Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,201-1,250 of 12,463

[Bunnie]

Tina wrote: "Morality is evidence. Creation is evidence. Even science is living proof there is a God."

[Bunnie]

tina,how do you figure that? explain!

[Travis]

How is creation evidence of god?
Why is it people never say it's proof of aliens?

Morality is a man made concept. People needed someway to enforce it and since 'for the good of the tribe' wasn't cutting it, they switched to 'do this, don't do that because there is an invisible man/woman/elephant headed creature/ cthulu/ bunny/ black rectangular monolith/etc in the sky watching you."

science is just proof that stuff happens and if you pay attention you notice stuff happens in a pattern.

[Tina]

Okay I'll try and explain. Now don't think I'm backing religion, I'm backing up the existence of God. Organized religion has a lot of negative connotations. By creation I mean the trees, the sunsets, the human body, the galaxy, anything and everything.

and about morality--if you don't believe in a "higher governing power" then you can not justify feeling the way you do. What makes something "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong" if there is nothing to judge it by? What made Hitler wrong then? I'm sure everyone agrees with that. But if you don't believe in a higher power, than how can you justify that killing another human being is wrong? What if it was just "meant to happen" ?

Science is proof there is a God..in this way. Scientists are solely trying to figure out the mind of God...which is obviously both a challenging and enlightening journey. Just think about the human body for a second. How your brain works, the spinal cord, the acid in your stomach, how it can burn through aluminum!... look at the earth! How it is so perfectly positioned so as not to burn up by the sun, or freeze up by the cold, are you telling me that's a coincidence?

Please, I don't want to offend anyone by this I'm just trying to explain for you

[Hazel]

Ok, first, I don't take offence at anything you've said Tina, so with that in mind, no offence, but thats the biggest pile of crap I've read for at least 3 or 4 pages of this thread.

Trees are there because they evolved, elsewhere I've even put a video on abiogenesis, watch it, you can see how life can come about without a guiding hand. Sunsets are the result of the earth rotating, and so the bit of earth you're on is turning away from the sun. There is no proof of a god there, just proof of the movement of the earth. The human body "design" comes from millions of years of evolution, the fossil record and decoding the genome has revealed to us much of how the human body evolved... and the human body isn't really very different to a rat body. ON top of this, the human body is riddled with problems, the appendix, up until the advent of removing it surgically, would cause the death of about 1 in 100 people in the 19th century (thats when we know the statistics for, before that, it could even be more). Our eyes aren't as good as those of an octopus, and they are prone to miopia and hyperopia. If a creator had made the human body, why would it include all the imperfections and problems? And why would there be junk DNA in our genome that was useful once in our evolutionary history, but isn't useful anymore? The presence of these things make no sense if you think a creator made us.

I could go on, but I'll leave the galaxy for people who are better versed in astrophysics to go into that, and how there is no proof of a guiding hand there as well.

Morality is how we maintain communities, there was morality before gods, it does not stem from there being a god, and honestly, if you think that you can only decide if something is right or wrong because an authority figure tells you which is which, that would make me less than confident in trusting you with anything I cared about. Morality does not require an authority figure, and morality based on the promise of an eternal reward, and the threat of eternal punishment is not morality, its selfishness, as its your own well being that motivates the "moral goodness". Atheist countries such as Sweden, Denmark etc have the lowest crime rates, whereas highly religious countries have the highest. IN studies into prison populations, it was found that in comparison to the general population the percentage of inmates that are religious is higher than the percentage in the normal population, and the percentage of atheists is lower than you find in the general population. It seems to suggest that you're more likely to commit a crime if you're religious.

