Quote :

"No I don't think there is any proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary would indicate that religious concerns are actually helping the progress of stem cell research. I think most ration minds would agree that this is NOT the case. "

forgive me for misspeaking, but you know what i meant. btw, good work at poisoning the well again

Quote :

"There are countless examples of many types religion hampering the progress of science, thinking, and education throughout history."

and there are countless examples of religion HELPING science. Newton, big bang, hell, darwin!
you also realize that in times of great illiteracy, many people were taught to read so they could read the scriptures. we call them priests. as well, reading and writing eventually spread to the masses so they could read scriptures as well. but surely that hindered science and medicine, right?

1/21/2011 10:08:20 PM

So oh great wise burro how exactly is religion helping modern scientific efforts? In times of ignorance and illiteracy people were brainwashed by being immersed in a deluge of myth. Doesn't sound so great does it. The church has a long history of repressing any type of thinking that challenges their views. This is fact. Next you are going to argue repression promotes free thinking

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 10:27 PM. Reason : How did this get this far off topic]

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason : Ff]

1/21/2011 10:22:00 PM

b/c you're feeding him

1/22/2011 1:30:08 AM

this thread still sucks, people.

i'm telling you, you better fix this shit or i'm pulling the plug.

1/22/2011 1:31:31 AM

Quote :

"So oh great wise burro how exactly is religion helping modern scientific efforts?"

given that the two are greatly divorced today, that is an unfair question. The point was to show that religion has greatly aided science in the past. And, to suggest that religion is hampering science today is somewhat absurd, as the power of religion is, at this point, far from being able to do so.

Quote :

"The church has a long history of repressing any type of thinking that challenges their views."

sure it has, but it also has a history of promoting literacy and even some science, as already noted. get off your militant atheism, dude.


but, I guess all of the people contributed nothing to science, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_science

or this guy was wrong in his assertions:

Quote :

"Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule. Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion"

and while I'll happily admit that Wikipedia is not a primary source, consider the following:

Quote :

"Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. [i]For instance, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis[15] and is still very common in popular culture.[i] Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[15][16] Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages," "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science," and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences," are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of "the warfare of science and religion."[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Conflict

sounds to me like YOU are the one who has fallen for myth and brainwashing

1/23/2011 4:39:14 PM

Quote :

"and there are countless examples of religion HELPING science. Newton, big bang, hell, darwin!"

You heard it here folks.

A)Darwin wasn't religious, every attempt to prove he was was blatant quote mining.
B)And even if Newton or Darwin were religious, the claim that their religion was responsible or contributed in the least for their scientific breakthroughs is laughable. Darwin had to battle not only other scientists, but also every religious fundamentalist in his time for his theories. He revised On the Origin of the Species six times to placate populist conceptions.
D)If you're going to claim Lemaître's theory of the Big Bang was due to his religion then I get a free pass to blame every bad thing a religious person has ever done on religion. It's funny how Grumpy didn't call you on this, but I have to actually prove to him the link between religious belief and religious action every time I call out a religious nut for their insanity.

And you didn't even fucking know who Lemaître was before I mentioned him in this thread, did you?

Quote :

"given that the two are greatly divorced today, that is an unfair question. The point was to show that religion has greatly aided science in the past. And, to suggest that religion is hampering science today is somewhat absurd, as the power of religion is, at this point, far from being able to do so."

Well of course not if your definition of hampering is "only an entire blocking of funding such that absolutely no stem cell research can happen."

If a single creationist teacher teaches their class that evolution is not true, the damage done to science is nearly incalculable. Nevermind funding, or federal sanction of bullshit.

[Edited on January 23, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2011 7:50:53 PM

Quote :

"If a single creationist teacher teaches their class that evolution is not true, the damage done to science is nearly incalculable. Nevermind funding, or federal sanction of bullshit."

then you have an absurd definition of "hindering."

Quote :

"Darwin wasn't religious, every attempt to prove he was was blatant quote mining."

only, he actually was, at least earlier in life. You might want to do a little research.

1/23/2011 8:10:21 PM

LOL, Have you even read On the Origin of the Species?

I have, and also he extensive journals aboard his trips aboard the beagle over the course of years. What "research" would you suggest?

