Heaven, I'm in heaven

[CrazyAnglican]

CA, you present no new facts. Typical.

Did you ever consider that the reason you continue to find people failing to find new facts could POSSIBLY be that you tend to fail to answer the facts already stated, provide citations for your own facts, and then go about posting condescending one-liners as if your "arguments" are left uncontested?

Actually it is quite the other way around. I consistently present new facts. When those facts create discomfort the respondent either ignores them or attacks them with personal opinion. I will not be baited into such round-robin pointless discussion.

I make an on topic response to Porky's statement about "fear and wishful thinking" (perfectly factual and uncontested btw) and you come in with "consistently presented facts" all of which have nothing to do with how safe science is if used unethically. All of your "facts" (within the context of your discussion with me) without exception have been to bash the history of the Christian church by using cardstacking propaganda. In response I quite reasonably stated "sure they're have been abuses in the Church's history along with plenty of acts of charity, but what does that have to do with anything" and I asked you to cite a source for something that I surmised that you'd just made up. What do you know after three more pages of "facts", that you just can't be bothered to substantiate either, you admitted you made it up. So much for consistently stated "facts" I, at least, know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Once again, if there has been a pointless round robin discussion it's not been something I've contributed to, as you yourself stated I did not engage in a defense of Church history in a specific effort to avoid the thread being further derailed. It was you who kept up the constant barrage of negatives. Face it dude you jumped in with the usual schtick when it wasn't appropriate and now you're doing you're best to disentangle yourself by trying to make it seem as if I've not carried my weight in the discussion. Nice, very nice, If in doubt act superior.

[mpjh]

Don't get your knickers in a knot. What facts are you talking about that you have brought to this discussion?

[CrazyAnglican]

Um, let's see, science lead to the development of nuclear weapons. Which in and of itself hasn't been a great thing.

[mpjh]

Through science men learned how the atom is structured and how it works. Governments developed the technology of nuclear weapons. The decision to use nuclear weapons was made by politicians, significantly, all male.

Again, science is a methodology for exploring the real world around us. Should we remain ignorant just because some men are incapable of managing social relations and use war as a tool for domination? I think not.

Further, science does offer means to explore why man has this predilection for war and destruction. That may be our best use of science yet.

[Napoleon Ier]

Through science men learned how the atom is structured and how it works. Governments developed the technology of nuclear weapons. The decision to use nuclear weapons was made by politicians, significantly, all male.

Through religion, men can learn how metaphysical planes are structured and work. Government developed the Inquisition, and the decision to use it was made by politicians, irrelevantly, all male.

[brooksieb]

Through science men learned how the atom is structured and how it works. Governments developed the technology of nuclear weapons. The decision to use nuclear weapons was made by politicians, significantly, all male.

Again, science is a methodology for exploring the real world around us. Should we remain ignorant just because some men are incapable of managing social relations and use war as a tool for domination? I think not.

Further, science does offer means to explore why man has this predilection for war and destruction. That may be our best use of science yet.

Given the right time, women are just as bad, Ever heard of Margaret Thatcher? She was even considering nuking Argentina at one point, and it's simple isnt it, more men, less women, more male idiots.

If it was the other way around there would be more female idiots in government, it's just the way the world works mate, get used to it because it ain't going to change.

[Napoleon Ier]

Thatcher was pretty good though. Nah, but point taken brooksie.

But hey, mpjh, if you're such a fan of women in government, I'm sure you voted Hillary and then McCain-Palin, eh?

[brooksieb]

Thatcher was pretty good though. Nah, but point taken brooksie.

But hey, mpjh, if you're such a fan of women in government, I'm sure you voted Hillary and then McCain-Palin, eh?

She was, her strong views were beneficial to this country, at other times not so, but the good outweighed the bad, Poll tax was a no no though, considering that when the last king introduced poll tax there was riots, ironically exactly the same happened in 1990, but what i'm trying to say is this is a example that women are just as ruthless as men if they get the chance, take Catherine Czarina of Russia, or the Spanish queen that expelled all the Jews out of Spain.

