Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 11,801-11,850 of 12,463

[Gabriela]

In a world without both of them, science brings technology, work and mass production, religion brings wars and blindness. So I would really enjoy living my life as a native, but focusing in learning and philosophy (a simple life) no problems and no jobs, instead wasting time in things that we can't control or understand, I know science can bring good things like medicine but not always. In my opinion a world without science and religion would be a great world, because we could live in peace and tranquility, instead speeding hours working because at the end nothing of that matters.

[Gordon]

I 2nd not working lol... Americans have this obsession with working & the illusion of a caste society based on money vs solving the social economics problems due to poverty.

In the end, the more time I spend with my kids the better, not whoever dies with the most toys wins lol... Total tangent, sorry

[Som]

@Gabriela...'Buddhism'...is all that.

A world without both is not possible in this planet anymore (at least not in next 100 years)...so this question is just impractical/fantasy for us...

Anyways for the sake of a discussion; for a start, here's to a simple approach..

Science is peaceful, if in the right hands; religion too. And there are more religious people than scientific. If there were more scientific geniuses then their evil side would bring us coupla dozens more world wars (nukes, weapons..). But religion brings small scale genocides when disturbed to a great deal, compared to science and religions can be more docile with proper education and awareness. It's just like racism; "whose race is better!".. It decreased with time, didn't it! 1000 years in future people will probably be talking about our beliefs being ludicrous and try to preserve their history; but living with their improved beliefs/codes.

i.e, Nothing can control evil geniuses making planet decimating nukes and launchers; and causing intergalactic peace problems; in a world of science you'll get to see a lot of them..

Ever thought those resources you use in daily basis, will there be anything left than scraps? The more scientific you become the less future there will be. Reminds me of a flick called "Idiocracy". (Junk food genes and plasma guns don't follow much logic..)

I suspect if there will be a war in near future it'll be between Atheists and agnostics and a radical religious group. to oppose the generic religious beliefs you have to have some equally radical opposing knowledge as non believers; which will make it only worse. If you don't like religion then please be quiet about it; you're not going to change minds those were matured over religions over their growth, your petty 'non beliefs' claims will only stir more problems and make you look stupid. I have seen people bash religions; it's hard to believe that sort of ignorance..

Solution: For a start, respect other religions. Improve it with proper knowledge and experiences. But let people have some faith in something; without being insulting and mean like a megalomaniac...

As a 5 year old would say....'Robots have no emotions that's why they are without humanity. Be a compassionate human as long as you're one...' (:

[Som]

@Gabriela...'Buddhism'...is all that.

A world without both is not possible in this planet anymore (at least not in next 100 years)...so this question is just impractical/fantasy for us...

Anyways for the sake of a discussion; for a start, here's to a simple approach..

Science is peaceful, if in the right hands; religion too. And there are more religious people than scientific. If there were more scientific geniuses then their evil side would bring us coupla dozens more world wars (nukes, weapons..). But religion brings small scale genocides when disturbed to a great deal, compared to science and religions can be more docile with proper education and awareness. It's just like racism; "whose race is better!".. It decreased with time, didn't it! 1000 years in future people will probably be talking about our beliefs being ludicrous and try to preserve their history; but living with their improved beliefs/codes.

i.e, Nothing can control evil geniuses making planet decimating nukes and launchers; and causing intergalactic peace problems; in a world of science you'll get to see a lot of them..

Ever thought those resources you use in daily basis, will there be anything left than scraps? The more scientific you become the less future there will be. Reminds me of a flick called "Idiocracy". (Junk food genes and plasma guns don't follow much logic..)

I suspect if there will be a war in near future it'll be between Atheists and agnostics and a radical religious group. to oppose the generic religious beliefs you have to have some equally radical opposing knowledge as non believers; which will make it only worse. If you don't like religion then please be quiet about it; you're not going to change minds those were matured over religions over their growth, your petty 'non beliefs' claims will only stir more problems and make you look stupid. I have seen people bash religions; it's hard to believe that sort of ignorance..

Solution: For a start, respect other religions. Improve it with proper knowledge and experiences. But let people have some faith in something; without being insulting and mean like a megalomaniac...

As a 5 year old would say....'Robots have no emotions that's why they are without humanity. Be a compassionate human as long as you're one...' (:

[Heather]

Som wrote: "@Gabriela...'Buddhism'...is all that.

A world without both is not possible in this planet anymore (at least not in next 100 years)...so this question is just impractical/fantasy for us...

Anyways..."

It sounds like someone needs to follow his own advice. Calling atheists and agnostics robots, stupid, and ignorant just makes you look like the ignorant one. For the record, it's also harder to respect religious folk when they say things like you just said about atheists.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "It sounds like someone needs to follow his own advice. Calling atheists and agnostics robots, stupid, and ignorant just makes you look like the ignorant one. For the record, it's also harder to respect religious folk when they say things like you just said about atheists."


Sorry but I don't think so; on the contrary you just proved my point with your 'misinterpreted' post though; makes you any better? Please, think about it..
Just so you know I don't follow any religions, but I never disrespect them; neither I like to have a nomenclature of the 'reasoning' of my belief system..

Well end of the day, If you don't want to show respect (or at least ignore) then don't. It's all about 'maturity'; if you want to bully every religion and emotional beliefs you encounter on the Internet to feel high and mighty on a binary pedestal; go ahead....it won't change anything but things will only get bitter with 'sadly' more nuke surprises..debates don't matter if you don't learn anything from it..

