"Science Without Religion Is Lame"

[PoliticalChic]

"My my, you have a dark view of science."

My, my....what a stupid comment.

“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion
... etc ...

You, it seems, agree with Weinberg.

My, my what a stupid retort.

I have said absolutely nothing about religion being an insult to human dignity.
The second sentence is almost a tautology. Except for the fact that anyone can do both evil and good at different times.
I disagree with Weinburg's third sentence.

You didn't give a response to my post, but only gave an anecdotal digression.

What do you suggest we do? These are some sarcastic suggestions. I hope you can come up with better ones:
Ban science? Make scientists believe in a religion? Ban guns and ban scientists from working on war materials. Dismantle our military?

Science is about this reality inside this space. Religion is about next reality inside the next space. Science is lame enough not being able to get into the next space to find out the next reality (even in the case that it exists).

... without the morality prescribed by religion, whoever is in charge of the government makes up their 'morality.'



1. "Is there a moral difference between the Nazi doctor (the white coat, the black boots, the pellets of Zyklon B) and the blood-bespattered interrogator in the penalty camp of Orotukan? The Nazi doctors participated not only in experiments and ‘selections'. They supervised all stages of the killing process. Indeed, the Nazi vision was in essence a biomedical vision."
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread"


2. " Pointing to the chimneys in the distance, [Dr Ella Lingens-Reiner] asked a Nazi doctor, Fritz Klein, ‘How can you reconcile that with your oath as a doctor?' His answer was, ‘Of course I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.'"
"The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide," byRobert Jay Lifton


Science merely tells us what we can do....
....but not what we should do.

The Nazi doctors were Christians.

No, they were Nazis......totalitarians, as are socialists, communists, Liberals, Progressives, and Fascists.

All serve the god of 'big unrestricted government.'


As do you.....am I correct?

No, you are not correct. The Nazi party had full support from the Church. The Nazi members and Nazi leaders were Christians. Time to get off your moral high horse because religion is the last place to pretend it has moral superiority over anyone.

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history. For all too many Christians, traditional interpretations of religious scriptures seemed to support these prejudices.

The German Churches and the Nazi State

First and foremost.....get this straight: I'm never wrong.

1. "Religion played a role in Nazi Germany but as with so many other aspects of life in the state, religion became the ‘property’ of the government with the introduction of the Reich Church. While Hitler had been brought up as a Roman Catholic, he rejected Christian beliefs as an adult. He wrote in ‘Mein Kampf’ that “antiquity was better than modern times because it did not know Christianity and syphilis.” Hitler also forwarded other reasons in ‘Mein Kampf’ as to why Christianity should be rejected."
Religion and Nazi Germany - History Learning Site



2. Why did you avoid this query?

Nazis......totalitarians, as are socialists, communists, Liberals, Progressives, and Fascists.

All serve the god of 'big unrestricted government.'


As do you.....am I correct?
"No, you are not correct."

Are you a member of one of those six religions?


Ashamed of your religion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"My my, you have a dark view of science."

My, my....what a stupid comment.

“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion
... etc ...

You, it seems, agree with Weinberg.

My, my what a stupid retort.

I have said absolutely nothing about religion being an insult to human dignity.
The second sentence is almost a tautology. Except for the fact that anyone can do both evil and good at different times.
I disagree with Weinburg's third sentence.

You didn't give a response to my post, but only gave an anecdotal digression.

What do you suggest we do? These are some sarcastic suggestions. I hope you can come up with better ones:
Ban science? Make scientists believe in a religion? Ban guns and ban scientists from working on war materials. Dismantle our military?

1. Try to use the quote function correctly.

2. Why would you attempt to associate anything I've posted with the banning of religion.
You have doubled down on stupid.


3. "What do scientists think about religion?
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion?

 

[Wuwei]

2. Why would you attempt to associate anything I've posted with the banning of religion.
You have doubled down on stupid.

You have tripled down on stupid. Where have I said anything about banning religion? I do not believe in doing that.

"What do scientists think about religion?
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion?

It seems you answered your own question.

You are still digressing and are still whining about the problem and have not given any viable suggestions on how to solve it.

 

[Tuatara]

"My my, you have a dark view of science."

My, my....what a stupid comment.

“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion
... etc ...

You, it seems, agree with Weinberg.

