Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

The OP was looking for evidence that atheism influenced the violence of certain regimes. I have suggested that it probably did and if it didn't it facilitated it.

But that is the wrong way round. Atheism is the lack of something. If you lack religious morals you will be an atheist, but that doesn't influence you, it is the end result.

StealthRolex wrote: »

To me atheism is not only a belief system but a religion demonstrated by the passion of its followers who arbitrarily swing with the wind and choose or reject certain moral values as it suits them.

And what about all the atheists who don't do this? Are they not "proper" atheists?

StealthRolex wrote: »

When the immorality of murder is diluted and the right to life is denied to certain humans violence follows. Atheism is the only belief system that can support murder for arbitrary reasons.

Would you not see all of God's laws and proclamations as arbitrary, given that they are made based on his judgement alone?

Do you not mean atheism is the only belief system that justifies killing for human reasons rather than God given ones. Both are arbitrary.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Scientific reasons developed by practicing Christians usually.

Again you might want to explain that to the ancient Greeks. And while you are at it all the non-Christians scientists in the world.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

No. I have answered your question logically.

StealthRolex,

You will forgive me if I choose not to reply to you in Zebra crossing format I trust.

Nowhere did you start with atheism and end with violence. Read your own post again. You merely pointed out that it provides no BARRIERS against attaining a violent position. Merely removing a barrier does not mean X will automatically move to position Y.

I am asking how atheism gets you from no violence to violence, not how it fails to prevent you getting there. The question you answered therefore is one I did not ask.

If you merely answer from the fact that it is not a barrier then ANYTHING can lead to violence. Growing Shrubbery provides no barrier to violence… do we therefore have a logical pathway from that to violence? Clearly not.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

That said the evidence for what we Christians call God is all around us for those that choose to see it. Unfortunately some are blind to it and cannot see it but this also is their choice.

I wish I had a euro for every time people talk about there being evidence without even once talking about what it actually is, or presenting it. I would be a truly rich man.

If the world is so awash with such evidence, why is it you are entirely unable to tell me what... it.... is??? You just sit there and claim over and over it is there, it is here, it is everywhere, but not once mention what it is or where it is.

imagine this in another context. “Your honour we have evidence that he killed the victim” “What is this evidence?” “It is that which shows beyond a doubt he killed the victim” “Can you show it to me?” “Yes we have it indeed?” “Errmmmm can you do it now please?” and so on ad infinitum.

If you have any evidence, arguments, data, reasons or facts to lend even an IOTA of credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence is responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe then please stop talking about having it, and talk about what it actually IS.

In fact I wish I could see a court of law operating like that for just one day, just to see how it would go. I think it would be hilarious. I sort of imagine it going like this:

"The evidence he is the murderer is there in the file Your Honour... you just have to examine it... I just hope you are not so blind you can not see it.....the prosecution rests"

followed by

"We the defense have even more evidence than that, loads of it, that he did not commit the crime and it is is all very convincing.... and what is more it is everywhere.... the defense rests".

Now I am aware we are not IN a court of law, but I am also aware we do not get away with talking like you are in any OTHER context. We do not just stop at saying the evidence is there, we say what it actually IS and how it supports our assertions.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe a little difficult to prove if you and possibly other atheists would be of the opinion that science unfettered by Christianity is a good thing.

Please see the Creationism thread.

Something like the science performed unfettered by Christian morals or morals of any description by scientists say for example in Nazi Germany.

Funny how I have no Christian morals yet I would view that as immoral, as did Buddhists, Hindus, Jews (obviously).

mcmickey

Some of the worst atrocities have been carried out under the name of Chritainity, from the Crusades to the Conquestadors to Cromwell. Any ideology where people close their eyes to their own conscinece will bring about totalitarianism whether it's in the name of Christianity, politics or imperialism etc

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

StealthRolex,

You will forgive me if I choose not to reply to you in Zebra crossing format I trust.

Nowhere did you start with atheism and end with violence. Read your own post again. You merely pointed out that it provides no BARRIERS against attaining a violent position. Merely removing a barrier does not mean X will automatically move to position Y.

I am asking how atheism gets you from no violence to violence, not how it fails to prevent you getting there. The question you answered therefore is one I did not ask.

If you merely answer from the fact that it is not a barrier then ANYTHING can lead to violence.

There is a barrier between Christianity and violence in that violence is outlawed except in the case of a just war and self defence (Caution: Catholic postion - may not be true for other Christians). Once a Christian becomes willfully violent they are no longer a Christian as they have rejected the teachings of Christ. By rejecting Christ they reject God. By rejecting God they can be considered atheist, agnostic or pagan.

In the above paragraph the "Christianity" and "Christian" can be replace with terms for any belief system that has at its heart a concept of non-violence, the sanctity of human life and care for the weak.

As you admit there is no barrier between atheism and violence then it stands to reason that violence of atheistic regimes was and is influenced by the atheistic lack of a barrier to violence.
Granted it is not automatic but it is more likely to happen in atheistic regimes than it is in non-atheistic societies.

Being an atheist does not make one violent. Human nature can be violent and atheism does nothing to prevent this where a pacifist belief system does.

