Is science more dangerous than religion?

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ilovequestions's picture
Is science more dangerous than religion?

Hey peoples :) I haven't posted in awhile since I've been busy, but I've missed y'all haha. You all are probably like "oh great, ILQ is back... go away..." :) But anyways, here's an observation I've made. Tell me what you think:

Science is more dangerous than religion.

Atrocious things have been done in the name of both science and religion. From genocide to cruel experiments (the Nazis were the worst), humans just have no end to how evil they can be.

But the thing that takes the cake is the atomic bomb. Religion ruled the world for thousands of years, and humanity as a whole was always safe. Science has somewhat overtaken religion for only a few hundred years... and it's already produced things that can wipe out the human race.

So I know that atheists are the champions of scientific advancement and all that... but if we stayed backwards and illiterate (like the good ole' Christian days), humanity would at least be safer.

Science has given us the weapon that could end it all. Science is more dangerous than religion because religion was never going to lead to something that could wipe out life on earth. Religions want people alive to worship whatever individual/several god(s) they believe in.

One part of science is about improving technology... and we sure did improve on swords and catapults :)

What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

P.S. I enjoy my Internet as much as the next person. I love technology :) But science definitely has a darker side that I don't often hear atheists talk about. But I always manage to hear the horrors of religion from y'all :) Fair is fair haha

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

ThePragmatic's picture
@Ilovequestions

@Ilovequestions

This hinges on the definition of words. What do you actually mean by "science"?
If your definition of science is an ideology with some kind of intent or purpose, then perhaps your argument holds.

To me, science is mostly a method of finding objective facts, testing hypothesis, gathering data. It doesn't have an evil agenda or false promises.

Any person can lack empathy for others and have greed for money and power, regardless of their personal stance on religion. That in itself is dangerous, as knowledge or technology can be misused by anyone. But the global danger is ignorance and people who follow dangerous ideologies.

"Science is more dangerous than religion because religion was never going to lead to something that could wipe out life on earth."

To me, it's like blaming the blacksmith who forged the sword for the murder committed with it. Your assuming that we would have stayed in the undeveloped state we were in 2000 years ago? People are naturally curious and inquisitive, so we would make new discoveries no matter what.

"Religions want people alive to worship whatever individual/several god(s) they believe in."

Really? Where did you get this from?
Many eagerly await The End of Days and long for The Rapture. What is really dangerous is when there are people in power that believe such things, and make decisions based on that.

Ilovequestions's picture
Thanks Pragmatic :) I always

Thanks Pragmatic :) I always enjoy your cordial thoughts.

So it's a case of "science" (in this case, technological science) is neutral. It depends on who is driving technology and why they want to improve it? That makes sense.

And I got my opinion from the simple fact that, according to my religion (if you want to go ahead and call it that), God will eventually establish a renewed earth where people will be alive and well :) He wants people to exist for that to happen haha

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Atrocious things have been

"Atrocious things have been done in the name of both science and religion."

As I have stated before, in multiple threads, I do not like "In the name of..." arguments. If we actually applied such forms of reasoning we would be digging a hole that no position could ever escape from, as almost all positions include people that could possibly do something violent and retarded in the name of it.

Dylan Roof claimed to think he was killing black people in the name of America, and was getting rid of criminals, but I doubt you would argue that he represented America in his actions at all. Likewise, I don't blame Christianity on the whole for Jim Jones or the Westboro Baptist Church, as I don't think they represent the majority of Christians with their actions.

"From genocide to cruel experiments (the Nazis were the worst), humans just have no end to how evil they can be."

Really? Nazis? Are you sure you want to go there?

"But the thing that takes the cake is the atomic bomb. Religion ruled the world for thousands of years, and humanity as a whole was always safe."

Not really, no. As a proportion to the total population, the Crusades (1095-1291) killed at least 3,000,000 people by the lowest estimate, and at the time the world had an estimated population of at most 400 million according to the highest estimation I found. That is slightly less than one percent of the population. Meanwhile the populations of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was about 580,000 people at a time the world population was at least 2.3 BILLION, so even if I assumed that every single one of them died, it wouldn't even be a hundredth of a percent. So no, your equivalency is false at the start, and that is not a positive sign.

"Science has somewhat overtaken religion for only a few hundred years... and it's already produced things that can wipe out the human race."

It also has produced things that have the potential to save it from itself, unlike religion claims to. Besides, given the sheer numbers, mankind needed little help wiping itself out before science came around. Not to mention that blaming science for the actions of POLITICIANS would be like me blaming you for the actions of the pedophile priests that so permeate the press these days.

"So I know that atheists are the champions of scientific advancement and all that... but if we stayed backwards and illiterate (like the good ole' Christian days), humanity would at least be safer."

