Daystar

[Daystar]

Daystar, if by 'religious thought' you just mean 'thought' then fine. But religious thought often is used to refer to more overly faith-based and less evidence-based thinking. Evidence based thinking could be described as 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking'. Etc. Religious thought usually refers to more faith based thinking. My definition of faith is that it is basically blind belief/trust. Belief that isn't based on evidence.

Good point, EFV, about 'thought.' That is pretty much what I mean. Religious thought is meant to indicate a line of thinking that is more bias, emotional, irrational. Patriotism and religion, for example to a greater extent and dissipating to a lesser extent as expressed in more centrally cultural and traditional applications.

A person kills for state. A person kills for religion. A person kills for musical preference. A person kills for sports loyalty. Kills, defends, debates, organizes - not from or for the sake of practical application, reason or necessity but emotional attachment.

The point is that this human weakness is not exclusive to faith based initiative. This 'thinking' or 'school of thought' can be seen in the most mundane (irreligious) as well as quixotic (idealistic to an impractical degree) places. As you and I have discussed before, 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking' can all be nothing more than in the guise of prejudice and bias. This transmogrification is the mechanical result of religious thought.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar, if by 'religious thought' you just mean 'thought' then fine. But religious thought often is used to refer to more overly faith-based and less evidence-based thinking. Evidence based thinking could be described as 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking'. Etc. Religious thought usually refers to more faith based thinking. My definition of faith is that it is basically blind belief/trust. Belief that isn't based on evidence.

Good point, EFV, about 'thought.' That is pretty much what I mean. Religious thought is meant to indicate a line of thinking that is more bias, emotional, irrational. Patriotism and religion, for example to a greater extent and dissipating to a lesser extent as expressed in more centrally cultural and traditional applications.

A person kills for state. A person kills for religion. A person kills for musical preference. A person kills for sports loyalty. Kills, defends, debates, organizes - not from or for the sake of practical application, reason or necessity but emotional attachment.

The point is that this human weakness is not exclusive to faith based initiative. This 'thinking' or 'school of thought' can be seen in the most mundane (irreligious) as well as quixotic (idealistic to an impractical degree) places. As you and I have discussed before, 'rational thought', 'logical thinking', 'scientific thought', 'evidence based thinking' can all be nothing more than in the guise of prejudice and bias. This transmogrification is the mechanical result of religious thought.

Yes but religion CAN be a HUGE irrational motivator. Much more so than sport or music. I can't imagine 9/11 happening for sport or music.
Futhermore science based thinking is not connected to prejudice and bias anymore than liking eating apples is connected to prejudice and bias.
You get prejudice and biased scientists only like you get prejudiced and biased apple eaters. PEOPLE can be prejudiced and biased regardless of whether they're a scientist, atheist or theist or astrologer or whatever.
BUT religion CAN motivate people to do insanely irrational things. And these CAN be very dangerous. And they can do these things whether they are good people or NOT. This is not the case with science.
As Steven Weinberg said: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[Daystar]

Luke,

I usually define religious thought in a basic sense as the strict adherence to beliefs. Here, I guess it was pointless to get into details. Your list of beliefs above are not all the same if some of them inspire a different more - dramatic? response reaction.

I don't know if you have read my definition of the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma elsewhere on these boards, I think I touched upon it with you earlier, but basically it means anything which is unseen and yet produces visible results. That could be wind, breath, mental inclination ... cultural, traditional influences that are so subtle you may not even know that they exist.

I don't think that creation should be taught in public schools, period. I don't like the idea of anyone so uninformed screwing it up any more than it already has been.

Religion is only dangerous in the wrong hands, the same as science. It doesn't take a particurally gifted person to see the potential for abuse in sceince or religion. The thing that amazes me is that when someone is in that mode of opperation they don't see it because they are not willing to see the cause and effect.

The Holocaust, for example had more to do with social and cultural if not material causes. I have seen neighbours killing each other over vidio game and sports shoe preferences. People will kill one another for anything - good or bad. Love, money, religion, anything.

