Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,001-10,050 of 12,463

[cerebus]

And a polyhedron is a marriage to multiple husbands called Ron.....

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "I just read an article on people with Downs, and yes, they can get married and have sex"

Thanks for the info, Heather!

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Polygamy is one man with many wives, thats the actual meaning of the word, one woman with many husbands is polyandry, and then there's polyamory as I described above.
"

Must be the dictionaries are wrong .... ??

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I applaud your degree of fairness and desire for total transparency, but I think it may be expecting a bit too much...not to expect fairness, but to expect that in a discussion that was about same-sex marriage to expect that we then explicitly argue for every other form of rights. "

You're probably right on this one. I likely do expect too much. You're not the first to note that.

You have a right to your opinion, cerebus, as I have a right to mine.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "This is true. Right now there are campaigns in New Zealand going on telling people with any disorder, whether it's Asperger's Syndrome or depression, not to reproduce.

Personally I think it's going a bit far, but that's just me."

Wow! Wasn't aware that was going on in New Zealand! :o

Here's a question ....

Do you think it will move past campaigns and toward legislation?

It's a hard issue, for sure. I'd have a higher percentage chance of having children with issues, given that a yahoo at the hospital zapped me without lead protection when I was 14. Once I realized there'd be a possible issue there, I decided not to have children. For me, the risk was too great. But, that was my decision.

I grew up on stories of women of American Indian descent going to have their appendixes out as little girls and the doctor taking out one of their ovaries, etc..., too. True or not, I don't know. Grew up in a state that had eugenics on the books and practiced it, attempting to limit the ability of undesirable people procreating. A sad chapter in our history.

I wouldn't place my child at risk. That's me. My choice. Can't imagine having that choice made for me. Makes me a bit nervous, given everything.

Hearing about these campaigns in New Zealand.... Well, it makes me a bit twitchy.

Dang.

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I don't really need there to be a group that's lobbying for the rights of people to enter into polygamous marriages in order to sit back and say, "Huh.... What's up with this? I'm s..."

Okay, for your stance on Justin Beiber, I'll forgive the going against the atheist fart rule.

[cerebus]

Shannon, absolutely, you totally have a right to your opinion, but I would hope that if my position on a subject was unclear that you would ask me, rather than assume omission has a particular meaning?

[cerebus]

Is it just me or would "Atheist Fart Rule" make a great name for a punk band?

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "This is true. Right now there are campaigns in New Zealand going on telling people with any disorder, whether it's Asperger's Syndrome or depression, not to reproduce.

Personally ..."

I hope not and seriously doubt it, but there may be people who would try. As it is, they make it very hard for families who have children with autism spectrum disorders to immigrate to New Zealand.

I've never heard that we practiced eugenics in the US before; I guess it's just another thing swept under the rug in history class. It's not surprising that we would keep it quiet, but it still should be taught at some point to keep us from repeating these types of mistakes.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:three out of eleven...yeah, that disproves the religion vs gay marriage argument...well, actually, no it doesn't.

It's just a vague couple of numbers with no further info to put it in context.
It's not even good Vegas odds, let alone being used as an 'Ah-ha!' revelation.
.."
4 out of 11 you missed out Canada. That is 36.36%. Not to bad, me thinks.

I think you may be confusing Vegas odds with the payout.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: cHriS has been arguing that marriage is about the children. I've told him it isn't ... for various reasons.


Yes and no Shannon. It is not about having children. It is the mother and father making a commitment so that the child is giving a secure established environment to be brought up in.

Everyone has a mother and a father and it is their duty to make sure their child is raised with general moral principles.

Guppies make babies, all creatures do. 'Making' is normally the easy part, it's that next 18 years is which a stable environment is needed if the job is to be done correctly.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: but as I said (anecdotally) the majority of discussions I have seen have had the arguments against it coming from believers.
"

That could be because you have the majority of discussions with believers.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:three out of eleven...yeah, that disproves the religion vs gay marriage argument...well, actually, no it doesn't.

It's just a vague couple of numbers with no further info to put it in..."

But, you have just thrown out numbers and then said 'see they are wrong about religion' with no other info.
Sounds good in general, but only if you ignore any other info connected to it and accept it completely at face value.

