Those Fanatical Atheists... - DPChallenge Forums

05/18/2007 03:10:40 PM · #26

Good questions Matthew...

A) How many people on a poll would actually say they don't support a black president regardless of how they would actually vote? I wonder if the poll was given in a written form or a verbal one. Polls certainly carry biases.

B) I don't think it's "religion" as much as the views that tend to be founded in religion that might make a religious candidate attractive. After all, most religions there were viewed favorably. There are not very many Mormons in the country relatively speaking, but they were also viewed as worthy. Atheism does not carry with it a moral compass. I'm not saying atheists aren't moral people, but rather the foundation of atheism is not founded on "the search for moral answers". Most religions are highly interested in "moral answers". Perhaps people, rightly or wrongly, are reflecting this in their opinions.

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 15:11:09.

05/18/2007 04:13:31 PM · #27

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Atheism does not carry with it a moral compass. I'm not saying atheists aren't moral people, but rather the foundation of atheism is not founded on "the search for moral answers". Most religions are highly interested in "moral answers".

...or so you've been taught. I can't quite reconcile "the search for moral answers" with a belief system based upon regular people claiming to have fireside chats with God to discuss the merits of slavery, submissive wives, murdering nonbelievers, animal sacrifice, etc. Atheism itself has no more bearing on morality than disbelief of fairies or UFOs. People (and perhaps all intelligent social animals) learn what is right from their parents, whether it's table manners or treatment of others, and I would expect leading a good life to be most important to those who believe this is the only life you get.

05/18/2007 04:24:00 PM · #28

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Atheism does not carry with it a moral compass. I'm not saying atheists aren't moral people, but rather the foundation of atheism is not founded on "the search for moral answers".

Patently untrue. A complete falsehood, and as scalvert says, one which has merely been offered for consumption. Please read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/18/2007 05:09:31 PM · #29

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Atheism does not carry with it a moral compass. I'm not saying atheists aren't moral people, but rather the foundation of atheism is not founded on "the search for moral answers".

Patently untrue. A complete falsehood, and as scalvert says, one which has merely been offered for consumption. Please read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

I'm afraid you are going to have to show me how I'm wrong instead of just telling me I am. I'm also afraid I can't just jump down to Borders and grab something by Dawkins. How about a little synopsis for me...

As we love to include wikipedia in these arguments...
Under the general "atheism" section...
"As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in God, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.[90]"

Again, I am NOT saying atheists are not moral, but rather atheism does not concern itself with morality.

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 17:11:35.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/18/2007 05:25:59 PM · #30

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm afraid you are going to have to show me how I'm wrong instead of just telling me I am.

Good Lord Doc... you are starting to sound someone else on this site who proffers no empirical evidence himself, but expects all other that support a contrary view to do exactly that... Sorry, but I stopped engaging in circular debates with this person, and do not harbour any great desire to embark on any other similar debates where the onus of proof rest squarely in one camp.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Again, I am NOT saying atheists are not moral, but rather atheism does not concern itself with morality.

...and just how does such a group develop a morality that conforms to the norms of society, or is this something they acquired by happenstance?

Ray

05/18/2007 05:39:53 PM · #31

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Ok, that's fair enough. I'll put my money where my mouth is.

My supposition is that morality is not the raison d'etre of atheism while it is for religion.

I'll just offer a very simple proof and we can go from there. Definitions.

I'm not cherry picking here. Go to www.dictionary.com. Enter "atheism" (I'm actually typing this before I even do it). What do we find?

atheism â��noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

No mention of morality.

Now let's look up religion...(and I actually don't even know what it's going to say)

religion â��noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (the bold is mine)

So apparently I have the common defintions of each on my side. Now Louis, who claims what I say is "patently untrue" and "a complete falsehood" gets his turn to tell me why I am wrong...

Good enough for you Ray?

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 17:44:26.

