, and is just another reason not to give them automatic respect.
Hmm, that's a very good question. If I had to choose at this very moment I believe I would take Science out of the equation. While it's done wonderful things throughout the world I think one day it may become our undoing. I think what scares me the most right now is the though of someone cloning me. I mean...how scary to have someone be just like you. I kind of like being silly old unique me. When it comes to Religion there are so many different views and beliefs and while they it too can harm others I believe Science could potentially wipe us all out by one simple experiment going wrong. An example would be the new device they are using to find the exact cause as to why humans exist. When I think of that contraption I think of the movie "The Mist" and all the scary monsters coming out of some weird rift within the universe.
John wrote: "Travis wrote: "Since belief doesn't require proof talking about evolution disproving it is a pointless debate."Yes, exactly. I don't know if you realize you're actually arguing my point, here.
..."
I understand your point and agree with it, it's just a) I had to point out that your example comes from a logical fallacy ( because I'm a nitpicky jerk) and that while I agree with your point, I don't agree with it the same way.
You are working towards a mutual respect thing, which is a good thing and I don't want to sound like I'm slagging that.
I'm kinda, sort of coming at it from a lack of respect angle. My view is you have to aknowledge a persons beliefs, but nowhere does that entitle you to have those beliefs respected.
I try to treat people with respect, as much as that's possible when there's no god.
As long as people don't push the issue, I try not make a big deal of it.
But, in a debate such as this, that trump card is going to come out.
or, we can make a universal measuring system, in the way that humans tend to do so they can communicate effectively, and just say that the box is 6 brown universal inches tall...Your final argument is basically "ignore each other". Consider the horrific things done in the name of religion through the years, that continue to be done, for eg, there are still children being killed by parents for being witches, or because they believe them to be possessed as a result of their religious teachings,. While things like this happen, no, it shouldn't be left to just get on with it, and anyone who is religious gives their tacit support to the actions of the church or religion they adhere to that do harm to other human beings. As such, we stand up and we speak out.
We have many many good reasons to stand up and speak out against religious indoctrination and belief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqso3L...
http://www.examiner.com/article/study...
And frankly, a moral system built on obeying an authority figure simply sin't morality, and it needs to be said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDpZxp...
Christine wrote: "Hmm, that's a very good question. If I had to choose at this very moment I believe I would take Science out of the equation. While it's done wonderful things throughout the world I think one day ..."I think the difference is, you seem bothered by what science might do in the future, I'm bothered by what religion is doing right now.
John wrote: "Travis wrote: "You are working towards a mutual respect thing, which is a good thing and I don't want to sound like I'm slagging that.I'm kinda, sort of coming at it from a lack of respect angle...."
And I can accept that. It is a noble goal.
and as long as religion stays on its side of the line, I'm more than willing to do that or if they want to come over and play, they follow the rules and be aware that it's a rowdy game and they have to be handle the occasional bloody nose.
I have no idea why I'm using so many sports analogies today. Hopefully, I'll be back to normal soon and quoting Doctor Who again.
John wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Your final argument is basically "ignore each other". Consider the horrific things done in the name of religion through the years, that continue to be done, for eg, there are still ch..."Oh no, we've started to drift into playing the 'let's keep score' game!
and things were going so smoothly too.
John, Hazel, just step away from the google links. This never ends well.
Far fewer people have been killed in the name of science. I'm just saying!!
Travis wrote: "Gotcha. That sentence just seemed out of place in the context of the chat going on around it. Felt like I'd missed something. "
I'm just always glad, despite the topic of the thread, that we don't have to choose. However, every time I think that and start to write that I'm glad "we" don't have to choose, I remember that some people are forced to choose. Define "we" ...
I'm just always glad, despite the topic of the thread, that we don't have to choose. However, every time I think that and start to write that I'm glad "we" don't have to choose, I remember that some people are forced to choose. Define "we" ...
Jason wrote: "Far fewer people have been killed in the name of science. I'm just saying!!"
