Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Hazel wrote: "OK, here goes:I wish to retract message 670 because I realise, looking through the messages that you'd actually mentioned religion as something animals can do without in your post as well. I had ..."
I wish I could state things as well as you. Well done!
jeff-in saying the external world has a far greater influence over us than we have over it is exactly right--mother nature or the laws of the universe have nothing to do with the well being of mankind--those laws don't care-man devises GODS to explain and hopefully have someone to take care of them-if all mankind knew there was no one to help us maybe we would take better care of the earth and ourselves and value life more than we do now-man is destructive and greedy and yes hypocritical and dishonest-what value is there in owing a fifty room mansion with fourteen bathrooms but to show off how superior we are to someone else-the haves of the world are usually helped by someone and we never look at why some people don't attain the riches and knowledge they should.the child whose parents never have read to them-the parents who kill their children or abuse them,the parents who allow their children to be taught nonsense instead of the knowledge that thinking men have found.do you ever read any books on science or only the bible? if hazel can read the bible how about you reading Darwin's "Origin of Species" or"Beak of the Finch" i would even try to read this antiquated fictional book if you read some intelligent ones.
barbarosa--see message 748
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/phy...Fermilab by us, in the midwest-has been doing some coolth Neutrino studies for several years. One has to do with reading them from Ill to Minn.
The Wilson-designed 32-foot Hyperbolic Obelisk in front of Wilson Hall is called Acqua Alle Funi, or "Water to the Ropes." When an Egyptian obelisk was being erected by pulleys in the square of St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome, it threatened to topple until the order was given to pour water onto the ropes, stiffening the ropes and rescuing the effort. This is the icon building on the Fermi Lab Campus.
I've never known of war caused by or because of science. I've heard of science being used as a tool in war, but never a war because of science. There's a lot of historical evidence for wars caused by and in the name of religion though, many of which have used the science, which the religious folk propend to snubb, as a tool.
Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist.
Pupsi wrote:Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist.I think that's the best thing and I have seen many christian authors always trying to reconcile intelligence with faith.I think the two might just be a match made in heaven.
Hazel please no more vendetta.They can coexist.
Pupsi wrote: "Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist."But science can provide an artificial heart...
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Pupsi wrote: "Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist."But science can provide an artificial heart..."
Which do not last as long as the real thing.
Pupsi wrote: "Which do not last as long as the real thing..."The real thing will already have failed if you need one...prayers tend not to work when in asystole.
Bukky wrote: " Pupsi wrote:Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist.I think that's the best thing and I have seen many..."
Is stating the facts a vendetta? I didn't realise that.
I think what you meant to say was "Hazel, please stop saying things that contradict my beliefs, and make logical sense". And sorry, but no.
And personally, I think what Pupsi said was inane drivel, I'd even go so far as to say asinine.
Hazel wrote: "Bukky wrote: " Pupsi wrote:Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist.I think that's the best thing and I ..."
I suppose the outcome of these discussions is that nobody's mind has changed from their initial thoughts and unlikely to. I wonder whether this question is core to an individual's identity and impossible to change.
Pupsi wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Pupsi wrote: "Would a good simile be whether one could live without a heart (religion) or the brain (Science). Without either life does not exist."But science can provide an artificial heart..."
Which do not last as long as the real thing. "
Some hearts give out faster than others, my little brothers heart stopped beating when he was 9 months old. Some people have hearts that are only going to last a few years, people are born with defective hearts. Your statement is utter rubbish.
Pupsi wrote: "I suppose the outcome of these discussions is that nobody's mind has changed from their initial thoughts and unlikely to. I wonder whether this question is core to an individual's identity and impossible to change. "nope, those of us who don't use "god did it" as a reason for everything are constantly changing our points of view, taking in new information and altering our opinions and views accordingly. If before this conversation is over, someone provides actual concrete irrefutable proof that any god exists, I will spin on a dime.
