Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 12,251-12,300 of 12,463

[Brad]

So you have proved there is no after! Please share?

[CD]

Brad wrote: "I think there is a middle ground too, but it is different than the middle ground you sugge..."

Just suggesting that you don't have to take a position. Why feel the need, particularly, if you accep..."

Mickey pretty much sums it up in post 12458. Depending upon which of the cosmological arguments Thomas Aquinas engages in there is a given that either the Universe or a supernatural force existed that justifies and proves the existence by requirement of the other. The Roman Church loved it!

[Brad]

I get that. I just don't remember specifically what Aquinas said about Anselm's proof.

[Travis]

Brad wrote: "So you have proved there is no after! Please share?"

just a case of if there's no god, then why would there be an after?

Or I guess you could say, I'm satisfied with everything in the whole world.

[Brad]

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. :>"

Yes. I agree cheerfully.

[Brad]

Travis wrote: "Brad wrote: "So you have proved there is no after! Please share?"

just a case of if there's no god, then why would there be an after?

Or I guess you could say, I'm satisfied with everything in th..."

Then we are the same except you have made a decision not to believe and I have decided not to decide because I see no reason to decide and, in any event, its unknowable so any decision would seem to have no point.

That's what I mean by my suggestion that there is a middle ground and its called skeptical detachment. What I can't know is something I don't have to worry about even though it might be something that if it were knowable would be keenly interesting.

[Rachel]

I just everyone's view to be respected and not judged, how you feel about god or not god or science and not science is really no ones business but your own. Havering people agree or disagree with you, is being insecure. Having a conversation is fine but thinking you are wiser, smarter, better than anyone else just based on believing in God or not God science or not science.

[Travis]

Brad wrote: "Travis wrote: "Brad wrote: "So you have proved there is no after! Please share?"

just a case of if there's no god, then why would there be an after?

Or I guess you could say, I'm satisfied with e..."

the thing is, I really don't feel like there was a decision made, it just sort of happened and there's never been anything to make me go 'hold on, I better rethink this'.

I didn't have to take the atheist entrance exam, or make a grand declaration.
No god and nothing in my life has changed, except I get to sleep in on sundays and there are a few more people who yell at me online.

my middle ground is I'll respect your beliefs, or at least leave you alone about them, as long you aren't using your beliefs as an excuse to treat people badly.

[Brad]

That's a great approach. Militant atheists are as tiresome as evangelicals. Gotta ratchet down the militancy on both sides of the aisle.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: great, it's all about cause and you think god is the cause, but that still circles back to you have no proof of this and no interest in providing any.
So, yeah, proof is actually the issue...."

No one has proof. There is no proof that we know of, and in our life time science will not find proof that there is/is not a god, nor will they be able to tell us what caused the big bang, let alone what happened before the big bang.

So it's stalemate.

Travis wrote: and atheists are interested in science because it deals with all parts of the world around us, and we kind of have an interest in the world as it's where we live.
what would you prefer we use instead?
..."

That's fine. I watch nature documentaries as well. But the Cosmology part of science, although very interesting, can only suggest causes for causes.

We are stranded on our little planet, we have been to the moon, (although soon there will be no one left on the planet who was alive when that happened, so it may not be believed in years to come);we are years way from getting a man to mars and it would take over 73,000 years to arrive at our nearest star system.

The fact is, we humans do not have the intelligence to work out and solve all the questions we ask of ourselves.

If as science suggests, we evolved just by chance, then we will be limited, again by chance as to how intelligent we can become. Of the eight million, seven hundred thousand species of life on earth we are the most intelligent. And none of the others come anywhere near us, so we have nothing to measure ourselves by.

The strange thing is that us humans evolving just by chance equates to a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years..... but according to science it did.

So it boils down to believing in a god if it keeps you happy or understanding that we are just not an intelligent enough species to figure out everything.

[Ken]

Chris, if and when scientists are able to "create" life in a petri dish, will your belief system change. Or alternatively, if or when we're contacted by intelligence from another star system, when that change things for you?

