*** Science Or God? ***

[rhitwick]

The meaning is clear from that post itself.

I accept my dumbness but I still could not get that part.

"Only you think" that I have asked something conceptually very deep.

C, I'm used to face yorkers from u, and suddenly u do a slower delivery to main thoda wo ho gaya

Offtopic --
Watch this *www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUQPhiNaLk

Ummm...mujhe thoda thoda hi samajh aya...

 

[amitash]

And the only job you think you are left with is "opining" rather than "verifying"? Thats quite a brave logic you have.

Lets take a formal debate for example:
I sit at one table, you sit at the other and theres a mediator (no pun intended )...The opponent quotes an article at you and you are supposed to verify it? Why? your opponent is the one quoting a text and so its him who should have the right facts...

Have you even pondered how "peope use science to commit dastardly acts"? Your ignorance of the matters speaks loud and clear. So if I compile a big list of how science is being used to screw earth and nature, will you convert to theism? Thats again illogic in itself.

As ive stated, science tries to solve a problem and that solution might have very bad side effects, but the main intent is to solve a problem...You say science has screwed the earth and nature....now you can ponder "why science screwed the earth"...Because it was trying to solve human questions and need, it has not screwed the earth but made it an infinitely better place....If these questions and needs did not arise in our heads at all, we would be the same as lower species of animals who crave for just food, shelter, mates survival....I am not saying that we are better than these animals, they too have something unique of their own, i respect and admire that.

Who is using religion as a controlling tool? I don't see sikhs, buddhists, Hindus constantly fighting. Do u? Also, the Hindus who are aware about their scriptures are quick to identify the corrupt pandits. So again who is controlling?

You are misunderstanding control with fighting...And you answered the question yourself...the corrupt pandits/preachers have power to teach young minds, which they can control and its not always the case that hindus are aware of their scriptures....I doubt the majority are aware of their scriptures and hence proving themselves easy to control.

You did not answer my question, but instead you are ranting either emotionally or illogically which is irrelevant to my question. Here's my question again. I asked to you, about yourself and NOT SCIENCE....

Tell me as an atheist how much do you use AC, Oven, refrigerator i.e the things that generate CFC (ozone depeleting chemicals+huge amount of heat generation), vehicles that cause pollution etc? Do you really care about the world?

First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!

Is science bad or the person who is exploiting science?

I hope you understand that "caring about the world" also means caring about animals.

Ok, I Do use the fridge, BUT its giving something good out of it too, not only CFC's....I store leftover food that i eat some other time...without the fridge, food would have got spoilt and gone to waste...food requirement is much more than production and the fridge helps...so do things like the oven, AC and vehicles...you are forgetting the good things that are also very much helping the world a long way and the cfc's for eg are the side effect which, with more advancement in our knowledge, will be solved....like the advent of hydrogen powered cars for eg...although some problems may be found on new tech, remember that it was meant to get rid of the old problem.

Your statements so far....
1. Science will do this and that.
2. It "will" find a solution to the all the screw ups.
3. Generalizations on theists, and agnostics.
4. Defining science, instead of talking the science behind. Talking superficial, instead of scientific explanations!

for 1 and 2, i used the word "will" not out of faith but because of the definition of science itself...science is defined as: "knowledge attained through study or practice"....Now can you tell me a sollution to any problem that has come about without knowledge?

3. yes that is what i see and that is my opinion...I might be woefully wrong (im not saying that i think im wrong) im free to have an opinion am i not? just like your generalisation of science as a tool thats "screwed the world".

4.scientific explanation for what exactly? how the world came to be? havent i already said that science doesnt have all the answers?

1. I don't think Indian history had "cavemen" in it. Science was there in the past too. High, low. I dunno! But the scriptures and history themselves speak how luxurious a life "many" of them lived. Before continuing on your logic, do note the percentage of Indians below poverty line in the present era.

Ill make myself clear....by using cavemen i actually meant living without any science/knowledge.

And poverty is a thing that as far as i can see, is created by corporate greed, and of course it is using science to fuel that greed and i am totally against it...Im defending the inventions and discoveries of science and how it solves problems, not corporates who use it for a big bank account...I believe that all basic amenities like good food, water, shelter, clothing etc should be free...luxuries shouldnt.

3. Do you realise that you are equating destruction of environment with "progression"?

Yes and i stand by it... as i have said earlier its only the bad things you are looking at....and as i have said earlier, its in the quest to make the world a better place...but a better place for one might not be so for the other...everything should be looked in to... when the car was invented, nobody cared about the pollution created, they only cared about the transport problems...when the pollution became an issue, we are trying to remedy it now...that remedy might cause another problem that we will further have to fix...its a never ending cycle.

4. You find beauty in creating a problem first and then creating more problem as a result of pursuit of a solution for the previous one?

Yes i do, because if we had the sollution to everything, then what is it worth living for? there are problems everywhere, you can never get rid of them, rarely does a problem have a foolproof sollution, unless that solution is to stop solving evry problem that exists.

Speaking big about science, considering your thoughts as superior to others, calling others who differ as narrow minded etc, you clearly are not living upto your mark. Also, I asked you to read what scientists say and opine on it. A true scientific soul should rather be eager to digest matters of science instead of being reminded twice!

I have never mentioned that i am superior to others, in the arguements previously given by others i did feel they were narrow minded...just like you have said that i say stupid/illogical things, just like you assumed that i didnt follow the link you gave me? i am not a follower of other scientists, i merely treat their works as theories and only when sufficient proof is given, do i accept their statements...and i did read the link you posted(not totally through all the articles yet) and i found it irrelevant as they were, as you said opinions of certain scientists, not conclusive proofs....

So @amitash...
1. You don't want to "read".
2. You don't want to talk "details".
3. You speak as if science "will" find cure for all the problems it created.
4. Only ranting that science will do this and that...

And then you say that you don't have such faith in science?

You know, "luck" and "hope" are as illogical as a "prayer" and in typical definition one who "prays" is called a "theist". You are only "hoping" big from science.

I did read, I did talk details, and i do feel that science will find solutions because firstly if anything can find solutions it is science and knowledge and science has been finding solutions since its inception in our brains i dont know how many thousands of years ago...as i have mentioned before, problems are endless because a solution given, in all probability will give rise to more problems in the future. science has already proven time and again that it solves these problems so in all probability it will find solutions to more problems...its probability, not faith, hope or prayer.

Student A : How did life originated?
Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's evolution!

Did you understand the example? Please explain! So again who is controlling?

I did not quite understand what you meant...is it that the scientific student doesnt know the answer? Or that he blindly believes, without reading darwin, that he(darwin) knew how life had originated? Please explain and i shall answer accordingly

 

[naveen_reloaded]

the funny thing is quoted micro_vishal and damn , i somewht i replied and i dont know wht happened..

it was huge... ...

will try to do it again..

 

[mediator]

Lets take a formal debate for example:
I sit at one table, you sit at the other and theres a mediator (no pun intended )...The opponent quotes an article at you and you are supposed to verify it? Why? your opponent is the one quoting a text and so its him who should have the right facts...

You mean everybody can check whether you are a fool? Now what would your reply be if the opponent says "Science proves the existence of God" and agains shows some "inappropriate" evidence or premises"?? Will you opine straight away?

You think a person who "knows nothing" about the subject can even opine? He is not reflecting the opinions, but his stupidity.

As ive stated, science tries to solve a problem and that solution might have very bad side effects, but the main intent is to solve a problem...You say science has screwed the earth and nature....now you can ponder "why science screwed the earth"...Because it was trying to solve human questions and need, it has not screwed the earth but made it an infinitely better place....If these questions and needs did not arise in our heads at all, we would be the same as lower species of animals who crave for just food, shelter, mates survival....I am not saying that we are better than these animals, they too have something unique of their own, i respect and admire that.

Do you even realise what the point was? It seems you are totally circumventing your point and throw light on the similar logic I put forward. Read again your golden words...

I have never said that its not true....Just merely said that you have to look at all the evidence...and i tend to lean towards the side that has more compound evidence....And thats just lean...not totally believe...i will still mostly wait for more evidence...But no evidence of god in thousands of years and that many things that people claim he can do being disproven and are continuing to be disproven, coupled with the way people use god through religion to commit dastardly acts leads me to atheism.

