Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,251-1,300 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Good for you Anne, and yes, everyone has the right to live how they like as long as it hurts no-one else. However, I'd also assert that everyone should try to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible, and that if no evidence can be found for a belief, then people should discard the belief as counter to a productive lifestyle.

[Connie]

"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 ..."

Here's a quote I just can't resist: "religion has inhibited science in a way that forces scientists and medical researchers to find ways ... [etc.] "

That's ridiculous.

Who the devil says that religion alone is responsible, or has the corner on, monitoring what the scientific world is up to? Do you not think that there are also intelligent, scholarly critics out there (who are NOT coming from a religious point of view or from religious backing), whose job it is to be a watchdog?

That is what scientific journals are for!!! Peer- reviewed articles are published in hundreds, if not thousands, of professional journals, from every school of research, around the globe, each time a study is done, whatever scientific discipline you may care to mention.

The MOST CREDIBLE source for the educated criticism of any scientific study is their OWN peer group, not the church. Religion just spouts off their blather like so much hot air.

[Siva]

What I think about this is People like Buddha,Jesus and so on din't want any religious identification or as a spiritual leader. It is we who made them spiritual and people say they are religious. Fact is that Buddha just wanted to spread his teachings so that people can learn those and lead a better life in a self-sustained society, a society where everyone dignified for what they are and people are loved without any discrimination. And not to worship them and have a blind faith on them like praying to them will bring us everything, just follow their teachings. This is what I like to do all my life. This is the reason why I am a atheist.

[Keith]

I would rather a world without science but... that is only because I believe that religion is a very important part of where we are now and how we've got there.

I don't think science would really exist without people wanting to understand more about if its god or the world at work with everything...

One without the other simply leaves none at all.

[Hazel]

Keith, do you honestly mean that? Or are you trolling? Because honestly, I can see no other reason to write what you have other than the following three:

1)You haven't bothered reading anything anyone else has put, and have put your idiotic assertion without any skeptical thought, and without any real understanding of the subject, and with no appreciation of what has already been said.

2) You have read some of it, and still think you're pointless drivel is somehow relevant, and that you will somehow make people think in a way other than rationally about this, as rational thought shows religion to be utterly moot.

3) you're a dickhead out to get a reaction, in which case, congrats, you got it.

You didn't even really answer the OPs original question. I agree, that religion has played an important role in where we are, but as more and more evidence comes forward showing that a God is not needed for the world, the universe and everything in it to exist, then in the modern times, religion is no longer required.

[Giansar]

Lacey wrote: "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. "
So, basically religious people and organizations are trying to block scientific advance, which can lead to vast improvement of the quality of human life and they do it basing on false assumptions, which result from utter ignorance about that, which they protest.
I can agree it may be an effective inhibition of scientific development but I still cannot see the "positive way" you were writing about. And that was actually what I have been asking. I am not a historian but I know enough history to be aware of the power of religion to inhibit science - so you don't have to convince me about that.

[Keith]

Hazel wrote: "Keith, do you honestly mean that? Or are you trolling? Because honestly, I can see no other reason to write what you have other than the following three:

1)You haven't bothered reading anything ..."

I mean the idea of a god, I'm not saying gods walking around town giving out miracles.

[Jason]

I wouldn't want to live in a world without religion or science because, as said before, they are both essential and even often coexist. But if I HAD to choose, I would say science. I live my life based more on faith, feeling and experience. I don't need everything explained to me just to believe that it is, especially as far as nature is concerned.

[Hazel]

Keith wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Keith, do you honestly mean that? Or are you trolling? Because honestly, I can see no other reason to write what you have other than the following three:

1)You haven't bothered readi..."

so, have you got any evidence for the existence of a god? As yet no-one has provided actual concrete evidence that such a thing exists, and they've had over 5000 years to produce evidence for Yahweh, that should be considered more than enough time to produce evidence if it were there and thus, why even consider it, or religion, when deciding which one we can do without?