[Heather]

Som wrote: "Heather wrote: "It sounds like someone needs to follow his own advice. Calling atheists and agnostics robots, stupid, and ignorant just makes you look like the ignorant one. For the record, it's al..."

Again with the attacks. On the contrary, I don't want to take anyone else's beliefs away or disrespect them; however, at the same time, I do wish to be respected, which clearly you are not doing.

[Wendy]

Gordon wrote: "I 2nd not working lol... Americans have this obsession with working & the illusion of a caste society based on money vs solving the social economics problems due to poverty.

In the end, the more t..."

Not tangent, but a great perspective!

[Elaine]

Som, religious people and atheists are free to express their ideas on this forum and others. I'm surprised and saddened that you would wish anyone who doesn't agree with you (atheists) to no longer post their ideas. And then you accuse atheists of being bullies!! In your posts you are disrespectful by implying people who aren't religious are stupid amongst other insults. I am respectful of people who hold religious beliefs -- many of the people I love are very religious -- even though I don't agree with them. And I certainly don't feel superior to anyone let alone those who have different belief systems.

[Travis]

Som wrote: "@Gabriela...'Buddhism'...is all that.

A world without both is not possible in this planet anymore (at least not in next 100 years)...so this question is just impractical/fantasy for us...

Anyways..."

I'd respect religion if they would show the same courtesy, but the evil geniuses of religion of made it that I've got zero tolerance for anybody with an imaginary friend.

and again, you can have faith, emotion and belief without religion. Happens everyday.

[Maytal]

I think religion and science come hand in hand.
A religious man will be amazed at god's wonders and want to know more about them.
A scientist will see the magnificence of nature and believe in a higher power.
Much science has sprung from man's ability to see beyond what is to be seen with the naked eye. Einstein said that the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.
On the other hand many religions have sprung from science and man's desire to understand the world. Even thousands of years ago the Greeks invented pagan gods to explain natural occurrences like the setting of the sun and thunder.
In conclusion I think they are interconnected and therefore cannot answer the question, any religion that is founded on truth and knowledge should come hand in hand with science.

[Som]

Again with the attacks. On the contrary, I don't want to take anyone else's beliefs away or disrespect them; however, at the same time, I do wish to be respected, which clearly you are not doing.

Heather, I apologize if you took it personally; the word 'you' was in third person. It's just an argument, not an attack; nothing is personal; cheers.

Elaine wrote: "Som, religious people and atheists are free to express their ideas on this forum and others. I'm surprised and saddened that you would wish anyone who doesn't agree with you (atheists) to no longer post their ideas......"

Again, It was just the part of an argument; not trying to stop anyone; I'm surprised that you judged my posts like that. I didn't say atheists being bullies; not in a generalizing way at least. I meant some Internet atheists are being bullies just to feel superior about their reasoning (which I think is the basic ideology of a radical religious person). If they are driven by 'reasoning' then they'd be accountable for it without taking the 'counter reasoning' as an attack. So they shouldn't take any offenses at all, rather they try to reason it with their own set of logistics...

And You don't agree with them yet you're respectful? How does that happen 'without lying to them'?

Viz: If a person says to me "Lord Jesus may help you with your problems"; I'll appreciate it because I automatically see Jesus in that person's concerns towards me; it's a God by itself. I may not follow the religion but I believe in that set of beliefs; it's a factor that connects the hearts of religious usurped functions of emotions. Humans all over again!

But hey Elaine, it's all good if we carry on with a discussion and please don't take offenses cause i don't mean them at all. it's just a mesh of reasoning that's all....cheers

Travis wrote: I'd respect religion if they would show the same courtesy, but the evil geniuses of religion of made it that I've got zero tolerance for anybody with an imaginary friend.

and again, you can have faith, emotion and belief without religion. Happens everyday.

Hey Travis,
Evil geniuses in religion are there of course; but I believe all of my religious friends are not.

You will figure them 'evils' out after having just a single conversation with them; they are just like racists. It's all out of ignorance and they prevail most of the communal chaos.

I agree with having faith, emotion and beliefs without religion. But my point was, end of the day those wont be without any 'cultures' and 'heritage'. Religion is a heritage which is more traditional than reason usurped; passed down from generations of forefathers. But I think is the problem these days is that they try to find 'reason' out of them, which invariably enables them to misinterpret the 'Holy books'. One can read each of my sentences in 5 different ways; those evil geniuses read them in such a 'megalomaniac way' the whole religion in the end gets generalized because of their radical instrumentation of the supremacy. So in that case ignorance becomes the real enemy.
Holy book is not just a book. Some concrete guidelines and awareness are necessary. But people take it as a general book those gets 5 stars from some, 1 star from some; misinterpretations (nitpicking reviews) from many...

You simply can't ban religion just like you can't ban science. You can only hope to make them better with knowledge and compassion. And by 'knowledge' i don't mean 'reasoning'.

[Elaine]

Som wrote: And You don't agree with them yet you're respectful? How does that happen 'without lying to them'?

Som, yes, it's possible to disagree with someone and still be respectful. It happens all the time in the workplace and in families. As for the second question I quoted above, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please explain.