Have you even pondered how "peope use science to commit dastardly acts"? Your ignorance of the matters speaks loud and clear. So if I compile a big list of how science is being used to screw earth and nature, will you convert to theism? Thats again illogic in itself.

1. May I know what problem the nature had that needed to be solved? As far as I know science is a way to explore and "explain" the "already" existing unexplained phenomena.
2. Can you define need? Does it mean luxury? Is "need" is any different from "greed"?

If these questions and needs did not arise in our heads at all, we would be the same as lower species of animals who crave for just food, shelter, mates survival....I am not saying that we are better than these animals, they too have something unique of their own, i respect and admire that.

I believe every approach in science should have a thorough view of side effects and a proper way to handle those side affects. So what approach did scientists develop to handle the "global warming" when generation of electricity through coal was becoming a norm a few decades back? Did they really think it won't affect earth? What approach did they take to handle nuclear wastes? To dump it into the sea? What about plastics? Do you realise how much of the marine life and soil has been affected by the use of "non-biodegradable" substances? Also, questions and needs does not mean we screw up the nature. Again you are only potraying how "evil" science is.

Ok, I Do use the fridge, BUT its giving something good out of it too, not only CFC's....I store leftover food that i eat some other time...without the fridge, food would have got spoilt and gone to waste...food requirement is much more than production and the fridge helps...so do things like the oven, AC and vehicles...you are forgetting the good things that are also very much helping the world a long way and the cfc's for eg are the side effect which, with more advancement in our knowledge, will be solved....like the advent of hydrogen powered cars for eg...although some problems may be found on new tech, remember that it was meant to get rid of the old problem.

1. Fridge is not only giving out CFC, but also a huge amount heat outside the box and heat which used to provide electricity.
2. Do I even need to talk what pollution does? So you use vehicles.
3. Oven gives heat and consumes electricity which gain needs electricity which gives out a lot of heat as a result of electricity conversion.
4. AC is warming up the nature while cooling ur little room. Again it needs electricity and hence a lot of heat generation otherways too.

Remember, a constumer who is buying crackers is equally responsible for the child labour where the children are employed to develop crackers. A customer who buys tiger skin is equally responsible for the killing of the endangered species.

So do you think you are really "caring" for the environment? I'm not interested what science is doing at "the moment" (as per my question). I'm only interested in what you are doing! And again your statement is potraying as if your are treating science as some kind of messiah that will wash your sins! Its again an example how "blindly" you are following science and "hoping" something from it. Do you think you are doing any better than a theist?

or 1 and 2, i used the word "will" not out of faith but because of the definition of science itself...science is defined as: "knowledge attained through study or practice"....Now can you tell me a sollution to any problem that has come about without knowledge?

3. yes that is what i see and that is my opinion...I might be woefully wrong (im not saying that i think im wrong) im free to have an opinion am i not? just like your generalisation of science as a tool thats "screwed the world".

4.scientific explanation for what exactly? how the world came to be? havent i already said that science doesnt have all the answers?

1,2) Science dos not "gurantee" you anything or has a to-do things list. Newton didn't know he would see a falling apple! Even the definition of science doesn't mean that you would automatically have high hopes of it so as to insert "will". Clearly you are "only" going by the definition of science.

3) 1. You did not read my statement carefully. From the start I asked a question, is it science or the people exploiting it who are doing the harm?
2. My statement that "science screwed the world" is an analogy to your statement that "religions are doing harm". I myself said it is illogical, for these religion that I mentioned are not "killing 1000s of people". It is the intolerance. This intolerence is clearly visible in your posts where you behaved quite "intolerant" towards those who differed in the viewpoint and even generalised on them inspite of showing illogic and "hopes" in your own statements. It is nice to see that you realise that you erred. Who knows if discussions be carried out with lost souls (religious extremists), they might also realise of their mistakes? Isn't it possible?

Don't think I'm siding with extremists now or make emotional statements again.

4) And yet you are inserting terms like "will"?

Ill make myself clear....by using cavemen i actually meant living without any science/knowledge.

There are people in remote parts of India and the world who are living "without science and knowledge". Do cavemen exist in modern world?

And poverty is a thing that as far as i can see, is created by corporate greed, and of course it is using science to fuel that greed and i am totally against it...Im defending the inventions and discoveries of science and how it solves problems, not corporates who use it for a big bank account...I believe that all basic amenities like good food, water, shelter, clothing etc should be free...luxuries shouldnt

If you apply similar logic to religion, you will realise yourself that not all religions are same and not all kill "1000s of people". You have an illogical hatred towards religion because of extremists, but not towards science exploited because of "corporate greed" that is killing people (weapons, bombs etc) and the earth "on much larger scale"? That is called hypocrisy!

Yes and i stand by it... as i have said earlier its only the bad things you are looking at....and as i have said earlier, its in the quest to make the world a better place...but a better place for one might not be so for the other...everything should be looked in to... when the car was invented, nobody cared about the pollution created, they only cared about the transport problems...when the pollution became an issue, we are trying to remedy it now...that remedy might cause another problem that we will further have to fix...its a never ending cycle.

First you rape the mother earth and then you try to make it a better place by "high hopes" from science that doesn't gurantee those "wishes"? You know you are only acting a religious extremist now. And yes, many the attempts of screw ups is a never ending cycle. The temperature is getting hotter, polar icecaps are melting and water level is rising, deforestation on large scale for urbanization and other reasons, dumping of toxic chemicals straight into the sea and rivers.... and the earth is becoming a better place?

I hope you know that high temperatures have effects on food productions too. Means of living?

Considering all the heat generation via all the electrical appliances and infinite number of other problems and we becoming apathetic customers, I don't think "atheists" like you really care about the world". It is simply a BIG LIE.

Yes i do, because if we had the sollution to everything, then what is it worth living for? there are problems everywhere, you can never get rid of them, rarely does a problem have a foolproof sollution, unless that solution is to stop solving evry problem that exists.

And you think you becoming a "customer" will solve that problem? I think enjoying nature is something that "enhances" your living. So is the exploitation of science, enhancing or degrading our living?

May be you should get rid of your problem first i.e "exploitation of nature" by you, before thinking about other problems. What can you do on your part?

I have never mentioned that i am superior to others, in the arguements previously given by others i did feel they were narrow minded...just like you have said that i say stupid/illogical things, just like you assumed that i didnt follow the link you gave me? i am not a follower of other scientists, i merely treat their works as theories and only when sufficient proof is given, do i accept their statements...and i did read the link you posted(not totally through all the articles yet) and i found it irrelevant as they were, as you said opinions of certain scientists, not conclusive proofs....

You are generalising on the "whole" category of "agnostics and theists" whereas I'm neither generalising on atheists/theists/agnostics nor you. I'm simply marking your "statements" as illogical and stupid with appropriate logic to back up my statement.

Do you understand the HUGE difference in your statements and mine?

I never said I "feel" superior to you or you or atheists are "narrow minded" or any other person here whereas look at yourself what you stated....

"agnostics" are not ppl who are open minded, they are just the average joe who is unsure about everything.

so agnostics basically dont care either way? that makes you part ignorant, not "open minded"

i merely treat their works as theories and only when sufficient proof is given, do i accept their statements

Treating their work as theories means you are not readily accepting it. And waiting for sufficient proof means you are not rejecting the earlier either. You are simply in a condition of doubt. Does this premise make you any less than being an agnostic yourself?

and i did read the link you posted(not totally through all the articles yet) and i found it irrelevant as they were, as you said opinions of certain scientists, not conclusive proofs....

Wrong! It is not irrelevant. Either you have not read it or you have not understood it. Neways, leave it if u can't comprehend it.

I did read, I did talk details, and i do feel that science will find solutions because firstly if anything can find solutions it is science and knowledge and science has been finding solutions since its inception in our brains i dont know how many thousands of years ago...as i have mentioned before, problems are endless because a solution given, in all probability will give rise to more problems in the future. science has already proven time and again that it solves these problems so in all probability it will find solutions to more problems...its probability, not faith, hope or prayer.