[cHriS]

Ken wrote: "Chris, if and when scientists are able to "create" life in a petri dish, will your belief system change. Or alternatively, if or when we're contacted by intelligence from another star system, when ..."

....why have we not been contacted already?
Maybe we need to answer that first.

[Ken]

Given the age of the universe at roughly 13 billion years and considering the statistical probabilities, the odds of other intelligent life being evolved to relatively the same level of capability as we are is slim to none.

[cHriS]

Ken wrote: "Given the age of the universe at roughly 13 billion years and considering the statistical probabilities, the odds of other intelligent life being evolved to relatively the same level of capability ..."

So they would have to have been created, assuming we are contacted any time soon :)

[Ken]

Only if one believes we were created. :)

[Danielle]

Ken wrote: "Only if one believes we were created. :)"

Good answer! Why should there be a creator? Creator=god and I don't believe in the need of one or many of them.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: great, it's all about cause and you think god is the cause, but that still circles back to you have no proof of this and no interest in providing any.
So, yeah, proof is actually the ..."

So, basically you are going with the 'mysterious ways' argument with a bit of 'science is hard' thrown in for good measure.

humans could not evolve by chance, but they did...?
Then it's not impossible, since it happened, just very, very rare.

[Lex]

Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

I think the "middle ground" between science and religion is one that allows both sides to coexist peacefully. Certainly, we DO coexist...but not peacefully, not harmoniously and absolutely not with any intent to understand and work together.

There have always been "leaders" and "followers". It's human nature and it's a perpetual piece of our psyche. Leaders (without distinction of what makes a productive or a destructive leader) that have no other characteristic to attract followers, invent them; e.g. a believable argument as to what causes lightning to a fearful public without contradicting / scientific explanation.

Religion was here first. Men, yearning for leadership found that explaining the unknown gave them position and power within their group. Like a wildfire, this M.O. for obtaining power and control spread quickly.

Science came later, and it was a direct and immediate attack on the superstitious and mythological power base that the aforementioned "leaders" had established.

The rest is history. Science has proven over and over that the events depicted in the Bible, the Torah, the Quran are fanciful, at best. Or has it?

Religion has not proven anything and, although responsible for many of the great atrocities and wars perpetuated on this planet; has equally shown itself to be a foundation of support, love and comfort to billions of people.

Occasionally, science proves possible what was once considered impossible in regard to religiously based accounts. The miracles Jesus is said to have performed, may have actually happened. Telepathy and telekinesis are proven abilities among a select few people. Their number is, however, growing. Evolution?

Past Life Regression therapies are shaping a viable argument for the existence of an afterlife. Whether that might become heaven or hell remains to be seen.

My position. Live and let live. Neither "side" should impinge upon the other. Stop the hate...work together for a better life and way of life for all.

[Brad]

Ken wrote: "Given the age of the universe at roughly 13 billion years and considering the statistical probabilities, the odds of other intelligent life being evolved to relatively the same level of capability ..."

Has someone done this math?

[Brad]

Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

How are telekinesis and telepathy evidence of a god or afterlife?

What is Past Life Regression therapy?

[Lex]

Brad wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

How are telekinesis and telepathy evidence of a..."

Brad - I was referring to the miracles that Jesus is said to have performed. Some of these may have been the result of, as yet unproven, quantum physics theories. Telekinesis and telepathy, for example are proven by quantum physics experiments. The primary theories that could-maybe-perhaps, one day prove heaven, hell and / or a creator are "entanglement", "multi-verse" and "string". Explanations for these and other theories abound via a Google search.

Past Life Regression therapy refers to experiments begun by Dr. Michael Newton through hypnosis therapy. Dr. Newton discovered and confirmed through more than 7,000 cases that a past life...and therefore, life after death...exists. There remain a multitude of opponents who claim the therapy is similar to Near Death Experience reports and,therefore, unreliable.

