Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it funny when atheists bash religion and claim it holds us back technologically and industriously. Have you ever thought that might be a good thing? The rate of technological, industrial, and even reproduction is going to cause a world wide issue more than likely in the next 100 years or so.
So is religion holding us back or saving us from our own destructive ways?
Are you seriously arguing that we're all better off here?
Me either, but I think we need to slow down the techno race and embrace nature are we are intended to.
You can do both.
This sounds silly, but once I had a dream about an Indian living in a tipi (one of my hobbies is buckskinning and historical reenactment, so stuff like that happens to me ) with his tribe at Yellowstone. I was struck by how historically accurate the whole thing was, when suddenly the Indian whipped out a laptop and got online.
It's a mental image that has stuck with me for years...the subconsciously produced message was simple to me however... the part of me that longs for the past can live with the part of me that is excited for the future.
We've progressed technologically far more than we have emotionally; that will be the TRUE challenge humanity will face over the next century. Because as they say, it's too late to go back.
I find it funny when atheists bash religion and claim it holds us back technologically and industriously. Have you ever thought that might be a good thing? The rate of technological, industrial, and even reproduction is going to cause a world wide issue more than likely in the next 100 years or so.
So is religion holding us back or saving us from our own destructive ways?
Religion is a conundrum.
Why is so-called "western civilization" under the spell of a middle eastern creation myth?
The assumption that science=atheism, and vice versa. This is simply not true.
In the real world, science and technological advances are used by religious people just as much as they are by atheists. With a few oddball exceptions such as the Amish, I would guess that there is no difference between the two groups in the use of technology.
Secondly, the use of technology is governed by social policy, which is not atheistic by any means. Here in the US the republican candidates for president, who are all religious, are almost unified in a desire to kill the EPA. This would be a good way to do terrible things to our environment because of religious social policy. Sure, science in the form of industry is likely to do the actual damage, but it is christians who are trying to allow it, not atheists.
I think that the burden of proof is on the OP to show that scientific advance is worse than the alternative. Yes, scientific advances have allowed us to do a great deal of harm, with nuclear energy, irresponsible consumption of fossil fuels, and chemical pollution. On the other hand, fertilizers have allowed billions of people to eat, antibiotics and vaccinations have prevented widespread death from things like the black plague and smallpox.
Speaking as an atheist, I do like science, but so should any reasonable religious person. I think that social policy in the hands of religious zealots is suspect, which is why I am open about my atheism and try to be politically active.
I find it funny when atheists bash religion and claim it holds us back technologically and industriously. Have you ever thought that might be a good thing? The rate of technological, industrial, and even reproduction is going to cause a world wide issue more than likely in the next 100 years or so.
So is religion holding us back or saving us from our own destructive ways?
Religion generally holds us back, which is not a good thing. Whether it's the question of the earth not being the center of the universe and actually revolving around the sun (not the other way around), stem cell research, or birth control, there is some religious group that will try and prevent it, restrict the idea, or prevent their believers from engaging in it. Religious politicians are the worst because they try, and often succeed, in praying on people's fears and passing laws that agree with their faith.
Science would limit births, religion tells millions to go forth and multiply. Science tells us to limit our impact on and respect the Earth. Religion tells us everything in the world was given to us by god to use as we see fit.
Science gives us tools to solve or minimize some of the worst problems facing mankind if we take responsibility and use them wisely. Religion tells us not to be concerned because god will provide, or if he doesn't, it was god's will that something didn't appear (to us) to turn out well.
Science can tell us how to build buildings that are earthquake, tornado, and flood resistant. Religion tells us to pray.
I find it funny when atheists bash religion and claim it holds us back technologically and industriously. Have you ever thought that might be a good thing? The rate of technological, industrial, and even reproduction is going to cause a world wide issue more than likely in the next 100 years or so.
So is religion holding us back or saving us from our own destructive ways?
Yeah because religion sure has a stranglehold on the reproductive rates of it's followers.
Belief or Disbelief have nothing to do with the human race's carelessness when it comes to our environment and technology's impact on it. The fault is our shortsightedness and greed.
If you're going to bash Atheists do so a bit more intelligently.
The assumption that science=atheism, and vice versa. This is simply not true.
In the real world, science and technological advances are used by religious people just as much as they are by atheists. With a few oddball exceptions such as the Amish, .
Even this is inaccurate.
The wheel is a scientic mechanism, just for an example.
Most people bemoaning the state of the world only have a particular place in time that they think is preferable.
Were it not for the scientific method, we'd still be wondering which bit of vegetation is safe to eat.
Me either, but I think we need to slow down the techno race and embrace nature are we are intended to.
I agree. Slow down the techno race and puts the brakes on materialism just a little bit. Respect nature instead of feverishly destroying it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) with his tribe at Yellowstone. I was struck by how historically accurate the whole thing was, when suddenly the Indian whipped out a laptop and got online. 
And?...