If its probability, then the probability of science screwing the nature is very high. What makes you think then that science will find a cure before the occurence of tsunamis? Do you find the contradiction in your own post? Bringing "probability factor" has itself weakened your point.
You simply are as confused as a blind believer in God.

So the point of probability contradicts itself. What is your next term? Going by the definition of science alone and expecting big from it, is nothing but hope!

Student A : How did life originated?
Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's evolution!

Did you understand the example? Please explain! So again who is controlling?

I did not quite understand what you meant...is it that the scientific student doesnt know the answer? Or that he blindly believes, without reading darwin, that he(darwin) knew how life had originated? Please explain and i shall answer accordingly

The point is simple and shows that you don't understand the basics of evolution. If you had, you would have taken the note immediately. And the point is that evolution doesn't talk of origin of life. So answering a question like "how life orginated" with answer as "evolution", talks clear about one's ignorance. And let me tell, this has become a kind of "trend". Many science student/fans/fanboys I ask this question "how life orginated", reply with "evolution"!

The point is simple that the science student neither knows the answer nor has read about evolution.



So if religion is exploited by extremists and corrupt pundits, then science is exploited by terrorists, "corporate greeds" etc too. By using their products you are actually enhancing the exploitation and screwing the nature. And then, you are waiting for science to do something better and hoping something big, where the probability factor is in favour of destruction of nature.

Reflect, you are neither caring about the "world" nor doing any better than a religious extremist yourself.

 

[amitash]

1. May I know what problem the nature had that needed to be solved? As far as I know science is a way to explore and "explain" the "already" existing unexplained phenomena.

Problem that nature had? every creature in nature has problems....a lion needs food so it solves it by killing other beasts and eating them...Man who is physically inferior to most other animals, uses his brain to outwit the hunters and to also hunt for his living and so on....and i think a part of science is explaining the unexplained but another part is to use knowledge to solve problems.

2. Can you define need? Does it mean luxury? Is "need" is any different from "greed"?

I did think this through and yes need in this context doesnt look much different from greed....and man i feel will always be greedy...But somehow, i like this greed and thee quest for fullfilling it... unforeseen side effects do occur when we pursue them, but effort must be put to stop it hurting the environment, agreed.

I believe every approach in science should have a thorough view of side effects and a proper way to handle those side affects. So what approach did scientists develop to handle the "global warming" when generation of electricity through coal was becoming a norm a few decades back? Did they really think it won't affect earth? What approach did they take to handle nuclear wastes? To dump it into the sea? What about plastics? Do you realise how much of the marine life and soil has been affected by the use of "non-biodegradable" substances? Also, questions and needs does not mean we screw up the nature. Again you are only potraying how "evil" science is.

I do not know what those scientists were thinking...maybe they thought it wouldnt harm the earth...just like so many things that we use today are thought of as not to harm the earth....maybe they will com back to haunt us, i dont know...or maybe they didnt care either way...im not defending them, but i do value the contributions they have given and i admit i view these contributions more than the negative effects they have produced....but they are the same scientists who are trying to fix it arent they? and what if another problem persists from the solution they find? nobody can ever foresee each and everything that might occur, that doesnt mean we have to stop trying.

1. Fridge is not only giving out CFC, but also a huge amount heat outside the box and heat which used to provide electricity.
2. Do I even need to talk what pollution does? So you use vehicles.
3. Oven gives heat and consumes electricity which gain needs electricity which gives out a lot of heat as a result of electricity conversion.
4. AC is warming up the nature while cooling ur little room. Again it needs electricity and hence a lot of heat generation otherways too.

Remember, a constumer who is buying crackers is equally responsible for the child labour where the children are employed to develop crackers. A customer who buys tiger skin is equally responsible for the killing of the endangered species.

So do you think you are really "caring" for the environment? I'm not interested what science is doing at "the moment" (as per my question). I'm only interested in what you are doing! And again your statement is potraying as if your are treating science as some kind of messiah that will wash your sins! Its again an example how "blindly" you are following science and "hoping" something from it. Do you think you are doing any better than a theist?

Yes i do think im doing better than a theist, because innumerable problems have been solved by science, science doesnt threaten me to damnation if i dont believe in it, it encourages me to think and reason and question everything...Do i have hope that science will do something? yes i do, because it has already done many things, it continues to do so, no false promises and as far as i can see, I dont see the alternative, religion doing good things or encouraging you to think....As far as i can see, it gives you a supreme "god", and when proof is asked of the god, none is to be given, no miracles, no evidence, i have never denied the good things given by religion like the morality it tries to inspire, but i despise the way it tries to enforce that morality on you.

1,2) Science dos not "gurantee" you anything or has a to-do things list. Newton didn't know he would see a falling apple! Even the definition of science doesn't mean that you would automatically have high hopes of it so as to insert "will". Clearly you are "only" going by the definition of science.

Hmmm...yes, i guess i am only going by definition...I guess i was wrong to expect something all the time...I admit to it and will try to find a new explanation.

3) 1. You did not read my statement carefully. From the start I asked a question, is it science or the people exploiting it who are doing the harm?
2. My statement that "science screwed the world" is an analogy to your statement that "religions are doing harm". I myself said it is illogical, for these religion that I mentioned are not "killing 1000s of people". It is the intolerance. This intolerence is clearly visible in your posts where you behaved quite "intolerant" towards those who differed in the viewpoint and even generalised on them inspite of showing illogic and "hopes" in your own statements. It is nice to see that you realise that you erred. Who knows if discussions be carried out with lost souls (religious extremists), they might also realise of their mistakes? Isn't it possible?

Don't think I'm siding with extremists now or make emotional statements again.

4) And yet you are inserting terms like "will"?

3.I would say it has to be the people who are exploiting science.
4.look at what i said to the last thing i quoted, i admit i was wrong.

If you apply similar logic to religion, you will realise yourself that not all religions are same and not all kill "1000s of people". You have an illogical hatred towards religion because of extremists, but not towards science exploited because of "corporate greed" that is killing people (weapons, bombs etc) and the earth "on much larger scale"? That is called hypocrisy!

agreed, not all religions kill thousands of people...But another point that bugs me, is that any religion as far as i can see, gives a concept of a supreme being, with no evidence offered and expects us to believe it...some try to scare you into believing it, the others, still say things like: "pray to the God and you will get happiness" which, intentionally or not, may be interpreted as "dont pray, and you wont be happy"....my point is, that it doesnt inspire free thought and questioning, but rather imprisons your mind.

As for using weapons, bombs etc, things created by science to kill people, its not science thats doing wrong here, people dont go yelling that their scientists and so they want to kill... other differences such as race, territorial conflict, long-time hatred, etc are responsible for creating these wars and not science.

First you rape the mother earth and then you try to make it a better place by "high hopes" from science that doesn't gurantee those "wishes"? You know you are only acting a religious extremist now. And yes, many the attempts of screw ups is a never ending cycle. The temperature is getting hotter, polar icecaps are melting and water level is rising, deforestation on large scale for urbanization and other reasons, dumping of toxic chemicals straight into the sea and rivers.... and the earth is becoming a better place?

I hope you know that high temperatures have effects on food productions too. Means of living?

Considering all the heat generation via all the electrical appliances and infinite number of other problems and we becoming apathetic customers, I don't think "atheists" like you really care about the world". It is simply a BIG LIE.

Firstly, in my opinion, the earth is becoming a better place to live in...again i ask you to look at the problems that the inventions were meant to solve, and they did it(solving the old problem) quite efficiently whereas, created new problems....so i say we are better off than we were before.

So is it your opinion that no atheist cares about the world? depends on what you view as caring...I view progression via these inventions as caring to the world, because it solved an old problem...new problems have arisen die to these solutions and i see caring as trying to come up with a new solution for these problems, rather than immediately stopping the RESPONSIBLE use of these inventions and therefore, reverting back to the old problem, which means we have gone nowhere at all.

And you think you becoming a "customer" will solve that problem? I think enjoying nature is something that "enhances" your living. So is the exploitation of science, enhancing or degrading our living?

May be you should get rid of your problem first i.e "exploitation of nature" by you, before thinking about other problems. What can you do on your part?