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Polygamy is one man with many wives, thats the actual meaning of the word, one woman with many husbands is polyandry, and then there's polyamory as I described above.
"

Must be the ..."

happy to stand corrected, I must have got polygamy mixed up in my head with polygyny.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: But, you have just thrown out numbers and then said 'see they are wrong about religion' with no other info.
Sounds good in general, but only if you ignore any other info connected to it and accept it completely at face value.
"

Nice try. Me saying that 36% of the countries that have approved gay marriage are religious countries, is not 'throwing out numbers.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "happy to stand corrected, I must have got polygamy mixed up in my head with polygyny. "

Well, there was a time when I thought homeopathy was the same as holistic medicine. Oops. No biggie.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "I've never heard that we practiced eugenics in the US before; I guess it's just another thing swept under the rug in history class."

You might find this really interesting, Heather. In a sad way....

http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/vtsurvey...

It's through the University of Vermont.

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "I've never heard that we practiced eugenics in the US before; I guess it's just another thing swept under the rug in history class."

You might find this really interesting, Heather..."

That's crazy! I'm currently taking an anthropology course and I'm learning how people used to justify the supposed "superiority" of white people, but I never knew that people in the US actually took it so far as to secretly practice eugenics. I hope my state didn't do this, but considering the facts, I'm not sure what to think.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "It's not surprising that we would keep it quiet, but it still should be taught at some point to keep us from repeating these types of mistakes. "

No, it's not surprising ... and for a lot of reasons.

Almost everyone had a role in it, played a part. In America, it was one of the parts and pieces of the Progressive movement, something today's Progressives likely would be uncomfortable exploring. In Vermont, it was an example of politicians behaving badly. Scientists behaving badly. Religious leaders behaving badly. No moral high ground on this one. No group fighting for those whose rights were threatened and, in some cases, violated. The Indians. Those with special needs, low IQ's, etc.... The poor. The teen girls who got pregnant out of wedlock. The immigrants. The orphans. All of the movers and shakers at the time were complicit; the finger can be pointed at all. Therefore, ... no one is jumping to point that finger, as it will also have to point inward. In my opinion, at least.

I agree, though. If we actually taught history and learned about history, we'd have a richer background knowledge with which to make better choices in the future.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "I never knew that people in the US actually took it so far as to secretly practice eugenics."


Oh, yes.... It's mind-blowing.

A very, very dirty little secret. One that has all sorts of implications, even today.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "That's crazy! I'm currently taking an anthropology course and I'm learning how people used to justify the supposed "superiority" of white people, but I never knew that people in the US actually took it so far as to secretly practice eugenics. I hope my state didn't do this, but considering the facts, I'm not sure what to think. "

By the way, I get all sort of warm and fuzzy feelings when reading the "Survey Documents" listed on the side of the various pages. :(

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "It's not surprising that we would keep it quiet, but it still should be taught at some point to keep us from repeating these types of mistakes. "

No, it's not surprising ... and fo..."

As a future scientist (archaeology) this makes me feel filthy. This may actually explain why my dad's family had so few children (we're talking a Catholic family having two pregnancies in the 1920s); we're hispanic, but my great-great grandmother told us several stories about being Indian, to where it requires a genetic test to truly know our heritage.

[[deleted user]]

Of course, regarding eugenics in Vermont, the parts about sexual sterilization are also personal favorites....

[[deleted user]]

And, ... the part about women of childbearing age being the primary targets of the Progressive era's and Vermont's beneficence.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "As a future scientist (archaeology) this makes me feel filthy. This may actually explain why my dad's family had so few children (we're talking a Catholic family having two pregnancies in the 1920s); we're hispanic, but my great-great grandmother told us several stories about being Indian, to where it requires a genetic test to truly know our heritage. "

Oh, man....

I'm sorry, regarding the piece about your family. And, yes, I can understand your feeling filthy. I'm a humanities person, not a science type. However, I remember how I felt when I learned of this. Filthy.

I'd heard stories through the family, but I learned about it in school either in high school or college. Then, when I found this website a few years ago, I felt it again. It's a punch in the gut. A betrayal. As a woman, whose family members were dirt poor Vermont farmers of English and Irish descent, with American Indian thrown in the mix, it touched my people. It became a game of assimilate, assimilate, assimilate. Hide your culture. Keep your heritage a secret. At all costs.

