# Science or religion is better for man?



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Obviously you are not a mathematics student. In mathematics one can start with whatever premises one wishes. ... I take that back. We want useful premises which lead to something productive.


Religion is not mathematics, which is a tool of science.



BigApplePi said:


> If one wants to deal with fear, let's not hide from it. It's there and plenty of it. There are things to fill us with terror. What do you think is happening in the world today? Do you think science is so wonderful for creating things that blow apart families? They just want to live in peace. Do you think science could have stopped blowing up the Twin Towers in NYC? Do you think science will stop the flow of refugees out of Syria? Do you think science will bring peace to Afghanistan?


You sound fearful.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> Religion is not mathematics, which is a tool of science. You sound fearful.


 I'm moving between dwellings as I have to supervise construction here. Back to the XP computer so posts willl be sloppy. Mathematics a tool of science? I don't think I've ever gotten a bigger insult. My degree is in pure mathematics even though I went to an engineering school. Mathematics stands on its own. Religion starts from somewhere. I'm no expert on that but I'm certainly not ready to put religion down because it seems to take care of a lot of people. Fearful? I'm fortunate to live in a peaceful place. I go to church rarely and when my wife persuades me. I find it a beautiful and peace seeking place. But that's here, not there. "There" that I talked about is where the fear is. I imagine the people who live around there are not so occupied with science and technology. They need something better until science can (if ever) catches up with them. The something better is religion. Religion pulls them together. To hell with premises science poo-poos. You mentioned sociology. Now there's a science for ya.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> The something better is religion.


I see you're still peddling.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> I see you're still peddling.


I'm waiting for you to buy. As soon as I make the sale, I'll retire to something else, lol.


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

Both are pretty awesome imo and have contributed some great things to humanity


----------



## Angelo (Aug 17, 2016)

Mick Travis said:


> This is an aspect of the fear to which I referred.


Exactly, most people can't handle the fear (obviously doesn't bother you)
Faith eliminated the meaningless in a person's life, and removes the question of life after death, this means people are overall happier.
Though many religions ignore science, or use people's Faith for personal gain


----------



## Angelo (Aug 17, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Do you think science will bring peace to Afghanistan?


Yes.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Angelo said:


> Exactly, most people can't handle the fear (obviously doesn't bother you)


What bothers me is the lack of camaraderie and collaboration in my life.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Angelo said:


> Yes.


How?


----------



## Angelo (Aug 17, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> How?


Improved living, education, jobs, medicine, stronger government... A more advanced civilization is much more peaceful, and that may not get rid of the fighting, but it would reduce it significantly. Think of gangs in America, sure they're there and it's a problem, but it's not to the point where they overpower the government and the people, as well as having better weaponry than the military. It would essentially reduce these militias to street gangs, if not just making them obsolete.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Science, obv.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> What bothers me is the lack of camaraderie and collaboration in my life.
> * *


I see this as a very important post. My mind goes rambling ...

I used to frequently go to this atheist group in NYC. They would regularly show movies as well as debates between famous atheists like Dawkins and not so famous religious people. They would have a discussion afterward. They seemed a closely knit group all of whom knew each other. Guests like myself were welcome but I almost always kept silent ... not because I had nothing to say but because they were faster in speaking than I am and I have to think before I say anything. I haven't been recently because I'm too far away ... which doesn't mean I've given up.

What comes to my mind is that atheists face the same issue believers do. Don't forget specific believers can face the same isolation as atheists. One group goes with one premise and the other goes with a different premise. They are separate. It's just that unlike atheists, these groups overlap. That means they can talk to each other as long as they don't get to why they differ.

It's like political parties. A Democrat and a Republican are separate but they have in common that they are political. Let a non-political person attend a meeting and they won't have anything to talk about ... or rather if they try to promote that they don't believe in political parties, they will be scorned.

That's what happens with atheists. No matter which diverse sect person you encounter they all rally around their belief in a supreme being. An atheist hits at their very foundation. That's why the hostility and name-calling. If an atheist wants to get along, my advice is to not talk about it. (This is the advice given at dinner parties: don't talk religion or politics. Too divisive.) If you are an atheist who wants to talk about it, you are like the religious sect person who wants to talk about what their sect premise is. Only the curious will listen. The rest will hate it.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Angelo said:


> Improved living, education, jobs, medicine, stronger government... A more advanced civilization is much more peaceful, and that may not get rid of the fighting, but it would reduce it significantly. Think of gangs in America, sure they're there and it's a problem, but it's not to the point where they overpower the government and the people, as well as having better weaponry than the military. It would essentially reduce these militias to street gangs, if not just making them obsolete.