I havent said that becoming a customer would solve these problems...But i admit i cant not be a customer, i do have the greed of wanting something...I dont believe that the sollution to this is to live like hermits and give everything away and stay "basic"...On my part? i can be responsible with the use of the things i have bought(which i think i am) and, after i become more qualified, try and find a solution to some of these problems.

I never said I "feel" superior to you or you or atheists are "narrow minded" or any other person here whereas look at yourself what you stated....

I see now where i went wrong as i have al already admitted, i take back how i totally generalised agnostics, but i do stand by, that: by the statements made by the ppl who i commented too, i now feel that those statements were illogical and not the person himself, i was wrong.

If its probability, then the probability of science screwing the nature is very high. What makes you think then that science will find a cure before the occurence of tsunamis? Do you find the contradiction in your own post? Bringing "probability factor" has itself weakened your point.
You simply are as confused as a blind believer in God.

So the point of probability contradicts itself. What is your next term? Going by the definition of science alone and expecting big from it, is nothing but hope!

I dont see science as screwing the earth...just the irresponsible use of things given by science, is screwing the earth and not the concept of science itself, the problem of screwing nature can be solved if everyone lives responsibly or if science itself comes up with something that heal's the screw up....I have admitted that science does not guarantee that it will solve the problems...but i still say that its probable that a solution will be given more than the probability that it will screw us all...

The point is simple and shows that you don't understand the basics of evolution. If you had, you would have taken the note immediately. And the point is that evolution doesn't talk of origin of life. So answering a question like "how life orginated" with answer as "evolution", talks clear about one's ignorance. And let me tell, this has become a kind of "trend". Many science student/fans/fanboys I ask this question "how life orginated", reply with "evolution"!

I did not expect such a naive arguement...I know that Darwin doesnt explain the orrigin of life...thats why i stated:

Or that he blindly believes, without reading darwin, that he(darwin) knew how life had originated?

I stated that the student had blindly believed that Darwin knew how life orriginated....That doesnt mean that i stated that: "Darwin knew how life came to be"

If you had asked me directly the same question, i would not have answered as evolution...I would have said that science just didnt know yet, nor have i denied that there are many ignorant people/scientists in te world.

So if religion is exploited by extremists and corrupt pundits, then science is exploited by terrorists, "corporate greeds" etc too. By using their products you are actually enhancing the exploitation and screwing the nature. And then, you are waiting for science to do something better and hoping something big, where the probability factor is in favour of destruction of nature.

Reflect, you are neither caring about the "world" nor doing any better than a religious extremist yourself.

I dont see the probability being that we will screw the earth...I see it in favour of a solution being offered, and as for corporate greed, everything is owned by them thanks to our monetary system...you cannot get the resources you need to perform more experiments without resorting to buying their products, as they control the resources...The corporates and the terrorists exploit science yes but not in the name of science, science is not at fault...Religious extremists exploit religion in the name of their religion and their god(s)...so yes, i think im doing better than a religious extremist...and actually even religious people who use guns and bombs to kill also exploit science.

 

[karnivore]

Hmmm....since bullets kill, I guess, Newton should be persecuted for articulating his third law.

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/BangUrHead.gif

 

[mediator]

Problem that nature had? every creature in nature has problems....a lion needs food so it solves it by killing other beasts and eating them...Man who is physically inferior to most other animals, uses his brain to outwit the hunters and to also hunt for his living and so on....and i think a part of science is explaining the unexplained but another part is to use knowledge to solve problems.

Is that your logic to explain "nature's problem"? Then even shitting and eating yourself should be a problem for you? How does "lion's killing other beasts" becomes a problem? A man saving himself by using his brain is only doing something for himself and for whole mankind. Where's the nature's problem apart from yourself? Instead, by using science as a tool, the mankind has endangered its own survival.

For urbanization, large scale deforestation is done. I hope you know that we need 02 (oxygen) to live that is provided by trees and not the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur which are rather injurious to our health.

I did think this through and yes need in this context doesnt look much different from greed....and man i feel will always be greedy...But somehow, i like this greed and thee quest for fullfilling it... unforeseen side effects do occur when we pursue them, but effort must be put to stop it hurting the environment, agreed.

I do not know what those scientists were thinking...maybe they thought it wouldnt harm the earth...just like so many things that we use today are thought of as not to harm the earth....maybe they will com back to haunt us, i dont know...or maybe they didnt care either way...im not defending them, but i do value the contributions they have given and i admit i view these contributions more than the negative effects they have produced....but they are the same scientists who are trying to fix it arent they? and what if another problem persists from the solution they find? nobody can ever foresee each and everything that might occur, that doesnt mean we have to stop trying.

Then who will know? You think scientists "will know"? Who is asking to stop trying? But even trying and experimenting needs to calculate the plausible results first and view them from every engle possible. Do you think the "ideal ways" of science are "practically" being followed?

Yes i do think im doing better than a theist, because innumerable problems have been solved by science, science doesnt threaten me to damnation if i dont believe in it, it encourages me to think and reason and question everything...Do i have hope that science will do something? yes i do, because it has already done many things, it continues to do so, no false promises and as far as i can see, I dont see the alternative, religion doing good things or encouraging you to think....As far as i can see, it gives you a supreme "god", and when proof is asked of the god, none is to be given, no miracles, no evidence, i have never denied the good things given by religion like the morality it tries to inspire, but i despise the way it tries to enforce that morality on you.

Again, I'm asking bt YOU and you are talking about science in reply and again ranting that "science will do this and that". Stating that religion "enforces" stuff on you and discourages free thinking, you are again putting all religion under same banner. It also means that you have READ ALL the holy books of ALL the religions and have come to a conclusion "after reading" that they discourage science and "free thinking".

May I know "where" ALL religion discourage free thinking and threaten you to damnation? Where it is "enforcing morality" on you Since you said religion does this, then please tell me about ALL religions and where they are forcing such stuff on you.

Further you hate religions because they tell you about God? What kind of logic is that? I'm a critic of evolution theory. Does that mean I should start hating all those people who believe in evolution?

3.I would say it has to be the people who are exploiting science.

Don't you think in similar light that, it has to be the people who are exploiting religion?

agreed, not all religions kill thousands of people...But another point that bugs me, is that any religion as far as i can see, gives a concept of a supreme being, with no evidence offered and expects us to believe it...some try to scare you into believing it, the others, still say things like: "pray to the God and you will get happiness" which, intentionally or not, may be interpreted as "dont pray, and you wont be happy"....my point is, that it doesnt inspire free thought and questioning, but rather imprisons your mind.

May be it means nature is GOD? May be it means care for nature and you will be happy, since "praying" is analogous to showing respect?

I read the discussiong ealier where it said "SUN god rides on seven horses". ANd no one even understood it. We all know light is composed of 7 colors don't we? Remember many of the hindus scripures are written in a poetic form. So think a little deeply before comprehending anything. Regarding God, like I said I don't pray and I don't goto temples. But what if nature is GOD, since it is providing everything for your living?


Now if you are composed of lifeless chemicals which forms "living cells", which die and develop without your own active awareness, and which makes your whole body and a person to be recognised as a living entity, then don't you think universe which comprises of "living objects" like us and non living objects etc can be having "life" itself? Don't you think universe is living? Do you think an ant can understand quantum physics? May be we who consider ourselves as supreme intellectual beings are not able to undertsand something more intense?

Its just a question!

As for using weapons, bombs etc, things created by science to kill people, its not science thats doing wrong here, people dont go yelling that their scientists and so they want to kill... other differences such as race, territorial conflict, long-time hatred, etc are responsible for creating these wars and not science.

May be religious "hatred" and intolerance which is not propogated by many religions, but by the followers, is leading to deaths? I agree it is not science who is doing it, but the mad people. Such people use religion too. Why don't u despise science then?

Firstly, in my opinion, the earth is becoming a better place to live in...again i ask you to look at the problems that the inventions were meant to solve, and they did it(solving the old problem) quite efficiently whereas, created new problems....so i say we are better off than we were before.