My grandmother, on my father's side, wouldn't even admit to her native blood ... and told me, I have native blood on both sides, that mine came from my mother and I'd have to marry a man with blonde hair and blue eyes. In fact, she called me to her house when I was in college. Asked me to promise her that I'd marry the fairest man I could find. "Why, Nana?" Her response. It was important. Why? It was the only way my children would have a chance at looking normal. Her words. Yeah. That was in the early 1990's. Ummm....

Regarding genetic tests, ... good luck.

I actually had mine done recently, knowing it would likely be for naught. Very, very few people within the American Indian community in the continental US will submit their DNA for testing ... for a whole slew of reasons. Only a few tribes here have been tested. Therefore, it stymies such analysis. Mine came back 98% British Isles and 2% unknown. Will have to wait until, if the family stories and my research regarding where certain ancestors lived, members of the Mohawk and Blackfeet nations get tested, if they ever do.

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "As a future scientist (archaeology) this makes me feel filthy. This may actually explain why my dad's family had so few children (we're talking a Catholic family having two pregnanc..."

In that case, we may never know, unless our suspicions that we are, in fact, hispanic, are true. My great-great grandmother told one person that the reason we had a Spanish surname was because her father was either Cherokee or Sioux (depending on who she spoke to) who murdered somebody, went to Mexico to avoid prison, and returned to the US using the last name Chacon. She told still other members that she was Yavapai; needless to say, we are confused.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "In that case, we may never know, unless our suspicions that we are, in fact, hispanic, are true. My great-great grandmother told one person that the reason we had a Spanish surname was because her father was either Cherokee or Sioux (depending on who she spoke to) who murdered somebody, went to Mexico to avoid prison, and returned to the US using the last name Chacon. She told still other members that she was Yavapai; needless to say, we are confused. "

Good luck .... If Hispanic, yes, you'd find that. In addition, many native tribes from Central and South America and Canada have tested out. If you have yours done and find a small percentage is unknown, it might point toward your great-great grandmother's story. Possible affirmation.

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "In that case, we may never know, unless our suspicions that we are, in fact, hispanic, are true. My great-great grandmother told one person that the reason we had a Spanish surname ..."

This is true; we do know there is some Hispanic blood in other branches, but the presence of unknown genetic markers would certainly close the case. Thanks for the logic; the more I learn about this, the more I'm thinking a genetic test will be worth every penny.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "This is true; we do know there is some Hispanic blood in other branches, but the presence of unknown genetic markers would certainly close the case. Thanks for the logic; the more I learn about this, the more I'm thinking a genetic test will be worth every penny. "

:)

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Is it just me or would "Atheist Fart Rule" make a great name for a punk band?"

I would shorten it to just 'Atheist fart' and then your catchphrase could be 'Atheist Farts rule!'

Do kids still saying something 'rules' these days?

[Dan]

This question, of course, will separate the intelligent from the "others" on this planet. Religion is the product of ignorance and intolerance. One can only imagine how far this planet would have advanced if it weren't for religion. Just think, diseases cured, wars possible eradicated, intolerance minimized and the list goes on. We as a people will never advance beyond infancy as long as religion is a factor in human behavior.

[[deleted user]]

Dan wrote: "This question, of course, will separate the intelligent from the "others" on this planet. Religion is the product of ignorance and intolerance. One can only imagine how far this planet would have a..."

Somewhat amused by the irony posed ...

Actually, wars wouldn't possibly be eradicated. More wars, historically, have been waged for other reasons. Historical fact. You might want to look up more information on this topic; the BBC did a report in recent years.

[Teacherhuman]

Joe wrote: "We've had a world without science already...it's been called many things in human history at different times but one thread woven through all those millennium is the same. It's called Ignorance. Th..."

Eppur si muove

[cHriS]

Teacherhuman wrote: Eppur si muove ..."

...but what makes it move?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Teacherhuman wrote: Eppur si muove ..."

...but what makes it move?"

Still referencing physics that was disproved centuries ago? Movement does not require a "mover", only a change in movement (i.e. velocity) requires a force.


Meanwhile, apologies for my absence for the last few months. I was writing and prepping to run an event for almost a hundred people and I needed to cut down on distractions.

