There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[Calin Leafshade]

Well, that's the benefit of seeing Jesus as a philosopher and not a religious figure whom I have to follow to the letter.

That would be fine except that Jesus was a fairly bad philosopher. Most of the "good" ideas Jesus spoke of were outlined hundreds, if not thousands, of years before he was born.

Hardly the revealed wisdom of the divine.

[Eric]

And again, the strength of Jesus was his ability to distill all of this down into simple aphorisms and didactic parables, and, historically, to do it in ways that resonated with the Jewish culture he was addressing.

I'm not sure what we're arguing here. That Jesus as he's represented in the Bible was a bad person? That his thoughts were unoriginal and therefore not worthy of consideration?

[Igor Hardy]

How about a few more words? Because I'm talking about landing a rover on Mars using a sky crane, eradicating smallpox and polio, building quantum computers inside diamonds, and figuring out how single celled organisms turned into the diversity of life we see today by purely natural processes.
How does any of this compare to what religion does/is?

The things you mention are fragments of reality. Religion has a lot of bearing on how the world we live in is. It influenced people's actions throughout centuries and is influencing them still. So that is religion's connection to reality. And in that sense religion is very much comparable to theoretical science.

But if you want me to compare religion directly to reality, it compares pretty much as any other piece of fiction describing reality to reality. And the theoretical/explanatory content of science is not that much different.

The reason I wrote to you in the first place was your attack on Baron's well-founded advice to approach scientific theories with a healthy dose of skepticism. I imagine you must be some extreme materialist.

[Khris]

The things you mention are fragments of reality. Religion has a lot of bearing on how the world we live in is. It influenced people's actions throughout centuries and is influencing them still. So that is religion's connection to reality. And in that sense religion is very much comparable to theoretical science.

But if you want me to compare religion directly to reality, it compares pretty much as any other piece of fiction describing reality to reality. And the theoretical/explanatory content of science is not that much different.

How? Why? Nothing of this makes sense. Are you saying that because religion still permeates society, it has some intrinsic value? Is this also true of the belief in witchcraft in Africa?
Are you seriously suggesting science is basically "just another religion"!?

The reason I wrote to you in the first place was your attack on Baron's well-founded advice to approach scientific theories with a healthy dose of skepticism. I imagine you must be some extreme materialist.

"Well-founded"? Not in the least. And please don't tell me you can't distinguish between a theory in the colloquial sense and a scientific theory.
I don't believe this. This ignorance about science is breathtaking.

Science is fundamentally different from religion. It seeks to eliminate personal bias. It follows the evidence wherever it leads.
If you think this means I blindly trust anything that claims to be scientific, and that people like me have basically replaced priests by people in lab coats, you are simply clueless.

[Baron]

If you don't enjoy discussing religion, there's no f-ing reason to barge in and tell everyone about it. Just pick another discussion to take part of.

You are beautiful when you are angry.   I like you for that.

There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?

Malaria, which is both preventable and treatable (according to Science) and yet it kills about 500 000 people every year!.  How about that cholera epidemic that killed more Hatians than the 2010 earthquake (~ 250 000 deaths).  But maybe the media is spinning some kind of sensational yarn to sell advertisements, so let's look closer to home.  Asphyxia before birth, caused by the umbilical cord being wrapped around a baby's neck and often results in brain damage.  Easily preventable.  But I have an extended family member who will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair and will max his vocabulary out at 100 words due to this.  Go science.

To anticipate your argument, you'll say these are examples of imperfect execution.  Science is perfect, and it's human error (individual doctor or collective political class) that has brought about these tragedies.  But, from the perspective of the man in the trenches, much the same argument can be made for why "god" allows bad things to happen while he himself remains flawless.  Both "science" and "god" are these all-powerful forces that can solve all your problems (in theory), but are just as equally likely to leave you stranded and disappointed in practice.  You may choose to believe in one or the other, and if that makes you feel more secure then so be it.  All I'm saying is that neither has convinced me, and that I still harbour doubts about both.

And how does science tell kids not to play outside?

