Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,551-8,600 of 12,463

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "since anything I say seems to be taken as me disputing your claim, I'll move on and let you get to it.
"

Fascinating way to frame the discussion, Travis.

Either accurate informati..."

No, truth and accurate information are not valued. We are dealing with religion.
Truth and accurate information is the last thing religion wants brought into the conversation, especially where war is concerned.

There's no god, so any war caused by religion is monstrous and frightening beyond belief.
So, being able to announce 'only a couple wars were started due to things our imaginary friend told us' is not a truth I value.

[Stevie]

uhhh... without religion (sorry, I do love Jesus, but...since we are playing a type of “what if” which is my favorite game EVER), especially if you are female
I mean, a world w/ out science = no FIRE, women as property, dying pretty regularly by your 30s or 40s, being burned at the stake, no airplanes... having about 19 children (if they live) by the age of 34, no peanut butter, and no pretty much anything the Greeks didn’t have… or cavemen

[Hazel]

I love that you included no peanut butter in that. Peanut butter is one of things I could happily live without, hideous stuff :P

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "then start praying that no one responds."

and the way this conversation has gone in this situation before is yet more proof that prayer doesn't work :P You should know better Travis :P

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Look for it? Look for what? And why?
And for whom? Mankind?"

But that's what a god is: an attempt at an explanation of what and why for mankind. Are you typing your responses from an alternate universe?

Why is my 'nanometre nearer the truth is better that just sitting there for thousands of years not bothering to even look for it' ridiculous? Surely making up some fantastic mythic being as an answer is vastly more ridiculous!

"So tell me, how is science doing regarding finding the answer?"

A few hundred years ago we had no idea of our "place" in the universe. Science, not religion, has placed us in a vast universe, amongst trillions of stars and planets. We have a plausible explanation of the beginnings of our "universe" back to a minute fraction of a second after the "big bang". A theory which fully explains the homogeneity and isotropy of our observable universe. We have quantum physics which explains the workings of the microscopic to an extraordinary degree (and let's us type these responses!) and explains all of chemistry; quantum electrodynamics which fully describes how light and matter interact. General relativity describing the large scale gravitational interactions within the universe. The Standard Model of particle and force interactions. The list goes on...

These (scientific!) theories may not be the complete and total description of all in this universe but they are a good deal closer than "god did it"!

What on earth does any religion tell us about anything in the real world?

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: If you believe in something then it may well be true. "

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.

David Stephens

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.

David Stephens "

A quote is just a quote who ever may say it.

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: A few hundred years ago we had no idea of our "place" in the universe. Science, not religion, has placed us in a vast universe, amongst trillions of stars and planets.

Science may have understood where we are but it did not place us there.


Hp wrote: We have a plausible explanation of the beginnings of our "universe" back to a minute fraction of a second after the "big bang". A theory which fully explains the homogeneity and isotropy of our observable universe. We have quantum physics which explains the workings of the microscopic to an extraordinary degree (and let's us type these responses!) and explains all of chemistry; quantum electrodynamics which fully describes how light and matter interact. General relativity describing the large scale gravitational interactions within the universe. The Standard Model of particle and force interactions. The list goes on…

That is all good stuff, and if it helps us to live a better life with better health care or a cleaner planet etc. that’s even better…..but we are no nearer an alternative answer to a ‘creator’, if anything the things you have listed add to the confusion.

Hp wrote: .These (scientific!) theories may not be the complete and total description of all in this universe but they are a good deal closer than "god did it"!

Ok give me a better explanation than a creator? Or part of one if it is not complete.

Hp wrote: What on earth does any religion tell us about anything in the real world?

I don’t know, I am not a great fan of religion, although it did have a great influence on our morals (good or bad) which has formed society throughout the ages. This was a topic some pages back.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: I can't decided which is more impressive: the fact that you may have given the most honest answer I've ever heard in defense of religion or how thoroughly surreal your reasoning is.
"

I will take both as a compliment.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Wrong, if something's "true"(by true I mean real or not, reality or delusion), ..."

You are putting your own definition to what I said and then you are saying it is wrong.

[[deleted user]]

Hp wrote: "A few hundred years ago we had no idea of our "place" in the universe. Science, not religion, has placed us in a vast universe, amongst trillions of stars and planets."

True for the Europeans, especially of a certain ilk. Not true, though, with relation to many ancient peoples and other cultures the world over. In fact, it might not even be accurate for ancient peoples from Europe. Think Stonehenge and Newgrange.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Wrong, if something's "true"(by true I mean real or not, reality or delusion), ..."