The evidence for a global flood is very possiblly mistaken. The expanse that shielded out some harmful radiation would have drastically prolonged the lives of mankind. The cosmic radiation as a result of its removal would not only have been genetically harmful but would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 so as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the flood.

The earth's crust is relatively thin and there would have been a shifting of the crust. New mountains thristed upward and old mountains rising to new heights. Shallow sea basins deepened and new shorelines established with a result that 70% of the surface is now covered with water. Water pressures would have been sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora very quickly.

mammoths and rhinoceroses would be found in different parts of the earth, such as Siberian cliffs or preserved in Alaskan ice with food still unchewed in their teeth. Lions, tigers, bears and elk are found in common strate indicating they were all possibly destroyed simultaneously. The evidence could be seen as a flood or something else. Who knows? No one for sure.

The global Flood legends could have and would have come from one source as indeed language seems to. It is all how you interpret it.

[lukec]

I don't know if you have read my definition of the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma elsewhere on these boards, I think I touched upon it with you earlier, but basically it means anything which is unseen and yet produces visible results. That could be wind, breath, mental inclination ... cultural, traditional influences that are so subtle you may not even know that they exist.

I think I understand what you mean, but I don't really see what it has to do with the discussion, sorry- I'm a bit tired right now. These influences may exist, but what do they have to do with belief? I mean obviously, they could be viewed as roots of belief systems, such as a Wind God, a Spirit, etc, or the way that cultural influences change the beliefs of people in that culture.

Religion is only dangerous in the wrong hands, the same as science. It doesn't take a particurally gifted person to see the potential for abuse in sceince or religion. The thing that amazes me is that when someone is in that mode of opperation they don't see it because they are not willing to see the cause and effect.

These are not the same. Religion is a belief system based on faith and is immutable, and cannot be wrong. The tenets (theories, etc) of science, as I have said several times, can change throughout time. But there is not "following" per se for science as there is for religion. People do not meet to pray to science. So no, I would not say that science in and of itself has a potential for abuse in the same way as religion, since it is based on evidence from experiments etc. But I repeat that you would not be able to mass an army (set say, in the middle ages when religious wars were quite numerous) based on science itself. The two are not analagous ideas. Do you think I am in a "mode of operation?" I have to admit I don't know what you mean exactly by that.

The Holocaust, for example had more to do with social and cultural if not material causes. I have seen neighbours killing each other over vidio game and sports shoe preferences. People will kill one another for anything - good or bad. Love, money, religion, anything.

Yes, perhaps at the top the Holocaust had some political causes- but how exactly do you think those soldiers (who were mostly christian) rationalized the murder (not in battle, simply murder) of so many people? Well there are two facets- the Nuremburg defense, and the idea that the people they were killing were Jews- not fully human, even. So, religion gave the Nazi leaders the ability to convince a country to commit such an atrocity.

As for the killings over video games or sports shoe preferences? I can hardly see this as a widely applicable "reason for killing." Religion, on the other hand, is able to unite many people (vs simply one person who's angry about losing at Halo) and convince them that other humans deserve to die simply because they do not believe the same thing. This is again, not so with science.

The evidence for a global flood is very possiblly mistaken. The expanse that shielded out some harmful radiation would have drastically prolonged the lives of mankind. The cosmic radiation as a result of its removal would not only have been genetically harmful but would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 so as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the flood.

The earth's crust is relatively thin and there would have been a shifting of the crust. New mountains thristed upward and old mountains rising to new heights. Shallow sea basins deepened and new shorelines established with a result that 70% of the surface is now covered with water. Water pressures would have been sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora very quickly.

mammoths and rhinoceroses would be found in different parts of the earth, such as Siberian cliffs or preserved in Alaskan ice with food still unchewed in their teeth. Lions, tigers, bears and elk are found in common strate indicating they were all possibly destroyed simultaneously. The evidence could be seen as a flood or something else. Who knows? No one for sure.

