By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

Pemalite said:
bdbdbd said:

Actually, that's not entirely true. Medication in general is considered safe when the side-effects are generally known and benefits for using it beats the risks involved.

I am talking about Anti-Vaxxers being Anti-Science by propagating false information like Vaccines causing Autism.

o_O.Q said:

so i'm just going to conclude that you do not have evidence that scientists have modeled a singularity despite claiming so

How can you make that statement when I have provided the evidence to the contrary?
If ignorance is Bliss... Your life must be a bloody paradise that no one has ever experienced before.

o_O.Q said:

for what? so far you have not backed any of the claims you made to me

Liar. Liar. Liar.

o_O.Q said:

japan despite the problems they have is not an atheist country, its a secular country... 

And again, Atheism and Secularism has components that overlap.

o_O.Q said:

i made the reply i made not because i disagree with any particular aspect of evolution but because i understand that science is about constant refinement and enquiry

apparently you disagree with that

the attitude you showed btw is why people burned witches in the dark ages ( people refusing to remain open minded and assuming the knowledge in a particular area is perfect and needs no discussion )

Do you even read? I never once said that knowledge in any particular area is perfect and needs no discussion.
And I quote myself:

Pemalite said:

What doctors believed in the past is ultimately irrelevant, we have already established that science, including medical science will change as new information comes available, science is flexible that way, religion is not.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687703


o_O.Q said:

"The fact you believe the laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten is just icing on the cake."

i said singularities break the laws of physics... wtf

"Laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten"
And I quote:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8691461


o_O.Q said:

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

"Physics as we know them cease to operate" Which is NOT - "The Laws of physics are broken" which you claimed.
You are conflating two different issues which is ignorant.

If you wish to truly have an understanding of Physics (I.E. You don't currently.) then you should study the field in intimate detail.

What is actually being suggested is that part of our model needs to be updated, not scrap everything... And people like Stephen Hawking are working on that very issue.






 

"How can you make that statement when I have provided the evidence to the contrary?"

lol i have noting more to add

 

"And again, Atheism and Secularism has components that overlap."

the same applies with secularism and religion

does that mean then that i can equate a secular country with a religious country?

 

"I never once said that knowledge in any particular area is perfect and needs no discussion. "

this was your response to me claiming that some aspects of evolution can be debated

"

i think certain aspects of it are debateable

Then you truly are anti-science and anti-evidence"

 

""Laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten"

And I quote:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8691461"

 

for singularities to work... as i just said

 

""Physics as we know them cease to operate" Which is NOT - "The Laws of physics are broken" which you claimed.

You are conflating two different issues which is ignorant.

If you wish to truly have an understanding of Physics (I.E. You don't currently.) then you should study the field in intimate detail.

What is actually being suggested is that part of our model needs to be updated, not scrap everything... And people like Stephen Hawking are working on that very issue."

 

the context in which i said the laws of physics are broken... was with regards to singularities... jesus fucking christ

i never said or implied that everything needs to be scrapped... you're quite an amusing character



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
bdbdbd said:

I do. It is because not all people are responsible enough to carry a gun.

many people believe the same argument could be leveled at humans with regards to technology

its not that technology itself manifests the driving force that causes harm but they'd argue that we haven't been responsible enough to use it properly without significant adverse effects

just like a gun by itself doesn't pick itself up and shoot people

You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Both is simply a tool for Human Greed.



Religion by far. Science has potential for destruction based on the power of weapons etc. Religion corrupts the minds of its followers. Give a religious idiot the power to use Sciences advances in weapons and it's the end of the world.

All religion is a cult IMO.



o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

It seems the Dunning-Kruger effect has claimed another victim...

"Your claim (verbatim) was that "technology is intrinsically harmful"

ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is. Claiming that pencils are intrinsically harmful to humanity is beyond false, it's stupid and that is your argument at this point. That someone can use any random piece of technology to cause harm to others. That not only fails to support your claim at all, since we're speaking INTRINSICALLY, but is hilariously inept.