[Napoleon Ier]

Thatcher was pretty good though. Nah, but point taken brooksie.

But hey, mpjh, if you're such a fan of women in government, I'm sure you voted Hillary and then McCain-Palin, eh?

She was, her strong views were beneficial to this country, at other times not so, but the good outweighed the bad, Poll tax was a no no though, considering that when the last king introduced poll tax there was riots, ironically exactly the same happened in 1990, but what i'm trying to say is this is a example that women are just as ruthless as men if they get the chance, take Catherine Czarina of Russia, or the Spanish queen that expelled all the Jews out of Spain.

Quite. The suggestion that nuclear weapons exist because men wouldn't let women in government is simply absurd.

[mpjh]

Science does not explore metaphysics.

[Napoleon Ier]

Science does not explore metaphysics.

Not that anyone in this thread has claimed that thus far, but actually, yes, it very much can.

[CrazyAnglican]

Through science men learned how the atom is structured and how it works. Governments developed the technology of nuclear weapons. The decision to use nuclear weapons was made by politicians, significantly, all male.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project had no earthly idea that they were applying the knowledge of how the atom is structured and how it works to the development of a weapon. Are these scientists totally absolved of responsibility for the existence of nuclear weapons merely because they did not "make the decision to use it"? Now who's using the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" line of reasoning? Heck lets try the bombardier of the Enola Gay if you want to split hairs to that degree.

On-topic fact number two (that I previously brought to our little chat):

Robert Oppenheimer would probably have disagreed with your stance that the scientists were not all that culpable, given his quote "Lo, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" which he reputedly cited after the bomb was tested. It seems obvious that he was aware of his own responsibility, for the bomb he and his team developed. Another source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/en ... aoppe.html

Robert Oppenheimer's name has become almost synonymous with the atomic bomb, and also with the dilemma facing scientists when the interests of the nation and their own conscience collide.

He held the academic post of director of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, and in the last years of his life, he thought and wrote much about the problems of intellectual ethics and morality. He died of throat cancer in 1967.

Again, science is a methodology for exploring the real world around us. Should we remain ignorant just because some men are incapable of managing social relations and use war as a tool for domination? I think not.

Interesting that you should mention that when your rant against the history of the Church was based on some peoples' misuse of it to further their own authority.
Thank you though, you just came around and restated my original point (quite without the necessity of religion bashing) that science is a useful tool but must be handled ethically.

Yet you still should be careful, the entire rant showed that you are all to willing to ignore your opponent's actual point and jump on the bandwagon citing facts (and refusing to substatiate them) that have little to do with the actual discussion.

Further, science does offer means to explore why man has this predilection for war and destruction. That may be our best use of science yet.

Hmmm, exploring why man has the prediliection toward violence. Possibly even gene splicing aggression out of the human species or some other "treatment" to fix it. Out of curiosity, have you ever seen a real poodle, you know not the teacup variety? Once again, science is a useful tool that must be treated with ethics (you, I believe, agreed with me on that one, finally).

[mpjh]

You are mixing science with technology for one thing, and science with men for another.

Oppenheimer was an ambitious man, who was also capable of organizing scientists towards a goal, initially to defeat the Nazi who were developing a nuclear weapon. Oppenheimer could have stopped the use of the weapon on Japan, but as a man could not bring himself to deny the use of the technology he was so proud of developing. Thus, he did not sign on to the effort by the scientists working on the project to call for Truman not to use the weapon, despite the fact the Einstein and many other scientists did join that effort.

However, it was not science that was dropped on Hirosima and Nagasaki, it was technology in the hands of political men.

To be sure the struggle to control technology is fundamental to our survival as a species, and that is a class struggle at its core. Science is a fundamental tool in that struggle, and will remain so for as long as there is a real world. Today, every struggle to avoid war and the application of destructive technology against innocent people is part of that struggle.

