while i agree that many technological innovations would not exist but that's not what i mean materialism. as you may see (or may not see in the place you live) corporations rule the world,our goverments are directly under their influence and due to their advertizing their products are replacing values.
How are they "replacing" values? Humans have always sought out status and wealth throughout the ages.
The Roman senators of old went on grand campaigns of war so that they could plunder the regions that they conquered, earning fame and mass fortunes.
One senator expressed a great deal of hapiness when a region in the empire decided to rebel, because now they could sent their armies and plunder the area again.
Replacing values? Before the enlightenment this world was a cruel and hopeless place. You think christianity has always been this lovey-dovey version?
Christianity in its current form has only existed for maybe 50-100 years. Before that it was mostly talk about how disgusting humans were and how we needed to be fixed and how hell was just around the corner.
Now the ultimate values of most people are to hqave a well paid job, have a big house,a nice expensive car and all those goods that help fuel the modern capitalist system by giving those corporations power and money so they can govgern our lives. i mean where you live isn't the worth of people measured in the form of the money they have and their jobs instead of their knowledge or the help they have given to the community?
i am merely suggesting anything fanatical as returing to the stone age which you imply me to. what i want to see is just some more modesty in our consumer habits which is exactly the meaning of mass consuming that drives our society. you see the sustainability of the state and the corporations in our time is dependendent of money flowing in the form of products and taxes so that is what our society wants us and leads us to become. just workers without thinking ability to tell between the necessary and the unnecessary. do the adverticements in your country not present standards in the forms of beauty and wealth and fame or do you fail to see that(or are there regulating bodies that ban those kinds of ads like coca cola ads,or axe ads or ads that are pressuring women to buy products in order toi be beautiful,show love to their family and be good businesswomen)?what we also need is to evenly develop our productive capabilities and our protection of nature which we have not managed to do properly and has led to all these environmental problems.also about the farmers you say that you say that can't sell their food.really?there are millions of people every year who are starving to death and millions more who die form deseases.regardless of how pathetic your example is i agree with the general concept. as lao tzu the founder of taoism(a religion btw) said <give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime> the problem with third world countries won't be sold until we cannot give them the productive capabilities they need which apparently is not in the best interest of monsanto onje of the world's biggest biological corporations who has made the poison that is aspartame another poison that is high fructose corn syrup(i'm not sure if monsanto produced that) also biologically engineered plants that can accept unlimited quantities of pesticides(which are highly toxic) but you know society does not tell you these things cause they want you to be blind and not understand that pretty much everything is controlled by corporations such as monanto,coca cola,goldman sachs(?) and many other(lol i have really changed the conversation,sorry op :p )now you imight say that those are conspiracy theories but they are true as a matter of fact(just not every conspiracy theory because many of them are improbable and some plain stupid) and you are blind if you can't see that corporations run the govermnets. for the record many of the presidents and members of the governments of america and europe were associated with goldman sachs such as multiple american presidents and the now presidents of italy and europe who were also president and vice president of the bildenberg club in europe. to end this i'll say that most of the people who rise to power are the one that are capable who are in fact stiffled but those who are willing to do the bidding of a higher power and that applies to most levels of power
What is the most respected proffession? It is not investment banker.
People are valued for a host of things, their wealth is one of them, but it is hardly the largest factor. In fact, in most first world countries, lavish displays of wealth are considered to be impolite.
If you are in Holland and you tell someone how much money you have in the bank, you just committed a social faux pas. Is that materialistic? Hardly.
Also the situation is not just about about jobs. you also have to consider nature. in order to fuel the factories that produce all those things that we consume which are not really needed we have to burn millions of tones of fossil fuels that release dangerous gases and use tons of fertilizers that disrupt the nirtrogen balance which leads to aquatic habitats dying while also using non biodegradable pesticides that also disrupt the balance of nature and in the end 1 to 2 billion people can';t eat while the earth could sustain up to 9 billion people just because we westerners have the perception that we can throw away things like food,or non biodegradable plastic. also the cutting down of the major forests is another problem even though cyanophytes consume 80% percent of co2) that stems from our <<needs>> in furniture and other wooden products. you see co2 along with other more dangerous residues that derive from human activities having increased rates of introduction in the nvironment and decreased rates of consumption which leads to nature severily deteriorating.how long do you think that earth can sustain all those activities?