05/18/2007 07:37:11 PM · #32

Not too many people are devout believers in Roman gods these days (though some are). I'm sure the first disbelievers (those would be Christians BTW) were mocked, ridiculed and viewed with suspicion of being immoral. Nevermind that we really have no more evidence to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus than we do God.

What I find incredulous is any notion that "no religion = no moral guidance," as if that were the only possible source. Ever hear of parents, laws, constitutions, or plain old common sense? Most kids (regardless of belief) probably know that killing is wrong before they can even read.

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 19:40:05.

05/18/2007 07:40:09 PM · #33

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now Louis, who claims what I say is "patently untrue" and "a complete falsehood" gets his turn to tell me why I am wrong...

With pleasure.

You have said "the foundation of atheism is not founded on 'the search for moral answers'", and that "morality is not the raison d'etre of atheism", saying that this is religion's area of responsibility. You are wrong. Morality is an inclination in humankind to do good irrespective of religion, and indeed, rightness and wrongness shift, change, and mean many different things at different times, to different people. Furthermore, basic morality (good vs. evil, empathy, and kindness) is a Darwinian concept, perfectly in line with evolutionary theory. This is why I urged you to read "The God Delusion", which explains this rather succinctly, while at the same time pointing out how completely immoral religion potentially is.

Atheism does not exist for the atheist in a vacuum. It is rare to be born atheist, to have no guidance toward atheism, or to find oneself atheist without first having analysed oneself, one's history, and one's religion. One evolves into an atheist. The impetus is the same urge to moral behaviour as anything you might consider loftier. Atheism and the atheist reject blind faith, utterances masquerading as fact in the face of all contrary evidence, and the notion that obediance to doctrine trumps such things as self-direction, free thinking, and even human dignity. When I say I am an atheist, what I am really saying are things like, "I reject the idea that I am a slave to an imaginary being. I refute that mutilating a child's penis is the arbitrary will of some god. I reject that it is more important for a child to die in need of a blood transfusion than it is to transgress the literal word of the bible. I deny the existence of an eternal place of torture and pain for those that don't think like me. I deny that some god has directed the terror war against the West, or the war in Iraq. I reject the notion that humanity is base and evil, and exists solely at the pleasure of some god." In short, atheism is a rejection of religion's resounding "NO" to humanity, where that NO debases, ridicules, ostracizes, or kills individuals. Atheism is a definitive rejection of immoral conduct, and is intimately based on moral behaviour.

(Interestingly, Wikipedia lists the secular community as one of the groups potentially sharing a common morality, so I suppose I could have stopped right there, seeing that you yourself have used it already to help you along.)

05/18/2007 08:14:21 PM · #34

You are talking past me Louis not to me. Shannon too. I am not arguing that you are not a moral being. I am not arguing that Shannon is not a moral being. My argument is that if we had an imaginary club meeting of atheists I doubt "the basis of morality in the world" would be on the top 5 points to discuss. And even were it discussed, I doubt there would be consensus on what that basis is (leaving alone the specifics). By my imagining, such a meeting would talk about the lack of empirical evidence for God's existence or the progress of science in explaining our universe without a creator.

My original argument, anyway, is being even more lost. I was postulating that the general public (not even me, per se) may equate someone who is simply described as "an atheist" as being someone who doesn't have a grounding in morality. (yes, this is likely a falsehood.) Most people in this country view morality as being founded in some religion and see atheists as being without religion. Ergo atheists do not have a foundation in morality. I'm just trying to explain why they were at the bottom of the list in perception among the general public.

And I do take high umbrage with you for thinking you have complete liberty to talk about religion in only negative terms. To quote a review of "The God Delusion" by pulitzer winning novelist Marilyn Robinson, "if religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the Piltdown hoax, for the long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea? If by 'science' is meant authentic science, then 'religion' must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions." So if you are quick to point out your opponent's shames and mistakes, be prepared to have likewise done to you. If religion is nothing but body mutilation, child abuse, and suicide bombers, then is science nothing but the Tuskegee Experiment, nuclear anihilation, and Joseph Mengele?