The difference between science and religion in this struggle is that science seeks to understand the real world so that people may live in it, while religion's fundamental goal is to get people out of the real world. Science uses objective facts and empirical exploration to explain; religion uses metaphysical illusions and supernatural beings to control.

[CrazyAnglican]

You are mixing science with technology for one thing, and science with men for another.

However, it was not science that was dropped on Hirosima and Nagasaki, it was technology in the hands of political men.

And without sufficient knowledge of the physics to develop that technology it would not have existed in the first place. Your stance is getting weaker by the moment.

Oppenheimer was an ambitious man, who was also capable of organizing scientists towards a goal, initially to defeat the Nazi who were developing a nuclear weapon. Oppenheimer could have stopped the use of the weapon on Japan, but as a man could not bring himself to deny the use of the technology he was so proud of developing. Thus, he did not sign on to the effort by the scientists working on the project to call for Truman not to use the weapon, despite the fact the Einstein and many other scientists did join that effort.

All of which would do nothing but further support my point that science, in the hands of men who would use it unethically, is a very dangerous thing even though it has an overall benefit to society.

To be sure the struggle to control technology is fundamental to our survival as a species, and that is a class struggle at its core. Science is a fundamental tool in that struggle, and will remain so for as long as there is a real world. Today, every struggle to avoid war and the application of destructive technology against innocent people is part of that struggle.

Absolutely, and that radical rabbi in the first century spouting such supertitious nonsense as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Love one another, as I have loved you" (KJV) is just all mumbo-jumbo, right?

The difference between science and religion in this struggle is that science seeks to understand the real world so that people may live in it, while religion's fundamental goal is to get people out of the real world. Science uses objective facts and empirical exploration to explain; religion uses metaphysical illusions and supernatural beings to control.

Sure, let's run back to religion bashing as the facts (with citations) seem a little uncomfortable to you now.

[mpjh]

I have no problem with a code of ethics. Every professional scientific organization has a published code of ethics. However, you do not require religion for ethical conduct. Many atheists comply with an agreed upon code of ethics.

I am not trying to bash religion, simply distinguish it from science using some objective criteria.

[CrazyAnglican]

I have no problem with a code of ethics. Every professional scientific organization has a published code of ethics. However, you do not require religion for ethical conduct. Many atheists comply with an agreed upon code of ethics.

Were back to this are we? I agreed to this, what four pages ago? Sure, there are ethics of all sorts. Religions certainly have been an effective force in teaching ethics for centuries if not millennia, though. While I have uttered not a syllable against any other code of ethics, you certainly have had something negative to say about some of them.

I am not trying to bash religion

For somebody who isn’t trying to bash religion, you’re doing a pretty good job at it. With what four pages about the “reign of terror” (as you put it) that “The Christian Church(es)” (actually some members of the leadership of some churches at some points in history) participated in, and all of that apparently because you thought I was attacking science. An independent reader may begin to wonder at the reverence you have for this tool of mankind. It is, after all, a tool that can be used for good or ill, and no I’m not confusing science with technology. It seems though that you are increasingly categorizing “science” as basic research and “technology” as the result of applied research. This seems like some bizarre attempt to divorce science from nuclear weapons.

simply distinguish it from science using some objective criteria.

Compare them using some “objective criteria”, huh? Funny but that was actually completely a matter of opinion (ie. subjective), which you lambasted me for bringing in, remember? Please see the following (with weighted terms in bold):

Science uses objective facts and empirical exploration to explain; religion uses metaphysical illusions and supernatural beings to control.

Yet again, we have just your assurance that you are using “objective criteria” with nothing to substantiate the claim. I see. That was certainly a perfectly objective and unbiased use of glittering generalities and innuendo there. Science is objective, empirical, and explains, while religion is illusory and controlling. Btw what happened to "science is a methodology"
now we have personification of it to the point that it explains and makes use of facts and data? Yet religion (personified as well) attempts to control through illusions (that you can't really state, using science, are illusions). Right, ethics are great, but religion is seeking to control by advocating them. I see your point exactly.