So your version of paradise is one in which we return to a pre-industrial revolution age?
The industrial revoltion has raised the standard of living by such an insane degree. Do you understand what you are saying? You are suggesting that we should reduce the standard of living of every person by 90%.
As for people starving, how do you practically suggest to fix that? Considering your other suggestions, I fear something quite fanatical.
Do we just give them food? What about the farmers there that can't sell their crops because we are giving away free food? No farmers, no basis for an economy, eternally bound to handouts from the first world.
Well to end it are you really happy in the society which you live in? do you thinki everyone has the same selfless values as YOU do? freedom? family? society? progress? nation? education? or maybe money power and fame? think about it
Society can always improve, but I hope to see the standard of living continue to grow. I hope that I will see many technological miracles that will leave me speechless.
I don't hope that we return to some marxist-agricultural society that can't prevent polio.
damn i guess the post was too long. what i was saying was this: i am merely suggesting anything fanatical as returing to the stone age which you imply me to. what i want to see is just some more modesty in our consumer habits which is exactly the meaning of mass consuming that drives our society. you see the sustainability of the state and the corporations in our time is dependendent of money flowing in the form of products and taxes so that is what our society wants us and leads us to become. just workers without thinking ability to tell between the necessary and the unnecessary. do the adverticements in your country not present standards in the forms of beauty and wealth and fame or do you fail to see that(or are there regulating bodies that ban those kinds of ads like coca cola ads,or axe ads or ads that are pressuring women to buy products in order toi be beautiful,show love to their family and be good businesswomen)?what we also need is to evenly develop our productive capabilities and our protection of nature which we have not managed to do properly and has led to all these environmental problems.also about the farmers you say that you say that can't sell their food.really?there are millions of people every year who are starving to death and millions more who die form deseases.regardless of how pathetic your example is i agree with the general concept. as lao tzu the founder of taoism(a religion btw) said <give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime> the problem with third world countries won't be sold until we cannot give them the productive capabilities they need which apparently is not in the best interest of monsanto onje of the world's biggest biological corporations who has made the poison that is aspartame another poison that is high fructose corn syrup(i'm not sure if monsanto produced that) also biologically engineered plants that can accept unlimited quantities of pesticides(which are highly toxic) but you know society does not tell you these things cause they want you to be blind and not understand that pretty much everything is controlled by corporations such as monanto,coca cola,goldman sachs(?) and many other(lol i have really changed the conversation,sorry op :p )also many members of the governments of europe and usa were affiliated with goldman sachs such as multiple usa presidents and now presidents of greece and italy who were also president and vice president of the bildenberg club in europe.to end i believe that there applies a rule that in all levels of power the one who rise are not the ones that are capable but the corrupt ones those who are willing to do the bidding of higher authorityand they do it because they have no trouble in selling their concience for money and fame.there were some other things that i said that i forgot but god my hands are tired.anyway i hope i have helped you op.i have been reading some of your blogs for some time and i have come to like you even though i can't form a complete opinion on someone over the internet.
Personally I feel like I have MORE to live for being an atheist rather than following a religion. I find enjoyment learning about how the universe works and being able to better myself and helping others.
Your grammar and post lay-out is just atrocious. It is by far the worst I have ever seen.
I won't reply to another post like that. It shouldn't be my job to decypher what you mean, or edit it to make it readable.
On February 19 2012 20:28 idrawinGSLjan wrote: damn i guess the post was too long. what i was saying was this: i am merely suggesting anything fanatical as returing to the stone age which you imply me to. what i want to see is just some more modesty in our consumer habits which is exactly the meaning of mass consuming that drives our society. you see the sustainability of the state and the corporations in our time is dependendent of money flowing in the form of products and taxes so that is what our society wants us and leads us to become.
The sustainability of the state is dependent on money flowing.
This is the only thing you said that is actually true. It is also the one thing you reject with a passion. You acknowledge that the state and companies cannot be sustained without the flow of money.
And you want to halt the flow of money. You want to abolish the sustainability of the state and companies.