Now this is something I have heard before from creationists, but I have never actually seen any evidence. What expanse exactly are you talking about? Where did it go all of a sudden?

If there was a global flood, which somehow also killed off all the aquatic dinosaurs (why?), why aren't those dinosaurs found in the same strata as dolphins? I suggest you read Evolution by Prothero- don't be put off by the name, a good chunk of the book is about geological records, and the man has no beef with religion or belief, he simply presents facts. It shows quite well how meticulously documented the fossil/geological record really is. However, if you have some data which backs up your ideas I'd be glad to read them.

The global Flood legends could have and would have come from one source as indeed language seems to. It is all how you interpret it.

Maybe- but if all language comes from one source, a flood legend passed down from a single germ society would be based on a local flooding, which is supported by geological data from the area around Babylonia.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Because you said you were brought up atheist by atheist parents ... is it not that obvious then?

From what I understand most of the atheists here were disillusioned believers who became atheists.

I don't understand how that is relevant to what I admit is a near-miss (fail) judgement of you.

When at first you don't succeed ... L. Ron Hubbard would have said. As you know he was hardly insane, he was a science fiction writer who just thought it would be interesting to test his theory that you could form a religion with an obscure god for the sake of making money. I think that you have a great deal more in common than you think, you just have too many hang ups about religion. Organize yourselves to the common goal. Education, politics and association. You don't have to be intellectual clones but there is more there then that you don't believe in God. Even I could see that. I am somewhat good at organizing and the most important thing that I could advise is to forget about God. You people think more about God than most Xians I know. There is more to you than that. Set it aside, let it go. Your main goal would be to promote the atheistic society. Most people think there is a god only in a very vague sense. A simple enough thing to deal with.

And as I have already said ... based on personal experience I don't accept it is easy to organise atheists, we're too different, too individualistic.

I am very much against teaching creation for that same reason for teaching evolution. Not science. I know everyone here believes evolution is science, the distinction is that evolution as well as creation can't say for sure how we got here or what happened between here and now. They both can only say this "might have happened this way." The only real issue is that both via for their own interpretation to be dictated. Both want nothing more than to promote their own world view. Xians want God representin' and Evolutionists want science representin'. God should be taught in the home and not in the school and science, in this case the possible applications that evolution might have in (as Luke or Adrian, I can't remember which, pointed out) medicine etc. can be taught without teaching evolution.

Evolution fulfils ALL the necessary characteristics for a scientific theory and is supported by an immense amount of evidence. The following piece was written by me aimed at fundy's and adapted to you (IOW I may have missed the odd thing):

If you truly want to know about evolution (and I strongly suspect you don't) and about the many & various pieces of evidence supporting evolution then I suggest you get yourself down to your local library ... it will have "L-I-B-R-A-R-Y" written in large letters over the door. When you get there ask the assistant to point you towards the science section (that's "S-C-I-E-N-C-E") and start from one end (often the left) at "A" and start reading from books on Archaeology, Biochemistry & Biology. When you've done that you can continue reading through books on Botany, Chemistry, Cosmology, Developmental Biology, Ecology, Geology, Histology, Medicine, Organic Chemistry, Physics, Physiology and Planetary Geology. Finally you'll end up with books on Quantum Mechanics & Zoology and if, at that point, you still have no firm grasp of mainstream science then you are truly a lost cause!

That you or any other person believes in or accepts current scientific mainstream thought or does not is entirely irrelevant to science ... science (& evolution) neither require nor request that you believe in them. Science is a methodology designed to help us explain the universe by turning to that universe for both questions and answers; the theory of evolution is one of the theories explaining a part of that universe based on evidence that was & still is derived using the scientific methodology. Science is no respecter of authority be that the authority of a non-existent god or its church, a senior statesman or a scientist. Science & scientists only care about evidence ... that evolution is supported by evidence is documented by the truckload, the library load and, indeed, in such immensity that it simply beggar's description!

