The Scientific Miracles

[bloodline]

But Karlos... the key thing here is not what you know... but what you do with it.

Having research a little, the Quran has not been free of "editing" in much the same way that all religious texts have been "edited" to suit the needs of those who espouse them.

[bloodline]

All the major religions of that region inherited all their "science" from other cultures of the time.

You will find that the Arabic peoples (not to mention the Persians, Greeks and Hindus) were all using algebra long before Islam was a twinkle in Mohamud's eye.

But becasue Christianity didn't keep it's scientific inheritance in it's relious texts (if it kept much at all), does not mean that Islam is superior to it.

The only great Religions that have ever existed, are the anchient European ones, the Greek ones (inherited and addapted by the Romans), The Native American ones and Buddhism.

The Native American and Europeans Religons were good, since they required one to be at peace with nature. I like that. But they can't survive the people centric, Hate loving Religions.

The Greek Relions (Leading into the Roman ones) were good, Under this belief system Mankind's knowledge expanded exponentially. But there religions were too complex and libberal to survive simple, conservative religions.

Buddhism is good, because it's simple message is "be excellent to oneanother". Gods not included. ;-) People don't like being Execllent to oneanother though :-(


So we see a world slowing being dominated by Hate loving, simple, people centric, conservative religions... the simpler, more people centric, more conservative and more hate loving it is... the more popular it becomes.


In the west we have had the advantage of the "Enlightenment", were we managed to abstract out the core components of The dominant religion, and set up dedicated disciplins to cover it's role, rendering it essentially suplurfulous.

Religion became split into;

1. Politics
2. Science
3. Phylosophy
4. Spirituality

I rather like part 4. since we can now pick and choose a spirituality to best fit our lives. Organised Religion is, as I have pointed out, is now a waste of time.

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:
"Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests"

Well, when you use only reason as your guide, you can justify an awful lot of things which may make scientific sense but are clearly unethical.

As an extreme example, to improve the human condition, you could sterilize all those with hereditary defects, or carriers of defective genes to end the suffering those genes would inflict on future generations.

For those of the existing generations who are afflicted with untreatable conditions that severely reduce their quality of life, you could give them the option of termination.

For those unable to make the decision due to severe mental impairment, you could delegate the choice to their nearest kin. There is nothing scientifically unreasonable about this approach. Enormous amounts of money would be saved which could be directed elsewhere and many life threatening hereditary diseases would be eliminated, for the benefit of all mankind.

Now, there isn't a sane person here who would argue that that is totally wrong, cold, cruel and downright evil even. But why?

The last thing we need is another Religion bashing thread. But lest ye not forget that far greater atrocities have been commited in the name of (a) God than in the name of science :-)


I would, however, point out that the issues you have raised are social ones not religious or scientific ones. Check out my Abstraction table in an earlier post.

[bloodline]

Er, I was actually defending it, not bashing it  - I believe the bashing commenced immediately yourself and kenny joined the discussion with remarks like:

No, I was bashing it. And I'm fed up of bashing it. I don't mean to bash it, but I find religions are as ludicrous as thinking the moon is made of cheese.

So in an effort to avoid ofending anyone, I'll try to tone down the sentiment of my posts.
It's obviously difficult to hold back, when other agree with me, and egg me on :-(

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:
@mdwh2

Hey dude, that wasn't actually my opinion, it was supposed to provoke some thought on the idea that if one uses only what seems to be a logical and rational approach to all matters, you can justify an awful lot of things that many people (myself included) feel are clearly wrong/unethical.

I was also putting forward the implication that people who are devout would probably find the hypothetical situation I was describing more than just simply "unethical"...

For example, the suggestions made were to improve future generations physical well being by attempting to remove what could be demonstrated scientifically to be defective genes from the species. That's what I meant by "not scientifically unreasonable" (which wasnt the best turn of phrase, but meant to imply makes sense logically). I also state that there probably isnt a sane person who would be comfortable with that suggestion, but why?

Simply because it is unethical, was the answer I was hoping for...

The question arises, where do ethics come from? How do you define what is ethical and what is not?

Are ethics inherently shaped by existing (in particular, religious) concepts of moral / amoral?

But religions are far worse... I shall explain why. Regigions have constantly sought to treat deformity and "abnormal behaviour" as the "devils" work or some such term.

Science our increasing reliance in Science over religion stops our from burning whiches, killing people who are a different colour, stoning "possesed" people, persecuting Homosexuals.... the list goes on.

Religions are intollerant, they have to be or they cannot survive.

Science is what allows us to realises that we are all people, doing the same things with the same loves, desires, drives.

Science is Logical. Religions are a small group's biggoted pollicial views forced upon the population.

Sure in modern times religions try to put on a face of commassion, but that is actually a perversion of the true ideals of the religion. And I say perversion is a good thing ;-)

[bloodline]

rinard wrote:
Finally,
The natural inclination for religious faith is an integral part of the human essence. This is an indisputable fact of history. All scholars of comparative religion, regardless of their own religious backgrounds, agree that religious belief is a natural human condition. They differ, however about its origins.

 It is indispensable for everybody to look for the truth now or later but who guarantee life and how long we are going to live and when the last moment will come. No body knows.  
We have all the capabilities and resources to recognize and distinguish using for example the Internet. There will be no excuse for all of us, we will be asked then.

I do agree, people are born with a natural desire to want order and a leader. That is the nature of fear.

Anyway, after all is said and done. We are all human (I think :crazy:) and regardless of each others faith (or lack threrof) in a higher (spiritual) power we should all agree that the most important thing is to work together here on this little rocky lump we call "The Earth" and STOP FIGHTING! :-P