patrick.net

Vicente says

But I'm pretty certain that one day we'll have a lot more than we do now, and it won't come from navel-gazing and studying mythology.

True. Of course it won't come from poetry, music, philosophy, literature, working out, or eating a healthy diet either.

That video was retarded. CaptainShuddup was either trying to stir up trouble, or is just very ignorant (or in this case is logical, i.e. A | B)

"Hey guys, since we don't yet have a very good understanding of what existed before the big bang, God must exist and the Bible is true"

T says

Not sure what the point of the video was.

The point of the video was to show that arguments against the existence of a god are flawed. The video failed miserably at that point.

T says

Science teaches people to think critically. Religion teaches people to believe what they're told without question.

Really?? Try critically disputing any politicized flavor of the month theory in Science. You'll be put on Witch trial, drawn and quartered and all references of you will be expunged from the chronicles.

There is no debate in Science anymore it's controlled via comity and you better not dispute the letter of the sacred law. Even when Science is wrong, they were right all along.

They are so full of them selves, they ponder alternate universes with a straight face, and ostracize stoners for doing the same.

It used to be funny, now it's just scary.

oliverks1 says

That video was retarded. CaptainShuddup was either trying to stir up trouble, or is just very ignorant (or in this case is logical, i.e. A | B)

Says the "A" Hole with 37 comments. He's either a special prick or just your garden variety. (or in this case is logical, i.e. A | B)

CaptainShuddup says

There is no debate in Science anymore it's controlled via comity and you better not dispute the letter of the sacred law.

You have got to be kidding. Science is still based on the peer review process, which is grueling, but it ensures that the truth, whatever it is, ultimately wins. No other human en devour has come remotely close to the success of the scientific method, not by a long shot.

Well what good is peer review when the peers are selected via a personality contest?

Understand, I don't have a gripe with science just those Zealots that wrongfully wield it to rule with an iron fist. That's how we end up with carbon credits that does dick all for the "IF" factor, while making many people filthy rich, yet once again managing to instil burden and hardship on the poor and middle class at the end of the day. They are ultimately who pays the price for all Liberal pipe dreams.

CaptainShuddup says

Well what good is peer review when the peers are selected via a personality contest?

Atomic Power
Space Flight
Human Genome Mapped
Acceleration of the expansion of the universe proven
Global Positioning Satellites
Carbon Nanotubes
The Internet
History of the universe to 10^-42 seconds after the Big Bang
Genetic engineering and applied evolution through artificial selection
Direct fossil evidence of the color of dinosaur feathers
Self-Replicating Life With Synthetic DNA
The complete lineage of mankind
NDM-1 Superbug Decoded
The creation of embryos with three parents
Proof of extrasolar planets
Proof of sentience in various non-human animals on this planet
Application of human evolution to develop AIDS prevention drug
Discovery of water on the moon
The development of infectious disease prevention and treatment
The development of electrical power and the electric grid
The eradication of smallpox
Computers, television, radio, and fiber optics
Reprogramming adult cells to act as stem cells

And that's just a few of the things that peer reviewed science has brought to you. No other human en devour has come remotely close to the success of the scientific method, not by a long shot. 'Nuff said.

Hey Captain, what did religion give us versus the accomplishments above?

I'll make a list for you:

* Charity that fed/clothed a tiny fraction of the poor
* Opposition to the welfare state that actually clothed and fed a much larger chunk of poor people to a greater degree
* Glorified Procreation
* STDs and overpopulation
* Occasionally impressive Marriage Ceremonies
* Warfare
* Some Good Music
* Genocide
* Emotional Comfort for some poor people
* Justification for why some people are poor (Calvin, some Evangelicals)
* Emotional Comfort for some sick people
* Lavish Funerals

I'll take the toaster oven, the tv, and eat a reheated pizza in a climate controlled living room while watching a show on extrasolar planets. You can have the Genocide and a Lavish Funeral that's accompanied by some Hymns and Excuses for why suffering is noble.

thunderlips11 says

This one's easy.

