Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 6,601-6,650 of 12,463

[Yasmeen]

Cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Sorry Cerebus you're still on your own there... "
That's ok, I'm used to having some fairly singular opinions :) I also think The Matrix is one of the most overrated films ever....mo..."

well i don't think it's a masterwork. i think it's a mess and result of an imagination too loose to make a movie that anyone can possibly enjoy!

[Yasmeen]

Travis wrote: "Anyway, getting bored, so let's move on.

I was reading about Solomon and David that that era and they mentioned that Solomon used djinn ( genies) to help him build his temple.
Everybody seemed oka..."

i can't answer your question because i don't really understand it. bu i have to say, this story is very familiar to me; i think it's mentioned in the Quraan. but probably in a different manner.

[Yasmeen]

Hannah wrote: "Atheists asking people to give absolute proof that god exists is like people with faith asking atheists to provide absolute proof that he doesn't ... Neither will win

That is why it is called fai..."

that is one great comment. thank you for demonstrating -finally, sth that's undenibly and absolutely true. i think your comment is really what this discussion is all about.

[Yasmeen]

Hazel wrote: "I apologise for making that assumption, it is the case the majority of the time, but I shouldn't have made that assumption.

So, I have to ask, as you seem to have presented a contradiction, how di..."

well, IF that question was meant for me, i would answer: absolutely yes. although i think Islam has already provided a lot of solid enough proofs already.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Did you mean the "How did I get the information and validate it(?)" If so I thought that rhetorical as it was what we'd actually been discussing.
Well I read the book and check out the references, citations and websites mentioned.

You read the book, I understand that.

You Checked out the references, citations and websites mentioned,I understand that as well....

....but that is just telling me what you have done, it means nothing. I read books and check websites. It does not validate their accuracy. It merely confirms what you want to hear.

You may check the authors reference to a published source he/she has used to get the information for his/her book, and that will just lead back to the bible. That is if that author has really done their research. In most cases it will be from another book that the author 'trusts' to be correct. So it is regererated material you are trusting, and you trust it because the author in many cases is saying what you want to hear.

A very large percentage of this type of material is no more that presumptions on the authors part, but of course it is made to look like facts. By saying A is wrong suggests that B must be correct. If Jesus was not a real person then God does not exist.


How do you validate yours ? Gut feelings, warm fuzzies, I feel it's so so it must be... seeing as you admitted you hadn't even read the book you offered up as proof.

I did not offer it as proof. I was showing you that there are books out there that offer an opposite option about Jesus, one is no more valid than the other.

You are reading,at best, nothing more than 'theories' or an alternative way of thinking to what is written in the bible. At worst conspiracy theories dressed up to look like facts.

Ok I agree the bible may well be nothing more that that as well. But I like the idea of a creator.

A universe that goes on forever or a creator, I can get my head aroung a creator but not a universe with no end

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: It is pretty mind-boggling that people think their imaginary creator/friend should get equal consideration as actual science.

."

You and others here seem unable to get past this 'g..."

Maybe I'm glib ( though, I prefer jovial) because with over 6,000 comments we have discussed and debated the various creator ideas quite a lot and nobody has put forward any debate the goes past religious folk having a belief that there is one.

If you can offer some actual proof or more to the discussion than "I believe it' or 'There must be a creator! Stuff doesn't just happen!' than have at it.

Otherwise, there will be glibness.

[Hannah]

hello all .. where have we got to ???

oh still same place !!

i can offer you no proof that god exists because i dont have any concrete proof , thats why i dont say "god exists " but i "believe god exists " its my belief , doesnt have to be yours or anyone elses just mine.
I dont ask that people have the same belief as me but i would like to think we live in a society wher my beliefs can be respected and not belittled and insulted

quite a few people on here have beliefs very different to my own and if that is what they choose to believe who am i to say they are wrong , i cant prove their beliefs wrong so even though their belief may not be mine i respect their rights to have that and i make no insulting statements about it

drew you have to read the david yallop book mum has just finnished ... she loved it

[cerebus]

Hannah wrote: "I dont ask that people have the same belief as me but i would like to think we live in a society wher my beliefs can be respected and not belittled and insulted ."
Religious beliefs should be no more (or less) respected than any other opinion someone holds.