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan
Hazel, I apologise if my statements give offence. Let me qualify:
It just seems that for all your rhetoric, your position has not changed and whilst you could change your views, you have not and are unlikely to. My hypothesis is that this intractableness is because this question is a core part of what make you, you. And very little one-way or another will sway you. I am not saying that change is impossible but that this topic is one of very few topics that will change is extremely difficult near on impossible.
As to the heart question, my point was simply that on average (I this is not to belittle any individual instance) Human hearts last longer than artificial hearts “Artificial hearts are typically used in order to bridge the time to heart transplantation,” from Wikipedia
Pupsi, my position would change if someone could provide proof that there is a god, at that point, I would spin on a dime, I can't beleive I have to repeat myself in this, because you felt that I'd not understood what you meant in the first place. I knew exactly what you meant, however, I base my view on evidence, thus while the evidence supports my view, it is not going to change. There is no evidence for a god, so your statement is probably true for someone sticking to the "god did it" argument, its generally why they get quite upset when you present logical and well thought out arguments against their self delusions.As to the heart thing, all you've done is prove that science is in fact useful, in that it provides a stop gap between someones heart failing and a donor heart being transplanted, thus supporting that science is a good thing, and in no way supporting anything about religion. More often than not, complete heart replacements don't happen, instead an artificial valve is added, valve which have a lifespan of up to 30 years, considering that most of these will be needed in a persons later life, it could actually increase lifespan by 1 and half times. And considering in younger patients it can actually increase their lifespan beyond what their prognosis without the replacement would be, your point about them having a shorter lifespan than real hearts is still rubbish.
You hadn't offended me, I'm just astounded that you're taking this tack. If we go back to where you began, that you stated that religion is a persons heart (I'd have thought most people would claim soul, tbh), that statement still remains inane rubbish, of the most asinine sort.
Hazel,What evidence would you accept of the proof of God?
actual physical evidence, show him/her/it to me.
oh, by the way, I can check quotes:wikipedia: . Artificial hearts are typically used in order to bridge the time to heart transplantation, or to permanently replace the heart in case transplantation is impossible
Hazel,To be honest I have never liked talking to fanatics of any type. My inital point was that I think that both religion and science are essential. I respect that you think that religion is not salient as I respect those that say that Science is not salient.
However what I cannot not respect is snide comments from people.
I haven't been snide, there's been nothing indirect about anything I've said.There is nothing essential about religion.
I will leave that for others to judge.
Bunnie wrote: "jeff-in saying the external world has a far greater influence over us than we have over it is exactly right--mother nature or the laws of the universe have nothing to do with the well being of mank..."Bunnie, you should STOP making assumptions as well. I've never read more than a few stories in the bible, and almost everything I read is about science. You're so vainly biased toward optimism it's hilarious, and your black and white thinking (i.e. presuming because I discuss applied science as a negative that I'm saying religion is positive) is blatantly false. I scorn all religion as I scorn all culture (as they're the same thing anyways). Like Hazel, you may think that our application of science has been good for us, but all we've done with science since the "age of reason" is to paint our species (as well as much of the biosphere) into a corner, instead of using SCIENTIFIC understanding (not application) to realize that when a species becomes too big for an environment, the environment forces it to shrink through death which is the most natural process on earth). Man, however, decides instead to use any means necessary (i.e. applied science, technology, co-operation) to prolong the GROWTH of ONLY our species regardless of the cost to our environment, and more specifically, AT the cost of any possible future. And of course we do this because we want to believe that we can achieve our optimistic ideals of utopia (but notice in our ideals we only care about HUMAN life), instead of accepting that the process of growth & shrinking, life AND death, IS the ideal and the only way it has ever been, and the only way it will ever be. You're so disconnected from the principles of life on this planet because you've been brought up and conditioned in this convenient Brave New World of technology and mechanization. But tell me this, after technology and machines and assembly-line factories have killed or sterilized all other forms of life on earth, what will you eat or drink?... or breathe??? And more to the point, what will your great grandchildren breath, eat or drink???