Please refer to post 8725....
Please refer to post 8725....
John wrote: "When Dr. Mengele experimented on human beings, did he do it in the name of religion or science?"Godwin's!
John wrote: "Were nuclear weapons created in the name of religion or with science?"For use by politicians.
cerebus wrote: "John wrote: "When Dr. Mengele experimented on human beings, did he do it in the name of religion or science?"
Godwin's!"
From wiki ... "Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written."
So, the question is whether or not John glibly compared someone else to Hitler or the Nazis.
Mengele was human scum. He was a twisted and depraved human being who experimented on other human beings in the most unethical and perverse ways. It's the truth and one we shouldn't forget or refuse to ponder or "speak" of. In my opinion....
Godwin's!"
From wiki ... "Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written."
So, the question is whether or not John glibly compared someone else to Hitler or the Nazis.
Mengele was human scum. He was a twisted and depraved human being who experimented on other human beings in the most unethical and perverse ways. It's the truth and one we shouldn't forget or refuse to ponder or "speak" of. In my opinion....
a world without religion, most deifinitely! Spirituality is what we need. Not religions that divide and sometimes even drive people crazy.
Shannon wrote: "So, the question is whether or not John glibly compared someone else to Hitler or the Nazis."It was a usual "Mengele was a Nazi. Mengele was a scientist. Nazis are evil. Therefore scientists are evil, therefore science is evil."
Whether John's intent was to imply that science is evil, or that (as I think he said) it is to demonstrate an equivalence with saying, for example, that the Inquisition is evil therefore the Dalai Lama is evil, doesn't really matter (and for the record I agree with the latter), it is still an example of Godwin's Law. John's intent doesn't change that.
Nikita wrote: "a world without religion, most deifinitely! Spirituality is what we need. Not religions that divide and sometimes even drive people crazy.""Spirituality is what we need." should probably read "...is what some people need", the rest of us get by just fine without a shred of spirituality.
Shannon wrote: "Mengele was human scum. He was a twisted and depraved human being who experimented on other human beings in the most unethical and perverse ways. It's the truth and one we shouldn't forget or refuse to ponder or "speak" of. In my opinion.... "Btw I agree with what you say here, but it is a logical fallacy to equate his being a scum with his being a scientist. From a quick bit of googling it would appear that he was a Roman Catholic, and it would be equally fallacious to use that to imply that roman catholicism is evil.
@cerebus spirituality at least gives people a choice out of it (without making them feel guilty). That unfortunately doesn't hold true for most religions :)
Nikita wrote: "@cerebus spirituality at least gives people a choice out of it (without making them feel guilty). That unfortunately doesn't hold true for most religions :)"My point was simply that suggesting that people "need" spirituality is not quite accurate...while some people may need it, not everyone does. I don't have a shred of spirituality and am perfectly happy with that.
@cerebus I think you're right. SOME people need spirituality. In the end, it's all about being happy, whatever works for you :)
John wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Your final argument is basically "ignore each other". Consider the horrific things done in the name of religion through the years, that continue to be done, for eg, there are still ch..."no, of course not, scientists are not automatically good and ethical, the difference is that science is a tool, whereas religion is an ideology, and I'm as much against other ideologies that hurt people too, such as the nazism that Mengale was following as an ideology. Science is neutral, religion teaches people that they are right and good even when it demands actions of a heinous nature to be carried out, and on a less extreme level, when it teaches people to externalise blame, when it creates in groups and out groups ad when ti teaches that if you don't do as you're told,. there is a place in hell waiting for you, which is even used as a threat to children. And even more immoral, when it teaches that no matter how bad a person you are, you don't have to be accountable for your actions, you just have to believe and you'll be fine.
Science is a tool, and nothing more, how we use it shows what sort of person we are, it does not inform our behaviour and attitudes, our attitudes inform how we use it, the complete opposite of religion.