You may be on to something. Could work but there are things I'm sceptical about. 

1."Improved living, education, jobs, medicine, stronger government." How much of that credit goes to science as opposed to infusing money and western culture into it? Do we call it science or technology which is the product of science?

2. Russia, China and the United States are advanced civilizations. Does that stop them from warlike attitudes and actions?

3. Since this thread wants to compare religion with science, what about those missionaries that carried religion throughout the world during the 1600's, 1700', 1800's? This is just a fantasy, but what if Muslim missionaries decided to carry peace to those Muslim oriented tribes in Afghanistan? Maybe they would convert them to peace and cooperation, uniting all those tribes.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> my advice is to not talk about it.


Talking about politics and religion is the only way the religious engage with me. All I have with the religious is debate. We're fundamentally different people. They bore me, and I befuddle them.


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

I think another thing to keep in mind is that science and religion do often overlap and many scientists throughout history have also been religious ( Mendel, Lemaitre, Copernicus, and Pasteur, for example). It's entirely possible (and for some of us, preferred) to have one while also having the other, but for some reason people tend to get defensive over that and it seems weird to me. I'm a Catholic biology major and I like my religion _and _my field. I don't think they contradict each other in the slightest. 

Science provides advancements in technology, medicine, and understanding that can further help society, whereas religious organizations are the number one non-government providers of aid in the world. On the flip side, some really awful things have been done in the names of both science and religion that have been swept under the rug.

I don't think it's possible to quantify the contributions each has brought to humankind, but I also don't think it's fair to completely discount one over the other because both have been pretty significant in the development and improvement of society. Just because religion isn't tangible doesn't mean that it isn't valuable.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Taileile said:


> religious organizations are the number one non-government providers of aid in the world.


Religious people are brought together by leaders. That's how the clergy gets paid. Since religion has a nasty hold on human minds, the religious will form the largest groups.






It's sad that government can't do its job of protecting us with our tax contributions.


----------



## Potatooesunshinerays (Dec 26, 2017)

Science of course
Religions creates conflict


----------



## LindsyClarke80s (Mar 30, 2018)

The balance of both. But I voted Science


----------



## NihiLizm (Apr 7, 2018)

I say science. 
I think it’s reckless to place so much value in something like God when there’s no real proof of it. 
And if you’re looking for a moral guide, that can sort of be explained through science anyhow. It’s not evolutionarily helpful to go around stealing shit and killing people—as a species, we’re better off sharing, lending a hand to those around us, solving conflict through communication rather than violence, etc.


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

Mick Travis said:


> Religious people are brought together by leaders. That's how the clergy gets paid. Since religion has a nasty hold on human minds, the religious will form the largest groups.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Regardless of how we want to generalize the personal motivations of the billions of religious people and the workings of the 4,000+ different and individual religions worldwide, religious organizations are still among the number one providers of non-government aid in the world.

We can speculate quite a bit as to why there are so many people who are involved in so many religions, but if the question is whether or not religion has been helpful to humankind, the numbers show that religious organizations have been doing a _lot _of charity work. Whether or not you think those contributions are comparable to what science has provided and what you think of people who believe differently is up to you.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> What has science discovered about religion?


I've discovered that it's a coping mechanism.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> I've discovered that it's [religion] a coping mechanism.


That's not unique about religion. Doesn't science try to cope with ignorance of the physical world?


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> That's not unique about religion.


That is correct.



BigApplePi said:


> Doesn't science try to cope with ignorance of the physical world?


Coping methods are mental techniques to reduce stress.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*  
Doesn't science try to cope with ignorance of the physical world?



Mick Travis said:


> Coping methods are mental techniques to reduce stress.


I don't think of either religion or science as existing to cope. That may be the case, but it is a reaction to a negative. Why not religion and science as existing to relax? That is a reaction to a positive.

Positive - 
Science: I invented an xyz. Now I can enjoy how I move around in this world.
Religion: I have an explanatory story to share. People like a good story.

Negative - 
Science - A situation is giving me a hard time. This will fix it.
Religion - I am twisting in the wind feeling empty with the angst of existence. This gives me something solid to live by.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*
> Doesn't science try to cope with ignorance of the physical world?
> 
> 
> ...


You *always* try to get people to ignore the harmfulness of religion through a PR campaign. Are you heavily invested in the industry?

