Quote# 80805

[From an article entitled "The case against science."]

If "religion" is to be held culpable for the Inquisitions and the jihads, "science" is certainly no less culpable for the historical ravages of scientific socialism, the gassings of World War I, the National Socialist Holocaust, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden and the American abortion atrocity, to say nothing of the possibility of nuclear devastation as well as the inconvenient perils of global warming.

I have previously demonstrated that religion does not cause war. But even if it did, the number of Americans killed by medical science in the last ten years far exceeds the total number of Americans killed by war in U.S. history. If medical science can justly claim to have saved many lives, it must also take responsibility for the estimated 783,000 annual iatrogenic deaths it now causes every year.

Vox Day, World Net Daily 73 Comments [4/24/2011 1:15:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 86

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Mr. Nnamdi


You know what, screw it. I was going to try and reason with you/mock your claims, but instead, I'll just quote a greater man than you:

"“Nothing that you do in science is guaranteed to result in benefits for mankind. Any discovery, I believe, is morally neutral, and it can be turned either to constructive or destructive ends. That’s not the fault of science”

- Dr. Arthur W. Galston, whose research led to the creation of Agent Orange. He later lobbied against it".

4/24/2011 1:33:53 PM


"Science", unlike "religion", is a process and cannot be held culpable for any wrongs you imagine in your fevered dreams. Religion, on the other hand, can be as its followers commit the aforementioned atrocities in the name of that religion.

4/24/2011 1:33:56 PM


Oh yes, it isn't PEOPLE who are responsible.

It's science!

Gotta love the fundie logic here.

4/24/2011 1:35:22 PM


Religion does not cause war huh?

I'll let someone else do the counter points... cuz' this just pisses me off too much!

What a retard...

4/24/2011 1:35:23 PM


Science is a tool, much like religion. Contrary to religion, however, it is a tool that is far better at doing what it's supposed to do: explain the world around us and give us the means to better our lives. What we do with those means is up to the individual and society, with everything it implies. Religion is also seen as a tool for explanations, but it is surpassed by science in that regard. It's also supposed to be a tool for how to act and behave, but even in that regard, it seems to fail these days. One wonders what it is even good for anymore... What it comes down to is what we, as people, do with those tools. Not that fundies understand this, though.

4/24/2011 1:48:37 PM


Should the man, who makes a weapon, be held accountable for the actions of a man who murders with the weapon he made? Should the supposedly omnipotent 'God', who makes a man, be held accountable for their actions?

I suppose it's not really the way you'd normally tackle this, and goes a bit off topic, as it does not address the religion itself, just the 'God' of the religion. Bear with me though, Vox, because if you want to hold the scientific method accountable for atrocities, surely there's even more evidence that we should hold 'God' accountable for others? Science brings us the tool without knowledge of how it is to be used, 'God' brings us the tool with full knowledge of how it will be used courtesy of being all-knowing.

Fuck the religion itself, there's a bigger problem up the ladder.

4/24/2011 1:50:57 PM


" If medical science can justly claim to have saved many lives, it must also take responsibility for the estimated 783,000 annual iatrogenic deaths it now causes every year."

Modern technology, the application of many scientific disciplines, is responsible for literally billions of people who would not be alive otherwise. No contest, even if your number were accurate to within two orders of magnitude.

4/24/2011 1:59:34 PM

You know, it would be interesting to be able to withhold everything made possible by science and medicine from individuals like these.

4/24/2011 2:08:53 PM


The difference is that religion is used as mind control. In this it shares its horrors with the political isms.

Science is knowledge (Latin 'Scire' - to know). It is what is done by people with this knowledge that results in evil, or good.

Voxie, without science there would be no electric light, planes, internet and computers et cetera. Your argument is not only in error. It is base on a lie and on denial.

4/24/2011 2:18:33 PM


Science doesn't tell people what to do. Religion does. Science just provides the tools. Religion provides the incentive and the rationalization. Science showed us how to build jets. It didn't tell people to fly them into the Twin Towers. Religion did that.

4/24/2011 2:26:25 PM

Night Jaguar

Well, someone sure is vying for the 2011 Fundie of the Year.

4/24/2011 2:26:40 PM


Except that science doesn't command us to kill nonbelievers, it doesn't tell tales of past genocide and call it righteous, it doesn't promote wrath and vengeance, it cannot tell us how to behave. Most importantly science cannot erect a veil of infallibility and cannot threaten eternal torture to those who do not comply.

4/24/2011 2:27:51 PM

Do us all a favour then Vox, and eschew science and all of its trappings. Enjoy your cave. We'll enjoy you not posting any more tripe on the interwebs.

4/24/2011 2:35:51 PM

Iatrogenic deaths account for ~225,000 deaths in the US per year, not 783,000. JAMA and the Institute of Medicine are better sources for medical information than HIV denier, alternative medicine pusher, and general nutter Gary Null.

4/24/2011 2:36:17 PM


The difference is the people who did that stuff didn't do it IN THE NAME OF science, while those with religion did.

