Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,501-10,550 of 12,463

[Travis]

Angela wrote: "I'm just wondering how a wonderful debate on science vs religion got hi-jacked by a discussion on the 2nd Amendment and an argument on whether or not questions have been asked and/or answered..."

Tangents...we are a group of deep thinkers, but also as easy to sidetrack as that dog from the movie 'UP'.

We start out talking about religion and the next thing you know....squirrel!

[Maria]

Jim wrote: "Sorry all I am good with all topics did not mean to offend"

Hi Jim. You definitely didn't offend. All of us here have offended others, been offended, been called out, apologized, joked, been sarcastic, and been downright silly. That's why I love this thread.

[Jim]

Thanks Maria

[Nazia]

Travis wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Everyone would be better off in a world without religion. Religion offers very little spiritual guidance. What it does succeed in do..."

That's what I tell my family. They say I'm deluded. :)

[Mary]

Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Travis wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Nazia7book_slave wrote: "Everyone would be better off in a world without religion. Religion offers very little spiritual guidance. What it doe..."

I wasn't raised religiously. My mom was raised Southern Baptist, my dad raised Jewish, never went to church, although I was certainly welcome to go if a friend invited me. I just had an outsiders perspective, and so much of what I saw was petty bickering over rituals. I had a friend who was Luthern and her boyfriends parents were Catholic and they refused to go to the wedding. really? Don't both believe in God/Jesus idea? Seems the animosity goes back centuries and they would bicker over how one group did communion and another didn't....Not at all what a god would want, I'm thinking.
I worked at an office where the Dr was an elder in his church, several employees attended his church and many of our patients, and I was always a little shocked to hear gossip or bad mouthing that went on. I just thought they'd be above that, at least in church.
Then we moved to the Middle East and I saw that Muslims love their children too, put their socks on one foot at a time and are just as capable as good and evil as we are.We traveled a lot, went to Guatemala, where people live in poverty but feel birth control is against the church's teachings. I just began to realize that religion does more to separate us all than it does to unite us.
I know many, many people who lead good, decent, productive lives without religion and I try to do the same.

But I'm with Travis about the standing around talking and eating donuts thing...that part is delightful.

[cerebus]

Did someone say 'donuts'??

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Did someone say 'donuts'??"

Oh sure, now you show up.

[cerebus]

Travis wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Did someone say 'donuts'??"

Oh sure, now you show up."
Hah :) I'll argue religion, climate change, nuclear power, the Beatles not being as influential as they're made out to be, the Matrix being vastly overrated, but one thing I have learned not to do, as a non-American, is discuss gun control with Americans :)

[Heather]

cerebus wrote: "Travis wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Did someone say 'donuts'??"

Oh sure, now you show up."
Hah :) I'll argue religion, climate change, nuclear power, the Beatles not being as influential as they're mad..."

This holds quite true, although my husband works with a guy from Texas who thinks people from our state are too gun crazy, if that gives you any idea. Evidently my state scares Texans...

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "Evidently my state scares Texans... "

What state could that be...? Montana? Idaho? Hmmm.... Didn't know there was a state that scared Texas.... Oh, well ... Oklahoma. Go, Sooners and all that.

[cerebus]

Heather wrote: "This holds quite true, although my husband works with a guy from Texas who thinks people from our state are too gun crazy, if that gives you any idea. Evidently my state scares Texans... "
It is something I think you will find most non-US people have an opinion on, but more than any other subject I've seen seems to be something that neither side can see the other side's perspective of....I've said in the past, particularly in relation to religion, that no subject is sacrosanct, and I would say this is also true here, but it is one that I have found pointless, neither side can convince the other of anything. I'm not saying that as a good or bad thing, it's just a thing....

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "neither side can convince the other of anything"

I guess it would depend on the point.... If the point is open and honest dialog, I'd say it could be well worth the effort. One might, in that situation, learn something new and be open to change. If one goes into it determined to convince the other side of the evil of their ways, I'd say you're likely correct. At those times, one lacks honesty, though not necessarily intentionally. Likely unintentionally. But, one is likely so wrapped up in ideology and in convincing the other side ... one isn't necessarily open ... and ... therefore, honest. Giving an honest look at what is being.

