Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,651-1,700 of 12,463

[Hazel]

what he said too ^^^

[[deleted user]]

Oh you misunderstood me Shannon. Society is like a bag full of balls of different colours. We're all balls, but some of us are blue, others are red, some are black, et cetera. We're different because we've different tastes, different life styles, different values and beliefs. But we're balls and no one is better than another. The problem is that red balls want to turn the blue ones into their colour and the blues do the same with the yellow ones, instead of accepting our differences and make the best with it.

Religion always tried to paint the black balls in white ones. Back in the day (very, very far away) anyone that didn't believe in their god (Christian one) was considered an animal. Then came apartheid, and Nazism and Berlin's wall, you name it. All examples of balls that wanted to change the colours of the others.

We still do it in our everyday life, but we have to learn not to make you a version of me, but accept your versions as good as mine. I hope I made myself understood. :)

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "They haven't spilt blood for centuries, because despite some peoples beliefs, they've not existed for centuries, the romans quite successfully wiped them out. It was a resurrected term, in the last..."

Aye, the carnage at Anglesey in around 60ce was nicely(?) balanced by the burning of Colechester and the massacre that followed. The Romans crushing the druids for political rather than religious reasons, the Britons butchering the Romans for similar (non-religious) reasons.
The Modern druids are just that, modern. Little in the way of continuity between Cathbad and folk singing at solstice at the henges.

[Connie]

message 1734: by Shanna (last edited 11 hours, 59 min ago) - rated it 3 stars
12 hours, 0 min ago

Shanna Isn't that what I said? I was responding to Tina's assertion that gender didn't matter, and crediting her belief in god not stating my own.

You know, honesty and manners are not mutually exclusive, nor are honesty and rudeness joined at the hip.

Now, you deny that you used the word?

"Who are you, though, that you are so far above my daring to moralize with you?"

Who made you Miss Manners? You're getting mighty uppity.
I'll tell you why: Because I am.
If you thought that your opinion makes a difference to me, you would be mistaken.
Now please move past this conversation because it's over.

[[deleted user]]

Old-Barbarossa and Hazel ...

Thank you for answering the question. You made some interesting points that made a lot of sense.

As I thought about and tried to answer the question when posed to me as someone who believes in God, I'm pondering the question in relation to the science and technology that comes from that particular dark time in our past. I need to think about it more.

This is neither here nor there to the topic of this thread, but this question does have me thinking in all sorts of different ways. I mentioned testing on animals and followed it up by saying, "Ouch." Well, when I was in college and for the first 15 or so years after college, I was totally and completely against animal testing. And, I went out of my way to find products not tested on animals. Have I done that for the past 5 years? No. Why? I have no idea. Whoa, Nellie! I need to think about this for a bit. Am I truly willing to take the good with the bad ... or make good out of something that's negative? Am I willing to do that at certain times and not all the time? Why? How much have I thought about that ... in all aspects and avenues?

You see, for me, religion and spirituality is not all about a moral structure. I truly believe people who hold no religious or spiritual views can be and often are highly moral, just like anybody else. I also see the negative and horrific aspects of many religions and make no excuses for them. Hmmm.... I feel like I'm not going to be able to explain this. When I was asked about picking the good within religions and sat down and thought about that question ... why I did ... if it was right ... right for me ... etc..., I thought the exercise had value. Not just because religions have a moral framework or have done serious wrongs in the name of God, etc... It just had value as a question for me as a person, regardless of religion and the basis of religion, etc....

So, for me, the question also has value when it comes to science, though I totally get the point about science being a method and a tool. I really do. That's simple and clean and true. It really is. And, it can totally stand on its own ... as that ... pure and simple. The thing is ... when I interject myself into it and think about my choices and the choices I'm going to make, its no longer simple. Does that make sense? I'm just trying to work it out for myself. What choices am I going to make within religion and within science? What will I benefit from within religion and within science? What is my standard? Those are questions I need to answer ....