All the theists have to do is show what was or wasn't there before the big bang. We don't know that there was nothing before the big bang.

Of course, that's only step one for theists. We'll need to find the super God that created God, and the super duper God that created super God who created God and so on. Since everything has a cause, and a complex being like God has to have a creator.

What is "before". Physics did not come up yet with a reasonable concept of Time without Light. There was no "before" before the Big Bang. Stupid. Similarly, there is no need in super God creating God, because God does not exist inside the time.

Dan8267 says

Human Genome Mapped

Tea leaves

Dan8267 says

Global Positioning Satellites

Skynet wonderful!

Dan8267 says

History of the universe to 10^-42 seconds after the Big Bang

I prefer Ren and Stipmy as far as good animation goes.

Dan8267 says

Genetic engineering and applied evolution through artificial selection

Yeah, Monsanto has mutated the crops of farmers that don't license their seeds, rendering those natural crops useless.
This is a very dangerous technology just because we can, sometimes it is best to ask should we.

Dan8267 says

Self-Replicating Life With Synthetic DNA

Why?

Dan8267 says

The complete lineage of mankind

Oh no not another bender list.

Dan8267 says

Computers, television, radio, and fiber optics

Um you said that.

You can belittle the accomplishments of science all you want with merit-less gripes, but it doesn't change the fact that the accomplishments of science far exceeds that of any other human enterprise, whereas the greatest accomplishments of religion have been mass pedophilia, genocide, and slavery.

Dan8267 says

whereas the greatest accomplishments of religion have been mass pedophilia, genocide, and slavery

Dan, always the unemotional unbiased objective logician scientist.

Just kidding, this comment tells you everything you need to know about Dan. Always taking the balanced approach in his analysis.

And yes, you were just off ignore for me to read the last half of that priceless sentence.

Dan is so extreme he makes Dawkins look like an intelligent and balanced well adjusted human being.

marcus says

And yes, you were just off ignore for me to read the last half of that priceless sentence.

For someone who is ignoring me, you sure seem to follow my posts a hell of a lot.

marcus says

Dan is so extreme he makes Dawkins look like an intelligent and balanced well adjusted human being.

1. Dawkins is an intelligent, balanced, and well-adjusted human being. And if you think he's not, then you're retarded.
2. The only thing I'm extreme on is telling the truth. You might as well accuse me of being an extreme Round-Earther because I believe that communication satellites are orbiting our spherical world.

marcus says

Always taking the balanced approach in his analysis.

You don't need to tell both sides of the story when one side is complete bullshit. For example, we don't teach students both astronomy and astrology, both chemistry and alchemy, both calculus and numerology.

Being objective and impartial does not mean striving to make both sides look equally good. An impartial report of the Holocaust is still going to make the Nazis look like assholes. Sometimes the truth is all on one side, and impartial treatment would reveal this. But I don't suppose you'll ever understand that simple fact.

Any dipshit adolescent with an IQ above 70 can easily point to the negatives of religion and logic of being a good person independent of fear of punishment or the possibility of a reward in afterlife.

But, I still say that these kids have obvious conflicts and fears that are driving their biased view if they can't comprehend most of the positives.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0101.html

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.

Catholic Encyclopedia - there's an unbiased source about the relationship between Church and "Natural Philosophy" in history.

Sure, compared to some Fundy Proddy sects today, the Church isn't backward. Sure, the Jesuits have placed a high value on learning, that's how they got"ins" to the Courts of Chinese Emperors and Malay Kings, their knowledge of astronomy and languages.

Since the French Revolution and the rise of anti-clericalism, the Church has been far more open to science. Before that, it's a whole other kettle of fish. Asserting that he Church has always been the handmaiden of science distorts the other ~1700 years of Church history.

Science comes out of Greco-Roman tradition, not the Judeo-Christian tradition.

T says

I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the Catholic church didn't have history in destroying the progress of science. Not because the theory itself was bad, but because it went against their definition of the Book.