Christianity recognizes that there are dark desires and instincts in the human condition that should be controlled by reason and faith and adherence to God given laws. We are humans, not animals and should not behave like animals. No Christian can argue that violence is right (just war and self defense excepted)

Atheism recognizes the same instincts but provides no barriers. Where one atheist may by reason surmise that violence is wrong another by similar reasoning can argue that violence is right.
For one atheist saying violence is worng another says "I don't believe you - prove it. Give me one shred of evidence to give credence to the notion that violence is wrong. It's only wrong because you say it is wrong and that is your belief I don't believe you or what you believe in"
If enough atheists in a society follow the latter violence can follow. Additionally most atheists do not see humans as anything other than the highest form of animal life on the planet and therefore nothing special and dark instincts are equivalent to good instincts.

I do accept that violence does not follow automatically but there is no evidence to support the concept that the regimes adumberated and their violence was not influenced by atheism.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Please see the Creationism thread.

Why? Without scientists who where Christians two pillars of atheism - The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory would not exist.

Without scientists who were Jewish the General Theory of Relativity would not exist.

What's your point?

Back on topic - without Nazi scientists would Americans have developed the gas chamber form of execution.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wish I had a euro for every time people talk about there being evidence without even once talking about what it actually is, or presenting it. I would be a truly rich man.

If the world is so awash with such evidence, why is it you are entirely unable to tell me what... it.... is??? You just sit there and claim over and over it is there, it is here, it is everywhere, but not once mention what it is or where it is.

imagine this in another context. “Your honour we have evidence that he killed the victim” “What is this evidence?” “It is that which shows beyond a doubt he killed the victim” “Can you show it to me?” “Yes we have it indeed?” “Errmmmm can you do it now please?” and so on ad infinitum.

If you have any evidence, arguments, data, reasons or facts to lend even an IOTA of credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence is responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe then please stop talking about having it, and talk about what it actually IS.

In fact I wish I could see a court of law operating like that for just one day, just to see how it would go. I think it would be hilarious. I sort of imagine it going like this:

"The evidence he is the murderer is there in the file Your Honour... you just have to examine it... I just hope you are not so blind you can not see it.....the prosecution rests"

followed by

"We the defense have even more evidence than that, loads of it, that he did not commit the crime and it is is all very convincing.... and what is more it is everywhere.... the defense rests".

Now I am aware we are not IN a court of law, but I am also aware we do not get away with talking like you are in any OTHER context. We do not just stop at saying the evidence is there, we say what it actually IS and how it supports our assertions.

Sorry Nozz - don't have a cure for your form of blindness.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why? Without scientists who where Christians two pillars of atheism - The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory would not exist.

Without scientists who were Jewish the General Theory of Relativity would not exist.

What's your point?

That seems some what unfounded assumptions. Because a Christian figured out evolution doesn't mean we required Christianity to figure out evolution.

Pagans figured out maths. Do you require paganism to do maths?

Turtwig

Pillars of Atheism : sounds like an intriguing poem or art piece.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I'm persecuted every morning on my way to work because of some ones belief in Christ. I get shouted at "Jesus! Only Jesus!" and get pamphlets shoved/thrown at me.

Look, you've been told about this several times. Please exercise your hobby horse somewhere else.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why? Without scientists who where Christians two pillars of atheism - The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory would not exist.

Without scientists who were Jewish the General Theory of Relativity would not exist.

One cannot claim there to be any pillars of "atheism" if one is going to define it as the mere lack of belief.

These are scientific theories. Atheism gains no credit for them or from them surely?

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why? Without scientists who where Christians two pillars of atheism - The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory would not exist.

Whats your point ? what has their religion got to do with their science ?

Back on topic - without Nazi scientists would Americans have developed the gas chamber form of execution.

Since you think the theory of relativity wouldn't have existed without einsteins religion, then that must mean the nazi scientists wouldn't have created the gas chamber without their christianity.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Whats your point? what has their religion got to do with their science ?

You'll have to ask them that. My point quite simply is that those who think religion or Christianity has been a hinderence to science need to cop themselves on and get real. While science and religion may have had their differences in the past without religion the burden of proof would have been reduced for example.
Now religion and the morality it supports prevents science from going to places it should know better than to pursue.
Which is fine except for those with interests in human experimentation , the production of more destructive weapons, and science for the benefit of the few over the many.

Religion does a lot more to support science, especially the sciences that benefit mankind and add to our pool of knowledge about the world and the universe than you think and anyone saying otherwise is doing so without foundation.

Those who proclaim to be atheist and then attack Christianity for "hindering" science or putting it back 3000 yours are demonstrating the link between atheism and violence. It is a vocalization of the hatred some atheists have for what they perceive to be errors in society that need to be dealt with and displays a level of intolerance that is abhorrent. It sets up a section of society as targets to be taken down for putting barriers in their way or causing "problems".

monosharp wrote: »

Since you think the theory of relativity wouldn't have existed without einsteins religion, then that must mean the nazi scientists wouldn't have created the gas chamber without their christianity.

Einstein had a very strong belief in God and His involvement in the universe. However you are twisting my words and misrepresenting my words. I am of the opinion that nazi scientists were not Christian. They may have been born or raised Christian but their actions speak for themselves. No Christian could conceive of such methodologies or implement them and remain a Christian.