You also seem to think science is all about technology.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> You *always* try to get people to ignore the harmfulness of religion through a PR campaign. Are you heavily invested in the industry?


That's a good point. I tend to ignore negative stuff as if things were created to do something positive. Let's see. I will ask myself, how can operating a religion be harmful and what is to be done about it? Also my "PR campaign" might be a reaction to your PR campaign refusing to say good things about religion. We need to bring this thing into balance.

My first thought is religion HAS to have bad consequences because so does marriage, government, nuclear bombs, cities, automation, traffic, etc. We can always find something negative about these things. That doesn't mean we get rid of them. Do you want to go after bad things about religion? Name something

How about religions that subjugate women? Is that bad? Answer: yes to outsiders; no to insiders. Who are we as outsiders to have the right to destroy the Taliban? Answer: the Taliban is political. Sounds like an issue of separation of church and state.

* *




Yes. I'm running a secret operation in the church basement. I get away with it because I don't have to pay taxes.:laughing:


 






> You also seem to think science is all about technology.


I don't follow you. Technology is a consequence of science. A lot of science goes on that doesn't produce hard copy.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Also my "PR campaign" might be a reaction to your PR campaign refusing to say good things about religion. We need to bring this thing into balance.


Sorry, you can't make me stop exposing you.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Science promotes the investigation of logical-factual truth whereas religion promotes the investigation of moral truth. Without getting into their effectiveness in their respective domains, religion is worse about tending to cross over and attempting to make logical-factual claims than science is about attempting to make moral claims. What's more, investigating moral truth without religion is much more productive than investigating logical-factual truth without science.

While I am a non-believer, I do see certain benefits to religion historically and in the current day. Even so, I find that the benefits of science generally outstrip these both quantitatively and qualitatively.


----------



## Jest_Please (Aug 26, 2016)

Both. Some may need one, some may need another, others need both, and then there are those who chose neither.

You at least need a respect for both.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

How would one religiously morally investigate whether homosexuality should be a capital offense, or why a woman speaking in church should be shameful.

Why would this be better than going about it scientifically?


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Science. But science is an exclusive club in the sense that only some groups of people had access or capacity to get a hold to its core tenets. Most people would only be science consumer, and sometime, victim.

The same goes with atheism. It is also an exclusive club where most people wouldn't dare to explore the concept beyond the lines: "i think it's too chaotic and time consuming to learn and simply against my religious order". The masses simply do not equipped to attain the privilege of entering the club. Hence the word "masses", the consumer of religion, and sometime, also victim.

I sincerely think we cannot address those two only in our individual level, using each our individual reasoning and belief system but we must rise to have bird's eye view on the total population to realize the full effect.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Westy365 (Jun 21, 2012)

That's like saying asking "Which is better for a PB&J: the jelly, or the peanut butter?" 

They're both important. Some people don't like peanut butter, and some people don't like jelly, but it still takes both to make a proper PB&J sandwich. 

I personally believe that science and religion can become rather pretentious when they exclude one another entirely. Yin and Yang are supposed to work together, balancing their strengths and weaknesses. 

Science deals with the laws of the material/physical, while religion deals with the laws of the moral/spiritual.


----------



## ULTRAVIOLENCIA (Apr 14, 2018)

they fulfill different needs so they can't be compared like this. No matter how much science discovers or goes far in explaining life "mysteries", religion or spirituality reaches higher and deeper, you could have universe or life fully explained/figured out in a scientific manner but still feel like something is missing or out of reach, that's religion, that's human nature


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

religion vs science


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Religion has fooled people into committing human sacrifice by the thousands every day, out of an erroneous belief the Sun won't rise without blood.

Science provides us with the method to determine the Earth revolves around the Sun, and with that, the knowledge the Sun won't disappear tomorrow even if we don't kill each other over a fairy tale.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Religion can be useful, but science is more important.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Science. But science is an exclusive club in the sense that only some groups of people had access or capacity to get a hold to its core tenets. Most people would only be science consumer, and sometime, victim.
> 
> The same goes with atheism. It is also an exclusive club where most people wouldn't dare to explore the concept beyond the lines: "i think it's too chaotic and time consuming to learn and simply against my religious order". The masses simply do not equipped to attain the privilege of entering the club. Hence the word "masses", the consumer of religion, and sometime, also victim.
> 
> ...


Just found a video on the risk of being too intellectual and superior in morality in yourself and losing the grip on the reality of the masses.


----------



## bearlybreathing (Aug 6, 2013)

Religion helped us get where we are, science is going to help us get where we're going.


