Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[solja247]

Wow. Thankyou for your long reply.

What slippery slope? I presented no such thing.

If you arent as skeptic as an atheist or agnostic, you are going to commit intellectual suicide, become a creationists and belive everything on FOX news. How is that not a slippery slope?
Theists use this argument really well. If you play violent video games, you are going to and kill people

So yes, according to all of these professional historical, scientific, and journalistic articles (and one youtube video of a physicist's speech), the prominance of religion did little to further science. At best, you can argue that certain religions (Islam, in the centuries before its science-dead-zone days) was the foundation of many of the modern scientific concepts - including but not limited to algebra, modern medicine, and several other things I'm probably forgetting but as soon as they slipped into a church-ruled state, they become the opposite of an enlightened state - their own Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages of history - actually the early middle ages - had a number of causes but it was still an age ruled by superstition and religion. It was the time of conversion by swordpoint and christian religious wars and land ruled by the church hierarchy.

Perhaps what I said is an understatement, John Calvin (Allegedly a great reformer) used to KILL scientists! Some religous people suffocated science. However, you may find this like interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

So, in conclusion after this long tirade, in response to your response of "Rubbish", I can defininitively say this (with the help of one Dr. Cox from the Scrubs television series):

Could one argue, that it wasnt Religion itself. It was Christianity entering a primitive place (Europe) Western Europe was where the Babbarians (Franks, Lombards, Anglo-saxons) were, With the decline of the Roman Empire, the Babarians took back the land. (Although Theodoric the Great tried to keep the Roman Empire in tact (he was an Ostrogoth). The papacy only cared that the babarians accepted the Nicene Creed, thus were not followers of arius's theology and philosophy. So perhaps the Roman Empire more so collapsed on itself, for not having their priorities right? The Babarains were primitive people and could of easily contributed to the collapse of science, philosophy, theology etc...

Yes, solja247, that's how science works. Unlike Christianity (and most religions), the first scientist didn't come up a theory of everything by the one true word of science in a magical book that cannot be refuted with christianity making discoveries that refutes that book. That's what happens if you imagine the roles of science and religion being reversed.

This isnt true at all. Theology is always being redefined! How we view Romans is being redefined by scholars like N.T Wright. So you cant say that theology is stagnent...

The religious right (which is admittedly as much political as it is religious) is fighting a difficult battle against virtually all environmentalism as well as the idea of climate change because it conflicts with their world view.

Who cares? Christians who only read KJV commit intellectual suicide, that doesnt mean that all Christians are like that. They will never win, thankfully we are a secular world today (in the developed countries)

Still, the college, like many others with similar religious connotions, generally do not research or accept certain fundemental scientific principles and thus limit the progress of science.

Like what?

You've given me a picture of a group of people who've made wonderful and inexorable contributions to science who appear to have their own religious views (plank has a very different view of god than christianity does, despite apparently being a christian) and thus you've given me a group of very rational people with very rationalized irrational beliefs.

I was making the point that religous people can and do contribute to science...
However, that should not be an argument. People's world view will make them religous or non religous, so even if al the scientists in the world were atheists/theists, it wouldnt matter at all...

Two things,
First, no. Facts are not democratically electable.
Second, the majority of the people of the world accept evolution.
The only places that have a perponderance of individuals who do not accept evolution are those who also tend to be scientifically illiterate. I should also note that the vast vast majority of scientists, even a majority of scientists who are not in the fields related to evolution accept it.

I should of used something with empirical evidence lol.
If the whole world didnt believe in God (or Jesus for that) doesnt mean that they are right...