The beauty of it all is that, like religion, one can choose to believe...or not! ;o)

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote:Then it's not impossible, since it happened, just very, very rare. "
No one says it did not happen, just that we don't know with complete certainty how we got here. It also can suggest that it happened with help and was not random.

Very very rare sounds as though it happens every once in a given time span.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote:Then it's not impossible, since it happened, just very, very rare. "
No one says it did not happen, just that we don't know with complete certainty how we got here. It al..."

Or it sounds like winning the lottery or getting struck by lightening.

[Travis]

Lex wrote: "Brad wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

How are telekinesis and telepathy ..."

Now I have visions of Jesus joining the X-men.
Or forming his own super team and protecting the middle east from aliens and super villains.

[Lex]

Travis wrote: "Lex wrote: "Brad wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

How are telekinesis an..."

LOL...nothing wrong with either of those visions, Travis; it would make for an exciting novel, I betcha.

[Travis]

Lex wrote: "Travis wrote: "Lex wrote: "Brad wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

How are..."

I was thinking comic book, myself.

[Lex]

Travis wrote: "Lex wrote: "Travis wrote: "Lex wrote: "Brad wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed do..."

Figured that when I read your latest (I think latest) blog...;o). Even better than a novel in this case.

[Brad]

I suppose this is as good a place as any for me to drop out of this string. Thanks for the exchange.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Or it sounds like winning the lottery or getting struck by lightening.
..."

phew!

1-0 to the believers, then.

[Rob]

Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

I think the "middle ground" between science and religion is..."

Lex - most of the miracles attributed to Jesus can be traced back to older religions. They have been incorporated into the new testament.

As for telekinesis etc they don't exist. There's not one shred of evidence that can support the idea under testing.

Past life regression - I want you think about it for a minute. In the past there were less people, at some point there were very few people. How can past life regression therapy work when at some point there were less people. Are new souls being generated? If so, why do souls of dead people get re-used in new bodies. Yoiu wouldn't need to do that if a new soul could be 'born' into a new body. Past life regression is a state induced by the hypnotist because although they may be good at hypnosis they are crap at questioning their subjects.

Would any of you 'believers' or 'live and let live' folk be happy if a large part of sciety dedicated their lives to scientology and the drve to aquire new converts. I doubt it. For me that's the same place all organised religions are at. They just want to increase and secure their power base. The rest is just window dressing.

[Lex]

Rob wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

I think the "middle ground" between science and..."

Rob - Granted that most of the miracles attributed to Jesus can be traced thousands of years earlier, as can the details about Jesus' life. His birth, the number of his disciples, his death and resurrection, etc. These include Horus - 3000 B.C, Attis and Mithra (one Greek, the other Persian) - 1200 B.C., Krishna - 900 B.C. and Dionysus - 500 B.C.

There have been many scientific experiments over the years that have proven telekinesis to be fact. Here's one of many links: http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis...

Past Life Regression - Who's to say that all the souls in every universe within every star system comes to Earth, or that everyone who has lived on Earth returns to Earth and our particular parallel universe of Earth? Using numbers of lives past, present and future is an invalid argument because we don't know the size of the source pool.

I'm not talking about nor condoning scientology. It's a crock just like every other religion and, as you stated, "they just want to increase and secure their power base." ;o)

[Rob]

Lex -Thanks for the link. It's anice article. But it does mention that there's no peer review for the results and until that is done there's really still no evidence/proof. If this was 'real' the world of science would be all over it. However, I think it's another 'cold-fusion' story...

Sure, all those points you've raised re the miracles and Jesus life are right and this is what really annoys me about Christianity, the people in charge know all those facts and yet they peddle the bible like it's the truth. That, for me at least, is just not on and if they are willing to do that, why should anyone believe anything they say?

I don't argue that religion didn't come first because obviously it did and with our then limited knowledge base it's all understandable. But now we know more (not everything), and I think with that new knowledge organised religion needs to be looked at again.

Yes, keep all the good stuff they do, but stop all the harm.