So is it your opinion that no atheist cares about the world? depends on what you view as caring...I view progression via these inventions as caring to the world, because it solved an old problem...new problems have arisen die to these solutions and i see caring as trying to come up with a new solution for these problems, rather than immediately stopping the RESPONSIBLE use of these inventions and therefore, reverting back to the old problem, which means we have gone nowhere at all.

With temperature rising and nature getting depleted of its beauty in terms of trees, animals, fresh river/sea water etc?

And I'm not opining but simply reasoning. And its not "no athiest cares",but ONLY YOU that I'm talking bt.

I havent said that becoming a customer would solve these problems...But i admit i cant not be a customer, i do have the greed of wanting something...I dont believe that the sollution to this is to live like hermits and give everything away and stay "basic"...On my part? i can be responsible with the use of the things i have bought(which i think i am) and, after i become more qualified, try and find a solution to some of these problems.

1. You admit you are a customer.
2. You admit you have the greed.

So do ou still think you really "care" about the world. I hope you'll agree that "Greed", "customership" and "care" don't look good together.

I see now where i went wrong as i have al already admitted, i take back how i totally generalised agnostics, but i do stand by, that: by the statements made by the ppl who i commented too, i now feel that those statements were illogical and not the person himself, i was wrong.

May be the religious extremists because of which you despise religion, can agree similarly if the subject discussed properly.

I dont see science as screwing the earth...just the irresponsible use of things given by science, is screwing the earth and not the concept of science itself, the problem of screwing nature can be solved if everyone lives responsibly or if science itself comes up with something that heal's the screw up....I have admitted that science does not guarantee that it will solve the problems...but i still say that its probable that a solution will be given more than the probability that it will screw us all...

1. YEs its not the science but the greedy men and the mindset.
2. The responsibility, morality and togetherness is preached by religions also.
3. Again, the use of "will" is nothing but "hope" as the future cannot be predicted accurately and the probability is not 100%.
"Will" simply means that you expect "firmly". Even if you want to call it a probability factor, then it is not 100% and hence the use of "will" is inappropriate. IMO, a term like "might/may" is more appropriate to match the "probability factor" to give it like => "science might find a solution".

I did not expect such a naive arguement...I know that Darwin doesnt explain the orrigin of life...thats why i stated:

My point was to show the trend and how many of the self-proclaimed science fans tend out to be. But, I admit I didn't read your reply completely.

I dont see the probability being that we will screw the earth...I see it in favour of a solution being offered, and as for corporate greed, everything is owned by them thanks to our monetary system...you cannot get the resources you need to perform more experiments without resorting to buying their products, as they control the resources...The corporates and the terrorists exploit science yes but not in the name of science, science is not at fault...Religious extremists exploit religion in the name of their religion and their god(s)...so yes, i think im doing better than a religious extremist...and actually even religious people who use guns and bombs to kill also exploit science.

Now, Why would they terrorise in the name of science? Religion and science are different things. A religion may or may not talk science while generally it talks morality. Whereas science doesn't talk morality. Isn't it just sufficient to show how science is being exploited?
You have admitted your customership and greed and are using science to "screw" this earth and contributing to the global warming and various forms of pollution which causes various forms of diseases. And yet you say you are doing better than extremists? Extremists are only killing people under the banner of religion with random bombings, whereas we are abusing nature "everyday", which in turn has various "large scale" consequences and stakes our very survival in the long run! Do I really need to talk on pollution and compile a big list?

 

[dips_view]

originally posted by meditor:

Now, Why would they terrorise in the name of science? Religion and science are different things. A religion may or may not talk science while generally it talks morality. Whereas science doesn't talk morality. Isn't it just sufficient to show how science is being exploited?
You have admitted your customership and greed and are using science to "screw" this earth and contributing to the global warming and various forms of pollution which causes various forms of diseases. And yet you say you are doing better than extremists? Extremists are only killing people under the banner of religion with random bombings, whereas we are abusing nature "everyday", which in turn has various "large scale" consequences and stakes our very survival in the long run! Do I really need to talk on pollution and compile a big list?

why are you blaming science If one thing harm human society most that is RELIGION

RELIGION IS THE BLOODIEST THING OF HUMAN HISTORY.

GOD/RELIGION are the biggest tool of oppressors to exploit mass.

Religion is the opium of the masses

 

[mediator]

Ok, your opinion was loud and clear!

 

[amitash]

Then who will know? You think scientists "will know"? Who is asking to stop trying? But even trying and experimenting needs to calculate the plausible results first and view them from every engle possible. Do you think the "ideal ways" of science are "practically" being followed?

You cant know everything...you can try your best to understand every possible problem that may occur, but some might always slip through the net....Ideal ways were not followed in the past few centuries but i see that there is progress in that regard today.

Again, I'm asking bt YOU and you are talking about science in reply and again ranting that "science will do this and that". Stating that religion "enforces" stuff on you and discourages free thinking, you are again putting all religion under same banner. It also means that you have READ ALL the holy books of ALL the religions and have come to a conclusion "after reading" that they discourage science and "free thinking".

May I know "where" ALL religion discourage free thinking and threaten you to damnation? Where it is "enforcing morality" on you Since you said religion does this, then please tell me about ALL religions and where they are forcing such stuff on you.

Further you hate religions because they tell you about God? What kind of logic is that? I'm a critic of evolution theory. Does that mean I should start hating all those people who believe in evolution?

Ok, i havent read all the holy books and come to this conclusion, but what i see is that majority of the people in the world who follow the so called major religions are being enforced by that religion to do something or the other and i admit i was wrong to generalise all theists into this category.

The logic here is that by telling you about god, these religions, as i have mentioned, are not telling you any evidence of that god, whatever they preach about god maybe good or bad or whatever but the point is that they are telling you about something without offering evidence, and that is why i despise them....You are a critic of the evolution theory, but evolution was a theory that came about with a foundation of facts and the evidence like the fossils they found...I cant argue evolution, i dont nearly know enough about it, but i do know that it tells you something or draws a conclusion from facts and evidences, whereas there is none supporting god and everything he is supposed to do....And i dont hate all religious people, most of my friends/family are theists, i merely dislike the religion.

May be religious "hatred" and intolerance which is not propogated by many religions, but by the followers, is leading to deaths? I agree it is not science who is doing it, but the mad people. Such people use religion too. Why don't u despise science then?

As you said yourself, science is not at fault, but the people who misuse it....and as far as i see, religion is providing a big difference betwwen people which is causing the fights...science is one, there is no different form of science that people use to fight each other with....It is being misused to resolve other differences, not scientific ones...science is not at fault, it is being misused, it does not provide a difference in people, thats why i dont despise science...my point: some people fight in the name of religion, territory, power etc...no one fights in the name of science...it does not provide a difference, it is the same for all.

1. You admit you are a customer.
2. You admit you have the greed.

So do ou still think you really "care" about the world. I hope you'll agree that "Greed", "customership" and "care" don't look good together.

Yes i still think i care...do you think that people who arent consumers are the only ones who care?...I use what i buy sensibly, and i also do many little things that help the world too...I might not have the passion of saving the world and nature a 100% but that doesnt mean i dont care at all...I do care to a large extent. and wat i meant was controlled greed if you will, not uncontrolled greed where you absolutely do anything to get everything.

2. The responsibility, morality and togetherness is preached by religions also.

Agreed, but in the same way, it creates a difference between every religion...an unnecassary one if you ask me.

3. Again, the use of "will" is nothing but "hope" as the future cannot be predicted accurately and the probability is not 100%.
"Will" simply means that you expect "firmly". Even if you want to call it a probability factor, then it is not 100% and hence the use of "will" is inappropriate. IMO, a term like "might/may" is more appropriate to match the "probability factor" to give it like => "science might find a solution".

Ok, view it like this:
probability that: "science will find a sollution"

treat science will find a sollution as a statement....now look at: "how probable is it that science will find a sollution"...its not a 100%, it has some probability, which, as far as i understand makes it:

probability that science will find a solution = science may find a solution

Now, Why would they terrorise in the name of science? Religion and science are different things. A religion may or may not talk science while generally it talks morality. Whereas science doesn't talk morality. Isn't it just sufficient to show how science is being exploited?
You have admitted your customership and greed and are using science to "screw" this earth and contributing to the global warming and various forms of pollution which causes various forms of diseases. And yet you say you are doing better than extremists? Extremists are only killing people under the banner of religion with random bombings, whereas we are abusing nature "everyday", which in turn has various "large scale" consequences and stakes our very survival in the long run! Do I really need to talk on pollution and compile a big list?

they wouldnt terrorise in the name of science as science does not provide a difference between people like religion, race, borders, etc do.

