Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 11,851-11,900 of 12,463

[Ken]

So Lynn, you would agree that what the fundamentalist Christians are doing in American politics is wrong...

[Lynn]

Sorry Ken, I don't know anything about that. Like I said I'm spiritual not religious. But I do not think religion belongs in politics- with the exception of Obama trying to remove things that were already in place like the pledge, the word god out of it that was always there.

[Ken]

How about taking evolution out of the science classroom and putting in creationism, how about trying to limit a woman's right to make decision's about her own body, how about making laws prohibiting people of the same sex from getting married and having the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?

[Ken]

BTW, the phrase "under god" was not originally in the pledge of allegiance. It was added during the second world war if memory serves.

[Heather]

Ken wrote: "BTW, the phrase "under god" was not originally in the pledge of allegiance. It was added during the second world war if memory serves."

Actually, it was added in the 1950s during the red scare because we wanted to prove that god was on our side instead of those "godless commies." Really ridiculous, if you ask me, that they did it, and I hope we take it out.

[Ken]

Thanks for the correction Heather

[Lynn]

Ken wrote: "How about taking evolution out of the science classroom and putting in creationism, how about trying to limit a woman's right to make decision's about her own body, how about making laws prohibitin..."

Ok you got me there. No science needs to stay in the classroom, But the womans right to her body should not be in religion or even in government as to what we do. As for the thing with the pledge, Even if it was added when you say, I think it should stay. When they say God, If you are not christian, it should not matter if you are religious, It could be a Jewish god, A Muslim god, etc.

[Travis]

Lynn wrote: "Ken wrote: "How about taking evolution out of the science classroom and putting in creationism, how about trying to limit a woman's right to make decision's about her own body, how about making law..."

an atheist god...?

[Mickey]

Thank God I am an Atheist :)

[Aulia]

Of course I can't live in a world without science and religion.

[cHriS]

Mickey wrote: "Thank God I am an Atheist :)"

Heads I win tails you loose :)

[Mickey]

cHriS wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Thank God I am an Atheist :)"

Heads I win tails you loose :)"

"So I see", said the the blind man.

[Lynn]

No not an atheist god.

[Gordon]

I wonder cynically how many atheist will just 'cover their bases' on deathbed by thinking, 'I believe X is my savior'... Just in case lol. According to catholic faith u can 'repent' anytime before death. I think something cool happens because energy i

[Gordon]

Energy cannot be destroyed nor created.. Etc.. A 'soul' is the energy of ones essence as I believe, so it will go somewhere. Hopefully not into an earthworm or such... :)

[Travis]

Gordon wrote: "I wonder cynically how many atheist will just 'cover their bases' on deathbed by thinking, 'I believe X is my savior'... Just in case lol. According to catholic faith u can 'repent' anytime before ..."

Probably the same amount as religious folk that realize they've spent decades talking to the sky and it's time to move on.

[Travis]

Lynn wrote: "No not an atheist god."

Then there's still a problem with 'under god'.

[Lynn]

y is that?

[Travis]

Lynn wrote: "y is that?"


People say 'well, it's no big deal...it can be anyone's god' but that pushes aside a chunk of the population that don't have any god.

It doesn't actually address or even aknowledge the issue.

It's like when when the republicans had a conference on their poor image with women and didn't actually invite any women to speak.

[Gordon]

Travis wrote: Probably the same amount as religious folk that realize they've spent decades talking to the sky and it's time to move on ..."

I highly doubt that just because the people that spent decades talking to the sky regardless of the religion have faith, which is why they do the odd ceremony & beliefs to begin with, death is the ultimate test of faith for them. (this is the opinion of a person who was baptized Roman Catholic, brought up with a Christian mom, & now explicitly denies the existence of an omnipotent deity)

Atheism which I've seen so many diff. definitions of including the one I think is the largest, which maybe an atheist can answer for me: is atheism the absence of a deity or the conscious, explicit rejection of one? Due to science, non-belief due to living in world where society tends to push a belief on the majority of humans as they grow? If it is the non-belief in a deity than I have parts of atheist thinking. But there is a broad range of this thinking from what I've read & I don't go as far as dismissing any 'spiritual' or in my terms 'energy' that flows thru the universe, very much like how physics & math run the laws of measurable events in this same universe.

I'm not sure what label best describes me, nor would I want to be labeled. If it what u believe makes u better & also keeps u out of my business than its fine with me. I really like the analogy about the republican conference :)

[Heather]

Gordon wrote: "Travis wrote: Probably the same amount as religious folk that realize they've spent decades talking to the sky and it's time to move on ..."

I highly doubt that just because the people that spent ..."