How is everyone?

[Teacherhuman]

the reference to Gallileo should have been simple for you... Science and Belief are all tied up--even a scientist "believes" something is true before he or she begins to test it. One would never propose a hypothesis without some belief in an idea. We see science and the church stepping all over each other for ages... In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter what you in your little virtual world believe anyway? The universe will still be exactly what it is with or without your acknowledgement. Eppur si muove.

[Travis]

Teacherhuman wrote: "the reference to Gallileo should have been simple for you... Science and Belief are all tied up--even a scientist "believes" something is true before he or she begins to test it. One would never ..."

It does matter as there is a world of difference between a belief that requires proof and a belief with nothing to back it up that is then used as an argument against science.

If religious folk stayed in thier virtual world, I'd have no problem, but they keep insisting on coming out and interacting with the rest of us and wanting us to follow their rules.
That's when we have a problem.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Teacherhuman wrote: Eppur si muove ..."

...but what makes it move?"

Still referencing physics that was disproved centuries ago? Movement does not require a "mover", only a change i..."

It hasn't been boring.
Welcome back.

[Gary]

Teacherhuman wrote: "the reference to Gallileo should have been simple for you... Science and Belief are all tied up--even a scientist "believes" something is true before he or she begins to test it. One would never propose a hypothesis without some belief in an idea."

Actually not true. Most good scientists start with a healthy dose of scepticism about their hypothesis and proceed to try to disprove it. Most Quantum Physicists do not "believe" in Quantum Physics as there isn't a consistent philosophical idea to believe in, however the fact that the mathematics gleans the correct answer time and again is well known.

In fact the neutrino was initially hypothesised as a conceit to make the momentum equations of particle physics balance. It was only later that the existence of neutrinos was actually confirmed. Originally it was thought that more precise measurements or a new particle theory would explain away the neutrino rather than confirm it.

So no. Scientists do not "believe" in an idea, or they are not doing science, and most scientists realise that in the end a hypothesis is a model representing reality in a simpler comprehensible form, not to be mistaken for reality itself.

Teacherhuman wrote: "We see science and the church stepping all over each other for ages..."

That's because the Church generally sees science as a threat to it's authority. Unlike science any disproof of a part of religion undermines the whole principle of knowledge by special revelation. This is also why Churches take any opportunity to try to reclaim this authority by attacking science or by using pseudoscience like the "prime mover" argument to try to justify it's claims.

Teacherhuman wrote: "In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter what you in your little virtual world believe anyway? The universe will still be exactly what it is with or without your acknowledgement. Eppur si muove. "

I agree with the latter as an axiom. However, what does it matter what people believe? Quite a lot really. Beliefs dictate people's convictions and actions. Belief that homosexuality is a choice to sin against some divine authority effects far more people than those that actually believe it. Belief in the principles of unfettered capitalism or unfettered communism have effected millions of people who may not share those beliefs. Belief in the sinfulness of the decadent west has ended many lives, as has the belief in patriotic righteousness. Belief in the ineffectiveness and/or dangers of vaccination could threaten the entire human race when easily preventable diseases become pandemics.

So I'd conclude it matters to anyone that belief may effect.

[Teacherhuman]

Last post... I'm not religious enough about anything to listen to even the dogma of those who say they don't believe in anything. Are you able to actually enjoy the physical world from inside your damn box? Has science not taught you that our knowledge of the world and its workings is rarely absolute. Know thyself. Nothing in excess.

[Gary]

Teacherhuman wrote: "Last post... I'm not religious enough about anything to listen to even the dogma of those who say they don't believe in anything. Are you able to actually enjoy the physical world from inside your..."

Interesting. You claim I am in a box while also proclaiming your own wilful refusal to perceive outside your own.

Science has indeed taught me much, and yes I am aware that our knowledge is not absolute. That's because science is not dogma or knowledge, science is a methodology or a process.

"Know thyself" assumes that there is a clear well defined "you" that can be considered separate (physically or socially) from our interactions with the world.