Of course if we extend your point about control, no member of any religion would dare speak out against another member who is speaking the “word of God”. What was that you were saying about religious wars? Nope couldn’t happen because all those Christians are well in hand. You won’t hear a peep out of them; they don’t think for themselves. Nobody publishes a single book among them that reflects any higher order thinking (Bloom’s Taxonomy, http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html ).

[mpjh]

Well we agree that ethical conduct is good. We agree that some religious people teach good ethical conduct.

We disagree about the role of religion over the ages. The control I speak of is the control that got people to support the crusades, the slaughter of so-called witches, the oppression of scientists, and the inquisition throughout the dark ages.

Science has successfully carved out a secular space for itslef in today's world, and that is a good thing.

I frankly, don't care what religious people believe so long as they leave the space for science, civil rights, and civil justice. I did find the poll that is the subject of this thread encouraging because it seemed to imply that is exactly what Christians intend.

[Snorri1234]

Indeed. There is still no heaven though.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well we agree that ethical conduct is good. We agree that some religious people teach good ethical conduct.

Absolutely

We disagree about the role of religion over the ages. The control I speak of is the control that got people to support the crusades, the slaughter of so-called witches, the oppression of scientists, and the inquisition throughout the dark ages.

Certainly, I think more importantly we disagree on the extent to which any other person can actually be controlled. Call it optimism on my part, but I certainly see the potential for choosing rightly in any situation. Certainly throughout the millenia or so that amounted to the Mideval period in Europe there were great atrocities and that some of the clergy of the Western Church took part as did many others, Christian and non-Christian alike. It is more important to my thinking though to realize that the Christian Churches have progressed beyond that along with secular institutions in general, and in many cases they've done a better job as nothing anywhere near those atrocities have been occurring as a result of the specific backing of the any particular Christian church in quite some time. Secular statehood has a bit more of a checkered past here recently than do most of the Christian Churches.

Science has successfully carved out a secular space for itslef in today's world, and that is a good thing.

Yes, we do agree there as well.

I frankly, don't care what religious people believe so long as they leave the space for science, civil rights, and civil justice. I did find the poll that is the subject of this thread encouraging because it seemed to imply that is exactly what Christians intend.

Pretty much, there may be policies that you might disagree with, but by and large yes Christians are concerned with civil liberties and civil justice as your poll suggests, and many if not most of us are pro-science.

[mpjh]

Well good, we agree, even to the extent of agreeing that the dark ages were horrific for most people. If you want to try and apologize for the churches's participation, fine. However, today I do not see religion's good influence in the world. In almost every war today, both sides claim god's support. We are among the most self-righteous, and our president even claims god told him to take us to war. Pretty scarry stuff when you consider how many innocents died as a result. No, I don't think religions are out of the woods yet. They still form the basis for most oppression of women around the world. They still justify most wars. They still own more property and wealth than govenments around the world, yet allow abject poverty to continue. They still support oppression against gay people. Well, the list is pretty extensive, but on balance I'd say organized religion still has much to answer for, except the Dali Lama who seems to be on a different track.

[mpjh]

Indeed. There is still no heaven though.

Yes to that. Welcome back snorri.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well good, we agree, even to the extent of agreeing that the dark ages were horrific for most people.

Sure thing.

If you want to try and apologize for the churches's participation, fine. However, today I do not see religion's good influence in the world.

I think that may be a play on words? Apo logios or apologetics has nothing at all to do with actually apologizing. It merely means providing a logical defense. Actually it isn't hard at all to see the positive effects of Christianity in the world though. I've already cited many sources for Christian Charities in this thread. In my own parish we've got organized groups who fill back packs for needy children in the county where we live, babysitting children in foster care while their foster parents attend meetings and fill out paperwork, etc., advancing businesses/cooperatives in Africa, advancing education in Uganda through gifts of supplies. That's just from one small congregation. A quick look on the internet (as I cited earler) shows many organizations that do much around the world and are religious.