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the existence of one, so we think there is no god. If there is evidence for a creator deity, then we will change our hypothesis, but for now, we don't think there is a god. Think of it as a scientific hypothesis; we think there is, but until we can accurately test, we're not certain and don't want to jump to conclusions one way or the other.

I find that I have a better sense of community spending time with others like me, but if you don't want that because of the label, that's okay. I would call you an atheist, but that's just me. I don't understand others' belief in a deity and quite frankly, I don't have to. I'll keep my science out of their Sunday school if they'll keep their myths out of my science classroom.

[Travis]

Gordon wrote: "Travis wrote: Probably the same amount as religious folk that realize they've spent decades talking to the sky and it's time to move on ..."

I highly doubt that just because the people that spent ..."

I only speak for me in these matters, as I am not authorized by the world atheist league.
atheism is there is no evidence whatsoever for there being a god, so it's not really a matter of belief or non-belief.

There was no epiphany or dramatic moment, rather just a gradual realization that there's no evidence there's anybody out there and even the people who say they think there's somebody out there don't act like they believe it and it actually changed nothing in my life to step away from all that.

well, I get to sleep in on sundays, but otherwise nothing's changed.

I try to be respectful/tolerant of other people's beliefs and ideas and as long as religion leaves me alone, I will leave it alone.
Which is tricky when you live in a country where religion has a bit of a stranglehold on things, but the extra sleep on sunday helps me relax about it.

[CD]

Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the existence of one, so we think there is no god. If there is evidence for a creator deity, then we will change our hypothesis, but for now, we don't think there is a god. Think of it as a scientific hypothesis; we think there is, but until we can accurately test, we're not certain and don't want to jump to conclusions one way or the other.
..."

That sounds a lot more like agnosticism than atheism. Or being a Unitarian. With all due apologies to my Unitarian friends.

[Heather]

CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the existence of one, so we think there is no god. If there is ..."

Even Dawkins states that on a scale of one to ten, one being certain there is a god and ten is certainty there isn't, he is a nine. That's where I am, too.

[CD]

Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the existence of one, so we think there is no god. ..."

I guess for some on both sides of the question it is all about doubt or hedging their bet :).

[Heather]

CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the existence of one, so we think t..."

I wouldn't call it hedging my bet for the afterlife any more than I would consider one who slightly doubts the existence of a god to hedge their bets for the lack of one. In my opinion, it's no different than guessing that the big bang was caused by a four dimensional black hole and then finding evidence that it was a subatomic explosion caused after a big crunch. It's called looking at things through the scientific method.

[CD]

Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the existence of one, s..."

No, I really don't want to disappoint you or start a huge war, but that is not the scientific method.

My original quip was about the definition or explanation that was posted that is a classic and almost formal definition of agnostic 'belief'. The whole room for doubt in this kind of philosophic/theological debate is agnosticism.

Atheism is statement of a philosophy that relies on mechanism other than the supernatural, i.e. a deity. It is not a maybe proposition or 'hedging one's bet'.

The reality part of the scientific method precludes a supernatural inclusion as a 'possibility'. Once the argument is attempted to put the existence or not of deity into the realm of proof via observance, it is no longer supernatural and not a deity nor religion.

Dawkins had problems with this too as is was clearly indicated in his early and fame producing work, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. That he had to 'prove' once again the philosophic and scientific principles that were centuries old leads one to wonder if his continuing concern with the 'religion' of atheism was faint damning self criticism.

I'm not personally worried, concerned, or have any doubts about Valhalla, Paradise, or an eternal vacation destination with golden streets. If anything, if there was reincarnation, I'd want to come back as my dog. He has more treats, toys, cookies, a better diet, great health care, and an exercise program than any human I know.

Science? There is only one true science Physics, its language is Mathematics, and Everything else is an exercise left for the reader.

[Heather]

CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence for the exi..."

Again, I have a 90% certainty that there is no god or supernatural force behind anything. I consider myself an atheist as a result of my security in it.

I don't think there's an afterlife or reincarnation for that matter because I know there would be substantial proof if there was. In the mean time, I'm happy to learn as much as I possibly can.

As for everything else being an exercise left for the reader, what about geology? It can easily be proven that the earth is 6 billion years old via the geologic record and radioactive carbon dating. Also, look at biology. It's obvious from DNA study that all the organisms on Earth can be proven to be distant relatives, and the evidence gets stronger every day. It's only a few details that change and make the picture clearer.

[CD]

Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any empirical evidence..."

