Sunday, June 17, 2012

What Has Science Ever Done for Us?

I just read this article, about young people in the United States "abandoning religion" in large numbers.  I think the article is misleading because what the numbers really mean is that young people are having doubts in large numbers, but the article itself is not what I'm writing this post about.  This comment in the comment section interested me:

"I'm not trying to kill anybody's hope. If it makes you happy to think that humankind is going to abandon the belief in a power greater than itself that it has held in a multitude of ways for at least 6000 years, by all means, go ahead. I hope it works out for you. And turn to what? Science? The people who gave us Hiroshima, Zyklon B, the Tuscaloosa syphilis experiments, napalm, daisy cutters, drones, genetically modified food, hormone replacement therapy, DDT, global warming, etc. etc. etc.?"

This stupid comment, written by Michael Ryle, leaves itself open to many methods of attack, and I'll take several of them here:

1.  So you're going to turn to a (presumably the Christian) god?  The god that invented pain?!  The god that invented suffering, death, cancer, cystic fibrosis, birth defects, mental retardation, cyanide, alcohol, anthrax, polio, malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. etc. etc.?  The god that leaves evidence for its existence and desires so unclear that humans are brought to fighting wars for it, such as the Crusades, Witch Trials, Islamic jihad, etc. etc. etc?  The god that kills (how many?) millions of babies of mothers who want them every single year, supports slavery and genocide, etc. etc. etc.?

2.  At least 6,000 years?  What a fucking putz.

3.  Science is not a group of people that we turn to instead of a god.  When I was in university, my boss, a good scientist, was highly religious.  I found this out by surprise when he invited me to his home for dinner and he led his family in prayer before eating.  The Catholic Church (finally ) also recognises science as a path to truth, as do many other religious groups.

4.  The fact that the Hiroshima bomb worked, that genetically modified food exists, that hormone replacement is possible, etc. etc. etc., is PROOF that science works!  Say it with me, you fucking putz:

"SCIENCE;  IT WORKS, BITCHES!"

Science is not an entity, it is a method for discovering truth.  And the fact that it has proven itself, repeatedly millions of times, to be effective at discovering truth (ie. things that work), means that it is an excellent method for discovering truth.  Religion, on the other hand, has never proven a single shred of its (various and contradictory) supernatural claims, not once, not EVER!

5.  Wasn't the guy who ordered the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings a Christian?  Weren't the people dispensing the Zyklon B Christians?  Weren't the people dropping the napalm Christians? etc. etc. etc.

6.  Science is a method for discovering truth, as outlined above.  Sometimes the truth isn't pleasant.  But it's what WE DO with those truths that can bring bad consequences.  Are you going to blame the people who discovered electricity because people are tortured using it?  If you're advocating that we don't use science because it can bring knowledge that can lead to bad effects, then you're against KNOWLEDGE.  Like many religious people, you'd prefer for people to live in fear and ignorance.  Even the Christian origins story is an attack on knowledge.  You do all of this while you sit at a computer, typing on the internet, presumably in your climate-controlled dwelling, while the food is kept healthy in your refrigerator, you have vaccinations for many life-threatening diseases, etc. etc. etc.

You, Michael Ryle, are an ungrateful fool who does not recognise all of the benefit science has brought you personally, all of the truth science has discovered, all while advocating (between the lines) for us to live in fear and ignorance.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

>it is a method for discovering truth.
No it is a methodology designed to create predictive models, nothing more or less. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.

I have to think that you claims about being a scientist are false, since you speak in the manner of a layman. It's almost like you never took a research methodology course in your life.

>Religion, on the other hand, has never proven a single shred of its supernatural claims
Atheism and theism are not making claims, since their is no relevant data to collect no claims can be made. The claims are being made by retarded rationalists and spiritualists that fail to comprehend the scientific method.

Admin said...

"No it is a methodology designed to create predictive models, nothing more or less. 'Truth' has nothing to do with it."

You're going to play a semantics game with me? If I want to discover whether or not the Earth goes around the Sun or vice-versa, I'd use scientific methods. That is truth, it's fact, not a model. What a petty comment you just made.

"I have to think that you claims about being a scientist are false,"

Quite an accusation. Problem is, I don't think I've ever claimed to be a scientist.

"since you speak in the manner of a layman."

Who is my audience?

"It's almost like you never took a research methodology course in your life."

Ding, ding, ding!

"Atheism and theism are not making claims..."

Really? Seriously? Wow.

ANTZILLA said...

I got this question posted to me...
---------------------------------
For the atheists group among us,
so i can try and understand your faith,

please can you answer the following so i can better understand your faith,

The following types of Evolution are described which one or ones do you subscribe to?

Because just like religous beliefs,we find contrary to popular opinion,science also is very divided on their origins of belief

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang,which was actually created by a catholic priest

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.i.e darwinian type evolution

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.