I had to wiki the book since you haven't given me a synopsis. I have to say the reviews were far from glowing. There was praise in there, to be sure, but most was limited to certain parts which are Dawkins' strengths (evolution, etc). I think Kenan Malik put it well in his review in the Daily Telegraph, "if you want an understanding of evolution or an argument for atheism, there are few better guides than Richard Dawkins" but "so great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument".

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 20:22:16.

05/18/2007 08:48:21 PM · #35

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My argument is that if we had an imaginary club meeting of atheists I doubt "the basis of morality in the world" would be on the top 5 points to discuss.

No. Your argument was exactly: Atheism does not have a basis in morality, nor a moral compass. It did not concern the points for discussion at a meeting of like minds. As asked, I have presented the reasons why it is in fact based on high morality. I talked neither past nor at you; I merely offered my contrary opinion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My original argument, anyway, is being even more lost. I was postulating that the general public (not even me, per se)

You changed your postulate (quite dramatically, I might add). See your own supposition in bold text above. I answered as asked.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

may equate someone who is simply described as "an atheist" as being someone who doesn't have a grounding in morality. (yes, this is likely a falsehood.)

Only "likely", not irrefutably? This is troubling, especially since you took such great pains to say this very idea was not your way of thinking. Those with religion do not have an absolute claim to moral behaviour. Quite the opposite in many cases. I'm hoping you actually read the Ottawa Citizen article that this entire thread is based on, since it deals with nonsensical connections like "atheist? immoral!" and the like.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And I do take high umbrage with you for thinking you have complete liberty to talk about religion in only negative terms.

I make no apologies for seeing nothing but poison in religion, and believing that the only way for humanity to prosper and for individuals to be content is to abolish it. And I DO have that liberty, I'm afraid, just as you are at liberty to say and believe anything you like. Please read "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens. No summary for you, do your own work (or not, it doesn't matter).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To quote a review of "The God Delusion" by pulitzer winning novelist Marilyn Robinson,

As with anything, you will find detractors among the true believers who have something to lose when the fallacy of their beliefs is laid out for them in plain language.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"so great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument".

But this is not true. This is the false perception of those who expect that nothing ill at all can be said of religion. One can criticize anything in this western world, governments, science, teachers, family members, institutions like law - but excoriating religion, or even hinting that it might not be all that good, is viewed with such suspicion and alarm that you'd think the world was coming to an end. It's a refreshing change of the winds that this kind of thing is over for good, that books like Dawkins' and Hitchens', and Michel Onfrey's "In Defense of Atheism", are numerous and popular, and do not apologize for their existence.

05/18/2007 08:56:03 PM · #36

You added that stuff about Mengele and so on while I was typing my reply, but I had expected you to hint that there is certainly "bad stuff" about religion, and that of course it is universally bad, and that truly moral people don't concern themselves with that. But this only serves to outline how arbitrary religious morality really is, and it begs the question, "If two opposing individuals consider the other's morality to be immoral, which is right?" My original response is the answer to this dilemma, that atheism is a rejection of such false moralities, and that concern for humanity out of an acceptance of the "golden rule" is the moral basis for atheism.

05/18/2007 09:01:40 PM · #37

Ya sorry for the edit. I was going back and getting the links.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument of what an atheist's options are for moral foundations. Shannon and I have been there and done that and it gets us nowhere.

Maybe we can just save the discussion and you can tell me why you think atheists are at the bottom of the list of "presidential worthy" candidates?

05/18/2007 09:07:40 PM · #38

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe we can just save the discussion and you can tell me why you think atheists are at the bottom of the list of "presidential worthy" candidates?

Sorry, I'm not interested in that. I was only interested in the misperception that atheism = amorality. To quote the article:

"Don't you know Stalin was an atheist? That's the way it goes. First you read Richard Dawkins. Then you have an abortion. Then you're putting a fresh coat of paint on the Gulag."