[Rashmi]

A world without science - life expectancy could perhaps drop without the pills; there might be lesser connectivity between people; it could be a simple life devoid of instruments, equipment, gadgets and medicines that enable us to accomplish tasks hastily. So? I'm not aversed to living the simple organic life that was so much fuller albeit less advanced. Our ancestors might have had a more full filling life, we would never know..without science, world might just be a better place to live without any man made destruction, pollutants etc that are slowly poisoning us, killing us.

Religion - If only everyone in the world followed one religion, there would be no clash of religious beliefs, no sentiments getting hurt, no blood bath and no fanatism. Religion could have been about get-togethers, celebrations, festivals and spreading joy. Why should any book written thousands of years ago dictate life?

In my humble opinion, both religion and science are good as long as they do not rule us. Why not use them both towards the benefit of humnakind?

[Elaine]

Som, I agree with you that you can't ban religion and I would never suggest that religion should be banned. It provides solace for many people around the world; however, I do believe religion should be kept completely out of government, the justice system and schools.

[Som]

Elaine wrote: "As for the second question I quoted above, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please explain."

OK
The people around 'Bob' (fake name lol) are religious; but Bob is not; but he certainly has a set of beliefs. When someone 'nearer' asks Bob "Do you believe in our god and the holy books?" Bob would say 'No not at all' if he's honest. But that would definitely hurt the feelings and psyche of the other person and she/he would say "Bob if you don't understand my faith how can you understand the gravity of my prayers those are for you..."
It'd some what be a breach in emotional attachment because Bob is not on the same boat 'emotionally' and 'psychologically' but he has a illusion that he's. He disrespects feelings by saying on their faces that he doesn't believe in what you believe the most. He can always lie about it for the sake of others' happiness though...Like "go ahead sprinkles some holy water on me I want to be blessed"...
.....Maybe a ludicrous example but you get the question..right?
(PS: It's still a question not a statement through story)

Elaine wrote: "however, I do believe religion should be kept completely out of government, the justice system and schools.

It's hard to put moderation on religious activities though. Think of religion as 'Sports'. They have much more things in common. Sports has fans, players, politics, steroids, cheating, fights, rule book....etc! You can't moderate sports; too many fans will protest...you can't keep it away from government and schools; government collects revenues; kids get physically and mentally healthy (in religion kids try to strengthen their moral values through religion! Like love everyone; don't be selfish god's watchin' ya...etc)...

I think, It's deeply rooted; its alteration will result only chaotic altercation; government will collapse. Crime rates will increase; democratic rights will collapse in a dark of prevailing autocracy of secularism (it's a chain reaction because of the intricate government machinery and perplexed politics strategies)...it's a matter of great sensitivity too. So the concerned government wont take a risk. It can share parts but can't replace in its entirety and we can refine its involvement. One must debate about that...

If we want to solve these sensitive problems we've to be actively present on both the sides as analysts not ego warriors. I'm yet to read books on 'religion and philosophy'; maybe they'll pave a way for seeking better understanding devices.
My point being one can not solve the communal problems by being a part of a single side.

"Radical atheists' strategies" are disheartening. But they think it's badass to insult any religion they come across; trust me there are a lot of them. Religious people in this point can only take relentless bashes, insults and unable to make a comeback because they are only asked for 'materialistic proof of god', 'materialistic significance of prayer', 'proof of god's involvement in miracles' etc...

-----------------------------------

A rant for radical atheism as a force in Internet: (I've faith on GR friends that they wont take offenses, cheers)

Think, Atheists shouldn't be sensitive; it's beyond the norms of being an atheist. Like it's not a Bushido manual, but an anti Bushido manual where you're against the wrath of Samurais; should grow a strong heart then! When you're anti-something its shear responsibility in itself won't have any room for sensitivity; 'Forced antisocial' behavior may will become handy...
How about I'm without any tags like a sold out sheep. How about I'm nothing; I'm the breath of Zen, with thoughts of trance but sharp as a razor. It's without limits and boundaries. It's not about whose ideology is stronger and mightier or whose beliefs have more moral and practical applications. I, therefore, am a loser (in that sense) in the first place the time I tried to reason my reason with others' reasons. Is it about the future and non-existence future we care about? All in the hands of 'nothingness' and Science? Science can't provide us 'humans'. Even if it does the price will be immense.
'Darwinism', 'Noe-Darwinism', 'Natural selection' in between their thin lines, Creative evolution etc are the pedigree for a simplistic understanding of 'what doesn't matter anymore'.
Richard Dawkins in a video, tried to change the mind of an Aussie(?) priest and obviously he couldn't; instead seeded more hatred towards atheism with weak reasoning (of what's better). So who's more disrespectful the one who poses as the savior and fails or the silent Vesuvius that wants a reason to mag all over?....well the question itself is too rhetoric for the answer..

