I think a core problem with the "science vs. religion" debates is the incorrect understanding and use of the term "belief". Science is not about believing, it is about critical thinking and examination of facts, and thus cannot be compared to faith in any way. Anyone who says they 'believe' in science, or, alternatively, that 'religious beliefs' are equally important to 'scientific beliefs', clearly fails in grasping that science is, by definition, not about belief. Most likely they are either direct of indirect victims of fundamentalist propaganda, which at its core is aimed at limiting critical thinking - a threat to its stranglehold on communities and people's lives.

I'm trying really hard not to go all "establishment clause/free exercise clause" on this thread. Stop being idiots or I will light your **** up.

Just wondering if anybody caught lasts nights episode. It was quite odd, but as it went on I could tell it was one giant "**** You" to comedy central. Having a show about retards getting raped by sharks I'm sure was their way of saying "look what kind of **** we put out when you don't let us do shows that have substance" as well as "We can have retards getting raped by sharks, but we can't say muhammed".

I didn't see it but that sounds pretty damn funny

God damnit, I have to wait until May 22 to see it now. They had that 'sorry for the inconvenience' message up for so long that now it's unavailable for streaming.

There is still an underlying "belief" that critical thinking and examination of facts is better than faith in God. For a lot of religious people, the belief in God trumps the belief in the validity of science (not scientific beliefs, but belief that science is the best way). So, when one contradicts the other, sorry, but God has the final say.

The best way for what? They are two separate things. One is a system for describing and potentially harnessing naturally observed processes ("I am alive because I have a heart and lungs")*. The other is a system for finding meaning and hope in life and the universe ("I am alive because I am meant to lead my community towards a better future"). Saying that one can be "better" than the other shows disrespect to both science and religion as well as human intelligence in general.

Critical thinking is required in order to see through manipulation and distortion of facts by people in power who have vested interest in having you believe things that are convenient for them. It is a key component of a democratic society, and is the counterpart of freedom of speech. Science promotes this way of thinking, hence it is a threat to said people in power. The whole "this is better than that" story is nothing but a cover-up.

* brain = optional

The best way to determine what is right, what is correct, what is true. Science and religion may be two separate areas to YOU, but not everyone thinks that way (for example, many fundamentalists).

One of the more annoying things about religious arguments (particularly on this board) is that people tend to use extremes as their support, and fail to recognize any middle ground. "Christians and Muslims kill people, they do it all the time and they are mean and bigoted."

Sure, a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. A lot of evil has been done in the name of science. A lot of evil has been done in the name of a lot of things. A lot of good has been done in the name of religion, and a lot of good has been done in the name of science, etc.

I, for one, appreciate religion and realize it's benefits. I also like having running water and electricity. If people can believe something that helps them to be "better" (to use a relative term) people without harming anyone else, good!

A few years ago, when I was living with my parents, we were having those big fires in Southern California, and we were forced to flee. We had to find a place to stay, food to eat, and blankets to keep us warm. Do you know who helped us? It wasn't our secular government. It wasn't our brilliant scientists. It wasn't Mentat and his atheism. It was those annoying Mormons who come knocking on our door on Saturday. They brought us blankets and candles. The Christian church a few blocks away let us sleep in their building, which they kept heated all night, and provided warm showers and warm breakfast in the morning.

A lot can be said of the evil done by religion. I don't pretend that everything is always peachy, but a lot of good things have been brought about through religion, and they still continue.

Fair enough, but...

Fundamentalists, who by definition take religious texts literally without critical thinking, are the most threatened by critical thinking and its promotion via science. As opposed to the vast majority of religious people who use their reason to apply their religious philosophy to their life. Of course, they do not feel threatened, do not scream and kick, do not resort to verbal violence, and are therefore much less heard.

I think that Christopher Hitchens has a challenge for you.

I don't play in "could have," I play in "did." THAT is the difference. "Could have" is a very weak argument.

Point not moot.

Totally exactly right. I'm just trying to get everyone to admit that they think there are certain religious views that need to be stifled whether actively or passively, even if they do not directly influence others' lives outside of their immediate family. Of course, if certain religious views must be stifled by the government, then there isn't really true freedom of religion, and the secular government is therefore an enemy of those particular religious viewpoints.

Your point is only valid if a non-believer couldn't have done the same thing. If you're trying to insinuate that atheists aren't charitable then I suggest that you do a little more research (e.g: Non-Believers Giving Aid, Kiva (Christians are currently in 2nd place), etc.). I don't find it miraculous that you were helped by a Christian organization in a country where Christians are the majority. I won't even go in to how the danger of their agenda potentially outweighs the aid that you received.

I'm not insinuating anything. Read what I type, not what I don't type.

And that's an extremely stupid argument. Watch as I negate your clever little links by claiming that people from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have made those donations instead. FSM followers could have been responsible for developing the semiconductor, as well as the Rwandan genocide. They also could have been responsible for the spilling of the Exxon-Valdez. But they didn't. THAT is the point.

I could have sold all my stuff and given the money to get clean water to needy villages in Africa...then I could have GONE to africa to actually help those people in person.

So...atheists are totally charitable. I mean, I DIDN'T do that stuff, but I could have.

Dear BobTheMasher,

Thank you for potentially saving me from that car wreck I was in two summers ago. I know it was Redlands Fire Department who actually did it, and you were probably jacking off to a Victoria's Secret catalog at the time, but it could have been you. You would have been so heroic, pulling up in your fire truck, and getting the big prybar to pop me out of the car like that. You could have saved my life, had you actually done anything. I also appreciate how quickly you took my brother to LLUMC to have his arm operated on by the surgeons. In fact, thank you for potentially being a surgeon, too, and saving my brother's arm.

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate what you could have done, even though you didn't.

Sincerely,
Steven V.

I apologize if this wasn't an insinuation but it clearly looks like it. I'll take your word for it.


Does this mean that you won't be taking Hitchens' challenge?

I generally agree with steven (despite the attitude). At the essence of every religion is a be kind to your fellow man theme, and the fact that religion is organized on many levels means it is better equipped, both physically and spiritually, to provide charity and help when it is really needed. Individuals are not as capable of providing such assistance compared to an organization, especially one whose members share strong common values. (secular aid organizations are too specific and far removed from their backing communities to be as widespread as local institutions of faith).

Of course, I agree with Mentat that religious institutions often take advantage of their power over individuals in need and attempt to influence them to join and spread their doctrines.

Theodore Kaczynski