Now, when I say "L-I-B-R-A-R-Y" (above) I mean you should try any reasonably large city centre library ... you know, it's one of those large places with lots of books and where lots of people who aren't creationists go ... they're a little strange at first but you'll find they can be quite elucidating. A national chain bookshop might be worth a try to too ...perhaps something that hasn't been authorised by some kind of religious organisation or the Discovery Institute.

When we say that the evidence supporting evolution is well established, believe me, we really do mean it is WELL established to the point where NOTHING has come even close to denting it as THE pre-eminent theory explaining the rise (not origin) of life on this planet for 140 years plus!

Another thing to consider ... all of science uses the same overall methodology and every major theory, every hypothesis in science is based on the work of others OUTSIDE the field in which that theory or hypothesis is perceived to sit. That means that a number of major theories (and evolution is not only no exception but the "piece de résistance" in this sense) base their evidence and methodologies on the copious evidence obtained from many, many other scientific theories, hypotheses and disciplines so much so that all of science links together in a fashion that can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle.

The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have those predictions borne out and the theory of evolution has repeatedly done that. The major evidence (and it is by no means the only evidence) to support evolution comes from:

Palaeontology: The study of fossils. Fossils are the remains of animals that have evolved. Evolution (see later) may be defined as a change in the genetic or phenotypic constitution of a population over time. Ergo, palaeontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time.

Taxonomy: The relationships among species. Taxonomy is a scientific discipline that, by classifying plants, animals, and micro-organisms into increasingly broader categories based on shared features, shows the biological relationships amongst species!

Geology: A scientific discipline that shows, amongst other things, that fossils are of different ages and is summarised in what is known as "the geologic column" (it's not a literal column BTW).

Evolution is not, as some (in their endeavours to dismiss it) would like have it classified, a discipline ... it is a major scientific theory that defines the process by which all species develop from pre-existing forms of life and the evidence to support it is based upon geologic, palaeontologic & taxonomic evidence (and a host of evidence drawn from other scientific disciplines).

In this sense the theory of evolution permeates the majority of other scientific disciplines and, like many other scientific theories (only more so) binds the whole of science into a single cohesive unit much like the interlocking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

The theory of evolution is no more doubted by the scientific community than the theory that the Earth orbits the sun or the theory that if you jump off a tall building you will fall to the ground below somewhat rapidly (and stop even faster). The theory of evolution is not doubted by ANY relevant scientist in the world and, despite any personal doubts you may have concerning it, no scientist of any repute does any work on whether evolution occurs or not ... instead they work on the mechanisms by which it does so.

Now I am pretty sure that you've followed me so far BUT it is important to understand that the concept of science as a jigsaw is important.

Science is based on evidence, empirically measurable evidence (I can supply you with a working definition of what evidence is if you wish?) and you can try and dismiss evidence in metaphysical, philosophical or scriptural terms (the latter explaining nothing of our universe) as you wish but until you come up with something else that does at least as good a job in explaining our universe then it is little more than an intellectual dodge and not the be-all/end-all science many seem to be portraying it as.

Science is naturalistic, science is empirical; science fits with other parts of science much like a jigsaw fits together ... if you try to pull one piece of it away (as fundamentalists try to do with evolution) OR indeed force another to fit (as theists often do by I attempting to introduce a non-verifiable, non-supported deity) then the whole of science would collapse around our feet like so much matchwood.

The simple fact is that a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack but hypotheses DO NOT remain at the table of scientific consideration unless they have a measure of credibility and "fit" ... to my knowledge there is no current or past phenomena so far explained that definitively requires the involvement of deity (which I presume is what you put in evolution's place) and the closest you can come is to say that science does not yet have all the answers which I quite enthusiastically concede. But science is an ongoing and self-correcting endeavour and believe ... it is not done yet!

Now anyone may, if they wish, dispute a given scientific theory or advance one of their own BUT, and this is the key point, if they want science or rationalists to take them seriously then they have to provide some reason for us to do so ... to date no one, not you, not the fundy's nor any other anti-evolution theist I have so far encountered has been able to provide such evidence.