[cerebus]

cHriS/cs wrote: "I did not offer it as proof. I was showing you that there are books out there that offer an opposite option about Jesus, one is no more valid than the other.."
not every opinion on every subject is equally valid, and if you don't read the other opinion, and evaluate supporting evidence, then you are at best exceptionally gullible. If one is no more valid than the other, your 'belief' is tenuous at best.....

cHriS/cs wrote: "Ok I agree the bible may well be nothing more that that as well. But I like the idea of a creator."
All well and good, but some of us require more than just a vague liking of an idea to live our lives. I'll stick with scientific evidence.

[cerebus]

Yasmeen wrote: "well, IF that question was meant for me, i would answer: absolutely yes. although i think Islam has already provided a lot of solid enough proofs already. "
Which proofs are you referring to?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: If you can offer some actual proof or more to the discussion than "I believe it' or 'There must be a creator! Stuff doesn't just happen!' than have at it.

Otherwise, there will be glibness. "

I think you have missed the point of this thread. It is to discuss science v religion, it is not to furnish the atheists here with proof that there is a God.

Hannah said it right when she said I dont have any concrete proof , thats why i dont say "god exists " but i "believe god exists "

Your time would be better spent giving your option on what you think could be an answer, rather than waiting for science to come up with 'the' answer, which it won't ever be able to do. Just to demand proof and not contribute anything gets a little tiresome.

As I said previously, there is a theory that the Universe has no end. That has to be just as hard to comprehend as a creator, but science is ok with that one.

So I will believe in a creator while you play the waiting game. Us lot seem content to let you wait, but athiests seem uneasy about us.

[Hannah]

you are right yasmeen , religions , should be questioned and in my mind some of the evils done in the name of religion have been allowed to continue because people did not question their religious "priests' and the religious heirarchy ,
also , there is a large division of the church which invites people to question and investigate their beliefs , this is why i think there should be a distinction here between religion ( as an organised church ) and religion as a personal belief
as many bad things have been done in the name of chrisianity as have been done in the name of islam , i doubt either of us would recognise what these people "preach" as what we believe to be true

[Hannah]

persaonally i could quite happily get rid of the organised church , especially its power and control . although i know it does do a certain amount of good in the world i know that some facets of it have too much power and have been used to coerce and control populations

[Hannah]

you are right cerebus , they should be no more or less respected , which is why though i have different beliefs to yasmeen or drew i respect their beliefs and do not insult them , yet time and time again i am told on this thread that my beliefs are 'imaginary' and that they are like ' believing in the tooth fairy ' .
i have never on this thread rubbished another persons belief , and reading back it seems it has in the majority been the athiests who have been insulting and belittleing
i have said it time and time again , you are welcome to not believe in god and that is your choice and i respect your descision , but why do people have to demeen the choice of others belief
( and i do realise it is mostly travis who has an obsession with the tooth fairy ... i have a feeling he protests too much and still hopes for money in the morning !)

[cerebus]

Hannah wrote: " i doubt either of us would recognise what these people "preach" as what we believe to be true "
How do you choose which bits to believe?

[Hazel]

You know Hannah, you're welcome to your beliefs, but I will take exception when you say you haven't insulted anyone, and then finish your post with an insult to Travis.

[cerebus]

cHriS/cs wrote: "As I said previously, there is a theory that the Universe has no end. That has to be just as hard to comprehend as a creator, but science is ok with that one. "
If you say "it's god" every time something is hard to understand, what incentive is there to search for answers, and to make progress? If everybody has that outlook then, for example, no medical advances would be made. Don't understand how people get cancer? God did it. No point trying to develop cures then.

[Hannah]

oh hazel please if that was an insult , in what world has the 'jovial' travis been living !!

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: If you can offer some actual proof or more to the discussion than "I believe it' or 'There must be a creator! Stuff doesn't just happen!' than have at it.

Otherwise, there will be gl..."

If you chose a side in the debate, you can't be surprised when people then question why you chose that side.

Your time would be better spent not acting like the guardian of the thread ( Unless I missed a swearing in ceremony?), as there are no posted rules past picking which kind of world you would choose to live in.
Maybe you could spend that time answering questions asked of you instead.