"Nothing in excess" is an absolute, and thereby it is a paradox of itself.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "If religious folk stayed in thier virtual world, I'd have no problem, but they keep insisting on coming out and interacting with the rest of us and wanting us to follow their rules.
That's when we have a problem. "

Read an article a week or two ago regarding Chinese scientists who joined an avian flu strain with a human flu strain, intentionally. Another scientist (whether reputable or not, I don't know) was screaming from the rooftops. He contended doing so would not help us in formulating vaccines and, even if it did, the risk was too great, given the lower standards and security (his judgment) at Chinese labs.

It would be horrific if that got out. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, would likely die.

I'd like it, personally, if scientists wouldn't experiment in ways that would put humanity at risk. All things involve risk, but .... If the level of risk exceeds the possible benefits, I'd just soon it didn't happen, especially since it could move from scientists' virtual world, come out, interact with the rest of us and, in this instance, wipe out a huge percentage of the human race.

Yes. Religion and science are different. (Though, I can see why some believe some treat science and/or atheism as a religion.) They are different, though. Agreed.

Having said that, .... Not so much interested in seeing just one point of view expressed. The idea that it's just the jerk religious folks who ruin it for everyone by insisting on coming out and playing with the big kids.

We, all of us, would do well to play nice and consider the bigger picture.

[Gary]

You are quite right and occasionally scientists may do things that seem potentially risky for unknown rewards. However, it is not clear exactly how much risk there is nor is it clear how much benefit. The same methodology used to genetically engineer the virus in the first place may be the key to developing an anti-viral agent or retrovirus that can not only cure this strain of flu but may crack all other strains. Without more information I cannot tell myself.

Similar to the invention of nuclear weapons. The risks were indeed great, just as the risks with any weapon, but the benefits have not just been through weaponry.

The difference here is because of belief. The difference between a scientist making a calculated risk, and a believer espousing a belief. The scientist can be debated on the relative benefits of their work (as has happened here) and most often such research will receive the kind of outcry that may have started to happen here. That's the benefits of peer-review and transparency. With belief it's a lot harder to combat risky or dangerous ideas, such as the idea that a certain section of society is morally corrupt, or that the lives of people are cheaper than the souls or integrity of other people.

It would indeed be nice to play nice, but when one ethos is based on reasoned debate, while the other is based on unreasoning conviction it is easy to see which one has the greatest potential for conflict.

[Ken]

Amen

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "The difference here is because of belief. The difference between a scientist making a calculated risk, and a believer espousing a belief. The scientist can be debated on the relative benefits of their work (as has happened here) and most often such research will receive the kind of outcry that may have started to happen here. That's the benefits of peer-review and transparency. With belief it's a lot harder to combat risky or dangerous ideas, such as the idea that a certain section of society is morally corrupt, or that the lives of people are cheaper than the souls or integrity of other people. "

You have a point, in part. The difference between science and religion hinges upon belief. While the former might think something will happen, etc... prior to experimentation, etc..., one would hope scientists would be willing to change their hypothesis if it doesn't prove accurate. I'm sure most scientists would be open to changing course. As they're human, I'm guessing some wouldn't, due to some form of investment, etc... But, those scientists, well, ... would be few and far between, in my opinion. Conversely, many religions, though not all religions, revolve around agreed upon beliefs; the belief in and practice of set dogma is often demanded. For those religions, there is no opportunity for challenging those beliefs and changing course.

True. Science and religion are different, ... for those reasons.

But, it's also true that both science and religion intrude upon the lives of the people at large. It's sometimes only annoying. At other times, it can lead to total and complete carnage, like the Inquisition, on the one hand, and the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on the other hand.

Regarding the article about China, .... Yes, scientists can cry foul. But, ultimately, what good will that do? In certain instances, it could shut such experiments down. Will that happen in this case? If you have scientists in Europe who are horrified but the scientists in question are from China, can the European scientists make any real demands on the Chinese? I'm not sure scientists are able to police other scientists in certain circumstances, including when they're from different counties.

Yes, life is about risk, as I stated originally. Who knows if China has lax policies and procedures regarding scientific research? Who knows if they have major issues with security at their facilities? I honestly don't know.

If, .... If they do, I'd rather they not do these experiments. If, .... If the risks outweigh the possible benefits, I'd rather they not conduct such experiments. If a strain of avian/human flu was stolen and sold to the highest bidder or if an accident took place, etc..., the impact of such a flu strain, that would be passed from person to person, unlike most of the current instances of avian flu transmission, would be ridiculously tragic.