Not all atheists are champions of scientific advancement, we are not a borg collective, if you pick any topic outside of god you are likely to find at least a few atheists on both sides of it. Atheism does not require that you have to like, believe, or even know a damn thing about science. However, if we had remained backwards and illiterate, we would never have developed medical treatments or vaccines. We very well might have been wiped out due to Polio, the black death, or Smallpox by now.

"Science has given us the weapon that could end it all."

No. An atomic bomb could wipe out a city, but it would not destroy the Earth or kill everyone on it. The nearest apocalyptic scenario is the so-called "nuclear winter" and is still roundly considered to be more hype than substance.

"Science is more dangerous than religion because religion was never going to lead to something that could wipe out life on earth."

I don't know, a doomsday fanatic with the ability to start a chain of annihilation may very well decide it is their "religious duty" to get the show on the road. Even with these demonic scientific weapons of ultimate evil, the thing that actually causes the destruction of humanity may still be religious.

"Religions want people alive to worship whatever individual/several god(s) they believe in."

Indeed, and they are not shy about intentions of world domination. One has to worry if they fail, they will decide that if "they can't have it, no one will!"

"One part of science is about improving technology... and we sure did improve on swords and catapults :)"

Let us not forget successful birth rates and life expectancy before science. If one prohibited medical treatment today, in a short amount of time they would successfully kill more people than have ever lived until now.

"What do you think? Agree? Disagree?"

False equivocation is false.

Anonymous's picture
Travis and Pragmatic--Why the

Travis and Pragmatic--Why the fuck do you continue a discussion with llovequestions who is a blooming idiot. His premise about is science more dangerous than religion is not even worth discussing. As it is not the science but the "bad" people who use science in a destructive way that is relevant. I have to stop myself as I am engaging a conversation with a moron and that troubles me. llovequestion comes into this forum all the time and is so full of bullshit and stupid ideas and yet you continue to debate him as if he has a brain. Travis and Pragmatic you both continue to embarrass yourselves debating "anything" at all with this imbecile. Your even are courteous and cordial and "nice" to this "wacko". This is an ongoing "problem" which you continue to discredit yourself as equally foolish as llovequestions(well almost) God Bless

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Travis and Pragmatic--Why

"Travis and Pragmatic--Why the fuck do you continue a discussion with llovequestions who is a blooming idiot."

Because you don't fight misinformation by ignoring or dismissing it, you do so by giving out correct information, which requires one do more than simply call the opposition a moron. In any given argument the opposition might turn out to be an idiot, but they aren't wrong simply because they are an idiot, they are wrong because their arguments and information are. That style of ad hominem argumentation has no place in the fields I work in, because it is fallacious, so we actually address the arguments instead of simply attacking the person who is making them. We call it Logic, and it works pretty well.

Anonymous's picture
Your explanation why you "try

Travis--Your explanation why you "try" to argue with llovequestions is just silly. I have "seen" you debate "llovequestion"on a variety of dumb, stupid, ridiculous, "crazy, imbecilic, "topics". There is nothing you said that moved llovequestions even a little bit. Moreover you embarrass yourself "talking" with a moron. You try to use logic or science or "sanity" or evolution or "history" or just common sense but llovequestion still maintains his ridiculous, stupid ignorance and you pathetically keep trying to talk to a moron. I don't get it and you disappoint me.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Travis--Your explanation why

"Travis--Your explanation why you "try" to argue with llovequestions is just silly."

I am sure you think so, I don't agree. Silly would be standing in the face of such arguments and not responding, as silence is all to often considered acceptance. Sometimes I think you are actually a theist, here to try to shut up atheists, by claiming any conversation with theists is 'unacceptable'. You would have us remain silent, and not argue, which is a suspect position in line with censorship. It is a type of Orwellian Crimestop that makes you seem far less than genuine.

"I have "seen" you debate "llovequestion"on a variety of dumb, stupid, ridiculous, "crazy, imbecilic, "topics"."

So what? I have done the same with you on more than one occasion. What makes me respond to you is the same thing that makes me respond to them, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to write that off...

"There is nothing you said that moved llovequestions even a little bit."

How do you know that? Are you a sock account for them? If not, perhaps you shouldn't make such flagrant assumptions about other people. Hell, if the bar for whether or not we deign to speak to someone was how much we change them, then I would have given up on you already. I haven't, and aren't you glad for that!

"Moreover you embarrass yourself "talking" with a moron."

I know, I know, but I had to respond to your post anyway.

"You try to use logic or science or "sanity" or evolution or "history" or just common sense but llovequestion still maintains his ridiculous, stupid ignorance and you pathetically keep trying to talk to a moron."

You do not reason with someone by refusing to engage in reason with them.

"I don't get it and you disappoint me."

I am not surprised. I am curious, though. Is your 'disappointment' supposed to sting or something?