Mailmans Observations about the different types of Evolution


- Of the above 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.

- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.

- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.


- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory,so are infact accepted by faith,as with any other type of belief/religous system


1 DO you believe we are creatures of total random chance,order out of kaos,the result of gaseous exchanges,ultimately resulting in something inanimate(non living)given the right random conditions,out of a primordial soup,given enough time of course,a rock,gave fourth an organic,or living organism,of course given unlimited time

2 Have you just accepted evolution belief because it was taught to you as science and fact,and therefore similar to a religous belief,you have always assumed it to be true,because how could all the university trained educators be wrong?

3 Do you believe this theory to be true,because it is an assumed fact which is held by the greater community,and to think outside commonly held theories like in the days of the flat earthers,would be akin to commiting social suicide,to believe outside orthodox thought,which is now accepted by atheists,and orthodox religions to be the origin of mankind?

4 or just like a religion,although noone was there to observe how evolution started or the big bang,millions of years ago etc,making this theory fall outside science by its definition,of something observable,testable,and demonstrable.

5.Or were you brought up with the a religous background IE catholocism etc,which taught you God or religion was a vengeful dictator,and because of this indoctrination when you were growing up,you assume everyones experience and understanding must also be similar to the way you understand things

So your hatred and the way you were taught,must then be the norm if you believe in God or have a belief.

So this would fuel your hatred towards any religous belief,because in your own experience , God makes no more sense than the hardship you experienced?

or

other?

--------------------------------

Admin said...

My response would be something like the following:

You are a scientific illiterate. You do not even understand what the Theory of Evolution is, yet you oppose it. Your errors are numerous and obvious. I will outline some of them here, but I will not follow you into your bullshit final paragraphs. How much bullshit can I honestly be expected to correct for you?

Problem #1: The first 4 of your 6 points in the list are NOT elements of evolutionary theory, and the final 2 are really just 1 point which people who do not understand evolution split into 2 different categories.

Problem #2: The Big Bang was not created by a Catholic priest.

Problem #3: "Chemical evolution", the origin of higher elements from hydrogen (as you phrase it) HAS been observed. It's called fusion and it's how stars, including our Sun, create energy. It has also been done countless times in labs.

Problem #4: The origin of stars in stellar clouds HAS been observed. Buy a telescope to see for yourself. You suck.

Jim said...

I would tear that shit up, Antzilla, but it's late. I will point out that Admin has hit the nail on the head. But I'll give you a quick rundown, as I have some background in stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory.

1. There is no such thing as "Cosmic Evolution." That argument is shit. The Big Bang theory only describes the moment of the universe's creation. Nothing more. Now, the Expansion Theory explains everything after the first few seconds. Either way, both theories have mountains of evidence, and expansion is constantly being observed today. Anyone with a spectrometer and a powerful telescope can witness it with their own eyes (Red shift of galaxies proves that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.). Also, even if a Catholic Priest thought up the Big Bang, who gives a shit? Personal opinions mean nothing to scientific theory. Only the facts do.

2. Again, no such thing as "Chemical Evolution." Atoms of different elements are created in stars, up to iron, and heavier elements are formed in stars. Again, using a spectrometer, this has been witnessed by the human eye. It is a fact.

3. No such thing as "Stellar and Planetary Evolution." I'll keep this simple, we have witnessed stars forming and planets forming with the human eye.

4. Organic Evolution: Witnessed by man. Fact.

5. See 4.

6. See 4.

"1 DO you believe we are creatures of total random chance,order out of kaos,the result of gaseous exchanges,ultimately resulting in something inanimate(non living)given the right random conditions,out of a primordial soup,given enough time of course,a rock,gave fourth an organic,or living organism,of course given unlimited time"

This is funny. An egg and a sperm are not living. They have no consiousness, no feeling, no thought. A sperm is a cell. An egg is simply an egg. Yet, put them together, Life! And there are things in the universe called "organic compounds" which are not alive. They are the "building blocks of life." These are carbon atoms and amino acids. Neither one is alive, yet all life we know of is 100% dependent on them. IN fact, if you were to take a human apart, you would find that no single piece of the person is "alive." It is only the sum of the parts that lives.

And life wasn't created out of a rock. It was amino acids evolving over BILLIONS of years. Yes, this means they evolved in outer space somewhere. That's life.

Ask them why their god used dirt to create life. And where did their god come from? Surely he wasn't created out of nothing?

Jim said...

"2 Have you just accepted evolution belief because it was taught to you as science and fact,and therefore similar to a religous belief,you have always assumed it to be true,because how could all the university trained educators be wrong?"

No, science has to prove its theories right. I assume this person doesn't understand the scientific definition of "theory."

