Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,501-7,550 of 12,463

[Matej]

Gary wrote:
Equating science to religion is just a false equivalence to try to claim equal authority for religion.
However, science requires disbelief rather than belief, the willingness to ask the question "what if what I think is wrong?"

You're not Dr. House ;) I agree with the second part, though.

for science is a religion for me
I meant it more metaphorically.
If you look at some very very religious people, you can see that religion has consumed all their life. (sects). For me, science has done the same thing. (almost)

I don't have anything against religion though... after all... it's in the constitution

[Khandoba]

I think science provides man with means to live life and religion provides hom with reason to live life..Both of them are more than essential in everyone's life...
But still, sometimes, religion gives man reasons to wage wars and science gives the means to fight it.. Our world will only be balanced when both of them are in equilibrium and they complement each other... So i would say i would like to live a life where religion and science come together for greater good of each other and every human...

[Hazel]

Which religion do you mean Khandoba? Which of the many many contradictory and mutually exclusive religions?

Also, if religion is needed to give reason for life, how do explain happy atheists?

[Khandoba]

Hazel, i don't mean that only religion can give reason for life... There are also other things but religion is accepted as way of living life by most of the people.. And atheists are the people who know what to do with their life without help of religion, they are ought to be happy... What i meant in short is religion generally tells man how to lead his life who is unware of it...

[[deleted user]]

I is extremly hard to say, because thoose two things are so differet! And yet sometimes still each side of the same coin.. With religion comes believe and if you hadn´t believe, then we wouldn´t even try to do thoose things with we have done and never would have achieved thoose things we have. Thoose two things are combined and yet different. I would rather live in a world with BOTH reliion and sience. Both of them (after my oppiniont) makes us better humen.

[Gary]

Khandoba wrote: " There are also other things but religion is accepted as way of living life by most of the people."

But it doesn't stop there. Religion is also accepted as a way of telling other people how they should live their life. That's when the problems start. The way to live your life for many of these religions is to be a slave to an unseen and allegedly powerful master represented by his self-appointed priests, and each slave has the duty to try to enslave everyone else to the same master.

Khandoba wrote: What i meant in short is religion generally tells man how to lead his life who is unware of it."

Is that a good thing? What if the first religion they get is Satanism and that tells them to live their life selfishly with no regard for others, or their first religion is an extremist Monotheistic sect that teaches them the way to live their life is to end it along with as many unbelievers as they can?

Surely if someone does not know how to live their life then they need education, not dogma. Perhaps if people were taught the principles of ethics rather than just given religious laws we would have more ethical societies?

[Gary]

Michelle wrote: "With religion comes believe and if you hadn´t believe, then we wouldn´t even try to do thoose things with we have done and never would have achieved thoose things we have."

Yet many things we have a race have done is because of disbelief. The ancient Greeks guessed the Earth was a spheroid because they chose to question its apparent flatness. Newton worked out the laws of motion because he questioned the generally held misconception that objects require a constant force to move them. Einstein worked out that time wasn't the universal constant that everyone believed it was.

Belief isn't required for us to achieve things, in fact it is the biggest obstacle to wisdom.

[Gary]

Pablo wrote: "You're not Dr. House ;)"

Apologies, I did not get the reference?

Pablo wrote: "If you look at some very very religious people, you can see that religion has consumed all their life. (sects). For me, science has done the same thing. (almost)"

One could say that about almost anything that is important to someone. The difference though is manifest. When people equate science to religion it makes it seem that science is just another equally valid point of view to religion, which means that religious people can then feel free to dismiss science when it disagrees with their point of view. However, science is a method of studying reality, and as far as we can tell, reality exists. The method of science has shown us many provable proofs that it has advanced our knowledge of reality, while most religions have to promise to show us the benefits after we are safely dead and cannot refute the idea to the living.

Pablo wrote: "I don't have anything against religion though... after all... it's in the constitution "

The US constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So actually the US constitution specifically states it cannot make any law that establishes a particular religion, nor any law prohibiting free exercise.

So it cannot promote religion, nor ban religion. So that pretty much means that clause says religion isn't in the constitution and must in fact be kept out!

[[deleted user]]

The First Amendment (US) fully states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Religion isn't in the constitution and must in fact be kept out(!).

The point, in truth, is that the founders didn't want a government, like the government of the country they left (England), that forced a religion upon the citizenry.

Don't forget the part about not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" or the part about "the right of people peaceably to assemble" when talking about the US, the constitution, and religion.

The intent was for people the freely choose their religious practices (or not), to freely assemble, and for the government not to make laws against such freedom of choice.

To say the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof more than implies religious choice and freedom within the country and the intent to honor that religious choice among the founders, within the constitution.

[Matej]

Gary wrote: "Apologies, I did not get the reference?"

It just seemed that you knew better what I wanted to say than I, myself. Dr. House is very very good at that.

Gary wrote: "One could say that about almost anything that is important to someone."

yeah... that's actually why I wrote it

Gary wrote: "When people equate science to religion it makes it seem that science is just another equally valid point of view to religion, which means that religious people can then feel free to dismiss science when it disagrees with their point of view."

I neither thought this, nor said that I agree with such behaviour. I guess there was just a little misunderstanding in our communication, so I apologize.

