Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Unfortunately the words used to describe "God" have been hijacked by those who know little, nothing or by the manipulative and there are too many negative connotations attached to them. Good decision in using a different term."
Then this would seem an opportune moment for you to accurately define what you mean by deity, and demonstrate any objective evidence you think you have for its existence, if of course you have any objective evidence that you can demonstrate. Otherwise how anyone defines god is entire;y moot, like arguing about what a unicorn's horn is made of, or how to keep it's coat shiny.
@Sheldon
Don't think about a pink elephant and bang there it is.
What I was implying is that the word "God" brings up biblical connotations and previously defined definitions when you read the word "God". Perhaps you are an exception that doesn't jump to that conclusion but my perception is that many do.
One connotation attached to God is one that you brought up, that it is a deity. What if the majority got it wrong? That's my starting point on what is God.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Then in the interests of accuracy and honesty, you need to offer your personal definition of your deity.
And the same applies to christianray.
Nobody hijacked anything. There are 30,000 Christian faiths. There are the Islamic faiths, the Jewish faiths and all sorts of other faiths all with different definitions of god and all of them believing, like you, their version is the one and only correct version. Define your god clearly, and then give us the evidence for it. How frigging hard is that to do?
"I assert that my Christian faith, while dependant on believing some things that I can not absolutely know, is as rational as holding the position that God does not exist."
Firstly welcome, secondly I donlt hold the position that God does not exists, I disbelieve the claim that any deity or deities exist until sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated to support the claim, which is a long winded way of saying I am an atheist.
So what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? What we usually get is bare assertions and arguments based on common logical fallacies.
Incidentally, we cannot "absolutely" know anything, as 100% certainty is epistemologically impossible.
@Sheldon
"Incidentally, we cannot "absolutely" know anything, as 100% certainty is epistemologically impossible."
I respectfully disagree. I know with 100% certainty that I am "something" existing in "something". I may be a lone brain in a vat, I maybe living my life as my senses indicate, I may be a sub brain located within a giant creature with multiple brains, I may be a computer program, I may inhabit a tiny atom within a giant cosmos within a giant cosmos, and so on.
But the fact that "I" am thinking, means I exist.
But that is all I can be certain of.
Simple laws of logic.
A circle is not a square.
A tree is not a horse.
A theist is a person who does not apply criticism or logic to their beliefs.
There is nothing that can not be believed based on faith.
@arakish
"However, how many scientists do you see committing appalling acts of evil?"
Oh there are many arakish. Is Science not attempting to play god?
Have you heard the expression? 'The road leading to hell is paved with good intentions'
Science is full of good intentions that will harm us.
Example one: The attempt to cure all illness. Have they thought of the events to follow. What do we do with a world that keeps growing in population?
Example two: Genetically modifying humans to the best model possible. Each generation needs different models of people to overcome different obstacles they face
Example 3: the testing of the 1st atomic bomb. They had no idea if it would destroy the entire world but risked it all for the pursuit of power and knowledge
I can give you countless more but I hope you got the gist of it.
Their intentions might be good but the outcome might be disastrous, thus their actions can be deemed evil/damaging/deadly etc.
@ In Spirit
From this post.
"Oh there are many…" Please list them. If you cannot list at least 50, then your usage of "many" is completely incorrect.
No. Science is not trying to play god. This definitively shows you know nothing about the Scientific Method.
Scientific Method at Wikipedia
An Introduction to Science: Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method
APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method
And check some of these References
Nope. Never heard of it. Did you make it up?
I shall admit that sometimes science has good intentions, but never to intentionally harm. Yes, some harm comes from science. A good example is the Roundup law suit commercial I see. Science intended to do good by providing something that would control weeds, but never intended to cause any harm. Scientists did not know of any possible harmful effects caused by very long-term exposure to the chemical in Roundup. However, Roundup has always had warnings on it labels.
The same can be said of religion. “Religion is full of good intentions that does harm us.”