Too much UV exposure will give you skin cancer.  Too much exposure to nitrous-oxide and other smog-born chemicals causes lung disease and possibly developmental delays in younger children.  Social science gives us crime statistics that increase the perception of danger on the street (although a close reading of those same statistics should in fact do the opposite... ), and medical studies a greater awareness of the long-term impacts of concussions and breaking the growth-zone of bones before reaching maturity.  The sum total of these perfectly rational studies is to promote a vigilant culture among parents, thereby restricting such unquantifiable aspects of childhood as "unstructured fun" in favour of caution and safety.  You can look at school regulations that clearly dissuade kids from doing anything that might maybe possibly cause them even the slightest injury.  When is the last time you saw a teeter-totter on a school yard?  Or a merry-go-round?  Or a tire ladder?  Or a game of Red-Rover?  You can find scientific studies that show that kids do not play outside as much as they used to, and that childhood obesity rates are sky-rocketing.  Why?  Because people are making rational decisions based on what science tells them, to their own and society's detriment!

If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.

I don't think science can distance itself from such clearly implicit recommendations.  Even if science doesn't tell you to go indoors to avoid the radioactive cloud, a reasonable person could anticipate that as the understood instruction.  In a court of law it is not so much the exact wording of the fine print as the interpretation of that fine print by a reasonable person that would make a party culpable or not.  Science can not wash it's hands of the consequences of its discoveries with an "I'm just saying...." remark that will absolve it of all responsibility.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

But they knew eating pork was making some people sick, and so agreed with their prophets and stopped....  Don't you see the parallel between "prophet" and "study"?  Both convince you to change your lifestyle as, for all intents and purposes if you're just an everyman, a matter of faith.

[Ponch]

Ok, I just removed a bunch of posts that ignored the warning I posted like less than 24 hours ago.

Really guys, respect the topic of the thread.

If you don't enjoy discussing religion, there's no f-ing reason to barge in and tell everyone about it. Just pick another discussion to take part of.

I thought my post drawing a parallel between a person's particular religious faith and brand loyalty was clever and funny. Apparently, it was neither.

[Lt. Smash]

There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?

Malaria, which is both preventable and treatable (according to Science) and yet it kills about 500 000 people every year!.  How about that cholera epidemic that killed more Hatians than the 2010 earthquake (~ 250 000 deaths).  But maybe the media is spinning some kind of sensational yarn to sell advertisements, so let's look closer to home.  Asphyxia before birth, caused by the umbilical cord being wrapped around a baby's neck and often results in brain damage.  Easily preventable.  But I have an extended family member who will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair and will max his vocabulary out at 100 words due to this.  Go science.

It seems you don't quite understand what the purpose of science is. What you are talking about is more of simplified science, which you hear over TV or radio. But real science is all about cause and probability. You won't hear any scientist say we can cure Malaria to 100%. He/She will say that it is extremely likely to cure a person with Malaria, if everything is done correctly. But there is always this 0.00001% (or whatsover) possibility that the therapy doesn't work for that person for several reasons.
But why are so many people dying of Malaria or similar deseases, according to science there should be just a few? Politics, culture, religion and many other things are the cause for this. In most of the countries where such illness is "normal" there is no real social or health care system. Doctors don't have the possibilites to cure such deseases. Some reject therapy because of religious beliefs and so on. Nothing that has to do anything with science.

And how does science tell kids not to play outside?

Too much UV exposure will give you skin cancer.  Too much exposure to nitrous-oxide and other smog-born chemicals causes lung disease and possibly developmental delays in younger children.  Social science gives us crime statistics that increase the perception of danger on the street (although a close reading of those same statistics should in fact do the opposite... ), and medical studies a greater awareness of the long-term impacts of concussions and breaking the growth-zone of bones before reaching maturity.  The sum total of these perfectly rational studies is to promote a vigilant culture among parents, thereby restricting such unquantifiable aspects of childhood as "unstructured fun" in favour of caution and safety.  You can look at school regulations that clearly dissuade kids from doing anything that might maybe possibly cause them even the slightest injury.  When is the last time you saw a teeter-totter on a school yard?  Or a merry-go-round?  Or a tire ladder?  Or a game of Red-Rover?  You can find scientific studies that show that kids do not play outside as much as they used to, and that childhood obesity rates are sky-rocketing.  Why?  Because people are making rational decisions based on what science tells them, to their own and society's detriment!