Albert Einsteist said that religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. Given that the most vocal group for science without restrictions are atheist I would argue that science without religion is not only lame but downright dangerous.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

You'll have to ask them that. My point quite simply is that those who think religion or Christianity has been a hinderence to science need to cop themselves on and get real. While science and religion may have had their differences in the past without religion the burden of proof would have been reduced for example.
Now religion and the morality it supports prevents science from going to places it should know better than to pursue.

You just contradicted yourself in like 2 sentences, religion doesn't hinder science, it just stops it going into areas it shouldn't?

And who decides where it shouldn't go. Oh thats right, the religious people. :rolleyes:

Areas it has been told by prominent religious leaders not to go include the orbit of the Earth, the evolution of species and the Big Bang. Lucky for us people didn't listen.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

You just contradicted yourself in like 2 sentences, religion doesn't hinder science, it just stops it going into areas it shouldn't?

And who decides where it shouldn't go. Oh thats right, the religious people. :rolleyes:

Areas it has been told by prominent religious leaders not to go include the orbit of the Earth, the evolution of species and the Big Bang. Lucky for us people didn't listen.

Granted, on the surface of it it does seem like a contradiction.

However, if we consider what science has been put to in the past, particularly in terms of nuclear weapons, or eugenics, one begins to understand the need to have some form of ethical framework to guide science by.

This becomes problematic if one believes that science defines this ethical framework itself. If this is so, science can do pretty much what it wills without any ethical or moral boundaries.

Even if we broaden our perspective beyond Judeo-Christianity, on a closer look on the subject, I can imagine that most people would agree that we need ethical frameworks in science just as we have ethical frameworks in medicine, to protect the future of humanity.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

You just contradicted yourself in like 2 sentences, religion doesn't hinder science, it just stops it going into areas it shouldn't?

Ok, grammatical rhetorical error. Religion is no hindrance to good ethical science - Ok?

Wicknight wrote: »

And who decides where it shouldn't go. Oh thats right, the religious people. :rolleyes:

Good demonstration of the atheists disparaging attitude to religion... what do you want to do next, oppress me?

Wicknight wrote: »

Areas it has been told by prominent religious leaders not to go include the orbit of the Earth, the evolution of species and the Big Bang.

You better back that up

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Granted, on the surface of it it does seem like a contradiction.

However, if we consider what science has been put to in the past, particularly in terms of nuclear weapons, or eugenics, one begins to understand the need to have some form of ethical framework to guide science by.

I disagree slightly.

I think an ethical framework to guide technology is needed. But science is just knowledge. Saying that there are areas science shouldn't go is naive as how do we know we shouldn't go there when by definition we don't know where there is.

This is the issue, religion always thinks it already knows what lies beyond current scientific understanding (eg the big bang, or the orbit of the Earth), but more often than not turn out to be wrong.

Restricting science based on what religion already thinks it knows is not good. We need to deal with what science discovers for us, not where it should be heading.

Jakkass wrote: »

This becomes problematic if one believes that science defines this ethical framework itself. If this is so, science can do pretty much what it wills without any ethical or moral boundaries.

That is because science doesn't describe its own ethical framework, as you seem to recognize in the latter sentence. The self defined ethical framework is no ethical frame work.

That doesn't mean we don't apply an ethical framework to the technology and discovery that results from science. I'm just waiting for a good reason why it is the religious one.

Religion seems incapable of separating out true ethical concerns about the harm of technology from the need to protect its own dogma. It tells science to leave some areas for both selfless and selfish reasons, because it has traditionally seen contradiction of its doctrine as harm in of itself.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

You'll have to ask them that. My point quite simply is that those who think religion or Christianity has been a hinderence to science need to cop themselves on and get real.

Christianity was and is a hinderence to science. Not all Christians were or are a hinderence.

Which is fine except for those with interests in human experimentation , the production of more destructive weapons, and science for the benefit of the few over the many.

Might wanna check out the religion of inventors of torture equipment, various types of weaponry, bombs etc.

Those who proclaim to be atheist and then attack Christianity for "hindering" science or putting it back 3000 yours are demonstrating the link between atheism and violence.

People who attack christianity would be anti-christian, people who attack religion would be anti-religion, people who attack theism would be anti-theist.

Atheism is none of the above.

It is a vocalization of the hatred some atheists have for what they perceive to be errors in society that need to be dealt with and displays a level of intolerance that is abhorrent. It sets up a section of society as targets to be taken down for putting barriers in their way or causing "problems".

Oh right, so tell me why I can't live my life in peace without christians constantly trying to convert me/get my money ? Am I a 'problem' ?

Einstein had a very strong belief in God and His involvement in the universe.

No, Einstein did not believe in your god.

However you are twisting my words and misrepresenting my words. I am of the opinion that nazi scientists were not Christian. They may have been born or raised Christian but their actions speak for themselves. No Christian could conceive of such methodologies or implement them and remain a Christian.

Oh thats great. So any christian who does 'bad things' is automatically not a christian ? Nice.

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

X: All Christians are good people.
Y: My uncle is a Christian and he is in prison for rape/murder.
X: Well, all true Christians are good people.