Over 20 million Europeans died of the Bubonic plague in just five years during the Middle Ages. http://www.history.com/topics/black-d...
Between 20 and 40 million people died of the Influenza Pandemic of 1918. http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/ Imagine how many people would die in short order if an avian/human flu was unleashed on us, willfully or accidentally.

Yes, I agree ... it can be difficult to converse with people and exist with people who have beliefs, even beliefs that have been proven incorrect. However, ... I'm pretty sure losing 20 to 40 million people in a year would be 20 to 40 million times worse. I doubt we'd care much about the beliefs and convictions, or lack thereof, of anyone involved.

It doesn't always need to be ... they're jerks and we're not ... they're jerkier than we are ... they're the biggest jerks because they believe and we don't, well, we don't believe in "God" but do believe in other things ... shhhh.....

Sometimes it's about the fact that we're, all of us, good people who can be jerks. Given that, it would likely be incredibly wise if all of us, regardless of political persuasion, convictions, etc... saw the big picture.

[[deleted user]]

Looked at another article regarding China's scientists and the flu ....

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style...

This article, unlike the other, noted,

"Researchers worldwide instituted a self-imposed ban on H5N1 bird flu research in January 2012 due to security concerns around creating mutant strains of flu that can pass between people. That moratorium was lifted earlier this year.

In a jointly-published paper in January, an international team of 40 researchers announced their decision to lift the ban and resume research on bird flu transmission.

"Because the risk exists in nature that an H5N1 virus capable of transmission in mammals may emerge, the benefits of this work outweigh the risks," the scientists wrote."

Several questions, ....

Were the scientists who proposed the ban the same group of 40 scientists who lifted the ban?

What changed in the last year? We've known for longer than the last year that the risk of mammal-to-mammal transmission exists, have we not? So, .... What changed?

Given that this research could (if there's an accident, act of terror, etc...) lead to the deaths of millions of people worldwide, does this international team include people outside the field of science? For example, the newest thing in education is to include parents and students in things like interviews, committees dealing with accreditation, etc.... It's thought, given the fact that such decisions and work impacts them, personally, is that they should have a say in the final outcomes? Does the field of science and/or does this group include laypeople? Frankly, I know members of the community have seats on various boards and commissions in Vermont, likely in other states. I'd think average citizens might have an interesting take on this subject.

Who are these 40 scientists? Who do they work for? Who pays for their services? Are they truly free to make such decisions with no pressure whatsoever? (I know a parent stood up to administrators at my old school. S/he was on an interview committee. The entire team was against the candidate, save two of the administrators. The parent said, "Since you don't sign my paycheck, I'll speak for the group. You're not railroading us. Period.")

If a group of international scientists places a ban on certain research, do all scientists comply? Are there instances of non-compliance? What teeth does such a ban, no longer in existence, have? Fines? Jail-time? Nothing?

Why don't reporters ask some of these questions?

[Kathy]

Evident this set some fires blazing!!! Someone did not remember the adage that goes not to talk about religion. Reading just a few posts the polarization is amazing, but pretty much to be expected. It is not possible to alter thousands of years of beliefs and actions based on those beliefs.

Different day; same argument. Science is based proof and cold hard facts; religion is based on faith. Can't see it, can't touch it, can't prove it. For those members who have traveled to Europe, it seems like every Christian church has some small relic; piece of the cross, bones of this or that saint or maybe even apostle. People who believe are sure this is all very real.

Known fact: Over thousands of years wars that reslut in lives lost, pain and suffering, and usually no resolution are based on religious beliefs and playing off people's fear of the unknown.

I believe like many members of this forum that if individuals could just practice their own beliefs and not try to influence others to change, likely far less blookshed. And really isn't that what most believe should happen? And I do not support the argument that it was the other guy that started it!!!

Unfortunately zealots bent on creating havoc are always around no matter what time we are living in.

As someone mentioned Galileo (and so many others) were persecuted due to their efforts to move science forward as the newly-revealed facts did not mesh what was more religious conformity.

There are many who refuse to believe some scientific discoveries backed up with proven facts. The facts are all lies and all the proof made up!!!