----------



## BehindSmile (Feb 4, 2009)

Both!


----------



## Miss Nightingale (Aug 10, 2013)

Science


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

poco a poco said:


> But they don't care that they are dying that soon or killing each other for food because the life they live is all they've ever known. Also, many humans either kill animals for food (ranchers) or eat the animals other humans have killed. Since we are animals, that means we also kill other animals for food. It's pretty relative, Cavemen probably thought they had things pretty good compare to other animals too.
> As for humans, well, we have expanded our lifetime and so we see value in that. We've given ourselves many conveniences and so we see value in them. So of course we would feel slighted by the idea of a shorter lifespan or lack of technology.


*But they don't care that they are dying that soon*
oh, they probably should :laughing:


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Mick Travis said:


> The basic difference between science and religion is that science doesn't need a deity to operate.
> 
> Religion holds back progress by being based on relatively unchanging magical thinking. We scientists understand that we are accident prone primates, so we tread methodically.
> 
> The dichotomy is logic vs magic.






You are most correct that we are accident prone primates. On that I agree. However for some the deity is Man. I have encountered numerous people who "believe in man" or "believe in humanity" or "believe in science" as if they were utterly unaware science had given us nuclear weapons and lead to conditions that cause anxiety and depression in modern Western first world humans, that lead to air and water pollution, that essentially caused anthropogenic climate change. 

This isn't anti-science, to be sure, it is a warning though that the deifiication of science isn't unknown and that it empowers the wrong kinds of scientists with the loosest ethics. 

You also must understand that all religions don't involve deities per se.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Forest Nymph said:


> You also must understand that all religions don't involve deities per se.


If it doesn't involve deities, I prefer to classify it as an ideology, like Marxism, Randian Objectivism, Secular Humanism or Extropianism.

Buddhism is a special case, because it's an ideology in theory, but in practice a religion. Western Buddhists are a different kettle of fish (they are mostly into meditation and ethics), but in the Far East the emphasis seems to be on worshipping Buddha as a god. I once talked to a Zen monk and asked him: "why do you pray to the Buddha if the Buddha is not a god?" He answered, "I pray to my inner Buddha-nature". He may believe that intellectually, but emotionally he obviously treats Gautama as a deity.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Being religious doesn't guarantee a good character. People seem to misinterpret religion.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Science lets me live more comfortably but without meaning. Religion gives me a place to belong. Fortunately I don't have to choose unless I take this poll ... which appears to restrict my choices.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

For most: religion

For unlucky few: science

It is the hard bitter truth that we have varying degree of capacity. If you are innately leader and live independence, go pursuit science. If you want to be happy with your life, can't really live without others thus want to get along together in peace and harmony, go seek religion.

Trouble comes when people do beyond their capacity. They become depressed, and in society, it work like endemic virus.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> It is the hard bitter truth that we have varying degree of capacity. If you are innately leader and live independence, go pursuit science. If you want to be happy with your life, can't really live without others thus want to get along together in peace and harmony, go seek religion.


This is the kind of abusive society I'd like to prevent. I don't see people as competent or incompetent, so this is a realistic goal for me.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

Why did you leave out Philosophy?


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Mick Travis said:


> This is the kind of abusive society I'd like to prevent. I don't see people as competent or incompetent, so this is a realistic goal for me.


How would you deal with the most basic fear and greatest mystery for any living being: death. Please don't lecture me about your anecdotal fearless self, uncle mike. Everyone has sense of fear for the ultimate unknown, no matter how hard they try to suppress it, no matter how ignorant they are. Even psychopath and mentally ill always fear death or else they won't have to wait years to eventually (if they did) have suicide.

Make peace with it? Ok. How? And how can people replicate your method easily?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> Make peace with it? Ok. How? And how can people replicate your method easily?


1st, we stop indoctrinating our children. 2nd, we quit thinking we're better than the next person and get together for love and support. If one has nothing substantial, an incantation is pretty nice. A communal society will have ample love, comfort, and leisure. Right now, we encourage people to isolate themselves through competition and ego.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Mick Travis said:


> 1st, we stop indoctrinating our children. 2nd, we quit thinking we're better than the next person and get together for love and support. If one has nothing substantial, an incantation is pretty nice. A communal society will have ample love, comfort, and leisure. Right now, we encourage people to isolate themselves through competition and ego.


You make it sound so easy and simple.

You do know the evolution of divinity concept in human culture, don't you? Do you realize that every tribe, big or small, even in the remotest area in this planet, have their own concept of spirituality and god(s)?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> You make it sound so easy and simple.