'Radical Selfishness' is our primary religion; it's a trend of whose 'pirated' eyes has more sight; as it's without multidimensional reasoning. So atheists are selfless as an opposing force? Am I a selfless enlightened organism who walks the limbo pavement of Zen..!The irony in itself a stubborn one..Atheism is a religion (will you take offense then o radical one!). If the ghost doesn't exist then the argument's existentialism aspects are basically futile. The overall portal is made up of 'blur'. 'You my man' should have chosen the thoughts of silence; instead your thoughts have god in them; in a minimalistic fantasy form lingering, bothering your thoughts..It breathes out your ego gradually; tiring your logic; but that ego is a strong hungry person; fights back like a monomaniac; for more and more; more till it's sore from the core. It wants to embrace the chasm of oneness; may others bellow with mental anguish for the thought of god's nonexistence wrath; like mirage of cure for despair; wither like the shells of murex, slowly and endlessly..But 'you my man' wont protest; you'll glitch in and out of your ego like a white noise on mute...Wars don't concern you in the land of pedestals; the solutions wont amaze you as much as the questions. You're indeed a curious fella aren't you!
Science my man, is the evil of all evils; it's the primary weapon for religious warfare; but the gun control is as futile as people control in the world of science. You can't protest science cause you're selfish? enh? Knowing that it cures you maybe with dozens of adversely formed new diseases for the future to get as gifts...It's shows you HD ftw! Favorite channel is 'black hole' and favorite show 'how to make your genes' IQ low'. Science make you go mmmmmm that 'McPunisher pig-out special burger is tasty!' Science lives and breeds on your selfish sides Your metamorphosis inclines towards obesity, dumbness, MDDs etc etc...add a spliff to it it's only natural not science; yeah! right!
You're lonely in the house of carnival my friend, not alone...not really..you're basically a slave of yourself; you're either a sheep who joins the herd or strays alone. The prayers becomes a pointless sob to your transmuted ears of 'blurgh'; you go Ugh!...
You my man is a fighter but you don't want a reason for the fight as the reason is to win and win and win few more times. It's radically selfish innit!

PS: - Just so you know I'm not posing for fights/bitter arguments here. So why am I posting here? Just beating around the bush to acquire a solution for a change? Or just a WYR question for fun times!? (And judging by the post count of this thread it surely looks like it had a fun time; so another brick in....)

Anyways carry on; too bad this post got out of hands and added itself like a madman lol

[Heather]

Som wrote: "Again with the attacks. On the contrary, I don't want to take anyone else's beliefs away or disrespect them; however, at the same time, I do wish to be respected, which clearly you are not doing.

..."

I don't know how good your English grammar is, but "you" is solely used as the second person. If you wanted to formulate an argument against my position, you would have had to use "atheists" with the remaining pronouns in the paragraph changed to "they" instead of "you," which can be taken as inflammatory speech.

However, switching your pronoun still leaves your arguments as a massive logical fallacy known as a straw man attack.

[Som]

Yeah English is my third language...and as I said; I apologize if it was an attack; consider it as the part of the argument if you can or do you want me to delete that message?!

[Heather]

Som wrote: "Yeah English is my third language..."

Understood. You speak it better than a lot of people who speak English natively, and quite frankly English grammar is not the easiest thing in the world to master. I had no idea just how complicated English grammar was until I started taking Spanish, where everything is much more compartmentalized.

[Som]

Hey thanks for the compliment Heather. I'm still learning though. It's a never ending process. (: Cheers.

(and as you can see I sneakily edited my previous post hehe)

..........

And here's to 'not going off-topic' with my post for the thread's sake - I want to live in a world of peace and tranquility. (:

[Heather]

Som wrote: "Hey thanks for the compliment Heather. I'm still learning though. It's a never ending process. (: Cheers.

(and as you can see I sneakily edited my previous post hehe)

..........

And here's to 'n..."

Well, I'm sure you'll be a wonderful speaker as you learn more. Clearly, you're putting forth a great deal of effort, which, as you well know, is the biggest part of learning a new language.

As for off-topic conversation, don't worry about it; if you go back far enough, you'll see conversations about actors, movies, etc. It's kind of a way to blow off steam when the conversation gets too heated.

And I agree with you with respect to living in a world of peace and tranquility, and one of the best ways to do it is what we're doing right now: learning that we're not so different under all the differing opinions and stereotypes. Although that may be the influence from my anthropology professors talking.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "Som wrote: "Hey thanks for the compliment Heather. I'm still learning though. It's a never ending process. (: Cheers.

(and as you can see I sneakily edited my previous post hehe)

..........

And ..."

Thank you. (: ..that's right; linguistic skills needs more cognitive approach and a great deal of effort. I'm trying to learn Japanese these days; watching anime (with subtitles) is a plus lol; baby steps. cheers.

Yeah was wondering about the 12K post count; sounds handy with an attached vent thread, the forum I used to bask before was very strict about off topics posts, tis a habit!
So what are your top 5/10 favorite movies?

And yep, well said. Interwebz is shaping up our opinions a great deal methinks, esp. in terms of reevaluating ideologies; but the quintessential elements of a peaceful world needs much more refinement in sociopolitical dichotomy..not just shallow protests those fade after few days..Do you think protests are a solution? Is the Anonymous movement/march is an effective strategy?

[Heather]

I personally am happy with Spanish, although I'm looking at studying a classics minor so when I specialize in archaeology in another 2-3 years, I won't have to rely on a translator when I'm excavating Roman ruins or studying a newly discovered volume.

Listing my favorite movies is hard, but I'll try to oblige you. It's probably 2001: A Space Odyssey, Across the Universe, Dead Poets Society, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Monty Python's Holy Grail, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Some Like it Hot, Serenity, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek: The Voyage Home.

I think protests can be a solution if done correctly. If it's done in a manner that can be considered immature or half baked, then it doesn't do much to the problem. I think Anonymous' approach is a bit on the immature end of the spectrum, especially when it comes to some of their dealings involving the Westboro Baptist Church. However, there is a veterans' group consisting of motorcyclists here in the US who hears when the Westboro Baptist Church is going to protest a funeral and they announce a counter protest where they rev their engines to drown out the picketers, which causes them to leave in frustration. To my knowledge, they use the internet to organize and then ride to the location together.