I agree with the rest

I feel inferior with my ability to express my thoughts... maybe I should avoid contact with people :)

I thought you're from the UK... but that's not really relevant...
yeah I meant freedom of religion is in the constitution, so I don't have anything against it...

[Gary]

Pablo wrote: "It just seemed that you knew better what I wanted to say than I, myself. Dr. House is very very good at that."

Ah, thank you for that :-)

Pablo wrote: "I neither thought this, nor said that I agree with such behaviour. I guess there was just a little misunderstanding in our communication, so I apologize."

No need for apology for clarification. Unfortunately other people have said almost exactly the same and they did mean it that way.

Pablo wrote: "I feel inferior with my ability to express my thoughts... maybe I should avoid contact with people :)"

I would not do that, communication is a two way street in all cases. Expressing one's thoughts is just one small aspect. :-)

Pablo wrote: "yeah I meant freedom of religion is in the constitution, so I don't have anything against it... "

I think that some people wish it was a bit more specific :-) For example evangelicals like to say their is "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion". Then of course it just becomes an exercise in defining beliefs you don't like as "not religion" like G. W. Bush tried to do when discussing Wiccan chaplains in the military.

There is also problems with the "not exercising the free exercise thereof", as this clause can be twisted to attack the first clause by claiming attempts to prevent establishment of religious law is preventing the free exercise of religion.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "For example evangelicals like to say their is "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion". "

I'm not an evangelical. You might be right regarding their likes and dislikes.

But, ultimately, the First Amendment speaks to both. Yes? Freedom from religion by stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Therefore, Americans are guaranteed that they won't fall under the yoke of state sponsored religion. AND, ... freedom of religion by stating, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

"From" and "of" in one amendment ...

[Khandoba]

Gary wrote:''What if the first religion theyget is Satanism and that tells them to live their life selfishly with no regard for others, or their first religion is an extremist Monotheistic sect that teaches them the way to live their life is to end it along with as many unbelievers as they can?''
The former is what taught by every religion, the people who are following the latter are just misled in the name of religion.. These people are just creation of satanism in minds of some black sheep of society...
Gary wrote:''Surely if someone does not know how to live their life then they need education, not dogma.''
I think religion is also a kind of education, don't you think so??

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "But, ultimately, the First Amendment speaks to both. Yes?"

I would certainly agree, but I have heard it claimed otherwise.

[Gary]

Khandoba wrote: "The former is what taught by every religion"

Exactly. Almost every religion (not all though) provide for a set of rules not just for adherents but rules that should be adopted by everyone. No two sets of laws are the same even within sects of the same religion. Therefore conflict is inevitable.

This is why some Muslims carry signs saying "Freedom of Speech can go to hell!" This is why some Christians try to impose their laws on who can or cannot get married, even if they are not of their sect, or even Christian.

Khandoba wrote: "the people who are following the latter are just misled in the name of religion."

For the same reason you cannot prove any religion 100% wrong, neither can you prove any religious extremist 100% wrong. One persons extremism is another persons eminent truth.

Khandoba wrote: "I think religion is also a kind of education, don't you think so?? "

Definitely not. Religion teaches people what to think, education should teach people how to think.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, ultimately, the First Amendment speaks to both. Yes?"

I would certainly agree, but I have heard it claimed otherwise."

There are all sorts of people who see only what they choose to see and who spin things to their advantage, unfortunately.

But, fortunately, Americans are guaranteed the freedom "from" and the freedom "of" and that point is acknowledged by many ... if not most.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Religion teaches people what to think, education should teach people how to think. "

It depends on the religion ... greatly.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "But, fortunately, Americans are guaranteed the freedom "from" and the freedom "of" and that point is acknowledged by many ... if not most."

I would certainly hope so. Personally I don't like the idea of banning religion either, no matter how much I dislike it, as it would then be far too easy to label any idea the majority disagree with as "religion". (How many times has climate change been called a religion or cult?)

Unfortunately, did you hear about this? Do you know how true it is? Apparently Kentucky may have missed a meeting on the First Amendment...

http://www.examiner.com/article/kentu...

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Unfortunately, did you hear about this? Do you know how true it is? Apparently Kentucky may have missed a meeting on the First Amendment...

http://www.examiner.com/article/kentu... "

I hadn't. I'm on prep, so I just did a little research.

I found an article that included more information than the above. It stated,

"A Kentucky circuit court judge upheld the group’s claim after it first sued in 2008, ruling that state lawmakers had “created an official government position on God.” But a state appeals court in 2011 reversed the judge’s decision, saying the government was only paying “lip service” to commonly held beliefs in God."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/atheis...

At least one judge in Kentucky was interested in upholding the First Amendment. I'm horrified regarding the appeal's court judge's decision and the basis of it.

I'm assuming the American Atheists are taking this to THE Supreme Court. It was mentioned that the Kentucky Supreme Court is refusing to hear the case. Then, the article stated the American Atheists are taking this to the Supreme Court. It was a bit unclear.

Ultimately, it's a horrible law and flies in the face of our freedoms. It's something I would and will fight against. I intend to look into this further and send some e-mails/letters.

I stand, equally, for "from" and "of" and will continue to follow this.

