ES:"Clearly, you think the science you know does not care about such nonsense."
I have no idea where you learned "to do science", so to speak, but you seem to have missed the entire point of doing it, and of learning it.
I don't know if you have ever noticed, but not all scientists are Leo Szilard or Ernst Mach. Science at the personal level is supposed, at least according to the old school to enoble your spirit, and to develop your conscience. If this doesn't happen, then there is nothing religion could do more. But have you done science as you claim, you would have known this thing.
ES:"Ability to sacrifice is nothing to such science, but it is necessary for the humanity you claim to care about. Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?"
You need religion to teach you human values? I don't belive that. This is not a popularity issue, it is a personal quest, and each person should be able to develop his own personal values.
Learning them in a flock organized manner has the effect of very few understanding these values, and very many following rules they do not understand, and have no ideea how to apply them. There is no substitute for individual thinking, and religion is not yet ready to accept this kind of truth.
But I am happy that you agree with someone teaching you such values. You have just endorsed the crusades,the inquisition, as well as the modern jihad. Had you used your own thinking, I believe you would have thought twice before making such an argument for the obvious reason
ES:"Not "only", yet those who are "anti-religion" are corrupt."
All of those that are anti-religion are corrupt, that is what you want to say? Hm, this sounds very much like bigotry from your part. To me at least. Maybe you should look for a tutor in religious matters, because it seems that the spirit enoblement part has eluded you.
ES:"One thing to be an atheist, but they are anti-theists. It is a bigotry of the worst kind, and anti-constitutional too."
Well, you seem to also need to brush up on your constitutional skills too. Just in case you didn't know, atheists, anti-theists, believers and anti-science zealots have the same rights under the Constitution. They also should respect each others beliefs, and this is the part religion has a very hard time understanding. Oh, and also the freedoom of speach issue.
In your oppinion, as stated above, you just want atheists and anti-theists to mind their own business, while the various religions do what they always did. Namely medling into things where they have no right to do so ("teaching" others the "right things to", right?). I.e. not respecting the other oppinions and beliefs (or lack of, for that matter), because they already know all the "right" answer. This is what you claim above.As I was saying, the sprit enoblement part has eluded many such religious people. Not to mention the meaning of the term bigot. So very sad.