Basically tank the entire economy and the state structure. But you live in a bit of a dishonest, self-deceiving mindset. For example, you admit to wanting to undermine the sustainability of the state and corporations, but, at the same time, you will refuse to admit that you will decrease the living standards of every human on the planet.
just workers without thinking ability to tell between the necessary and the unnecessary. do the adverticements in your country not present standards in the forms of beauty and wealth and fame or do you fail to see that(or are there regulating bodies that ban those kinds of ads like coca cola ads,or axe ads or ads that are pressuring women to buy products in order toi be beautiful,show love to their family and be good businesswomen)?
How arrogant must you be to believe that you have the right to declare what is and is not "necessary." There are only 2 truly necessary things: water and food.
Even a polio vacine is "luxury." Meanwhile you are sitting the internet, another "unncessary" invention. Feel free to cancel your subscription to the internet. The money you save will be enough to feed about 5 people in the 3rd world.
But you aren't going to do that. Just like how you bought Starcraft 2 instead of feeding an African child for an entire year.
Why is it always the things you don't like that are "unncessary?"
Arrogance, that is why. Only the most arrogant would truly believe that their values and feelings regarding certain products are so important, that others need to abide by their judgements on it. What if someone else calls videogames unncessary? Do we just abolish the videogame industry?
At this point you have supported the destruction of several industries, on the sole basis that you find them "unncessary." How many people do you intend to make unemployed for this utopia?
What we also need is to evenly develop our productive capabilities and our protection of nature which we have not managed to do properly and has led to all these environmental problems.
You are lying to yourself and everyone in this thread.
We need to up our production and reduce the damage that we deal to nature?
Yeah, and I need to drink more alcohol and not get drunk, but I don't think that is very likely. Protecting the environment is being done, but it should not go to such extreme lengths that it starts harming human prosperity.
also about the farmers you say that you say that can't sell their food.really?there are millions of people every year who are starving to death and millions more who die form deseases.regardless of how pathetic your example is i agree with the general concept. as lao tzu the founder of taoism(a religion btw) said <give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime>
You agree with the fact that people need to learn to carry their own weight.
The post before, you argued that we should feed the 3rd world.
Even in this very fragment, you argue that we should feed them, after which you instantly say that we shouldn't feed them.
And in the fragment below this one, you say that we need to give them factories, for free.
Do you even understand your own logic? Because you constantly argue against yourself.
the problem with third world countries won't be sold until we cannot give them the productive capabilities they need which apparently is not in the best interest of monsanto onje of the world's biggest biological corporations who has made the poison that is aspartame another poison that is high fructose corn syrup(i'm not sure if monsanto produced that) also biologically engineered plants that can accept unlimited quantities of pesticides(which are highly toxic) but you know society does not tell you these things cause they want you to be blind and not understand that pretty much everything is controlled by corporations such as monanto,coca cola,goldman sachs(?) and many other(lol i have really changed the conversation,sorry op :p )
Go read about a little thing called "The green revolution."
That is something you would have prevented, leading to insane shortages of food, because you dislike genetical engineering of crops for no real reason other then propaganda talk about how it isn't natural.
And no, corporations do not control the world. That sort of conspiracy nonesense won't fly.
also many members of the governments of europe and usa were affiliated with goldman sachs such as multiple usa presidents and now presidents of greece and italy who were also president and vice president of the bildenberg club in europe.
Bilderberg club...seriously?
There is no illuminati and the government runs the government, not corporations. Take that Alex Jones trash somewhere else.
to end i believe that there applies a rule that in all levels of power the one who rise are not the ones that are capable but the corrupt ones those who are willing to do the bidding of higher authorityand they do it because they have no trouble in selling their concience for money and fame.there were some other things that i said that i forgot but god my hands are tired.anyway i hope i have helped you op.i have been reading some of your blogs for some time and i have come to like you even though i can't form a complete opinion on someone over the internet.
People who are loyal tend to rise to the top.
The problem is that corruption and loyality tend to look the same when you owe favours to a thousand people.
Actuall corruption is actively fought in most first world countries. Does it still exist? Yes. Does it exist on a massive scale? No.
