Not really. Money spent of fossil fuel exploration is based on facts not mythology whether we agree with it or not. It also could not be done without science.

@DavidLaDeau From what I understand fossil fuel is destroying the planet in the form of global warming which seems to be the default view,

That means by stopping fossil fuel research the planet can be given another chance and valuable resources can be channeled into worthwhile humanitarian projects.

Regardless of fact or fiction the reality is that fossil fuels are destructive.

Would you not agree that channeling resources to humanitarian aid, regardless of its source, whether religious or fossil fuel orientated is beneficial?

@Geoffrey51 Yes is is somethings are a big waste of time money and energy.

There have been may estimates concerning the dark ages about how much more into the future we would be advanced. It is pure speculation but I have seen it from 100- 500 years. That is significant!

@DavidLaDeau You are only looking at Western Culture. China did okay with inventing paper and gunpowder in that period. Islam certainly didn't go through a dark age as its thanks to their endeavours that the Renaissance occurred

Religion in the form of the protestant work ethic heralded the Industrial Revolution.

The question is, how dark do we think the dark Ages, were, where globally is the Dark Age happening and what time frame do we give for the period? Post axial Age to the Renaissance ? Decline of Rome to the birth of the Ottomans?

I also doubt that the civilizations outside of Bronze Age culture suffered a Dark Age until the Europeans arrived!

@Geoffrey51 Er. um. So al-Ghazali didn't happen, and pretty much stop the Scientific exploration, and pretty much paved the way to the backwards religious based state that most Muslim cultures stand today?

@Geoffrey51, @DavidLaDeau Some estimates even put it around 900 years. But just the same 100 years is a long time let alone Hundreds of years. agreed, either way. Without that crimp, we mostlikely be a Long way ahead.

@TristanNuvo So does that mean you refute the work of Avicenna and his contemporaries and their achievements C8th to circa C14th?

@TristanNuvo Who's estimates are those?

@Geoffrey51 Kind of irrelevant to the subject matter. We're talking about what the money given to religion would have meant for our scientific achievements and understanding. The damage remains immense and continues to this day.

@rainmanjr So lets open the argument to fossil fuel exploration,

I don't see why the discussion about the amount of money that could be re-assigned should be restricted to one section of spending.

@Geoffrey51 The question is aimed at feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, like Jesus preached to do. Not fossil fuel exploration. I think you've disclosed your real agenda.

I think replacing religion with religion could be fallacious. You are right about how the world would be transformed.

too late....the gears are already in motion... the churches will inherit the world

@DavidLaDeau I didn't say "religion;" I said "spirituality."
Religion is a belief system worshipping personal deities.
Spirituality is a sense of a connection to something bigger than ourselves, whatever you conceive that to be.
You might reject both. Fine.
But the former is much more dangerous and destructive than the former, at the very least.
At best, "spirituality" can be a way to see the universe as one single, closed system consisting of matter and energy, of which we are a small but significant part.
Maybe there's a better word for it, but a SCIENCE-BASED perspective is superior to faith-based, in any case.

@Storm1752 Okay, I can accept that!

This has nothing to do with telling anyone to send their time energy or resources on anything. It is a thought experimant intended to provoke thought about how much potential is wasted on religion that actually could benifit humans.

@DavidLaDeau becuz none of us have never noticed this?

@AnneWimsey There are many that have not. There are many that visit this sight that have never questioned religion or any beliefs, so it is a good idea to spark reason here. I am sorry if my attempt to provoke thought has offended you. Best wishes.

@DavidLaDeau wow, " many....never questioned religion" on here? Really? Well, I guess i should say how was your trip to Pluto?

@AnneWimsey A review of the entire comment will answer your question. I did not say many never questioned religion on here at all. There is no reason to straw man me or try to make me look stupid. You should be ashamed.

@DavidLaDeau it's too bad you cannot remember or review what you wrote, just above my reply, above, quoting you...here it is in full: "There are many that visit this sight [sic] that have never questioned religion or any beliefs, so it is a good idea to spark reason here" Ring any bells for ya? You come across as judgemental, rude, and now a possible victim of dementia.....you should get some Help!

@MissKathleen
Where does it say that?

@MissKathleen
How much?

@MissKathleen thank you again!

@MissKathleen I finally did -had trouble with my hand moving it up

The post was intended to inspire thought of how significantly religion impacts the world in a negative way. It was in no way intended to purpose the impossible, irrational or absurd.

@motrubl4u not to mention all the innocent children who would survive

@motrubl4u Depends on how you spend that money to help the people, you could for instance, end all homeless vetrans by building them a place to live.
But yes, a cut would impact the defense industry.
I do not find that an adequate counter arguement for continuing excessive spending.

@motrubl4u, @DavidLaDeau " It was in no way intended to purpose the impossible, irrational or absurd."BUT
Isn't wishful thinking about how we could better use those funds just that?
As far as practicality is concerned? Not like its gonna happen.

@motrubl4u War kills all, it does not discriminate.

@motrubl4u you are not suggesting it doesnt i hope....otherwise you might as well beleive in god .

@Fred_Snerd I would say it should be the people's welfare. Now, Defense is part of that but it's not the only component. We worry not about those other components so people shouldn't believe the Defense spending is for them, either. Trump believes it's to keep US from throwing him out.

@maturin1919 I own the #1 what if, that is its title lol

@maturin1919, @motrubl4u Served from 83-90 myself, Hua?
Baby killer is very Nam, that what they did to my older brother, spit on him called him baby killer
Fallout from mei lai

But I have to ask
Trying what exactly?
"y'all are trying this with a vet fyi"
Trying what? I am taking no action at all here.

Cutting the defense budget?
utilizing that money for other purposes? at least some of it, or maybe taxing enough out of fat cats to do both, as those funds make fat cats?

What do you think I am trying? Cause all I think I am doing is talking here.

@maturin1919 Not sure how you got tagged either.

Okay so you feel argumentative today, not surpriseing. I hope your day goes better.

@DavidLaDeau
My day is fine, thanks. I'm always ready to say what I think is true. Did you read the article?

@skado Yes I did over a trillion spent on religion In the U.S. is a huge amount. Where or how that money was spent other than being on religion was of no concern for the purpose of this post.

@DavidLaDeau
Why not? Your post is suggesting that the economy puts 1.2 trillion into religion, when the article is saying that religion puts 1.2 trillion into the economy - the diametric opposite of your claim.

The value that they contribute is toward employment, purchasing goods and services, teaching, getting potential gang members off the streets and into colleges, building communities, tourism, alcohol recovery programs, HIV screening and assistance, recruiting volunteers for non-religious community programs, healthcare services, disaster relief, and so on. None of which would be accomplished by rerouting the funds to scientific research.

Religion is not in competition with science. They do completely different jobs. What you’re proposing is essentially taking funds away from community services and putting it in research instead. “Science” isn’t going to go into poor neighborhoods and distribute food and medical assistance and education and employment - that isn’t what scientists are supposed to do.

If you want more money for research, take it from the rich, not the poor. Please.

@skado No I will not allow you to post for me. You may misinterpret my post as you wish, strawman at will and make yourself look however you wish. I did not say anything that you have suggested so write your own post and credit it to yourself.

@DavidLaDeau
How about dialogue? Is that allowed?

@skado Yes when it is productive it I love it! We have had some great converstations!