05/18/2007 09:17:19 PM · #39

OK, no problem. I still stand by my original post. What do you make of the common definitions of 'atheism' and 'religion'? Why does the second include allusions to a moral code and the first doesn't? Conspiracy at the House of Webster?

You don't answer this in your reply. You say that "morality is the inclination of humankind", but I highly doubt you believe all humans are atheists.

If you want to skip that then I can go on to point out that I disbelieve your assertion that "good versus evil is a Darwinian concept". The only way I can see that to be true is if good equates "anything that increases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on" and evil being "anything that decreases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on". If you want to declare good vs. evil in such a limited fashion, then I concede. If you want to expand the scope, then I'll take you up on the argument.

05/18/2007 09:24:45 PM · #40

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My argument is that if we had an imaginary club meeting of atheists I doubt "the basis of morality in the world" would be on the top 5 points to discuss.

Likewise a meeting between Jews and Muslims, or even Sunni and Shiites. Religion isn't a search for moral answers. The answers are presupposed by each group... and generally at the expense of the competition. Interesting that some religions ASSUME that everyone is immoral to begin with, yet actual immoral behavior (even major crimes) may be forgiven in exchange for professing faith. Naturally, the greatest crime under religious morality isn't murder, theft or rape, but lack of belief.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If religion is nothing but body mutilation, child abuse, and suicide bombers, then is science nothing but the Tuskegee Experiment, nuclear anihilation, and Joseph Mengele?

How can you point to the actions of individuals as a fault of science? As you have essentially pointed out, science is not a moral guide commanding people to do things. People don't bow their heads to science before they go out on the battlefield and kill others who don't believe as they do. Getting back to the OP a bit, if a particular page in a book commands us to "bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses," and I consider such actions to be immoral, then I might reasonably disregard that book as a valid moral compass. However, if someone were to conduct experiments regarding the effectiveness of black olives vs. green olives in attracting a suitable number of ants, then blaming the "method of analysis used to determine accurate information with repeatable results" as the source of immoral guidance is just, well... weird.

05/18/2007 09:33:12 PM · #41

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My argument is that if we had an imaginary club meeting of atheists I doubt "the basis of morality in the world" would be on the top 5 points to discuss.

Likewise a meeting between Jews and Muslims, or even Sunni and Shiites. Religion isn't a search for moral answers. The answers are presupposed by each group... and generally at the expense of the competition. Interesting that some religions ASSUME that everyone is immoral to begin with, yet actual immoral behavior (even major crimes) may be forgiven in exchange for professing faith. Naturally, the greatest crime under religious morality isn't murder, theft or rape, but lack of belief.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If religion is nothing but body mutilation, child abuse, and suicide bombers, then is science nothing but the Tuskegee Experiment, nuclear anihilation, and Joseph Mengele?

How can you point to the actions of individuals as a fault of science? As you have essentially pointed out, science is not a moral guide commanding people to do things. People don't bow their heads to science before they go out on the battlefield and kill others who don't believe as they do. Getting back to the OP a bit, if a particular page in a book commands us to "bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses," and I consider such actions to be immoral, then I might reasonably disregard that book as a valid moral compass. However, if someone were to conduct experiments regarding the effectiveness of black olives vs. green olives in attracting a suitable number of ants, then blaming the "method of analysis used to determine accurate information with repeatable results" as the source of immoral guidance is just, well... weird.

Must...not...argue...with...teammate...

OK, arguments can sorta take on a bizarro quality. Yes, I assert that science is not a moral guide, but Louis seems to say it can be. Using a bit of forensic agility, I then say "ok, I'll agree for the moment it can be" and point out that it has just as lousy a track record as religion. The basic point was that not all shabby things are done in the name of religion.