[Som]

Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as Indiana Jones for some reason. So the excavators are Spanish? And who deciphers the ruins? The Roman/Latin philologists?

Yep listing even a top 20 movies is hard. Seems like you're a fellow Trekkie! Cheers. What's your take on the new Star Trek flick 'Into Darkness' and the new 'Khan'? Thought it was someone completely different and evil unlike the real O.G Khan. I have seen these flicks you mentioned though, appreciate your taste in movies; (: Monty Python flicks are simply epic. Loved Life of Brian the most, thought twas the funniest of the bunch. Reckon they announced a Monty Python flick starring Robin Williams.
In new age funny flicks; I like 'Anchorman' the most. And most Will Ferrel flicks...
Anyways to be fair, my top 10 flick(s) would be; Pulp Fiction, The Big Lebowski, The Man From Earth, Taxi Driver, Groundhog Day, Cool Hand Luke, Young Frankenstein, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, Wonder Boys and Anchorman.
Talking of favorites, I wanted 'Breaking Bad' finale to be of a 5 hour long flick..but sadly..

Think you hit a nail about Anon group. Their implementation strategies and dramatic arguments are mostly sophomoric at best. It feels like they only want attention to their masks and slogans than the ideology that often seems bland in the process. Couldn't take them seriously; although they have done some noticeable work but not as adequately and consistently as most NGO workers...

[Keity]

i invite you people to know spitism, my religion. it came from france, but it grew ruge in brazil and i brings toguether religion&science. believe it or not the exact words said by Alan Kardec (spiritim codifyer) were "whenever sciece contradicts spiritism, abandon spiritism and follow science." although it never happend, for thi religion is science-leaded.

[Teresa]

I think I would rather see a world without religion...after all...how many wars have been started over science? I'm more of a spiritual person, I believe that organized religion was just established as a means to control groups of people by setting rules and then tell them they are going to burn in hell (or the equivalent) if they don't follow those rules. Without religious extremism, would there be the issues that we have today?

[Heather]

Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as Indiana Jones for some reason. So the excavators are Spanish? And who deciphers the ruins? The Roman/Latin philologis..."

I'm mainly taking Spanish because I live in an area where it's good to speak Spanish and since it's the third most widely spoken language, I figured I can't really go wrong with it. Usually, to my knowledge anyway, it's the archaeologist studying the object to at least get the gist of it before it gets shipped off to a museum.

I recognize most of the films on your list, and about half of them are on my list to watch. I liked some of the twists, but my husband and I ended up watching the original after we got home from the theater to compare it.

For me, Will Farrell is very hit or miss; sometimes I think he's brilliant, and others I find too silly for me. Monty Python is what turned me on to comedy programming. In fact, I did the Conquistador Coffee sketch when I worked at a camp as a teenager. I also love Mel Brooks; this might be a stupid question, but have you seen Spaceballs? To me, that and History of the World Part I are two of his best. I can see why they didn't make the finale of Breaking Bad into a five hour special, since most Americans complain when a movie's over an hour and a half.

One of the problems with Anonymous is because they're more interested in their image, it's hard for them to be taken seriously. The most important part of any group is what they do, so once the emphasis is put on something else the group folds, and I'm sure this is imminent for Anonymous.

[Heather]

Travis wrote: "Amazing! This has been a breathe of fresh air, reading all of these comments. I have tried to involve myself in discussions such as this on other various social networks and nowhere have I found su..."

First, let me say congratulations on your sobriety.

While I disagree with you on religion being important in the road to recovery (I actually find it unethical for certain groups to say people who want help have to convert or they won't get help unethical, but that's a different story), I do agree that support groups are instrumental in recovering. I would like to see similar support groups for secularists to use; in fact, a friend of mine created a secular version of overeaters anonymous that's working pretty well for the people in the group.

The problem I have with the Trek quote is, it very much goes against everything Gene Roddenbury stood for; he was a secular humanist, which is just a more socially acceptable way of saying atheist, and Spock is supposed to be a completely logical character, so it's completely out of character for him to have said he relies on faith.

For me, I can't find a place for faith, but I understand that not everyone is like me, so as long as I'm not being pushed to do something I don't agree with (i.e, creationism in my science class or laws based on religious views), I'm okay with religion. I see it kind of like a penis: be proud of it, but please don't take it out in an inappropriate situation.

[Travis]

Again, people are saying faith and religion are the same thing.
They aren't.
You can have faith without religion. You do it every day.

constantly treating the two as the same thing is like me treating the terms religious and delusional as the same.

[Gordon]

Like Heather said, congrats on recovery, I know the process is ongoing & will be for the rest of ur life, but with support & self control (easier said than done) u are past the physically hard part, but the emotional part lasts everyday so I applaud ur determination & will.

& Heather, the penis analogy, esp. coming from a girl (no gender bias!!), it made me laugh out loud visualizing one of my female friends making the point, but using the word 'cock' instead, either way it was funny analogy because like u implied that religion pushed upon others (organized or not) can be not only annoying but the topis itself tends to be taboo & result in shouting discussions like Travis said, as well as 'politics', but everyone has been good at keeping it civil, when u read the entire thread its quite interesting takes on all parts of life & ALL sorts of opinions, love it :) !