That is the thing with corruption. You can't kill it, just like you can't kill crime. You simply need to reduce it to such a degree that you can live with it. Corruption at this point, in most first world countries, is at a level where it does not negatively effect the economy to a serious degree. Aka, it can be lived with.
If it grows rampant, the free press and democracy will strike it down.
Your abusive use of paragraphs isn't that clear neither, Zalz.
To the OP : what drives people is not religion, it's spirituality. You speak of religion and science as two seperate things, but they are both avatars of human spirituality - which is, in essence, our questions about life, and the answers we find. Atheists are not people who have seen "the naked truth", they are simply people who follow another spiritual path - wether it's science, philosophy, a political ideology. Each ambitious man follows a certain light, for you need it to guide you and pull you through life.
Religion also holds many roles that can be assumed by other things in your life (a community, a code of conduct, a goal). A cult will organize your social life, for example. It was a strong, extended context which exploded in the last century, scattering its components left and right ; we no longer follow a single institution who leads our life. This is a good thing, and a bad thing too, especially now that cybercultures are shaking our very way of life. The family structure, social interaction, social hierarchy, everything is changing very fast. We're kind of lost in the midst of this accelerated evolution.
On February 19 2012 20:04 Pholon wrote: You should check out some debates by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on youtube. Just search their names and watch whatever video's appeal to you. I could type some of my thoughts but they usually word it much better.
Definitely agree with Harris and Hitchens (although Hitchens usually comes off as caustic, that doesn't make him any less wrong ^^).
As an atheist, I have plenty to live for. Everything that makes me happy in this world, everything that makes others happy... are things I can look forward to. My family, friends, hobbies and passions, future ideas and motivations for what I want to do with my life... they're all reasons to live. And- for what it's worth- my girlfriend and my mother and my two brothers and the students I educate as a math teacher and tennis instructor are actually real beings. I don't need to believe in fake things to give me strength, although I understand- from a psychological perspective- why religion exists as a defense mechanism. I'm just stronger than that, although that's of course somewhere down the road, I may use a different temporary defense mechanism to hide away a tragedy or thought.
But actions are based on beliefs, and what you do affects others. So my beliefs are going to be as rational and fact-based as possible, so I don't go around hurting others because of my specific opinion. (I live in New Jersey, USA, and my governor just vetoed a bill to pass gay marriage because of his personal beliefs- despite the state legislature passing it. Pisses me off.)
Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
I went to a catholic high school. They told me this too. It's not true. And yes sure happily dispute global warming and evolution but not gravity....
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
You realize that science =/= atheism right? And to compare scientific theories with the colloquial theories (read as: allegories and outdated explanations) of creationism and religion is to completely equivocate between the scientific and layman definitions of Theory. You simply cannot say that science's explanation for X and religion's explanation for that same X are on equal grounds in terms of validity. So what if a group of people believe both sides (argument from popularity? logical fallacy.)... that doesn't make both of them equally true or even equally respectable. I can respect a person for other reasons, but I don't have to respect certain beliefs of theirs, especially if those beliefs are clearly nonsensical (let alone fly in the face of real, factual, logical, empirically-sound explanations).
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
The biggest motivator of humankind in general isn't religion, it's overcoming challenges. Putting a man on the moon, eradicating smallpox, building the pyramids. A lot of things are accomplished not to show homage to our creator, but just to prove that we can do it. This is the main reason we play video games too, for the sheer challenge of it.
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
You realize that science =/= atheism right? And to compare scientific theories with the colloquial theories (read as: allegories and outdated explanations) of creationism and religion is to completely equivocate between the scientific and layman definitions of Theory. You simply cannot say that science's explanation for X and religion's explanation for that same X are on equal grounds in terms of validity. So what if a group of people believe both sides (argument from popularity? logical fallacy.)... that doesn't make both of them equally true or even equally respectable. I can respect a person for other reasons, but I don't have to respect certain beliefs of theirs, especially if those beliefs are clearly nonsensical (let alone fly in the face of real, factual, logical, empirically-sound explanations).