You are putting your own definition to what I said and then you are saying it is wrong."

You're right.

Your definition of "true" then? Does it vary in anyway?

[[deleted user]]

Fascinating ....

It seems that we're not the only one's who have discussed war and the causes of war.

I just spent a wee bit of time on Google, attempting to ascertain why certain segments of the population seem so wedded to the "belief" that all wars are started by religion. In that search, I found the following ....

It's quite interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi...

So, here's what I purpose. Each and every time someone here posts that religion causes all wars or most wars, I, or someone else, can post, "Please refer to post 8725."

Ugliness averted. Unless, ... the ugliness caused by such posts is the "death" of a dearly held "belief" in religion as a cause for all or most wars.

[[deleted user]]

By the way, cHriS ....

You might find post 8725 to be insanely interesting, especially the articles, ... especially given some of the disparaging comments that have been thrown your way for voicing some of what, it seems, was reported by the BBC some time ago.

I only wish I'd thought to turn to Google earlier in this conversation.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Your definition of "true" then? Does it vary in anyway?
..."

Not as we all understand it to mean as in fact or reality.

But we do not know everything about everything and I did say "it may well be true." Could something not true just because we don't know if it is true.

What about cosmic ordering?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "By the way, cHriS ....

You might find post 8725 to be insanely interesting, especially the articles, ... especially given some of the disparaging comments that have been thrown your way for voicin..."

Thanks Shannon.

It is well known that most wars are not started because of religion but on a forum topic like this, it is just another way for the atheist to have a poke at religion, as though this somehow then makes the 'creator' idea less of a possibility.

[Hp]

Shannon wrote: "True for the Europeans, especially of a certain ilk. Not true, though, with relation to many ancient peoples and other cultures the world over. In fact, it might not even be accurate for ancient peoples from Europe. Think Stonehenge and Newgrange."

Think aligning stones to the sun, moon, planets and a (very) few of the some 6000 stars visible to the naked eye. No suggestion of the more than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies, stars and planets which are not visible to the unaided eye.

Which ancient civilisation had any idea that we were in such a vast universe? Most thought the Earth to be the centre of a human-imaginable universe. It wasn't until Hubble around 1922 that humans had proof that there was more to the universe than the milky way.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "That is all good stuff, and if it helps us to live a better life with better health care or a cleaner planet etc. that’s even better…..but we are no nearer an alternative answer to a ‘creator’, if anything the things you have listed add to the confusion."

Just because you don't understand these theories does not make them a worse option than a creator.

You have already admitted that you prefer the creator story as you don't like the idea of never knowing - "even if science did come up with answers in a few thousand years from now, what good would that do me? I would be long gone."

Science has already provided you a lot of good yet the "creator" gives you nothing but a sense of debt.

"Ok give me a better explanation than a creator? Or part of one if it is not complete."

I despair. What do you think all that science is. If we do not know exactly how and why the universe, and hence us, came about at least this science is pointing us in, what I would call, the right direction. You seem to be ignorant of the argument of where did your "creator" come from? The creator idea for the universe gives no insight into how the creator came to be. That's quite a fundamental flaw using your own logic.

"I am not a great fan of religion, although it did have a great influence on our morals (good or bad) which has formed society throughout the ages."

Mostly bad from what I've seen and read. I love the idea of Moses receiving the "ultimate" moral commandments from his god (including the ironic "Thou Shalt not kill") and then slaughtering 3000 people almost immediately. Very moral. Morals are simply what a society is willing to accept at any given time. Religion has nothing to do with them (except enforcing one set of morals on another set of people).

I am not going down the "all wars were started by religion" route but I can't think of many that weren't caused by a conflict of belief systems.

[[deleted user]]

Hp wrote: "Think aligning stones to the sun, moon, planets and a (very) few of the some 6000 stars visible to the naked eye. No suggestion of the more than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies, stars and planets which are not visible to the unaided eye.

Which ancient civilisation had any idea that we were in such a vast universe? Most thought the Earth to be the centre of a human-imaginable universe. It wasn't until Hubble around 1922 that humans had proof that there was more to the universe than the milky way. "

I think this is a bit sticky ....

Did ancient civilizations have any idea that we lived in a vast universe? I'd say some did. The idea that the "universe" is infinite isn't one that was invented by modern humans.

Proof? You're right. Proof, in terms of scientific evidence that would be accepted by many people living today, is new.