And as for Past lives I think I'm going to have to go into a trance and seek guidance from my time when I was a Tau Cetian space bat. Really mate, that idea is right out there.

[Rob]

Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

I think the "middle ground" between..."

I also found this re your article link - "Experiments under Jahn's purview also explored remote viewing and other topics in parapsychology. In 1982, at the invitation of the editors of Proceedings of the IEEE, Jahn published a comprehensive review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perspective.[7] Statistical flaws in his work have been proposed by others in the parapsychological community and within the general scientific community."

You can't believe everything you read ;-)

[Lex]

Rob wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

I think the "middle gro..."

Amen, Rob...you can't believe everything that you read... ;o).

Seriously, I'm not fully accepting all of it, but I've assembled quite a bit of information that allows me to draw some conclusions about the future. I'm thinking we will find that several of the quantum physics theories are not only applicable and real; they are also vital to the creation and function of the universe (here I mean the entire universe - that which we can see / postulate upon, and that which we can't, at present, even conceive!).

I don't know who first spoke this quote. I'm hoping it wasn't Donald Rumsfeld, but regardless it makes sense to me. "I don't know, what I don't know." ;o)

[Rob]

Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: "Lex wrote: "Rob wrote: Why meet them half way and find a middle ground? What do they have to offer other than the moral codes they have handed down.

I think the..."

Quantum physics is it? ;-) next you'll be telling me that it's all a byproduct of wave-collapse from the big bang. That's of course, assuming be are able to observe it without influencing the outcome.

Don't get me started on physics. :-)

[Lex]

Indeed. I love the "observation affects the outcome" theory. That's why I refuse to do a endoscopy! If there's nothing there, there will be by the time the doc has observed that nothing was there! lol

[Rob]

Lex wrote: "Indeed. I love the "observation affects the outcome" theory. That's why I refuse to do a endoscopy! If there's nothing there, there will be by the time the doc has observed that nothing was there! lol"

Ha. Nice one.

[Jenn]

I would much rather live in a world without religion. Too often religion corrupts people by basing the way we treat or act towards others on their religious beliefs. Every religion at one time or other has killed off or persecuted some other religion based on their beliefs, besides maybe Buddhism. Science has given us so many amazing medicines and has taught us so much about the world we live in. That being said I am a religious person in that I believe that there is something greater than us, however I do not believe in organized religion because too many times before have I seen what has become of people using religion as a defense against their horrible actions, to persecute others and as a guide as to how anyone who doesn't live like them will be punished. Religion is not the only thing that breeds judgmental people, but it does play a large role. Even though faith in something greater than us has helped many through tough times, I wish that people placed more faith in themselves and in their own ability to do great things, rather than waiting for things to miraculously appear or change. Science in my opinion has done more good than bad, including having helped people survive for many years through evolution and advancements.

[Jdcomments]

The premise of the question is,I think,specious. Would you ask "Would you rather live in a world without biology or without physics?"? Probably not because they both seem necessary- and I feel the same about science and religion.

As Einstein said- "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame."

[Travis]

Jdcomments wrote: "The premise of the question is,I think,specious. Would you ask "Would you rather live in a world without biology or without physics?"? Probably not because they both seem necessary- and I feel the ..."

Except physics and biology are both sciences.
So, to show how you couldn't pick one you used an analogy that is all science.

and I am starting a drinking game for every time someones uses that Einstein quote.

[Jdcomments]

Travis wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "The premise of the question is,I think,specious. Would you ask "Would you rather live in a world without biology or without physics?"? Probably not because they both seem necessa..."

Yes, I know they are both sciences.

My point is that they are two diverse domains of knowledge united by a common methodology and no one ever suggests a world without one or the other because of that methodology making them "true".

However religion (or more accurately "faith")is easily disposable in some people's eyes. For me it is just as necessary to understanding the world and our place in it as science is.

Perhaps this is why Einstein's quote is used so often- it perfectly captures the necessity of both science and faith.

[Lex]

Well stated, Jenn.