If I had to choose, and just for myself, it would be science over religion. But then I am not deeply committed to a life based on faith. I can see the millions that have died in religious wars. I can also see the millions saved by scientific discoveries and all the knowledge we would not possess if individuals were all terrified of bringing their new discoveries forward. We can have all the faith in the world, and it won't cure TB, or smallpox.

Brief rant: This really ticks me off. Funerals, at least Christian ceremonies. Ministers are saying a few words of consolation to a congregation. Then they come up with this "well we can all be thankful that now he/she is in God's hands." I have heard it put several ways like "in a better place" and once "happier now in the hands of God." It varies; message the same. While most religions have some similar belief, some even go so far as to say that a person should be happy to go forth and die on purpose as they will then be rewarded in this "better place."

We who are listening have just lost someone we love. We can't see how our loved ones would be much happier in the afterlife at that exact moment. We are in mourning suffering a loss. The last thing we want to hear is that our loved one is much happier somewhere else!!!

Might be easier to take if the person was in great pain. No one wants to see that happen to someone you care about.

But immediately after they die? Recognizing that after the initial shock and pain, there may be comfort in thinking that the pain is over, or that the person is in a safe place now and won't suffer anymore. But at least where I have been present even those with strong faith have said to me "happier place?" "I kind of like to believe they were happy here with me." And doesn't a better place imply, at least at that moment, that this was not a good place?

Yes, for those with strong faith, seeing the BIG PICTURE is usually comforting after the initial shock and grieving. I like to believe that the people I love are at peace and no longer suffering as I think most people would. But give us all a little time to grieve and miss the people we love. Their death has been a huge shock!!!

Anyway, rant over!!!

The most we as frail and far-from-perfect human beings can ever expect is that at some future point no one will follow zealots, young people who have no strong role model will be sucked in and die, and that everyone is happy with everyone else pursuing their own beliefs. And aren't I living in a dream world!!! I am even upset because my neighbor won't prune his tree and the leaves fall on my lawn. I want him to adopt my beliefs about yard maintenance!!!!

[Heather]

Kathy wrote: "Evident this set some fires blazing!!! Someone did not remember the adage that goes not to talk about religion. Reading just a few posts the polarization is amazing, but pretty much to be expecte..."

Totally agree with you on your rant. A friend of mine lost their ten month old baby to brain cancer and one of their friends said it was part of god's plan. That really bothered me because who says that a ten month old child's death is part of some master plan? I've lost relatives, and I have yet to go through the pain of losing a parent and don't have the children necessary to lose a child (unless you count pets and plants), but I can imagine that if someone told me my loss was part of god's plan, it wouldn't make me feel better.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "You have a point, in part. The difference between science and religion hinges upon belief. While the former might think something will happen, etc... prior to experimentation, etc..., one would hope scientists would be willing to change their hypothesis if it doesn't prove accurate. I'm sure most scientists would be open to changing course. As they're human, I'm guessing some wouldn't, due to some form of investment, etc... But, those scientists, well, ... would be few and far between, in my opinion. Conversely, many religions, though not all religions, revolve around agreed upon beliefs; the belief in and practice of set dogma is often demanded. For those religions, there is no opportunity for challenging those beliefs and changing course."

Indeed. Most scientists are human and most will not be able to follow a perfect path of non-belief. Part of the point of the scientific process that has developed is specifically to combat this. A scientist may be invested - through financial, emotional, personal or even religious convictions - in a particular idea, but hopefully peer review and confirmation/replication of results minimises the problem.

This is why my problem is more with pure belief than just religion. A pure belief in the power of free market capitalism, or state communism, or fascism, or even technocracy can be as damaging as each other.

This is why it's important to realise that science is a wide term for the practice of rational exploration of what is, not the projection of what we believe is.

Shannon wrote: "But, it's also true that both science and religion intrude upon the lives of the people at large. It's sometimes only annoying. At other times, it can lead to total and complete carnage, like the Inquisition, on the one hand, and the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on the other hand."

Again I agree, but as you say - in part. The difference being that religious conviction resulted in the inquisition based on the beliefs of the people involved. The invention of chemical and nuclear weapons did not cause the conviction for them to be used. Rather the political convictions and differences caused the weapons use.

Imagine the religious convictions of the Crusades or Inquisition, armed with the weapons to bring "divine justice" on a literally biblical scale.