While I'm disgusted by this law and the fact that people in Kentucky introduced it, I'm equally pleased by the fact that we have a system that allows for both "from" and "of" and that people are working against it, through our "justice" system.

[Gary]

Well said Shannon and thank you for looking into it.

[Khandoba]

Gary, extrimism is result of people's thinking that only they are right and religion they follow should be standard for everyone.. This is not in any way conveyed by any religion and i mean any religion in world.. And i will give you example that the people who are changing the meaning of any of religious law are very few and religion or the holy books has no hand in it...
I am from India. Recently in Mumbai women were denied entrance in a mosque just because some high priests said so.. And women who were going there regularly for years were not allowed inside.. This was not in any way was written in quran.. And by the way every religion tells the same fact...
You wouldn't believe but i personally don't follow any religion, i don't go to any temple any church or mosque but i still think that religion is one of the needs of mankind..

[Matej]

US constitution is very interesting... can I add it on this page to "to-read" shelf? :)
But I don't understand the of and from thing... could someone explain it to me? thanks :)

[Gary]

Pablo wrote: "US constitution is very interesting... can I add it on this page to "to-read" shelf? :)
But I don't understand the of and from thing... could someone explain it to me? thanks :)"

Freedom "of" religion would mean that you have the choice to belong to whatever religion you like.

Freedom "from" religion would mean that you could also not belong to any religion without penalty. (It also means that law should not be made on religious grounds which is then applied to people of other religions or no religion).

Does that help?

[Gary]

Khandoba wrote: "Gary, extrimism is result of people's thinking that only they are right and religion they follow should be standard for everyone.. This is not in any way conveyed by any religion and i mean any religion in world.. And i will give you example that the people who are changing the meaning of any of religious law are very few and religion or the holy books has no hand in it..."

The Bible
Deuteronomy 13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."

2 Chronicles
15:13 "That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

The Qu'ran
Surah 4:89 "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."

Surah 9:5 "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."



The whole point of many (but not all) religions is that there is an ultimate authority (a god or gods) and that authority has a set of rules for people to live by. That simple fact means that people who do not follow those rules or follow different rules are a direct threat. The only solution is then to try to remove the erroneous rules (conversion) or remove the threat (war).

For most religions the true "extremism" is ignoring much of your teachings and being tolerant of other people, if most Christians still followed the commandments as they did a thousand years ago they would still be cutting a bloody crusade across the land. Meanwhile Islam teaches that god is greatest and all should submit to him or suffer various terrible dooms. What would that mean to a Muslim father that honestly believes and loves his children and does not want them to suffer a doom in hell? What would it mean to that father if a non-Muslim teacher of those children contradicted Islamic belief?

Khandoba wrote: "And by the way every religion tells the same fact...
You wouldn't believe but i personally don't follow any religion, i don't go to any temple any church or mosque but i still think that religion is one of the needs of mankind.. "

Why is it a 'need' of mankind? Why can you then say you don't need it however? I don't have a religion, why do I 'need' it? Did the people who are beaten and murdered around the world for their disbelief 'need' religion or did they really need for their persecutors not to have religion.

[Khandoba]

Gary wrote:''if most Christians still followed the commandments as they did a thousand years ago they would still be cutting a bloody crusade across the land. Meanwhile Islam teaches that god is greatest and all should submitto him or suffer various terrible dooms.''
And if it weren't for that nuclear bomb exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those three hundred thousand people wouldn't have sufferred such horrible fate, even if they had no quarrel with any religion... all I am trying to say is if world is better without religion so it will be without science...

[Gary]

Khandoba wrote: "And if it weren't for that nuclear bomb exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those three hundred thousand people wouldn't have sufferred such horrible fate, even if they had no quarrel with any religion... all I am trying to say is if world is better without religion so it will be without science... "

Science may have enabled the building of the atomic bomb, but unlike many religions, science does not say it is right to kill other people.

Meanwhile science has also provably saved billions of lives and has indeed extended them to double or more the normal lifespan. It has provided for food for an unparalled population and shelter, medical attention and education for billions.

If religion disappeared tomorrow, would everyone just start killing each other? I doubt it as I have no religion and have not murdered anyone. There is no sign that religion effects peoples likelihood to commit crime.

If science disappeared tomorrow then the death toll by the end of the month would be greater than ten thousand Hiroshimas from starvation, disease, exposure, etc.

[Hazel]

It was a christian president who gave the order to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

[Hazel]

Gary wrote: "There is no sign that religion effects peoples likelihood to commit crime."

If anything, studies seem to show a correlation between reduced religiosity/increased secularism and lower crime rates

[Khandoba]

Gary, the people who are you referring as to religious extremists use bombs and guns to kill people.. If science weren't so developed, these people wouldn't have been able to go so far.. How else were they going to kill so many people with just press of button..?? These two things cannot be separated from each other... And I am not in any way saying that only people who follow religion kill others as opposed to ''i have no religion and i have not murdered anybody''.. You're taking me wrong.. You seem to think like murders are only committed for religion and if science disappers tomorrow accidental death toll would decrease by much more.. You can guess it..

[Gary]

Khandoba wrote: "Gary, the people who are you referring as to religious extremists use bombs and guns to kill people.. If science weren't so developed, these people wouldn't have been able to go so far.."