PS: Start reading (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproduct

Stop embarrassing yourself.

"ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is"

the definition of extrinsic is as follows

"not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside"

" not forming part of or belonging to a thing"

 

if you can't see how hilariously stupid your argument was now... we might as well put a stop to it here

to put a finer point on it, pollution for example does not come from a source outside of technology, it is a derivation of technology

 

intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing."

anyone who understand what technology is understands that an ever present part of technology is waste

that's where the concept of "efficiency" comes from and no machine is 100% efficient there is always some percentage of the input that comes out as waste and that waste almost always is harmful to people and the environment

 

"Stop embarrassing yourself."

lmao right back at you

Read those definitions again, slap yourself in the face for your intransigence and then get a clue. Is this guy seriously this incompetent? His own definitions establish his extra chromosome. FFS



Around the Network
LurkerJ said:
superchunk said:

So, purely hypothetical mental model that looks at the most plausible scenario is one based on science, not religion, that kills off humanity. Unless an alien race kills us off because their religion says they are the only true beings of God.

You're basing your whole hypothetical model on the belief that killing off humanity completely is the worst thing that can happen when it's not.

I'd say the finality of human extinction is better than the slow and extended suffering caused by religion-justified irrationality.


I'd say religion provides more people happiness and hope than any silly notion of a slow and extended suffering. 100% of a the world has a belief in something (atheism is a belief in no god, but still a belief system). 

The world's problems are not centered on religion. So there is no way someone can argue that the humanity is on a slow and extended suffering due to religion. Hell, there are many people who live in extremist religions areas that are very happy with that life, even if you see it as horrible.

The OP was focusing on 'threat to humanity'. To me that means humanity dies off up to some critical point. All my points stand that science mistakes, accidents, or otherwise are far more likely than religious tyranny at the level that needs to happen to be a 'threat to humanity'.



superchunk said:
LurkerJ said:

You're basing your whole hypothetical model on the belief that killing off humanity completely is the worst thing that can happen when it's not.

I'd say the finality of human extinction is better than the slow and extended suffering caused by religion-justified irrationality.


I'd say religion provides more people happiness and hope than any silly notion of a slow and extended suffering. 100% of a the world has a belief in something (atheism is a belief in no god, but still a belief system). 

The world's problems are not centered on religion. So there is no way someone can argue that the humanity is on a slow and extended suffering due to religion. Hell, there are many people who live in extremist religions areas that are very happy with that life, even if you see it as horrible.

The OP was focusing on 'threat to humanity'. To me that means humanity dies off up to some critical point. All my points stand that science mistakes, accidents, or otherwise are far more likely than religious tyranny at the level that needs to happen to be a 'threat to humanity'.

I disagree completely with this statement. Anywhere you have religion you have issues. Why is the middle east in an endless war? Religion. Why does the US have insane laws regarding abortion, gay marriage etc.  Religion. Lack of religion allows you to focus on being a person first and not waiting for some mythical figure to guide you through life. It also eliminates the justification for your violence towards others or acceptance of others. Over time religion has caused more deaths and massacres than any war over land,or Plague.



Superman4 said:
superchunk said:

I'd say religion provides more people happiness and hope than any silly notion of a slow and extended suffering. 100% of a the world has a belief in something (atheism is a belief in no god, but still a belief system). 

The world's problems are not centered on religion. So there is no way someone can argue that the humanity is on a slow and extended suffering due to religion. Hell, there are many people who live in extremist religions areas that are very happy with that life, even if you see it as horrible.

The OP was focusing on 'threat to humanity'. To me that means humanity dies off up to some critical point. All my points stand that science mistakes, accidents, or otherwise are far more likely than religious tyranny at the level that needs to happen to be a 'threat to humanity'.