[Heather]

Gordon wrote: "Like Heather said, congrats on recovery, I know the process is ongoing & will be for the rest of ur life, but with support & self control (easier said than done) u are past the physically hard part..."

I wasn't intending to be ironic with the penis analogy, but you made me laugh when you pointed it out, and that lauhter couldn't have come at a better time in my life since I'm going through a rough time.

[Heather]

Travis wrote: "Awesome! Great comment. And of course, agreed on the idea of "you take care of you and I will take care of me." And you will notice I didnt do any of those things that frustrate you with regards to..."

You were right that I interpreted Spock's words in that it implied religious faith; I personally associate faith in a religious context. I will be the first to admit I'm not a gambler (I will play penny slots, but will not go above $0.33 per bet)and will not take a leap of faith unless I have gathered enough evidence to tell me that I can reach that conclusion logically.

I'm quite pleased that you also take the relativistic route in dealing with people who have differing beliefs from your own and it didn't go unnoticed; I find discussing religion with you quite relaxing because of your non-threatening attitude. I honestly think that atheists and the religious would get along better if we set aside our prejudices and really listened to what the other has to say. The problem is, there is such a polarized view among some on both sides that make it difficult to properly do this.

You're welcome for the well wishes on sobriety. I remember my dad's struggle with stopping chewing tobacco, a habit he started when he was six and didn't kick until he was almost forty, and it's certainly not easy for anyone to quit an addictive habit. I think motivation, support, and encouragement can be some of the best ways to keeping a person sober, so whenever someone mentions their sobriety, I think it's best to praise them for the hard journey and the surmounting of their Everest.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as Indiana Jones for some reason. So the excavators are Spanish? And who deciphers the ruins? The Ro..."

Sounds good.

Will Ferrell is funnier when he acts more silly; think it's his trademark. He's sometimes a 'bad movie' where you don't laugh because of the contents, instead laugh at him being silly and weird..

I also love Mel Brooks; this might be a stupid question, but have you seen Spaceballs?

I've been meaning to watch that as it looked like a funnier Star Wars parody. Is it somewhat like 'Airplane!'?

cheers

@ Travis; nice one, congrats and wishing you all the best to keep it up and strong; there's much to learn from that. I'm not sober (not yet) so I can't fully understand its gravity and the triumphant aspect of getting rid of it. Since I gave up smoking a year back, think I can understand bits of the victorious feeling. Well, Kudos to that. And you were spot on with your analogy about the subject. Cheers.

Just to end my take on this; I have nothing against agnostics, religious, atheists blokes. But it's sometimes hard to see a religious person being bashed over his beliefs through logical and cantankerous tactics. And on the other end of the bashing it's mostly a radical one. I gave up on most of the forums because those rough ends were controlled by radical atheists, too much bashes. Seemed like they are the ones who were entangled in religion more than others...it's pointless but vexing...so are my rants in this thread. Think I need to sober up a bit lol

[Heather]

Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as Indiana Jones for some reason. So the excavators are Spanish? And who deciphers t..."

Spaceballs doesn't have the deadpan humor that Airplane uses, but it basically focuses on one or two movies to satirize like Airplane. Spaceballs parodies Star Wars with just a dash of Star Trek jokes thrown in. It has John Candy and Joan Rivers as two of the best comedic characters in the film, so if you like them, you'll like the film.

I agree that relativism is necessary; I realized as an atheist I will not break down the stereotypes against me by stereotyping religious people myself. I can understand your frustration with radical atheism because in the US, I have been told my citizenship should be revoked and I should be deported by christians with very polar views for the simple fact that I'm atheist. It's really the screamers on the fringes who make the most noise and ruin it for those who want to have a civil discussion.

[Som]

^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as Indiana Jones for some reason. So the excavators are Spanish?..."

Spaceballs is in my watching list. cheers.. Princess Vespa haha...there's an animated series of it too!

The overall outrage makes sense now. How about your first and 14th Amendments, don't they apply in here? It's sad though but not at all surprising, of typical flawed governance; government should be neutral about it if not supportive; they get life from your votes and living allowances from your thick taxes, instead of protecting your freedom of rights they are revoking them! Sue those radical authoritarians!!

[Heather]

Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as Indiana Jones for some re..."

The Christians crying for atheists to be deported believe the first amendment is for freedom of religion not freedom from it, so not only are atheists exempt from the first amendment, people can impose religious laws on those who have different religious views.

As for the fourteenth amendment rights, most people in the US are not educated on their own constitution; in fact, if I told you I didn't have to look it up and check it, I'd be a liar. Because education on our own government is so abysmal (something like 75% of US citizens wouldn't be able to pass the test to get citizenship), people saying atheists' citizenship needs to be taken away probably are ignorant to the fact that it's not constitutional to even try to carry it out.

Luckily so far it's just far right people spouting off nasty rhetoric, but my husband and I have already said that if a far right president and a far right legislative majority are elected, we're leaving, because there are also other far right people who want to kill all atheists, because somehow deporting them isn't extreme enough.

[Travis]

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as India..."


I do wonder about the whole 'kick out the atheists' thing.
It shows so many levels of ignorance that you hardly know where to be begin...

Atheists are not a nationality, we didn't all come from from faraway land. Don'tbeliveislavia or something.

hardcore Christians and republicans ( to be redundant) seem to think the first amendment only protects their speech, rather than everyone's.