ON top of this, if we take the laws as set down by god as a moral compass, then christianity (and this can be applied to other religions too) is morally corrupt. The way it works for christianity is that no matter who you are, no matter what you've done, if you accept Jesus and repent before you die, you get a place in heaven, so Hitler, who you mentioned (well done for invoking Godwins law, btw) being a Roman Catholic, is in heaven, any number of horrific people are in heaven, because all god cares about is that you believe, it means that no-one needs to be accountable for what they do, because they will be forgiven and get into heaven. However, no matter how good we as atheists are, no matter how much humanitarian work, no matter how much we live good lives, we're apostates, and as such, by gods law, we will burn in hell for eternity, we have no recourse to get into heaven if we don't believe in god. That very idea is morally reprehensible. Of course, this is all assuming the existence of both a god, and a heaven and hell. And as I don't believe in them, it doesn't bother me, but that some people do believe it, and will tell not only people who have realised that god isn't real, but also their own children, that they will go to hell unless they behave according to laws that include thought crimes is horrific.

Also, god thinks that slavery is ok, that rape, incest, genocide, racism and sexism are ok. God tells us that we should stone someone for the "crime" of homosexuality... but surely, if you beleive in god, god must have made homosexuals? He also teaches us that if our children are misbehaved, we should stone them to death. And before anyone says "but jesus changed that, you can't apply the old testament now we have the new", Jesus stated that he was not there to change the laws, but to enforce them (Matthew 5:18-19; Luke 16:17; and more) Read the bible, cover to cover, and then tell me if you think its a good moral compass. I said it before, and I'll say it again, I am morally superior to god,and to pretty much everyone who is depicted in the bible, and so is everyone posting here, yourself included Tina (I'm assuming we don't have any morally corrupt people here, I may of course be wrong, but generally, that statement is true).

As for your last paragraph, I actually sat and laughed for a few minutes over that one. Scientists are not trying to figure out the mind of god, for the most part: you do get the odd scientist who thinks that's what they're doing. That statement assumes a god in the first place, a god for which there is no proof. 93% of the National Academy of Sciences reject the concept of god, thats an overwhelming majority, the figure for the Royal Society here in the UK is similar, and I think a little higher. So how do you figure they're trying to figure out the mind of god? I'm guessing its because you've assumed the presence of a god in the first place. One thing that science does regularly is discount the god hypothesis, and show us that belief in a god is moot.

Why do you believe in God, and not Allah (well, actually you do, it being the same god as the christian and jewish god), or Vishnu, or Thor or Zeus? Why have you rejected all the thousands of other deities that have been worshipped (and are still worshipped in many cases)? What proof have you got that god exists, because thus far nothing you've said is proof of the existence of a god, as we have explanations that preclude a deity.

Explain the following by your god hypothesis:

Malaria, Bot Flies, Sickle Cell anaemia, cot death, typhoid fever, the guinea worm, and these (I promise you, these are genuine pictures, they're not photoshop), but I've hidden them because some people have complained, don't look if you are squeamish:

(view spoiler)[This little boy born in China on November 5 2008, he has 8 toes on each foot and no thumbs on either hand




Baby with Harlequin-type ichthyosis, it did not survive long after birth


This baby was born in 2006 with a condition called anencephaly. Has something to do with improper or incomplete brain formation
(hide spoiler)]

Where do things like this fit into your world view?


PS please don't think I'm saying "give up your faith", but instead I think that you shouldn't be scared to question it, and I think you should ensure that you only believe something that's true, which is why you should question it.

[Ruthie]

Hazel, if you ran for president I would vote for you.

[Bunnie]

hazel--i second that--message 1264 hazel you did it again--my god we do meed you for our president--but on second thought maybe not --your too honest Tina --you need to read more in the way of scientific literature.

[Hazel]

I'd like to make one errata, Hitler committed suicide, and so as a Catholic, I believe the dogma is that he's in pergatory... a place never mentioned in the bible.

[Bunnie]

hazel--good place for him

[Travis]

Am I the only one who thinks we could have done just fine without pictures of deformed babies?
I think we crossed a line with that one.

If we are using the same tactics as the aniti-abortion crowd, then I think it's time for me to move on.
This thread suddenly stopped being fun.

[Connie]

I have to agree with Travis. Even as a Nurse, I found the shots of these unfortunate little babies very disturbing. We all know that such things happen, but it's not the "gods" or "goddesses" who inflict these illnesses on us, it is what it is, the nature of all life--sometimes seeming perfection, sometimes hideous flukes. I don't see the usefulness of the photos in this debate.