Trying to cover two topics eh? To cure all illness is an admirable intention. However, consequences from doing so are already rearing their ugly heads through the method of "preventing the spread of disease" in every last commercial business I see. And I guarantee you excitingly participate in this disaster in the making. Of what am I speaking you may ask. You cannot enter into any commercial business without seeing some form of "santization" equipment for everyone to use when entering. What is the disaster this may cause? The creation of super-diseases for which we may not be able to find a cure before it can wipe a nice percentage of the population. I for one never use those damn things. If you wish to have a strong immune system, the best method is to actually expose yourself. I have never, NEVER, ever caught the flu. I occasionally to do get a sinus cold, but most often, it is actually allergies instead of a cold.
As for a growing population, trust me, nature has a method to control the virus known as Homo sapeins should we truly get out of control. Nature works like that. But for someone like you, it is gop of the gaps bullshit due to your lack of knowledge and understanding.
Can you NOT see the oxymoron in your statement? “Genetically modifying humans to the best model possible.” No such thing. Think Critically about it. What was it Cognostic said? Paraphrased: "Listen more, speak less."
Yep. Just like the military to take something scientists create and make a horrendous weapon out of it. The same can be said about the Kamikazees of WW2. And let you figure the other inference.
Please, try to list countless more. I have $100 says you cannot. And what the hell does Geographic Information Science and Technology have to do with your fallacious arguments?
The same EXACT thing can be said about religion. Religion intends to do good, but their actions ARE evil/damaging/deadly/etc.
rmfr
@arakish
I can admit that I know much about nothing. I will never say that I am an expert on anything.
No one is 100% correct on everything that comes out of one's mouth. I've seen that from everyone I have come across.
I can admit that there are many here who are more knowledgeable and informed than I am.
I can admit that I am not near close to any neat box you or anyone else want me to fit in or adjust to.
"The same EXACT thing can be said about religion. Religion intends to do good, but their actions ARE evil/damaging/deadly/etc."
100% in agreement
What is your definition of "Playing god", since you disagree with me?
Are you suggesting that no one in the field of Science/Physics/ Astronomy et al starts off with a premise that has no evidence and that it is a starting point for an experiment? Sometimes it is mere 'wonderment' that will lead them or am I wrong again?
"Can you NOT see the oxymoron in your statement? “Genetically modifying humans to the best model possible.” No such thing. Think Critically about it. What was it Cognostic said? Paraphrased: "Listen more, speak less.""
Then I must be reading comic books instead of science journals or listening to people in the know how. As for the paraphrase...let those who believe in it lead by example.
Creating The Perfect Human (the universityu of Melbourne)
https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2018/10/13/creating-th...
'The road leading to hell is paved with good intentions'
Nope. I didn't make it up...google it
The original expression is “the road to hell is paved with good intentions “ meaning that people always try to think that they are doing good even when it is obvious that the methods are wrong.
The Scientists I claim are doing harm and evil are the ones who have worked with governments and the military for persona,l selfish, manipulative and ideological reasons to say the least. Examples are plenty throughout history
Late addition: Science believes that they must conquer what annoys us, pains us, kills us or gets in the way of higher scientific achievements. To do so they must eradicate parts of nature. They too believe that in the name of science the sacrifice of a few for the many justifies their decisions. Sound familiar?
@ In Spirit
Religion.
Someone has a hard time spotting sarcasm. Of course I have heard that saying. The only persons I ever hear stating it is Religious Absolutists. Since Hell does not exist, how can one pave a road to it?
Then why can you not list them?
Sound familiar? Nope. Not at all.
Science conquers nothing except to gain knowledge. Science does not eradicate nature. Humans do. Look at the eradication of nature humans are doing all over this planet. And virtually none of it in the pursuit of science.
Religion does only one thing. It seeks to conquer all humans to force its belief that it possesses the one and only truth. Only problem is that religion is nothing more than lies. There has never been any truth in any religion. NONE. Religion is nothing more a means for megalomaniacal psychotic sociopaths to control the masses to provide the upper echelon with a living without ever having to work. Religion has never sought for truth.
I'll list them again.
And those that believe in a religion...
Religion is Pure Evil in that it does nothing more than to seek utter dominance over humans in order to stop them from thinking for themselves utilizing critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought.