[Shanna]

Whirlwind wrote: "message 1734: by Shanna (last edited 11 hours, 59 min ago) - rated it 3 stars
12 hours, 0 min ago

Shanna Isn't that what I said? I was responding to Tina's assertion that gender didn't matter, and..."

I don't deny writing the word, I didn't call you dishonest. Please read what you took the time to copy and paste, I said honesty isn't nessasarily rude. But you don't seem to be able to get past the "rudeness" of my comment to read what I actually wrote.

I'm no miss manners but I know a lack when I see it and I can call you on it, because despite your objections ("Because I am" doesn't wash by the way) you are not beyond it.

Now that YOU have devolved into twelve year old behaviour....

"Who made you Miss Manners? You're getting mighty uppity.
I'll tell you why: Because I am.
If you thought that your opinion makes a difference to me, you would be mistaken.
Now please move past this conversation because it's over."

the conversation is over.

[Connie]

Uppity, AND petty.

Who the F do you think you are that I would take your opinion seriously? Yes, I am 'way beyond listening to your carping. I allow criticism from those whom I respect, from friends, and from those I love. You are none of those.

[cerebus]

Time to jump back in again....
To me the issue of picking and choosing from the bible, or whatever religious text you prefer, is simple. If you have your faith (which allows you to ignore the lack of evidence supporting your particular flavour of deity) then on what basis do you make the choice between one part of the bible and another? You choose to accept, for example, the bit saying that you must love thy neighbour but you choose not to accept the bit saying slavery is acceptable? But based on what...they're both coming from the same source (apparently) and they are both part of the text which forms the basis of your religion? If you choose to ignore part of it then you are saying god was wrong about that bit. Bit presumptuous for a believer I'd have thought?
When it comes to science I don't have to have faith in science, or scientists, so it is entirely consistent for me to say that certain parts of science (nuclear weapons for example) are morally objectionable and that I do not think we should be using them, while at the same time saying other parts (nuclear power) are perfectly acceptable. As for the nazi example that has been brought up recently (Godwin's law anyone?), as Hazel said it is entirely consistent to say that the techniques used were morally indefensible, that those responsible should have been punished and that every attempt should be made to ensure that it never happens again; whilst at the same time saying that if there was some small good that came from it that it would be wrong not to take advantage of that. It'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face to say otherwise.
Someone else asked about ethics panels etc? There are definitely ethics panels, especially when it comes to medical research....there are questions in medicine that could be answered by entirely possible studies, but they will never be done because they would (rightly) be rejected as ethically unsound....Many of the arguments surrounding vaccination could be answered with studies, but it is ethically unacceptable to allow children to die as a result of being denied an already proven life-saving vaccination.

If you rely on faith to support your position, you must take it all on faith, the good and the bad.

And to borrow Hazel's finishing off on a song, here's a song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvE-5P...

[Sam]

Definitly Religon it causes wars,hate and discrimination. it just hurts people but i do think it does have some benifits too it gives people hope and something to believe in however without the devolpment of science we would not have what we have today. so i would have to say bye to religon.

[Elisa Santos]

Why not have the best of both worlds? Religion is not harmfull if all of the different creeds live alongside each other and not trying to convert the others to them, because "their" faith is the "right one" - if that could happen, there would be peace on Earth and all religions, all creeds would live side by side in harmony; science has brought tremendous amount of knowledge to us and helped Man getting out the fears adn darkness and in to the light....so i would say both of them: you can´t live in a whole and solely spiritual world as much as you can´t live in a sterile and cold cience world - balance is the key.

[Giansar]

Maria wrote: "Religion is not harmfull if all of the different creeds live alongside each other and not trying to convert the others to them, because "their" faith is the "right one" - if that could happen, there would be peace on Earth and all religions, all creeds would live side by side in harmony"
Well, I wouldn't repeat this statement in front of my aunt who works as a nurse in a cancer ward for children - that would be risking being punched in the face.
You see, from time to time they get patients whose parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. They usually don't try (the parents) to convert anyone at the hospital and they are quite a peaceful lot. They just won't allow their children to get blood transfusions, which often greatly impairs the chance of the said children of recovery from their grave condition - surgery gets postponed because of legal issues or is conducted with use of blood substitutes, which of course are never as good as actual human blood.