I disagree completely with this statement. Anywhere you have religion you have issues. Why is the middle east in an endless war? Religion. Why does the US have insane laws regarding abortion, gay marriage etc.  Religion. Lack of religion allows you to focus on being a person first and not waiting for some mythical figure to guide you through life. It also eliminates the justification for your violence towards others or acceptance of others. Over time religion has caused more deaths and massacres than any war over land,or Plague.

Name one country where there is no religion? That's like saying air is the leading cause of death because nearly everyone who has ever died was breathing air at the time of death.

You are highlighting true issues with how people use their religious power. However, you are ignoring the countless others who are happy in that same extreme living space or in the much larger world where extremism is not law. Its called cherry picking.

The OP was not requesting opinions on cherry picked scenarios. When you break down plausibility for humanity impacting crisis', an event rising from AI, genetic manipulations, or otherwise have a far higher possibility than tyrannical religion. Fact is, we already have and have had extremist religions powers. Humanity hasn't been threatened.

Hell, what has threatened humanity? WW1 and 2. The Cuban Missile Crisis. Those had nothing to do with religion but power and that power utilized weapons and scientific studies to kill millions. Especially during WW2. 

It's far more likely that we're going to see a plague caused by genetic manipulation.

It's far more likely that we're going to have issues from AI.

It's far more likely that we're going to become to reliant on science / tech and when it collapses from some war action, we'll all be screwed. (read the one second after book, good stuff)

Now, don't get me wrong. I love tech and science. I can't wait to see implementations of self driving cars (I'm buying a Telsa later this year). I will be among the first to sign up for nano-tech injected into my body as a better immune system. I am un-trustworthy of GMO food in general (another topic I see as a big risk to humanity) but I'm not against further study on producing better food genetically. (difference is in injecting poisons vs increasing size/nutrients)

The argument isn't which one is better than the other as both have merits and risks. This isn't an emotional discussion. But which has the most plausibility to be a threat to humanity. Organized belief in a god is actually on the decline WW. This is why there is so much backlash in America as Christians are now becoming more and more extremist. Its a defense mechanism. (btw, I'm not atheist or Christian) But, mistakes in several scientific fields simply have a higher plausibility of happening than a large-scale religious based conflict or a religions based terror group attempting to kill us all off with nukes/virus/etc.



Not one or the other, but when these meet, they become lethal...



Both...er...neither.  This really lacks proper nuance. What I am going to post isn’t going to dig in nearly enough, but I don’t care to. I personally ak religious and I also value science. 65-70% of nobel prize winners of chemistry and also of physics in the last century were declared christian...there’s a high % that are unknown as well...one would have to find their gravestone or do investigative journalism. I’ve seen others proven christian when I was in an atheist vs christian thread about science. There’s also a lot of jewish prize winners although many are probably just jewish by dna and culture idk...then other deist or agnostic people so who knows how many are anti-theist.

Holding unfounded creationist beliefs wont’ prevent your from inventing an MRI machine. Islam on the other hand is ruining all of Europe and western civilization. Yeah, that’s my harsh opinion/perception, but I’ll debate that at another time.

Also, Science is a method and therefore itself is just a concept. I think you are arguing if technology is bad specifically. Well yeah I oppose nukes and such. One could argue certain futurist technologies like AI and biogenetics will kill humanity or maybe even all dna based life. Many scientists are aware and actively trying to prevent this.

Also, some scientists (the mad kind) may argue that dna based life and humanity is obsolete and its worth pushing boundaries to trigger the next event in evolution. From their nihilist position they would not see this as evil or at least admit to it. 

We have different views from the mad scientists. Darwinists and Eugenicists are often in conflict with each other. Do we prevent dysgenic diseases and possibly bring up racial differences in dna to create stronger subspecies and prevent breeding between races(eugenicist). Do we fight all people who are in the way of technology surpassing us and work to integrate with technology while removing individual rights (darwinists). There is alot more nuance here to these positions to, but I already have a wall of text.

 

edit: tiny phone, will fix words later