Answer this, what happens to those who refuse to believe in your deity?
rmfr
@arakish
Why do you keep bringing up religion and your disbelief in it as a defense when we are both on the same page on that one?
@ In Spirit
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE!!
You are as theistic as any Religious Absolutist. The only difference is that you are hiding behind the "alien" card.
You still believe in a deity. Thus, you are a theist. You are inexorable in your beliefs, making you a Religious Absolutist.
Since you seem to have forgotten the definitions:
You, my friend, are BOTH!
rmfr
@arakish
Stop hijacking this thread. Create a new one and I will gladly partake in that one to continue this discourse. I will respond to nothing else in this thread except related to the OP
Agreed?
@In Spirit
Is it the scientists or those who used the results from the scientists to enact horror?
J. Robert Oppenheimer, credited as the "father of the atomic bomb" once remarked he felt he had "blood on my hands". Oppenheimer also advocated banning the use of nuclear weapons, he used his position position to lobby for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union.
Sometimes it is both
You have two sources that disagree with your inane interpretation, Please cite one reputable source that agrees with you.,
Perhaps this will help you: "SCIENCE encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and TECHNOLOGY is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. (Oxford Reference) http://www.oxfordreference.com/page/scienceandtech/science-and-technology
You have 3 separate definitions of science that all agree with one another and all cited. None of them pulled out of anyone's ass like the "Purpose of Science" you provided. Why don't you simply take the time to THINK about the shit you say before typing it?
Wow, it has been a long day at work. For some reason, my phone doesn't properly update the site. I've been monitoring the discussion from my phone all day without a chance to respond. Then I come home and my laptop revealed all. Well, I'm an atheist now...
Just kidding! However, I did find issues in my own presentation. I also found that some of what I said was misunderstood. The reason for some of this is simply a matter of using terminology that does not actually fit my own understanding. For this, I apologize.
Therefore...
I would first like to clarify my initial statement. I listened to you and I made a blunder. I actually conversate regularly with an atheist at work and he also does not suggest that God does not exist but rather that he does not have sufficient evidence to believe God exists. So I hear you loud and clear. Your position is one of reserve rather than an absolute. Thus I would amend my initial assertion as follows:
My faith in the God of Abraham is as rational as waiting until sufficient evidence is provided before subscribing to the existence of God. I would like to clarify a couple of things about my statement for you. My original statement and the above statement is not an affirmation that God exists or that my God exists. I have found zero absolute proof of Gods existence. The evidence I have been providing merely supports the claim of rationality rather than some kind of proof of God.
As I have already stated my motives here are not to waste your time with all of the "evidence" you've already heard in order to convince you of God. I would rather not waste my own time as well. My opinion is this: If I can defend my position as rational, then we can simply communicate. I think it is a tragedy that the theist and the atheist basically talk past each other. We are both human beings and fallible simple creatures. I see no reason to judge you. My faith forbids it actually.
So here is my version of the cosmological argument.
I observe only three viable explanations for my own existence.
A.) An eternal being caused my reality
B.) Reality itself is simply infinite
C.) I am God
I do not subscribe to C because if I were God and reality is dependent on me and truly up to me then I ought to be able to stop whomever I desire from dying.
I do not subscribe to B because if reality itself is infinite then the meaning of life is purely subjective. There is no need for us to communicate or obtain knowledge or worry about morals because we will cease to exist and we will eventually exist again. The only rational pursuit in an infinite reality is to pursue pleasure no matter the cost. This is generally the philosophy of Anton Lavey's Satanism. The only problem is that no one obtains pleasure purely or permanently. Furthermore, almost all of the human species experience some sense of right and wrong. There is no such thing as right and wrong in an infinite reality. Right and wrong would be mere human constructs. Powerful manipulations. What's more, is that in an infinite reality I would not expect to observe as much stability as I do on a regular basis. Death, for example, is constant for the human species. Even the God I subscribe to died. Even the stars die.
Therefore I subscribe to C an eternal being as yet undefined.
I'll leave it here for now as it is 1:37 AM and I have to wake up with my son in the morning. Please inform me if I have missed any options as I would desire to consider them.
