6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What types of contributions are you referring to?

Humanitarian.

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does the placebo effect have no evidence?

On the contrary, many people who eat shark fin soup describe feeling stronger and more alert because of the medicinal effects. That makes it OK, right?

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Humanitarian.

Interesting. When people claim that religion contributes to things like radicalism, homophobia, terrorism, etc., you tend to dismiss their claims by suggesting that people have those tendencies anyway, and if they didn't blow things up in the name of religion they would blow things up for other reasons. It would follow then that perhaps religion is not the cause of humanitarianism, but that those people would be humanitarians whether religion existed or not.

To repeat Phi's request, do you have any evidence that it is "religion" that is making the contribution, and that without it, those humanitarian acts would not have occurred?

Religion might not be making the contribution but i think its helps drive it.

The Red Cross for example. Jean-Henry Dunant (founder) was partly inspired by Christian teachings regarding social responsibility.

The biggest problem with all religion is that there represented by the wrong people, usually people like Ken Ham or some other idiot.

Tried to edit but waited to long...

I haven't read any of these books, but just to try and stay on topic of the OP, an internet search recommended:

• Philosophical Letters (1733) - Voltaire
• The Origin of Species (1859) - Charles Darwin
• On a Piece of Chalk (1868) - Thomas Huxley
• The Mysterious Universe (1930) - James Jeans
• The Birth and Death of the Sun (1940) - George Gamow
• The Character of Physical Law (1965) - Richard Feynman
• The Elegant Universe (1999) - Brian Greene
• The Selfish Gene (1976) - Richard Dawkins
• The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986) - Richard Rhodes
• The Inflationary Universe (1997) - Alan Guth
• The Whole Shebang (1997) - Timothy Ferris
• Hiding in the Mirror (2005) - Lawrence Krauss
• Warped Passages (2005) - Lisa Randall

Edited July 7, 20196 yr by Curious layman

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

Interesting. When people claim that religion contributes to things like radicalism, homophobia, terrorism, etc., you tend to dismiss their claims by suggesting that people have those tendencies anyway, and if they didn't blow things up in the name of religion they would blow things up for other reasons. It would follow then that perhaps religion is not the cause of humanitarianism, but that those people would be humanitarians whether religion existed or not.

To repeat Phi's request, do you have any evidence that it is "religion" that is making the contribution, and that without it, those humanitarian acts would not have occurred?

People are people, some of those people can navigate life in a relatively contented manor and contribute to the community using their own guile and wit and some people need help (not that they're guile/witless) and of those people some find that help in various religions. I've never suggested (IIRC) that religions are special in that respect or any other, it's just that some people find solace that they might otherwise never discover.

Religions are just one of many ways people come together, I just think they shouldn't be dismissed.

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:55 PM, Strange said:

I don't believe science has, or can, disprove religion.

I believe that you are wrong here.

In my opinion science has already disproved religion by failing to find any evidence for any loving God/or Gods.

Also the fact that people suffer on this planet and there is no escape for them is for me enough proof that religion is complete nonsense.

1 minute ago, seriously disabled said:

I believe that you are wrong here.

In my opinion science has already disproved religion by failing to find any evidence for any loving God/or Gods.

Also the fact that people suffer on this planet and there is no escape for them is for me enough proof that religion is complete nonsense.

You're no better than Dawkins, you fixate on the evidence for a god; people don't need a god. 

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're no better than Dawkins, you fixate on the evidence for a god; people don't need a god. 

To believe something without evidence is just stupid and irrational. In my opinion to believe something without evidence is for the weak-minded.

And yes Dawkins is absolutely right here: Science has failed to find any evidence for any loving or caring God or Gods.

Thousands of people die by suicide every day yet where is God to save them from suicide?

As long as so many people suffer on this planet so badly I just fail to see the evidence for any God.

 

1 minute ago, seriously disabled said:

To believe something without evidence is just stupid and irrational. In my opinion to believe something without evidence is for the weak-minded.

And yes Dawkins is absolutely right here: Science has failed to find any evidence for any loving or caring God or Gods.

Thousands of people die by suicide every day yet where is God to save them from suicide?

As long as so many people suffer on this planet so badly I just fail to see the evidence for any God.

 

If you want to blame god, feel free I don't care; as long as you blame god you fail to take responsibility for your actions and that's not on me...

I'm not God...

29 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

In my opinion science has already disproved religion by failing to find any evidence for any loving God/or Gods.

 

I suppose science has already disproved life on other planets and planets in other galaxies since we've failed to find any evidence for them.

Perhaps one day you can post something other than 'life sucks'.

On 7/6/2019 at 12:52 PM, kaan0035 said:

Science is actually about finding the truth.

Here is what an actual scientist says about this (not wishing to dismiss the comments by actual scientists on the forum, of course):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/