[Connie]

Maria wrote: "Why not have the best of both worlds? Religion is not harmful if all of the different creeds live alongside each other and not trying to convert the others to them, because "their" faith is the "right one" - if that could happen, there would be peace on Earth and all religions, all creeds would live side by side in harmony; science has brought tremendous amount of knowledge to us and helped Man getting out the fears and darkness and in to the light....so i would say both of them: you can´t live in a whole and solely spiritual world as much as you can´t live in a sterile and cold science world - balance is the key."

That's a nice goal, yet it's pretty idealistic, and probably impossible to reach. And if it's ever achieved by humanity (I like that term much better than the sexist 'man'), it would take at least the next 2,000 years to undo the harm that's been done by religious patriarchies, if not more. But I don't think that all the sciences are "cold and sterile" in practice. It's not all done in the lab--there's veterinary medicine, ecology, botany, semiotics, zoology, etc. If you check out a list of all of the sciences and related disciplines in the world I'd say that science has done far more good in this world than religion could ever hope to, and science's benefits to humanity surpass those of religion enormously. In fact, I believe that the sciences teach us more about morality, human kindness, compassion towards the animal world, awareness of disease prevention and control, ecological awareness, human behaviour, life in the oceans, the climate, and on and on. I refer to the outstanding Dr. David Suzuki for example, a fellow Canadian and brilliant Scientist who has taken the mystery out of science and made it understandable for ordinary people. Religion can't hold a candle to that--all it really does is preach hot air and supernatural beliefs.

[Hazel]

On the sexist "man" thing, it does depend how you look at it, man is the literal translation of homo, which is our genus. So, in that sense its a word that means everything human, from Homo habalis onwards. Though, yes, in religion, it is usually used as a term that means man the sex, not man the species. Not criticising anyone, just sharing some random nomenclature knowledge :)

[Connie]

Okay but you know, we don't speak Latin any more even tho' etymology is fun and interesting. Let's change that one little word from mankind to humankind and maybe thoughts will change, too. Like, maybe we'll have more humanity in this world if we focused less on the male principle and more on balance...

[Hazel]

If you say so Whirlwind.

[Giansar]

I don't think it will do. People still will be using 'man' to describe male humans and humans in general while 'woman' will still be only for women.
I really think we should start saying 'male human being' and 'female human being'.
I had a prof that used to do that. Sounded ridiculous but but at least he wasn't sexist.

[Connie]

And "man" isn't sexist, Giansar? I don't see why we don't develop the good habit of saying humankind instead of mankind. In fact people are already doing it and have been for some time. "Abeunt studia in mores."--Practices zealously pursued pass into habits. Using biased terminology has an effect on the psyche, and does a disservice to half of humanity but it sounds as if that's okay with some. You said the prof at least wasn't sexist but are you not advocating the use of 'man' to refer to humans in general? Seems contradictory to me.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "You choose to accept, for example, the bit saying that you must love thy neighbour but you choose not to accept the bit saying slavery is acceptable? But based on what...they're both coming from the same source (apparently) and they are both part of the text which forms the basis of your religion? If you choose to ignore part of it then you are saying god was wrong about that bit. Bit presumptuous for a believer I'd have thought?"

Mmmm.... Maybe. But, I remember something Kathy said that I actually agreed with her about. She said something along the lines that ... humans are flawed ... Spirit or Source is not. I can't remember her exact words.

I think there are some people, I'm one of them, who can believe in God but know the people who wrote the books of the Bible (or other holy texts), picked the books to be included in the Bible, and founded the religion were flawed.