Science is okay with the idea of an infinite universe as there are actual things that point to that as opposed to the creator theory where there is nothing past 'I believe".

I am uneasy about religious folk as they want to enact laws that effect the entire, actual world, the one I and my family live in based on what their imaginary friend told them.
and they want to go to war with other parts of the world as they are afraid of them, because their imaginary friend gave them a different set of laws.
It's a bit worrying.

Not contribute anything?
OnlyIf you ignore that I've been here, talking to people for most of the 6000 posts.

[Hannah]

it is difficult cerebus ( great name by the way ) , i read a lot of the bible and some other texts and they made sense to me , i am not saying they are foolproof or that i could find a million different bits of paper that say they are wrong

we all chose to believe one piece of paper over another piece of paper until we get one final piece of paper that says .. yep this is the absolute final proof

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Hannah wrote: "I dont ask that people have the same belief as me but i would like to think we live in a society wher my beliefs can be respected and not belittled and insulted ."
Religious beliefs ..."

i keep saying this:
You are entitled to have your beliefs aknowledged. You are not entitled to have them respected.

Wish people would stop assuming that saying 'I believe' grants them a magic respect forcefield.

[Travis]

Hannah wrote: "oh hazel please if that was an insult , in what world has the 'jovial' travis been living !!"

mocking the Tooth fairy?
Heretic! Pelt her with the sacred quarters!

[Hannah]

well there is where you and i differ as i believe people should have their beliefs respected in a way that leads them open to being questioned , admonished ( when the organised church does somthing illegal or covers for something illegal ) and investigated but not insulted for a cheap thrill
maily because i would like to think that i live in a place where people would have the common decency to debate and question a religion or a belief without having to insult the belief of the person concerned

[Hazel]

Hannah wrote: "oh hazel please if that was an insult , in what world has the 'jovial' travis been living !!"

one in which he only insults beliefs, and not the people holding them, whereas you make a direct poke at his person.

Hannah wrote: "well there is where you and i differ as i believe people should have their beliefs respected in a way that leads them open to being questioned , admonished ( when the organised church does somthing..."

Really, so you respect the belief that aliens come down and abduct people? Or that white people are better than black people? Do you respect the belief that gay people are evil? I am not willing to accept the implication that you don't poke fun at, or have a lack of respect for any beliefs.

[Hannah]

i take it all back travis ... she exists .....
( if you want to pelt me further ......and going by a previous conversation ..... i still dont like john lennon !!!! .... i know sacriledge )

[Hannah]

travis could i get out of my sack cloth and ashes now they are begining to itch !!!!!!

[Hazel]

Hannah wrote: "we all chose to believe one piece of paper over another piece of paper until we get one final piece of paper that says .. yep this is the absolute final proof "

Actually no, religious people choose to beliieve a piece of paper which has no corroborating evidence for many of the events within, and certainly none of the supernatural events, and that is a translation of a rewrite, of a translation etc etc, that was originally an oral tradition, none of which was written down during the time of the events portrayed within.

Whereas scientific papers, and such like are pieces of paper that are repeatedly tested, that have data and evidence to corroborate whats in them, that are peer reviewed, and the people reading them accept that there is no such thing as absolute proof, instead the best supported theory is accepted, and is open to change as new evidence comes to light.

You cannot compare the Bible to research and scientific papers, and expect that comparison to be taken seriously.

[Travis]

Hannah wrote: "i take it all back travis ... she exists .....
( if you want to pelt me further ......and going by a previous conversation ..... i still dont like john lennon !!!! .... i know sacriledge )"

again with the Beatles cracks...!
I'm surrounded by uncultured heathens.

[Hannah]

lol travis ... i hated imagine !!!

[Hannah]

but i know what they mean about mole of kingtown .....or mull of kintyre as i believe it was more seriously known as

whatever happened to the rupert the bear and the frog song !!!

[Hazel]

:O, completely tangentially, Micheal Clarke Duncan has died

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/...

I just found this out, he was such an awesome actor.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote " Science is okay with the idea of an infinite universe as there are actual things that point to that

...... and those things are ?