But it isn't science that tells these people to kill, it's religion. Meanwhile science has saved far more people than it has ever killed, and improved their length and quality of life.

Khandoba wrote: "You seem to think like murders are only committed for religion and if science disappers tomorrow accidental death toll would decrease by much more.. You can guess it.. "

No I don't say murders are only committed for religion, however many are around the world. Some no doubt are just people using religion as an excuse, but if they are, why does it make such a good excuse? Others are simply devout believers in what they've been taught is true, sometimes more devout than their teachers. Why else is it even possible to recruit suicide bombers? How can you doubt that the main reason they end themselves is that they are convinced that in doing so they will go to paradise and be rewarded.

Throughout the Middle East and Africa killings continue primarily motivated by religious and cultural differences. Sure culture plays a part, but it's religion that makes the argument insolvable. Both sides believe that the Lord and Master of the entire universe is on their side.

Meanwhile Uganda is about to celebrate 'Christmas' by passing a law allowing for the execution of people for the crime of loving the 'wrong' partner. A US state has a law calling for the imprisonment of people who do not believe.

Religion is not the only reason for murder, but it's a popular one, it is also one of the only reasons for systematised murder of complete innocents that then is often seen by their comrades as completely justified.

So again, without science you could not have 7 billion lives maintained on this world. Without science most people would be dead before thirty.

What would we have without religion apart from one less reason to kill each other?

[Gary]

Dare to hope?

http://www.examiner.com/article/ameri...

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Dare to hope?

http://www.examiner.com/article/ameri..."

Need to be careful with this one .... A glimpse at the title would lead some people to believe that Americans are turning from "God" in large numbers.

How does one define religion and losing religion? Some would jump to the conclusion that it means people no longer believe.

Believe it or not, I'm one of the people who received the call from the Pew folks a few weeks ago. I was asked a TON of questions of all sorts. I can't remember the questions, word for word, but it went something like this ...

Are you affiliated with a religion, a member of a church? No.

Do you attend church services regularly? No.

How many times have you attended church in the past ... whatever it was, I think it was year ... year? 0 times

It ended there.

Did they ask me if I believe in "God" and if I pray and if I consider myself to be a person of faith?

Interestingly and, perhaps, shockingly, no ... no, they didn't ask me those questions.

If they had asked those questions, I would have answered in the affirmative.

How many of the Americans who are "losing their religion" would have, if asked, said they do believe in "God" and do have faith and pray regularly?

We don't and won't know due to the fact that Pew doesn't ask those questions, which, frankly, skews the information or, at the very least, gives incomplete information.

So, ... perhaps one should hope for a poll that asks more questions and gives a more complete picture of the situation. You know what they say about studies and polls ....

[Khandoba]

Gary, I am not suggesting in any way that we could or we should live in world without science... But I personally would not live in world without just science or just religion...

[Hazel]

if science weren't so developed the extremists wouldn't have as much scope? So fucking what?! 10 people killed or 10,000, its a travesty created by religious belief.

Believers always say "but its fundamentalists who cause the problems, not religion". Well the must be something wrong with the religion if the people who adhere to its most fundamental precepts are hate filled bigots, racists and sexists ready to kill and subdue.

[Gary]

Khandoba wrote: "Gary, I am not suggesting in any way that we could or we should live in world without science... But I personally would not live in world without just science or just religion..."

That's fair enough, you are entitled to your personal opinion. All I am asking is "why"? What does religion bring that cannot be obtained elsewhere and is worth the terrible price some people pay for other people's beliefs?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "What does religion bring that cannot be obtained elsewhere and is worth the terrible price some people pay for other people's beliefs?"

When Hurricane Sandy hit, I saw several news reports on various news channels regarding the lack of response or the inappropriateness of the response by the government and the Red Cross. I saw hurricane victims complaining that they were initially given cookies and "towels" that were called blankets. Lack of food, lack of water, lack of warm clothing and blankets. I was pretty disturbed. Then, a few days in, I saw a victim say something like ... if it weren't for the churches, we wouldn't have hot meals ... the churches are the ones who are feeding us.

This information is somewhat problematic in that I wasn't there, wasn't able to investigate it myself, and many of the reporters in this country don't tend to be investigative reporters any longer. However, I can say the news agencies involved didn't dispute what the storm victims were saying, nor did the government agencies or the Red Cross. The only defense I heard was that it would have been inappropriate to station food and water nearby the storm area in advance; the food and water could have been destroyed. That's why it was taking so long to get food and water to the people.

At least the churches were there and offered food and shelter ....

We've had the charity debate here before. Yes, yes, secular groups can and do give.

As I proved several months ago, it's not that easy, is it? Yes, there are all sorts of HUGE secular groups who support those who are less fortunate, usually in places like Africa, Central America, South America, etc.... Oh, and ... the inner cities in America. However, when we talk about places like rural America, I don't see them opening soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Now, when I argued this point several months ago, some had a hard time taking my word for it. So, I did a bunch of research on my area and posted it. If such questions arise now, please feel free to search for those posts. Suffice it to say, the government and secular groups don't run homeless shelters in my area. A secular group helps to raise money for suppers in my area; however, almost all suppers are prepared and served at local churches by church members.