I mean, think about this .... I could tell you a story about my grandfather, a WWII pilot, and embellish the heck out of it. I might tell you he flew in the Ploesti raids. True. I might mention that he was one of the men who bombed Berlin. False. I might say he met Patton. False. I might make some comments about how (I'm not really saying this, so ...) the Americans were the best pilots and best soldiers and were better than any of the European pilots and soldiers. I might even go on by calling the Germans and Japanese nasty names and say horrid things about them. Etc....

Does the fact that I didn't tell the truth about Berlin and Patton mean my grandfather didn't fly on the Ploesti mission? Does the fact that I included nationalistic and abhorrent rhetoric, that might have been used at the time, mean my grandfather never existed in the first place?

This might not be the best analogy, but I think it gets my point across. :)

[Hazel]

but in the end, you can probably, if you tried, provide evidence that your grandfather a) existed (birth, marriage certificates, photographs etc), and b) that he flew in the Ploesti raids (his military papers,the order and the mission report will be recorded somewhere, and will be verifiable ie proved not to be forgeries). Still, back to evidence.

I mean, its true, I'd have no real reason to doubt your word on the missions that your grandfather partook in, but its about the magnitude of the claim, compared to "there's a supernatural father figure that knows all, sees all and made everything", then "my grandad flew x mission" is nothing on the scale of extraordinary claims in comparison

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

[[deleted user]]

Shannon, you didn't answer my comment. Are you ignoring me?

[[deleted user]]

Nícia wrote: "Shannon, you didn't answer my comment. Are you ignoring me?"

Hey, Nicia ... do you mean your talking about colored balls and stating ...

we have to learn not to make you a version of me, but accept your versions as good as mine. I hope I made myself understood. :)

Yes, I understand.

[Xdyj]

Whirlwind wrote: "Okay but you know, we don't speak Latin any more even tho' etymology is fun and interesting. Let's change that one little word from mankind to humankind and maybe thoughts will change, too. Like,..."

I think most of the more recent books I've read have already adopted that and it's also mentioned during my school's TA training in the part about gender-neutral language :)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "but in the end, you can probably, if you tried, provide evidence that your grandfather a) existed (birth, marriage certificates, photographs etc), and b) that he flew in the Ploesti raids (his mili..."

Hey, Hazel. I didn't use that analogy to prove that God exists. Leaving aside the fact that some believe in God without proof and some don't believe because there is no proof .... I mean, that's always going to be the case. Some will believe and some won't. Period.

My comment was in relation to an idea mentioned by Cerebus ... the statement about picking and choosing. While I can prove my grandfather flew on that mission and can't prove that God exists, I will, whether it makes logical sense or not, believe in God ... but won't believe all the things written in the Bible or believe all the tenets of the faith. I can look at history and look at the holy texts etc... and know that people lie and embellish and skew things based on their point of view and culture ... BUT ... still believe in God and still see "truth" in certain parts of the Bible.

(If you want to know about the "truths" I actually do see, I'll go there. But, I don't want to be seen as peddling, so ....)

I think the two ... whether or not people believe ... whether or not people should pick and choose ... are separate issues. I'm guessing some don't see it that way. For me, it makes sense.

This isn't exactly on point, but .... I think it, in a way, reflects a part of what I'm trying to say.

"We have men among us, like the whites, who pretend to know the right path, but will not consent to show it without pay! I have no faith in their paths, but believe that every man must make his own path!" -Black Hawk, Sauk

[Connie]

Just one small point--there is a difference between believing and believing in.

Also, the quote from Black Hawk sounds a bit racist IMHO.

[[deleted user]]

Whirlwind wrote: "Just one small point--there is a difference between believing and believing in.

Also, the quote from Black Hawk sounds a bit racist IMHO."

Black Hawk lived from the late 1700's through the early 1800's ... in what became America ... in America. Given what happened to his people, Whirlwind, I'm guessing we can understand the sentiment behind his words. Right?

I truly hope people understand I used that quote due to the message behind it. People should pick their own paths .... People should be allowed to pick and choose ... their own paths and within their own paths.