My, my what a stupid retort.

I have said absolutely nothing about religion being an insult to human dignity.
The second sentence is almost a tautology. Except for the fact that anyone can do both evil and good at different times.
I disagree with Weinburg's third sentence.

You didn't give a response to my post, but only gave an anecdotal digression.

What do you suggest we do? These are some sarcastic suggestions. I hope you can come up with better ones:
Ban science? Make scientists believe in a religion? Ban guns and ban scientists from working on war materials. Dismantle our military?

Science is about this reality inside this space. Religion is about next reality inside the next space. Science is lame enough not being able to get into the next space to find out the next reality (even in the case that it exists).

... without the morality prescribed by religion, whoever is in charge of the government makes up their 'morality.'



1. "Is there a moral difference between the Nazi doctor (the white coat, the black boots, the pellets of Zyklon B) and the blood-bespattered interrogator in the penalty camp of Orotukan? The Nazi doctors participated not only in experiments and ‘selections'. They supervised all stages of the killing process. Indeed, the Nazi vision was in essence a biomedical vision."
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread"


2. " Pointing to the chimneys in the distance, [Dr Ella Lingens-Reiner] asked a Nazi doctor, Fritz Klein, ‘How can you reconcile that with your oath as a doctor?' His answer was, ‘Of course I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.'"
"The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide," byRobert Jay Lifton


Science merely tells us what we can do....
....but not what we should do.

The Nazi doctors were Christians.

No, they were Nazis......totalitarians, as are socialists, communists, Liberals, Progressives, and Fascists.

All serve the god of 'big unrestricted government.'


As do you.....am I correct?

No, you are not correct. The Nazi party had full support from the Church. The Nazi members and Nazi leaders were Christians. Time to get off your moral high horse because religion is the last place to pretend it has moral superiority over anyone.

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history. For all too many Christians, traditional interpretations of religious scriptures seemed to support these prejudices.

The German Churches and the Nazi State

First and foremost.....get this straight: I'm never wrong.

That's the biggest lie on the internet. I've seen you buried more times than a dog's favourite bone.

1. "Religion played a role in Nazi Germany but as with so many other aspects of life in the state, religion became the ‘property’ of the government with the introduction of the Reich Church. While Hitler had been brought up as a Roman Catholic, he rejected Christian beliefs as an adult. He wrote in ‘Mein Kampf’ that “antiquity was better than modern times because it did not know Christianity and syphilis.” Hitler also forwarded other reasons in ‘Mein Kampf’ as to why Christianity should be rejected."

Yet no mention of these other reasons. Hitler mentions his devotion to Christianity many times in his writings and speeches. Also you are only focusing on one Nazi. Like I said before, the overwhelming majority of Nazis and Nazi leaders were Christians. Why else would there be this heavy backlash against the Jews. Writer and researcher Wayne Paulson sums it up best.

If Hitler had openly professed that he was an atheist, I think that it is much less likely that he could have come to power and carried out his gradually escalating program against the Jews, for the following reasons:

1. For one, atheists had no organized societies of believers; in contrast, the churches, especially the Lutheran and Catholic, had state funding by enforced taxation (as we do in Canada as relates to schools, very unfortunately!), considerable wealth , prominence in public affairs, and the loyalty of the majority of the public as church members.

2. In contrast to the hatred against the Jews built up throughout German society through the centuries by the Protestant churches and the Vatican, atheists had no reason to hate the Jews, particularly because atheists depend more upon reason, whereas religious systems depend, by definition, upon unreasoning and blind faith in unsubstantiated myths.

3. Atheists would have protested the aggression against the "godless communists", at least so far as the "godless" aspect was concerned, whereas the churches, especially the Vatican, were eager to fight against "godless communism", in part because communists posed a threat to church power and wealth and irrational belief systems, as well as to Germany as a nation.

4. The Vatican would not have so willingly entered into negotiations with Hitler that resulted in the (infamous in my view) Concordat of 1933 between the Vatican and Hitler under which: (a) the Vatican gained additional power over its bishops in Germany; (b) the Vatican agreed to cease supporting the Freedom Party, consisting mostly of Catholics, that constituted the only major political opposition to the Nazis; (c) Church gained a form of state-imposed tax subsidy of the general public that still endures today; and, (d) the Vatican never once issued a note of protest against the increasingly harsh measures against the Jews -- measures of which the Vatican was fully aware.