I still think we are doing better than extremists....i did admit that we are abusing nature, it does have consequences but atleast we as scientists, are trying to find a solution instead of thinking: "my religion is better, i want to kill everyone who doesnt follow it" in the case of extremists.

 

[amitash]

EDIT: the forums screwed again and it posted twice for some reason...and wth happened to our avatar pics?

 

[Faun]

Any hardline doctrine based religion is POS IMO.

But an evolutionary one, which has undergone changes is acceptable. It should facilitate science and any other source of knowledge.

Opinions are like @ssholes, everyone has one.

 

[mediator]

You cant know everything...you can try your best to understand every possible problem that may occur, but some might always slip through the net....Ideal ways were not followed in the past few centuries but i see that there is progress in that regard today.

And where exactly you see that progress? In medicine? Where a lot is ignored, where drug companies promote their drugs even if they have plethora of side effects? Or where a drug is tested on rats to develop a drug for humans who again have different immunity levels? I think I discussed this in past on "how science deviates from its ideals". Care to read?

Ok, i havent read all the holy books and come to this conclusion, but what i see is that majority of the people in the world who follow the so called major religions are being enforced by that religion to do something or the other and i admit i was wrong to generalise all theists into this category.

Many famous scientists were theists and religious or did you forgot that? Which religion enforces who? AFAIK, only corrupt pundits try to spread distortions who themselves do not know about the scriptures. Those who shout in the name of religion are mostly "ignorant" about scriptures. Even science fans are no less. See for the one who interrupted our discussion and putting statements in huge font. So how can you say religions enforce? You are again opining on a book by its editable cover that is printed rather than its actual content? Judging by seeing how the followers of a religion act, instead of reading the scriptures? That is again not-so-scientific!

The logic here is that by telling you about god, these religions, as i have mentioned, are not telling you any evidence of that god, whatever they preach about god maybe good or bad or whatever but the point is that they are telling you about something without offering evidence, and that is why i despise them....You are a critic of the evolution theory, but evolution was a theory that came about with a foundation of facts and the evidence like the fossils they found...I cant argue evolution, i dont nearly know enough about it, but i do know that it tells you something or draws a conclusion from facts and evidences, whereas there is none supporting god and everything he is supposed to do....And i dont hate all religious people, most of my friends/family are theists, i merely dislike the religion.

God is supposed to be illogical. But is that any point/logic to "despise" God or religion? Its an illogical point. It seems as if you just want to "hate" religion no matter what. Religion has whole lot of other things to like in Hinduism => "morality", karma yoga in Gita, yoga, ragas, vedic maths etc. Aren't these reasons enough to look at them or not to despise them?

So basically ur "hate" towards religion is based on and narrowed to GOD now. Well this cannot be argued further. But your reason is utterly illogical as hating anything illogical and illogically is "not" a logic in itself. Science has not explained life/Universe, so should we start "hating" everything that talks of life/Universe? You are potraying yourself like a hate machine, that loves only when it is proven under the realm of science. Even then you are NOT loving the nature!!

As you said yourself, science is not at fault, but the people who misuse it....and as far as i see, religion is providing a big difference betwwen people which is causing the fights...science is one, there is no different form of science that people use to fight each other with....It is being misused to resolve other differences, not scientific ones...science is not at fault, it is being misused, it does not provide a difference in people, thats why i dont despise science...my point: some people fight in the name of religion, territory, power etc...no one fights in the name of science...it does not provide a difference, it is the same for all.

You are wrong. Drug companies are often under competition. It seems you do not know anything about drug companies and how their medicines are promoted via unethical means.

*www.twnside.org.sg/title2/health.info/twninfohealth038.htm
*www.naturalnews.com/001372.html

People of science are fighting amongst themselves too, not physically though, but do cause damage to others. It is neither for "religion, territory or power" but "corporate greed". Whereas religion is nothing but a set of teachings on morality etc and yes GOD too. What about Buddhism. Is there a GOD in buddhism too? AFAIK, Buddha was a royal person who got enlightened after seeing the worldy sufferings. Not all religions are asking to fight in its name. The term "Hinduism" isn't even mentioned in GITA or Vedas. So how can you say religions are at fault?

Yes i still think i care...do you think that people who arent consumers are the only ones who care?...I use what i buy sensibly, and i also do many little things that help the world too...I might not have the passion of saving the world and nature a 100% but that doesnt mean i dont care at all...I do care to a large extent. and wat i meant was controlled greed if you will, not uncontrolled greed where you absolutely do anything to get everything.

And so what makes you think that religious people, who are aware, care any differently? If vast amt. of morality is preached by religion that tells you to respect the nature and people around you, be tolerant towards others, do you job diligently wheares science doesn't even utters a word on such subjects, then don't you think religious people have a upper hand in "caring" for the nature? Again this example comes from Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jainis etc since all religions are not the same.

Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better and who does not? IMO, "caring" is based on one's conscience. That conscience is not given by science but developed through religion like a few I stated. One may also develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his upbringing, his parents also. But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.

Again you might care, but your actions do not. You are still being a customer and contributing to the global warming through the use of the computer you wrote this post, the AC/fan/heater you were sitting under, UPS that was used to back your PC, oven/toaster that you used to have the toast, the car you travel in, and buying plastic stuffs etc. And then you are "hoping" something from science that it doesn't gurantee. AGAIn you are being illogical.

Agreed, but in the same way, it creates a difference between every religion...an unnecassary one if you ask me.

The difference is created only in the mind. I don't care if someone abuses Hindu gods. I'm more interested in Hindu philosophy that helps in dealing with everyday life. Like wise many christians make phun of their own God. A hindu is not telling a jain that my religion is better than yours. Generally you will find sikhs celebrating holy/diwali and visitng temples. Similarly you will find Hindus celebrating other's religious festivals too. You are only judging the religion by the "difference" which is created by a "few" extremists?
The "difference" is created by the human stupidity not religion. Its like saying science can be used to develop weapons, so we should stop advancement of science....an unnecessary one?

Ok, view it like this:
probability that: "science will find a sollution"

treat science will find a sollution as a statement....now look at: "how probable is it that science will find a sollution"...its not a 100%, it has some probability, which, as far as i understand makes it:

probability that science will find a solution = science may find a solution

Isn't that what I stated? That science "may" find a solution. Whereas you'd been stating that "science will find a solution", reflecting "hope" in ur statements.

they wouldnt terrorise in the name of science as science does not provide a difference between people like religion, race, borders, etc do.

I still think we are doing better than extremists....i did admit that we are abusing nature, it does have consequences but atleast we as scientists, are trying to find a solution instead of thinking: "my religion is better, i want to kill everyone who doesnt follow it" in the case of extremists.

It does in terms of "corporate greed".

And what if religious souls are caring more than you, not giving a damn to the religious differences that are created by a few extremists and also going via scientific means like many famous scientists? I hope you understand that "my religion is better, killing etc" isn't normal or else you would have seen largescale riots in India herself every day or may be every hour.


Further, see for yourself in this very thread, how the so called atheists and "science followers" are abusing/generalising on theists etc just because they say "God is better" or voted for God? Is that any different from "my religion better than yours or my belief is better than yours or my thought better than yours"? The seed of hatred, i.e difference, is sprouted in the minds of science followers and athiests too. They are abusing theists because of how they percieve the actions of a few "extremists"? Again illogical!

 

[amitash]

Many famous scientists were theists and religious or did you forgot that? Which religion enforces who? AFAIK, only corrupt pundits try to spread distortions who themselves do not know about the scriptures. Those who shout in the name of religion are mostly "ignorant" about scriptures. Even science fans are no less. See for the one who interrupted our discussion and putting statements in huge font. So how can you say religions enforce? You are again opining on a book by its editable cover that is printed rather than its actual content? Judging by seeing how the followers of a religion act, instead of reading the scriptures? That is again not-so-scientific!