It is.



contradictionary said:


> You do know the evolution of divinity concept in human culture, don't you? Do you realize that every tribe, big or small, even in the remotest area in this planet, have their own concept of spirituality and god(s)?


Unchecked, animism turns into organized cults with cunning leaders. Thanks to science and the internet, we're now wise enough to check ourselves. The Earth is no longer the center of the solar system.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Science is a modern invention, a hobby for the intelligentsia who would otherwise be with nothing to do. Religion is something that has served and bound us together for thousands of years.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> Science is a modern invention


It's neat how we've evolved past religion as science.



Skeletalz said:


> a hobby


It's my life.



Skeletalz said:


> Religion is something that has served and bound us together for thousands of years.


How long has slavery been around?


----------



## Isa (Sep 13, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> You make it sound so easy and simple.
> 
> You do know the evolution of divinity concept in human culture, don't you? Do you realize that every tribe, big or small, even in the remotest area in this planet, have their own concept of spirituality and god(s)?
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


That's because the ancient aliens visited all of us and gave the motif of the sky father. :spacecraft-1:


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Isa said:


> That's because the ancient aliens visited all of us and gave the motif of the sky father. :spacecraft-1:


----------



## flamesabers (Nov 20, 2012)

For what purpose?

If you want to understand the world around you, science is clearly the winner. 

If you're looking for emotional comfort, religion might be a better match for you.


----------



## Muriel (Aug 12, 2018)

Both are essential if we want to understand ourselves, our surroundings.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Mick Travis said:


> It's neat how we've evolved past religion as science.


:laughing:



> It's my life.


Of course, it's your life, something you can do for the sake of doing something, enabled by how cheap resources are for us at the moment. Consider this:

*The Motives of Scientists*

87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or a desire to "benefit humanity." But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.

88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race - most of archeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in those areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotion involvement int promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian, then why did he help develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from the personal fulfillment he got from his work and seeing it put to practical use.

89. The same is true for scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem). Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself. 

90. Of course, it is not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

91. Also, science and technology constitute a powerful mass movement and many scientists gratify their need for power through the identification with this mass movement. (See paragraph 83.)

*92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and the government officials and corporation executives ho provide funds for research.*

_Theodore Kaczynski - Technological Slavery, pages 62-64 (Industrial Society And Its Future)_
[HR][/HR]

As for the definitions of terms such as "surrogate activity" or "power process," you'll have to read ISAIF on your own and I strongly recommend it, it is the work of a man who is a lot smarter than you or me, it pays to listen to smarter people. Who knows, you might end up getting out of the system's status quo bubble.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

zz


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Another ted kaczinski reference. My, oh my...

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Another ted kaczinski reference. My, oh my...
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


A good author has many citations :wink:


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> *The Motives of Scientists*.


The motive is to discover the truth. How long have you been a scientist?


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> Another ted kaczinski reference. My, oh my...
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk


Well, sometimes I wish I could get away with quoting David Icke.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Mick Travis said:


> Well, sometimes I wish I could get away with quoting David Icke.


Sarcasm abound, society do need to listen to terrorist more, mick.

Memento mori, mick. Memento mori.



Skeletalz said:


> A good author has many citations :wink:


This essay/manifesto was published by both The New York Times and The Washington Post on *September 19*, 1995.

What a visionary INTJ 

#flamebaiting

P.s: will he hate himself when his prophecies come to this fruition?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> Sarcasm abound, society do need to listen to terrorist more, mick.


That's called "chatter".


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Mick Travis said:


> The motive is to discover the truth. How long have you been a scientist?


Is this how a scientist responds to an argument? Also, curiosity has already been refuted. And how do you know science is the best path toward truth? Is spiritual truth irrelevant? Regardless, you've just lost all credibility you had with that post as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

flamesabers said:


> For what purpose?
> 
> If you want to understand the world around you, science is clearly the winner.
> 
> If you're looking for emotional comfort, religion might be a better match for you.


Not at all.The conclusion is wrong.How did you arrive at the conclusion?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Science or religion is better for man?*



Which is better for me? My arm or my leg? Why do I have to choose?


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> Regardless, you've just lost all credibility you had with that post as far as I'm concerned.


We live in different mindsets. I still respect you, because I respect life.


----------



## wutwutwut (Sep 17, 2018)

both good if used correctly


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Mick Travis said:


> We live in different mindsets. I still respect you, because I respect life.