There is nothing that religion does than cannot be acheived through secular means. However, religion cannot cure illness (prayer has been proved in studies to have no positive effect), it cannot provide clean water, it cannot give us the abilty to produce and cook food (thats right, making fire is technology, which is science, and so is tool making, and farming).

Science does not lead to an understanding of god, it leads to an understanding of the world and how it actually works, a side effect (but not the aim) of this is a realisation that god is an outmoded concept used to explain the world in the absence of the knowledge we now have as a species.

[Samantha]

Hazel wrote: "Keith wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Keith, do you honestly mean that? Or are you trolling? Because honestly, I can see no other reason to write what you have other than the following three:

1)You haven'..."


Do you have any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist? And a LOT of things are still very much driven by religion

[Hazel]

Samantha wrote: "Do you have any concrete evidence that God doesn't exist? And a LOT of things are still very much driven by religion"



I reject the claim that god exists, I am making no claims. The burden of proof lays with those making the claim, as yet, no evidence has been forthcoming, so until it is there, I will continue to reject the claim. A lack of evidence speaks volumes. If the evidence appears, I will spin on a sixpence.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Yes, there are a lot of things still driven by religion, look at the situation in the middle east, and the demonisation of homosexuals in bible belt america, and the needless deaths of thousands in Africa because of the popes religious teachings regarding contraception, and the lies he encourages regarding them and the spread of aids.

[Jason]

Wow, um... I thought this was a book discussion board, not a place for personal debate. Hazel, you have every right to your opinion, but can we keep the discussion about the book?

[Hazel]

Jason, the question was about whether we'd prefer to live in a world without science or religion, thus never even started as discussion about the book. So, respectfully, no, we'll talk about what we've been talking about for 27 pages so far thanks.

If my opinion, which is based on rationality and evidence offends you, you have every right not to read the discussion.

[Sarah]

I think none of you have anything better to do than to stay on this sight and keep repeating yourselves.
We get it already!! You do believe in God and religion and we get it!!! that you don't believe. That seems to sum it up more than all this caterwauling. I agree with Jason stick with the book not your personal opinions, if you want to go on your "greater than thou " get each others emails and caterwaul till your hearts content. I wanted to join this thread because I enjoyed the book (somewhat) I didn't want to get into a debate. You people need help.

[Hazel]

Read the last post I made. THE TOPIC WAS NEVER THE BOOK!!! it was always about the difference between religion and science. If you don't like it, go find a conversation that is actually about the book.

The conversation was placed on an atheist and skeptics group, that should have given you a clue of its direction and intent in the first place. ANd we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves if people bothered to read earlier posts, for example, reading the OP would have told you and Jason that the thread was about the differences between science and religion from the start not about a 3rd rate book written by one of the crappest authors of our time.

[Alona]

Ooo, that's a difficult one. I probably wouldn't want to live in a world without either one. However, if I had to choose, I would say religion trumps science. People survived without scientific discoveries, but they always needed faith and God!

[Sarah]

You are a hoot hazel nut, the thread is about the book. You evidentaly it's all about you. I would rather find another thread because you all need psychological help.

[Hazel]

Sarah, you turn up, you misunderstand the purpose of the thread, and then you insult people. Read the first post then jog on.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

[Alona]

Yes, I don't think this is the forum to be disrespectful to one another. If you want to do that, join Facebook!
I thought this is a place to have an intelligent discussion, not to throw insults. Everyone has opinions and you should respect them!

[Samantha]

I don't deny that religion has cost pain, but not every person who believes in God is a bad person or wants to cause pain. I fully believe in God, and would never hurt someone. And I fully support gays, I have a gay father. Just because there are those who have muddled religion doesn't mean everyone is the same. I won't argue with you, because you are entitled to your opinion. And you and I both know that I can't pull some divine evidence outta my rear end. I respect your different view on the world

[Samantha]

And for those bitching about the debate, get over it. If you don't wanna read it.. don't. But it is a forum and we are entitled to say as we please

[Hazel]

Oh, you're absolutely right Samantha, in fact very few religious people are bad people, but the thing about religion is it can make people who are otherwise good people believe and do things that are abhorrent.