I'd say that's likely true for everything in which one wants to convince someone else that they are doing something wrong or need to give something up ... regardless of what that might be ... drinking, smoking, guns, religion, etc....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "neither side can convince the other of anything"

I guess it would depend on the point.... If the point is open and honest dialog, I'd say it could be well worth the effort. One m..."
Yup, I think what you've said is true for any discussion, and I've had this discussion with sane, rational, reasonable people, (and at various times I can be one or more of those things too), it just always seems to get to a point where we have to go "I don't get it" and leave it at that.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Yup, I think what you've said is true for any discussion, and I've had this discussion with sane, rational, reasonable people, (and at various times I can be one or more of those things too), it just always seems to get to a point where we have to go "I don't get it" and leave it at that. "

Or do something truly wild and crazy....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Or do something truly wild and crazy...."
I've done a few of those in the past, but was wondering if you had anything specific in mind?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Or do something truly wild and crazy...."
I've done a few of those in the past, but was wondering if you had anything specific in mind?"


Listen. Truly, listen.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Or do something truly wild and crazy...."
I've done a few of those in the past, but was wondering if you had anything specific in mind?"

And, of course, realize there might be another side of the story one thinks one knows all the answers to....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Listen. Truly, listen."
Ah, not all that wild and crazy then. I have done, and I have been listened to. I am not claiming my position is 'correct', whatever that position is.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "Evidently my state scares Texans... "

What state could that be...? Montana? Idaho? Hmmm.... Didn't know there was a state that scared Texas.... Oh, well ... Oklahoma. Go, Soo..."

I was gonna guess Rhode Island.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "Evidently my state scares Texans... "

What state could that be...? Montana? Idaho? Hmmm.... Didn't know there was a state that scared Texas.... Oh, well ... Ok..."

Wouldn't think Rhode Island is big on guns? Do you know something I don't know?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "And, of course, realize there might be another side of the story one thinks one knows all the answers to.... "
Not aware I claimed to know all the answers, or all sides of the story, or to have any special insights, or that my position was correct and unassailable and therefore not worth discussing.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Ah, not all that wild and crazy then. I have done, and I have been listened to. I am not claiming my position is 'correct', whatever that position is. "

While you might often listen and not usually claim to be correct, we're talking about the public at large ... people trying to convince others that they're wrong and need to give something up or stop something, etc.... Don't you think, in those situations, it would be wild and crazy to actually stop and listen ... admitting one might not have the only answer?

I think that might, actually, take quite a lot of courage.

And, ... I'm guessing, all of us, have been there.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "And, of course, realize there might be another side of the story one thinks one knows all the answers to.... "
Not aware I claimed to know all the answers, or all sides of the story, or to have any special insights, or that my position was correct and unassailable and therefore not worth discussing. "


Speaking of listening ....

I didn't say you claim to know all the answers, etc....

I was talking in general, even using the term "one" versus "you" ....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Speaking of listening ...."
The "Or do something wild and crazy" seemed to be addressed to me, so that's how I took it, but I wasn't put out by it. As for speaking about the public at large, I wasn't...I was speaking about my own experience of this discussion. I have read the ongoing discussion here, I'm open to arguments and persuasion, but it is not a discussion I felt I needed (or wanted) to add to.

Edit: and I'm still waiting for my donut.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I was gonna guess Rhode Island. "

Imagine Texas, big Texas, being afraid of RI. You might be about to get some serious hate mail....

[Mary]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Speaking of listening ...."
The "Or do something wild and crazy" seemed to be addressed to me, so that's how I took it, but I wasn't put out by it. As for speaking about the public ..."

Sprinkles or jelly?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Speaking of listening ...."
The "Or do something wild and crazy" seemed to be addressed to me, so that's how I took it, but I wasn't put out by it. As for speaking about the public ..."

I see.... It seemed you were talking about conversations in general, regarding things like gun control and religion. With people taking sides and no real ability to convince one another of anything. Therefore, ....