Apollo's picture
Every invention can be used

Every invention can be used for good or ill.
It was believed the Nazi's were close to inventing the atomic bomb. To not get one first would have been a mistake. There was no alternative but to develop it.

In Japan Tokyo was being bombed with conventional bombs and many more died there than in the other cites where the atomic bomb was used. Japan swore to fight to the death if invaded, and swore to kill all prisoners of war. The alternative, to the bomb, was invasion, which would have resulted in more deaths.
However, I heard an unconfirmed claim that Japan had offered to surrender on the condition they keep their Emperor. That was declined, and the Bomb was used to obtain an unconditional surrender. Then they got to keep their Emperor. Anyone know if that bit of claimed history is true?

Anyway, my belief is to use an atomic bomb as a defensive device is not evil.

As an offensive device, I'm not sure it is moral. Wait until terrorists assemble one in a NY city basement.

Anonymous's picture
Apollo-My brains are falling

Apollo-My brains are falling out of my head as you Pragmatic and Travis continue to argue with a fucking moron. I already tried to "speak" to Travis and Pragmatic in trying to communicate with an idiot(llovequestions) and now you fall into the same freaking trap. First off llovequestions is a total idiot. Why would you want to "debate" an imbecile. But your attempt to justify whether the atomic bomb is moral or immoral depending on whether it is a offensive or defensive is totally wacky. You also give a history lesson about Hitler or the "alternative to the bomb in Japan would cause even more lives. None of that is relevant to the topic whether science is more dangerous than religion. Science is not responsible for either good or evil. In the name of science PEOPLE do good or evil. That is all that is relevant. PEOPLE do science for good or evil. We don't say if someone drops a giant rock purposefully on somebodies head __GRAVITY is evil- but the bad person who dropped the rock is bad not science. Or the reverse when Dr.Salk perfected the polio vaccine -he may have been a good man or bad man but the science did good. Arguing whether science is good or bad is a waste of time.. People use science for good or bad--Science itself is just science. Like I said the more you respond to llovequestions the more all of you look like fools. Here is a joke. A noble,loving, kind man accidently knocks into a pallet of lumber and gravity causes the wood to kill the man. Who is at fault???? The good man who accidently knocked into the lumber, gravity, the pallet, the wood or science (gravity). Even if you chose the good man for negligence he is not bad -he just tripped. Sometimes Science is not good or evil but benign-it just is. What ever you think of whether science is good or evil trying to be rational with an idiot(llovequestion) is an embarrassment to your dignity.. God Bless

Ilovequestions's picture
Wow Blasphemy... I didn't

Wow Blasphemy... I didn't know I could elicit such strong emotions! In this particular thread (and at least you have to admit I don't post that often... it's been a couple months I think since the last time), I just made an observation (that science is more dangerous than religion) and wanted so see what you all thought :) I'm not even exactly looking for a debate

ThePragmatic's picture
-----------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
Public information announcement:
-------------------------------------------------

"blasphemy" is actually the infamous troll of the Atheist Republic forum.

Generally referred to as "Kenny", has been banned many times under different names.
Previously known aliases include: "Kenny Schweiger", "Kenny", "myself", "alleycat", "richardd", "Christopher", "marken", "punkin", "amber", "Simon", "fred,k".

Claims to be an atheist. But he has a fondness for using "sarcasm", even though no one ever gets his sarcasm and he has been told this many times, he keeps posting such deceiving comments.

He seems obsessed with religions, creationists and the stupidity of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Joel Osteen, Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, Vanna White, Sarah Palin, etc.

This announcement will be posted whenever he spams, agitates, confuses or flies of the handle.

Also, he finds these announcements 'boring'.

Anonymous's picture
Pragmatic-I am tired of you

Pragmatic-I am tired of you hiding behind your half face. If you have something to say just say it... Stop being a wimp and a coward...Your being a small little man by just repeating that stupid information announcement.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Um...erm...debate room. We

Um...erm...debate room. We kind of do that here...

Don't worry about him.

Anonymous's picture
llvequestion--I haven't seen

llvequestion--I haven't seen your posts for awhile and I hoped you just went away. I don't even care about your mindless GOD posts. I am troubled by many in this forum that bother debating to you. You may be a bewildered lost weird, silly defender of the faith(God) but I am surprised so many 'here" bother even responding to you. In fact I am angry at myself for even bothering to "talk" to you. God Bless

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "Atrocious

Ilovequestions - "Atrocious things have been done in the name of both science and religion. From genocide"

Can you give an example of genocide done "in the name of science"?

Yardgal's picture
There's not one single thing

There's not one single thing on the planet that's more dangerous than religion. Religion replaces reason, thought, and logic with mindlessness and silly superstitions.

psgamer92's picture
Hello ilovequestions.

Hello ilovequestions. Interesting topic, but I think it's a bit flawed.