The love and good feeling that you get from religion can be got from family and friends and community. Religion is not essential to it. Look at all the atheists as proof of that. There are hundreds of secular charities who do as much if not more good for people than religious charities, without the added "bonus" of preaching at the people they're supposed to be helping, and telling people in non-christian countries that this wouldn't be happening to them if they were christian (in the case of christian charities). One christian charity spent ages doing work to raise money to send to Iraq, what did they send? Bibles, nothing but bibles. Another charity (I forget its name at this juncture) working in Africa wouldn't provide aid to villages in need until every member of the village had converted to christianity. The homeless charity shelter expects anyone it provides housing to to attend church, and a christian church at that, no matter their religion, so a muslim would have to attend a christian church if they wanted help from Shelter. These are three examples, but they are examples of the norm, not exceptions to the rule. Have you ever bothered to look into where your money goes when you donate to charity? With religious charities, less than 10p per £ goes to the actual charity work, the rest goes to the church coffers.Religion in no way has the monopoly on making lives better. I'm not denying that there are good works that religions do, I'm just saying that they're not essential, as the same work can be done without religion being involved at all, and generally with just the care of the people in mind, not with the conversion of the people in mind. You can't, however, search for a cure to cancer, or immunise children against diseases that would otherwise kill them by the age of 6 without science.
Jeff wrote: "Bunnie wrote: "jeff-in saying the external world has a far greater influence over us than we have over it is exactly right--mother nature or the laws of the universe have nothing to do with the wel..."jeff, I think you've got lost somewhere.
If you think that "Man, however, decides instead to use any means necessary (i.e. applied science, technology, co-operation) to prolong the GROWTH of ONLY our species regardless of the cost to our environment, and more specifically, AT the cost of any possible future", then you fail to take into account all the conservation work that is done, ensuring habitat is preserved, protected and rebuilt. The work that protects animals, and the programmes to increase their numbers and reintroduce them to where they have gone locally extinct. The work to clean the water systems, to find better solutions for waste management, to prevent air pollution by finding better, cleaner ways of producing energy (renewables, nuclear power etc), the constant campaigning to get everyone to take part in making it better - only boil as much water as you need, using canvas bags instead of plastic, not using anything electric that you don't need right now, all these things and more were advised by scientists who extrapolated the effects of both not following the advice they give, and of following the advice they give.
As for your last question, I think I've answered it already, we're not creating a sterile wasteland, you just haven't bothered to actually read up on what you're talking about. Though the other obvious answer to what we would eat... soylent green, of course... ;P
alfie,we would be in a pickle if we didn't have science-religious belief did not seem to help women in childbirth years ago-many died of childbed fever --caused by infection that was passed on by the doctors themselves,diabetes would still be a killer without the scientists that discovered insulin,all the prayers in the world do not help eradicate disease.prayer is helpful probably for uplifting the spirits of the sick but it does nothing to cure.religious belief kept curious men from finding the truth about the human body until some defied the rules and investigated anyway. Galileo was persecuted by the church for his discoveries concerning our position in the universe.religious belief has kept progress slower than it should have been.who decided on these ideas about what man is and who we are compared to the other living creatures of the world?
I think both can live peacefully together. The main problem is people who become fanatic, blind and stubborn about being right (as well as corrupted people who wants a gain from others).Even if you erase one of them, there will always still be the human need of wanting to belong to a particular group with similar beliefs.
Really, you think they can co-exist peacefully? I'm afraid history disagrees with you. At present, as well, the church tries to prevent scientific progress. There has never been a peaceful co-existence of science and religion, not even in the dark ages, when the church taught that the bible was purely allegory. So what makes you think that there is hope for the future co-existence when in the modern world you have religious people killing doctors to stop them aborting a bundle of cells, when you have churches preventing stem cell research, preventing genetic research that could cure debilitating diseases, need I go on?