[Hazel]

You are bothered by pictures of things that are real and have really happened? Look, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I think you're being a bit precious. They're there because I'm asking how they fit into someones god centric view of the world. They're there to make a point. They're there because Tina claimed that the human body was proof of gods existence, so I was asking how these human bodies fit into her world view. Would it have been less of a bother to you, if Id just provided a link? They're there because a picture says what a thousand words cannot. If I'd have given the name of a condition, wouldn't you have googled it to find out what it was? Stop being precious about it, its life, its reality, don't be scared of it, but out of respect for you, I've hidden the pictures as a spoiler is hidden, thus giving people the choice to look or not. I honestly didn't think that anyone would be so bothered by real life, especially as its reality that we're trying to get people to understand, I'm sorry if it bothered you, don't be scared of it though.

[[deleted user]]

Tina, one more thing. You said it isn't a coincidence that earth is not too cold or too warmth. Well, there are millions of planets over there, some are too near or too far of a star like our sun, or don't have water or the atmospheric conditions aren't appropriate. And that's why those planets don't have life and earth does. It isn't a coincidence, it just happened that earth had all it needed to develop life. If there's another planet with conditions to have life, I promise you it will have. We've just didn't found it yet. That's reasonable, we didn't explore all the universe yet, and it will take another million years to do it.

By your affirmations I see you never studied about evolution. You should because it would answer many of your questions. I'll explain to you in a very, very simple way and give you some bibliography so you can deepen your studies about the subject and maybe be enlightened (go wiki to start).

Evolution comes from natural selection. For example, two types of giraffes are born: one with a long neck and another with a short neck. Let's suppose they are born in a place with no undergrowth, only trees. Which one do you think will survive? The giraffe with the long neck, of course. And that will happen with all beings: humans, animals, vegetation, etc.

About morality. I'm sure you've heard about ethics codes. Scientist have one, journalists too, doctors, engineers, judges, etc, etc, etc. Ethics are the science that studies morals, it's objective. Moral is subjective (it changes between culture, education and, pay attention, consciousness). In my classes about moral and ethics we never talked about god. Because it isn't based on god's values, but on our consciousness! We don't like people to harms us, right? As good people we won't harm others as well. We like to be helped when needed, so we will help people when in need. And so on. No one needs a god to realize that.

There are three (large) types of ethics (then they can be divided, just look for Aristotle > Virtue Ethics, Kant > ethical duties and Bentham > utilitarian ethics): descriptive, normative and applied ethics. The descriptive is about what moral really is, it comes from observation (direct and indirect). The normative (where theology and philosophy takes part) is how moral should be and it doesn't need any proof (that's the problem). The applied ethics tries to solve a moral dilemma in a rational way.

Think when you were just a kid. You tried to do good things because you were afraid that your parents will punish you, not because of god. Morality came from survival. You see, society also evolves and, of course, it wants to flourish. The only way that's possible is with perpetuating good values. Read this: http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/200...

As you mentioned Hitler to support your beliefs, I'll use him too to support mine. You see, Hitler killed himself, he did so harm to so many people and then he killed himself. He knew he was doing something wrong, but he just cared about achieving his dream: the perfect race.

Edt: the bad thing is: the end doesn't justify the means. And I'm not saying that achieving the "perfect race" is a good thing...

[Hazel]

Bunnie wrote: "hazel--good place for him"

I'd agree but for three things. 1) purgatory isn't a real place. 2) Hitlers dead, thus he is over and done with, and so isn't anywhere. 3) even if it were a real place, purgatory is described as a temporary punishment to purify the soul in preparation for heaven.