"3 Do you believe this theory to be true,because it is an assumed fact which is held by the greater community,and to think outside commonly held theories like in the days of the flat earthers,would be akin to commiting social suicide,to believe outside orthodox thought,which is now accepted by atheists,and orthodox religions to be the origin of mankind?"

Again, they do not know the scientific definition of a theory.

"4 or just like a religion,although noone was there to observe how evolution started or the big bang,millions of years ago etc,making this theory fall outside science by its definition,of something observable,testable,and demonstrable."

1. Scientific definition of theory. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
2. No one was there to observe god creating the earth, yet the managed to get an accurate description, how? Hmm. Interesting.
3. Observation of the current universe, along with observation of the past due to the limitations of the speed of light, prove that there must have been a time 13.6 billion years ago where the entire universe was condensed into a single point that exploded into the Big Bang. X-ray images of the universe prove this theory. Also, evolution has been witnessed by humans.

"5.Or were you brought up with the a religous background IE catholocism etc,which taught you God or religion was a vengeful dictator,and because of this indoctrination when you were growing up,you assume everyones experience and understanding must also be similar to the way you understand things"

No. We used our brains. Try it sometime.

The rest is just philosophical babble. And not even good babble, at that.

Also, a link to the witnessing of evolution, lest you think I am making it up:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

(This is that bullshit "macro-evolution" they like to throw around.)

ANTZILLA said...

lol,

I currently working on a reply...

I'm going to 'Hitchslap' this presuppositional BS...

It is funny to watch the creationists 'Dunning Kruger Effect' when trying to discuss secular science....

Jim said...

I, for one, would love to know what your reply is, and what they have to say in turn.

A piece of advice, ask them to make future arguments that omit both philosophy and personal opinions, allowing only facts to speak for themselves. That should fuck their arguments up.

ANTZILLA said...

Once complete I'll post it up...

Basically eventually I want to see if this theist thinks Jesus died for our sins? And that we should accept Jesus as our saviour...
ie christian

Then the 'Hitchslap'

What sort of sicko deity asks for a human sacrifice?

I would also like to ask if Jesus’ followers at the time of his exicution were trying to stop it?

or

Were Jesus’ followers in favour of the execution because of the whole "cleanses us of our sins" deal?

?????

So if they were trying to stop the execution then good on them for having some morals...However this would void the "cleanses us of our sins" , has they weren't trying to have there 'sins' cleansed.

If they did support the execution then they are a mob of murders, that are not better than anyone group that practises human sacrifice.
Only theists offer sacrifices to deities.

No atheist ever murdered to please a deity/ies.

AND then these 'Christians' have the hide to ask for other people 'accept' this sacrifice.
I don't accept this, This is immoral.

If I was present at an ‘eccentric preachers’ execution, I would morally obligated to try and stop it.

AND if we should decide (with our free will) not to accept/partake in this sacrifice, when i/we die, the deity YHWH, were told will send us to hell for eternity...

Nice... real nice... deity you got there...

ANTZILLA said...

So get this...

The forum I was posting on has very very loose profanity rules. Mostly they are ignored people fequently post F@&K or anyother profanity and generally no one cares.

However the topic of religion I was displaying my disgust and the actions of of some brutal child bashers and killers.

I said, "these people make me F@&king sick..." "...why would they do such things..."

So I got suspended for using 'profanity'

Oh how rightous the religious become.... No! No! you can't swear,

but they didn't say anything to condemn the actions of the child bashers...

No! NO! NO! far more important to keep the Atheist quiet...

Why do religious think they own philosophy?

Philosophy from wiki:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]

It would seem that 'religion' is the complete oppisite of philosophy.



Pisses me off... I can totally see how people were killed in the dark ages for 'speaking their mind'.

As I have been 'internet witch burned'

ANTZILLA said...

Hi, Admin

After watching

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDCDTaKfzXU

frank turek vs christopher hitchens

Shouldn't this site be technically called 'Adeityist Propaganda'?

From now on I'll classify myself as 'Adeityist'

Admin said...

I loaded the video, saw that it is over 2 hours long, then stopped. Can you summarise the argument that caused you to write that?

ANTZILLA said...

Yeah...2hrs lol

The argument was that to claim
'Theism', Theism was described as 'knowing the mind of a deity'

a Deity being a -metaphysical personality...

So Frank (Deityist and theist) used the usual BS assertions that universe had to have designer...blah blah blah

So he is a deityist because he believe the metaphysical has a personality.

So to go from deityist to theist, the deityist has to prove they are in contact with the deity, to know what version of Theism they should be living...

So Athiesm is a rejection of the assertion that anybody could know the mind of a metaphysical being.

Adeityism is the rejection of the assertion that the metaphysical has a personality or any cognition or 'will' etc,etc...

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive.


Christopher Hitchens explains it really well...

I will find a video link...

""I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

So he is a Adeityist and a antitheist.