|
|
epohs
from )C: on 2007-09-21 20:22 [#02122872]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker
|
|
you're pretty smart, wimwuh, i wish you were a human so we could be friends.
|
|
cx
from Norway on 2007-09-22 00:05 [#02122908]
Points: 4537 Status: Regular
|
|
hey razor guy, neither science nor religion is to blame for anything, it is us, humanity, as a conscious self aware race that is to blame for all the atrocities in the world.
sure technology enables us to make weapons, but those weapons arent going to shoot themselves, it is ultimately a humans conscious choice that does all the damage.
|
|
bogala
from NYC (United States) on 2007-09-22 00:23 [#02122909]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular
|
|
I think if I just lost my Mom I would be grappling with atheism and hoping there's more too, Cygnus. I hope you see your mom again someday.
|
|
misantroll
from Switzerland on 2007-09-22 00:25 [#02122910]
Points: 2151 Status: Lurker
|
|
your mom is so big you got triangukar doors
|
|
Ceri JC
from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-09-22 03:46 [#02122929]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag
|
|
People who seem to create an invisible force field between science and religion, dividing the two are quite dim. Both require faith, both change their views over the years, both have different "sects" who hold different beliefs about the same thing. Both have parts of them which are not verifiable with any certainty and the most we know about them effectively amounts only to belief. The idea of religion as some cloudy, abstract ying to science's solid and verifiable yang is incorrect. And this fairly recent idea of aetheism as a "religion"; don't get me started on the idiocy, hypocrisy and irony of that...
|
|
Gwely Mernans
from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2007-09-22 03:52 [#02122930]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker
|
|
"religion AND science" simply cannot co-exist, and attempting to do so would result in a fanatic failure.
To be blunt, the most atrocious scientific creations such as nuclear weapons are used in the name of religion (usually religions that hate science all together.)
And still to this day these sects of faith banish some of science's most amazing medical creations.
Therefore I wouldn't say "religion AND science", I wouldn't even say science. I'd just say religion.
And if you don't agree, then I guess I'll have to play with the kids over there.
|
|
dariusgriffin
from cool on 2007-09-22 03:56 [#02122932]
Points: 12430 Status: Regular
|
|
You're all making me cry.
|
|
J198
from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2007-09-22 04:25 [#02122935]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
i would find it immensely impressive if any sane, rational being were able to be unaffected by what dawkins says here:
god delusion 1 of 2
link to part 2 on same page.
i used to be very sceptic about his 'extreme atheism' but watching this has indeed won me over from the agnostic to the atheist side.
|
|
w M w
from London (United Kingdom) on 2007-09-22 06:22 [#02122981]
Points: 21456 Status: Regular
|
|
|
| Attached picture |
|
|
|
Raz0rBlade_uk
on 2007-09-22 06:51 [#02122990]
Points: 12540 Status: Addict | Show recordbag
|
|
may i quote Alexander Pope
Drink it deep or touch not the Pyrenean Spring, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
|
|
Raz0rBlade_uk
on 2007-09-22 07:01 [#02122992]
Points: 12540 Status: Addict | Followup to Raz0rBlade_uk: #02122990 | Show recordbag
|
|
i am now thinking that it was definitely a mistake putting science as an opposer to religion
i have seen an adverse reaction
many 'religious' people i know (and of) see dawkins as an enemy. and now science and 'intellectualism' is armed up a ready to fight also.
He who fights too long against dragons, becomes a dragon himself. (Fredrick Nietzsche)
|
|
w M w
from London (United Kingdom) on 2007-09-22 07:33 [#02122998]
Points: 21456 Status: Regular
|
|
Scientific/technological process could be 'bad' but isn't necessarily the same topic as religion. Read about the luddites or Ted Kaczynski's 'unabomber manifesto'. He sees scientific work and acquiring knowledge as an ill surrogate behavior replacement for things we evolved to do like hunt/gather or whatever. Technology makes us live in an environment our slow evolving genes aren't adapted to and is maybe more stressful. Then again, what else would we alter our environment into except something that we prefer (since humans are the ones with the power to alter it like inventing the car etc). We now don't worry about predators and have comfy shelters/etc. If we had a chance to experience the life of hunter gatherers we might prefer it. But progress is probably unavoidable; its an arms race and if you don't take advantage of some technology someone else will leaving you at a disadvantage. Nice dragon quote.
|
|
Messageboard index
|