[[deleted user]]

I have a different view on this question. I think that, on picking up a religion, we SHOULD embrace it all (meaning all its values, good and bad) and not choosing here and there. BUT, we will never find a religion that conforms to all of our values​​, then we tend to choose one that covers it as much as possible, which is as close as possible to what we believe. Well, the ones who really choose and do not stick to what they have been taught.

When I stopped believing in god (the Christian one), I went search for other religions that suited in what I believe. I went for Buddhism and Wicca, because of it's relation to nature. However as easily I adhere, I also quit. The first because they believed in reincarnation and the second because it was still a deity there. I became to realize that there are no religion that I can hold on too, they're all based in some kind of spiritual being that I don't need or either believe.

Shannon, I just wanted to know if you agree (in relation to the previous post but you can answer in relation to this one as well).

[Sanchayan]

I'm an atheist so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But,i think most people will become worse than animals if they don't have religion.

[Giansar]

Whirlwind wrote: "And "man" isn't sexist, Giansar? I don't see why we don't develop the good habit of saying humankind instead of mankind."
Ok, maybe I shouldn't take part in this particular argument. I may be missing the nuances here as in my native language there actually is a separate word for 'man' (male) and you cannot use it interchangeably with the word for 'human'.
What my doubts are though is whether this is correct approach to the problem - should we change nomenclature in order to change our thinking or should it be the other way around.
This "using humankind instead of mankind" smells to me a little of some other feminist well-intentioned initiatives, which in my opinion do more harm to women cause that they do good - like the different kinds of parities (I am not sure whether it is the correct word) for example.
But, again, it maybe just my ignorance of the language speaking.

[[deleted user]]

Nícia wrote: "I have a different view on this question. I think that, on picking up a religion, we SHOULD embrace it all (meaning all its values, good and bad) and not choosing here and there. BUT, we will never..."

Nicia -- Yes, I believe we're different ... in that we have different personalities, likes and dislikes, cultures, beliefs, etc.... However, ultimately, I believe we're the same in what counts the most. We're humans and we're all connected.

I do not believe that one person should be valued over another. I do not believe that one person should attempt to convert another ... in any way ... due to the idea that their way is better.

And, I believe I understood what you were saying in your post.

I hope that answers your question. If not, I'm afraid I need you to be more specific about the question. :)

[[deleted user]]

I misunderstood me again, in this last post I was talking about picking up certain things in a religion, not in a person. I think you need to read it again.

On the other post I did tell you that we're different balls but no other is better than the other. Don't confuse the both posts because I'm talking about different subjects.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Shannon wrote: "I do not believe that one person should attempt to convert another ... in any way ... due to the idea that their way is better..."

But if a way is false or dangerous surely the moral thing to do is to point out the error of someone's ways?
I don't mean religious viewpoints or ideas of heresy. I mean in general.
There is an idea that all opinions are equally valid...the creationist vs evolutionary arguements going an is an example of ideas being seen as equally valid and needing equal amounts of attention.
Most people would laugh at flat earthers' ideas being given the same validity as any other goegraphers'.
The bulimic culture on the internet fosters a dangerous lifestyle.
Tobacco is bad for you.
Etc, etc, etc.
Now, sure, it's up to the individual if they want to stop smoking, but the info should be shown as more valid than the old "Drs recommend you smoke brand X because it's good for you" message of the '50s.

But...I think if you are religious then you can't justify any ideas being more valid than any other in that sphere as they all depend on things like faith and belief...unmeasurable. Is belief in one branch of christianity any more valid than any other...or more valid than jainism?
No religious ideas can be shown to be more valid than any other without self referantial arguements.

Outwith religion (and philosophy for that matter) I think in many instances some ideas are more valid than others

[[deleted user]]

Nícia wrote: "I misunderstood me again, in this last post I was talking about picking up certain things in a religion, not in a person. I think you need to read it again.

On the other post I did tell you that w..."