You are just speaking of a few little parts of science. Psychology is also science and if you ask a pyschologist he won't advise any parents to prevent their kids from all dangers. Fun, dangerous events, illness are all essential experiences to children to make them grow up normally (psychologically and physiologically).
If you are so sure that science causes detriment for society, then please tell me some real examples. I could come up with millions of examples where science helped society and no single one where religion did.

If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.

I don't think science can distance itself from such clearly implicit recommendations.  Even if science doesn't tell you to go indoors to avoid the radioactive cloud, a reasonable person could anticipate that as the understood instruction.  In a court of law it is not so much the exact wording of the fine print as the interpretation of that fine print by a reasonable person that would make a party culpable or not.  Science can not wash it's hands of the consequences of its discoveries with an "I'm just saying...." remark that will absolve it of all responsibility.

Science tells you what happens with your body if confronted with too much radioactivity. It tells you the probablity of your death if you are outside, inside, behind lead walls etc.
The logical consequence is to stay in-house or if you have a bunker go in there. Lead walls preferable.
Science doesn't need to wash it's hands of consequences, it clearly says that it IS possible to die even if you are in your house or your lead bunker.
Religion says that if you do some things (without giving good reason) nothing can happen to you. But it does. So religion must wash it's hands of the consequences! Science does admit that shit can happen.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

But they knew eating pork was making some people sick, and so agreed with their prophets and stopped....  Don't you see the parallel between "prophet" and "study"?  Both convince you to change your lifestyle as, for all intents and purposes if you're just an everyman, a matter of faith.

If a man in rags tells you to stop eating pork because god will make you sick if you do, would you believe him?
Or do you believe a man who tells you that eating old meat can make you sick because it's very probable that it already has started rotting and explains you what rotting is and causes to your body?
Like Khris says people didn't have any understanding of such things at that time. You could tell them anything and they would believe it, at least if you add god into the explanation.

[Khris]

Baron, so what are you saying: that we should stop all research, because it might have some bad implications...!?
You are redefining science as "policies about what we should and shouldn't do". You are free to oppose that, but don't call it science.
I don't care about a guy in a trench who is too stupid to understand the difference.

I don't think science can distance itself from such clearly implicit recommendations.

Yes it can. Science says how things are, not how they should be. But disregarding that for a moment: if we find out that there's an increased risk of getting skin cancer now, are we supposed to not make it public because our children are going to spend less time outside? I can't understand your view on this, not at all. It sounds like you desperately want to live in the past because you think everything used to be better (it wasn't).

You mentioned your relative with the umbilical cord around his neck. How was science causing that? According to you, science didn't want to prevent that. I don't know what's more ridiculous, the notion that science is an entity that can make decisions, or holding it responsible for what happened.

Both "science" and "god" are these all-powerful forces that can solve all your problems (in theory), but are just as equally likely to leave you stranded and disappointed in practice.  You may choose to believe in one or the other, and if that makes you feel more secure then so be it.  All I'm saying is that neither has convinced me, and that I still harbour doubts about both.

I don't even know what to say to this. It's not even wrong.

Edit:
Took a shower, cooled off a bit and decided to address one of the specific arguments.

Malaria, which is both preventable and treatable (according to Science) and yet it kills about 500 000 people every year!.

How is this the fault of science? As long as there are people who think homeopathy will help against Malaria, or who refuse treatment until it's too late, people will die from diseases like Malaria.
Also:

In the most severe cases of the disease, fatality rates can reach 20%, even with intensive care and treatment.

So again, how is this science's fault? HOW?