Whether the public at large, you, me, or the guy outside who just slammed his car door loudly enough to wake the dead, I'd say all of us have options. One would be to do something really wild ... listen and acknowledge the fact that there might be other points to consider ... maybe not ... but maybe.

Regarding the donut, ... that was all Travis. I'm off wheat and gluten. You'll have to see if he can magically send a donut through the screen in your direction ... though it would likely show up here and serve as a great temptation.

[cerebus]

Mary wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Speaking of listening ...."
The "Or do something wild and crazy" seemed to be addressed to me, so that's how I took it, but I wasn't put out by it. As for speaking a..."
Boston creme....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "listen and acknowledge the fact that there might be other points to consider ... maybe not ... but maybe."
Yup, dunno about others, but I'm pretty happy with acknowledging that there are other opinions.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Boston creme.... "

Damn. That's my favorite. Now I'm craving wheat and gluten.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Damn. That's my favorite. Now I'm craving wheat and gluten. "
Sorry 'bout that....

[[deleted user]]

Changing the subject, ....

Does anyone know what's up with all of the meteors?

There seem to have been a lot lately. Big ones. Making the news. And, ... I just heard one hit the moon or something. Big flash.

Is this just an instance of more people filming with cell phones, or is there a reason we're having so many all of a sudden? At least so many large ones....

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Sorry 'bout that.... "

Ehh... Taste good but, evidently, wheat makes me sickish. A bunch of us just went off wheat several weeks ago. Felt amazing. Cheated ... and ... we all got wicked sick. Quasi-Paleo diets for all....

Feel better ....

Not sure carrots taste better.

[Mary]

cerebus wrote: "Mary wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Speaking of listening ...."
The "Or do something wild and crazy" seemed to be addressed to me, so that's how I took it, but I wasn't put out by it. As f..."

Okay speaking of Boston, you gotta go to Mike's Pastry in Boston. They have the best cannolis.

[Clay]

Karen Armstrong, in her History of God makes a case for both, and possibly for keeping them separate. Religion is very poor at explaining the how of thing: Cosmogenesis, evolution, quantum physics, whereas science comes up short in giving us the why: if and why life has meaning. Faith is useful for describing the inner landscape and giving people a sense of connection and purpose, but is usually a little myopic on things like history, the earth's age and how to keep the internet working.

[Clay]

Kristal wrote: "I feel I should mention that I think Dan Brown is an insultingly bad writer. Just a cheerful note to add to the discussion. :>"

Is it possible to give less than one star ? If so A& D would get it.

[Linda]

I think the world has to have both with a whole lot of mystery, love, spirituality, good, bad, ugly and magnificently beautiful. I am not fond of religion that becomes a science or exact or fundamentalist. I have a faith more than a religion. Religion helps gather the believers together perhaps.

I believe God created the big bang so in a sense as the creator he/she was one hell of a scientist.

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Mary wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Speaking of listening ...."
The "Or do something wild and crazy" seemed to be addressed to me, so that's how I took it, but I wasn't put out by it. As f..."

Good choice.
All this talk of doughnuts, I may need to make stop on my way to work.

[Travis]

Clay wrote: "Karen Armstrong, in her History of God makes a case for both, and possibly for keeping them separate. Religion is very poor at explaining the how of thing: Cosmogenesis, evolution, quantum physics,..."

Science can provide a 'why' but it tends to run along the lines of 'stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen'.
This tends to prove unsatisfying to people, they need to feel special.

So, we end up with 'there's a magic man and he did it because he loves you' vs 'we got lucky'.

[[deleted user]]

Whoa.... What's up with this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-env...

Out of the BBC! We Americans tend to think the BBC is on the up-and-up. Didn't know, several months ago, people in the UK didn't give credence to The Mail. But, the BBC.... They're cool. Yeah?

Here's another reason, short of religion, that some distrust the climate change data put out.

But, even though short-term projections aren't accurate, the long-term projections are totally and completely going to pan out. They say.

...

I think it might be the "projections" part, in part, that have thrown people. Believing something will happen based on projections. Now that the short-term projections are off, ...? :/ Might be a bit sketchy. That and, as I've mentioned before, when scientists, here at least, wouldn't entertain questions about climate change occurring naturally earlier, without a significant carbon footprint. Increased level of distrust.