Regarding whether or not the ancients understood the difference between stars and planets and our "placement" within the universe, ....

A couple of things ....

Some ancient people, especially considering the lack of modern technology, had far more knowledge than many give them credit for, including knowledge of astronomy. Personally, I don't consider their tracking of the sun, eclipses, etc... to be a small thing. Further, unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea what the builders of Stonehenge and Newgrange truly knew with regard to the universe. Did they believe the world is flat and that our planet is the center of the universe? Not one clue. None of us know. What we do know is that they created amazing structures that record time with incredible precision with not much more than their hands. Amazing!

In addition, ....

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask...

There was an understanding of planets, though our placement within the universe was more than a bit egocentric ... at least on the part of the Greeks.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Travis wrote: "then start praying that no one responds."

and the way this conversation has gone in this situation before is yet more proof that prayer doesn't work :P You should know better Travis :P"

Just can't resist a bit of irony now and then.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: A few hundred years ago we had no idea of our "place" in the universe. Science, not religion, has placed us in a vast universe, amongst trillions of stars and planets.

Science may have u..."

There is an alternate theory to a creator: stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: I can't decided which is more impressive: the fact that you may have given the most honest answer I've ever heard in defense of religion or how thoroughly surreal your reasoning is.
..."

Please do.
Much as I disagree with 80% of what you say, I was quite impressed with that posting.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "By the way, cHriS ....

You might find post 8725 to be insanely interesting, especially the articles, ... especially given some of the disparaging comments that have been thrown you..."

Bit of the same logic, as your 'science doesn't know everything, so it must be god.' theory.

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: Just because you don't understand these theories does not make them a worse option than a creator.

Why do you assume that because I favour the creator idea over the science theories, that I don’t understand them?

That does presuppose that I would not believe in a creator if I did understand.

Hp wrote: Science has already provided you a lot of good yet the "creator" gives you nothing but a sense of debt.

Ok, staying on this subject of science v creator, tell me what ‘good’ science has already provided me with that is a better alternative than a creator.

And why you would think I get nothing but a sense of dept from believing in a creator.

Hp wrote: The creator idea for the universe gives no insight into how the creator came to be. That's quite a fundamental flaw using your own logic.

No it’s not. I think that man is not capable of understanding everything and most likely never will. So the question of how the creator came into being is one of those things that is beyond our comprehension.

The latest theory science has is that everything came from ‘energy’ Energy started with the big bang and is eternal.

Since science is not able to go further back than the big bang and it gives ‘energy’ the label eternal, why can’t a creator be eternal?

Hp wrote: I am not going down the "all wars were started by religion" route but I can't think of many that weren't caused by a conflict of belief systems.

You must have missed the turning because you have just gone down that road.

Is ‘conflict of belief systems’ a polite way of saying religion because either way you are not correct.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Much as I disagree with 80% of what you say, I was quite impressed with that posting.
.."

Why?

Although I'm not saying that you should not be.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: There is an alternate theory to a creator: stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen.

I agree, but where did that very first little bit of 'stuff' come from

[Srijan]

without religion... no second thoughts on that..

[Edwin]

I am a secular humanist who appreciates the civilizing effect religion has had on humanity. I believe that freedom from religion is freedom of religion and no one should be forced to comply with or follow any religion. Every time my mother would say,"You are going to go to hell for doing that!" I would reply, "Don't worry, I'll risk it. It's MY soul."

To address the original question, in terms of the way the world is today, I will take science over religion every and any day.

[Michael]

Blaise Pascal: "Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree."

Him again: "Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary."

But wait, there's more: "Faith embraces many truths which seem to contradict each other."

Don't know about you guys, but that doesn't solve a thing for me. But it's interesting to ponder on why this issue will never be solved. To a certain degree.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Much as I disagree with 80% of what you say, I was quite impressed with that posting.
.."

Why?

Although I'm not saying that you should not be."

Why am I impressed or why do I disagree with 80% of what you say?

I was impressed, because, as out of whack as I found your reasoning, it was quite possibly the most honest response I've heard concerning religious belief.

I think you are wrong and your reasoning is so surreal and contorted that it makes my head hurt, but it was so free of preaching and BS that I felt it at least deserved credit.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: There is an alternate theory to a creator: stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen.

I agree, but where did that very first little bit of 'stuff' come from"

and that's where the debate occurs, as science is looking for the something that made it happen, where religion needs it to be someone.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: and that's where the debate occurs, as science is looking for the something that made it happen, where religion needs it to be someone.
."