So, a question for you (and I have others), if you don't accept evolution how would you remove The Theory Of Evolution from science WITHOUT destroying the rest of that noble endeavour?

Oh and evolution doesn't cover how life arose, it's a biogenetic (life from pre-extant life) theory which is why you can still believe in god AND be an evolutionist as many scientists and people in fact are.

I agree that being a doctor can be taught without knowing any evolution however medical doctors are not real doctors they are mere technicians who are given the honorary title "Doctor" to allow then to deal more effectively and authoritatively with their patients. The REAL doctors are the Doctors of Philosophy (which some medical doctors advance to) and here's the thing ... without science and evolution medical advancement would slow to an utter crawl and would probably stop entirely ... THAT is how fundamental the theory of evolution is to medicine.

My world view ... I taught myself to read before I ever went to school, my world view was formulated by my atheistic family and friends who were full of shit. By the time I was 6 years old I realized that nearly everything they told me was bullshit. Most of it a political, traditional and cultural vortex - nonsense. My homosexuality, democracy, and social prejudice. I did great in school up to a point because it didn't take much to figure out what they wanted to hear. I was raped by a Catholic boy of good caricature who only had to confess and be forgiven by someone else. All the good sons were binge drinking and doing drugs when I wasn't and they were all told to stay away from be because their ignorant parents thought I was the one doing that shit. By the time I was in seventh grade I was bored with school. I do regret that I didn't learn math and grammar as well as I could have, but other than that I have no regrets. My sister graduated from college and has much more difficulty than I do with math and grammar. When I studied with the JWs it was school all over again. My personal studies dwarfed their theocratic ministry school and they bored me.

So because you were a shit student you think it's all rubbish?

I think education can be a wonderful and very important thing, but I don't think it is done very well when sold or granted to the public without consideration for specific application. Someone who wants to work in a factory doesn't need to educate himself as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon.

As far as I'm concerned from education all good things follow and in fact that tends to be born out by industry ... companies (foreign & technological ones in particular) will invest in areas where education is good, they are reluctant to do so in areas where it is poor.

In America, education is like a new car, a status symbol almost otherwise completely void of purpose for 90% of the people. Extra curricular amenities are for more important than learning something. You do your time, get your paper and you are free. I have seen people warned that they wont find work without a college education only to supervise those who did buy it four years later.

I have few doubts that many do not use their education but that doesn't equate to it being a bad thing because there are subtle ways in which education is important ... quite apart from the ability to read and write why not take a newspaper and try to imagine how hard it would to understand even some of the most taken for granted concepts in it without an education. My wife is a dyslexia and education specialist for adults and she knows (I mean truly knows) how hard it is for people to get by in society without a certain level of education.

In my line of work (I am retired now) I came in contact with many educated and uneducated people and came to rightfully expect that the educated ones were intellectually inferior. To be frank, dumb as hell.

I meet some dumb people with good education sure but again that doesn't prove education is a bad thing.

Well, yeah, but only through political and social power. All the more reason for Atheists to organize.

See above!

"If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so." Richard Dawkins

I hate that smug little prick. The same could be said for religion. It is more about politics than either. They (science and religion) are tools for political means.

Religion has never proven anything and likely never will so, no, you couldn't say the same for it not in a true advancement sense.

All of that, as discussed before, is a stretched interpretation ... the Genesis account says "days" (not weeks, months, years or any other period) and there is no rational reason outside of wishful thinking to assume that the writers of it meant anything else but days. If the bible really was a God's word you'd have thought it would have been a lot more careful about the way such important information was transmitted.

You made two myopic statements there that are incorrect.

Blah! More BS

And you'd be wrong for reasons already stated.

The bible is evidence, what it isn't is validatable evidence ... in other words it is correct to consider the bible a historic source, it is not correct to consider it a literal history. It has value, just not the true value some wingnuts think it has.

It is the only literal history of that which you deny, and you are grossly ignorant of it. If that doesn't speak volumes to your 'religious' position I don't know what does. Your obvious downfall is a complete inability or unwillingness to reconcile that with your political position.