Hazel wrote: "Really, you think they can co-exist peacefully? I'm afraid history disagrees with you. At present, as well, the church tries to prevent scientific progress. There has never been a peaceful co-exist..."The problem is not with beliefs and ideals. As I said, the conflict is in us, humans. You gave good examples of how the human being can corrupt ideals and beliefs just to impose them instead of predicating them and leave everyone to freely decide. Respect and tolerance are the key to co-exist.
A person can be a scientist and still believe in God as well. Or a person is a nun or a priest and being amazed about the new scientifical discoveries that can make a world better. There is no need that everything needs to be black and white.
And as I told you, even if you erased one of them, the same problems will still be there because no one can think alike. If you think about it, even inside groups with similar beliefs have different opinions. No one is 100% the same.
So, what you're saying is that humans will never agree, and thus religion and science can't live peacefully together. Which is the exact diametric opposite of what you said at the beginning of message 777. You actually contradicted yourself in one post, it was almost like reading a verse from the bible. "I think that they can live peacefully, except that I think that they can't".Oh, and the problem is with the beliefs and ideas. If people hadn't had these beliefs driven into them for as long as they have, then there wouldn't be people who did the things I described, as without religion and religious beliefs, what people think would be based on science, learning and enlightenment, which would teach us that different races are purely cosmetic, and that we're all the same, that a blastocyst is not a person, but a bundle of cells with a lifespan of less than 7 years. No-one would consider that genetic research was wrong, because it helps people, instead of thinking they might offend an imaginary bearded man in the sky because a group of people who are rolling in cash tell them what to believe. Science has shown that there are 450 species on the planet that have homosexuals. Religion means only our species has homophobes.
It is the beliefs that are the problem, because people have the potential to be so much more than bigots and religious apologists.
Message 777:"I think both can live peacefully together. "
"The main problem is people who become fanatic, blind and stubborn about being right (as well as corrupted people who wants a gain from others)."
"Even if you erase one of them, there will always still be the human need of wanting to belong to a particular group with similar beliefs. "
And yes, you are right: humans won't agree 100% in everything, but if we respect others' ideas and don't impose them by force or manipulation, then they can live peacefully together.
But why should anyone respect the belief in an imaginary man in the sky, or an earth mother, or a god with the head of an elephant etc etc? It means people stunt themselves, they stop looking for answers and allow themselves to be lied to, but they can be so much more. I respect people who actually want to learn and to know, and not to passively assign anything they don't understand to a mythological father figure who will stone them to death for the slightest error.I have religious friends, and I respect them, mostly because I wouldn't chose to be friends with someone who doesn't deserve respect, and they're are intelligent people as long as you avoid the subject of religion, at which point they tend to become very blinkered indeed, but I don't respect their religion, nor the beliefs they derive from it.
Jean wrote: "Kristal - Are you kidding? Do you really think that all people, if left to their own devices, would just be innocent and pure? That evil would just disappear because religion wouldn't be there to..."So Jean you only live a moral life because you believe you will be spanked in the afterlife if you don't? How about people who live moral lives because it's the right way to live not because they fear retribution by god? There are a lot more Christians in prison than atheists.
I always get nervous when people bring up the 'if there was no religion there'd be nothing to keep people from doing bad things' argument.It always makes it sound like the only thing keeping all those religious folks from going a massive rape, kill, pillage, tear the tag off mattresses and kick puppies rampadge is a 2,000 year old book.
There are christians everywhere! if it ever happened it would make the zombie apocalypse look like a game of elementary school dodgeball.
a World without Dan Brown would be great.