You seem to have misunderstood me...i didnt judge anyone....I admitted i was wrong:

but what i see is that majority of the people in the world who follow the so called major religions are being enforced by that religion to do something or the other and i admit i was wrong to generalise all theists into this category.

God is supposed to be illogical. But is that any point/logic to "despise" God or religion? Its an illogical point. It seems as if you just want to "hate" religion no matter what. Religion has whole lot of other things to like in Hinduism => "morality", karma yoga in Gita, yoga, ragas, vedic maths etc. Aren't these reasons enough to look at them or not to despise them?

So basically ur "hate" towards religion is based on and narrowed to GOD now. Well this cannot be argued further. But your reason is utterly illogical as hating anything illogical and illogically is "not" a logic in itself. Science has not explained life/Universe, so should we start "hating" everything that talks of life/Universe? You are potraying yourself like a hate machine, that loves only when it is proven under the realm of science. Even then you are NOT loving the nature!!

You misunderstood...I dislike religions because they offer god as an explanation without any evidence or any findings....Even when science talks about the univers or life or anything it doesnt know yet, it does it in the form of theories, it tells you: "this may have occured" not "this is how it is".

Even then you are NOT loving the nature!!

What?

You are wrong. Drug companies are often under competition. It seems you do not know anything about drug companies and how their medicines are promoted via unethical means.

Again they are companies that abuse science and i would say they are fighting for money, fighting to sell their drugs...not fighting in the name of science.

People of science are fighting amongst themselves too, not physically though, but do cause damage to others. It is neither for "religion, territory or power" but "corporate greed". Whereas religion is nothing but a set of teachings on morality etc and yes GOD too. What about Buddhism. Is there a GOD in buddhism too? AFAIK, Buddha was a royal person who got enlightened after seeing the worldy sufferings. Not all religions are asking to fight in its name. The term "Hinduism" isn't even mentioned in GITA or Vedas. So how can you say religions are at fault?

I mean fights in the name of science, not in the name of corporate greed for money...and as for budhism, i have already said that for me, it is a way of life or a morality lesson rather than a religion...It does not portray a God...thats the reason i have no quarrel with it, it does not create differences in people.

And so what makes you think that religious people, who are aware, care any differently? If vast amt. of morality is preached by religion that tells you to respect the nature and people around you, be tolerant towards others, do you job diligently wheares science doesn't even utters a word on such subjects, then don't you think religious people have a upper hand in "caring" for the nature? Again this example comes from Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jainis etc since all religions are not the same.

I didnt say that they dont care... I already said i was wrong to generalise all relegions as bad....However i do view religions that offer a god without any proof with dislike because they are lying.... I would have no problem if all religions did was preach morality and only sensible morality and not lie....some do that i have already said, i view them as morality lessons not religions....thats why i said SOME people fight in the name of religion...and where does it all start? because they(again not all theists) think their god is superior.

The difference is created only in the mind. I don't care if someone abuses Hindu gods. I'm more interested in Hindu philosophy that helps in dealing with everyday life. Like wise many christians make phun of their own God. A hindu is not telling a jain that my religion is better than yours. Generally you will find sikhs celebrating holy/diwali and visitng temples. Similarly you will find Hindus celebrating other's religious festivals too. You are only judging the religion by the "difference" which is created by a "few" extremists?
The "difference" is created by the human stupidity not religion. Its like saying science can be used to develop weapons, so we should stop advancement of science....an unnecessary one?

The point is that you dont care if someone abuses hindu gods, you are more interested in the morality it teaches...All people as you yourself said, arent like that...for most (not few) actually if you go and insult their god, they will be highly offended and retaliate....it is an unnecassary difference...all created because each religion preaches a different god and eventually quarrels arise...I would have no problem if all the religions did was preach sensible morality as i have said earlier...that would not have created a difference.

Isn't that what I stated? That science "may" find a solution. Whereas you'd been stating that "science will find a solution", reflecting "hope" in ur statements.

I had been stating that science will find a sollution, i realised my error and later said there is a high probability that science will find a solution...its the same as may, i admitted it...why say the same thing again?

It does in terms of "corporate greed".

corporate greed is a difference in companies wanting to make more money over the other, not in actual science

And what if religious souls are caring more than you, not giving a damn to the religious differences that are created by a few extremists and also going via scientific means like many famous scientists? I hope you understand that "my religion is better, killing etc" isn't normal or else you would have seen largescale riots in India herself every day or may be every hour.

I have no quarrel with the people who dont care... I do dislike the part of them that says there is an almighty supreme being without proof and, there are few extremists that cause harm yes but even to the majority of the religious people, when you insult their god, or for many of them, just say that you dont believe in any god, they might not do anything to you but there is dislike that is rooted there...all unecassary.extremist fight...majority of the people dont fight but some small actions of hatred may arise...A teacher for example, purposely being partial to the religious students answer paper and intensly scrutinising the atheists or other religion believers answers just because they disagreed with wat the other had to say, or a doctor who doesnt want to cure a patient who argued his religion with him...Im not generalising all religious people into this category.

Further, see for yourself in this very thread, how the so called atheists and "science followers" are abusing/generalising on theists etc just because they say "God is better" or voted for God? Is that any different from "my religion better than yours or my belief is better than yours or my thought better than yours"? The seed of hatred, i.e difference, is sprouted in the minds of science followers and athiests too. They are abusing theists because of how they percieve the actions of a few "extremists"? Again illogical!

I already said that i was wrong for generalising everyone into the same category!...I have said in the case of extremists not all theists...do you want it in writing or something?

EDIT: whenever i say "religion" i mean religions which teach you that there is a god, not things like budhism.

 

[karnivore]

But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.

What is the definition of "science".

*www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-popcorn.gif

 

[amitash]

But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.

I seem to have missed this somehow....anyway, so ur saying religion (atleast the moral part) is the only way to attain a conscience? people who dont have religion dont have feelings or consciences and morality? Isnt it possible that you can be moral by sensibly judging what is right and what is wrong? religion isnt the only way....and since science tries to explain the unexpected, isnt it trying to explain morality too? cant there be a scientific explanation for morality too? psychology and neuroscience is trying to explain this, and arent we thought: "moral science" as a subject when we were kids?

*www.thinkatheist.com/group/science/forum/topics/morality-explained-by-science
*www.provenanceunknown.com/archive/2002/03-19_morality_of_.html

Kind of offtopic: This is an interesting read that i found and want to share:
*www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5367/1200

 

[mediator]

The point is that you dont care if someone abuses hindu gods, you are more interested in the morality it teaches...All people as you yourself said, arent like that...for most (not few) actually if you go and insult their god, they will be highly offended and retaliate....it is an unnecassary difference...all created because each religion preaches a different god and eventually quarrels arise...I would have no problem if all the religions did was preach sensible morality as i have said earlier...that would not have created a difference.

Like I asked, is it religion's fault that people have become "intolerant"? Three teachers A,B,C preach wisdom. Their guidance and teachings are compiled as Aism,Bism,Cism. Now is it A,B,C's fault that when follower of A abuses B/Bism, quarrels happens?

I have no quarrel with the people who dont care... I do dislike the part of them that says there is an almighty supreme being without proof

Don't you think you are becoming "intolerant"? May be everyone is not as intelligent as you are?

Again they are companies that abuse science and i would say they are fighting for money, fighting to sell their drugs...not fighting in the name of science.

Corporate greed, abusing science etc whatever you want to call it, is it any different than abusing and exploiting religion? If a few people fight in the name of God, then many corporates "abuse" science. Aren't these drug companies trying to "control" the pharma. sector? On one hand you have different religions and on other you have different corporates. Science is not used by just one corporate you know.

I already said that i was wrong for generalising everyone into the same category!...I have said in the case of extremists not all theists...do you want it in writing or something?

My point was different this time. Why so serious? Read again...