I also feel I have to address the "science is just another religion" part of your argument. Religions usually consist of three things: they provide a moral framework, they provide "facts" about the universe, and they tell the history of at least their part of the world. Science can only address the latter two; the first is where humanism comes in.
If people die of a cholera epidemic, it's not science's fault, it's the fault of people. Maybe there wasn't enough money, maybe help didn't get there fast enough. Pinning this on science is delusional.

[Baron]

It seems you don't quite understand what the purpose of science is. What you are talking about is more of simplified science, which you hear over TV or radio. But real science is all about cause and probability.

Well, let's get our definitions straight, so at least we are talking about the same thing.  My understanding of science is a systematic approach to building up knowledge through testing hypotheses through experimentation.  Causation and probability are often further hypotheses based on the evidence at hand, but I would disagree that they are what science is "all about".  I would say that a large segment of society ascribes to science the power to absolutely determine causation, but I think you are more accurate in saying that a scientist would only claim a high-degree of probable causation.  The central issue I take with science is that it promises that a systematic, rational and objective approach can solve all problems.  I doubt this, since as I've already explained rational and evidence based conclusions based on isolated observations and experiments can and often do have unintended consequences when applied to the real world.  Further, I contend that science displays a degree of hypocrisy in its very nature: replicable experiments by their nature need to be isolated to minimize the number of variables involved, but the build-up of the knowledge based on those results does not often equate to applicability in the real world (and thus constitutes "knowledge" to the same degree as "knowing" how many angels can fit on top of a pin). I fully concede that science has had many successes, as has religion, but I find it hard to place blind faith in something that is clearly fallible. 

If you are so sure that science causes detriment for society, then please tell me some real examples.

...Er, how about nuclear bombs?

I could come up with millions of examples where science helped society and no single one where religion did.

How about "love thy neighbour"?  Don't get me wrong, I think science beats religion hands down 19 times out of 20.  But I will concede that there are some merits to religion some of the time for some people, and I don't think science has it right 100% of the time.

If a man in rags tells you to stop eating pork because god will make you sick if you do, would you believe him?

What is this, some sort of ad hominem argument?  Who cares what the guy looks like?  I think we're on the same wavelength regarding people's grasp of the facts in the past: what they called divine retribution we would understand as some sort of pathogen.  But that shouldn't take away from religion's historical successes: it was successful because people saw it as contributing to making their lives better, however ill-conceived its ideas actually were.  Also, this argument pre-supposes that we have all the answers now (a glaring fault a number of you have pointed out in ardent religious believers), while I suspect that the future will prove our ignorance just as we have exposed that of religion.

Baron, so what are you saying: that we should stop all research, because it might have some bad implications...!?

I am saying science should not be seen as infallible.  I am saying this over and over again.

I don't care about a guy in a trench who is too stupid to understand the difference.

You are the man in the trench too.  The universe exerts its force on you, and you (as all of us) have only an imperfect conception of why or how.  You turn to science for understanding, but others do otherwise.  To proclaim superior knowledge of the mortal condition than anyone else is conceited, and differs little in outward appearance from the holy-rollers you claim to despise.

You mentioned your relative with the umbilical cord around his neck. How was science causing that? According to you, science didn't want to prevent that. I don't know what's more ridiculous, the notion that science is an entity that can make decisions, or holding it responsible for what happened.

The science of medicine has determined acceptable risks for surgical outcomes.  This is rational, unless it happens to you.  I don't pray, but I hope it never does to you.

Both "science" and "god" are these all-powerful forces that can solve all your problems (in theory), but are just as equally likely to leave you stranded and disappointed in practice.  You may choose to believe in one or the other, and if that makes you feel more secure then so be it.  All I'm saying is that neither has convinced me, and that I still harbour doubts about both.

I don't even know what to say to this. It's not even wrong.

Belief (or trust, if you prefer) can not be correct or incorrect according to measurable criteria, so your cute turn of phrase isn't applicable.  I don't need to be told that I don't understand what we are discussing: the very fact that you are wasting your time trying to correct me belies your acceptance that my arguments merit response.