Radioactive carbon dating, decay of Carbon-14 is based on laws of nature from Physics. Dating at the billion+ (really less than that) year level is now often gauged with cesium or iridium levels. There are some other techniques to date the earth that fall in the realm of Physics, whether Cosmology or via calculable orbital decay via astrophysics. Not merely an exercise for the reader, but a straightforward application of physical principles.

DNA is nothing more than a large chemical molecule. That molecule exhibits certain properties that are defined at the base level by physics. Chemical analysis can determine the integrity of the molecule to see if it has remained a complete structure. It is physics and techniques like X-ray Crystallography that give us the basis for understanding of what happens at the higher level of Organic Chem, Biology, and Genetics.

The comment 'about an exercise left to the reader' is an inside joke and commentary about the disciplines of science. The statement itself is logical construct that is of course open to formal challenge, as it has been intended to be since some wag first rattled it off decades ago.

[Abdelhamid]

i prefer ti live in world with applicable science serve the humanity instead of surface's religion only work to give someone power to control the other like a herd.

[Gabriela]

I would rather live in a world without religion.
Religion doesn't mean ethics and while I would never want to live in a world without ethics, religion has caused more tragedy than good in this world.

People need to stop treating religion and ethics as equal.

[Peter]

If I had to choose then it would be religion over science every time.

Science tries to discover the reality of existence, to understand the nature of the universe in which we live. Like any human activity it can be corrupted and twisted to evil ends but then it has alos given us so much of great benefit.

I cannot say the same about religion.

When I read ‘Angels & Demons’ my dislike for religion and respect for science was only confirmed.

[Heather]

CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote: "CD wrote: "Heather wrote:

Atheism is the admission that we don't know if there is a god or not, but we haven't seen any em..."

I had no idea just how interconnected the scientific disciplines were. That's all pretty cool.

As for the inside joke, I'm sorry for not understanding it to be a logic puzzle; I honestly thought it was a serious argument. I'm going to a community college for my gen eds because I can't afford to go to a four year institution for all four years and I deal with young earthers in my science classes all the time, so I'll openly admit I jumped to conclusions in that regard. I also don't read people very well; there's a very good reason my parents call me Bones, and no, they don't mean Dr. McCoy.

[Gabriela]

Travis wrote: "Gabriela wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion.
Religion doesn't mean ethics and while I would never want to live in a world without ethics, religion has caused more tragedy than..."


Well yes, science has been used to invent weapons. But I have never heard of anyone being killed "in the name of science". Now since recorded history there has been killings "in the name of -choose name of god-". So whereas the findings of scienfific research have been used as a tool for destruction, religion has given reasons and justification for the same thing....and still does. To me that's a huge difference. Now, everything can me used as a weapon if you really intend to do damage, but the danger that lies in religion is much greater because you can justify just about anything, especially since most holy books are extremely controversial and inconsistent in what they preach.

[Ken]

Like slavery. Seems the current bunch of Christian politicians in the US Tea Party wouldn't have a problem with going back to the way it was in the antebellum south.

[C.C.]

Gabriela wrote: "I have never heard of anyone being killed "in the name of science"."

So no one has ever died during scientific testing? No scientist has ever willingly exposed people to harm or death to test a theory? You sure you want to make that claim? Since we all know that some scientists have performed horrific experiments on humans and animals, it comes back to whether the science is to blame or the scientist. Personally, I find the answer easy and obvious. People beat other people to death over supporting the wrong sports team, but that doesn't make sports evil either.

The whole more harm than good argument is terrible anyway. Much of the good religion does is difficult to detect at a remove. For example, if religion makes someone happy and kind and they live a quiet life and raise a healthy family, how would you ever know unless you know that person yourself? But if religion is used as an excuse for killing someone, that's news.

Of course, there's also the good religions do that no one ever mentions. For example, churches were instrumental in founding American higher education. Not only were many of the Ivies initially established as seminaries, but schools like my alma mater were established in rural areas because churches wanted higher education close to home and shelled out the money for them.

[Travis]

Seems like religion deserves the blame it gets for the bad, more than science, as religion claims to be the moral authority.

If you are going to keep saying you are the source of all morals, then you need to walk the walk.

Saying religion does a lot of good, except for... and then having to scramble to list the good, hoping it out weighs the bad and will get people to go 'Oh, okay, we'll over look the hundreds of abused kids because the Catholics also run a soup kitchen.' Is one of the main reason I'm not a fan of religion.

If they actually walked the walk, then they wouldn't have to play they 'let's keep score game' with science.

[C.C.]

Travis wrote: "Seems like religion deserves the blame it gets for the bad, more than science, as religion claims to be the moral authority.

If you are going to keep saying you are the source of all morals, then you need to walk the walk."