Albert Einsteist said that religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame.

Cool. Argument from Authority.

He also said;

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

Does that mean you'll be giving up Christianity for Buddhism now ?

Given that the most vocal group for science without restrictions are atheist I would argue that science without religion is not only lame but downright dangerous.

Like stem cell research ?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I disagree slightly.

I think an ethical framework to guide technology is needed. But science is just knowledge. Saying that there are areas science shouldn't go is naive as how do we know we shouldn't go there when by definition we don't know where there is.

This is semantics. However, there are even ethical issues in experimentation that need to be dealt with concerning experimenting on humans, animals and so on. There are probably even more issues if we look more comprehensively at it.

However, you're correct to say that most of the issues come about when looking at how that science is applied to real world situations. It could be argued that such research is acceptable as long as it never sees the light of day. However, such research is none the less dangerous on its own if it gets into the wrong hands. Particularly research that could be applied in terrorist attacks, mass murder, military operations and so on.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the issue, religion always thinks it already knows what lies beyond current scientific understanding (eg the big bang, or the orbit of the Earth), but more often than not turn out to be wrong.

I've not dealt with any explicit form of moral code for the time being. All I am saying is that there has to be some ethical and moral framework involved in science to prevent it being abused to the detriment of society and the greater world. I think this is a reasonable enough point.

Wicknight wrote: »

Restricting science based on what religion already thinks it knows is not good. We need to deal with what science discovers for us, not where it should be heading.

I would (obviously) disagree with you on this, as a moral framework Judeo-Christianity comes out trumps for me in comparison to any other secular framework.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because science doesn't describe its own ethical framework, as you seem to recognize in the latter sentence. The self defined ethical framework is no ethical frame work.

Indeed. I'd agree with you. Yet we have people on the other forum, discussing this very subject.

If science answers our moral questions, then science has a remit to do what it wishes. In fact, science is our god, and the scientific community are its priesthood.

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't mean we don't apply an ethical framework to the technology and discovery that results from science. I'm just waiting for a good reason why it is the religious one.

I'm just looking for the concession that it is reasonable to have some form of ethical restriction the outcomes of how science is applied. That seems to be reasonable even without considering Judeo-Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion seems incapable of separating out true ethical concerns about the harm of technology from the need to protect its own dogma. It tells science to leave some areas for both selfless and selfish reasons, because it has traditionally seen contradiction of its doctrine as harm in of itself.

I don't see how this is the case. Again, if we are discussing "religion" in general, it may be useful to provide some tangible examples.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok, grammatical rhetorical error. Religion is no hindrance to good ethical science - Ok?

Religion is a hinderer to good ethical science, because as I said to Jakkass religion has always seen contradiction to its own dogma as harm.

I believe genuinely that when the Pope warns scientists not to explore the moment of the Big Bang it is because he genuinely believes harm will come from that. But what he considers harm is the contradiction to an even greater degree of the Christian notion of creation, confusion that will lead people away from Christianity and in his view salvation.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You better back that up

Certainly. Calvin wrote many times that the orbit of the Sun around the Earth was a Biblical fact and his university banned the teaching of heliocentric view point for years after he was dead. This was a common position held across both Catholic and Protestant leaders.

When Darwin was about to publish On the Origin he was written to by numerous religious leaders, including a very good friend of his, urging him not to publish the book as they felt the effect on religion would be devastating.

Stephen Hawkins claims that the previous Pope once urged a group of cosmologists from inquiring into the moment of the Big Bang

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is semantics.

Not really, there is a difference between knowing something about the natural world (eg how atoms work) and apply that to a technology (a nuclear bomb)

I think we certainly should have ethical debates over the application of science, or the application of technology to further science (ie what type of experiments you carry out), but for people to say science should not inquire into certain areas because we don't even want the knowledge is wrong in my opinion.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, you're correct to say that most of the issues come about when looking at how that science is applied to real world situations. It could be argued that such research is acceptable as long as it never sees the light of day. However, such research is none the less dangerous on its own if it gets into the wrong hands.

That to me though is too naive. I would assume that the "wrong hands" are already discovering this knowledge on their own.

It is like the argument between closed and open source programs. Close source proponents argue that if you block the source code from the public hackers can't see the mistakes in your code.

Open source proponents argue that hackers have already discovered the mistakes in your code through reverse engineering and the rest of us need to know these mistakes as well because then we can fix them.

The latter seems to closer to reality. Blocking knowledge from people only spurs them to figure it out themselves. At least if knowledge is open everyone knows what everyone else knows.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would (obviously) disagree with you on this, as a moral framework Judeo-Christianity comes out trumps for me in comparison to any other secular framework.

Obviously, since you believe it is true.

Jakkass wrote: »

If science answers our moral questions, then science has a remit to do what it wishes. In fact, science is our god, and the scientific community are its priesthood.

There are two very distinct issues there, science explaining the biological origin of morality, and science (ie the scientific method) having ethical framework build into it.

They are very different discussions, I don't really see any connection. Science is just a methodology.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just looking for the concession that it is reasonable to have some form of ethical restriction the outcomes of how science is applied. That seems to be reasonable even without considering Judeo-Christianity.