[Lex]

Jdcomments wrote: "Travis wrote: "Jdcomments wrote: "The premise of the question is,I think,specious. Would you ask "Would you rather live in a world without biology or without physics?"? Probably not because they bo..."

Sorry, Jdcomments, I disagree with you and Einstein (many believe he was taken out of context with this quote...similar to his statement about the perfection of the universe and God)that religion is a necessity for understanding our world.

Religion is 100% man-made. It was contrived to gain and hold power over people...period. Religions have no basis in science nor do they supplement scientific experimentation and exploration. Okay, as with everything a few exceptions... anthropology, archeology and sociology use religious artifacts and actions to explain social behavior over the years.

Otherwise, religion is completely dispensable. Is religion required to establish moral and ethical basis in society? No. It's proven that peoples with zero religious beliefs are as moral and ethical (perhaps more so) than those who have a belief.

Like Jenn wrote, I am not an atheist. I believe that their is something greater than us out there, but that something is far beyond our current level of comprehension or capability of discovery. Science will one day make that discovery, providing we don't destroy ourselves beforehand...lol

[Ross]

Science moves the world forward, religion has done nothing but hold it back.

[[deleted user]]

I see the major differences between religion and science being the one has all the answers - they've had thousands of years to come up with defenses for any doubt about the existence and purpose of God(s), while the other is looking for answers intellectually, through trial and error, to discover how everything works. Once all the prayers, traditions, songs & etc. are learned, there isn't anything else to learn, and I think that makes the whole affair simple and understandable to most people, and they don't want to have to put in the research that science requires, when seeking provable results. It's more comforting to have it all neatly packaged. I think the major dilemma arises when people seek to use religious dogma to stop science from progressing, even if it hurts everyone in the process. Free will is a slippery slope. Like the dinosaurs, religion had it's chance, and needs to be left out of the future, as it stops or corrupts education, no matter how profoundly sincere and loving is the package presented. Cheers!

[Lex]

Stormytiggs wrote: "I see the major differences between religion and science being the one has all the answers - they've had thousands of years to come up with defenses for any doubt about the existence and purpose of..."

Indeed, Stormytiggs, indeed! ;o)

[Elisabeth]

Kenny wrote: "Personally it's good that you have faith. If not, that is okay also. That is everyone's choice. However, as a modern person living in a metropolitan city, I prefer science, as it would be hard to l..."
You are very practical - and yes the two can coexist even in a city.

[Mary]

Personally I think All Religions are bad. They require someone be in charge and guiding. Which means judgement, control and restriction of free will to gain knowledge as you need for yourself. Faith is the answer and most science does not negate faith for those who believe, it strengthens it. So Religion must go.

[Jeffery]

Mary wrote: "Personally I think All Religions are bad. They require someone be in charge and guiding. Which means judgement, control and restriction of free will to gain knowledge as you need for yourself. Fait..."

I agree with you, Mary. I am sure religion was good back in the Dark Ages, when there was no guidance nor principle. But science is the thing now.

[Satyan]

The religious doctrines are all written by men .. men wrote these books, they did not fall from the sky or were delivered to the human kind. And that's a fact.
Yet, somehow we let ourselves judge one another by quoting them. The whole concept of religion is not to question, not to doubt - but to blindly believe texts written by other men. It is obvious to everyone I guess, that the whole purpose of it is control.
But a religion is more than that. Its a self evolving ideology and core conceptualized mini universe having its own set of rules and regulations. It's purpose is to lead humankind to righteous path and probably to a higher power. The pillars of its philosophies rests on beliefs and faith. It definitely sounds obnoxious but we were not what we were in dark ages or even a decade back. Everything is evolving and atheists would run wild with Darwinian ideology , etc. Its fine but absolute imposition of an idea or belief or philosophy or atheism is also anarchism. Religion will exist since its a concept that came as an exit product of our own evolution process not biological but a cultural and social getaway. Its quiet astonishing that almost every corners of world and its people have some religious beliefs and its not easy to falsify such an universal concept .