[Bunnie]

travis -message 1269--looking at the imperfections of the human race is disturbing-but these things do exist and not to ever know about them is to hide your head in the sand. i took care of a beautiful little girl about a week old when i was working in the nursery-the only trouble was--she had no brain-just a brain stem-what a terrible tragedy for the parents. but not to acknowledge that these problems do exist is to hide from solving the cause. i also took care of a couple children that were not able to function-they looked like they had been run over with a steam roller--they were flat- the question is WHY do we keep living creatures alive when they will have no quality of life-never be able to do anything but lay in a bed the rest of their lives and require constant care which will change nothing for them.with the cost of medical care rising we should be looking for ways to eliminate these problems--of course you might say that is killing ,but they are already dead in a way--how would you like to spend the rest of your life laying in bed having someone feed you--clean you- never leave that bed--have no intelligent thoughts-end up with bed sores, urinary problems -boredom if you had the intelligence to realize that? in the case of a deformed creature life probably will end soon after birth anyway which is the best thing. you personally don't ever have to see these things but you should know that they exist to be better informed about the issues of the day. in the case of abortions--i myself never had to consider that issue but i am sure there are people that do and should have the right to have these procedures if they feel it is right for them.i watch animal planet too and watch the cruel and stupid people out there that don't take care of their animals--that starve them --keep them chained up--train then to fight what i like is to see the end product which is--the SPCA takes them --treats them and finds them new loving homes. and they are happy. i suppose you would'nt like to see that either!

[Hazel]

Personally, I make myself look, I feel the least I can do is look, to bear witness, to understand, and if there is a way I can help within my means then I will look for that too, this is the case for all the sad, bad and outright horrific things in the world, from devastating mutations like those I posted, to war victims, abuse victims, famine, drought, illness and animal cruelty. But the last thing I think anyone should do is refuse to look, or to get upset at being shown, you don't have to like what you see, you can get angry at it, you can be sickened by it, you can be driven to tears and pity, but you should still see it, acknowledge it, and understand the world that little bit more, and see if there are ways you can help. To do otherwise is to discount and ignore the people who are living it every day.

[[deleted user]]

I would put a like in your post if I could Hazel. I absolutely agree with you. To be upset by seeing those images is a good thing, it's a sign we have a heart and we can do something to help those people. But we have to see and not hide from it. Because if, one day, we or our loved ones happened to be in the same situation we would like other people to know about it and do something.

[Connie]

Hazel wrote: "You are bothered by pictures of things that are real and have really happened? Look, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I think you're being a bit precious. They're there because I'm asking how they..."

Whoa! Hazel! I'm not afraid of it! Like I said, I am a nurse, a health care professional, and I've seen far more gruesome sights than those babies. I didn't know you would react so strongly, and I was not offended nor do I have fear of such things...I've seen it ALL in my career. I suppose I just don't want to see it in this discussion; fine for my medical textbooks or at work.... There are probably other ways. In any case, it doesn't matter now. My gawd the human race is an angry lot! :) PS - Is 'precious' a British colloquialism? If so I'm not familiar with it. It doesn't mean anything to me in the context in which you used it.

I'd be glad to post some of the skin ulcers I've healed, or the rotting flesh of advanced skin cancer, or gangrenous feet--would you care to see dry or wet gangrene?--or, maybe I could share some of the open, gaping wounds, or the gigantic, scaly, elephant legs that look like tree trunks, or an eye full of cancer, bulging out of its socket and bleeding with the woman screaming until death gave her peace. For 33 years I've looked after the sick and dying and--surprise--I love my work. These things don't phase me in the least, not gunshot wounds, not infected ulcers, not broken bones. But when I see these things, two things always stand out: the indomitable strength of the human spirit, and the suffering that takes place before death.

None of this has taken me further away from "God", nor has it brought me closer to any "God". I simply take it as the workings of Nature, the Universe completing each task in accordance with the cycle of life and death.

Afraid to look? Not I. I've been facing it for about half of my life. I don't like the sight, nor do I like the suffering that I witness. But that can't make me turn away because I know that I have a special ability to accept it and face it, and to care.

[Connie]

I recommend The God Delusion to anyone interested in reading it. Richard Dawkins is the author. Of course it's not the 'only book in town' but it is a mighty good read.

[Giansar]

It is a good (and quite palatable) read on the topic. A lot of interesting stuff - from psychology for example. I felt however, while reading, that Dawkins failed to avoid the same traps, to which creationists fall - only he fell into them form another direction, by trying to somehow give a scientific evidence for God's nonexistence. It is not the way in my opinion. But then - it is only my opinion.