Nicia -- I was addressing the first post ... which was the post you asked me to address. I'm pretty sure I understood you meaning and I'm not confusing it with the second post. Regarding your second post, while I understand your viewpoint, I don't agree. I think it's fine that we don't agree. But, I do understand where you're coming from.

[[deleted user]]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I do not believe that one person should attempt to convert another ... in any way ... due to the idea that their way is better..."

But if a way is false or dangerous surely the m..."

As an aside, I don't believe the Earth is flat and I've never smoked. :)

Perhaps the key word here is ... "convert" ...

All should have a voice. Share all information. (Within belief systems, spiritual and religions, I DO NOT think one is better than the other.) I believe words have meaning and people should speak responsibly. However, I also believe it is up to the individual to pick his/her own paths.


Is it up to one person or one group to convert another? Is that something that humans should make as their goal or mission, the conversion of others? I think not.

[[deleted user]]

Well, I'm glad that we agree on the first issue then.

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "but in the end, you can probably, if you tried, provide evidence that your grandfather a) existed (birth, marriage certificates, photographs etc), and b) that he flew in the Ploesti r..."

Actually, I didn't misunderstand what you wrote, if you read my reply again, you'll see that what I was saying is that to distinguish from fact and false you still need to provide evidence, but that with smaller claims you need smaller proofs, and by all that, I meant that no matter how much you pick and choose which bits to believe, you still have to justify it.

Unfortunately your original analogy was flawed in that when we're talking about picking and choosing from the bible, we're talking about ideas and unverifiable events, but when picking and choosing the lies from the truths in your example, we're talking about picking the false events from the true in a period that we have verifiable evidence for, and where we can actually show whether its true or not with actual evidence. The two situations don't really compare.

And whats more important here is that no-one is going to be making moral choices and life changing decisions based on whether you told a lie about what missions your grandfather flew, or who he met. The bible, however, is given that role in peoples lives, in helping them make moral choices etc, as proven by you picking which bits you give credence to.

The gap in magnitude between the two examples is so great that the two cannot be compared or analagous to each other.

[Elisa Santos]

Whirlwind - i realize that the scenary that i described - all creeds living together in harmony with science - it´s idealistic and even havea bit of utopia in there; and i know it will never come to that or - hope against hope - if it does come true it will take humanity another 2000 and some years to achieve that state of perfect harmony.

I don´t take religion as it is - meaning: believing in every dogma they preach i.e. no contraception, no birth-control, homossexuality a big no-no, etc; i much prefer to concentrate on the forgiveness, the love part of the religion, the believing in everyone, that every soul matters, that charity, the help between human beings, the solitude, even the comtemplative part - that is all i take from religion not the revengefull God that will strike you with thunder, the punishing one that make you suffer in order to deal with victory better.
Also i know that not every science occurs in a lab - but also saying that all tha religion preaches is hort air and hocus-pocus seems a bit shortening on the matter at hand.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Maria wrote: "...i much prefer to concentrate on the forgiveness, the love part of the religion, the believing in everyone, that every soul matters, that charity, the help between human beings, the solitude, even the comtemplative part - that is all i take from religion not the revengefull God that will strike you with thunder..."

Do you realy need a deity (any deity, vengeful or otherwise) to do any of that?
People may choose to justify their charitable and contemplative actions by ref to a god or holy book, but they are not necessary to do those things...they don't need to be justified.
Now the question:
When the dogma and ritual are removed from religion, and the good works are left, is there any need for religion?

[Giansar]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Now the question:
When the dogma and ritual are removed from religion, and the good works are left, is there any need for religion? "
We've kind of come a full circle here.
You can strip religion of everything that is generally regarded as part of religion - you can get rid of gods, dogmas, rituals, worship, etc. But what is the theme here - the "science VS religion" act is actually "rational VS irrational". So, if you want to still have the "good works" you can do this without religion as such but you cannot do this without being irrational to some extent - you need your free will to be able to perform good deeds and you need to be irrational in order to retain your free will.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Giansar wrote: "...you need your free will to be able to perform good deeds and you need to be irrational in order to retain your free will..."