When it comes to charity, there are times and places when and where people are served by churches and no one else. Even if they could be served by secular groups, I'd ask what good that does to a hungry and cold child ... to know that a secular group "could" help, but they're not, so the child is hungry and cold ...

I've mentioned here before that I have family members who were alcoholics and became successful recovering alcoholics after going through the AA program. A few non-believers posted articles about the fact that AA programs don't have better numbers than other programs and if "God" wanted to cure people, wouldn't "God" ... etc... Further, the numbers of people who turned their lives around through AA were fairly low. I can't remember the percentage ... around 20% maybe. But, ultimately, the truth is I have two family members whose lives were helped by that program; one said she was able to relate due to the "God" aspect. Their lives and the lives of their family members were changed radically and for the better. While the secular programs might speak to some, they might not speak to all. People aren't machines. We're all uniquely different and different things speak to and move us. We're not one size fits all, so to speak.

I've mentioned that I learned and received insight through Native American spiritual teachings, eagle vs. mouse, when other secular methods didn't work for me. Not at all. Would such secular methods work for others? Yes. Were they available to me? Yes. They didn't help me, though I tried. What helped? Native American teachings regarding the circle of life, the sacred directions, and the meaning behind the eagle and mouse, for example. That helped me and changed my life.

Now, regarding the question of worth .... What does this bring that is worth the terrible price some people pay for other people's beliefs?

If I understand the question and what's implied by the question, I have a few questions and thoughts.

Should the "sins" of the fathers and mothers be weighed upon their children? I was raised that they should not be.

Should the "sins" of others be weighed upon the innocent? My upbringing, my culture, and my thought process say they should not.

Making it more personal ....

Due to the fact that I believe in "God" and was raised within the United Methodist Church, am I responsible for the sins of all other Christians or even all other believers?

Taking a look at the UMC, one would see that members have long been interested in social justice. Since it's very founding .... Prison reform. Anti-slavery. Later, the rights of women and women in all levels of the church leadership. Churches, most recently, becoming "Reconciling Churches" and accepting and welcoming all people as equals, including people of all genders, races, sexual orientation, etc....

So, there I was, in my teens and 20's, attending a UM church. At the same time, a few Christian extremists blew up doctors who performed abortions. Christian extremists picketed at Planned Parenthood offices. Christian extremists said and did horrible things to homosexuals.

I? Well, I stood for the freedoms and safety of others. I spoke out against extremism. I supported PP. I, despite suffering personal consequences, stood for homosexuals. And, I belonged to a progressive church.

My question is ...

Was I responsible for my, MY, choices and actions?

Or, was I responsible for my choices and actions AND the choices of every other Christian on the planet, past and present?

Was I even responsible for the choices of every single believer, past and present, given the fact that I was a believer? Given the fact that I was a believer who attended church and stood for the right of people to believe or not as they chose ....

Am I now, despite the fact that I no longer belong to a church or attend services, responsible for my choices and actions OR mine and the choices and actions of all believers, given the fact that I believe and stand for the right of people to chose whether or not they believe?

I know many secular therapists, people of science, who would say it is extremely unhealthy to take on responsibilities that are not ours.

Guilt, guilt, guilt ....

Some have mentioned "The Church" and the guilt promoted by religion and how it destroys lives.

If one believes and stands for his (her) right to believe, should that person be asked if what he (she) has gained through his (her) faith is worth the terrible price some people pay for other people's beliefs? What is the implication of such a question?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "We've had the charity debate here before. Yes, yes, secular groups can and do give."

Yes we've had the debate before, and to cut a long story short I do not recall any clear evidence that shows that if those religions did not exist, altruism would vanish.

Anecdotal evidence that local charities are run by Churches, fine. That's exactly what I would expect if an area was mostly religious. That does not mean that without the church those same kind people wouldn't be moved to help their fellow person.

I feel that there is a strange duality at work here. When religious people do good, religious people give the credit to religion instead of them, when religious people do things bad the blame is then placed on the person and the religion is absolved, even when the person is pointing at the scripture that they feel they have obeyed.

Personally I see it the other way around. When I see religious people doing good works, I give credit to the people (especially when their sect specifically states that faith not works is important). Meanwhile when somebody does something bad because they have been brought up with the ideology that certain other people are corrupt or evil, I blame the ideology that told them that.

Again I see religion as a poor substitute for a conscience, and a dangerous abdication of personal responsibility.

Shannon wrote: "However, when we talk about places like rural America, I don't see them opening soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Now, when I argued this point several months ago, some had a hard time taking my word for it. So, I did a bunch of research on my area and posted it. If such questions arise now, please feel free to search for those posts. Suffice it to say, the government and secular groups don't run homeless shelters in my area. A secular group helps to raise money for suppers in my area; however, almost all suppers are prepared and served at local churches by church members."

If you remember this wasn't disputed and indeed is not the point. In an area like rural America with high percentage of religious people this is the demographic we would expect. I would also expect a high percentage of criminals are religious too, but I would not then say that means that crime is caused by solely religion.

I think there is a bigger political difference to charity than religious. Conservatives tend to think that charity should be religious and voluntary while liberals tend to think that charity should not replace a fairer system of support that is paid for by all in a reasonably fair manner.

