Atheism Slows Human Advancement

#1
And so did the Church 300 years ago, but today we are not being thaught religious dogma in our schools. Just secular science.

Atheism is the driving force behind today's scientific community. They rule modern academia and put faith in its beliefs. I'm not trying to bash Atheists nor do I hate them. But to point something out that I have noticed. I am only going to explain one side of how Atheism slowly advances human beings. The other side is more internal, meaning going down to the scientific level, probably alot more interesting but probably also half of the board wouldn't know a damn thing of what I would be talking about, but this is interesting also because there are unanswered questions in what I'm about to say. My rantings are going to be short.

There is a current division of science and spirituality, everybody should know this. It goes all the way back to the 17th century Descartes, the Frenchman and non-Atheist. Now, it is my personal belief that the two are interconnected. But, there is this paradigm of confinement within Atheism that wishes to further divide the two and proclaim everything unseen and unmeasureable to be fantasy and delusion.

Atheism has become the new dogmatic Church authority. If another scientist provides something that violates the communities bounds, they throw it away, never to be seen again. It makes them uncomfortable. Sounds like the Church Inquisition.

These days, instead of the tried-and-true burning at the stake, these ecclesiastical-like authorities have been replaced by some (not all) people who use the power of universities, governmental grantmaking institutions, and a closed-minded media to threaten the livelihood (through firing, denial of promotion or tenure, withholding of grant money, ridicule and sarcasm) rather than the actual lives of “heretical” scientists whose ideas and research projects don’t fit within accepted bounds.

Monumental discoveries have always been in opposition, look at Newton and Copernicus. It's interesting because these monumental discoveries were always outside of the box.

This is the end. It was fun. The real point is this: Athetists are scientific conservatives like American conservative Chrisitians. Nobody is really helping anybody. But the ones who do are the ones who have no limitations. God and science is interconnected and those who acknowledge that or just step out of that box of confinement can advance human beings ten-fold. Einstein, Bohr, Heisnberg, Newton (somewhat), Galileo, Schrodinger, Copernicus, and others have proved that theory.
 
#2
Engaging in scientific research with any prior beliefs about 'god' or 'spirituality' isn't a good thing. I'd rather my scientists be atheists based on fact than theists based on faith. The former will change their stance based on fact, but the latter won't. If atheist scientists found evidence strongly suggesting the existence of god or a soul (which they haven't, can't and won't) then most would revise their poisition. If religious/spiritualist scientists found evidence strongly suggesting the nonexistence of god or a soul then most would ignore it.

Most atheists are atheists because there's no reason to be anything but.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#3
Valeoz said:
And so did the Church 300 years ago, but today we are not being thaught religious dogma in our schools. Just secular science.

Atheism is the driving force behind today's scientific community. They rule modern academia and put faith in its beliefs. I'm not trying to bash Atheists nor do I hate them. But to point something out that I have noticed. I am only going to explain one side of how Atheism slowly advances human beings. The other side is more internal, meaning going down to the scientific level, probably alot more interesting but probably also half of the board wouldn't know a damn thing of what I would be talking about, but this is interesting also because there are unanswered questions in what I'm about to say. My rantings are going to be short.

There is a current division of science and spirituality, everybody should know this. It goes all the way back to the 17th century Descartes, the Frenchman and non-Atheist. Now, it is my personal belief that the two are interconnected. But, there is this paradigm of confinement within Atheism that wishes to further divide the two and proclaim everything unseen and unmeasureable to be fantasy and delusion.

Atheism has become the new dogmatic Church authority. If another scientist provides something that violates the communities bounds, they throw it away, never to be seen again. It makes them uncomfortable. Sounds like the Church Inquisition.

These days, instead of the tried-and-true burning at the stake, these ecclesiastical-like authorities have been replaced by some (not all) people who use the power of universities, governmental grantmaking institutions, and a closed-minded media to threaten the livelihood (through firing, denial of promotion or tenure, withholding of grant money, ridicule and sarcasm) rather than the actual lives of “heretical” scientists whose ideas and research projects don’t fit within accepted bounds.

Monumental discoveries have always been in opposition, look at Newton and Copernicus. It's interesting because these monumental discoveries were always outside of the box.

This is the end. It was fun. The real point is this: Athetists are scientific conservatives like American conservative Chrisitians. Nobody is really helping anybody. But the ones who do are the ones who have no limitations. God and science is interconnected and those who acknowledge that or just step out of that box of confinement can advance human beings ten-fold. Einstein, Bohr, Heisnberg, Newton (somewhat), Galileo, Schrodinger, Copernicus, and others have proved that theory.

In order to accept that, you already have to be a believer. And Einstein, Bohr, Newton, all those names you mentioned, they were scientists first and foremost, and they worked by the rules of science. They were religious second.


Valeoz said:
God and science is interconnected and those who acknowledge that or just step out of that box of confinement can advance human beings ten-fold.
God and science? Why not Gods and science? What happened to stepping out of the box? :)


And this is something that f.e. Einstein said about religion and God at a 1934 conference:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."