I respect you too Samantha, you have made your position clear, you have done it without being rude, and you have seem happy about where you are, and stated you don't wish to debate it further. I can respect that, even if I think its irrational to believe something without any evidence for it. Have a great day, and maybe we'll end up discussing other things on other threads that aren't quite as emotive :)

[Hazel]

Sorry, just have to add, as an aside, I don't think anyone's called me "hazel nut" since I was at school.

[Keith]

Hazel wrote: "Keith wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Keith, do you honestly mean that? Or are you trolling? Because honestly, I can see no other reason to write what you have other than the following three:

1)You haven'..."

Hazel wrote: "Oh, you're absolutely right Samantha, in fact very few religious people are bad people, but the thing about religion is it can make people who are otherwise good people believe and do things that a..."

Oh, I see what you thought I meant. I mean that there simply wouldn't be a need to understand the world without god, you can think of it as sort of a 'primitive science' because the diagnosis was all that god will save and that and where reasons could not be found it was 'god did it'.

I'm not saying science was made to disprove religion, I was saying it was practically borne from the fact that certain people wished for a deeper understanding then 'god did it'.

Your right though in a lot of what you say, Religion has hurt people and it HAS spawned wars that have killed missions.

I'm not heavily religious, however, I don't not believe in god either - I more don't believe fully in the bible. I think that religion fueled a imaginative state which spawned many of history's most significant stories, poems, and art work and for that alone I find it necessary.

Also, I'm a horrible debater.

[Samantha]

To be honest, I usually don't get on discussions such as this, but Keith is my husband, and I was wondering what was going on. And I find no reason to be rude to someone on their opinions. And I don't find that slinging disrespect is a good way to discuss things.

And as irrational as it may be, I was raised in such a way, and though I have faltered in my faith, I have found comfort in trying times in believing God. I hope you have a great day too! And I am sure sometime we could discuss other things that won't bring up such heated reactions :3

[Hazel]

A horrible debater is just a good debater in training :)

Yes, there are some wonderful works of art, and beautiful buildings and poetry etc that owe their existence to religion.

As I have said before, God can be viewed as a way to explain the world before we had the knowledge available to us now, and that we continue to gain. Is that basically what you're saying Keith? Or am I still not getting what you're trying to say?

Also, I apologise for my response to your first post, I was already annoyed about something else (money not arriving when it should, due to a clerical error at my OH's workplace) and so I was less politic than I usually am. And no, its not an excuse, but it is a reason. So, again, I'm sorry.

[Keith]

Hazel wrote: "A horrible debater is just a good debater in training :)

Yes, there are some wonderful works of art, and beautiful buildings and poetry etc that owe their existence to religion.

As I have said b..."

It was a way to explain what couldn't be seen or known, I now know that some things are very different and science has helped us find medicine and cure people. I don't believe, like some, that god hands out miracles -or that he/she/it could cure a person. I know that in some small way we function like machines and the only real thing that deviates us from animals is our questioning of why we are here. But I feel that there is still a bit of mysticism left in the world, somewhere. Science is constantly disproving itself, if you know, the speed of light and Einsteins theory that nothing could travel faster was broken today - so, there has to be something out there.
Day after day, every theory seems to be being broken and I think that the universe is a lot more infinite then people think. So, I guess in a way I'm trying to say that it isn't too hard to believe that our consciousness exists far beyond our bodies lifespan and that perhaps this leads us to another place, heaven or otherwise, where our consciousness's can exist.

I'm a strange one, I know, and yeah you got the most of it right what I was saying.

I'm not trying to say that atheism is bad, you can do whatever it is you like - I really just think that the world needs to acknowledge that their are a LOT less barriers then science believes. However, science DOES disprove itself and prove this point itself at the same time on a constant basis.

I don't know, you get what I'm getting at?

[Bunnie]

keith--you are wrong--Einsteins theory is still valid
check with your favorite astronomer or astro physicist

[Hazel]

First, the speed of light being broken hasn't been comfirmed or denied yet. The first thing scientists do is try to repeat the results several times to confirm them. They think it may be an experimental design error, or a bad reading. Otherwise there would be discrepancies on the neutrinos and light waves reaching us from stars, and as yet such discrepancies have not been observed.