So I do not accept the argument that without religion we would not have charity or altruism.

Again with the AA and other "help" programs, I accept your anecdotes but still say that there is no clear evidence that religious forms of discipline outperforms non-religious forms of discipline and self-discipline.

So I do not accept the argument that without religion people with addictions could not be helped. (In fact there is some evidence that religious programs actually are less effective or carry their own problems, plus we would not have such misguided "help" such as treating 'demonic possession' or 'pray yourself straight'.)

Shannon wrote: "Should the "sins" of the fathers and mothers be weighed upon their children? I was raised that they should not be."

Yet many Monotheistic religions teach that it does, and many people accept those teachings.

Shannon wrote: "Should the "sins" of others be weighed upon the innocent? My upbringing, my culture, and my thought process say they should not."

Agreed entirely. But, yet again, a feature of many Monotheistic religions that others do accept, believe in, and teach to their children.

Shannon wrote: "Due to the fact that I believe in "God" and was raised within the United Methodist Church, am I responsible for the sins of all other Christians or even all other believers?"

No. Again I blame the ideology (and sometimes the demagogues that pedal it) not the people who have been indoctrinated into that ideology.

Shannon wrote: "Taking a look at the UMC, one would see that members have long been interested in social justice. "

Good. Again my congratulations go to the members, not the ideology. Good people are indeed attracted to institutions that are established in our culture as being "good", the tragedy happens when the ideology of that institution leads to otherwise good people supporting immoral ideology.

I am fairly sure that a high proportion of anti-gay christians are not actually homophobic haters, but are just obeying their imposed ideology.

Shannon wrote: "...Christian extremists said and did horrible things to homosexuals.

I? Well, I stood for the freedoms and safety of others..."

You see the difference I see there is someone took the ideology of believing in god and scripture to the logical conclusion as they saw it. Were they just evil people looking for an excuse to kill? I doubt it. Were they entirely sane, or highly moral? That's a different question.

You however spoke out based on your conscience, not necessarily Christian ideology, and so I commend you.

In actual fact you can use Christian ideology to support both your conscience and the conscience of the people who thought they had to kill. This in essence is the problem. Most religions do not support a conscience, they become a way to justify it.

Shannon wrote: "Was I responsible for my, MY, choices and actions?"

Yes.

And so were they.

However it is the ideology that can make people abdicate their responsibility to an outside authority that is culturally imbued with the perception of being an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

How often have I heard the phrase "I have nothing against gays, but it says in the bible..." or "You seem like a nice guy, but you realise you are going to hell?"

Shannon wrote: "Or, was I responsible for my choices and actions AND the choices of every other Christian on the planet, past and present?"

Of course not. However, by advocating Christianity in general you condone anything that can be justified by Christian ideology. Considering the dubious content of the Bible and the dubious resolutions of many churches, this can be a big problem.

For example, I think that there is a good thing to be said for Law and Order, I also understand that a strong leader can be much better for a society than a corrupt democracy. I also think that society is not just a safety net but also a duty and responsibility.

However, if I take those convictions and then advocate Fascism to others based on the fact that this ideology shares some ideas I find laudable, should I be upset if someone then says I am also supporting tyranny and potentially racism and genocide?

That's the difference between supporting ideas and ideology.

Shannon wrote: "Was I even responsible for the choices of every single believer, past and present, given the fact that I was a believer? Given the fact that I was a believer who attended church and stood for the right of people to believe or not as they chose ...."

Again no. I'm not sure why you are defending yourself against such an accusation.

Once more, your choices seem to both be moral, and actually despite of established Christian teachings in said areas.

However, I note that the popular perception of what are "Christian Principles" and the actual scripture and teachings of many sects are often diametrically opposed.

Shannon wrote: "Am I now, despite the fact that I no longer belong to a church or attend services, responsible for my choices and actions OR mine and the choices and actions of all believers, given the fact that I believe and stand for the right of people to chose whether or not they believe?"

You are responsible for your own actions. You only take "responsibility" for Christianity if you advocate it to others as a superior morality when Christianity contains such things as are in the bible.


Shannon wrote: "I know many secular therapists, people of science, who would say it is extremely unhealthy to take on responsibilities that are not ours."

I agree with them. Hence why the story of 'original sin' and the idea that humanity is so inherently corrupt from birth we require a saviour is abhorrent to me. The subsequent idea that an innocent third party is tortured and murdered for "my sins" compounds the atrocity. How could you not feel guilty?

Shannon wrote: "Guilt, guilt, guilt ...."

Exactly, personal responsibility for personal morality. I have seen lives ruined and families torn apart because of the guilt brought unfairly by religion. I also know of lives that have ended over that guilt.

Shannon wrote: "If one believes and stands for his (her) right to believe, should that person be asked if what he (she) has gained through his (her) faith is worth the terrible price some people pay for other people's beliefs? What is the implication of such a question? "

The "right to believe" is not as simple as people like to think. For a start it is paradoxical. By supporting the right for everyone to believe, then you support the right for people to believe that people do not have the right to believe what they believe (as in Kentucky). So by supporting that right you are by inference supporting the rights of others to deny that right.