He seperates religion and science. He understands that it is nigh on impossible to merge them because they are so different and are based on wholly different principles. If anything, this is a testimony against what you all just said.
 
#4
Both of you completely missed it. You keep looking at religion or the religious way of thinking which I did not what so ever cover.

In order to accept that, you already have to be a believer. And Einstein, Bohr, Newton, all those names you mentioned, they were scientists first and foremost, and they worked by the rules of science. They were religious second.
Religious as in go to church? That was not what I said. Of course they followed the rules of science but the thought of a creator enabled them to think differently and opened possibilites which allowed them to make greater discoveries.
God and science? Why not Gods and science? What happened to stepping out of the box?
Don't complicate things.
He seperates religion and science. He understands that it is nigh on impossible to merge them because they are so different and are based on wholly different principles. If anything, this is a testimony against what you all just said.
Read it again. He does seperate religion, he seperates the religious paradigm, which has proven through history to suffer advancement. That religious paradigm is no different than current day Atheism, which I have pointed out. Also note that he said "personal God", do you know what he meant by that?
Engaging in scientific research with any prior beliefs about 'god' or 'spirituality' isn't a good thing.
Why not? It has made remarkable discoveries.
I'd rather my scientists be atheists based on fact than theists based on faith.
But it is that faith which allows us to think further and deeper.
The former will change their stance based on fact, but the latter won't.
Now you're talking religious, I have not said anything about religion.
If atheist scientists found evidence strongly suggesting the existence of god or a soul (which they haven't, can't and won't) then most would revise their position.
Would they? Read the part again on how Atheism is the new dogmatic authority. They do not want to find the existence of a God or soul because it is against Atheism, anything that goes against your beliefs makes you feel uncomfortable. It is also a fact to them that there is no such thing. It stops there.
If religious/spiritualist scientists found evidence strongly suggesting the nonexistence of god or a soul then most would ignore it.
They'll just be in denial then.
Most atheists are atheists because there's no reason to be anything but.
Exactly, because Atheism does not allow you to think further.
 
#6
Valeoz said:
But it is that faith which allows us to think further and deeper.
Bullshit. What possible benefit is it, to someone trying to explain the way the world works, to believe in myths and superstitions?

Now you're talking religious, I have not said anything about religion.
Read the title of this thread: Atheism Slows Human Advancement. You're talking about belief in god, you just decided to call it "spiritualism". Religion is brand-name spiritualism.

Would they? Read the part again on how Atheism is the new dogmatic authority. They do not want to find the existence of a God or soul because it is against Atheism, anything that goes against your beliefs makes you feel uncomfortable. It is also a fact to them that there is no such thing. It stops there.
You think scientists are unwilling to face up to the idea that they might be wrong? That's precisely what science is about. Scientists thought the world was flat. Scientists proved them wrong.

Exactly, because Atheism does not allow you to think further.
How did you manage to leap to that conclusion based on what I said? Allow me to clarify; most scientists choose not to believe in a god or the soul because there's nothing that compels them to, there's nothing that suggests the existence of a god or the soul. Theists, on the other hand, choose to believe in a god or the soul because they like the idea/it makes things easier to understand/they're scared/whatever. Atheism isn't a religion nor is it a cult. It's just a large, unrelated group of people who don't believe in God. There are no "beliefs" in atheism, because atheists don't believe in beliefs (wait...you know what I mean). The atheists don't have a doctrine that they need to protect, they don't have a set of superstitions that they cling to and refuse to give up despite evidence to the contrary. If there was genuine evidence for a god or for the soul then it would be discussed and, if reliable, accepted. There isn't, which is why the majority of scientists remain atheists.

Accusing atheists of holding back human advancement is rambling of Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist-proportions. There's a reason the academic world doesn't agree with your beliefs, and it's not because you know the truth and they're scared to accept it.
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#7
Valeoz said:
Atheism has become the new dogmatic Church authority. If another scientist provides something that violates the communities bounds, they throw it away, never to be seen again.
This might be said of the scientific community, but I don't see how you equate that with atheism. It either has to do with insufficient evidence or else someone's making a claim that flys in the face of everything known about that particular field. It might be true, but it's going to take a lot for the scientific community to accept. That's just natural. Has nothing to do with atheism, unless you're talking about a scientist who's making religious claims or something.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#8
Valeoz said:
Religious as in go to church? That was not what I said. Of course they followed the rules of science but the thought of a creator enabled them to think differently and opened possibilites which allowed them to make greater discoveries.
So what you are saying is that because some scientists belief in a higher power they make better discoveries and condcut better research? And your evidence for this is....speculation?


Plus, you're missing something fundamental with your examples and reasoning:

Valeoz said:
Monumental discoveries have always been in opposition, look at Newton and Copernicus. It's interesting because these monumental discoveries were always outside of the box.
And why were the discoveries of Newton and Copernicus outside the proverbial box? Because "science" in those times was heavily influenced by religious dogma. If you thought outside the box they created they burned you at the stake. Copernicus was forbidden by the Church to publish further work after his first theory of our solar system. He didn't rely on his spiritualism to make that discovery, he relied on his scientific work.