@catholicray
Nice, carefully worded post. MOTHER OF JEEBUS I wish all theists were this clear in presenting their beliefs.
Now, I want to point out something in your statement and pose a scenario to you:
I'm not going to be a jerk and say "prove your faith is rational", though I could. What I will do instead is, as I promised, pose a scenario:
Let's say that, one day, you get called to serve on a jury in a criminal trial. Let's call it a trial for murder.
Despite your best attempts to get out of it, you get selected and have to sit on the jury.
The trial starts and the prosecutor says: "Bob killed Joe!".
The question is simple: Is there enough evidence to create or support a rational belief that Bob killed Joe?
In the end, you have two options and only two options: Either there is enough evidence to create or support a rational belief that Bob killed Joe or there is NOT enough evidence to create or support a rational belief that Bob killed Joe.
So, the prosecutor says Bob killed Joe. Is Bob guilty?
Not enough information, you say? Here's some more evidence, from the prosecution:
Testimony indicates that Bob and Joe knew each other. Bob confirms this. It can not be refuted.
Testimony indicates that Bob and Joe did not like each other. Bob confirms this. It can not be refuted.
Testimony indicates that Joe was dating Bob's ex. Bob confirms this. It can not be refuted.
Eye-witness testimony indicates that Bob was in the vicinity of Joe's house, the location of the murder, on the night of the murder. Bob confirms this. It can not be refuted.
So...Is Bob guilty or not?
Still not enough information?
OK...
Joe was killed with a gun.
Bob owns a gun of the same caliber as the one with which Joe was killed.
Is Bob guilty?
Let me introduce juuuust a little more evidence...now from the defense.
Bob's fingerprints are not located anywhere in, around or near Joe's house.
There is no DNA linking Bob to the crime scene.
There are no footprints, tire tracks or witness testimony which place Bob at the crime scene.
Bob was arrested 10 minutes after the murder, 5 miles away from the scene and had no blood spatter on his clothing.
At this point, can you come to a rational belief that Bob killed Joe?
Can you say that it is, in any way, rational to believe that Bob killed Joe?
Can you even say there's a reasonable suspicion, based on the evidence, that Bob killed Joe?
If not, Bob must be found "not guilty". He must be. This is the only option
Now, in this case, there is a lot of testimonials and even an eye-witness. There is, however, no physical or demonstrable evidence which indicates that Bob killed Joe. Based on that, it is not rational to convict Bob of the crime of murder. There simply isn't any real evidence indicating that Bob did it.
Atheism is simply finding god(s) not guilty of existing because there is no demonstrable evidence of such existence and, because there is none, it is not, in fact, rational to convict god(s) of existing.
I would like you to take a while to think about. Let it marinate, chew on it, really consider what I've said here. Once you've done so, please come back and tell me what you think.
edit: grammar
@ Terraphon
Love your post...however in Scottish law there is also a verdict of "Not Proven" which allows for insufficient evidence of fact...it also means that if new evidence comes up for either side then fresh charges can be laid or old ones heard and dismissed, and a new trial be conducted.
I find that satisfactory in many ways.
For Catholicray I would say that the existence of the Jesus character as a man is "Not Proven" , as a divine character: "Not Guilty." that is where a decent system can ensure fairness.
@Old man
Thank you, genuinely, for the education, sir. I pretty much knew, when I was writing my post, that I was going to get one from somewhere since, obviously, my references are all based on the American court system and we are far from "the only way to do it", coupled with my ignorance of foreign legal standards, which I admit without hesitation.
I think I'll study up more on that subject, both to better understand varying legal systems and to better shore up that argument.
Cheers!!
@catholicray
To be frank, my analogy stands even more firmly if we add in the "Not Proven" verdict of the Scots since, in effect, that's more akin to what the atheist position is. The prosecution (theists) have accused god(s) of existing but they have not shown one iota of evidence, to support that accusation, which has not been thoroughly refuted and debunked. (Think: The prosecution presents a red, human hair as a part of their evidence but Bob has brown hair. Or they present a brown bit of hair but it is shown to be made of polyester.) Maybe the defense has refuted all of the testimony and evidence but there are still some questions, outstanding.
Not Proven.