How is [Malaria] the fault of science? As long as there are people who think homeopathy will help against Malaria, or who refuse treatment until it's too late, people will die from diseases like Malaria.

What has caused people to turn to homeopathy but experience of the shortcomings of mainstream medicine?  A failure in one regard shakes confidence throughout.  It seeds doubt.  I have doubts, that is all.

I also feel I have to address the "science is just another religion" part of your argument. Religions usually consist of three things: they provide a moral framework, they provide "facts" about the universe, and they tell the history of at least their part of the world. Science can only address the latter two; the first is where humanism comes in.

These are arbitrary definitions.  I am drawing a parallel between two powerful forces in people's lives.  People turn to religion for answers, and they turn to science for answers.  I contend that neither has all the answers.  Although I admire your conviction that one of them does, I can not share it.

[Khris]

Again, I don't trust anything that calls itself science blindly. I am well aware that proper science doesn't have all the answers and maybe never will. It IS the only way to get actual answers though. It isn't a force; and what constitutes an acceptable risk for surgical outcomes was determined by people, not science.
You have an extremely personified view of science, thinking that it is something we have to trust (as in faith). This is simply not true. AGAIN, I have "faith" in the methodology, not necessarily every scientist.

It also sounds like you're saying that until science is 100% perfect and has all the answers, you might as well reject it. I just can't understand the reasoning behind this.
If you don't have access to clean water and keep getting sick, wouldn't you treasure a device that destroys 50% of the pathogens? This is what science does, as opposed to religion, which simply tells you that you'll get all the clean water you'll ever want after you die.

You mentioned the invention of the nuclear bomb was when science caused a detriment for society. This is of course a common argument. But there are always risks like that. The decision to actually drop two of them on people was made by politicians, not scientists, and especially not science itself. One could also argue that doing so did not just stop a war and while causing them, also prevented lots of deaths, but it also made sure we'd never drop another one. Maybe it prevented an escalation of the cold war. We'll never know. Still, not an argument against science.
Because even if we start charging up the good against the bad, the good will always win. Accumulation of knowledge and understanding about the universe will always win out against psychopaths who decided to use new technology to kill.

Please point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

You have a really skewed way of looking at science, it almost sounds like you're anti-science. Some of your arguments sound like coming from a 12 year old Amish, sorry. It's pretty frustrating, because I have lots of respect for you and think you're a funny, creative and intelligent guy. Seeing you talk like that about the greatest human achievement ever really makes me sad.

[Lt. Smash]

What should I say? Khris has already mentioned everything that's worth to mention.
Maybe you take a look at this website to see how scientists define and describe science.

Regarding your nuclear bomb example. I kinda knew that you would come up with that. Khris already mentioned that it is the human who uses it for bad things. Science does only describe how this things works and doesn't tell any use cases. Every invention by humankind can be used for good things and bad things. Bombs can be used for mining or to flatten floor for streets and building. Also in the near future we will be able to use nuclear bombs or similar bombs to destroy asteroids and comets which would be dangerous if they approach earth. But of course it can be used to kill people and animals.

Let me give you another example, which makes things even clearer: A rifle.
Science describes the way the rifle is working and how you use it in order to fire a projectile into the direction you are aiming.
But humans are the ones who decide to use it for protecting lifes, killing animals (because of food or fun) or killing people. This is the perfect example to show you that a thing can be good or bad depending on how humans use it.

If we would reject every invention that could be dangerous to humans or the earth, we would still live like apes without clothing, no roasted beef, no language, not even religion, just nothing.

[miguel]

I'm back.
This has been all about Khris making a point. It was to me, to Monkey and I can understand that. Personally I stick with the idea that Khris had a really bad experience with religion or religious people, this hate towards religion is almost biblical.
With monkey I understand that Khris got a bit upset that the brightest coder in AGS is religious, I imagine his "NO!" scream when he found out.
But with Baron? C'mon Khris! He had the most reasonable posts around this thread.
And it seams to me that you just don't want to loose a debate, man. You go around picking every little "fault" on one's post and it's common from you to stall conversation and even give opposite meaning to sentences.