[Hazel]

Hannah wrote: "but i know what they mean about mole of kingtown .....or mull of kintyre as i believe it was more seriously known as

whatever happened to the rupert the bear and the frog song !!!"

you mean this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xeid...

Loved this as a kid

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: ":O, completely tangentially, Micheal Clarke Duncan has died

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/...

I just found th..."

Sad news. Great actor. He one of the only good things in the Daredevil movie.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Hannah wrote: "but i know what they mean about mole of kingtown .....or mull of kintyre as i believe it was more seriously known as

whatever happened to the rupert the bear and the frog song !!!"..."

Hey, the Rupert cartoon! My kids used to watch these. Fun little series.

[Travis]

Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Anyway, getting bored, so let's move on.

I was reading about Solomon and David that that era and they mentioned that Solomon used djinn ( genies) to help him build his temple.
Every..."

I thought it was an interesting story, as it mixes mythologies (appealing to the comic book fan in me) and was intrigued if that story means the bible akowledges other mythologies and how that fits in the overall framework/history/whatever of christianity.

[Drew]

Hannah wrote: "lol travis ... i hated imagine !!!"

Sounds like you wouldn't know a great song if it hit you in the face then. ;)

[Shanna]

I did not offer it as proof. I was showing you that there are books out there that offer an opposite option about Jesus, one is no more valid than the other.
You were asked for proof and you offered this book without any such caveats.

[Shanna]

Ok I agree the bible may well be nothing more that that as well. But I like the idea of a creator.

A universe that goes on forever or a creator, I can get my head aroung a creator but not a universe with no end
Just because you can't get your head around means diddly squat. I have an extremely poor grasp of physics, it changes nothing of how physics acts and interacts.

[Hannah]

lol drew , i have always hated imagine elenor rgby though is a great song

[Kamer]

A world without religion..

I came from a regilist family so i'm kinda familiar with all the religions..

My mom was an christian and my dad is a hard-cor muslim..

I'm not saying this because of the regilious background i came from, i'm saying this because i questioned everything around me.

I questioned and i read.

Faith might be a part of human's nature but religion isn't.
It's actually made by human themselves..

I have faith but i don't think religion is necessary.

And beside that science is FACT.
It's not about faith or believing or anything else.

It's just simple fact.
It's not relativistic..

So a world without religion i would've choose to live in..

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I think you have missed the point of this thread. It is to discuss science v religion, it is not to furnish the atheists here with proof that there is a God.

Pause, re-examine and try to realise the way you contradicted yourself within two sentences.

Science v religion i.e. looking for truth compared to claiming you already know it, is at the core of the question posed.

cHriS wrote: "Hannah said it right when she said I dont have any concrete proof , thats why i dont say "god exists " but i "believe god exists ""

So anything claimed is 'right' as long as you include the word 'belief'? Or are you saying that using the term "believe" is interjecting an appropriate level of uncertainty to an unproved concept with multiple competing alternate concepts?

cHriS wrote: "Your time would be better spent giving your option on what you think could be an answer, rather than waiting for science to come up with 'the' answer, which it won't ever be able to do. Just to demand proof and not contribute anything gets a little tiresome. "

Back when you posted as 'cs' you still had that habit of transposing the word 'option' with 'opinion'. Is that a personal idiosyncrasy or a local colloquialism may I ask?

But to answer your statement. What does get tiresome is people making claims to what is in their opinion the truth, and then being unable or unwilling to provide independently verifiable rationale and reasons for that opinion.

As for preferring to make a judgement on truth without evidence and proof and indeed saying that both are pointless to wait for because "it won't ever be able to do" then please do humanity a big favour and never take jury service.

cHriS wrote: "As I said previously, there is a theory that the Universe has no end. That has to be just as hard to comprehend as a creator, but science is ok with that one."

First, there is no scientific theory that the universe has no end. There has been several hypotheses that an expanding universe may have potentially no end, but most of them are discredited by current astronomical observations and established theories.

Second, the idea of a creator is not hard to comprehend, people who do not believe in a creator aren't suffering from a lack of imagination as it is laughably easy to imagine a person suspiciously similar in worldview, emotion and opinion to ourselves who made things appear by their magical powers. The problem is that the entire idea of a creator to explain the universe's origin asks a lot more questions than it actually answers, is fairly unprovable and does nothing to help our understanding of how the universe came to be.