If the prosecution can't fully support its claims, you can't reach a guilty verdict. If you do reach that verdict, you're not thinking or behaving rationally.
As I said...let it marinate, then let us know what you think.
edit: added an "of" and clarified a point.
Please define "meaning of life".
catholicray,
"My faith in the God of Abraham is as rational as waiting until sufficient evidence is provided before subscribing to the existence of God."
The God of Abraham is more like the classic defintion of Satan than it is of a benign celestial deity. That being got the crazy old coot to sell his soul for personal fame and fortune. Compare and contrast the Abraham story to Satan's temptation of the Jesus character.
Moses was a homicidal maniac but his deity, while scum, was a lot better than Abraham's.
I can't visualize me ever worshiping any manifestation of a biblical deity but if I did the Abraham version would never be it. Maybe another bite from the tree of knowledge of good and evil will reveal how evil that entity is.
Let us begin with your assertion the the cosmological argument holds water. Even if it did, the only conclusion one can reach is that the universe was created by something. The logic of the cosmological argument does not include any deity or god in it's logic. You took the "creator" part and inserted "god".
Shame on you.
As far as the cosmological argument, you need to prove it. Then if you prove that, then you need to prove that your god did the creating. That is where the null hypothesis comes in, that a connection must be provided between two distinct things, creator and god.
The "meaning of life" is subjective, AT BEST.
An error?!? When my wife sends me to the store and I accidentally buy unsalted butter instead of salted butter; that is an error. Aiding and abetting child rapists is a hell of a lot more than an error.
Fri, 03/15/2019 - 05:44
catholicray
"I believe a slightly modified version of Pascal's wager and the cosmological argument would render faith in the God of Abraham rational."
----------------------------------------------------------------
By definition nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains known logical fallacies. The Cosmological argument has several, special pleading fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and a begging the question fallacy. The cosmological argument is not rational and by definition is not objective evidence.
Pascal's wager is so deeply flawed it's hard to believe anyone gives it any credence, it does not evidence any deity at all, and even were this not the case it would get you no closer to Jesus or Allah than it would to Zeus or Thor.
Please tell me you have more than this, this is woeful stuff.
Fri, 03/15/2019 - 06:03
catholicray
" the Bible, in particular, makes historical claims, some of which have been verified. Therefore I think it is fair to consider the claims of the Bible."
Please list 6 biblical claims that mainstream historians consider to have been verified by objective sources outside the bible, and explain how these evidence any deity, or anything supernatural?
Then please explain how a verified fact in the bible validates all the rest f its claims. There are trains in Harry Potter, does the fact we can verify trains exist mean Hogwarts is real?
Catholicray: "The evidence I have been providing merely supports the claim of rationality rather than some kind of proof of God"
rationally: adverb by reasonable or logical means. in a sensible or logical manner.
The fallacious logic of your arguments have been demonstrated. How do you continue calling them "Rational" You have put forth NOTHING RATIONAL. In your last post you contradicted yourself by asserting the cosmological argument did not get you to God and in the next breath you cited it as evidence. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. It does not get you anywhere near a god. If you think it does, go back and read all the posts again. If you have a thousand poor bits of support for a claim, you still have nothing. If bad evidence was proof of anything, Aliens would be visiting earth and abducting people. Bigfoot would be real. The Loch Ness monster would be real. Demons would be the cause of diseases. The Earth really would be flat. And your assertions would actually make sense. THEY DON'T.
My faith forbids it actually. (Judging) CATHOLICISM.ORG disagrees with you.
Really? I thought you were Catholic?
"One of the favorite quotations of these liberal Catholics is, “Judge not,” probably the most maligned of all Scriptural quotations. Judge not, they say, that Protestants are insincere or that anyone outside the Church is bad-willed, and don’t even suggest that a person might go to hell."
"But how many of the people who use this quotation so glibly have read it in context? Probably very few. Otherwise it is hard to see how they could make such a diabolically perverse interpretation. The text is from the last part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. VII, 1). Just a few verses farther on Our Lord tells us not to cast our pearls before swine. How are we to obey this commandment unless we judge which men are swine?"