Nope! Historians typically do not accept the bible to be a literal history, it is a source! Nothing more. What political position would that be then?

Political? Atheists can be fascist, communist, liberal, right-wing, left wing etc. etc. in addition to supporting all kinds of ideologies ... how on earth would you form such a group into a single political movement?

Set the ideologies aside, much like religion has. What would be your political agenda?

I have no idea ... why don't you tell me what you think it is?

You see there's this thing called language OK? It has words, phrases and so on and the general idea is that it facilitates this thing called "communication" ... are you with me so far? Now communication is a good thing but generally speaking only works if the language that communicators use is the same or can be understood so if you say something is blue and I say it's red then (if you assume other stuff like that) we're not going to get very far when we communicate are we? A religion is not a common interest group (though it can encapsulate common interests) it has a number of definable characteristics that atheism utterly lacks.

Religion has certain benefits and amenities and very little actual definition. The atheist pigeonholes religion by definition. Be a religion with political interests. Have you ever heard of the German Turnverein? The Massai of East Africa? Learn from them.

Regardless ... atheism does not qualify as a religion, it's not even a belief in anything.

Atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's a label defining people who reject some specific theistic claims namely those of the existence of a god or gods.

Which, in my opinion is just stupid, but that is beside the point. I think that the language barrier would be a simple thing to deal with. You people are not completely stupid when you remove god from your minds.

Well, like it or not, atheism is a denial of claims to the existence of god ... live with it.

Kyu

[lukec]

I gotta say Kyu, that while many of your points are valid, the tone with which you present them is not constructive at all. Although they may not share your beliefs, a creationist is not necessarily stupid, and I feel that the first few paragraphs of your piece imply such. Is this going to lead to an actual debate, or just raise hackles? If your point was to insult only, then ok, you probably managed.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I gotta say Kyu, that while many of your points are valid, the tone with which you present them is not constructive at all. Although they may not share your beliefs, a creationist is not necessarily stupid, and I feel that the first few paragraphs of your piece imply such. Is this going to lead to an actual debate, or just raise hackles? If your point was to insult only, then ok, you probably managed.

Although it is based on an old post (very), point taken ... I will try and post in a, er, more positive fashion in future.

Kyu

[Daystar]

I gotta say Kyu, that while many of your points are valid, the tone with which you present them is not constructive at all. Although they may not share your beliefs, a creationist is not necessarily stupid, and I feel that the first few paragraphs of your piece imply such. Is this going to lead to an actual debate, or just raise hackles? If your point was to insult only, then ok, you probably managed.

Although it is based on an old post (very), point taken ... I will try and post in a, er, more positive fashion in future.

Kyu

I've done worse here myself. I think it is part of the game to get a little pissed or at least impatient now and then. I never take it personally.

---

Yes but religion CAN be a HUGE irrational motivator. Much more so than sport or music. I can't imagine 9/11 happening for sport or music.

True, but on a lesser scale it is pretty much the same thing. I can tell you this, religion won't destroy the world but nuclear weapons and other science made arsenal could.

Futhermore science based thinking is not connected to prejudice and bias anymore than liking eating apples is connected to prejudice and bias.
You get prejudice and biased scientists only like you get prejudiced and biased apple eaters. PEOPLE can be prejudiced and biased regardless of whether they're a scientist, atheist or theist or astrologer or whatever.

True, but being biased on eating apples or regarding astrology or Bible theism isn't the propaganda we teach our children in school in the name of science. Our children, man! Of course, you wouldn't see that was a problem but think of it from a different perspective. What if they changed it all around and taught Creationism in schools like it were fact in the way that they do evolution.

BUT religion CAN motivate people to do insanely irrational things. And these CAN be very dangerous. And they can do these things whether they are good people or NOT. This is not the case with science.

Of course it is the case with science. You gather the greatest scientific minds together and appease their egos and childlike sense of scientific adventure and they will make for you the most insanely irrational weapons that could destroy them and everything else. If you don't call that insanely irrational you have just given an example of bias yourself.