John wrote: "I didn't like the accusation that anyone who supports religion supports its historical atrocities"why not? If you are a member of a religion, then by default, you are giving TACIT support to the actions of that religions followers and its church. I said tacit, not direct. Its the same as if somone joins PETA, and doesn't realise the activities that PETA carry out, which includes bombings etc, by being a member and donating money, you give tacit support to those activities, and one would hope that when you discover what those activities are, which are being funded by your donations, then you'd leave the group. Same with realising how your tithe money is being spent.
cerebus wrote: "It was a usual "Mengele was a Nazi. Mengele was a scientist. Nazis are evil. Therefore scientists are evil, therefore science is evil." Whether John's intent was to imply that science is evil, or that (as I think he said) it is to demonstrate an equivalence with saying, for example, that the Inquisition is evil therefore the Dalai Lama is evil, doesn't really matter"
From my reading, taken in context, Hazel seemed to be making a argument regarding the evils of religion, the fact that evil is still committed in the name of religion, and that those who are religious give tacit approval to the evils committed by religion. How can people not stand and speak out against that?!
John's reply stated,
"When Dr. Mengele experimented on human beings, did he do it in the name of religion or science?
When African Americans were experimented on and injected with diseases without their knowledge was it to further religion or science?
Were nuclear weapons created in the name of religion or with science?
Or, just follow any of the 86 million hits under this google search:
scientific experiments against humans
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&scli...
should I say, like you have, that anyone who supports science has given tacit permission to these atrocities?
really?"
Reading through to the end, I don't get the impression that he's saying science is evil. John had a question. Because Mengele and others have conducted horrid experiments on humans in the name of science (and make no mistake ... it was in the name of science ... and still is ... think of all the people in South America who are still experimented upon), should I (John) say everyone who supports science gives tacit permission for those atrocities? (As Hazel seems to contend for the religious.) He followed up with, "Really?"
It sort of seems to me that John, though he can confirm or deny, doesn't think science is evil. Science is sometimes practiced by evil people in evil ways ... as is religion. That doesn't mean that science itself is evil; nor does it mean that religion itself is evil. Further, not all scientists and supporters of science are responsible and giving tacit approval for human experimentation just as all religions and supporters of religion are responsible for children being killed as witches.
(Of course, I know, from being here for awhile, that some non-believers have argued to the end of time that religion is evil in and of itself, based on evil premises, and that all religious folk, including and perhaps especially those belonging to moderate churches, give tacit approval and cover for religions who perpetrate evil acts. ...You've not made that argument, so please don't take what follows personally... Then, when someone brings up experimentation and asks if science, etc... should be judged in the same fashion, non-believers cry foul. Hmmm....)
From my reading, taken in context, Hazel seemed to be making a argument regarding the evils of religion, the fact that evil is still committed in the name of religion, and that those who are religious give tacit approval to the evils committed by religion. How can people not stand and speak out against that?!
John's reply stated,
"When Dr. Mengele experimented on human beings, did he do it in the name of religion or science?
When African Americans were experimented on and injected with diseases without their knowledge was it to further religion or science?
Were nuclear weapons created in the name of religion or with science?
Or, just follow any of the 86 million hits under this google search:
scientific experiments against humans
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&scli...
should I say, like you have, that anyone who supports science has given tacit permission to these atrocities?
really?"
Reading through to the end, I don't get the impression that he's saying science is evil. John had a question. Because Mengele and others have conducted horrid experiments on humans in the name of science (and make no mistake ... it was in the name of science ... and still is ... think of all the people in South America who are still experimented upon), should I (John) say everyone who supports science gives tacit permission for those atrocities? (As Hazel seems to contend for the religious.) He followed up with, "Really?"
It sort of seems to me that John, though he can confirm or deny, doesn't think science is evil. Science is sometimes practiced by evil people in evil ways ... as is religion. That doesn't mean that science itself is evil; nor does it mean that religion itself is evil. Further, not all scientists and supporters of science are responsible and giving tacit approval for human experimentation just as all religions and supporters of religion are responsible for children being killed as witches.