[Hazel]

Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "You are bothered by pictures of things that are real and have really happened? Look, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I think you're being a bit precious. They're there because I'm a..."

Hi whirlwind, it wasn't really you I was responding to with that bit of the post, but I should have probably made that clear. I'd guessed your job meant you'd seen some nasty things, in fact, I have real respect for people who dot he job you do, and am considering it as a way to go myself, as I'm trying to decide which direction to take my life now. The part of my post that addresses some of what you said was in explaining why I put the pictures, I felt that they illustrated my point, and aided my question in a way that words would not do. And no, I have no problem with you putting any pictures you feel will help illustrate your point in any discussion we have in a way that explaining for a couple of paragraphs wouldn't do, knock yourself out, absolutely anything you want.

Precious means "overly delicate".

And yes, the God Delusion is a very good book, I may have to reread it, as its been a while. Another book I'd recommend is Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, and for a rundown of how religions came about, Story of God, The by Robert Winston, about religion from primitive religions to modern day. I've also had The Golden Bough recommended to me.

[Hazel]

Giansar wrote: "It is a good (and quite palatable) read on the topic. A lot of interesting stuff - from psychology for example. I felt however, while reading, that Dawkins failed to avoid the same traps, to which ..."

I read it as him presenting scientific evidence for how the universe/world came about, and thus discounting the god hypothesis, not disproving it.

[David]

World without religion. Science never started an inquisition, crusade or a jihad. Not to mean that science is not beset with the human issue of envy or truthfulness. It is.

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "World without religion. Science never started an inquisition, crusade or a jihad. Not to mean that science is not beset with the human issue of envy or truthfulness. It is."

Excellent point David! So many have been tortured and executed in the name of religion. I guess science mainly tortures animals. I do some people who have science for their religion.

[Hazel]

Alice wrote: " I do some people who have science for their religion.

+++Out of Cheese Error+++
+++Redo from start+++

ON your other points, how does science "torture" animals? Thats a little bit of an emotive word for research into the effects of medicines so they can be made safe for use. The use of animals for cosmetic testing is practically abolished, and banned in the majority of places. The ethical guidelines for scientific research are extremely strict, and are bolstered by laws governing such research. There are people employed whose very job is to care for the animals used in testing, and who ensure that the animals are well cared for, fed properly, kept as healthy as possible, and are provided with environment enrichment... I'm still trying to work out where torture comes in...

Torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

Nope, even with a definition, I'm still not seeing the "torture" that science inflicts on animals.

I'll admit, horrible things have been done in the past, which is why the ethics laws came in, but I can only think that the belief that animals were there for our use, and thus the cavalier attitude to their treatment in the past comes from the teachings that animals and the entire world is ours to dominate that comes from religious teachings... its right there in Genesis.

[Bukky]

Hazel wrote:thus the cavalier attitude to their treatment in the past comes from the teachings that animals and the entire world is ours to dominate that comes from religious teachings... its right there in Genesis.
It is right there in the bible,only of course you fail to realize what is actually meant or perhaps(and I am quite disappointed)you have been so against religion and all it entails.
Moreover I am very sure that those showing these cavalier attitude are definitely scientist,since I cannot imagine a priest performing cosmetic experiment inside the chapel.

[[deleted user]]

Yes Bukky, I did mean scientists in labs testing cosmetics, etc. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and I am still one for the most part. Its hard to change.

[Connie]

@ Hazel -- I have The Golden Bough which I found at one of my two favorite second-hand bookstores, so I got it cheap. It still sits on the shelf as I have so many books in the lineup first. I must get to it some day, but it's quite the tome and it will take time to read. I'll race you to the finish! lol Also, anyone here read, or know, the late Joseph Campbell?

