Alternatively, "For Science" usually means perfecting the human race through any means neccesary (eugenics, slaughter), then writing a report on all the blood you spilled.
Pretty sure discoving things like insulin and other life lengthening things ad nauseum in lieu of eugenics (a simpler choice) demonstrates just how inappropriate that was.
Or if you prefer less bloody ways of getting worthless information, there's always defrauding millions of people with fabricated or hopelessly tweaked data just to enrich yourself while you deprive developing nations of technology that could have saved them from diseases your Western nation long ago cured. "For Science" usually means you got paperwork in exchange for human blood.
I'd like to know your definition of worthless information. I'd also like to know, even when the information is 'worthless', just how discovering a salamander that can photosynthesize is bloody...or tweaked. Data is data, you can't argue with a datapoint- it's the interpretation that is shit, which is why the scientific method was devised to mitigate the imperfections within humanity and our lovely irrational, emotion ridden train wreck thought process.
"For God" is usually just a cover for some other power grab, in the Jihadi's case it's a political movement that's basically the UN (unchecked global governance by important morally unimpeachable transnational busybodies) except Muslim only.
I feel remiss in pointing out that the only country more religious per capita than the USA (where you live) is turkey...and going back to an earlier point, the least religious country who has had atrocities done (by the second most religious state, the USA) is Japan. They are also the most technologically progressive, yet laughable in culture with shit like waiste size limits. LOL.
Most of the people who act for God are decent charitable people who are basically mandated to avoid harming other human beings to the best extent possible.
Muslim and christian extremests ARE known for gentleness after all...
If it weren't for religion telling people it's a bad idea to base your society on social darwinism and the law of the jungle, you would never have had any scientific breakthroughs at all.
I like how even now you bring up Darwin as some pariah of humanity. I refer you to the Dark ages to show what happens when religion gets its way. Kings mandated by gods, popes calling holy wars, social regression, class division to an outrageous extent by BIRTH and not merit and of course entire plagues mitigated not by discovery but by 1/3 of europe dying.
Civilizations can exist without science.
Not as we know them.
Science is an amoral tool that can be used either to advance or destroy, but it is not in itself a means to build a civilization.
Yeah, curse the man who made the discoveries that allowed for polio to be erradicated, as well as TB (in some parts of the world- but that's greed, not science limiting that). They must have been VERY amoral people indeed. If you are so at odds with science, I would ask you never use its exploits again lest you be a hypocrite: never drive over a bridge, never drive for that matter, never get a vaccine, never turn on your tv. Even making a stone speak was made with a rudimentary version of the scientific processes trial and error methodoloy. It is humanity that corrupts the process, not the other way around.
Without a moral compass provided by religion societies falter. Up until recent history the vast majority of scientists and thinkers were religious people as well, and while there have been historical wrongs in the name of maintaining the societal status quo enforced by the strongest religion at the time, it's no different than the so-called scientific chameleon of anthropogenic global warming (or whatever they call it now, even Anthropogenic Climate Change died off last I heard.) is today.
Almost every single founding father was atheist. Being scientific and religious can be mutually exclusive IF you apply the process properly to whatever you are looking at. Ugh, don't get me started on climate change. Climates have changed in the past countless times, they will change in the future and every discrete packet of time (long and short term) we are in transition. There is too much data for a model to encompass, so making any call is sensationalist arm waving; it's not a sign of weakness in the system as you are clearly trying to make it out to be, it's a sign that people are
fucking stupid.
I believe the only reason atheism has taken hold in the scientific community is because they think we're now technologically advanced enough to call ourselves Gods, and as they consider themselves deities, the rest of us unscientific peons can pound sand
You are a man of belief, which means you don't have to justify it...how convenient. Atheism has taken hold of science not because we call ourselves Gods but because there is a lack of data to support the existence of any god. It is quite the opposite- people in science are modest enough to NOT have the answer to everything (see: God) which means a process is needed. That process is science. It's not some conspiracy, it's not some elaborate troll on you, it's simply a process demanding only two modest things: data and testing.
As Dawkins would say, we are all atheist, you just believe in one more god (out of thousands) than I do. That is a bit trollish of him, I admit, and I dislike him muchly. I do however understand the utility of pointing that out to people who believe their truth over others when there is the same evidence for any supernatural being: ZERO. The reason for this is because we cannot collect data on things that are supernatural, as science only can study nature. As such, science as a process MUST reject supernatural beings. That tidily explains why scientists are atheist quite commonly.
The fact these people are worthless outside their tiny enclaves of study escapes them.
That's pretty bold.
Scientists are not superheroes and from what I've read of your highly entertaining blog entries (visit Morm's blog btw.) they're as prone to error and illogical thinking as anyone else.
Since we are on the topic, anyone reading my blog will be met with bold assertions- each and every one of them backed by data, evidence and objectivity as best as I can muster. I even consult with experts! (thanks for the plug, DK lol). Any scientist is prone to error, every single one worth even a shred of his degree should accept that. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A PEER REVIEW PROCESS TO MITIGATE HUMAN BIAS AND ERROR.
Moreover I submit to you that if you look at it from a scientific perspective, those societies that eschew religion are on a demographic course to irrelevance (nonexistence is perhaps the truest form of social stagnation).
japan is pretty relevant in the american economy.
I don't really care how enlightened Europe proper thinks it is when they're only creating 1.3 children per couple while their Muslim immigrant counterparts are having 4 or 5.
Having more kids per family is a malignancy on this planet with our standing population. It is selfish and irresponsible.
The survival instinct has been completely bred out of them. It's a rather sad state of affairs when the most likely branch of science to study your civilization will soon be anthropology.
No, they are thinking about the SPECIES and longevity of it, not just how many kids they can crank out in a short time. The number of children they have, for the record, has the opposite effect as you impose on their survivability. Having kids reduces the specific success of the individual in EVERY case, creating both competition and a short (9 months in our case) burden on resources.
Oh, and sorry for going off on you earlier.
I forgive that post
Got a bit carried away again.
and this one too. Deck, honestly and with no offense intended: you are completely scienfically illiterate and absolutely sheltered and riddled with bias. I know you well enough at this point that beseeching you to educate yourself would be fruitless, but it doesn't mean I won't oppose your malignant line of thinking until I die. As much as I hate humanity, I work to improve it. At least cong will be entertained with our banter, eh?