"Atrocious things have been done in the name of both science and religion. From genocide to cruel experiments (the Nazis were the worst), humans just have no end to how evil they can be."

Can you name one Genocide that was undertaken in the name of religion? I can name multiple genocides happening in the world right now due to religion. Sure, science has been used unsavory. Is it done so in the name of science? You mention Nazis. They didn't do inhuman studies for the sake of science. They did it for war and for power. Answer me this: Did the Nazi's use science in an horrible manner for themselves or for science?

"But the thing that takes the cake is the atomic bomb. Religion ruled the world for thousands of years, and humanity as a whole was always safe. Science has somewhat overtaken religion for only a few hundred years... and it's already produced things that can wipe out the human race."

I really think this is quite a gross misrepresentation. In the previous two thousand years we had The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Colonizing of peoples, slavery, lawful rape, The Black Death, Persecution of peoples of other faith, etc... The atomic bomb wasn't made in the name of science, it was made in the name of war and power. In the case of the United States, of which the Manhattan Project was successful, it was first made as a means of defense against the Nazis. Then it was used as offense to circumvent a land invasion of Japan, which would have caused more lives. Yes, even though we live in an era where the Atomic Bomb exists, the world in general has gone down in violent crime since World War II. There hasn't been a major war since then. What group that does however persist to use violence right now is Islamic Extremists.

"So I know that atheists are the champions of scientific advancement and all that... but if we stayed backwards and illiterate (like the good ole' Christian days), humanity would at least be safer."

Where is your evidence for this? If it were back in the 'good ole days' biblical law might still be in effect. That means privacy wouldn't belong to anyone, certain groups would be sent to death just for being a part of that group, etc.. Again, have you forgotten about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc?

"Science has given us the weapon that could end it all. Science is more dangerous than religion because religion was never going to lead to something that could wipe out life on earth. Religions want people alive to worship whatever individual/several god(s) they believe in."

How do you know this for certain. What if someone like Jim Jones because a leader of a religious movement and had people ordered to be killed as he and his associates kill themselves? The Black Death was horrible as well and almost could have reached that point. Religion didn't help then, it made the plague worse.

"One part of science is about improving technology... and we sure did improve on swords and catapults :)"

We also improved on computing , medicine, psychology, etc.. We live in a world without smallpox. That is amazing.

"What do you think? Agree? Disagree?"

Disagree

Kataclismic's picture
Fascinating opinion piece

Fascinating opinion piece that goes along with the argument I've posted several times. I live only because of this "science" you speak of so on a personal level, the lack of science is more dangerous to me by exponential values.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Good point, and anyone who

Good point, and anyone who has been on an antibiotic due to a major infection may well have been saved too. Before the discovery of the first antibiotics infections that are easily treated today killed millions of people around the world. The influenza epidemic of 1918 killed something like thirty million people! I am not sure how many of us would have died without antibiotics, but I am sure that we wouldn't have even half the population that we do now.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Yep and how about the

Yep and how about the discovery of fire and other things like herbs, medicine, those are all products of science which our friend takes for-granted.

Not counting that one god killed all humans on earth except a family according to the "reliable" flood story.

Hate using the bible to discredit the bible mind infected people. (pun intended)

bigbill's picture
well about science and

well about science and religion if science technology gets into the wrong hands then that could be reason for concern. But when you say the bomb for instance the nuclear bomb has acted as a deterrence against aggressive nations. But that doesn`t mean it cant get into the wrong hands' think of science and the wonderful discoveries since the 1940`s how it has made our lives more enjoyable. People give their lives for the field medical science and the like.so we have to walk a fine line I believe when we look at science and technology.

vadumsai's picture
While debates on science

While debates on science versus religion persist, employing focus charting in nursing ensures a methodical approach to analyzing risks. This systematic tool allows to objectively assess potential dangers in both realms. By applying such precision in healthcare, one can appreciate the importance of evidence-based practices, promoting a balanced perspective that acknowledges the benefits and hazards associated with both science and religion.

Nammarok's picture
I doubt that religion could

I doubt that religion could allow us to achieve such miracles irl, if not science. I bet even if we talk about absolutely common things, they all possible because of science mostly. Heck, even when i replaced my windows Find out i knew that i could do this mostly because of science you know. Because if not science we couldn't this thing in our life. So i guess i would choose science

HarmiGreen's picture
By applying such precision in

By applying such precision in healthcare, one can appreciate the importance of evidence-based practices, promoting a balanced perspective that acknowledges the benefits and hazards associated with both science and religion.

HarmiGreen's picture
Any person can lack empathy

Any person can lack empathy for others and have greed for money and power, regardless of their personal stance on religion. That in itself is dangerous, as knowledge or technology can be misused by anyone. But the global danger is ignorance and people who follow dangerous ideologies.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.