And how can you absolve scientists from Hiroshima and Nagasaky?
Because they didn't drop it?
The scientists that built the bomb knew exactly what they were creating.
Could a common guy split the atom, do the formulas and maths, handle the uranium (massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed)?
The Manhattan Project cost 2 Billion Dollars.
Scientists who invented the atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project: Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller. They were considered the greatest minds around that time.
They were the most brilliant minds around 1939, Khris.
They had the capability to understand life, religion, science, god, God or gods and all the things that make the universe and still they consciously decided to make a bomb.

So, I better have a 2000 year old story about God's wrath than a very recent example of what scientists can do.
Sounds childish doesn't it? But this are the "weapons" you've been using on this debate.
And yes, atheists are boring and there are dozens of blogs and forums where they get together and debate their solitude. Check it out.

[Eric]

EDITED to note that Miguel and I posted these messages simultaneously. My response doesn't consider his.

Maybe what Baron is addressing is that it's a difficult proposition to examine science as an objective concept, because it will always, as it is (generally within our realm of consideration -- we could perhaps make some arguments about intelligent animals) a human endeavor, come packaged/polluted with human nature, good and bad -- idealism, greed, compassion, mistrust, stewardship, nationalism, etc. etc.

So of course, there are instances where, in the application of science, our humanity and rationality come in opposition to each other. The nuclear bomb, for instance (and I think that the argument Khris puts forth is still problematic -- you can't just invent the nuclear bomb objectively and blame politicians for dropping it, otherwise you don't go on television and say 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds' when you do), or calculating surgical risk, or deciding whether or not we should suspend federal laws for a little girl to get a lung transplant. Discussion of the ethics of science is important, essential to the application of science.

Where this differs from religion is that this is an ongoing, progressive conversation. The laws of most religions have been codified, and even if we set aside some of them, like the much-cited-in-this-thread example of eating pork, there's no chance for a (since we've brought him up) Kuhnian paradigm shift in which we reject wholesale the beliefs that came before and still call ourselves Christian, or Muslim, or Scientologist, or what-have-you. All new information and human development has to be shoehorned into ancient and antiquated rules for living.

[miguel]

Eric,
I've been trying to say in this debate that modern Catholics can distance themselves from the ancient rules from the Bible, or antiquated resolutions from the Vatican. Modern Catholics follow Jesus and his life more than anything else.

[Snarky]

And how can you absolve scientists from Hiroshima and Nagasaky?
Because they didn't drop it?
The scientists that built the bomb knew exactly what they were creating.
Could a common guy split the atom, do the formulas and maths, handle the uranium (massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed)?
The Manhattan Project cost 2 Billion Dollars.
Scientists who invented the atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project: Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller. They were considered the greatest minds around that time.
They were the most brilliant minds around 1939, Khris.
They had the capability to understand life, religion, science, god, God or gods and all the things that make the universe and still they consciously decided to make a bomb.

Science is a process of increasing our knowledge and understanding. Some consider knowledge a good in itself (preferable to ignorance or wrong beliefs).

But more importantly, knowledge is power: science gives us increased control over the world. That is not inherently a good thing or a bad thing: it can help us solve real problems, but at the same time people don't always use power for good, or in the wisest ways. Still, if there's a question we really want to answer or problem we really need to solve, science is the method that has by far the best track record in doing so.

Whether "progress" (of which science and improvements in technology are some of the biggest contributors) has, in sum and on balance, been for better or for worse is an empirical question, but also depends on your values (one could argue that it would be better for the planet if humans had just remained apes with no science or technology whatsoever). Recent books (e.g. Steven Pinker's) attempt to show that yes, we are in fact better off in measurable ways.

[Lt. Smash]

So, I better have a 2000 year old story about God's wrath than a very recent example of what scientists can do.

Why do you keep making science responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Did science decide to kill hundreds of thousand civilists to decide war in favor of the Allies? Or where it the USA who finally dropped the bombs?