In my opinion you can only look at the universe unbias by dropping the humanocentric arrogance of a human-like god (or god like human) and try to see it as it really is.

cHriS wrote: "So I will believe in a creator while you play the waiting game. Us lot seem content to let you wait, but athiests seem uneasy about us. "

Atheists are uneasy about people who jump to conclusions before the information is in, but as I said so would anyone who stood in a court of law would be uneasy about people who made up their minds based on their own opinion before the evidence was presented or even discovered.

Little christian girls in Pakistan are uneasy about mobs who judge that she has burned the holy Qu'ran before evidence is presented, or evidence that the burning of paper and words somehow harms an all powerful god. Women in the US are uneasy about politicians who believe that a zygote's right to life outweighs the right to life of the mother.

Their are plenty of reasons to be uneasy about people who zealously proclaim they know the truth and will not be swayed from their opinion by any subsequent reason or rationale.

Plenty of reasons with historical precedence.

[Mark]

I find the basic question ludicrous. They are not mutually exclusive, but are reinforcing. Religion is not merely a system of morals for behavior.

As a student of history, I have learned that many folks ancientlytried to suppress all scientific progress and live with only religion (remember Galileo and Copernicus?)--assuming that God had revealed all that was necessary--and science proved irrepressible.

Fundamentally, each answers essential questions that the other cannot, or will not, address. As case in point, we do not recognize that God has revealed the principles of gravity, nor of electricity, that modern man finds so essential. Yet, science cannot answer the crucial question of why this world exists (seemingly the best answer is based on evolution, making our world and lives pointless and a fluke collision of improbabilities).

God has revealed, and His true prophets have promulgated, that this world, and all that exists, have a significant purpose in developing all mankind. Thus, religion and science must both coexist.

[cerebus]

Mark wrote: "Yet, science cannot answer the crucial question of why this world exists (seemingly the best answer is based on evolution, making our world and lives pointless and a fluke collision of improbabilities)."
When you say "why this world exists" do you mean "for what purpose" or "how it came to be"? If it's the former then it's a pointless question, if it's the latter then science can explain it.

Mark wrote: "seemingly the best answer is based on evolution, making our world and lives pointless and a fluke collision of improbabilities"
Evolution has nothing to say about why the world exists. It is however the best supported theory to explain the diversity and current state of the animal kingdom we see today.


Mark wrote: "God has revealed, and His true prophets have promulgated, that this world, and all that exists, have a significant purpose in developing all mankind"
Revealed how? To whom? And what was it he revealed? Can you clarify what you mean by "developing all mankind"?

[cerebus]

Mark wrote: "I find the basic question ludicrous. They are not mutually exclusive, but are reinforcing."
Nice condescending start btw.
As for not being mutually exclusive, one requires evidence to support its position and will change its position if the evidence dictates, the other provides the answers, discourages questions and remains unwavering despite contradictory or missing evidence. Seems fairly "mutually exclusive" to me.

[Gary]

Mark wrote: "I find the basic question ludicrous. They are not mutually exclusive, but are reinforcing. Religion is not merely a system of morals for behavior.

No, in fact it tends to continually fail as a guide to morality. However, religion does not reinforce science, it tries to guess it and then suppress new ideas that then refute it.

Mark wrote: "As a student of history, I have learned that many folks ancientlytried to suppress all scientific progress and live with only religion (remember Galileo and Copernicus?)--assuming that God had revealed all that was necessary--and science proved irrepressible."

Exactly. Religion claims that it already "knows" the truth, while science is searching for it. New ideas are not a threat to science, in fact it is the lifeblood of the process, and science is required to then ratify and accommodate those ideas if they are shown to be valid.

Religion is the opposite. Religion claims that they know the truth which means new ideas are a challenge to religious authority.

It seems you know recognise this from your study of history and yet choose not to acknowledge your own conclusion?

Mark wrote: "Fundamentally, each answers essential questions that the other cannot, or will not, address."