Then we get into how very christian that whole attitude is.
"Throw them out! I'm so sick of their whining!'
Which I believe is Dane Perina actually quoting Jesus.

Plus, it's always so cute when the religion that has a stranglehold on the country acts like a put upon minority.
Yes, christians are so persecuted that you can listen to them say it on 64 different news shows.

You shouldn't have to worry about collecting packing boxes though, Heather, as the republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure they never get a guy in the White House.
Thoughtful of them.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeologists as India..."

Amendments, acts can be overlapping and perplexing at times though, unless you're academically active in the land of polity or a debate lover. But before making things up those religious radicals should at least look it up once, as it's just coupla clicks away. This problem redirects to my 1st post in this thread. The need for proper education, as polity being a compulsory major subject. Since, here, arrogance is a primary coat of ignorance; it's indeed a tough matter to deal with. And you're absolutely right about them that they're being stubborn about it. Well that's what radicals do. Left-right wing is not just some Arsenal-Tottenham beef; it's a decider of 35 mil citizen's fate; and indirectly, the whole world's...No wonder The Anon group is hyperactive about it..

How's Obama's administration doing? I know globally it's not very well reputed because of NSA, drones, intervening/bullying in others' affairs etc etc; but how're the importance of 'beliefs' under his wing? He's a democrat right? (Or a hypocrite?) I watched one of his presidential debates where Romney pwend him good! And that guy had some good visions, but limited ones, some seemed sugarcoated; plus he turned into a hypocrite with that youku share or something...It seemed like you guys had to choose one from the bad or the worse to make things less 'the ugly'..

[Keith]

Bad question. Although religion has its place, there would be no discussions without science.

[Heather]

Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I often visualize Archeo..."

You're absolutely right that ignorance from either side is horrible and leads to awful things. Unfortunately, there is a psychological effect that allows ignorant people with only a causal knowledge of a subject to think they're experts, while actual experts tend to think they're not experts because they're cognizant that they don't know every last item on a subject. A lot of those on the fringes have this effect, and they talk out of their ass as a result.

I think Obama's administration is doing okay, but I would like to see fewer drone strikes and intervention. He's a moderate democrat who is pro gay marriage, pro choice, and pro universal health care; the reason he's for the first two is the US, contrary to a lot of right wingers' perspectives, was founded on secular views, and the constitution says that we are not to make religious laws. Romney to me was the least extreme of the republican candidates, and we did have a tough choice to make. In my opinion, however, we made the right one, because who knows what could have been under a far right person like Romney, who wanted to create a new amendment to uphold his religiously mandated bigotry (ban on gay marriage).

[Travis]

Obama is not a liberal socialist, but rather a centrist democrat.
He only seems really liberal to people because we as a country have moved so far to the right that Nixon couldn't get elected today as a republican.
If the USA ever elected a real liberal socialist as President, Fox news would spontaniously combust.

Obama has his flaws and has done some things I have issues with, but he was by far the best choice in either of the elections.
He is thoughtful in his choices, is willing to work with the other side ( shame they see that as a sign of weakness) and talks to people like he thinks they are intelligent adults.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds adventurous. I of..."

Yep, some confuse expertise with common sense; many issues don't even count as 'knowledge'; it's just the unbiased general awareness of it that counts, on a thin factual line it's separated from the wide range of knowledge. The deduction of common beliefs varies if the information perceived differently. That's where politicians aim at methinks. And a minus, FOX news watchers end up having different takes on subjects! More vulnerable soft spots...

About being an expert, there's an example wont hurt under the spotlight; It's about how 'Bill Maher' deduct things; reckon he recently said something about most Americans don't know a thing about Obamacare and went around proving it. Sometimes it appears as he's a far-left; in the case of beliefs it seemed like that in the documentary 'Religulous'. Although he sometimes counters democrats viciously while being at the side of old republican ideologies. So this type of (unbiased?) partisan deductions make one a hypocrite or a multi-dimensional analyst? And does this makes him an expert or just radically opinionated....I don't know if one'd find him as an expert. But I believe those are experts who take these accounts on a global perspective. Religions and the consequences of its radical views as a global instruments; a friend said 'no two religions are equal'; well that's what the seed for the pedestal of supremacy and all around nuisance. A true expert (IMO) breaks down things philosophical; justifying the significance; wouldn't call that generalizing but using the device of scrutinization through common need of beliefs and their significance over time.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong... (:

And think you're right about Romney; besides sugarcoating, during campaign he also gave hints of those what you mentioned. After Obama's tenure who do you think will be most ideal candidates for the presidential elections?

Travis wrote: "Obama is not a liberal socialist, but rather a centrist democrat.
He only seems really liberal to people because we as a country have moved so far to the right that Nixon couldn't get elected today..."

That and Watergate...
How's the religious affairs and rights are defined 'ideally' in the eyes of a centrist democrat?

Don't know much about Mr. Obama's internal affairs about dealing with citizens. Although I've read disparate, polarized opinions. The only problem we have with Mr.Obama is drones, attacks and overall violation of the global democracy. Think only paranoia would allow a higher administration to initiate global 1984; thought polices; tut tut..But they'd should just go ahead and check my mail; it's all spammy garbage in there anyways lol...but most can't say the same!

Another post I read saying; 'there'd be only one religion worldwide and that would solve the whole problem'...
1. Don't think it's possible, apart from theory
2. It's implementation is being tried and resulted in wars
3. There's a hidden paradox; being that you can't disregard the non-believers
4. What religion it would be other than science...!

