Fair 'nuff
But I?m not sure you are entirely correct. I am certain there are many leading scientists who are genuinely interested in discovering new knowledge.
This isn't in doubt. But the money that goes into something like Viagra ... the proprietary fights resulting from Microsoft's course of action ... I'm not about to suggest the ridiculous--e.g. withholding cures for grant money. But there is something screwy about social priorities in the industrialized world, and unfortunately, I see no suggestions that atheists are immune to it, or have increased resistance to it. It seems to be a human-level foible, but I could live out the rest of the Universe and not be able to tell you for sure.
Perhaps, but then it is not the achievements and use of the knowledge that is being considered here but the thought processes that were used in the detailed work, i.e. the ability to think clearly and critically.
True enough, but there are a number of undignified comparisons that I think atheism has suffered too much of at this point. Can I leave it at that?
You imply that peace and harmony is their objective, or that that is desirable. It seems to me that intelligent people are those who initiate change, create innovations, that in turn create some degree of chaos and revolution as part of that process. Progress usually requires some to significant upheaval. From my perspective I excel during disasters and I love a challenge. Those who are successful tend to be those who are assertive, can make decisions, and who disrupt the status quo (peace and harmony) for, hopefully, something better.
I always find it interesting that human progress, including the reduction of the conflicts that come to harm human progress, is an idea that needs to be justified. Quite obviously, peace and harmony is not the objective of many people, but I think you're presenting an absolutely one-sided sales pitch here.
Initiate change? Create innovations? Create some degree of chaos and revolution? Toward what? Those who disrupt the status quo? In what way? By exploiting it? I find it intersting that you would separate peace and social harmony from the better things. I'm unsure of what you would mean there, but I'm always shocked when I find out. It's all inspiring rhetoric, but idealism is all it really is. I've heard that vernacular before, and it brings a whiff of snake oil.
Now that may be simply because of a history of that kind of talk bringing certain disappointments. But are the successful really the intelligent? By what standard to measure success?
Peace and harmony? Perhaps staleness and boredom. But isn?t that the objective of religion? Human progress is of little value, it is the worship of God and his love that is the target, isn?t it? And besides all human activity is futile compared to the power of God, right?
Offensively bleak and as closed as I've ever had the displeasure of engaging your mind. Normally you're much more on target.
So, what ... the world's a little boring? Get a few intelligent people to blow something up, bring us some lower energy costs? Maybe pop some Viagra and down a couple of near-beers before hopping online to woo someone who may or may not look like their picture? Depending on who you ask, progress has some seriously diverse manifestations, regardless of whether or not someone believes in God.
Can the atheistic mind separate itself from the anti-identification? I mean, suddenly you're ascribing peace and harmony to religion? That's a knee-slapper if I've ever heard it.
Imagine you're in Missouri. I've heard it all before. The statistics don't lie. Now, what do the statistics show and what does that mean? Atheists have degrees, fit well into the machinery ... perhaps it means that they are more adept at supporting the status quo because the status quo can profit them?
Wesmorris noted, in another topic, the irony of having to sacrifice principles in order to fulfill them, or something approximately like that. I tell ya, when people
not cutting each other's throats for money is boring and stuffy and anti-progressive ... well, I thoroughly question the values underlying your position,
Cris.
What's wrong with making a better world,
Cris? Is it just easier to try to make a better world for yourself, and just screw the rest? What's any less boring about that? (I mean, hey ... talk about a lack of vision ... people can't be bothered to screw anyone
outside their direct loathing or lust ... somehow, "progressive" is losing its value. Maybe it's the pimps.)
No, just frightened of change.
How grim can you be? Just because you refuse to get along with other people neither makes it right nor means that everybody else is that silly. Some poeple look forward to change, and see no reason that it has to involve conflict, except for those who are just freaking bored and need to "stir things up", apparently for their own amusement.
You mean more members who can stir things up a bit, yeah, that?s OK with me.
I was hoping for the reasonable, literate, logical kind so often advertised. Rabble-rousers are a dime a dozen.
It's a simple idea:
What does the "higher intelligence" of atheists get anyone?
So far as I can tell, not much. Maybe it's because that intelligence has nothing to do with atheism, which is a perspective on God and anything else is something else?
Just maybe?
If you want to crow the accomplishments, you'll have to translate them into something of value.
Remember--science follows money. No money = no research. No interest = no money. Artificial erections are more interesting to people than other things science could offer--e.g. world resource management, critical assessments of the viability of democracy, zoological studies of human conflict, anthropological insights into modern trends ... of course, too much knowledge going round might just make things a little too boring, eh?
:m:,
Tiassa