In my opinion people are entitled to their opinions, but they do not have the right to have that opinion to be treated with respect should they try to either teach others that opinion or act in a manner justified by that opinion.

A racist has a right to their opinions, but if they advance them I will not respect those opinions.

If a person has an opinion about the nature of existence that has nothing but Bronze age superstition and Dark age manuscripts to base it on, I will give it the due respect that any idea with such a heritage deserves.

If someone professes an ideology, and another person uses the same ideology to justify atrocity then I will judge that ideology as responsible - unless it is clearly demonstrated as being misrepresented.

Personally I would like religious people like yourself to find yourself a new Jesus, or a new Mohammed. Someone who will fight the corrupt religion of older times and try to sweep it away and replace its dogma of hate with a morality that actually represents what most people think when they say "Christian principles" or "righteousness".

I still would think it is a dangerous ideology that will eventually prove a problem, but it will kick it down the road a few hundred years.

Obviously I would prefer that people instead started to comprehend morality, to respect each other instead of gods, and to take personal responsibility for their conscience.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "So I do not accept the argument that without religion we would not have charity or altruism."

I don't know that, without religion, charity and altruism would cease. Frankly, I don't think that it would, and that wasn't my point.

The stark reality, however, is that church folk and churches are the only ones who currently serve some of the needy. Period. That is something that some gain through church folk and churches; I imagine they find that to be worth a lot.

I'll agree with you, Gary, and declare you were on to something regarding this point when I see secular organizations housing and feeding the poor here. Until then ....

You know, when you think about it, you're asking me to "believe" something that I have no evidence for. I've grown up seeing and have lived my adult life seeing only religious organizations housing the homeless in my communities and, for the most part, feeding the hungry. Further, after prompting, I did extensive research into the matter for my area. That's personal anecdote, but it's also evidence. I don't have evidence of secular groups housing the poor here or preparing meals for and serving meals to and doing clean up for the hungry (though they do provide funds to buy the food). Churches do it.

Do you really want me to "believe" in something for which I have no proof?

(Further, I live in New England. I live in and have worked in two states that are the least religious in the country. In addition, we have a lot of rural areas. Just so you understand the demographics of my area ... So, it's not just a question of religious folk populating rural areas in large numbers. That couldn't be further from the truth in my area.)

[Craig]

As an athiest it has to be 'a world without religion'

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Again my congratulations go to the members, not the ideology. Good people are indeed attracted to institutions that are established in our culture as being "good", the tragedy happens when the ideology of that institution "

Does ideology create itself? Or, is it created by the people?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Was I even responsible for the choices of every single believer, past and present, given the fact that I was a believer? Given the fact that I was a believer who attended church and stood for the right of people to believe or not as they chose ...."

Again no. I'm not sure why you are defending yourself against such an accusation."

I'm not defending myself. I'm trying to inspire thought.

It was, in my opinion, implied via your question to the other poster. You asked what one could find through religion that was worth the price paid by others. Yes?

That, to me, implies guilt, guilt for believing when others pay the price for our right to believe.

Or, is that not what was implied by the question?

If not, please explain.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Personally I would like religious people like yourself to find yourself a new Jesus, or a new Mohammed."

A religious person like myself ....

Do you consider me a religious person, despite the fact that I removed my name from the UM roles (as we've discussed), don't attend church and don't hold with conversion?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Does ideology create itself? Or, is it created by the people?"

It's one of those chicken and egg things. Ideology starts as ideas, but only when it becomes perpetuated by people does it calcify as an ideology. However, theists tend to credit ideology and blame people, I tend to credit people when they defy ideology for good and blame ideology when people act on it in what other ideologues call "extremism".

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I'm not defending myself. I'm trying to inspire thought."

Ok.

Shannon wrote: "It was, in my opinion, implied via your question to the other poster. You asked what one could find through religion that was worth the price paid by others. Yes?"

Guilt wasn't implied, if anything it's absent in this case. Same with responsibility.

Shannon wrote: "That, to me, implies guilt, guilt for believing when others pay the price for our right to believe.

Or, is that not what was implied by the question?

If not, please explain."

I'm not sure how to explain it clearer.

I am not asking for guilt, I am asking for a dispassionate assessment of advantage versus disadvantage.

Perhaps by analogy?

Look at the Patriot Act and take it to the ultimate conclusion. Give the government the power to arrest and imprison without trial and execute the guilty. Money will be saved in law enforcement, it will be almost impossible for terrorists and indeed criminals to operate. Crime and terrorism could become almost non-existent.

Is our safety worth the sacrifice of our freedom?

In a similar manner faith and undue respect for others faith certainly helps with treating other people's ideas with dignity, however it also facilitates the use of faith to dictate morality and behaviour to others.

Look at the more restrictive Muslim states to see the comparison. There disrespect of one religion can result in death, and disrespect of that religion can include the simple having of another religion or none.

Is respect for the right people to have faith in those countries worth it for the victims who have acid thrown at them, bullets shot at them or are stoned in the football ground?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Do you consider me a religious person, despite the fact that I removed my name from the UM roles (as we've discussed), don't attend church and don't hold with conversion? "

You say you are, so I accept your statement.