The Catholic church has a mixed history in regards to science. They have actually been relatively pro-science (some of the first universities and all that) except when science goes against dogma. Then is when you get your Galileos.

leoj707 says

The Catholic church has a mixed history in regards to science. They have actually been relatively pro-science (some of the first universities and all that) except when science goes against dogma. Then is when you get your Galileos.

The Catholic Church has always supported any academic thesis that it can use to convince the masses that they should follow the Catholic Church. That's why the Church loved Ptolemy and Aristotle. Anything that increases their power is good, and anything that decreases it is bad. Hardly a benign or noble motive.

What really stinks about the whole monotheism thing is that it's so specific and arbitrary. Why believe in a god or afterlife in the first place when nothing in the universe suggests that they exist? Why believe in only on god? Why believe that the creator of the universe should know about or give a rat's ass about humans? Why believe that the creator of the universe should be benign instead of evil? Monotheism makes dozens of ridiculous assumptions justifying none of them and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

T says

The key difference is that science is based on observed collection of facts and data. Big bang might be possible to prove with science, but it builds up to that, not the other way around.

On the other hand, religion is based on a supernatural being or god, where the whole faith is based on that entity and the faith crumbles if that entity is proven to be false.

Science is proof without certainty -- religion is certainty without proof.

Religion(s) will never be proven false. They will just redefine god(s)/spirits to work with the current level of evidence.

Dan8267 says

Hardly a benign or noble motive.

Yes, and religious or not I would be willing to bet that many scientific advances happen because of motives that are not benign or noble.

Dan8267 says

Why believe in a god or afterlife in the first place when nothing in the universe suggests that they exist? Why believe in only on god? Why believe that the creator of the universe should know about or give a rat's ass about humans?

Dan, you need to don the god helmet.

People have the same experience provided by the god helmet naturally. Just as your touch, sight, taste, hearing and smell provide you with evidence of the world around you there are those believe their god helmet feelings also proved them with evidence of "truth".

leoj707 says

there are those believe their god helmet feelings also proved them with evidence of "truth".

In the same way that crack cocaine is evidence of "truth" like my hand is soooo groovey.

Thanks, but I'll pass. Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's good for you. Religion is like crack, only more dangerous.

Dan8267 says

In the same way that crack cocaine is evidence of "truth" like my hand is soooo groovey.

Physics, math, science, etc. all these things I would come to you with questions. Apparently however drugs is not among these things.

*ah-hem*

While I am no expert myself "groovey" should never be used as an adjective for "cocaine". You are thinking of magic mushrooms; which coincidentally have been shown to have very positive side effects
. We would probably be a lot better off as a country if more people took courses of mushrooms every few years or so.

That said, yes religion is like effects of drug, but without the actually use of drugs. Like going for a run can feel like cocaine. There is a big difference in perception when someone knows an effect is due to an external drug and when it comes naturally -- and perhaps even brought on by prayer, meditation, temple ceremony, snake handling, or whatever is the spiritual ritual de jour…

leoj707 says

That said, yes religion is like effects of drug, but without the actually use of drugs.

Actually, I think that pretty much all those ancient religions were based on drug trips. Burning bush -- opium. Talking snakes -- Mary Jane. Christians and Jews could legitimately claim that doing narcotics is a religious practice since all their theological myths are based on drug induced hallucinations.

Dan8267 says

Christians and Jews could legitimately claim that doing narcotics is a religious practice since all their theological myths are based on drug induced hallucinations.

Yes, and the "natural" religious experience can also prompt visual, auditory and tactile hallucinations without the aid of drugs.

Drugs being much more reliable, all kinds of religions past and present use chemicals to launch or enhance the religious experience. However, I don't think that drugs -- or the god helmet for that matter -- "convert" anyone to belief. I would guess that those who view drug experiences as religious "truth" already were believers of some flavor, and the drugs are just reenforcing what they already believe -- be it UFO's, Huitzilopochtli or Jesus.