It does, how science is applied rather than what science seeks to understand.

I would argue though that a religious moral framework is unsuited to this as religion already makes proclamations that over lap with science and thus has bias against science contradicting it and weakening its authority, which has historically clouded how and when it applies such ethical judgments.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how this is the case. Again, if we are discussing "religion" in general, it may be useful to provide some tangible examples.

See the post to Stealth.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Christianity was and is a hinderence to science. Not all Christians were or are a hinderence.

Proof please.

monosharp wrote: »

Might wanna check out the religion of inventors of torture equipment, various types of weaponry, bombs etc.

I would not call them Christian - thats my opinion.

monosharp wrote: »

People who attack christianity would be anti-christian, people who attack religion would be anti-religion, people who attack theism would be anti-theist.

Atheism is none of the above.

Until proven otherwise atheisim includes all of the above.

monosharp wrote: »

Oh right, so tell me why I can't live my life in peace without christians constantly trying to convert me/get my money ? Am I a 'problem' ?

You tell me. You're knocking on our door here. There is no need to convert those who have already heard. If you reject it that is your business and I wish you well.

monosharp wrote: »

No, Einstein did not believe in your god.

is there more than one God? The Jews and the Christians believe in the same God. Maybe not in the same way but the same God nonetheless.
If you know different expound.

monosharp wrote: »

Oh thats great. So any christian who does 'bad things' is automatically not a christian ? Nice.


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

X: All Christians are good people.
Y: My uncle is a Christian and he is in prison for rape/murder.
X: Well, all true Christians are good people.

If your uncle has repented and is truly sorry for what he did he is a Christian. If he is unrepentent he is not. Forgiveness is part of the Christian tradition. Is it part of the atheist ideology?

monosharp wrote: »

Cool. Argument from Authority.

He also said;



Does that mean you'll be giving up Christianity for Buddhism now ?

There is much moral alignment between Buddhism and Christianity especially in their attitude to life and the morality of violence.

monosharp wrote: »

Like stem cell research ?

What kind of stem cells?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion is a hinderer to good ethical science, because as I said to Jakkass religion has always seen contradiction to its own dogma as harm.

I believe genuinely that when the Pope warns scientists not to explore the moment of the Big Bang it is because he genuinely believes harm will come from that. But what he considers harm is the contradiction to an even greater degree of the Christian notion of creation, confusion that will lead people away from Christianity and in his view salvation.



Certainly. Calvin wrote many times that the orbit of the Sun around the Earth was a Biblical fact and his university banned the teaching of heliocentric view point for years after he was dead. This was a common position held across both Catholic and Protestant leaders.

When Darwin was about to publish On the Origin he was written to by numerous religious leaders, including a very good friend of his, urging him not to publish the book as they felt the effect on religion would be devastating.

Stephen Hawkins claims that the previous Pope once urged a group of cosmologists from inquiring into the moment of the Big Bang

Sources would be nice for the pope, Darwin and Hawkins.
However claims for the past that have no support in the present are irrelevant to the modern position in regards to Calvin and Darwin in particular and science in general.

Hawkins, as much as anyone can, can claim what he wants. Do you have proof to support the claim?

And you have not providing anything to suggest that man was advised not to orbit the Earth or go to the Moon for religious reasons.

1951 the Pope was all for the Big bang: http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover

If you want to discuss the previous Pope and his thoughts on evolution try this:

"Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis."

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

However I would urge you to read this in full and not just pull out non-contextual sound-bites to suit.

You should also research the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the work it has done and continues to do.

If you want to make a case for where science is being hindered today go for it.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe genuinely that when the Pope warns scientists not to explore the moment of the Big Bang it is because he genuinely believes harm will come from that. But what he considers harm is the contradiction to an even greater degree of the Christian notion of creation, confusion that will lead people away from Christianity and in his view salvation.

The so called claim is here. No warning was given but advice, according to Hawkings.

"During the lecture, he referred to a conference he once attended on cosmology, in which Pope John Paul II expressed his views on the study of the universe. The Pope told the attending scientists not to inquire into how the universe began, but rather to study how it evolved"

http://news.cnet.com/Hawkings-cosmological-riff/2100-11395_3-5946857.html

As yet I can find no other supporting evidence. If anyone was at that conference and can substantiate whether or not the pope issued a warning it be of some help to Wicknight

But what if a falsehood has been presented to further the aims of an atheist opinion?

"Here is what the pope actually said: ‘Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question….’ The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, ‘We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma.

In 1988, John Paul said that ‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.’ "

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=127&id=4048

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you want to make a case for where science is being hindered today go for it.

So your position is yes science was hindered by religious dogma in the past, but not any more?

Ok, what do you think about the Creationist movement in America?

And what do you think has changed in terms of religious dogma? You yourself were just telling me that religion should make ethical decisions where science should go? How is that not hindering scientific discovery?

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

But what if Wicknight has presented a falsehood to further his own aims?

And what if one poster is, without any evidence, implying dishonesty on the part of another poster?

In that hypothetical situation the wrath of the mods would be awesome.

So let's not go down such a hypothetical route. Everybody play nice. Agreed?

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

And what if one poster is, without any evidence, implying dishonesty on the part of another poster?