Yes, science disproves itself often, but that's why it is science, it never claims anything 100% because it is designed specifically to keep investigating. It is that ability to accept new evidence, and to change, and to be mutable that makes science so right in the way it does things. It seeks to explain the world, and as the instruments being used improve, and the understanding we have builds up, the theories we have are altered or rejected. This is a good thing.

However, the theory of gravity certainly hasn't been disputed, and the theory of evolution simply gains more and more supporting evidence, and has done so for the last 150 years or more.

And as for things it hasn't explained, the word "yet" needs to be put on the end of that, science hasn't explained it yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't.

I understand what you're getting up, I feel there are some flaws in what you are saying, but I will only address them if you wish them to be addressed.

[Keith]

Bunnie wrote: "keith--you are wrong--Einsteins theory is still valid
check with your favorite astronomer or astro physicist"

CERN recently ran an experiment a few weeks back where the fired Neutrinos and broke the speed barrier by about .23 milliseconds.

I'm not wrong, I do follow recent affairs.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/429d211c-e5...

That is one article, google CERN BREAKS SPEED OF LIGHT and you'll see a dozen more including videos by CERN.

[Sarah Jane]

Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."

I think of it this way "Science wouldn't be here if it wern't for God." (not sure if thats what you meant by "Him," but thats my perspctive.)

[Keith]

Hazel wrote: "First, the speed of light being broken turned out to be a fault in the experimental design, they have accepted that Einstein's law still stands.

Yes, science disproves itself often, but that's wh..."

Oh, I KNOW there are flaws and thanks for telling me that CERN was wrong, I never saw a article about that... hmmm.

Anyhow, I guess your right. I guess I'm just one of those people lol I guess I've learned some new things today anyhow, so, no harm.

[Hazel]

I never said that CERN was wrong, I said that they are investigating before giving an official verdict. There was a documentary about the whole thing here in the UK a couple of weeks ago, and so far, what they're finding supports Einsteins theory.

The problem with mass media is that it reports things that are interesting before being in full possession of the facts, and so we get sensational headlines and articles. Many scientists find it to be a pain in the arse.

[Keith]

Hazel wrote: "I never said that CERN was wrong, I said that they are investigating before giving an official verdict. There was a documentary about the whole thing here in the UK a couple of weeks ago, and so fa..."

Yeah! Don't I know that anymore...

I wish there was a more solid source for information that I could follow.
Well, if it is breaking the speed of light, it'll open up new avenues, if not - I guess they will just have to keep going on with trying.

[Hazel]

The great thing is, the impression that they'd broken the speed of light was pure side effect, they weren't trying to do any such thing, and they were astounded at the results. But they're still investigating and it does look like Einsteins theory is remaining solidly in place for the time being... Einstein did challenge the scientific community to prove him wrong when he proposed the theory, I think if he were here today, he'd be loving this investigation, and he'd be thrilled if it ever happened.

[Connie]

Siva wrote: "What I think about this is People like Buddha,Jesus and so on din't want any religious identification or as a spiritual leader. It is we who made them spiritual and people say they are religious. F..."

I agree with you Siva. I don't think that those enlightened teachers ever imagined that they would be put up on such high pedestals! It wasn't their goal to be worshiped as god-like humans. But some people seem to need an idol.

[Connie]

Jason wrote: "Wow, um... I thought this was a book discussion board, not a place for personal debate. Hazel, you have every right to your opinion, but can we keep the discussion about the book?"

Jason, Hazel is right. While I realize that she doesn't need anyone to come to her aid since she can handle herself quite eloquently, I think you're pointing the finger at her. Many of us have been involved in this discussion, so why aim at one individual?

[Hazel]

Keith, here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/...

it appears we should know more by the end of this month. The article says that the original experiment wasn't designed with the accuracy of time correlations in mind.

[Keith]

Hazel wrote: "Keith, here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/...

it appears we should know more by the end of this month. The article says that the original experiment wasn't d..."