Religion Page 40

2. Why did you avoid this query?

Nazis......totalitarians, as are socialists, communists, Liberals, Progressives, and Fascists.

All serve the god of 'big unrestricted government.'

It was avoided because it's ridiculous. Your government spends more money per capita than many so called socialist governments. I also know that your government restricts many freedoms of the population. Also of worthy since every other single person on this board knows this, is that totalitarians and fascists have come from religious and non-religious leaders. To point the finger and blame only one side is beyond idiotic.

Are you a member of one of those six religions?

Those are not religions. Your need to equate your silly beliefs by stamping the name religion on political labels is childish and ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. Actually, the full quotation is "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
A very smart man said that.

.... without the morality prescribed by religion, despised under communism and its spin-offs, whoever is in charge of the government makes up their 'morality.'



2. "Is there a moral difference between the Nazi doctor (the white coat, the black boots, the pellets of Zyklon B) and the blood-bespattered interrogator in the penalty camp of Orotukan...

Are you claiming that the Nazis were better because they were religious? I mean everyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of 20th Century history knows that they were:



Godwin's Law Review

Snag is the OP lacks even a rudimentary knowledge of 20th Century history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. Why would you attempt to associate anything I've posted with the banning of religion.
You have doubled down on stupid.

You have tripled down on stupid. Where have I said anything about banning religion? I do not believe in doing that.

"What do scientists think about religion?
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion?

It seems you answered your own question.

You are still digressing and are still whining about the problem and have not given any viable suggestions on how to solve it.

So sorry.....it was banning science that you referred to....

 

[PoliticalChic]

"My my, you have a dark view of science."

My, my....what a stupid comment.

“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion
... etc ...

You, it seems, agree with Weinberg.

My, my what a stupid retort.

I have said absolutely nothing about religion being an insult to human dignity.
The second sentence is almost a tautology. Except for the fact that anyone can do both evil and good at different times.
I disagree with Weinburg's third sentence.

You didn't give a response to my post, but only gave an anecdotal digression.

What do you suggest we do? These are some sarcastic suggestions. I hope you can come up with better ones:
Ban science? Make scientists believe in a religion? Ban guns and ban scientists from working on war materials. Dismantle our military?

... without the morality prescribed by religion, whoever is in charge of the government makes up their 'morality.'



1. "Is there a moral difference between the Nazi doctor (the white coat, the black boots, the pellets of Zyklon B) and the blood-bespattered interrogator in the penalty camp of Orotukan? The Nazi doctors participated not only in experiments and ‘selections'. They supervised all stages of the killing process. Indeed, the Nazi vision was in essence a biomedical vision."
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread"


2. " Pointing to the chimneys in the distance, [Dr Ella Lingens-Reiner] asked a Nazi doctor, Fritz Klein, ‘How can you reconcile that with your oath as a doctor?' His answer was, ‘Of course I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.'"
"The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide," byRobert Jay Lifton


Science merely tells us what we can do....
....but not what we should do.

The Nazi doctors were Christians.

No, they were Nazis......totalitarians, as are socialists, communists, Liberals, Progressives, and Fascists.

All serve the god of 'big unrestricted government.'


As do you.....am I correct?

No, you are not correct. The Nazi party had full support from the Church. The Nazi members and Nazi leaders were Christians. Time to get off your moral high horse because religion is the last place to pretend it has moral superiority over anyone.

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history. For all too many Christians, traditional interpretations of religious scriptures seemed to support these prejudices.

The German Churches and the Nazi State

First and foremost.....get this straight: I'm never wrong.

That's the biggest lie on the internet. I've seen you buried more times than a dog's favourite bone.

1. "Religion played a role in Nazi Germany but as with so many other aspects of life in the state, religion became the ‘property’ of the government with the introduction of the Reich Church. While Hitler had been brought up as a Roman Catholic, he rejected Christian beliefs as an adult. He wrote in ‘Mein Kampf’ that “antiquity was better than modern times because it did not know Christianity and syphilis.” Hitler also forwarded other reasons in ‘Mein Kampf’ as to why Christianity should be rejected."