[Hazel]

Bukky, wow, I'm astonished that's what you took from that post. Really, at any point are you going to think without the bible coming first? I thought you'd already realised that I didn't have much love lost for religion. Yes, they were scientists. But for 100s of years the paradigm that we are dominant over the rest of the world was taught, and so it became part of the mindset, that paradigm comes from religious teachings, usually monotheistic religious teachings. As such, the scientists doing the things in the past that would be abhorrent now, were doing so under a paradigm created by religious teachings. To argue otherwise is naive. And no, you're right, you won't get a priest carrying out research into lipsticks in a chapel, but you do get them telling children that they will go to hell if they don't adhere to a strict set of rules that are impossible to adhere to, and in some religions, you get them mutilating the genitals of children.

Alice: the vast majority of cosmetic research is no longer done on animals, check the labels on the cosmetics you buy, it will be labelled as free of animal testing. My reply to you still stands, despite your clarification that you were referring to something that is barely practiced anymore, if at all.

Whirlwind: I have it out of the library, it is also in my pile of books to read, I however, could only get the abridged version, I'll probably read it within the next 2 or 3 months. I'm afraid I haven't read any Joseph Campbell.

[Connie]

I wonder WHY people follow religion? Is it because they're just afraid NOT to admit they don't believe? Afraid NOT to go to church, that there might be something to it after all? And if they leave, they'll be like a tiny boat in the middle of the ocean without a compass? Is it because they think that if they speak against their religion, something really WILL take place to "punish" them? Are they so terrified of the possibility that this supernatural "god"-power will take hold of and ruin their life?

I'd like to bet that if everyone in this world were to walk away from their religion, the only thing that would suffer any consequences would be the church buildings themselves, for there'd be no more money to support them, and of course, the clergy would be out of jobs.

Not much else would occur other that what's already going on in the world: anarchy, murder, hate, adultery, disease, death, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, poverty, starvation, divorce, war ...

Can anyone tell me exactly how religion helps to prevent all these things from happening, or how prayer acts as an insurance policy or a security blanket against such things? If we got rid of religion would it get so much WORSE? I doubt it.

I think that religion on this planet is a colossal waste of time, money, energy and space.

I grew up going to church. Did that make my family life happier? Not in the least. In fact, as I got older I realized that what it did was to make me aware of what hypocrites adults were. All those parents who trotted their kids off to church to learn all the lessons were breaking the rules as soon as they walked out the doors.

I think that the vast majority of people attend church, synagogue, or whatever because it's the thing to do, and all they're really doing is going through the motions. They fear that if they weren't there it wouldn't look so good, so they show up. But how much good does it do to practice ritual, sing hymns, and pray? It never changed my life one bit. And trust me, I tried to make it work! But I always ended up thinking, "This is such a lot of hooey!"

And I walked away with a very clear conscience.

Furthermore, I cannot and will not put my faith and trust into a churchianity that teaches fear and loathing towards women, homosexuals, and other religious faiths. I cannot support an organization that teaches supernaturalism any more that I could start believing in Voodoo or Witchcraft (in the magical sense) today! Or, fairies. Or, gnomes.

There is an unknown intelligence in the Natural World that as yet, we understand very little about. But is this a 'god' that is able to peer into your thoughts, punish you if you 'sin' against 'him' (balderdash!--it's not a HE), or decide your afterlife if you didn't perform properly in this life? I just don't know how intelligent human beings can swallow it. But then, humans can be so awfully un-intelligent and naive.

[Hazel]

I don't think the church buildings would be lost, I think they'd find a new use. There are some beautiful buildings out there. The Minster, where I live, is the largest gothic cathedral in the UK, and I love wandering around it. It would no doubt find a new purpose though, you can't let a beautiful building go to waste.

[Connie]

Oh, yes. You have a good point.

Cathedrals are quite beautiful, but what is that all about, anyway? I know, I know ... "the glory of gawd".

[Connie]

Are you talking about Westminster Cathedral?

[Hazel]

No, York Minster, largest medieval gothic cathedral in the UK, 4th largest in the world, its one of the few religious buildings that is a church, a cathedral and a minster. Westminster cathedral is neo-byzantine architecture. Westminster abbey is gothic, but it is an abbey, not a cathedral. The abbey and the minster are a similar size.