Yeah, different mindsets - I'm right and you're wrong, as you've conceded :wink:


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> I'm right and you're wrong, as you've conceded :wink:


I concede nothing. You've indicated that you will no longer take me seriously. I'm also not the one being intellectually dishonest. There's no winning an argument with someone who always replies "Just because." However, if you'd like to continue to engage me, I'll continue to make fun of you.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

The OP premise is faulty. Both have facilitated a series of consequences that have been equally detrimental and beneficial to humanity. They are ultimately incomparable. As simply as I can put it: 

Science is a method of inquiry, plain and simple. It attempts to explain: "How." 

Religion may be many different things (depending on whom you ask). It is distinctly not a method of inquiry, but a means of attempting to explain what is considered well beyond the scope of science. Religion is, at best, philosophical in nature. It attempts to explain: "Why?"


----------



## flamesabers (Nov 20, 2012)

Sangam swadik said:


> Not at all.The conclusion is wrong.How did you arrive at the conclusion?


Which part is wrong?

If it's the science statement, I think it's self-evident science provides far better explanations then religion. If you're feeling ill, you go to a hospital to get treated instead of going to a local church or wherever.

As for religion, it does offer more solace then science. For instance, numerous religions say we have an immortal soul while all scientific evidence points to our conscience being a product of our brain. Once our brain and body is dead, so is our conscience.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Mick Travis said:


> I concede nothing.


By not engaging *at al*l with the arguments from Teddy that I presented, you have conceded. Simple as that.



> I'm also not the one being intellectually dishonest. There's no winning an argument with someone who always replies "Just because."


Yeah, you respond with semantics and an ad hominem and I'm the one who is being intellectually dishonest, righty


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> By not engaging *at al*l with the arguments from Teddy that I presented, you have conceded. Simple as that.


"If you don't prove my crazy paranoid serial killer friend wrong, I win."



Skeletalz said:


> Yeah, you respond with semantics and an ad hominem and I'm the one who is being intellectually dishonest, righty


Well then, you're either fooling yourself, or you're trolling.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Mick Travis said:


> "If you don't prove my crazy paranoid serial killer friend wrong, I win."


Even if he was a "crazy paranoid serial killer," how exactly would that affect the quality of his arguments? I'll answer, *it wouldn't.* Stop embarrassing yourself and address his points


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Skeletalz said:


> address his points


I just did.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Mick Travis said:


> I just did.


Liar.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Skeletalz said:


> Have you tried it? Idk, to me, succeeding in life through only the sweat of my brow sounds great. It is a hard life though, none of that 4 hour workday bullshit, you are never short of things to do.


No, I didn't. I could be an interesting experience, though. Olaf Stapledon's fictional _Fifth Men_ are a civilization far ahead of us, but still have a "wild continent" in order to enjoy savage life as a sort of holiday. 

But I don't feel like doing it all my life. I would like to explore the cosmos and experiment with enhancing my mind using biotech.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Bill the Piper said:


> Olaf Stapledon's fictional _Fifth Men_ are a civilization far ahead of us, but still have a "wild continent" in order to enjoy savage life as a sort of holiday.


Straight outta Brave New World if you ask me, yuck.



> But I don't feel like doing it all my life. I would like to explore the cosmos and experiment with enhancing my mind using biotech.


Incomprehensible, have a terrible day.


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)

@Skeletalz

You seem like an angry person. Whys that?

Just wondering. As you mentioned 4hrs work week and labeled it as not that valuable. Have you actually red the book?

Because I have had many people who have red it and used its exercises tell nothing but great experiences about the impact of that info over their life over mid term. Me included.

The 4H.W.W is definitely more scientifically testable than religion w/o faith, no?


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Sandstread said:


> You seem like an angry person. Whys that?


That's just me 



> Just wondering. As you mentioned 4hrs work week and labeled it as not that valuable. Have you actually red the book?
> 
> Because I have had many people who have red it and used its exercises tell nothing but great experiences about the impact of that info over their life over mid term. Me included.
> 
> The 4H.W.W is definitely more scientifically testable than religion w/o faith, no?


I was referring to the erroneous and blatantly ignorant of reality "scientific" and "anthropological" statement that primitive hunter-gatherers only worked 4 hours a day, complete bullshit if you stop to consider how long it takes to forage enough food even for one meal.

The book, however, i have the pdf but I haven't gotten into it yet, it wasn't that engaging. Might read it later though.


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)




----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Science or religion is better for man?*

I've heard it said science is better for man and religion better for woman. I wouldn't trust that.


----------