[Heather]

Somnambulist wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating Roman ruins!..sounds a..."

I don't think anyone could call Bill Maher an expert, and those who do are stretching a bit. He is a comedian, albeit an educated one; however, his statements on things like the anti vaccine movement and homeopathy are ridiculous. If you're looking for sound advice from him, my advice would be to look elsewhere. He has a strong opinion on a lot of things and he does know his politics, so I would recommend listening to what he says on things like Obamacare because he is right that most Americans have no clue about it. The sad thing is, most of those screaming for its repeal are those who need it most.

I would like to see another liberal who is willing to get our soldiers better mental health care and who is going to help get more laws passed to keep large corporations and the wealthy from avoiding taxes by putting their money in off-shore accounts. I would also like to see tax breaks for these same corporations if they don't outsource their labor force. I know it's idealistic, but a girl can dream, right?

[David]

I would prefer penicillin to amens. We can attribute our longevity, more food, and comfortable lives (in the West) to science and technology. On the other hand, we can't attribute much other than wars, terrorists, and sexual repression to religion.

[James]

I'd rather live in a world without Dan Drown novels.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "Somnambulist wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Excavating R..."

Yeah. I prefer Bill Hicks and Carlin over Bill Maher any day, in all areas...too bad they died..

That's indeed a good dream; not an impossible one though; kudos to that, ma'am.

Tax evasions and the following microeconomics breakdown can be a unavoidable economic evil on a long run; enough to discombobulate the subsidiary issues (majorly the food). Partner countries will suffer more as they'll encounter their value of currency dropping down rapidly, confining overall deals/pacts, global inflation rises; hailing all around chaos. I don't see many rapid implementations of those patch-up schemes are being devised in the ongoing processes and reforms, as those usually promised during the presidential debates; in form of an ideal trickle down theory.
In times like this, people should be religiously neutral and put their efforts where it's due. i.e, at The ever corroding global financial schemes and strategies to minimize the colossal debt; the rich-poor gap increment calls for more attention from the financial sectors and government, for starters. Protests don't do shit...

We all wait for the Superman but the capes are in our closets; covering those shallow skeletons those don't even matter...

[Heather]

Somnambulist wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnambulist wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrot..."

I agree with you with Carlin; he presented his points well and was skeptical about what mattered, while Maher tends to challenge what is widely accepted.

What you said on taxes is quite true. The big problem we have is, politicians are still trying to apply an economic model that worked during the Reagan era, but would not work now. The reason trickle down economics worked in the Reagan era was because the rich were being taxed so much that they didn't want to spend money or create more jobs and it snowballed into a recession, so giving tax breaks to th wealthy worked to pull us back up. Now, the rich pay next to nothing and still want to pay less, but because the middle class is taxed to the breaking point we are in a recession all over again. I agree that in this case, protests don't do jack because pundits and politicians from both sides tend to depict protestors protesting the taxes as being lazy anarchists who don't wish to work and feel entitled to everything.

You said something interesting in your final paragraph, and I think you're right. In order to get the message across, we need to either run for office or contact our representatives. My dad's doing just that (and encouraging others to do the same) by calling our congressmen about the rash of soldier suicides because of the lack of mental health care they get and their superiors are challenging these people to do it by calling them weak when they do try to get help. He's contacted our congressmen and is encouraging others to do the same to create this change.

[Som]

Heather wrote: "Somnambulist wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnambulist wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "^Kudos Travis.. (:

Heather wrote: "Somnipotent wrote: "Heather wro..."

Cheers to your Dad. Much respect. (:

Change is needed everywhere; one must step up to the system and continue the fight without being selfish; be the system if you want to change, tis a good way to initiate any revolution; there's no better way around methinks.

Carlin's creativity seals everything though; above all that funny stuff, his unique way of comprehending and depicting the upgraded, unique commonsense puts a question mark on all those generally accepted beliefs; man's a genius in my book. Hunter S. Thompson too.

Yep, and reckon the advancement in such effective theories should be revolutionized (as history being the greatest sensei!); i.e, for starters; pact some T&C with billionaire tycoons, of maintaining the job stability beforehand, initializing a committee to keep tracks of their affairs and investments. They wont leave the country (as of course the global investors, tycoons are lined up to trade places any time), instead, will be forced to follow such theories without cutting jobs and fiddling with bourgeoisie's economic stability. Govt. should be like, "You're a billionaire! Well done! Now, here ya go, More responsibilities for you." Think, the only reason government is providing liquidity to those rich blokes are mainly because of political, economical breakdown, fund paranoia and all around conspiracy those surface media couldn't cover. Where they will go after leaving wall street anyways ......(maybe a moot point but you get the idea of turning the tables!)

[Satyan]

And I thought this thread and discussions would align themselves with the title and theme.
And its easy to comment how to run an economy of a country here than actually coming across its challenges and diversification.
And I had heard pen is mighter than a sword... observing it through some obnoxious and prognostic views..

[Lynn]

Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."

I am spiritual, but not religious, and I think that both science and religion are necessary. Science definitely, religion, only because I guess people need to believe in a specific thing/person/diety/God/Goddess?
Did I say that right? Everybody has the right to believe or not as they wish. The only thing I totally dislike is when a person/people are forced to believe in a certain religion etc..