Point is: Advancement in science comes from conducting good research. Not from spiritual guidance or amazing visions.

Einstein, Bohr and all those scientists you named did their fantastic discoveries because they just did a good job at being a scientist.

The advancement of mankind through science isn't troubled by a current atheistic dogma, not as it was 500 years ago by religious dogmas. Clearly because atheism has nothing to trouble science on. An atheist will always rely on science to explain "things". An atheist is cheering for the science team. An atheist will never hold science back, because they are not narrowminded as to what may be researched.



For the rest:

Illuminattile said:
Bullshit. What possible benefit is it, to someone trying to explain the way the world works, to believe in myths and superstitions?


Read the title of this thread: Atheism Slows Human Advancement. You're talking about belief in god, you just decided to call it "spiritualism". Religion is brand-name spiritualism.


You think scientists are unwilling to face up to the idea that they might be wrong? That's precisely what science is about. Scientists thought the world was flat. Scientists proved them wrong.


How did you manage to leap to that conclusion based on what I said? Allow me to clarify; most scientists choose not to believe in a god or the soul because there's nothing that compels them to, there's nothing that suggests the existence of a god or the soul. Theists, on the other hand, choose to believe in a god or the soul because they like the idea/it makes things easier to understand/they're scared/whatever. Atheism isn't a religion nor is it a cult. It's just a large, unrelated group of people who don't believe in God. There are no "beliefs" in atheism, because atheists don't believe in beliefs (wait...you know what I mean). The atheists don't have a doctrine that they need to protect, they don't have a set of superstitions that they cling to and refuse to give up despite evidence to the contrary. If there was genuine evidence for a god or for the soul then it would be discussed and, if reliable, accepted. There isn't, which is why the majority of scientists remain atheists.

Accusing atheists of holding back human advancement is rambling of Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist-proportions. There's a reason the academic world doesn't agree with your beliefs, and it's not because you know the truth and they're scared to accept it.

/cheer
 
#9
but the other side of what your saying is religous people who refuse to "step outside of the box" and consider that they may be wrong, and that their very well may not be a God.

considering that most athiests are able to accept other ideas as possiblities (i.e creation)...but base their beleifs on mathematical probabilities...really shows why athiests are the best candidates in the advancement of humans..and science.
 
#13
Atheism has become the new dogmatic Church authority. If another scientist provides something that violates the communities bounds, they throw it away, never to be seen again. It makes them uncomfortable. Sounds like the Church Inquisition.

These days, instead of the tried-and-true burning at the stake, these ecclesiastical-like authorities have been replaced by some (not all) people who use the power of universities, governmental grantmaking institutions, and a closed-minded media to threaten the livelihood (through firing, denial of promotion or tenure, withholding of grant money, ridicule and sarcasm) rather than the actual lives of “heretical” scientists whose ideas and research projects don’t fit within accepted bounds.
Do you have any examples of this happening?

God and science is interconnected and those who acknowledge that or just step out of that box of confinement can advance human beings ten-fold. Einstein, Bohr, Heisnberg, Newton (somewhat), Galileo, Schrodinger, Copernicus, and others have proved that theory.
How did they prove that

I'd rather my scientists be atheists based on fact than theists based on faith.
You can't be an atheist based on fact because there is no fact that can prove that there isn't/aren't supernatural power(s) at work in the universe. People who have faith that there is no good are no more qualified to do objective research than people who actively believe there is a god.

it is that faith which allows us to think further and deeper.
How does faith allow you to think further and deeper? Faith answers fundamental questions about the universe. If you have faith in those answers and are satisfied by them, wouldn't you be content to not explore those questions further?
 

SicC

Dying Breed
Staff member
#14
Re: Atheism Slows Human Advancement..... in response to your title. So does ignorance and many other things. Perhaps its humanity's way to always slow advancment in anyway, shape, or form.

pz
 

Sebastian

Well-Known Member
#15
critikaldesignz said:
Science > Religion

Because alot of things in religion can be proven wrong by science.
religion gives million of people around the world hope and strength. i dont think you can say "Science > Religion"...
 
#16
I don’t quite understand the rational behind this whole argument of science and religion as to which is better then the latter. To me they are both two very different things that speak to very different realms.

Science is a theory of natural mechanism that addresses how the natural world works; at its best it should be focused on dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, and be perceptible to all observers. It also can not speak to the ethics and morality of a society.

While religion on the other hand relies exclusively on a personal experience and knowledge that can not be tested empirically and is specify focused on the field of ethics, moral issues and other worldly rewards; a plane that science can not touch because of the whole issue of objectivity.
 

Sebastian

Well-Known Member
#20
well of course thats right, obviously.

on the other hand, faith makes it much easier for a lot of people to mourn and stuff like that. so im not sure if its right to say "science > religion".
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top