In almost every war today, both sides claim god's support.

Perhaps, but one does not have to be all that religious to claim God's support now does one. Saddam Hussein claimed God's support and he was one of the more secular leaders in the Arab world.

We are among the most self-righteous, and our president even claims god told him to take us to war. Pretty scarry stuff when you consider how many innocents died as a result.

Certainly war in and of itself is dreadful, but again a secular leader of a secular country was wielding secular power, you’ve done little to deny that. Merely because someone evokes the name of God does not incriminate religion in general for their actions

No, I don't think religions are out of the woods yet. They still form the basis for most oppression of women around the world.

Do you mean oppression of women in western society as compared to the East? Christianity actually leads the rest of the world in most respects. Take a look at the following articles. http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phal ... nwomn.html Yes the infanticide in India and the practice of suttee were based on religion. They were also outlawed by Christians (Anglicans) under imperial rule. China, with much more of a history of religious diversity, had the practice of binding feet. Under the Communist (officially atheist) government a law was enacted that effectively limited each family to one child, a law that had to be repealed because it lead to infanticide as well.

They still justify most wars.

Again we have the personification of religion? Who exactly? Are you speaking of political leaders that invoke the name of God?

I’ve already been over this with someone else but will bring it up again. It’s just wrong to consider that even a considerable minority of wars are truly about religion.
A perusal of the history of war will show that (6.98% including the wars that have included Islam, 3.23% for those that have included other religions, but not Islam) can be directly tied to religion (Day, Vox. The Irrational Atheist. pg. 100). Day's cited source for this information follows, (so that you can check if desired) it still shows more than 90% of a significant sample (1,763) of wars in recorded history cannot be accurately deemed religious wars (Phillips, Charles and Alan Axelrod. Encyclopedia of Wars. 2005). Atheistic regimes (especially the communist varieties) tend to knock their own citizenry off with frightening efficiency. Can you really claim that much superiority in this regard?

In order to even come close to making your claim stick you would have to show causation. That will take more than anecdotal information about imagined sermons urging the faithful on into a frenzy. In short, Dawkins may claim it but it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

They still own more property and wealth than govenments around the world, yet allow abject poverty to continue.

Again I’d like a source for this. It’s a pretty significant claim. Are you seriously stating that all religions put together own more real estate and property than all governments put together? You have looked at a map recently haven’t you?

They still support oppression against gay people.

We went over this. The Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire is openly gay. There are churches who allow gay clergy. Who is this “They” that you are talking about and isn’t it a bit of a stereotype, again?

Well, the list is pretty extensive, but on balance I'd say organized religion still has much to answer for, except the Dali Lama who seems to be on a different track.

You are, as always, welcome to your opinion, however it still seems obvious that on the whole organized religions are not offing people with the frightening regularity that some secular governments are to this day. If Amnesty International did an expose’ on the Vatican I missed it.

Sure the Dalai Llama seems honorable. So were Mother Theresa, St. Nicholas and many other religious figures throughout history including Jesus Christ.

[mpjh]

Well, the Catholic Church in the United States alone owns more property than any entity except the Federal Government, and that does not count its foreign holdings.

But you would think that if religious people truely followed the teachings of Jesus, they would be among the poorest of organizations, using any wealth they gained to help the poor as opposed to building cathedrals and churches.

But the war thing is really outrageous. The war in Iraq is not a "religious war," remember it was to get the WMDs. But soldiers have reported harassment if they do not pray with their units. Openly atheist soldiers in Iraq have been threatened by their unit commanders. But this is normal among troops. What really takes the cake is the president saying god told him to go to war. I don't care if the president is a secular position, his appeal to religion as a basis for the war is criminal. Unfortunately, as far as I know, only the Quakers (Friends) and the Unitarian Church of Christ have taken an official position against the war and challenged Bush's claim to god's support.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well, the Catholic Church in the United States alone owns more property than any entity except the Federal Government, and that does not count its foreign holdings.