OK, so you don't want to try the god helmet (I don't blame you, I would not put that on my head) or drugs. Do you like spicy food? Eating a rack of the hottest BBQ ribs you can find can bring your mind to a kind of proto-psycadelic state.

Ribs aren't Hot. I bet you've never even seen a rib.

Plenty of non-intentional ways to hallucinate in the pre-modern world as well.

A little too much tansy or wormwood in a jug of wine would do it. Not to mention Ergot in rye breads. I imagine some other forms of food poisoning could bring on hallucinations.

A little wiki searching shows that Ergot was called "Saint Anthony's Fire" and a whole hospital order of monks specialized in mitigating the effects, which was believed to be spiritual in origin at the time.

thunderlips11 says

A little too much tansy or wormwood in a vat of wine would do it.

The hallucinogenic effects of wormwood are vastly exaggerated and steeped in myth. Absinth is no more hallucinogenic than a redbull and vodka.

Tansy I am not familiar with.

thunderlips11 says

Not to mention Ergot in rye breads.

Ergot? Or was it actually witches...
http://www.damninteresting.com/bad-rye-and-the-salem-witches/

leoj707 says

The hallucinogenic effects of wormwood are vastly exaggerated and steeped in myth. Absinth is no more hallucinogenic than a redbull and vodka.

Wormwood contains thujone that can cause seizures and hallucinations in high doses, and yes, in typically much higher amounts than found in Absinthe.

However, herbs were used frequently as treatments for ailments.

It's not unlikely that people drank infusions or drinks with wormwood or tansy in ludicrous amounts. Many western and Asian traditional medicine nuts poison themselves today with overdoses of herbs that are harmless in normal quantities, including a few that are normally culinary herbs. Especially if they mix essential oils in drinks.

We do know that "Midnight Tea" or other similarly named concoctions were used to induce abortion, and they contain large amounts of pretty common herbs.

thunderlips11 says

It's not unlikely that people drank infusions or drinks with wormwood or tansy in ludicrous amounts. Many western and Asian traditional medicine nuts poison themselves today with overdoses of herbs that are harmless in normal quantities, including a few that are normally culinary herbs.

Yeah, with wormwood at least I thought that at hallucinogenic dosage levels you were just as likely to kill yourself.

I think that Absinth was originally a "preventative" tonic.

leoj707 says

Yeah, with wormwood at least I thought that at hallucinogenic dosage levels you were just as likely to kill yourself.

True. I do know that wormwood is traditionally believed to be a way of ridding yourself of parasites, hence the name.

Some village wise woman dosing people with copious amounts of wormwood is possible.

But you're right, googling I see the range of dosage between getting the fireworks and killing yourself seems to be very narrow.

leoj707 says

thunderlips11 says

Not to mention Ergot in rye breads.

Ergot? Or was it actually witches...

http://www.damninteresting.com/bad-rye-and-the-salem-witches/

Great article, thanks Leo.

It mentions another religion-inducing substance, Kykeon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kykeon

Antikythera mechanism and the pyramids. Beat that.

Bap33 says

Antikythera mechanism

Awesome.

Cloud says

and over here we have Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Galilei, Descarte, Pascal, Newton, Boyle, Fraraday, Mendel...and on and on.

That is an immensely stupid argument. Have you actually considered what their views would likely be if they had been born in this day and age?

Bigsby, please see my last post, and recall the time frame of such creations, and then argue why today's minds are better than the minds that knew/realized/expressed/investigated a spiritual world as well as a physical world. Please.

This is ridiculous. What kind of society do you think they were born and raised in? What kind of knowledge of the world did they have? They may have been great men of their time, but their knowledge of the sciences was a tiny fraction of what we know now. Why not do a quick Google of the beliefs held by scientists nowadays? Do you not see the point? You can't turn round and say 'well all these scientists in the past believed in God.' Well pretty much everyone believed in God then and if they didn't they very much kept it to themselves for some very obvious reasons.