Further, see for yourself in this very thread, how the so called atheists and "science followers" are abusing/generalising on theists etc just because they say "God is better" or voted for God? Is that any different from "my religion better than yours or my belief is better than yours or my thought better than yours"? The seed of hatred, i.e difference, is sprouted in the minds of science followers and athiests too. They are abusing theists because of how they percieve the actions of a few "extremists"? Again illogical!

And I'm not talking bt you this time, but in general where people in this "science vs god thread" itself are abusing and generalising on theists. Read carefully and reply.

EDIT: whenever i say "religion" i mean religions which teach you that there is a god, not things like budhism.

agreed, not all religions kill thousands of people...But another point that bugs me, is that [SIZE=+1]any religion[/SIZE] as far as i can see, gives a concept of a supreme being, with no evidence offered and expects us to believe it...some try to scare you into believing it, the others, still say things like: "pray to the God and you will get happiness" which, intentionally or not, may be interpreted as "dont pray, and you wont be happy"....my point is, that it doesnt inspire free thought and questioning, but rather imprisons your mind.

First decide what you want to say! Earlier you were not clear about "all religions", then you were not clear about "killing of 1000s of people", then you generalised. I know you admitted and agreed on this. My point is, are you really clear in what you are trying to say? Buddhism is a religion, so may be finally in all your logic and various filters of hatred based on logic, you can finally love atleast one religion? Can you love buddhism?

I seem to have missed this somehow....anyway, so ur saying religion (atleast the moral part) is the only way to attain a conscience? people who dont have religion dont have feelings or consciences and morality? Isnt it possible that you can be moral by sensibly judging what is right and what is wrong? religion isnt the only way....and since science tries to explain the unexpected, isnt it trying to explain morality too? cant there be a scientific explanation for morality too? psychology and neuroscience is trying to explain this, and arent we thought: "moral science" as a subject when we were kids?

You missed a lot. I'll show you one by one, since you have shown some interest in my posts and quoted missed statements......
1. I didn't say that religion is the only way to attain conscience. Read...

Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better and who does not? IMO, "caring" is based on one's conscience. That conscience is not given by science but developed through religion like a few I stated. One may also develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his upbringing, his parents also. But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.

2. Gut instinct is not science.
3. Did you think you were being 'moral", by judging on theists earlier. Yes I know you admitted that you were wrong. But now you are judging on religions just because they have "God". I only see hatred in your posts, just because they have "God" despite the fact that religions are not saying anything to be intolerant or promoting hatred.
4. The links you posted show about morality of science and not "morality in life" by science. Do you understand the difference? Your links clearly tell about the discussion where science is used in a dangerous fashion. That dangerous fashion was something that I discussed before. I discussed it in the form of "plastics, nuclear wastes, global warming, pollution, CFCs etc" with you. It simply means how science is going without conscience and hence leading to global warming, nuclear wastes etc.
5. So what scientific explanation would you give for.... respect towards elders, a child waving her parents everytime she sees them while swinging around a merry go round, trust between friends, unconditional love, standing up when a lady or an elder comes before you in a dinner table, work that needs to be done unemotionally etc? AFAIK, neuroscience is "the scientific study of the nervous system " where does it teach morality? Psychology involves the study of human mental functions and behavior. It simply explores and tries to explain why,what etc is happening in human physche. It does not tell what experience is, how experience is gained. It does not give you wisdom. It does not "tells" you to give unconditional love.

So again "moral science" is much different than morality in human life. I think that either you haven't studied "moral science" or forgot what you were told when you were a kid.





So there's more of what you missed....

Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better bt the world and who does not?

i merely treat their works as theories and only when sufficient proof is given, do i accept their statements

Treating their work as theories means you are not readily accepting it. And waiting for sufficient proof means you are not rejecting the earlier either. You are simply in a condition of doubt. Does this premise make you any less than being an agnostic yourself?

Now if you are composed of lifeless chemicals which forms "living cells", which die and develop without your own active awareness, and which makes your whole body and a person to be recognised as a living entity, then don't you think universe which comprises of "living objects" like us and non living objects etc can be having "life" itself? Don't you think universe is living? Do you think an ant can understand quantum physics? May be we who consider ourselves as supreme intellectual beings are not able to undertsand something more intense?

Its just a question!

Please reply to these "missed parts".

 

[karnivore]

Like I asked, is it religion's fault that people have become "intolerant"? Three teachers A,B,C preach wisdom. Their guidance and teachings are compiled as Aism,Bism,Cism. Now is it A,B,C's fault that when follower of A abuses B/Bism, quarrels happens?

Actually it is. One problem with religion is that it promotes nonsensical prejudices, either implicitly or by implication. It creates a sense of exclusivity among the sympathizers of the specific religion, a sort of spiritual “us and them” in the minds of the followers. This further creates a sense of superiority among the followers of one religion over the rest. The religious schism in our society is entirely based on this, and curiously, it is not just an inter-religion phenomena but also intra-religion as well, e.g. Christianity vs Isalam or Islam vs Hinduism, but then again Protestant vs Catholics within Christianity, or Shia vs Sunni within Islam or Vaishnav vs Saiva in Hinduism (not to mention the unique caste system) etc. It is true that this “Us and Them” is particularly naked among abrahamic religions like Christianity, Islam or Judaism, but is hidden behind a façade of philosophy, in East Asian religions, most of which wouldn’t even be considered as religion in the first place (e.g. Confusiasm, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.)

If religions were solely concerned with “preaching wisdom”, then half the problems of this world would have been solved, or probably, the problems wouldn’t have existed in the first place. It is because these religions preach that “my prophet is better”, or “my book is the best”, or “my wisdom is right”, that we have these conflicts, that we have a certain Klu-Klux-Klan or a certain Al Kaida or a certain Bajrang Dal.

In addition to the inter/intra-religion conflicts, religions come in direct conflict with modern civilization. Thus, in the west, particularly in US, you have Christians protesting against, abortion or stem-cell research etc. simply because these are against their faith. In the middle east, modern thought process is virtually absent, because these conflict with Islamic teachings. Here, you see Hindutva brigade against secularism due to a misplaced sense of injustice or promoting a tribal culture because they can’t cope with the change in society or promoting mumbo-jumbo like “vedic science” from a sense of lost glory.

Corporate greed, abusing science etc whatever you want to call it, is it any different than abusing and exploiting religion? If a few people fight in the name of God, then many corporates "abuse" science. Aren't these drug companies trying to "control" the pharma. sector? On one hand you have different religions and on other you have different corporates. Science is not used by just one corporate you know.

What you are discussing is Capitalism and although different from religion, they operate much the same way. While religion preys on spiritual needs, capitalism on material needs.

But, all things said and done, how is science connected to capitalism. If drug companies are trying to form a monopolistic cartel to “control the pharma. sector”, then it is an economic, read marketing, strategy, to maximize profit. Except for producing their product, how is science even remotely influencing the decision on how to market that product.

Unless, you are implying that science is behind capitalism, this argument doesn’t make any sense. But if are indeed implying that science is behind capitalism, then please elaborate on how it is so.

The links you posted show about morality of science and not "morality in life" by science. Do you understand the difference?

I do not understand. Please elaborate on the “difference” between “morality of science” and “morality in life by science”, whatever that may mean. Morality, as far as I understand it, is a faculty of human mind. Science, being an endeavour to gather knowledge, and the knowledge itself, can’t be either moral or amoral. It is moral neutral.

So again "moral science" is much different than morality in human life.

Once again, what is “moral science” ? Do you mean “morality in science” or the “science of morality”.

 

[mediator]

Each and every argument of urs is same as that of @amitash. REad the discussion from the start, as you have missed many things, asking the things that were actually my point and questioning what I already explained!

 

[karnivore]

Each and every argument of urs is same as that of @amitash. REad the discussion from the start, as you have missed many things, asking the things that were actually my point and questioning what I already explained

No. Not really. You have made plenty of posits and assertions, but haven't really explained why. You have asked lots of question, but haven't answered them yourself.

But leave everything aside. Just explain the following.

1. What is science ?

2. How has science helped in shaping capitalism ?

3. What is the “difference” between “morality of science” and “morality in life by science” ?

4. Can a non-religious person be moral ?

5. Should Einstein be held guilty for Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

The last two can be answered in YES and/or NO.