South Park joke won't air in Sweden

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

And what happened then? Islamic preachers declared science and inquiry blasphemous and these former mighty Islamic lands are now backward third world countries. That is what religion can do to science. The main contrast between science and religion can be seen when contemplating the word "Faith". In religion its a virtue. In science its the worst kind of sin. You make assumptions but these assumptions are highlighted, declared and open to reversal. In religion you may be hanged or burned at the stake or stoned or have your head cut off for questioning traditional ideas. In science questioning the prevailing theory and proving it wrong draws the highest reward. The two are completely opposite approaches to knowledge.

What happened was the dissolution of the last of the Muslim Empires at the hands of the west:
With collapse of the Soviet Union and international Communism, Islam became the only remaining ideological system and obstacle to worldwide domination by materialistic secular systems. For nearly two decades the media assault by the West upon Islam has increased in scope, intensity, malignancy, and persistence. It continues to assert that the West alone is the sponsor of freedom and the advocate of human rights and equality for the sexes.

Their strategy is to defame Islam, accusing it of being the cause of 'backwardness' among the people and asserting, therefore, that Islam should be abandoned. They further assert that the only way to 'progress' lies in embracing the standards and culture of the West and to accept its leadership in all worldly matters. In addition, they accuse Islam of restricting freedom or free expression of opinion.

It is also noteworthy that Muslim combatants, no matter what their cause may be, are almost exclusively labeled in pejorative terms, such as 'terrorists,' 'extremists,' 'Islamists,' 'fundamentalists,' 'rebels,' 'anti-government factions,' and the like. In addition, the facts of the circumstance for which they may be struggling are rarely ever provided in the non-Muslim media.

On the other hand, in a negative matter, e.g. a crime, where the identity of the person is mentioned, the reporter finds it necessary to include his religious affiliation if he is a Muslim! These tactics are quite familiar to those who have witnessed the reporting of oppression by the oppressors in any time period, so nothing has changed in this regard.
source
Since you are not a scientist yourself and speaking with someone who has a doctorate I'd refrain from speaking on behalf of the scientific community or feigning to understand the ethical and moral dilemmas which arise within.

If you want to conclude with your usual slow witted endeavor that draws such satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusion then you may do so on your own time and with like minded individuals whose idea of scholarship is beer a porno site and some light-hearted banter about how you buy playboy for the articles!

all the best

So Gabriel, I take it you never visit a doctor, or ever take medication.

I take it you grow all of your food rather than buy it from supermarkets, or general food stores. I take it also that you don't have any fridges or freezers to store your food at appropriate temperatures to keep them fresh and safe to eat. I take it that you don't use the safe drinking water from the taps. I take it further than you forgo all electrical appliances, devices and tools for food. I take it that you don't own a car, or a vehicle. I take it that you do not washing machines to wash your clothes. I take it that you don't even bother to iron them. I take it that you never hope that if a fire breaks out in your place of residence that you can use technology to call the fire serivce to come to your aid. I take it that you never use the beneifts of public transport, or public services. I take it that you shun all modern media such as computers and the internet?

Oh wait. And I could go on....

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

And what happened then? Islamic preachers declared science and inquiry blasphemous and these former mighty Islamic lands are now backward third world countries. That is what religion can do to science. The main contrast between science and religion can be seen when contemplating the word "Faith". In religion its a virtue. In science its the worst kind of sin. You make assumptions but these assumptions are highlighted, declared and open to reversal. In religion you may be hanged or burned at the stake or stoned or have your head cut off for questioning traditional ideas. In science questioning the prevailing theory and proving it wrong draws the highest reward. The two are completely opposite approaches to knowledge.

Science is also based on faith Just like religion - How do we know the same experiment that we did yesterday is still going to give us the same results in the future - regardless of how many times the experiment is carried out that faith is always needed. Its needed in every action.

The model you talk about can only be found in the history of europe and the vatican - that has very little to do with the rest of the world.

where did Islamic preachers declare scienece and inquiry blasphemous? what does that have to do with the "backwardness of the third world countries which has more to do with First world countries taking advantage of them. The people in power always like to label the less powerful - so that they can use and abuse them - like Tyrants.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

Science is also based on faith Just like religion - How do we know the same experiment that we did yesterday is still going to give us the same results in the future - regardless of how many times the experiment is carried out that faith is always needed. Its needed in every action.

where did Islamic preachers declare scienece and inquiry blasphemous? what does that have to do with the "backwardness of the third world countries which has more to do with First world countries taking advantage of them. The people in power always like to label the less powerful - so that they can use and abuse them - like Tyrants.

I think what he does not understand is that science and religion go together
(or rather should).

In fact - they have nothing to do with each other in the way that is constantly
implied by the people writing on this post.

Science - deals with physical things at best.

Religion - deals with spiritual things.

It is the people who wish to base all of their life upon technocratic
ideas they get from science which are the problem. They are just
closed minded and cannot see the danger in their attitude and it's
true implications.

Science without a religious mindset is simply dangerous as
it is everything but human and worships the physical and
the dead (as a consequence) instead of the spiritual and the living.