Evidence was presented - but point taken and personalization removed

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, what do you think about the Creationist movement in America?

I have no time for them

Wicknight wrote: »

And what do you think has changed in terms of religious dogma? You yourself were just telling me that religion should make ethical decisions where science should go? How is that not hindering scientific discovery?

What scientific discovery is being hindered?
Who would have a problem with unethical research being hindered?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I have no time for them

Wonderful. But what I was asking is do you think they are hindering science?

StealthRolex wrote: »

What scientific discovery is being hindered?

For example Creationists across America are trying to block scientific discussion and research into biological evolution.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Who would have a problem with unethical research being hindered?

Depends on what you mean by unethical research. If you mean unethical application of technology, such as experiments on humans, then no I would have no problem with that being hindered by laws.

If you mean unethical research as in we shouldn't research that area of phenomena because it is unethical to know about it, or contradict what religion already says about it, then yet I would have a problem with that.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

For example Creationists across America are trying to block scientific discussion and research into biological evolution.

Really? My impression is that Creationists want their theories taught in schools alongside evolution. While you may disagree with them about that, I don't see how that prevents scientific discussion. Indeed, if anything it seems like Creationists want to increase scientific discussion of evolution.

As for research, how are Creationists trying to block research? Surely people are free to carry out whatever research they want. We no longer have the threat of the Inquisition - so what methods are they proposing to use to block research?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Wonderful. But what I was asking is do you think they are hindering science?

That is not the question you asked. I answered the question you asked.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example Creationists across America are trying to block scientific discussion and research into biological evolution.

I understood they were trying to modify the educational system to allow for the teaching of something called "Intelligent Design" to the detriment of regular scientific teaching.
To my mind this is something that should be pursued through religious education and not as part of science education.

If what you say is true point me to a source so I can verify if that is what they are actually doing or if that is merely aspirational.

Given they are a minority comprising fundamentalists I would not expect them to have much success.

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by unethical research. If you mean unethical application of technology, such as experiments on humans, then no I would have no problem with that being hindered by laws.

Agreed

Wicknight wrote: »

If you mean unethical research as in we shouldn't research that area of phenomena because it is unethical to know about it, or contradict what religion already says about it, then yet I would have a problem with that.

Can you provide any examples other than Hawkings misrepresentation?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Really? My impression is that Creationists want their theories taught in schools alongside evolution. While you may disagree with them about that, I don't see how that prevents scientific discussion. Indeed, if anything it seems like Creationists want to increase scientific discussion of evolution.

There are two tactics in American Creationism, one to get evolution removed and one to get ID put along side it. American Creationists have tried to get evolution removed or diminished from text books a good number of times.

http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/

These tend to fail, so getting ID into the class room is a different tactic.

PDN wrote: »

As for research, how are Creationists trying to block research? Surely people are free to carry out whatever research they want.

Creationists groups have lobbied research fund, particularly from the state, to remove or reduce funding for research into evolutionary biology.

It didn't work of course, nor am I arguing they don't have the right to try. Nor am I trying to turn this into the Creationist thread.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is not the question you asked. I answered the question you asked.

No you didn't. The context, which you initiated, was the hindrance of science. You didn't answer the question with regard to the hindrance of science. Your personal feelings about Creationists are utterly irrelevant to what you were asked.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can you provide any examples other than Hawkings misrepresentation?

I already did, you simply ignored them and implied I was lying.

What exactly is your point here StealthRolex? Are you arguing this doesn't happen? Or it does happen but only rarely? Or it does happen but only people who aren't true Christians? Or what?

You keep asking me to justify what I'm saying and when I do you ignore that and move on to giving out about something else. You don't seem to want to actually discuss anything, nor do you seem all that interested in what I'm saying other than to try and pick holes in it for some unknown reason.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

These tend to fail, so getting ID into the class room is a different tactic.

Given that Intelligent Design is agnostic and agnosticism is a step towards atheism I would have thought you would be more supportive

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationists groups have lobbied research fund, particularly from the state, to remove or reduce funding for research into evolutionary biology.

Lobby groups are lobby groups.That's what they do.

Wicknight wrote: »

It didn't work of course, nor am I arguing they don't have the right to try. Nor am I trying to turn this into the Creationist thread.

Thank God for that.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationists groups have lobbied research fund, particularly from the state, to remove or reduce funding for research into evolutionary biology.

That's hardly blocking research. It's saying, "You can do all the research you like - but we shouldn't be forced to pay for it." :pac:

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

No you didn't. The context, which you initiated, was the hindrance of science. You didn't answer the question with regard to the hindrance of science. Your personal feelings about Creationists are utterly irrelevant to what you were asked.

With regard to the hindrance of science and who initiated could you check post #332 please?

Wicknight wrote: »

No religion? Umm... Well for a start we would probably be about 3,000 years ahead scientifically, which would be nice if I was living in this exact moment.

Wicknight wrote: »

I already did, you simply ignored them and implied I was lying.

Not true. I rebutted your misrepresentation of Hawkings misrepresentation with sources.
I also requested sources for your other points so the context could be examined and discussed.