Alfie, you astound me. Men of science joined the church for the funding. Just because mendal was a monk doesn't mean he was a theist. Just because copernicus was a church goer, doesn't mean he was religious. In fact its generally accepted that many scientists joined the church despite not believing, because they knew they'd get the funding, just like many people enter the clergy these days for the paycheck and the free house. And pointing out that some scientists believe in god is a pointless argument. So what? It just means they had a belief that was fallacious.And the factt hat you ask if science is so great why is there still death and pain and suffering. Well thats because science hasn't got there yet. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Science and its proponents DO NOT claim it knows everything, or that it has worked everything out, that it has all the answers. Instead it says "we don't know, but we;re working on it". Oh and we don't want to stop there being death, there should be death. Has it occurred to you that the death rate among humans is 100%, you can't stop death. To say science should reduce the death rate when the birth rate is going up is ridiculous, there are more deaths than previously because there are more people than previously, and actually, the statistics show that death due to disease is dropping, death due to complications is dropping. The main problem is that the science is working on these diseases etc, but the politics between countries means that some countries don't get access to the medicine. Thanks to medical science, we can now live twice as long as our ancestors of 200 years ago. However, we can't effect the death rate, as I've already said, the death rate among humans is 100%, we can't increase that, we can't reduce that.
Hazel wrote: "I've never known of war caused by or because of science. I've heard of science being used as a tool in war, but never a war because of science. There's a lot of historical evidence for wars caused ..."You've never seen a war caused by science??What do you think were the causes of the first and the second world wars??Were they a religious causes??Maybe it is not caused by science, but the technologies brought by science were the cause of making those wars very possible...Without those high tech weapons, I don't think there would be too many lives being claimed due to that wars...
It is not contradictory to say that religion HAS done good work, but it is not essential for religion to be involved in good works. The works can be done without religion included, thus religion is not essential to the work. I can't believe I've had to explain that again. The good that it does, doesn't come from the religion, it comes from people doing good things for other people, an act that does not need religion, thus religion is not essential to the carrying out of good work. Sending bibles, instead of food and clothing to people who need food and clothing and not bibles is WRONG. There can be no argument. If I'd sent them copies of Harry Potter, you'd be saying it was wrong. Sending the bible instead of aid is wrong. And the group I was talking about only sent boxes of bibles, they didn't send any missionaries.
And honestly, you think its ok for, say, the catholic church to send people into, lets say a Muslim country, and to try and convert them to Christianity. And here was me thinking that it had been suggested that we should have mutual respect for each others beliefs. Missionary preaching is the ultimate in disrespect for others beliefs. Why is it OK for someone to go to someone elses home, and tell them what to believe, and tell them that their current beliefs are wrong? If anything, there should be NO religion involved in any and all aid work, so that the work is focused entirely on what the people actually need: food, shelter, medicine, clothing.
Are you claiming that the one god is better than another? Well, in that case, maybe we should be preaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and spreading pastafarianism among the uneducated poor, who's to say that you can't be touched by his noodly appendage, and saved. People being humane to each other is what people need, not bibles, not Korans, not preaching, just the help they need from people who care about them, not about their beliefs or religion, and not in the hope of converting them.
And your last point, what do you mean by spiritual realities? Which spiritual realities? The ones that say Yahweh encourages rape, murder, genocide, and human sacrifice, or the ones where his supposed son then states that the laws of the old testament still stand. Or do you mean the spiritual reality that that the world was made when the realms of fire and ice reacted with each other, and a cow called Auðumbla appeared out of the ice, and then suckled Ymir? I could go on and on, so what do you mean by spiritual reality?
Alfie wrote: "You call that nothing?Is bible nothing?I cannot seem to agree with concerning that..It is a falsification of what I see..It seems you are trying to say that what we can see is not true, and that we see nothing..."I assume you have never been truly hungry...the calorific value of a bible (or any book for that matter) is negligible.
As to the comment about missionaries...
The only priest I ever met that I had any time for worked in South America and had a hugely practical outlook. It wasn't about the bibles or the faith, it was about putting food in peoples bellies and giving them clean drinking water...caring for "his flock" as he put it...he was also great craic and between us we damaged the stocks of porter quite badly...he is probably excommunicated now...