I think this is going to be interesting if they do break the speed of light.

[Jason]

Hazel,

I apologize if I seemed rude before. I am not offended by your opinion. I just recently entered this discussion, so I was just a little put off by the negativity. Forgive me if my comments seemed otherwise. I'm just the hippie in the corner, mumbling "Take your hatred elsewhere, man."

[Hazel]

That's all cool Jason, I'm not a hatred sort of person, though some of my posts recently may have been tinged by frustration. I do try not to let it happen, but hey, I'm only human.

[Connie]

Comment: We can criticize a country like China for its one-child policy, but why do we feel an over-exaggerated regard for religious sensitivities and not put pressure on the catholic church to change THEIR stupid rule on "no birth control". The world population is about to reach 7 billion. Don't we all agree that it's time for ALL citizens of the world to have smaller families? I don't advocate for China's example, but what are we to do about this dilemma? Scientists are busy now trying to decide how the world can deal with the rapid population growth. Again, Science vs Religion. Which one, on this question, would you give your support to? I think the answer is obvious. The problem is however, that people still believe in the notion of "sin" and birth control practice as "sinning". How do you begin to reverse this forced indoctrinating?

DEFINITION:
Brainwashing: Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes.

[[deleted user]]

Bukky wrote: "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."

Bukky, there are priests that molests children. Why wouldn't they hurt an animal? And I heard some people sacrifice them to the god(s).

People keeps saying that morals come from religion, but no one says how or show any proof. So I have here a challenge for you,and that's why science is so good. When scientists doesn't know about a thing but want to find out, they research. Sooner or later they will get a response. Science has one to morality too: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_tru...

As regarding to mythology, I love reading it too. Is fun, magical and with a lot of teachings. Celtic and nordic are my favourite ones.

[Jeannette]

I coulld easily, happily, joyfully and thankfully live in a world without religion. It has caused the human race nothing but heartache.

[Alona]

I half-way agree with Jeannette's comment. I think that organized religion has caused some anguish for the human race. However, spirituality and the pervading belief in God and the Spirit is so important to human society!

[Hazel]

Whirlwind, we hit 7 billion on Monday:

http://mylbsonline.net/index.php?opti...

And somehow the world didn't fall apart as was predicted by some people...

And, we have some wonderfully innovative ideas for sorting out things like farming, this example isn't of a farm, but of a forest, but it could easily be applied to farming:

http://www.stefanoboeriarchitetti.net...

[Hazel]

Nicia, I love norse mythology, I have the eddas, both prose and poetic, and a small shelf section for the sagas. My other half is better at waxing lyrical on it though, he has one of those minds that retains loads of information unless its actually useful.... ;P

[Hazel]

Alona wrote: "I half-way agree with Jeannette's comment. I think that organized religion has caused some anguish for the human race. However, spirituality and the pervading belief in God and the Spirit is so i..."

So, what about the pervading belief in Krishna, or Vishnu, or Odin (I know a few heathens), what about the pervading belief in Zeus, or Mars, or the pervading spiritual beliefs of tribal peoples still present in the world? What about the belief in fairies, or dragons, or vampires? Werewolves? Soul sharing (even with fictional characters from video games)? People who believe all these things are as vervant in their belief as any Christian is in their belief in Yahweh.

What you believe in is an accident of your birth and geography, very few people grow up Muslim in a christian household, very few people (if any) grow up lutherian in a muslim country?

[Alona]

I wholeheartedly disagree! We, as Americans live in a free society and can choose for ourselves what we believe in!

Whatever you believe is right for you!

[Hazel]

You fail to understand what I am saying. What I am saying is that people will 99% of the time believe the same thing as their parents, and what the majority of people in a country believe is generally effected by what the most common religion in their country is. If you'd been born and grown up in Pakistan, you'd be Muslim, and you would be arguing for Islam rather than for Christianity, or if you prefer for Allah rather than Yahweh. As it is, you're in the USA, and you are argeuing for Yahweh, which I'm assuming (and I'm happy to be corrected) means you're following the same religion as your parents, and their parents, and probably a fair number of the people in your local community.