Yet no mention of these other reasons. Hitler mentions his devotion to Christianity many times in his writings and speeches. Also you are only focusing on one Nazi. Like I said before, the overwhelming majority of Nazis and Nazi leaders were Christians. Why else would there be this heavy backlash against the Jews. Writer and researcher Wayne Paulson sums it up best.

If Hitler had openly professed that he was an atheist, I think that it is much less likely that he could have come to power and carried out his gradually escalating program against the Jews, for the following reasons:

1. For one, atheists had no organized societies of believers; in contrast, the churches, especially the Lutheran and Catholic, had state funding by enforced taxation (as we do in Canada as relates to schools, very unfortunately!), considerable wealth , prominence in public affairs, and the loyalty of the majority of the public as church members.

2. In contrast to the hatred against the Jews built up throughout German society through the centuries by the Protestant churches and the Vatican, atheists had no reason to hate the Jews, particularly because atheists depend more upon reason, whereas religious systems depend, by definition, upon unreasoning and blind faith in unsubstantiated myths.

3. Atheists would have protested the aggression against the "godless communists", at least so far as the "godless" aspect was concerned, whereas the churches, especially the Vatican, were eager to fight against "godless communism", in part because communists posed a threat to church power and wealth and irrational belief systems, as well as to Germany as a nation.

4. The Vatican would not have so willingly entered into negotiations with Hitler that resulted in the (infamous in my view) Concordat of 1933 between the Vatican and Hitler under which: (a) the Vatican gained additional power over its bishops in Germany; (b) the Vatican agreed to cease supporting the Freedom Party, consisting mostly of Catholics, that constituted the only major political opposition to the Nazis; (c) Church gained a form of state-imposed tax subsidy of the general public that still endures today; and, (d) the Vatican never once issued a note of protest against the increasingly harsh measures against the Jews -- measures of which the Vatican was fully aware.

Religion Page 40

2. Why did you avoid this query?

Nazis......totalitarians, as are socialists, communists, Liberals, Progressives, and Fascists.

All serve the god of 'big unrestricted government.'

It was avoided because it's ridiculous. Your government spends more money per capita than many so called socialist governments. I also know that your government restricts many freedoms of the population. Also of worthy since every other single person on this board knows this, is that totalitarians and fascists have come from religious and non-religious leaders. To point the finger and blame only one side is beyond idiotic.

Are you a member of one of those six religions?

Those are not religions. Your need to equate your silly beliefs by stamping the name religion on political labels is childish and ignorant.

There us no more truth to the idea that Nazism is based on Christianity than on the statement that Nazis were right wing.


Now that we've cleared that up.....why won't you state which of these is your religion:
Nazism, Progressivism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism,or Communism.



Confession is good for the soul.

 

[gt1085]

Religion has always been a Science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion has always been a Science.

Interesting.

If science is defined as 'the collection of correct knowledge,' then you are certainly correct.

But, if, as I use the term, it requires empirical proof via the scientific method,....then the path divides.

 

[gt1085]

Religion has always been a Science.

Interesting.

If science is defined as 'the collection of correct knowledge,' then you are certainly correct.

But, if, as I use the term, it requires empirical proof via the scientific method,....then the path divides.

Thak You.I see in the way science is being used.But that`s science.

 

[Wuwei]

Religion has always been a Science.

Thak You.I see in the way science is being used.But that`s science.

You are going to have to explain what you mean better than that.

 

[gt1085]

Religion has always been a Science.

Thak You.I see in the way science is being used.But that`s science.

You are going to have to explain what you mean better than that.

Well you have`nt heard about how their mixing their dna with more animals and insects?

 

[Wuwei]

Well you have`nt heard about how their mixing their dna with more animals and insects?

How does that imply "religion has always been a Science"?

 

[gt1085]

Well you have`nt heard about how their mixing their dna with more animals and insects?

How does that imply "religion has always been a Science"?

Their both an occult.

 

[Wuwei]

Their both an occult.

Calling science occult is a misunderstanding of science.

Besides that explanation is logically flawed you are saying.
If R is occult AND S is occult, then R is S.
That is a common logical fallacy.

 

[gt1085]

Their both an occult.

Calling science occult is a misunderstanding of science.

Besides that explanation is logically flawed you are saying.
If R is occult AND S is occult, then R is S.
That is a common logical fallacy.

Okay like are entitle to your opinion so an i.

 

[Wuwei]

A logical fallacy is not an opinion.