I will disagree with you about the idea that "people don't bow their heads to science before going out on the battlefield to kill others". No, it is not a battlefield, but both Mengele's actions and the Tuskegee Experiments were explicitly done to "further science". While the victims did not die on the battlefield, they did die nonetheless. Just as religion seems to be able to warp the rules of morality on the battlefield (ie. someone willing to kill in the name of jihad or crusade on the battlefield may think twice about doing it outside that context) so can science. I doubt that Mengele was so capricious with life in a social context and I doubt the Tuskegee scientists were willing to harm fellow humans in the course of everyday life.

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 21:34:40.

05/18/2007 09:33:46 PM · #42

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You don't answer this in your reply. You say that "morality is the inclination of humankind", but I highly doubt you believe all humans are atheists.

No, but it is an accident of history that religion has taken up the role of morality-keeper. I refer you again to the Dawkins book, which goes into some detail on this, and is much more lucid than I could hope to be.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If you want to skip that then I can go on to point out that I disbelieve your assertion that "good versus evil is a Darwinian concept". The only way I can see that to be true is if good equates "anything that increases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on" and evil being "anything that decreases the individual's chances of passing his genetic code on".

That is not my assertion, it is an assertion Dawkins makes and that I find quite reasonable. As an evolutionary scientist, Dawkins does not theorize lightly on this subject, so his postulate is based not merely on opinion but on sound scientific theory. Unfortunately you are limiting your definition of what makes something good for the species. You understand that an organism is not merely an amorphous collection of genes blindly seeking to vent its DNA onto another such blob. In a nutshell, the theory is that in pre-history, it served humankind to be altruistic to close relations, caring for them and nurturing them and so on, so that the genes could be maintained along genetically similar lines; along the lines of those who had proved fittest to survive, in fact. Those individuals were not altruistic to every other member of the species, nor to other species. It is a by-product of evolution that humanity remains altruistic, that is, "moral"; only now, we are free to practice our altruism globally, even universally to other species, just as we are free to rut like wild moose without there being any implication that this is for the sole benefit of passing on the genes. The fact of the matter is, it's not the sole reason any longer.

fotomann_forever

05/18/2007 09:36:43 PM · #43

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Throw in female and black and you got yourself a prez with 406% of the vote!

I was kinda hoping for a Hispanic Jew. Kosher Tacos sound yummy. :-D

If you like them without cheese or sour cream ... BTW: Sephardic Jews are those who came from (lived in) Spain, and have a whole separate language (not the Yiddish associated wuth Eastern European Jews), culture, and cuisine. They probably have some form of taco ...

Just read that... sweet... gonna go search for a Kosher Taco :-)

05/18/2007 09:40:39 PM · #44

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, I assert that science is not a moral guide, but Louis seems to say it can be.

No, I never said that at all. Evolutionary theory for example demands that it is a completely dispassionate process void of compassion of any kind. But, since we are apparently genetically predisposed to altruism or "morality", one takes a stand where one can. In my case, by rejecting the illogical cruelty and absurdity of religion.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/18/2007 09:43:06 PM · #45

So Louis, do you and/or Dawkins consider homosexuality to be evil? It seems to carry a very strong negative influence on whether genes are passed on or not...

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 21:44:10.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/18/2007 09:45:06 PM · #46

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Good Lord Doc... you are starting to sound someone else on this site who proffers no empirical evidence himself, but expects all other that support a contrary view to do exactly that... Sorry, but I stopped engaging in circular debates with this person, and do not harbour any great desire to embark on any other similar debates where the onus of proof rest squarely in one camp.

Ok, that's fair enough. I'll put my money where my mouth is.

My supposition is that morality is not the raison d'etre of atheism while it is for religion.

I'll just offer a very simple proof and we can go from there. Definitions.

I'm not cherry picking here. Go to www.dictionary.com. Enter "atheism" (I'm actually typing this before I even do it). What do we find?

atheism â��noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

No mention of morality.