Alfie wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I've never known of war caused by or because of science. I've heard of science being used as a tool in war, but never a war because of science. There's a lot of historical evidence fo..."Alpie...The world wars were not caused by science but by ideologies...which is basically all religion is. Blindly following any doctrine is dangerous. Religion and ideologies do not allow questioning or examination. They demand faith. Science is constantly allowing for change when the need is demonstrated through observation of the knowable.
Maureen wrote: "Alfie wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I've never known of war caused by or because of science. I've heard of science being used as a tool in war, but never a war because of science. There's a lot of historic..."thanks Maureen, almost everything I wanted to say in response to Alfies ridiculous assertion.
Alfie wrote: "You've never seen a war caused by science??What do you think were the causes of the first and the second world wars??Were they a religious causes??Maybe it is not caused by science, but the technologies brought by science were the cause of making those wars very possible...Without those high tech weapons, I don't think there would be too many lives being claimed due to that wars...
"
You realise that what you basically said here was "you think there were no wars CAUSED by science, what about the 1st and 2nd world war. They weren't caused by science, but used science" Well done, you've argued the opposite of what you were trying to argue. Those wars would have happened even if we were still hitting each other with sticks, it wasn't the science that made the wars possible it was people and their ideologies, science just got used (usually by the christian leaders of the countries involved) to make it easier. And when you consider that the 2nd world war included the planned extermination of Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, and freemasons, you can't claim there wasn't a religious motivation. There were wars in the stone age without planes, mortars and machine guns. If you think that science is a cause of war, you're sadly mistaken. And as for numbers of lives claimed by war, as a percentage of the population, each of the crusades claimed more lives than the first world war did.
I think one thing to take into account here is that religion is not the same as ethics. Most of the arguments in favor of religion are really arguments in favor of good behavior that can be assessed with ethics, not necessarily religion. You do not need a structured belief system nor do you need a supreme being to act in an ethical way or to love humanity. I am an atheist and have been for a long time and I have never killed nor robbed, nor tortured anyone; and I have never thought that I needed religion to regulate my behavior or to make me a "good" person. I think the best success humanity could achieve would be that people acted the way they should (according to ethical standards) without having to fear an afterlife full of suffering and without attempting to obtain an afterlife full of prizes but just because they wanted to.
And with regards to science. I work in a Nuclear Research Institute and I know not one person that is in favor of nuclear bombs. Violent uses of science are almost always attributable to politics not the apparatus of science itself.
Science allows us to understand the deepest mysteries of our universe in a more profound way than even the greatest philosophers of the past ever imagined. The possibility of having every history possible existing side by side, of time being no more than an illusion, of our universe being a hologram three dimensions hologram of a reality of much more dimensions, of us understanding how a universe of billions of stars was created out of an infinitely small "seed" is, to me, much more inspiring than any ideas any religious leader could ever dream of.
I was raised with religion and it is very hard to see or understand what life would be like without faith and this faith has carried me through many hardships I have faced. However, religion has been used as a tool to get people to support war and it divides in a horrible way. I think that science is a necessity in life and would not want to live in a world where it was non existant. Because the human mind constantly seeks to learn no matter how far it has come, i do believe that faith in more will always exist, and I do believe scientific advances would never cease. If i was forced to choose, I would choose science. Religion is used to divide by those in power or as a means to gain power. It seems to hold back, not advance. You can have faith without religion. I think I do mostly. But i can not imagine having life without science.
Hector wrote: "I think one thing to take into account here is that religion is not the same as ethics. Most of the arguments in favor of religion are really arguments in favor of good behavior that can be assesse..."I think I love you :P
A world without science...I can't do without faith.
Kaleb wrote: "a World without Dan Brown would be great."The riddle of the sphinx has been answered!
Thank you for cheering me up Kaleb...and lightening the discussion.
Everyone is very serious round here...
alfie,you don't read very well- i did not say the things you say i said-read my messages again
travis-i agree with you
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
And the winner is...