You misunderstood me, I'm talking about science in a spiritual level, which is what replaces religion for most atheists nowadays. The "questions" I'm talking about are questions of "life". I used the Big Bang theory simply as a way to compare a religious person to a scientific one, underlining the ignorance of both and their dependance on knowledgeable leaders who represent the authority.
However, I have to say that your entire post is, in my eyes, a logical fallacy. You deem religious beliefs nonsensical using the analytic tools of scientific beliefs. Of course you will come to this conclusion, how could they question what was created on top of them? You suppose the superiority of the scientific analysis before even asking the question "is it superior"!
Not only that, but both deists and theists seem to regard science as valuable tool, while they seek metaphysical answers elsewhere ; and while science does provide this kind of anwsers itself, its superiority in this domain is questionable, at the very least.
On February 19 2012 23:45 Azera wrote: I just love how TL just makes you think :D
Also, DarkPlasmaBall, you teach Math? What's the secret to getting good grades in Math? Constant practice? =)
Haha practice certainly helps, but having a good teacher (or study group for those at the university level) to explain things in certain ways is very important as well. Sometimes it's not so easy to simply understand the concepts by reading the pages, so having someone else relate it or apply it or break it down for you is fundamental towards success.
Once you understand how the concepts work, grinding out computations and possible extensions of problems to better understand the topic is very useful
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
I went to a catholic high school. They told me this too. It's not true. And yes sure happily dispute global warming and evolution but not gravity....
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
You realize that science =/= atheism right? And to compare scientific theories with the colloquial theories (read as: allegories and outdated explanations) of creationism and religion is to completely equivocate between the scientific and layman definitions of Theory. You simply cannot say that science's explanation for X and religion's explanation for that same X are on equal grounds in terms of validity. So what if a group of people believe both sides (argument from popularity? logical fallacy.)... that doesn't make both of them equally true or even equally respectable. I can respect a person for other reasons, but I don't have to respect certain beliefs of theirs, especially if those beliefs are clearly nonsensical (let alone fly in the face of real, factual, logical, empirically-sound explanations).
You misunderstood me, I'm talking about science in a spiritual level, which is what replaces religion for most atheists nowadays. The "questions" I'm talking about are questions of "life". I used the Big Bang theory simply as a way to compare a religious person to a scientific one, underlining the ignorance of both and their dependance on knowledgeable leaders who represent the authority.
However, I have to say that your entire post is, in my eyes, a logical fallacy. You deem religious beliefs nonsensical using the analytic tools of scientific beliefs. Of course you will come to this conclusion, how could they question what was created on top of them? You suppose the superiority of the scientific analysis before even asking the question "is it superior"!
Not only that, but both deists and theists seem to regard science as valuable tool, while they seek metaphysical answers elsewhere ; and while science does provide this kind of anwsers itself, its superiority in this domain is questionable, at the very least.
Science at the spiritual level? What's an example of that? Can we propose falsifiable and testable claims and collect observational evidence refuting or defending those hypotheses? Do spiritual claims fit into the scientific method, or are they just personal experiences that are unverifiable?
And what other method is there to accurately describe the universe besides science? Wild guessing? We're apparently comparing the scientific method to something else... and I have the nerve to say that science is superior to this other method (and defending my position is the fact that the scientific process has brought us every advancement in the world- technology, medicine, etc.). But what is the other method? Faith? Well science uses evidence, so what does Faith use? *A feeling*? I don't understand what you're talking about, or how you can say that a different analytic system is superior to what science does for us. But by all means, tell me of this other system and how it blows science out of the water.
And many religious claims made by holy books are indeed ones that can be falsified through science (e.g. Creation and Destruction myths), which means they've already been directly refuted by actual data. I don't see how you can refute God talking to Person X, and other strictly supernatural claims ("This one time, 6000 years ago, an animal was taken over by God and it spoke to people") are irrefutable by the very definition of using God to intervene with the test (which means you need to assume God exists first- but that's a whole other can of worms)... but we have archaeological and other scientific evidence that defends the scientific theories over the religious alternatives. And- don't forget- that there's no reason to *automatically* accept supernatural claims in the first place; the onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence. You don't accept a claim as correct without there first being evidence for it; the default position is that things don't exist (or that claims are incorrect) until evidence defending them are found. That's Logic 101.