Wicknight wrote: »

What exactly is your point here StealthRolex? Are you arguing this doesn't happen? Or it does happen but only rarely? Or it does happen but only people who aren't true Christians? Or what?

You keep asking me to justify what I'm saying and when I do you ignore that and move on to giving out about something else. You don't seem to want to actually discuss anything, nor do you seem all that interested in what I'm saying other than to try and pick holes in it for some unknown reason.

What are you talking about? You make allegations that Christianity or religion hinders (present tense) science and then fail to back it up. You make allegations that religious leaders suggest that the study of certain phenomenon is prohibited with no solid backup.
You suggested that a pope put a prohibition on studying the Big Bang which quite simply is not true.

Granted, there may have been issues in the past but that is the past and does not further the discussion. It only servers to display the a non-existent antagonism between religion and science fomented by certain atheists for the purposes of disparaging religious belief.

If I pick holes in an argument it is because the holes are there to be picked. That is the nature of discussion.

Do I not have to justify and back up what I say or retract? I may not have all the answers and I may not be an expert in some of the topics under discussion but that does not make me ignorant or silly. Nor does it diminish my research as a scientist as the pursuit of knowledge is a function of ignorance.

If you present an argument or example of which I am unaware or "ignorant" I seek to remedy my own lack of knowledge.

BTW with regard to prohibitions on science and certain phenomenon why is it acceptable for someone like Hawkings to suggest that contacting aliens is not a good idea but the concept of a religious leader advise that some scientific research might not be such a good idea is not acceptable?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece

Given now that Hawkings believes in something that cannot be proven to exist does that mean he can no longer claim to be an atheist?
Does it diminish him as a scientist?

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Given that Intelligent Design is agnostic and agnosticism is a step towards atheism I would have thought you would be more supportive

Funnily enough, I have found that very few people are prepared to discuss the issues involved in Intelligent Design. They simply dismiss it as being a form of Creationism even though its claims are clearly different.

More than a whiff of fear in such tactics IMHO.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Funnily enough, I have found that very few people are prepared to discuss the issues involved in Intelligent Design. They simply dismiss it as being a form of Creationism even though its claims are clearly different.

More than a whiff of fear in such tactics IMHO.

As I understand it, it started as Creationism and was modified to remove God to make it more palatable to certain elements of society.

Neither are science in any shape or form, however freedom of speech cannot prevent them promoting their views. As subjects for education they belong in religious and philosophical studies along with atheism.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I understand it, it started as Creationism and was modified to remove God to make it more palatable to certain elements of society.

Neither are science in any shape or form, however freedom of speech cannot prevent them promoting their views. As subjects for education they belong in religious and philosophical studies along with atheism.

Lots of things started out as one thing and turned into something else. Heck, some great scientific discoveries were stumbled upon accidently while pursuing something quite different.

I agree that ID is indeed a suitable subject for philosophical discussion. But there are scientific issues at play as well. For example, if we find a deep hole in the desert of Arizona we are entitled to ask, "How was this hole formed?" Then we use scientific criteria to determine if it was caused by erosion, by a meteorite, by animals, or by men. That may involve rejecting some theories as being too improbable. That would seem to me to be a perfectly valid use of science.

In the same way, it is legitimate to weigh up the probabilities of certain biological features having evolved unaided. However, this probably belongs in another thread.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That's hardly blocking research.

Agreed, it is trying to block research. Like I said it doesn't work. The point is the motivation behind it, not whether they actually have much success.

PDN wrote: »

It's saying, "You can do all the research you like - but we shouldn't be forced to pay for it." :pac:

Sort of. More like evolution is wrong so any research into it is a waste of time and money and is propagating the atheist anti-Christian view that evolution is true.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Proof please.

Creationism. -> hindererence.

I would not call them Christian - thats my opinion.

And Jack next door's opinion is that the cafeteria ladies put too much salt on their chips.

Until proven otherwise atheisim includes all of the above.

Get a dictionary, open it to A, find Atheism, read. -> Proven.

You tell me. You're knocking on our door here. There is no need to convert those who have already heard. If you reject it that is your business and I wish you well.

So why do I continue to be annoyed/disturbed ? Haven't I got the right to be left alone ?

is there more than one God?

Theres millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

You can even list them by various options, geography, celestial, cosmological etc.

The Jews and the Christians believe in the same God. Maybe not in the same way but the same God nonetheless.
If you know different expound.

Nice. Except Einstein was not a Jew religiously.

In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Spinoza's god -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Philosophy

In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

”

In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Albert wrote:

Einstein had previously explored this belief that man could not understand the nature of God when he gave an interview to Time Magazine explaining:
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
—Albert Einstein

Clearly Einstein did not believe in the Judeo-Christian god.

If your uncle has repented and is truly sorry for what he did he is a Christian. If he is unrepentent he is not. Forgiveness is part of the Christian tradition. Is it part of the atheist ideology?

Atheism has no ideology.

There is much moral alignment between Buddhism and Christianity especially in their attitude to life and the morality of violence.

Yet clearly they are 'wrong' and you are 'right' ?

What kind of stem cells?

What kind of stem cells do christians protest against ?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Funnily enough, I have found that very few people are prepared to discuss the issues involved in Intelligent Design. They simply dismiss it as being a form of Creationism even though its claims are clearly different.