I cannot agree with that statement at all. Science and religion both attempt to provide answers, but there they diverge. Science looks to ask the questions that can be answered, and then build on that towards every answer imaginable. Science isn't lab coats and particle accelerators, science is a rational methodology of enquiry that seeks knowledge uncluttered by humanocentric bias and arrogance. Religion takes stories that are very humanocentric and then claims them to be ultimate truth.

Mark wrote: "As case in point, we do not recognize that God has revealed the principles of gravity, nor of electricity, that modern man finds so essential."

Yet both of these concepts have been attacked in the past for refuting religious principles. The law of gravity meant that the concept of the eternal changeless heavens was challenged and the church resisted the technology of lightening rods on churches for many years until their efficiency at preventing death and destruction of tall buildings was soundly proven.

Mark wrote: "Yet, science cannot answer the crucial question of why this world exists (seemingly the best answer is based on evolution, making our world and lives pointless and a fluke collision of improbabilities)."

Cannot? Take a hint from the late great Douglas Adams, sometimes you need to understand the question before you can understand the answer.

The crucial question of "Why" this world exists is for a start circular. Using a humanocentric theory of mind you ascribe purpose to the universe, then you claim that purpose can only be explained by a human-like being with a human-like set of goals and purposes. You then claim that the alternative is "pointless" because you have defined that the universe requires a human comprehensible point.

To show how arrogant that is, consider what is the point of insects, or tapeworm, or a virus. If your answers are all in terms of how that effects humans and a human-like god the egocentricity should become obvious.

Your conjecture that evolution is 'random' is mistaken. Evolution is a consequence of randomness within simple structure or laws leading to emergent complexity. Your conjecture that this means that this point of view means that the universe is pointless or meaningless is based on your assumption that the universe requires a single definite purpose.

Mark wrote: "God has revealed, and His true prophets have promulgated, that this world, and all that exists, have a significant purpose in developing all mankind. Thus, religion and science must both coexist. "

So your "meaning" for the universe is for an infinite perfect being to 'develop all mankind'. That makes no sense within your own parameters. God is 'evolving' humans? If there was a perfect god then there is no reason for him to need to make imperfect things.

Whenever science looks at one of the big questions, along comes one religion or another to claim that the question has already been answered. So far the religious answers have toppled one after another in the face of rational enquiry. From the fate of the sun each night, to the nature of lightening, to the geocentric universe to the evolution of species, simplistic stories of magic and human-like purpose has opened up to the true beauty and awesome wonder of the universe beyond, around and within us. There is every reason to expect this trend to continue unless religion once again claims ascendency and truth is strangled by dogma.

[Maria]

"Wish people would stop assuming that saying 'I believe' grants them a magic respect forcefield."

Same could be said about the people who say "I don't believe..."

[Travis]

Maria wrote: ""Wish people would stop assuming that saying 'I believe' grants them a magic respect forcefield."

Same could be said about the people who say "I don't believe...""

Oh please, I'm an atheist, guys that sell heroin to school children get more respect in this country.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Same could be said about the people who say "I don't believe...""

Really? In what context? Has there been anyone who has complained of their lack of belief not being respected?

Certainly some people have objected to being vilified by others by having their motivations for their debate or point of view called into question, but that is not asking to be respectful of disbelief, that is asking not to be directly insulted.

In fact the only disbelief that it could be said about would be the believers. After all claiming "I believe" is equivalent to also claiming "I do not believe in things contrary to my belief".

A belief is in the end an opinion, and opinions can be sublime, insightful, ludicrous, hostile or outright bigoted, hateful and even dangerous. In my opinion people should be respected not beliefs, whether its belief in a god, the devil, aliens, conspiracy theories or racist ideology. I find however that many people who believe would rather respect belief and condemn people.

[Maria]

Travis - That's probably true - my point is that, as was stated by someone here, everyone, believers and non-believers, have the absolute right to their beliefs or non-beliefs. However, they don't have the right to expect them to be respected. Some views are not worthy of respect, as was also brought out. And some, albeit a little out there - are harmless and maybe even a little comical.

And Gary - I totally agree that it's the people who should be respected vs. their beliefs and that it is human nature to do the opposite. But I personally couldn't respect the person who had a belief that really offended me, like that it's ok to have sex with 12 year olds, or that everyone of a certain race should be killed. Neither the belief or the person should be respected in those extreme cases.