Eh? How's that then? (He says in his best Dougal from "Father Ted" voice)
Why does irrationality and free will go together?

[Elisa Santos]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Maria wrote: "...i much prefer to concentrate on the forgiveness, the love part of the religion, the believing in everyone, that every soul matters, that charity, the help between human beings, the..."

When you put it like that - no, there is no deity needed indeed, to do good deeds and be a good person, in general.
I was not raised in the old traditional Catholic Church but, at key moments in my life i hold on to...something higher that i resort to expose my problems, but i don´t give it a name - i have a special liking to Nossa Senhora de Fátima and the Holly Mother of God, but they are personnal preferences - since i live in an Catholic preominant country i wasalways surrounded by those references and, maybe ny habit i resort to them, for some kind of confort.
About the question: the need will always be there as long as there are people willing to believe in something greater than themselves that will embrace and confort them.

[Giansar]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Why does irrationality and free will go together?"
Well, simply because, at least so far, its existence cannot be explained rationally.
If I ask you where your free will comes from and you are a religious person, you'll say: "Why, Jesus gave it to me of course, so I can be responsible for my actions!".
If I ask the same question and you are a rationalist, what will your answer be?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Just found this...love it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytoDs2...
Father Dougal has a moment of clarity.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Giansar wrote: "If I ask you where your free will comes from and you are a religious person, you'll say: "Why, Jesus gave it to me of course, so I can be responsible for my actions!".
If I ask the same question and you are a rationalist, what will your answer be?"

Don't know if it has to come from anywhere...don't know if it has to be an irrational solution.
I assume we evolved to respond to things dependant on the previous data we have recieved regarding similar situations. Yet folk still do base jumping.
I think there is an evolutionary driver to be a "good person", but I've not read widely on the subject. The Origins of Virtue covered this though.
That's just some personal thoughts on the subject.

Giansar, why do you say it has to be irrational?

[Connie]

Giansar wrote: "What my doubts are though is whether this is correct approach to the problem - should we change nomenclature in order to change our thinking or should it be the other way around.
This "using humankind instead of mankind" smells to me a little of some other feminist well-intentioned initiatives, which in my opinion do more harm to women cause that they do good - like the different kinds of parities (I am not sure whether it is the correct word) for example.
But, again, it maybe just my ignorance of the language speaking. "

We have to change both our nomenclature AND our thinking and it's a good idea when they go hand in hand. Words and ideas do influence our thoughts and beliefs, just as our minds affect the words we choose. Think about it. The mankind/humankind is only one example of the many ways in which people can become aware of the relationship between language and thought and how both are mutually influential. Recognition comes first, then awareness, and then maybe lives can eventually be changed when we change our wording or thoughts.

This "using humankind instead of mankind" smells to me a little of some other feminist well-intentioned initiatives...

And why should it NOT "smell" as you say, of something feminist? Tell me that please. The billions of women of this planet have lived with the smell of masculinism for the past 2- to 4- thousand years! What's so bad if we swing the pendulum back to center now? Feminism is NOT a dirty word, nor is it a bad practice. And let me tell you something else...the negative reaction to any kind of opposition on the part of women can invariably expect to meet with the same kind of backlash and loathing that is usually expressed--what? another "feminazi"?

If we were to stop the stoning, dowry burnings, genital mutilation, the marrying of girls to ugly wrinkled old men, the murder of women for bringing so-called 'shame' (a word, a thought, turned into practice) on a family--all in the name of religion--don't you think it would begin with changing thoughts and beliefs, which are proliferated by word, right from the start?

What's in a word after all? Just this. Let's say that a name is a word, which for all intents and purposes it is. A name really is a label used for identification purposes. When a couple marries, it is the woman who surrenders her name to take the man's name. I know why this is, but do most people? And, what is the message to us when this takes place? She can go ahead and give up her name while he keeps his. Her identity is (thought to be) of no real meaning. Hers must now change and become part of her husband's identity. He labels her, stamps her with his name, and that small, seemingly benign act imports a lot of power. It says that his name is by far the more important, and her original name vanishes into thin air.