....maybe they will end up being one and the same.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Your definition of "true" then? Does it vary in anyway?
..."

Not as we all understand it to mean as in fact or reality.

But we do not know everything about everything and I did say..."

Do you mean cosmic ordering as per Barbel Mohr, Noel Edmonds, Reverend Ike and Napoleon Hill?
The idea of creating a "cosmic wishlist" and waiting for it to happen?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Do you mean cosmic ordering as per Barbel Mohr, Noel Edmonds, Reverend Ike and Napoleon Hill?
The idea of creating a "cosmic wishlist" and waiting for it to happen?
..."

yes I think that there is something in it.

[cerebus]

Edwin wrote: "....civilizing effect religion has had on humanity"
Can you expand on this please? This sounds very similar to the "without religion we would have no morals" argument, but I am probably misinterpreting your meaning.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "....maybe they will end up being one and the same."
But accepting things on faith means you stop looking, so how do you expect to know? And if evidence is found that explains the origins of the universe, would you accept it, or add the extra level of "but god caused it to happen that way"?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "yes I think that there is something in it. "
Just to clarify, we're talking "The Secret" type thinking here?

[Meliksah]

You cant pick either one. Both are somewhat necessities for life. Science helps explain the universe and religion comes in and fills the gaps that science cannot fulfill. Both work hand in hand to explain the world we live in around us. So i believe that is non-sense to actually think you that you can just pick one

[Shanna]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "yes I think that there is something in it. "
Just to clarify, we're talking "The Secret" type thinking here?"
Do you mean this?
The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

And it's law of attraction hypothesis, send positive thoughts out an get back tenfold... I thinks that's the idea of "cosmic ordering"

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Do you mean cosmic ordering as per Barbel Mohr, Noel Edmonds, Reverend Ike and Napoleon Hill?
The idea of creating a "cosmic wishlist" and waiting for it to happen?
..."

yes I thin..."

It rings my alarm bells that exploitative people like Jim Bakker and Robert Tilton have latched onto and promoted this philosophy.
It also from a christian perspective reduces prayer from intercessory (which is bad enough) to a kind of making an order to room service, a little degrading to god...
I also have a problem with the flipside of positive(good) people get good stuff (or their cosmic order filled), it's bad people get bad stuff, it's a blame the victim, and it reduces compassion because they must deserve what they got. A spiritual meritocracy, makes me what to vomit, and it's already a strong presence in christianity

[cerebus]

Meliksah wrote: "You cant pick either one. Both are somewhat necessities for life. Science helps explain the universe and religion comes in and fills the gaps that science cannot fulfill. Both work hand in hand to ..."
Here we go again. What is it that science gives us that we cannot get elsewhere? Religion only fills the "gaps that science cannot fill" with an unproveable and unquestionable deity, and as soon as science answers something that used to be "answered" by religion, religion just shifts the goalposts and says "ah, we didn't really mean that bit, we mean *these* bits".

[cerebus]

Tara wrote: "nothing but speed up our demise"
"Nothing" So the advances in modern medicine allowing us to live longer, healthier lives is "nothing"? I am assuming at least one of the thrusts of your "speed up our demise" is related to AGW? In which case, I assume it will be religion that gives us the solution? Oh no, wait, it won't. Was it religion that gave you the advances to allow you to post in this forum?

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "
Do you mean this?
The Secret by Rhonda Byrne"
That's the one. The only way it seems to be working is by putting that crap out there we seem to be getting plenty of crap (AGW deniers, Intelligent Design proponents, conspiracy theory numpties) in return.

[cerebus]

Tara wrote: "Because modern medicine and the Internet are worth nuclear war."
So you refuse both and rely on faith when you are sick and when you need to post on internet forums?

[Travis]

Tara wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Tara wrote: "nothing but speed up our demise"
"Nothing" So the advances in modern medicine allowing us to live longer, healthier lives is "nothing"? I am assuming at least one of th..."

actually, I kind of think medicine and the internet are worth nuclear war.
Especially since we've never actually had a nuclear war and medicine keep me from dying when my appendix ruptured.