Do you agree that god and religion are responsible for hundreds of wars where millions of people died because of their different beliefs? If not, then stop pissing on things that you obviously will never understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars#Wars.

And yes, atheists are boring ...

Could you come up with an example of why atheists are boring? People who are open for new ideas, new inventions, new experiences do you call boring? Just my opinion but people who live like they used to live 2000 years before and not trying new things are boring.

Some different question @all:
Do you agree that since humans have started distancing from god en masse (beginning with reconnaissance) that life for the average man has become multiple times better than it used to be?

[Khris]

Miguel, your assessment of me is completely wrong, plain and simple. I didn't have any bad experience with religion in any form, whatsoever. Until I was 25 or so, I didn't really care either way, because I didn't come into contact with religion in my daily life, at all (except in school, where is was just another boring subject).
What eventually sparked my interest was the debate over Intelligent Design back in 2005. I read about it, was curious and haven't stopped since then. I realized why agnosticism is complacent and prone to make you feel superior for all the wrong reasons. And I oppose ignorance in all forms.

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed over unfounded and superstitious beliefs. I don't hate Christianity, I hate people who are stuck in ancient morality, people who let religions corrupt them into becoming abominable assholes, even against their better judgment. What I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance (and who actually believe this!), because they'd rather die than admit that their belief system is full of holes and contradictions.

As for monkey, the "brightest coder in AGS", when I found out he's a Mormon, lots of things went through my head, but "NO!" or anything similar surely wasn't among them.

And it seams to me that you just don't want to loose a debate, man. You go around picking every little "fault" on one's post and it's common from you to stall conversation and even give opposite meaning to sentences.

This is just meaningless polemics. The same could be said about any of your posts.

I'm currently in this to defend science. Baron's opinion is as common as it is mislead, and I'm simply trying to correct what I deem to be downright dishonest. And like I said before, it doesn't matter who says something; all that matters is the argument itself.

Like Eric and Snarky pointed out, ethics are important in science. In no way do I think that everything we can do, should necessarily be done, too. I'm still quite torn about animal testing for example, in so far as it is unavoidable to find vaccines or cures.

But the notion that we should regard science as one of many approaches that is as good as the next one is so hare-brained and ridiculous it's almost not even worth commenting on.

I've been trying to say in this debate that modern Catholics can distance themselves from the ancient rules from the Bible, or antiquated resolutions from the Vatican. Modern Catholics follow Jesus and his life more than anything else.

At a point where you disagree with the Vatican of all things, what's even really the point of calling yourself Catholic any longer, "modern" or not? This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[Cuiki]

I realized why agnosticism is complacent and prone to make you feel superior for all the wrong reasons. And I oppose ignorance in all forms.

I think it's actually quite ignorant to believe you're not ignorant yourself. We all are, it's an integral part of human nature. Why would being agnostic make you feel superior? In my opinion, it's actually quite humble to accept that you can't be sure about things that are beyond you to know. Do you know how (and why) the Universe came into existence? Can you tell for sure it wasn't created by some supreme force/aliens from another dimension or something else that could be, by our definitions, considered a divine entity? Can you actually claim you know for sure there is no such thing as god? If so, isn't then atheism just another belief, i.e. a belief in the absence of any supreme force at all?

[Eric]

Can you actually claim you know for sure there is no such thing as god? If so, isn't then atheism just another belief, i.e. a belief in the absence of any supreme force at all?

The problem with this line of thought is: Can you actually claim you know for sure that the universe wasn't created by a giant death metal-loving unicorn who believes that all people named Cuiki should be executed by guillotine? If so, isn't then your non-belief in my death-metal unicorn just another belief, i.e. you should acknowledge the validity of my belief that you should probably be executed by guillotine (so sayeth the Unicorn)?

[Intense Degree]

Please point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

I can only really speak for the UK and Christianity, as that is what I know, but these would include the creation of schools in England (the first we have any records of came with the spread of Christianity), the provision and spread of free schooling for all, hospitals which treated those who could not pay and a massive amount of "charity" work. I suppose it depends how you measure success but that would fit my definition.