" Our Lord says, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” How are we to beware of these false prophets unless we first judge them to be so? "
“By their fruits you shall know them.” Would he give us the means for judging if He wanted us not to judge?"
https://catholicism.org/judging-others.html
" It requires courage to attack the real enemy, Protestantism. Still it must be done if we are to save our own souls and the souls of those Protestants of good-will who would come into the Church if a sufficiently strong challenge were presented and a sharp line drawn between the Church and its enemies. And let us not be afraid of calling the Protestants names. Nothing is so useful in removing surface cordiality. In this day of weakened faith name-calling is considered impolite. Very well, let it be so. Politeness is not one of the cardinal virtues."
Anton Levy??? Why not just say your a Satanist?
A.) An eternal being caused my reality (Prove it.)
B.) Reality itself is simply infinite (Prove it)
C.) I am God (Give me a few million dollars.)
One inane assertion stacked on top of another. There is nothing to discuss here. You just make assertions.
Anton Levy was an Atheist. He did not believe in God or Gods.
"LaVey's Church of Satan is at some pains to explain that it is an officially atheistic association that does not endorse the practice of magic, witchcraft, or indeed any supernatural beliefs at all. "Satanism is an atheist philosophy, hence it is not congruent with any other philosophy or religion which endorses the belief in supernatural entities, whether they be considered gods or devils."[4] "Satanists do not believe in demons or other supernatural beings, nor do we believe in spells."[5] Notwithstanding this disclaimer, LaVey's Church of Satan uses many of the traditional trappings of the Black Mass and other traditional forms of ritual magic. The Satanic Bible invites its readers to recite gibberish derived from the Enochian keys from the Elizabethan-era magician John Dee, but to its eternal cosmic credit, does come with the disclaimer that 'Herein you will find truth - and fantasy. Each is necessary for the other to exist; but each must be recognised for what it is." Dodgy grammar aside, the disclaimer would fit as well inside most religious texts, and since LaVeyan Satanism is based on the whole aesthetic idea, the idea of babbling in gibberish that you know full well is gibberish doesn't seem too far off."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey#Atheism
Perhaps you want to cite Crowley
To all interested parties: My rebuttal
On a basic level Science is exactly as you have all described according to the definition. In reality Science and scientists are playing a role far beyond a textbook definition....
1)Brian Schmidt is a professor at the Australian National University. In 2011 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics for providing evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. He is one of several Nobel Prize-winning scientists participating at the Annual Meeting 2016.
QUOTE: Science is humanity’s way of understanding the universe, which allows us to predict the consequences of actions, and ultimately allows us to enhance our lives. We live on a small planet that will soon be inhabited by 8 billion people. To do this successfully, we’re going to need science to solve the problems that will arise when so many people live on a planet that is not designed, naturally, to handle those numbers. In the short term, science helps make our lives better; but in the long term, it will be crucial to our continued affluent survival.
2)15,000 SCIENTISTS URGE ACTION BEFORE 'VAST HUMAN MISERY' TAKES OVER
https://www.newsweek.com/how-save-humanity-15000-scientists-urge-action-...
3) Kamila is a neuroscientist, autism researcher and the co-founder and CEO of Frontiers, a leading Open Access academic publisher and Open Science IT platform on a mission to make science open for the benefit of humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=uPtP6-nAjJ0
4) Scientists should engage politically: Martin Rees is Britain’s astronomer royal, a professor at Cambridge University, and one of the leading cosmologists in the world. .......In spite of all this, Rees still calls himself a “techno-optimist.” Which is to say, he thinks we can harness science and technology to save ourselves and the planet. I spoke to him last week about why he remains hopeful in the face of all these threats, and why he thinks scientists have an ethical obligation to engage politically. I also asked him if he thinks human beings will have to flee Earth if we want to survive in the long run. (His answer might surprise you.)
In Spirit ..quote...In just a few examples here I am showing you that Science and scientists are not satisfied in being merely the textbook definition.
So regardless of what any textbook says Science is or what scientists do, the reality of our world shows that Science and scientists are not satisfied with being merely a standard textbook definition.
...and if someone wants 46 more as proof...do your own research.
Pages