(Of course, I know, from being here for awhile, that some non-believers have argued to the end of time that religion is evil in and of itself, based on evil premises, and that all religious folk, including and perhaps especially those belonging to moderate churches, give tacit approval and cover for religions who perpetrate evil acts. ...You've not made that argument, so please don't take what follows personally... Then, when someone brings up experimentation and asks if science, etc... should be judged in the same fashion, non-believers cry foul. Hmmm....)
John wrote: "but, I also want to point out that I'm in both camps here. I am proscience and I am pro (benign) religion."That's reasonable thinking, straightforwardly expressed. The problem with this debate though, John, as I've found out myself, is that when you pull up to the Mutual Acceptance drive-in window, some sneaky atheist without the same ability to balance will slash your tires. How anyone can get a reductio ad stercum argument out of saying let's accept we're different and move on before it gets silly - well, says a lot more about the arguer that the argument.
Let me just put my feet up now and wait for what's coming. It'll make no difference to my view, but it will come anyway.
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Mengele was human scum. He was a twisted and depraved human being who experimented on other human beings in the most unethical and perverse ways. It's the truth and one we shouldn't forget or refuse to ponder or "speak" of. In my opinion.... "
Btw I agree with what you say here, but it is a logical fallacy to equate his being a scum with his being a scientist. From a quick bit of googling it would appear that he was a Roman Catholic, and it would be equally fallacious to use that to imply that roman catholicism is evil. "
A logical fallacy not made by me. Notice ... I didn't even refer to him as a scientist. I simply said he experimented on people.
There's a sad fact here; we can acknowledge it or not. Some have committed truly evil acts in the name of science. Did science make them do it? No. Is science evil? No. Are results of science evil, certain technologies? No. However, they have been used by evil men for evil purposes.
Truth.
Further, we have scientists from drug companies who are still, to this day, experimenting on people, of color, from poor countries. Wouldn't want to give the nice white people the experimental drugs! Let's go to South America. Does that mean science itself is evil? That all scientists and people who love, love, love science are in league with such evil?
Personally, I'd say no. I'd hope all would say no. But, then ... I'd also hope non-believers would apply the same logic to religion and believers. That's, clearly, not always the case.
Btw I agree with what you say here, but it is a logical fallacy to equate his being a scum with his being a scientist. From a quick bit of googling it would appear that he was a Roman Catholic, and it would be equally fallacious to use that to imply that roman catholicism is evil. "
A logical fallacy not made by me. Notice ... I didn't even refer to him as a scientist. I simply said he experimented on people.
There's a sad fact here; we can acknowledge it or not. Some have committed truly evil acts in the name of science. Did science make them do it? No. Is science evil? No. Are results of science evil, certain technologies? No. However, they have been used by evil men for evil purposes.
Truth.
Further, we have scientists from drug companies who are still, to this day, experimenting on people, of color, from poor countries. Wouldn't want to give the nice white people the experimental drugs! Let's go to South America. Does that mean science itself is evil? That all scientists and people who love, love, love science are in league with such evil?
Personally, I'd say no. I'd hope all would say no. But, then ... I'd also hope non-believers would apply the same logic to religion and believers. That's, clearly, not always the case.
Victoria wrote: "crap. yes we know so little,, but why would you call it crap?"Crap: vulgar. Something that is of extremely poor quality.
Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
I did indeed crap a lot but everyone thinks their religion is right and the others are
Religion is just an attempt at an explanation of why we are here. No religion has any evidence otherwise that particular religion would be science. You can believe in anything you like; just don't expect it to be true.
I actually said "should surely point in the direction that much of the religious stuff we are told as children by our elders is also crap." - perhaps your particular religious stuff is not "of extremely poor quality" but I'd need evidence to be convinced.
John wrote: " I was pointing out how what they said and then what I said in mirror of what they said were both ridiculous. "
Thought so.
Thought so.