1/23/2011 8:13:53 PM

you said he was never religious, but that is far from the case. His belief is what got him into the field, for crying out loud. As he learned more, yes, he became agnostic, but at one time he wanted to be a clergyman. If that's not "religious," then I don't know what is

you also seem to have neglected this:

Quote :

"Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule. Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion"

[Edited on January 23, 2011 at 8:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2011 8:41:54 PM

Oh snap,

I disagree with Gary Ferngren, Professor
Greece and Rome, Ancient Medicine
Department of History at Oregon State University.

Gonna have to do better than a Wikipedia quote to convince me that religion has been the great nurturer of science that you wish that it was.

And again, even IF Darwin was the most religious person in the world, to state that his religion was responsible for or even contributed in any way to his evolutionary theories would be a laughable claim without at least some evidentiary support.

And also I didn't claim that he was "never religious." At the time of the publication of his meaningful works and at the time of his death he clearly was not. I used to be religious, but it would very clearly be accurate for someone to refer to me as non-religious now and if I died tomorrow it would continue to be the accurate description.

[Edited on January 23, 2011 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2011 9:03:52 PM

Quote :

"And also I didn't claim that he was "never religious.""

*ahem*

Quote :

"disco_stu: Darwin wasn't religious, every attempt to prove he was was blatant quote mining."

Quote :

"Gonna have to do better than a Wikipedia quote to convince me that religion has been the great nurturer of science that you wish that it was."

I'm not saying it has been a consistent "great nurturer," nor is that guy. Rather, I'm saying it hasn't been a 100% hindrance as adder has claimed. There is a difference, you know.

Quote :

"And again, even IF Darwin was the most religious person in the world, to state that his religion was responsible for or even contributed in any way to his evolutionary theories would be a laughable claim without at least some evidentiary support."

Use wiki to find the sources for it. Darwin initially subscribed to a great number of "design theories" which he was trying to further. He just ended up doing the exact opposite, lol. Then again, we know Darwin was influenced by Thomas Malthus, who was a clergyman. Surely there was no religious influence there, was there...

Quote :

"At the time of the publication of his meaningful works and at the time of his death he clearly was not."

Even that is not entirely true. When he published OTOOS, he still was a bit of a theist. By the time he got to TDOM, he was certainly agnostic.

[Edited on January 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2011 9:18:00 PM

Quote :

"Use wiki to find the sources for it. Darwin initially subscribed to a great number of "design theories" which he was trying to further. He just ended up doing the exact opposite, lol. Then again, we know Darwin was influenced by Thomas Malthus, who was a clergyman. Surely there was no religious influence there, was there... "

That's a good revisionist interpretation, but it's not really that accurate.

Pretty much EVERYONE was "religious" back in the days, whether they actually were religious or not. It was just the social thing to do. Darwin didn't go out doing what he did because of religion, he was simply a curious person who happened to be raised in a religious environment.

And before Darwin the Church was the next most powerful force next to the government (and often the wealthiest) , and you couldn't really get anywhere without catering to the church political system in some way. There's plenty of early scientists who worked for the church because that's the only place you could get paid to not "do" anything.

1/23/2011 11:06:50 PM

pretty much lazarus is atheist tool that got all butt hurt over cnn having a short deal on saint hood in general.

there are plenty of decent and valid arguments against organized religion, however yours is not one of them.

good luck with that.

1/24/2011 3:08:44 AM

Quote :

"Pretty much EVERYONE was "religious" back in the days, whether they actually were religious or not. It was just the social thing to do. Darwin didn't go out doing what he did because of religion, he was simply a curious person who happened to be raised in a religious environment."

so that's why he wanted to be a minister, right?

Quote :

"There's plenty of early scientists who worked for the church because that's the only place you could get paid to not "do" anything."

So, what you are saying is that the church *helped* scientists?

1/24/2011 7:08:09 AM

Quote :

"so that's why he wanted to be a minister, right?"

If you would actually read his autobiography, instead of stopping with the first Wikipedia reference that fits your predetermined opinion, you would see that Charles Darwin never "wanted" to be a minister.

it was his father who encouraged young Darwin to enroll in the BA at Cambridge as pre-Divinity after his studies to be a physician fell through. His father didnt want his son to become a bum, and being a minister in the Church of England was a respectable profession.

But Darwin had a weak background in the classics, so after about a year of getting nowhere with his pre-Divinity studies he moved into natural history which was his real interest, especially geology.

1/24/2011 12:15:51 PM

1/24/2011 3:25:30 PM

haha

someone needs to photoshop "Aw Geez. Not this shit again." on that pic

1/24/2011 4:45:03 PM