Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Have Scientists Failed Humanity?

To be fair, DA, these guys are brainwashed since before they could even think that society would break down without belief in a god, that god is the only thing that makes morality worthwhile, etc.

Of course it's asinine, but when you get that message continually when you're growing up, it's easy to believe something ridiculous.

Fiend wrote:
"but when you get that message continually when you're growing up, it's easy to believe something ridiculous."

Well said. There is a phrase in the English language used to describe someone believing something ridiculous because it was pounded into their head. That phrase is "Brain Washed:" And they are.

Well, TheFF and Dan, while what you say is true for those raised in a religious environment, your comments beg the following question: what about those who suddenly become fervent believers?

And the extension of this question, which is an issue that has puzzled me for some time now: if indeed believers are so closed minded and "focused" on their particular set of values(determined by the denomination they belong to), how do you explain for example modern phenomena as the appearance of mormonism (roughly 200 years old) or more recently, the appearance of scientology? In both cases, believers from other denominations have "transfered their credits" to the new religion.

Sure, and his own personal science
And his own personal literature?


Anti-theists are not scientists.
Scientists are not anti-theists.

ES

"Anti-theists are not scientists.
Scientists are not anti-theists."

Nonsense. Some anti-theists are scientists as some theists are scientists.

ESless:"Sure, and his own personal science.And his own personal literature?"

You mean like you do?Including the scifi literature you have developed so far on various issues?

As I said, religion is not a prostethics for lack of use of the brain. In case you want to use it as a prostethics, you end up with the known effect called bigotry.

ESless:"Anti-theists are not scientists.Scientists are not anti-theists."

Oh boy! If you only had a usable brain...

Is not it interesting that normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us.
But some geniuses claim that everyone can and even must develop own world view...

They do not tell the young listeners that that world view will be 99.9% crappy. Or 100%, in most cases.

e s

I never heard of any real scientist badmouthing religion. Only halfwits do, those admirers of village idiot Karl Marx.

e s

extraNONsense:

Please see a psychiatrist and discuss the value of antidepressant therapy.

There is nothing in what you wrote:
"normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us"
is pure nonsense unless you are a 5 year old.

Heh, to make a human being, one has to borrow at least 98% of genes from monkey. So, be more hamble in assessing what you have personally contributed in the effort of 10 billion of us.

e s

I'm not sure what your qualifications are for judging what constitutes a good scientist.

Are you sure you have qualifications to question my qualifications?

e s

ESless:"Is not it interesting that normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us."

So? You still need to develop your view about it.unless you realy like someone to think in your place. Or TV.

ESless:"But some geniuses claim that everyone can and even must develop own world view..."

God forbid the use of the brain! Might lead to cerebral cramps! Your ideal human being has a small head, with a thick bone and the brain freely moving inside.Oh boy.

ESless:"They do not tell the young listeners that that world view will be 99.9% crappy. Or 100%, in most cases."

And your alternative is what? Because in your stupidity you have just stated the communist creed that religion is opium of the masses.Boy,you work very hard to show how dumb you are! Well, you succeeded briliantly.

Since this is your believe, you are looking for it. But I despise village idiot, Marx, and surely did not express anything you are hallucinating about.

e s

I don't know that I need qualifications to question your assessements. I would need qualification, perhaps, to evaluate your assessment - but I don't think I need qualifications to ask.

Your criterion that a good scientist must believe in god seems utterly orthogonal to the facts. You're telling me that Dirac, Crick, Marie Curie, and Feynman were not good scientists? One might just as defensibly say that no good scientist dislikes peanut butter.

I never said that. I think that good scientist is likely to have good common sense to support the institution of religion. And he is the most unlikely person to be rabid anti-religionist in any case.

ES

I don't see what good supporting religion would do for any "good" scientist. Upon what do you base this statement? What is religion going to do to benefit the scientist? What if "bad" scientists support religion? Bad scientists being those who misuse or misapply the scientific method. Does a religion have to have the support of scientists in order to be a "good" religion?

extraNONsense wrote:
"to make a human being, one has to borrow at least 98% of genes from monkey"

Nothing was borrowed and your comment is irrelevant. Genes have nothing to do with the subject.

And then continued with:

"So, be more hamble in assessing what you have personally contributed in the effort of 10 billion of us."

Well I must confess to not being hAmble. But what precisely does my, or anyone's humility, have to do with your comment:

"Is not it interesting that normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us."

Once again ... unless you are only 5 years old, something seemingly likely given your use of English grammar, 99.9% of everything you know and use was NOT developed before us whoever "us" is.

"I never said that. I think that good scientist is likely to have good common sense to support the institution of religion. And he is the most unlikely person to be rabid anti-religionist in any case."
Regardless of what you maintain, your requirement seems orthogonal to the facts...orthogonal meaning "irrelevant." Some antitheists are stupid. Some are brilliant. You provide no evidence of predominance one way or the other.

Your artificial criterion could be much more succinctly stated as, "I dislike anyone who doesn't believe in God." and "If someone doesn't believe in god then I am justified in making any claim I wish against this person."

As William James asserted, "Most people think they are thinking when they are are really just rearranging their prejudices." Logic is a non-trivial exercise for the vast majority of people - and that includes people who have "studied" logic, such as trivial philosophers, as well as, many who have just used logic, such as programmers.

Saying someone is illogical does not mean they are stupid. Often, they're just in over their understanding.

Well, you can put it this way. It is true about anti-theists.

e s