Science, like the religion of the dark ages, is thought by an increasingly large margin of people as a false hope. The only thing it needs now is the political backing religion had then and you have a powder keg ready to blow.

[bozo]

I gotta say Kyu, that while many of your points are valid, the tone with which you present them is not constructive at all. Although they may not share your beliefs, a creationist is not necessarily stupid, and I feel that the first few paragraphs of your piece imply such. Is this going to lead to an actual debate, or just raise hackles? If your point was to insult only, then ok, you probably managed.

Although it is based on an old post (very), point taken ... I will try and post in a, er, more positive fashion in future.

Kyu

Kyu, keep on with the insults!

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes but religion CAN be a HUGE irrational motivator. Much more so than sport or music. I can't imagine 9/11 happening for sport or music.

True, but on a lesser scale it is pretty much the same thing. I can tell you this, religion won't destroy the world but nuclear weapons and other science made arsenal could.

Thats not science. Thats people with power and self-righteousness. People in power who have gone power mad. Or people in power who are just totally ignorant so they don't hesitate to go for the really BAD ideas. The scientists provide the research, the inventors invent the bombs. Then the bombs are used by people who think its righteous to use them. Whether they're scientists or NOT. Its not FACTS that damage the world. Its using FACTS as weapons. Because you can use FACTS for good things too. Medicine for example.

Futhermore science based thinking is not connected to prejudice and bias anymore than liking eating apples is connected to prejudice and bias.
You get prejudice and biased scientists only like you get prejudiced and biased apple eaters. PEOPLE can be prejudiced and biased regardless of whether they're a scientist, atheist or theist or astrologer or whatever.

True, but being biased on eating apples or regarding astrology or Bible theism isn't the propaganda we teach our children in school in the name of science. Our children, man! Of course, you wouldn't see that was a problem but think of it from a different perspective. What if they changed it all around and taught Creationism in schools like it were fact in the way that they do evolution.

What if they taught creationism as fact? That would be horrible thats what. Because there's no evidence for the truth of creationism. And if there WAS then the world would be completely different so we're talking about a completely different reality here. So that's irrelevant.

BUT religion CAN motivate people to do insanely irrational things. And these CAN be very dangerous. And they can do these things whether they are good people or NOT. This is not the case with science.

Of course it is the case with science. You gather the greatest scientific minds together and appease their egos and childlike sense of scientific adventure and they will make for you the most insanely irrational weapons that could destroy them and everything else. If you don't call that insanely irrational you have just given an example of bias yourself.

No this is just stupid because...: What has ego or 'childlike sense of scientific adventure' got to do with science? Sure scientists are INTERESTED in the universe if thats what you mean. That usually goes hand in hand with the greatest scientists. But its actually got nothing to do with science itself. I'm talking about science here not the egos of particular scientists. Science itself, as in the scientific method ISN'T ego based.
Science's defintion is the scientific method. Science is a method. Religion is lots of things including lots of crazy things. And often its basically about dogma. And the problem is when it is preached as dogma.

Science, like the religion of the dark ages, is thought by an increasingly large margin of people as a false hope. The only thing it needs now is the political backing religion had then and you have a powder keg ready to blow.

This last paragraph of your post is, I think, frankly: utterly absurd, ridiculous, and grotesque.
You are comparing science to dark age religion! What on earth?! False hope?! Science gets results! There is evidence for scientific truths! Science has discovered things! Whether they be good or bad discoveries, they are true ones! They are demonstrated in reality!
False hope, as in false hope for a better future right?! Well whether the future is good or not, science can be used for not only truth, but good things like medicine. What can religion do? False hope but no truth and no power to do things like develop better medicines or forms of healing other than psychological, placebo effect healing. In other words...false hope!
Heres a video that I think's great. Its about atheists. Its called atheist. So in case you or anyone else hasn't watched it already here it is:
[youtube]fdVucvo-kDU[/youtube]