This is the disconnect I get with people discussing "extremists". Said "extremists" will happily tell you why they believe what they believe, yet other believers call them "sick" or "twisted" or "evil", despite them being able to point to the passages in their holy books that they believe they are obeying.

Same as when Christians get upset about being called 'bigoted' just because they can point to a passage in their book that they believe justifies their prejudice.

Your stance on conversion I still find somewhat of a disconnect, every religious person is converted unless religious belief arrives via DNA, and statistical evidence of declared faith does not really support that.

[Bagend]

The question is "Would you rather live in a world without science or a world without religion.

Webster's Dictionary: "Science - The state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"

Therefore, my answer to above question is NO! I do not want to live in ignorance.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Is respect for the right people to have faith in those countries worth it for the victims who have acid thrown at them, bullets shot at them or are stoned in the football ground?"

Some would say it is worth it.

There are lines from a movie, The Last of the Mohicans, regarding settlers living on the frontier in what is now New York and Vermont, along Lake Champlain and Lake George. Those lines struck me and have stayed with me. They deal with the fact that the people were willing to live in a wild place, a place where they might die and would face countless hardships, because they didn't want to live by another's leave. (I'm aware of the irony of my using this example, given my ancestry.)

Some may want to live by or may accept living by another's leave.

Some may not.

Some value freedom and the freedom to choose one's course above all else. Yes, it can become sticky. Life is pretty complicated.

What if an extremist read my words on this thread and figured out where I live, given the information I've shared? Someone who doesn't like that I openly have defended the right of people not to believe. Someone who doesn't like that I've openly defended homosexuals. Someone who doesn't like that I said I supported Planned Parenthood. What if that extremist found me and killed me?

I can't be 100% positive of this, but, given who I am and what I've done in my life, I'm 99.9% certain I'd not change my stance regarding freedom and choice. Even in that last moment, I don't think I'd say, "Dang! Gary was right!" I truly feel I would choose freedom and choice, even if it meant I'd die as a result.

Is it right to deny freedom of choice to the majority due to the extremism of the minority?

I, personally, don't think it is right.

Regarding the question and guilt versus a dispassionate look at the situation, ....

If someone thinks about your point and chooses to continue to believe, would that not imply the person is somehow "guilty" for having made that choice. Perhaps that's not what you meant by asking the question and phrasing it as you did. But, perhaps, you might ask yourself if it could be interpreted in that way.

Regarding ideology, .... Yes, ideology is about ideas. But, ideas don't generate themselves. People have ideas. Of course, I'm guessing animals have ideas, too. For me, it's not about blaming one or the other. It's just about fact. Ideology doesn't spring from the ground or fall from the sky. Ideology is generated by people.

Regarding my being religious, ....

I actually don't think I've ever claimed to be religious. And, ... we've had this conversation before. More than once. I consider myself to be a person of faith. Given the fact that I don't belong to an organized religion or attend church services or church functions, I don't view myself to be religious.

I do find myself wondering at the fact that you continue to label me as such. But, ultimately, that's neither here nor there.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Your stance on conversion I still find somewhat of a disconnect, every religious person is converted unless religious belief arrives via DNA, and statistical evidence of declared faith does not really support that. "

Given everything I've shared with you, why do you find a disconnect between my being opposed to conversion? Think back. What have I said, time and again, regarding this, my choice to leave my religion and my refusal to belong to a religion?

After you've considered that, if you're still confused, please let me know.

[Matej]

Gary wrote: "Freedom "of" religion and "from" religion"

thank you :)

[cHriS]

….of course the question is more rhetorical since it was asked so that it would spark a debate rather than an answer. The writer may have asked it as a genuine question, but since it is not possible to have a world without either, neither answer would be of much use without knowing the reason for asking the question in the first place.

It would not be possible to have a world without science or religion, unless it was a world without humans. In which case there would be no one to ask the question.

The writer goes on to say…. religion is a guideline for those who can't handle moral issues themselves- & of course everybody seems to be at lost when it comes to some points of moral implications- but that doesn't render religion as something mandatory.

Religion is mandatory regarding morals, that is where our morals come from. It is not possible to have one without the other.

A world built on worship, religion and /or spirituality is where our morals originate. Each generation has interpreted them and refined them until we arrive at what we have today, and that is what we / society are all influenced by, regardless of whether you have a religion or not. And yes ‘bad things’ or at least things we now think of as bad did happen and yes religion was to blame and yes things are not perfect now, but that is where we are, and we will never have the ideal world…..because we are only human.

For example, we still can’t agree if capital punishment is right or wrong, or if war can be justified, or if killing unborn babies is anything to do with morals. And while we have the ability to think, we have the ability to disagree with each other, and we will.

Taking this debate back to its bare bones…. Where did we come from and where are we going. In other words is there a god who made us, or are we all here because of a happy accident resulting from the big bang even though there is no missing link. OK, there is no missing link as such, but the evidence for human evolution is at best weak. Belief is not proof either, but for most of us it will do until science can show us otherwise. An atheist will deny the existence of a deity or of divine beings, but science can’t help the atheist either, it does not have the answers and will never have them.

I believe in god and I like ice cream. I can no more tell you why I believe in god than I can tell you why I like ice cream. Try it, if you like ice cream, tell us why you like it.