Hp wrote: "I did indeed crap a lot but everyone thinks their religion is right and the others are crap wrong."
If by everyone, you literally mean everyone, I fear this statement is inaccurate.
If by everyone, you literally mean everyone, I fear this statement is inaccurate.
Shannon wrote: "If by everyone, you literally mean everyone, I fear this statement is inaccurate."I was a tad glib but this applies to the vast majority. Perhaps you are the one in 7 billion.
Catholics think the Protestant religions are of extremely poor quality (and vice versa). Muslims think the Christian religions are of extremely poor quality (and vice versa). Hindus think the Abrahamic religions are of extremely poor quality (and vice versa). Buddhists think the other religions are of extremely poor quality (and vice versa). Atheists think all religions are of extremely poor quality (and vice versa). There, that's probably some 99.999% of the population...
John wrote: "Hp wrote: "Atheists think all religions are of extremely poor quality (and vice versa). There, that's probably some 99.999% of the population... "actually, Atheists fall into two groups (at least..."
To be honest, if you are an atheist, you can't help but occasionally be concerned that people want to set up the rules we are all made to live by based on what an invisible man told them.
Not so much that religion is evil ( though it has it's moments) but that we are a little worried about the rest of you.
Hp wrote: "Perhaps you are the one in 7 billion"
Wow! One in seven billion. Should I feel unique and special?
Actually, while many believers favor their religion or religious faction over others, many even claiming to be the only true religion, the numbers are different from what you're promoting.
I'm not one in seven billion.
Wow! One in seven billion. Should I feel unique and special?
Actually, while many believers favor their religion or religious faction over others, many even claiming to be the only true religion, the numbers are different from what you're promoting.
I'm not one in seven billion.
John wrote: "Hazel wrote: "why not? If you are a member of a religion, then by default, you are giving TACIT support to the actions of that religions followers and its church. "why stop at simple religion? are..."
apples and oranges. We have no choice about our species, we have plenty of choice about our beliefs. You statement is irrelevant, and deserves no further consideration.
John wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "So, the question is whether or not John glibly compared someone else to Hitler or the Nazis."I find it interesting when people invoke Godwin's law in a hyperbolic ..."
yes, it was godwins law, you mentioned a nazi, thus godwins law was invoked.
John., you've proved yourself ridiculous in your responses, that you accuse people of hyperbolic responses regarding the godwins law thing, and then make ridiculous statements that try to equate species to religion, I hope you can see the irony there.
John wrote: "Hazel wrote: "John., you've proved yourself ridiculous in your responses"Thank you. I aim for ridiculousness. What are you aiming for?"
for the most part... entertainment.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Mmmm....
I know next to nothing about Mother Teresa, other than the fact that she was Catholic and worked in India. I did read this, though.
First, I definitely agree with the authors on one point. The media coverage about A LOT of things "could be a little more rigorous.” Well, actually, in my opinion, it should be a lot more rigorous.
Regarding the rest, .... I found myself wondering who these authors are and whether or not they have a horse in the race.
I don't automatically trust religious folk when talking about religious issues. In fact, I tend to be skeptical. For example, I was reading an article once about the power of prayer. Then, I looked into it and discovered the study was funded by a religious organization or college. I can't remember. Similarly, I'm tend to be skeptical of non-believers comments about religious issues. Both groups have a horse in the race, which makes them a bit suspect, in my opinion. In the end, they may be on the up-and-up. However, I'd sort of like to be able to have something I could verify.
So, I found myself wondering if these professors have a horse in the race. Are they believers or non-believers? Who funded their research, etc...? Unfortunately, when I Googled them, I found next to no information, except for information on this article and an article written by a Catholic group that dismissed this information and the professors as atheists; skeptical, of course, given the fact that Catholics surely have a horse in this specific race.
Also found myself wishing they included their sources, specifically, separate and apart from Hitchens. Hitchens is Hitchens. Would be nice to verify and see what they (...and Hitchens) used as sources.