I know there are religious fundamentalists who don't believe for other reasons.

Just wanted to point out, ... there are some pretty logical people out there who will look at this article and say, "Huh, ...?" and be mighty confused ... or ... will think they've been vindicated.

(Personally, given my asthma and the increased rates in asthma, I'd like us to deal with pollution regardless of projections regarding global warming. Selfish but true.)

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Out of the BBC! We Americans tend to think the BBC is on the up-and-up. Didn't know, several months ago, people in the UK didn't give credence to The Mail. But, the BBC.... They're cool. Yeah?

BBC TV News is world's largest broadcast news organisation and it likes to think it is the best, and maybe it is.

Shannon, The Daily Mail is the second Biggest selling British Newspaper, so a lot of readers do give credence to The Mail. I think some people here see it in the same way some Americans see Fox News.

Shannon wrote: Here's another reason, short of religion, that some distrust the climate change data put out.

But, even though short-term projections aren't accurate, the long-term projections are totally and completely going to pan out. They say.
..."

'climate change data' pinch of salt comes to mind.

WE here in the Uk could do with a few more degrees of average heat, we are in the coldest, wettest spring for many years.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "BBC TV News is world's largest broadcast news organisation and it likes to think it is the best, and maybe it is.

Shannon, The Daily Mail is the second Biggest selling British Newspaper, so a lot of readers do give credence to The Mail. I think some people here see it in the same way some Americans see Fox News. "

Thanks for the info. I don't know how things are in the UK, but.... (We get the BBC here on PBS, but I never think to watch it. I do read their site.) I find I need to watch both Fox and CNN, as well as read sites of foreign papers, in order to get a semblance of the whole picture. Benghazi would be an example. From the beginning, Fox was airing the story non-stop. Clearly, there's a bias there. Having said that, one of their reporters, Griffin, was on the ground and getting really good information. So it seemed. And, in the end, everything I saw her report has been true. Of course, at the time, CNN, etc... wasn't covering it, for the most part. More coverage was given to the fact that Fox was covering it, with analysts and Democratic politicians saying one couldn't trust the reporting out of Fox. In the end, .... One of my colleagues just realized last week that the attacks went on for seven hours. He watches CNN exclusively and heard the following over and over .... Ambassador Stevens died within the first hour; nothing could have saved him. We couldn't get resources to him in time. Well, ultimately, that's true. However, the whole truth is left out. The fact that we had former Seals on the roof of the CIA annex in a firefight for another six ... six ... hours, with people watching it hour after hour ... realtime in DC ... completes the picture. We did have time to help them. Why didn't we? What were the reasons? Maybe they were valid. But, it's been hidden from us. My colleague was horrified when the truth came out during the hearing in DC.

Sad state of affairs. What do they say about a free press and democracy? Shouldn't a free press be about actual information versus news covered or not based on ideology? That goes to both CNN and Fox and all the others.

Home sick with the cold from hell.... Watching the news and just heard about a report from The Guardian. Is The Guardian thought to be reputable over there?

Supposedly, a Guardian reporter broke a story about a reporter at Fox being investigated. The AP story broke last week. This is new. They even, so said The Guardian, tracked his key card and how often and when he went to the State Department and compared it to State Department workers. That and more. Further, The Guardian supposedly said the DOJ was looking at charging the Fox reporter criminally. Why? Soliciting information. :o Last I knew, that's what reporters are supposed to do.

A guy with the AP is saying sources are already drying up, saying they're afraid of talking.

Is this connected to religion and science?

Potentially. By the way, I'm hearing, though haven't confirmed it, that the IRS allegedly targeted Republican donors and certain religious groups.

It goes to trust ... and whether or not a people trust their press and trust their government. As mentioned before, when the government tells us to trust things, like vaccines or the fact that aerosols cause global warming or ... that they didn't target religious groups for extra love from the IRS ... are people truly going to trust the information they're being given. Rightly or wrongly, perhaps wrongly, I predict people will begin to distrust the government, totally and completely, and that such distrust will bleed into all areas, which could lead to very bad results.