Is the problem the weapons or the people who wield them? On 9/11 people with strong beliefs turned the technology of safe swift travel into efficient Fuel Air bombs of devastating power. Is air travel to blame?

Shannon wrote: "Regarding the article about China, .... Yes, scientists can cry foul. But, ultimately, what good will that do? In certain instances, it could shut such experiments down. Will that happen in this case? If you have scientists in Europe who are horrified but the scientists in question are from China, can the European scientists make any real demands on the Chinese? I'm not sure scientists are able to police other scientists in certain circumstances, including when they're from different counties."

It is concerning, and again the main concern is not so much the research (as other research subjects can be dangerous if mishandled) but the authority controlling said research.

Fortunately, the scientific community has historically been quite open, independent and interdependent - even at the height of the cold war. So acceptance by the general community of ones research is actually quite important.

Put it this way, it may be a scary article, but the fact we heard about this research at all (from the secretive Chinese) is actually a good thing.

The main people attacking this system at the moment though are actually the US Congressional "Science" Committee, who are wanting to stop funding being assigned by peer review and instead want funding directly assigned on "merit" (i.e. political will). Considering how many Climate Change Deniers and Creationists on the CSC this would be disastrous.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astron...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astron...

Shannon wrote: "Over 20 million Europeans died of the Bubonic plague in just five years during the Middle Ages. http://www.history.com/topics/black-d...
Between 20 and 40 million people died of the Influenza Pandemic of 1918. http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/ Imagine how many people would die in short order if an avian/human flu was unleashed on us, willfully or accidentally.

Yes, I agree ... it can be difficult to converse with people and exist with people who have beliefs, even beliefs that have been proven incorrect. However, ... I'm pretty sure losing 20 to 40 million people in a year would be 20 to 40 million times worse. I doubt we'd care much about the beliefs and convictions, or lack thereof, of anyone involved."

I agree. This is why I am glad that the Chinese research has been made public and hopefully will undergo suitable scrutiny. The thing to remember though is that such research may have inherent risks but also potentially huge benefits, like a general cure for influenza, or even the genetic engineering techniques learnt to effect other benefits. (I heard something about the engineering of Influenza to attack HIV)

Meanwhile, the beliefs of some may also end in a pandemic that kills millions of people. There are several anti-science anti-vaccination movements at the moment that spread the (disproven) idea that vaccination is linked to Autism, or is part of some huge government conspiracy. This is far more dangerous than some Chinese researchers engineering influenza. Vaccination protects us from many dangerous diseases because the disease either dies out or is so rare it cannot evolve. If however a portion of the population is not vaccinated, this creates a reservoir of the disease that can then evolve to beat the vaccination. Since those people unvaccinated will likely be treated with antibiotics to save their lives, this means that said disease is also likely to evolve resistance to antibiotics. So with no benefit other than respecting the beliefs/paranoia of a section of the population (and those that make money of said movement by speaking events and books) there is a big risk of a global pandemic starting that science could easily prevent.


It doesn't always need to be ... they're jerks and we're not ... they're jerkier than we are ... they're the biggest jerks because they believe and we don't, well, we don't believe in "God" but do believe in other things ... shhhh.....

Shannon wrote: "Sometimes it's about the fact that we're, all of us, good people who can be jerks. Given that, it would likely be incredibly wise if all of us, regardless of political persuasion, convictions, etc... saw the big picture. "

Agreed. Yet how can you see a big picture unless you are willing to listen to reason and evidence? Take the classic blind men feeling an elephant metaphor. If each person believes there initial impression is the truth, then none of them agree and each keeps his own limited perspective. If each one listens to the others (reason) and even moves around to confirm what the other perceived (evidence) then eventually the truth of the elephant that all have been perceiving fragments of, can be revealed.

[[deleted user]]

Kathy wrote: "Known fact: Over thousands of years wars that reslut in lives lost, pain and suffering, and usually no resolution are based on religious beliefs and playing off people's fear of the unknown.
"

Hey, there, Kathy ....

In the interests of clarification, ....

Do you think all or most wars were the result of religion? If so, why?

Or, do you think some wars were the result of religion?

When talking about known facts, that's an important detail. Not sure regarding your statement ....