More than a whiff of fear in such tactics IMHO.

Creationism thread for at least the past 2 years people have been correcting JC on Intelligent Design nonsense such as CSI, and irreducible complexity.

All of ID's mathemathical and scientific arguments have been shown to be nonsense, the only thing it has left is "We don't know what started it, must have been a creator".

Heres famous biologist (And Christian) Ken Miller showing how everyone of ID's arguments are 100% unscientific nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Funnily enough, I have found that very few people are prepared to discuss the issues involved in Intelligent Design.

Really? I think you will find that any of the regular posters on the Creationism thread, and myself, are happy to discuss ID and its flaws at length.

In my experience it is proponents of ID as a scientific theory who don't like to go into too much detail, less they risk it being exposed for the pseudo-science it is.

The issue seems to be more that biologists get sick and tired of constantly coming up against the same tired old refuted arguments for ID by people such as the Discovery Insitute who are agenda driven and have no real interest in having their theory examined properly. I'm sure you can relate

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Creationism. -> hindererence.

Why do you do this? Not all Christians are creationists and even so creationism is as much a hindrance to science as atheism is.

I don't know if Creationism is a philosophy or a belief but I do know it is not a science and has nothing to do with science.
Of course there may be scientists who are also creationist but so what. I don't know if any work extensively in evolutionary studies but if they do a good scientist knows what to leave at the door.


Nonsensical comments like "Creationism. -> hindererence" could be viewed as supporting the hypothesis under discussion due to its antagonistic nature.


But your comment deserves a better rebuttal.

Darwin was a Creationist and quite possibly a supporter of intelligent design too. Or vice versa

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Darwin. C

monosharp wrote: »

What kind of stem cells do christians protest against ?

Christians don't protest against stem cells

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? I think you will find that any of the regular posters on the Creationism thread, and myself, are happy to discuss ID and its flaws at length.

In my experience it is proponents of ID as a scientific theory who don't like to go into too much detail, less they risk it being exposed for the pseudo-science it is.

The issue seems to be more that biologists get sick and tired of constantly coming up against the same tired old refuted arguments for ID by people such as the Discovery Insitute who are agenda driven and have no real interest in having their theory examined properly. I'm sure you can relate

Ahh Wicknight, biologists aren't all atheists though...and to be fair the Discovery Institute has 'many' different personalities, we're constantly bombarded with programs with an underlying message..

The truth is, nobody holds anybody back from 'learning' these day, well on the internet anyways

Myself, I don't see the payoff in even getting involved in creationist or id debates....I feel it reduces God, or tries to explain him too much in too much 'detail'..I wouldn't begin to know even...

It's simply a matter of 'faith'...I really don't know whether I'm all the way right or all the way wrong, but it's the path I've chosen and I'm sticking to it.....If that's ok? Couldn't give a fiddlers what any scientist comes up with, I'm one myself - I have 'faith'......

Actually, it would be really cool to discuss what the definition of 'faith' is...and whether people should be allowed to have it; in a 'human rights' sort of way...even 'if' we disagree on whom, how, and where, we place that 'faith'...

StealthRolex

lmaopml wrote: »

Myself, I don't see the payoff in even getting involved in creationist or id debates....I feel it reduces God, or tries to explain him too much in too much 'detail'..I wouldn't begin to know even...

+1

There is a payoff if you are producing ID and C material and selling it to the naive though $$$

lmaopml wrote: »

It's simply a matter of 'faith'...I really don't know whether I'm all the way right or all the way wrong, but it's the path I've chosen and I'm sticking to it.....If that's ok? Couldn't give a fiddlers what any scientist comes up with, I'm one myself - I have 'faith'......

With you there.

lmaopml wrote: »

Actually, it would be really cool to discuss what the definition of 'faith' is...and whether people should be allowed to have it; in a 'human rights' sort of way...even 'if' we disagree on whom, how, and where, we place that 'faith'...

Could be a good thread...

StealthRolex

Found this interesting set of statistics and thought it might help with the discussion.

Murders by Atheists\Atheistic regimes (20th Century)
Country Dates Murders
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
France 1793–1794 40,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000

Total: 153,368,610*

by comparison with "Christian" killings

Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000

Total: 1,650,000


This is not a suggestion that atheists are automatically violent, merely a cold scientific analysis of how many have been killed in the name of one particular religion against none.

While the numbers are approximate 153million v 1.6million is significant.

*Germany WWII (Hitler*) is not included as atheism not proven as a factor. For the sake of completeness the count is reported as 20,946,000

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Found this interesting set of statistics and thought it might help with the discussion.

Murders by Atheists\Atheistic regimes (20th Century)
Country Dates Murders
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
France 1793–1794 40,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000

Total: 153,368,610*

by comparison with "Christian" killings

Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000

Total: 1,650,000


This is not a suggestion that atheists are automatically violent, merely a cold scientific analysis of how many have been killed in the name of one particular religion against none.

While the numbers are approximate 153million v 1.6million is significant.

*Germany WWII (Hitler*) is not included as atheism not proven as a factor. For the sake of completeness the count is reported as 20,946,000

All down to mustaches according to some..