Calling All REAL animal lovers!!!

Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.

I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.

Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions

Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures

Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing

Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages

While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.

Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.

Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV

You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.

Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.

I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.

Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions

Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures

Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing

Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages

While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.

Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.

Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV

You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.

I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.

Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.

Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.

Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.

Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil or

Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.

Once again you use the oppression of a few groups to use as an example to define EVERY religion on the planet, past and present.

Its like saying all christians are evil because Hitler was evil or

The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.

Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.

I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.

Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions

Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures

Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing

Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages

While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.

Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.

Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV

You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.

I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.

Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.

I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.

I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."

There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.

Read some history. Religion has never been a friend to science.

I think you might have to look into the history a bit more yourself.

Ancient Egypt: Most of the scientific inventions were made due to religion. Religion funded, helped and encouraged scientific inventions

Rome: Religion again encouraged many infrastructures

Yale and Harvard were both Bible schools
Oxford and cambridge also the same thing

Monasteries, churches, and other religious schools have helped medical science via herbal medicine in the old ages

While religion has also stopped science (primarily Catholic church), please don't discount what religion has done for the scientific community and what the scientific community have done for religion.

Religion gave us hospitals, science gave us medicine. One couldn't have survived without the other and in many times throughout the history, they were both the same.

Once again, folks like you need to realize that true science exists in learning about EVERY possibility, includingthe possibility of a higher power. If you just plainly want to reject the notion of something like that, thats your choice, but don't try to spread lies defending your POV

You don't need religion for hospitals, etc. Religion was already incorporated in lives but this does not mean it has helped science, it just means it was doing what it has always done, control and mingle in lives. You can have schools without religion, religion did not give this to us. You can have hospitals without religion, again religion did not give this to us. Don't mix up religion control as a way of 'giving'.

I think you are missing the point. While modern religious institutions currently appear to stymie science and research, in the past, it was religious institutions that enable much of the scientific progress through opening universities and hospitals. This enabled people to pursue education and research.

Do you have any idea how many people been prosecuted in the past by religion? For coming up with facts that went against what religion had thought. You mix up control and giving. There are numerous laws that had to come into play to protect science from religion because of this.

I am aware of that and I do not think anyone is denying that. But you are talking about the Catholic Church, for the majority of these issues, which was more interested in maintaining power through the Enlightenment. Before that, there were many places where the Catholic Church supported science and medicine.

I believe that the current problem between science and religion is that Religion teaches an absolute truth which leaves little room for experimentation and research. Some scientists now tend to be leaning toward an outlook where everything is in question (as it should be) BUT there is definitely no higher power. This is a reactionary shift that is a relatively modern development. I forget who said it but to paraphrase a scientist who said that "science does not deny the Creator, but rather shows how they did it."

There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.

Actually, a friend of mine who got his Ph. D in Chemical Engineering from MIT said he became religious while getting his doctorate because of what he saw the more he went into the building blocks of the universe. He said it was because he saw a definite language and language is one of the signs of intelligence.

How can you say that there is no creator even if there is no evidence? Is that not the same as saying that there is a creator with no evidence?

There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.

The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.

There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.

No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.

The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.

How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.

There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.

No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.

The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.

How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.

I'm just speaking the truth about religion and why religion was created. Its only offensive because religion in itself has been offensive. Atheism is not a religion by the way. To be a religion you must have a higher power to worship, atheism does not have this, atheism is just a term that means without God. I have no religion and I'll never put a false label/answer to a question just because I do not know the answer, that is true science.

Thank you for finally admitting you're close minded about everything that you donot believe in. Yeesh only took you so long

There is nothing that points to a creator, all we have are questions that don't have answers. When you are accepting a 'creator', you are already giving an answer. Its lazy.

No, When you're allowing the possibility of a higher power, then you're practicing science. When you're shunning the idea of any possible higher power, you're practicing Atheism. Both are not the same. Atheism is just another religion in that sense where instead of displaying absolute faith in something, you're displaying absolute lack of faith. Neither is science but both can benefit and contribute to science.

The main point of religion is oppression. If they are not able to oppressed people then they have no salvation to offer. What would they have to offer if everyone was just fine? This is true for many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity, oppresses women, Muslim oppresses women, Buddhism women still aren't equal. Hindu, a class system. Religion would have nothing to offer if people were okay and doing for themselves so they must find ways to control and oppress and make people believe the religion is needed and they will do this at any cost to preserve the religion/control.

How is that relevant to science? You said religion have never in the history helped science. I proved to you otherwise. Now you're running out of things to defend yourself and going for religion bashing. Not very scientist like OR atheist like.

I'm just speaking the truth about religion and why religion was created. Its only offensive because religion in itself has been offensive. Atheism is not a religion by the way. To be a religion you must have a higher power to worship, atheism does not have this, atheism is just a term that means without God. I have no religion and I'll never put a false label/answer to a question just because I do not know the answer, that is true science.

I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.

the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time

I never said animals weren't meant to be eaten, although I don't eat them. I am a science major. I know and love the circle of life. I am saying that Earth was not made for humans and animals were not made solely for the purpose of serving humans.

the simple fact that the earth was not specifically made for humans does not negate the fact that the earth's resources come in handy from time to time

Here is a question to turn those gears.

Do you think that humans are a resource to Earth as well?