[Connie]

I don't know a cathedral from an abbey or minster from a monster! But I have a feeling I'm about to discover the difference. I'll look it up as I always do. Not being religious I haven't invested much time in finding out what church buildings are all about--they were created by catholics (out of disrespect I can't force myself to capitalize the word), for many reasons, not the least of which was to reinforce to the peasantry the immense power that the church held over them. The mind control is appallingly, utterly, spectacular.

[Nattaporn]

I rather be living in the world without science. The world these day is so mess up because we don't use what religon teach us.
If you look deeply, you could see that so many scientists got inspiration from religon.

[Hazel]

Has anyone else noticed, that when a pro-religion post is made in answer to the OP's question, that generally its a short statement of one or two sentences with no explanation, and nothing included to back up the statement, and usually involves an assertion that science is intrinsicly linked to religion, and that when a pro-science post appears it only rarely follows that sort of pattern, but usually it includes at least a short explanation backed up by some evidence as to why the person thinks what they do, and sometimes even (get this, this is so amazing) refers to things that have already been posted as if they're taking part in an ongoing conversation.

[Koen]

Travis wrote: "How is creation evidence of god?
Why is it people never say it's proof of aliens?

Morality is a man made concept. People needed someway to enforce it and since 'for the good of the tribe' wasn't c..."
I LOVE UR THOUGHTS

[Lacey]

April wrote: "I agree with you about the lesson for A&D, to not be an extremist with what you believe. I wouldn't want to live in a world without religion OR science. Because I think they work together. We never..."

At the same time I believe that religion inhibits Science in a positive way. Religion provides a barrier for scientists in which they shouldn't surpass even if it is for the benefit of the common good. Religion provides people with basic common rights by providing enough friction towards scientists to keep them from going "too far". But at the same time I agree with you completely how the extremists are the real source of controversy and problematic situations. We should all keep an open mind!

[Santiago]

Hazel wrote: "Santiago, atheism has, historically, never been a stronghold because if you were atheist, the churches would put you to death for it. That sort of irrationality is hard to stand against.

The examp..."

But that does not change the fact that religion is the center of that. The Greek mythology doesn't even need to be explained. I personally detest the "evolution" of organized religion. Every person should be given the choice to find their own path, rather than having ideals shoved down their throats. However, I believe that joined spirituality, the essence of religion, is necessary to the human psyche.

[Giansar]

Lacey wrote:"I believe that religion inhibits Science in a positive way. Religion provides a barrier for scientists in which they shouldn't surpass even if it is for the benefit of the common good. "
I think I'd like an example of the above...

[Connie]

Hazel wrote: "Has anyone else noticed, that when a pro-religion post is made in answer to the OP's question, that generally its a short statement of one or two sentences with no explanation, and nothing included..."

Can you explain?

[Hazel]

Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Has anyone else noticed, that when a pro-religion post is made in answer to the OP's question, that generally its a short statement of one or two sentences with no explanation, and no..."

Do you mean "what did I mean? or "why does this seem to be the case"? Because honestly, i was feeling a little sarcastic at the point of writing that, and it was because once again, we'd had a pro-religion post from someone saying the same old thing again without any explanation, and obviously without reading anything beyond the OP's first question.

[Connie]

Yes I got that part but I was wondering about the last sentence. No worries, it's not important.

People who are pro-religion cannot substantiate their argument for religion because there really is no argument in existence to support it. If there were an argument in support of any kind of supernatural beliefs then maybe we non-believers would have reason to back off. However, I love discussions such as this, if for no other reason than to show up the blind believers in their naivete and foolishness.

Having said that I'd like to bring another aspect to this discussion: I am a fan of mythology and I'll try to explain why. I think it is because it is so interesting for one thing, and I love tales of valour, struggle, deceit, revenge, redemption, and so on. BUT! The difference between mythology and religion with its dogma, dictates and doctrine, is that mythology doesn't try to persuade, fool you, or twist your mind into believing in the unattainable.