The idea to explain life by scientific terms is pathetic and backwards.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel

So what. What are you trying to do? Justify to me why I should be a slave for stupid technology?

I am willing to bet that you already are. You complain about science whilst using its fruits. That sir, is hypocrisy.

First of all, your grandmother and my grandmother did not have these things and they managed just fine.

Yes, they did. Although to claim further that they needed no scientific advancement would be false. They had a car, they had a large farm (which would not have been possible to maintain without technology). They relied upon an understanding of growing vegetation in order to grow and prepare it properly and effective. They relied upon a modern understanding of agriculture in order to ensure their livestock produced food safely and effectively (as well as eventually being butchered safely and effectively). In their house, they also relied on safe drinking water and fridges and freezers to effectively allow their food to keep well.

And now, at their old age they rely upon medication to sustain their lives. My Grandfather is on steroids every single day and is due an operation on his eye in order to help him see better. Ypu picked a bad example.

Second of all - You seem to imply that this justify why we should be slaves to our technology. In my book
it is the technology that should serve us and not the other way around.

What do you mean when you say I think it should justify why we should be "slaves to our technology"?

If I work harder - nothing happens - I get the same paycheck. Absolutely the same. This means that my
grandfather and grandmother were free people - while I am a slave - and so is anybody else
who is receiving a paycheck.

This has nothing to do with science.

If you would think about it for two seconds you would see that with all the technology we have - we could
make this world into a paradise on earth - but nobody is lifting a finger to do that?

I agree. But again human reluctance to use what we know has nothing to do with scientific accomplishment.

So with all due respect - if people are so stupid not to have an easy life when they can - I won't take their word on much more complicated things like "the structure of the universe" etc.

So you disagree with scientists, who have studied and worked in the field all their life purely because... you think they have an unnecessarily hard life? Eh?

You can very easily look up the peer-reviewed work to determine yourself if you think they are right in their analysis of the universe. Whether or not they live decent lives has nothing to do with their research.

I think what he does not understand is that science and religion go together
(or rather should).

The scientific method is the advancement of an understanding of natural phenomena through observation, experimentation and the creation and testing of hypothesis. Science broadly is a series of techniques designed to explain and make sense and better understand our natural world through the gathering of empirical observation.

How is religion the slightest bit familiar?

Science - deals with physical things at best.

Religion - deals with spiritual things.

Whether or not religion deals with 'spiritual' (whatever that means) things has nothing to do with anything. Science does not (self-admittedly) deal in the supernatural, spiritual, or things declared outside of nature. If you think religion attempts to talk about that they do not go together.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus

No it is not. I am slave who is willing to say that he does not like to be a slave.

So I take it you are going to forgo all of your electricity and as soon as possible, give up posting on the internet?

About agriculture - there is no story in the world that you can tell me that would explain to me how
people came up with bread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bread

In fact - the fact that we know who to make bread is a very clear proof for me for believing
in supreme intervention in human affairs.

Except that the process is understood and explainable. It is far more likely that humans accidently or deliberately experimented to create bread than it is a "supreme intervention" gave us the information. Indeed it is also far more likely that someone claiming a miracle is deluded, or mistaken than it is that they actually saw a miracle.

If you think about it - we live in "modern times" and we can't come up with a simple concept
like peace while we have abundance. Yet, we very easily believe that our forefathers could
look at a bunch of wheat and understand that if they would grow it in mass levels for a year,
then harvest it, then process it, then grind it and then add to it water and bake it - they would
get bread.

Your refusal to accept the history of bread has nothing to do with with humanitys inability to have global peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus

Working all your life on something doesn't mean that you are not wrong.

Correct. However your reasons for distrusting them and dismissing their work out of hand are ridiculous.

I personally very strongly believe that there is science which shows that this is unnecessary - yet, aside
from ridiculous reports in scientific-american we never seem to see any real progress on this matter?

The refusal to mass-produce different ways to fuel cars has nothing to do with our understanding of it.

And this somebody has interest to make money out of you - and contrary to what you think he does not make money out of making you smarter.

If you think that you finance science by tax than you live in a fairy tale - because you receive the money
you give to tax to begin with. This means that you do not finance anything because the money is not yours.

Am I getting to you?

What does this have to do with science, or anything I've said? You're just hinting at a conspiracy theory.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus

What do you want me to do with this wikipedia link?

By the way - wikipedia is another interesting thing. Quite like bread when you think about it.

Whenever I want to find an answer for something I seem to be able to find it in wikipedia (even
on an esoteric thing like "the history of bread")

Yet - I do not know so many people who write to wikipedia? Also - for what - my knowledge of
human behavior is that they

- do not have encyclopedia knowledge usually.

- do not do things without being paid.

So how come you have all these things there. I find it an interesting question.

You are the very definition of an anti-intellectual. You inherently distrust information out of fear, out of conspiracy theories and out of contempt. If you like I could probably waste some time and find you information on the history of bread on scientific websites. But you're perfectly capable of looking it up yourself.