Separate and apart from an argument about religion or science ....

We will have HUGE issues if our press chooses not to report all stories and information or if they're limited by the government in their reporting.

I wonder....

We could have religion. We could have science. We could have both.

But, will we truly have anything, any bits and pieces of the things we value (at least in the US), if we don't have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press?

I say the other "freedoms" won't count for much without free speech and a free press.

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "Evidently my state scares Texans... "

What state could that be...? Montana? Idaho? Hmmm.... Didn't know there was a state that scared Texas.... Oh, well ... Oklahoma. Go, Soo..."

I'll give you a hint: shortly after a shooting where 14 were injured and seven were killed, the state legislature established a state gun.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "I'll give you a hint: shortly after a shooting where 14 were injured and seven were killed, the state legislature established a state gun. "

At first, I all I could think was ... sounds like a weekend in Chicago. But, I think I know what you're talking about. Did it by chance happen outside a grocery store?

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "I'll give you a hint: shortly after a shooting where 14 were injured and seven were killed, the state legislature established a state gun. "

At first, I all I could think was ... s..."

Yes it did.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "I'll give you a hint: shortly after a shooting where 14 were injured and seven were killed, the state legislature established a state gun. "

At first, I all I could..."


Okay. Got it.

[[deleted user]]

Rock on, man...!

Now we have a report, published today, regarding the DOJ attempting to smear a Fast & Furious whistleblower.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/20...

Though, truly, I've not gone off the rails. When one of my students told me she got cut on a rusty metal fence last week, I asked if her tetanus shot was up to date. Not off immunizations yet. And, I'm anti-aeosals.

Smearing whistleblowers and going against free speech and a free press is totally different from lying about the safety of vaccines.

I hope.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Home sick with the cold from hell.... Watching the news and just heard about a report from The Guardian. Is The Guardian thought to be reputable over there?
.."

Yes; it is left wing. The Telegraph is right wing. The Times is more in the centre. All are comparable with the NY Times, I guess.

The Mail is right wing and sells far more copies than all three of the above put together.

Shannon wrote: As mentioned before, when the government tells us to trust things, like vaccines or the fact that aerosols cause global warming...

Of course and we do trust things and then sometimes we are told that this or that is not so good but....

....vaccines and drugs are needed and most do more good than harm, but not always....

In 1957 Thalidomide was developed, it was a drug used to combat morning sickness and was called a wonder drug. Over 10,000 children were born with deformities resulting from that drug which their mother took. That is 'bad' science.

We are told in the UK that mobile phones tests carried out to date do not show any adverse effects from the use of them.

Yet another test, a long term test, being carried out somewhere in Europe (I forget which country) will not have their results for another 20 years or so, and so they are not able to confirm the safety of phones because they have not been around long enough.

When we are told that something is ok, that ok is only good until the next bit of research tells us different.

[Mary]

I wonder at exactly what point in time in our history was our media unbiased? Government scandal and payoffs have always existed. Anytime a business relies on commercials or viewers to make a profit then pressure will be applied regarding what to print and what to report obviously Fox News as msnbc are propaganda machines for a particular political party.
Benghazi is a modern day witch hunt Where were the tribunals during the 11 embassy attacks and 52 deaths under Bush? Bet most people can't even name one of those attacks or a victim. This focus on Benghazi is a preemptive strike to discredit Hillary Clinton because she is strongest possible democrat presidential candidate. Nothing more.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Home sick with the cold from hell.... Watching the news and just heard about a report from The Guardian. Is The Guardian thought to be reputable over there?
.."

Yes; it is left wing..."

Thanks, again. I wonder why so many more people go for the right leaning paper. I don't think the majority of the people in the UK are on the right. Are they? Maybe my perceptions are wrong.

Yes, I agree ... most vaccines and drugs are good for you ... though listening to our commercials regarding what might happen if you take a certain drug are mildly horrifying. There was one of a woman planting flowers and frolicking in a field the other day. In the background, someone was saying the side effects could include blood clots, TB, and some types of lymphoma. Holy hell!

I do fear, though, that lack of trust will bleed through to other aspects of our lives.

We'll see.