Now let's look up religion...(and I actually don't even know what it's going to say)

religion â��noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (the bold is mine)

So apparently I have the common defintions of each on my side. Now Louis, who claims what I say is "patently untrue" and "a complete falsehood" gets his turn to tell me why I am wrong...

Good enough for you Ray?

Actually NO...All that you have alluded to in this instance can be viewed as nothing more than "MORES", which can readily exist in a society devoid of structured relilgion.

You seem to lend a great deal of credence to definitions, hence I would suggest you look up "Mores" and you will find this tidbit of information:

Mores:
The customs and manners of a social group or culture. Mores often serve as moral guidelines for acceptable behavior but are not necessarily religious or ethical.

Viewed on it's own it would seem that religion is not necessarily the only guiding force which causes individuals to act in moral ways.

Ray

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 22:29:11.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/18/2007 09:55:49 PM · #47

Ray, put down the beer and listen to me very carefully. I'll type slowly.

Atheists can have mores. Atheists can have morality. AtheISM, as an "ism", does not have the discussion of mores and morality as its raison d'etre (A basic, essential purpose).

You guys keep thinking that I'm saying that atheists are amoral. They are not. But the term "atheism" does not conjure up a stereotypical code of conduct in ones mind because no such stereotypical code of conduct exists. One atheist may follow hedonism, one may follow utilitarianism (both moral codes which are not founded in religion). Following either does not make them worse atheists. Whether or not they believe in God makes them "good" or "bad" at being an atheist.

Geez, how'd it get to be 3 on 1 suddenly when I was originally just trying to answer the interesting tidbit that only 45% of Americans think an atheist would make a good president? This is what I get for wandering into Rant today. I've had it off for months and I do believe it is going right back off...

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/18/2007 10:12:56 PM · #48

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ray, put down the beer and listen to me very carefully. I'll type slowly.

Gee Doc... I didn't wander into the realm of character assassination. Perhaps some of your friends need a beer to discuss things with you, but I assure you that I do not.

There truly is no need for you to type slowly either, as I can assure you that I can readily comprehend the message you are trying to convey. You on the other hand seem to confuse religion with "Mores"... they are not the same. If you wish I could type slowly for you...perhaps in another language, or if you prefer I could just bring my chain saw and cut the legs off your "High Horse" :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2007-05-18 22:13:55.

05/18/2007 10:19:10 PM · #49

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, I assert that science is not a moral guide, but Louis seems to say it can be.

Actually, Louis never said a word about science. He was talking about disbelief in that which cannot be sustantiated with evidence. If you don't believe in the tooth fairy, does that mean you have no moral guidance? How about Horus, Vishnu or Apollo? Of course not. You've "learned" that religion is your guide (whether or not it really is). There is ample evidence that morality is independent of religion and likely not even limited to humans. I remember reading about young African elephants becoming "delinquents" when all of the adult elephants in the area were wiped out. The solution turned out to be introducing adult elephants to teach them proper behavior. Experiments regarding a sense of fairness among monkeys were also a fascinating read, and Koko, the gorilla who communicates with sign language, could teach many humans a thing or two about compassion. I'm pretty sure none of them have ever taken Communion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...both Mengele's actions and the Tuskegee Experiments were explicitly done to "further science".

You COMPLETELY missed my point. The general quest for knowledge is not a commandment to harm people. Science doesn't instruct you to DO anything. It merely provides a way of knowing if the results are valid and repeatable. To blame science for the actions of experimenters is akin to blaming the actions of a money launderer on his pocket calculator. Contrast that to religion, where people literally kill others as explicity instructed by their faith. To put it plainly, if someone risked his own life to save a drowning boy, you would have absolutely no way of knowing if he was Christian, Muslim or Atheist unless you asked. But if someone killed a woman for failing to properly cover her face or persecuted another for eating a pork chop during Lent, you can be certain it wasn't an Athiest. ;-)