I read myth as allegory as most people do, that is, when I read it at all, which happens to be something I like to do on those quiet, cozy evenings when I'm in the mood to accept the invitation to be taken on a fantastical new journey. (It's why I love reading in general.) However, myth doesn't lie to you, nor does it ask that you necessarily take these tall tales as truth. Myth is meant to let us learn life-lessons in a way that entertains and teaches without trying to make converts out of us, and without telling us that we have to accept it or we'll burn in some unknown, unknowable place called "hell".

Myth doesn't take itself too seriously. It doesn't speak from a pulpit and yet it is as much of an eye-opener and delivers those epiphanic moments to us in no short measure. Good literature usually does, and myth makes for pretty good literature, otherwise we wouldn't still be studying it at universities around the world, AS literature--and some of the greatest stuff ever written I might add.

There are some such tales in the bible but the tendency is for believers to take these things as historical fact, when no one ever has, and never will, witness a living human being ascend into the skies in a puff of smoke (more or less) once they're dead as a doorknob.

The thing is, what is this thing that religion sells to people about SALVATION? And why is it so almighty important to even GET salvation? I have to laugh. Light a penny candle and you'll get to heaven. Okay, I'm going to line up some candles on my dining room table and make loads of money by having people line up to give ME their pennies instead. I'll make sure they get to heaven. I'll even write out the (bogus) insurance policy. I can do this just as surely as the church can do, which is not at all...ever.

Yes indeed, the world would be a whole lot better off without religion spouting off their untruths. But power once gained is a very difficult thing to surrender and I don't think that the "great" church is going to give up any time soon.

[Hazel]

MOstly, what I was inferring was that if people read a few pages of the conversation before posting, maybe they'd think better of posting the same thing as the last person who didn't bother doing such, and thus making us repeat ourselves again

I love mythology, it makes for a great read. Though Myths were originally written for people who believed them, they're only called mythology and not religion because, for the most part, they are from dead religions. Most of the pagan religions these myths come from have a concept of hell in one form or the other, and the same threats of eternal damnation (well, monotheism had to steal it all from somewhere).

The word Hell itself is derived from Hel, who is the daughter of Loki and a giantess, she was the sister of Fenris and Jormungandr the world serpent. SHe ruled over the realm of the same name in Niflhiem where those who died of disease or old age went, and there was part of it for those who deserve punishment for a evil life.

When they were written they were written as explanations for the way the natural world works, the gods and heroes depicted within them were considered real. They have just been relegated in the long years since they were the mainstream religions. Many pagan gods (especially those of "celtic" origin) were relegated to the realm of faerie by christianity, in order to make them less.

Myths were the stories used in pagan religions to teach people who, what and why they should be worshipping, and there were some abhorrent things done in their names too (druids carrying out human sacrifice being an example), and one day the monotheistic myths will hopefully reach the same point of being filed in the fiction/mythology section of the library.

[Lacey]

Giansar wrote: "Lacey wrote:"I believe that religion inhibits Science in a positive way. Religion provides a barrier for scientists in which they shouldn't surpass even if it is for the benefit of the common good...."

For example, cloning. Religion and human rights have created a giant barrier for the medical field by opposing cloning. (This is a random example by the way.) Anyways, cloning could benefit thousands of human beings because it allows us to have perfect healthy donors. At the same time morality and religion has created a huge contriversary on creating false life. Let alone creating life and then using it as a organ mine. In this case religion has inhibited science in a way that forces scientists and medical researchers to find ways and methods to help people within the spectrum of morality and ethics.

[Hazel]

wait, so they can build a frame on which to grow an organ and save someones life using cloned cells from the person who needs the organ, and they have the capabilty of doing it without cloning an entire human being, and you think its good that religious people have stopped this from being allowed? Growing a person to mine them for organs was NEVER on the cards, ever, science has better ethical standards than that, and not because the religious imposed them. The morality of the bible would probably have people being kept as slaves, and mined for organs.

[Bunnie]

lacey--you are a moron

[Lydia]

100% without religion. Science all the way!!!

[Anne]

I believe in God in a quiet way, I don,t voice my religion. I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen the importance of science working to enhance peoples lives,and I have also seen how religion plays it,s part . Everything has it,s place, and everyone is entitled to their way of living their life.