Does this not affect our thinking? It most definitely does. And where did this tradition originate? From religion. Religion that seeks to lessen women's status and obliterate her identity. Well done. And we should be offended by FEMINISM?? Give me a break!

Personally, I would never take a man's name and never did and I think that women ought to think more about the motives behind this tradition.

Don't just do things because it's "the done thing", THINK! Which people don't do enough of.

But more than this, words affect our thoughts much more than we might imagine, sometimes to the point that even the most innocent-seeming thing gets propagandized into mainstream thinking, and before we know it, we're embracing false and harmful practices and beliefs. And religion has always been awfully good at doing just that.

The point? I'll take science any day and I think religion should be wiped off the face of this earth. After all, what good has it really, really done, in and of itself?

[Connie]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Just found this...love it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytoDs2...
Father Dougal has a moment of clarity."

Father Ted! It's a riot, thanks for posting "Barbar". :D

[[deleted user]]

Whirlwind, can you explain why is the women to change it's name? I don't know and I would like to because it's an important matter, as you stated.

My husband and I (we didn't married but we live together for a long time) agreed on, if one day we get married, to borrow each others names so we have the same surnames.

[Connie]

Sanchayan wrote: "I'm an atheist so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But,i think most people will become worse than animals if they don't have religion."

But we DO have religion, and some male leaders have behaved barbarically! If anything, religion causes people to react even more savagely, since they think that they have their 'god' on their side in their idiotic fight for power and wealth.

The middle east has recently rid itself of several dictators: Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak...these men I'm sure, identified themselves with some religion or other as most "leaders" do. Did their religious institution(s) imbue them with grace and kindness? No, that part of religion had absolutely no good effect on them whatsoever. (I have no idea what religion any of these men identified with, except maybe bin Laden, so I'm not using any one religion as an example, just trying to make a point about religious faith as a general thing.)

So, what good does religion do in the final analysis?

(And let's not insult the innocent animals of the world. Animals never bring that level of ugliness and evil to life. They only kill out of instinct and survival; humans do it for revenge, power, or sport. Aren't these maniacs just the pillars of manhood. Ha.)

[Cheri]

Science is the new religon as we pray to the doctor god to save us, give us just a little more time, make us well again. And find the answers to the world's mysteries. At least science is willing to ask the questions and revise its answers when presented with new evidence.

I know what is right and wrong without a religon to tell me. That's what makes us human.

[Elisa Santos]

Whirlwind, by your standards, i am the one-cell ameeba that took the husbands name, putting my other surnames at the back....marriage is a contract and the conditions reverse at the break of it (divorce) so, why all the hussle and the stress? Chill, we are just talking, merely - not on the box of soap, right?
I think that in terms of religion as in all aspects of life, people should do and act in the way that suits them better, that will go along with their wishes, hopes, dreams or mere reality - no fundamentalism of any kind, whatsoever. If a woman wants to adopt the name of the husband - fine; if she does not want that all she has to do is speak and act accordingly - no biggie! Comunication and knowing one self, that is the key.

[Connie]

Maria, I never called anyone, especially YOU, a one-celled "amoeba", so kindly don't paint my comment with such vitriol. I'm not criticizing individuals such as yourself, I'm criticizing an institution, and the institutionalization of certain prejudicial but sanctioned traditions.

You're the one who needs to chill (since you took my comment as a personal insult), and you're the one "stressing and hustling" I see. Don't take things so personally, your ego is getting in the way of your vision.

I'm looking at the thing from a social and historical perspective, not trying to pick on you or anyone else who does it, although I don't know how much thought that people put into it or if they even know or understand WHY the practice ever came into being.

Tell me, why would you change your name, er...more than once, it appears?