4/24/2011 2:39:30 PM


Science isn't responsible for Dresden and Tokyo. The blame for those tragedies lies squarely with the politicians.

4/24/2011 2:43:08 PM


I know several lovely people who are alive because of advances in cancer treatments. Living, breathing, thinking, contributing, existing beings. I am much more concerned about them than your tissue blobs.

Science 1
Fundies 0

ETA that I was speaking only to Voxy's abortion comment. Should have made that clearer. Damn, the stupidity must be catching.

4/24/2011 2:44:16 PM

Pule Thamex

If only religionists wouldn't utilize science in their evil quest for power, influence and money, instead, if they would rely only on biblical methods and prayer. Wouldn't that be great? They would be considered as harmless deranged twits instead of the dangerous deranged twits that they actually are. Science has the potential to make religion even more powerful and even more destructive than it actually is.

4/24/2011 2:48:22 PM


Gassings, nuclear weapons and the like result from the misuse of science, not from science being inherently evil. Nuclear power can be used for peaceful energy generation or for massive destruction. It's up to us to choose what we do with it. Science can create a nuclear bomb, but it can't tell us whether or not we should use it. Science doesn't deal with morals, nor is it meant to.

Anyway, if you're so anti science, get the fuck off the Internet.

4/24/2011 2:52:35 PM


Without religion, a good man will do good and an evil man will do evil. But to get a good man to do evil takes religion.
It doesn't matter what we say to Vox Day, the man has an impervious wall of stupid around his mind. That he has nothing sensible to say is evidenced by the fact he posts almost exclusively on that bastion of moronic religious fundamentalism - Wing Nut Daily.

4/24/2011 2:59:17 PM

gay theist

science and religion don't kill people

people kill people
end of discussion

Vague concepts encompassing a broad range or cultures, ideals, and thoughts have never murdered people.

4/24/2011 3:05:49 PM


You say that ""science" is certainly no less culpable for the historical ravages of ... the National Socialist Holocaust..."

And Adolf Hitler said that "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

Just pointing that out Voxy.

4/24/2011 3:15:02 PM


Never argue with stupid people because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

4/24/2011 3:43:53 PM


But even if it did, the number of Americans killed by medical science in the last ten years far exceeds the total number of Americans killed by war in U.S. history.

[citation needed]

4/24/2011 4:19:20 PM

Brendan Rizzo

Wow, I read the whole article and his hypocrisy is astounding. He actually does claim that discovering that men are inherently more intelligent than women, or that Asians are more intelligent than Zulus, would be a bad thing, yet he is still a racist and a sexist. I can't imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance involved for Vox to think that he is not prejudiced. (This is of course ignoring the fact that those tests have been done and have found NO connection between intelligence and race or sex.) Vox is basically saying that things were better off back before science existed. Is he completely insane?! Science is the reason that we've had so many advances so quickly. Before the scientific method was accepted incorrect ideas were held by even highly-educated people for literally MILLENIA. (Alchemy and the four humours were ideas that remained mostly unchanged from the time of Aristotle, if not earlier, to the Rennaissance.)

And anyway, those "iatrogenic deaths" have to do with the strictly-human medical staff making mistakes, and we know why they are mistakes. It has nothing to do with science itself. "Scientific socialism" does not exist, (and even if it did, it would have nothing to do with communism or other forms of totalitarianism) gassings were far from the biggest cause of death in World War One (that being trench warfare, which was tried as early as the American Civil War, before science had advanced very far, and was known to be incredibly deadly even then. Europe was a collective idiot for trying it in 1914!) The Nazis were more antiscience than people think (scientists were among those expelled from Germany by Hitler, scientific books, including On the Origin of Species, were banned under the Nazis, and their justifications for their race theories were about as pseudoscientific as they get. Not to mention all the fascination with the occult shared by high-ranking Nazis.) What a lame Godwin. I'll give Vox the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden (or at least Dresden, which was unnecessary) but individual battles were ridiculously destructive since at least the time of the ancient Romans, assuming the Romans were not inflating theirs and their enemies' kill counts (if they were, then the deadliest battles were from the Thirty Years' War of the seventeenth century). As for abortion... it has existed illegally for centuries. The only reason it's done a lot now is because of sanitation (which is also the reason you don't die at thirty, or when having surgery, so count your fucking blessings, Vox!) Hell, the law is more to blame for abortion than science is, and Vox knows it. (He does wash his hands before eating, does he not?)

As for nuclear devastation... it didn't happen. I think that crisis is averted. (None of the countries with nukes are crazy enough to use them. If North Korea's "nukes" were ever deployed, they are so shoddily made that they would blow up in that country's face.) Scientists were the ones who discovered the dangers of global warming. It is the industrialists (including most conservative Republicans) who deny that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. It is also the industrialists who are responsible for most if not all of the environmental destruction in history. Is Vox going to say that industry is evil? I think not. To quote Anon-e-moose, il miglior fabbro, Hypocrisy, thy name is fundie.

4/24/2011 4:27:49 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page