Again, would you please cite a source for that? It would be helpful to know how much behind the federal government they are in terms of land. Think of all the computers, military equipment, etc. owned by the United States government. Think of the national debt owed to other governments. I have googled this. The Roman Catholic Church owns 408,637 of those churches and cathedrals you've suggested they are misusing their money on (lots of them are very old). Oddly enough they have 227,000 schools, universities, homes for the elderly, nurseries, hospitals, orphanages, etc. This neither suggests the economic powerhouse nor the wastrel of funds that you would have us believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

It also states quite clearly.

It is the largest Christian church, and encompasses over half of all Christians, one sixth of the world's population, the largest organized body of any world religion.[6][182] It is known for its ability to use its transnational ties and organizational strength to bring significant resources to needy situations[183]

But you would think that if religious people truely followed the teachings of Jesus, they would be among the poorest of organizations, using any wealth they gained to help the poor as opposed to building cathedrals and churches.

Truly following the teachings of Jesus by allowing his message to be squelched because bankrupt earthly institutions lacked the ability to spread it? You wish. Conjure up all the images of hoarded wealth you would like. As I cited above, The Christian Churches are known for their work on behalf of the poor. I think it will take more than unsubstantiated talking points to change that opinion for most people.

But the war thing is really outrageous.

Wait a minute weren't you challenging me to refute your facts with something more than opinion a while back? It's a cited source, take a look and see if you can reliably impeach it.

The war in Iraq is not a "religious war," remember it was to get the WMDs. But soldiers have reported harassment if they do not pray with their units. Openly atheist soldiers in Iraq have been threatened by their unit commanders. But this is normal among troops.

This (remembering that you've given no indication as to how widespread it is) makes it a religious war? A few soldiers have reported being harassed about not praying? A unit commander to two exceeds his authority in this regard? Where are the racks, the thumbscrews?

What really takes the cake is the president saying god told him to go to war. I don't care if the president is a secular position, his appeal to religion as a basis for the war is criminal. Unfortunately, as far as I know, only the Quakers (Friends) and the Unitarian Church of Christ have taken an official position against the war and challenged Bush's claim to god's support.

Perhaps because most people see it for the propaganda it is? Again how does a secular figure invoking the name of God immediately incriminate religions for his actions? How many Churches have endorsed the claim that, yes, indeed President Bush talked to God and has his go ahead for the war in Iraq? Probably not many, right?

[porkenbeans]

If you want to know where religion came from, you only need look at the, untouched by modern man, tribal civilizations that still exist today. These cultures exist as we did 10,000 years ago. They have their religious leader that tells them what to do. As a matter of fact, he is the first scientist that humans birthed. He looks to the stars for answers. He looks to all of nature for supernatural forces that determine everything from drought to why someone gets sick. He is not trying to make this shit up, He is using basic cause and effect reasoning. If a rare animal is spotted, and the next day someone dies, he deduces that the siting had something to do with it. This animal will forever be feared as evil, and experimental remedies will be performed until the answer is found to this threat. Low and behold something will work. And hundreds of years later everyone knows that all you have to do is whistle and hop up and down on one foot, and no harm will come when you spot this animal. Sometimes the experiment actually produces real science, as they are experts at knowing the healing powers of every plant and herb that is in their world. For one time or another they rubbed them into wounds. But there science is chalked full of what we would classify as silly superstition. They imagine all sorts of gods that rule their world. They perform sacrifices of all kinds to keep them happy.
All religions of today were born from this true nature of man. We are very inquisitive creatures. We want to know the answers to our existence. As we progress we find out these answers. But, those silly superstitions are carried with us down through the ages. Our world still contains all sorts of gods that rule the world. The different religions from all the different regions are a testament to this fact.
Christianity is the most evolved of these religions today. they have done away with the sacrifices that were performed routinely up till that time. Replacing it with a single sacrifice by the son of god himself.
I just wished that I was living in the future, when Science has answered enough of our questions that we no longer have to live with these superstitions. ...