A) Religion is not the source of morality. The deity or deities are the source of morality. Religion is a descriptor of man's relationship to that deity and practices associated with the same.

B) If you say the failure of religious individuals to comply with morality means religion is responsible for those failures, then surely the failure of individuals to practice science well is the fault of science. Or, to continue the analogy, is Blaine Gabbert's failure as a quarterback the fault of football or Blaine Gabbert?

And outside of forced binary comparisons like this discussion, religion doesn't keep score with science.

[Travis]

C.C. wrote: "Travis wrote: "Seems like religion deserves the blame it gets for the bad, more than science, as religion claims to be the moral authority.

If you are going to keep saying you are the source of al..."

Nearly every religion has a book, that they say was given to them/ dictated by a deity that is their rule book that they quote constantly.
So, deity is source of morality, writes book full of his rules, people get that book, use it as the rulebook for their religion and then neglect to follow their own rules, that were given to them by the deity.

If religion is not the source of morality, you might want to go talk to them, because they are making that claim as the justification for what they do.


I blame both football and religion, as both were created by people and then misused by those same people. If people stop playing football or practicing religion, both go away, while if you can ignore science but it's still there and still going on.

[Gordon]

Wait, how did football get potentially nixed? LOL...

[Travis]

Gordon wrote: "Wait, how did football get potentially nixed? LOL..."

Because football, like religion abuses it's potential to do good.

You gotta sit through four hours of that stuff, just to see ten minutes of the cheerleaders...if football was a true force for good that ratio would be reversed.

[C.C.]

Travis wrote: " If people stop playing football or practicing religion, both go away, while if you can ignore science but it's still there and still going on"

You seem to be confusing science with nature. Science does not simply exist as an elemental force. Science is something people practice, like football or religion, in order to understand and quantify the natural world. It also was created by men, and is often practiced poorly, particularly when there is money to be made from it.

Also, you're dodging my question. Does the failure of humans to practice religion perfectly invalidate the religion, and if so, why?

Gordon wrote: "Wait, how did football get potentially nixed? LOL..."

The Jaguars are so bad at it that they're dragging everyone else down with them.

[Travis]

C.C. wrote: "Travis wrote: " If people stop playing football or practicing religion, both go away, while if you can ignore science but it's still there and still going on"

You seem to be confusing science with..."

THe cherry picking invalidates it. Believers tell us we must do or not do certain things because a book they got from god says so, but they themselves pick and choose which parts to follow.

So, the actual followers of an all powerful deity have decided to ignore things that deity said, but use this book and it's beliefs as the basis for forcing those beliefs ( the ones they like) upon the rest of us.
Except in cases where they don't actually follow the beliefs they are forcing upon the rest of us.
That's not even getting into how heavily edited the word of god is.


Also, I'm not confusing science and nature, just aware of the huge amount of overlap between the two.

[Gordon]

C.C. wrote: "The Jaguars are so bad at it that they're dragging everyone else down with them..."

Ooof, Jags... that's rough

@ Travis, interesting analogy/example :P

[Lori]

I don't think humanity is able to live in a world with just the one. Without science, no one would know how our universe works and couldn't see God's work; without religion, there is no curiosity to see God's work so there would be no science. Without religion, there is also fear and with fear, there would be no wonder. But, if it was possible, I'd rather live in a world of science.

[[deleted user]]

No brainer: a world without religion would be the choice. No other human institution is responsible for more war, hate, destruction, persecution, bigotry, racism, sexism, and genocide than religion. And, yes, religion is a man-made institution.

To be clear, an absence of religion does not necessarily mean atheism. People could believe in a god or afterlife without organized religion. What I'm talking about is organized religion, a human institution.

[Travis]

Lori wrote: "I don't think humanity is able to live in a world with just the one. Without science, no one would know how our universe works and couldn't see God's work; without religion, there is no curiosity ..."

Why do people keep claiming curiosity for religion?
Religion is the one with the book of rules that tells you 'do this/don't do that' and that questioning god will likely cause something really bad to happen to you.

How do people equate that with curiosity?

Seems like everything you listed for religion, still happens if you take religion away.

[Danielle]

I'd prefer to live without religion. Because you still can believe in God without all the religions existing in this world. But you can't live so well without science. Imagine a world like the one in which homosapiens lived. Now, imagine you get a cancer. What do you do? You pray your god to help you? But then what? There is no hospital, no oncologist, no chemotherapy, nothing.

[Unnikrishnan]

World can Survive without religion but not without science, but as you say science has its limitation at some point but Spiritualism doesnt....

[cHriS]

The world has and will survive perfectly well without science or religion. Maybe the people that inhabit it would not.