[cerebus]

Tara wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Tara wrote: "nothing but speed up our demise"
"Nothing" So the advances in modern medicine allowing us to live longer, healthier lives is "nothing"? I am assuming at least one of th..."
For the record I'm an atheist and believe in AGW. Not sure what either that or your statement prove. So if forced to choose you would choose disease, but as it is you're not forced, so what do you choose, medicine or faith? I fully agree humanity has cocked up lots of things, but I see that as the fault of humanity and not science. Science has effectively unlimited potential, but it is humans who come along and in the name of ideology use knowledge to create nuclear bombs. Science is clearly showing us that AGW is a reality, and is the result of human activity (which for most of the time since the industrial revolution we just weren't aware was occurring). Now that we know, thanks to science, it is the same ideologies which are preventing people from accepting it and from using the (again scientific) solutions that are available. People are the problem, not science.

[cerebus]

Tara wrote: "No. In a hypothetical choice as posed by this question, I picked giving up science. I would like both, but if I had to give up my cell phone and antibiotics to protect our environment and planet, I would do so. "
But seeing as that isn't a choice that's available, do you give up antibiotics because they are the result of evil science and rely instead on faith? To be honest my initial question was related to the absolutist nature of your statement that science has done "nothing but speed up our demise". I was trying to see if you honestly thought that there was "nothing" good to come from science.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "The latest theory science has is that everything came from ‘energy’ Energy started with the big bang and is eternal."

Don't know where you get the idea of "the latest theory science has" but it is possible that the big bang derived from nothing. The total energy of the universe could well turn out to be zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-ene...

"Why do you assume that because I favour the creator idea over the science theories, that I don’t understand them?"

Because you asked "Ok give me a better explanation than a creator? Or part of one if it is not complete." after I'd given you a list of theories which may well go some way to explain our universe (even if they are incomplete).

"tell me what ‘good’ science has already provided me with that is a better alternative than a creator."

Well a creator only creates so I assume that after creating this creator just left us to our own devices leaving the universe with 13.7 billion years of struggle resulting in life forms fighting for 3.5 billion years to exist in a competitive world. Where 99.999% of all life forms are now extinct. So I don't think any creator thought too much about it's creation.

With a scientific approach to health care (and from purely human-centred ideals) we have dragged any relatively civilised society up from 20-30 years life expectancy to some 70-80. I'm happy with that. It's no coincidence that religious countries on the whole have a much worse time of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

Give science a few years and I believe we may reach the Technical Singularity and who knows what will happen then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolo...

(I don't think computers need to "think" the way we do to totally change the future of us rather fallible humans)

"No it’s not. I think that man is not capable of understanding everything and most likely never will."

Science has progressed leaps and bounds over the last three hundred years. Homo-sapiens have been around some 250,000 years - give us another 249,700 and you might be surprised. But of course you won't be around so who cares?

Perhaps the underlying rules which govern this universe are really simple after all and even we could understand them.

"Since science is not able to go further back than the big bang"

But there is science that goes before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Boun...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7...

And, of course, it's amazing what science can do with a bit of time...

"You must have missed the turning because you have just gone down that road."

I didn't mention religion - I mentioned differing belief systems. But as there is no creator/god that may lean down the religious road...

"because either way you are not correct.

How so?

[Hp]

Meliksah wrote: "Science helps explain the universe and religion comes in and fills the gaps that science cannot fulfill."

So religion covers less and less as science explains more! Doesn't give me much "faith" in religion if all it is is "Don't know: So God did it!"

[Michael]

Pretty much everything I've read so far in this debate - and I admit I occasionally skim - goes like this. (And this is all paraphrasing, so it won't help to deconstruct it, I already KNOW I'm just doing the basic highlights and ignoring all the nuance.)

Pro-Science View - Science tickles nearly al your intellectual marbles, possibly even makes you feel trendily atheistic, but mostly makes you think that everything is explicable or has the potential to be explicable within the paradigm of logical, rational and mostly material investigation of the world as it is.

(Remember, just paraphrasing, as with the next one.)


Pro-Religion View: Science is marvellous stuff, and gives us an insight into all the things in the world that are colourful, fluffy or fantastic. Science really is very interesting and useful indeed and occasionally mind-blowing.... But, there's a missing part that intellectually and even emotionally is not properly filled by Science alone.

Reckon that sums it up on a basic level. Somewhere in the server-sapping extent of this debate so far, there's a chance someone has already done this Cliff Notes business, but if so I'm going to bet my favourite shirt (you know, the dark one with no frills or fuss) that this isn't the first time here that an issue has been repeated.

For the record, I lie between the two views as I wouldn't presume worth a damn to say I know which one is right, because I have no ruddy idea, even if I accidentally foregrounded a view with pronouns. If I haven't said already.