Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,701-1,750 of 12,463

[Hazel]

There are some forms of feminism that I find very offensive... such as the type of femenist who thinks women should be more important than men, or those who think women who are happy staying at home are weak and under the thumb. But thats an aside.

Several of my friends have married over the last couple of years or so (everyones reaching that age where they're "all grown up") and every time they have discussed the name thing between them, and decided who's taking who's name, or if any names will change at all. These days, its much different, at least in my experience, than it used to be, what with men taking the womans name, or them creating a double-barreled name. And really, if we;re going to get uppity over a mans name replacing the womans, then what about the fact that we then impose that name on our offspring, maybe they should be allowed to have whatever name they want?I mean their surname is their fathers name, and they had no choice at all, a woman getting married at least has some choice in the matter. Actually, I've always liked the old viking way of doing it, where its the parents name with either son or daughter tagged on. But in the end, these days, a surname is just something that is attached to a social security number, so that the powers that be can keep records of where we are, and what we're doing, so they can tax us, and we can register to vote etc.

I suspect a large amount of the reason for the woman to change her name is because in many traditions, after the wedding, the woman moves in with the grooms family, and as such, takes on the name of the family unit she's now living with, and sharing food and shelter with. The woman moves to live with the mans "tribe" and takes on the "tribal" identity. No doubt, whirlwind will tell us if thats part of the reason or not.

My sister in law, when she was 15, changed her forename (with parental permission), she wanted to change her surname too, but was told no by her father, and my other half objected too, and told she's be disowned if she did, because she was either a part of the family with the same identity, or she wasn't. Is this sexism? Or is it simply pride in identity, and the call to keep the family unit united? Uniting under the same banner makes any group stronger in itself. Also as an aside, I know a girl who changed her name by deed poll to Phoenix Darkknight.

I'm married, and seperated from my husband, but when we married, I chose to take his name, he'd have probably happily taken my name, but I decided to take his instead. Now we're seperated, I've been considering changing it back, but its not exactly high on my agenda, as its mostly unimportant, its simply a label, its not who I am. And frankly, any name is preferable to having my dads surname.

[Connie]

Nicia: Hint--It has to do with parenthood.

Sorry to leave you hanging, but I'll come back later and explain. Meantime, maybe someone can come up with the answer, or post their guesses or opinions about the question. But I have to get ready for work. Lucky for me I can use my laptop at work so I'll get online from there. My career does have its perks, not only a great living but lots of freedom, too. *grin*

[Hazel]

oh, Whirlwind, those men you listed, all of them are or were muslim, specifically sunni muslims.

[Giansar]

Whirlwind wrote: "Does this not affect our thinking? It most definitely does."
Oh my, I can't believe you actually asked that question. Do you seriously believe that sane people will judge a woman because she "surrendered" her name to her husband?
Of course there will be people that will. You know who the people will mostly be? Feminists with vast inferiority complex.
My wife took my name and she was glad and proud to do so, just as I was glad to gave her my name and proud and flattered that she was willing to take it. It was an expression of our mutual love and willingness to spend our lives together as one family. And the roots of the tradition are beside the point. It is what we do with a tradition that matters. It really offends me that someone would be willing to reduce it to some kind of brand of ownership.

I am not arguing the original intention of the tradition here because you are of course right about it just as you are right about women being in the past as well as at present discriminated in many aspects of life. I am also not opposing feminism as a concept. I am all for women fighting for their rights. It just seems to me that a lot of these different women rights fractions are quite deluded and actually harm their own cause instead of helping it.

[Pet]

Nadir wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that r..."


I am not an atheist, however I would not want to live in a world without science. There's been a lot of terrible atrocities committed in history in the name of religion, a few in the name of science too, but today we seem to have more humanity in science than in religion.
Though I think if you asked me if I wanted to live in a world without Science or without God, my answer would be different.
They are sadly not the same.

[Giansar]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Don't know if it has to come from anywhere..."
Well, this is definitely an irrational answer!


Giansar, why do you say it has to be irrational? ."
I, of course, can't be sure but so far rationalism and is unable to find anything that would hint at even a possibility of existence of something like free will. Science, so far, give us only the choice between determinism or random chaos at quantum or even lower level. The latter seems to be much more 'in' recently.

[Hazel]

Pet, why would your answer be different? The way I see it, if you chose god over science, then you are reducing the human species back in its evolution to when it didn't use any form of tools, back to the trees basically, and as such, you wouldn't have the sort of brain that allows you to believe that a god exists. OUr evolution into beings that can invent gods to believe in (or if you prefer, to perceive the god you obviously currently believe is there) goes hand in hand with our abilty to manipulate the world, and to make use of it through science and technology. No science means no fire, no tools, nothing, we'd have brains more like simians, because even other primates and homonids like chimps can create and make use of tools.

[Connie]

Giansar wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: " Whirlwind wrote: "Does this not affect our thinking? It most definitely does."
Oh my, I can't believe you actually asked that question. Do you seriously believe that sane people will judge a woman
because she "surrendered" her name to her husband?
Of course there will be people that will. You know who the people will mostly be? Feminists with vast inferiority complex.
My wife took my name and she was glad and proud to do so, just as I was glad to gave her my name and proud and flattered that
she was willing to take it. It was an expression of our mutual love and willingness to spend our lives together as one family.
And the roots of the tradition are beside the point. It is what we do with a tradition that matters. It really offends me that
someone would be willing to reduce it to some kind of brand of ownership.
I am not arguing the original intention of the tradition here because you are of course right about it just as you are right
about women being in the past as well as at present discriminated in many aspects of life. I am also not opposing feminism as a
concept. I am all for women fighting for their rights. It just seems to me that a lot of these different women rights fractions
are quite deluded and actually harm their own cause instead of helping it."

Giansar, it is not about judgement, or judging the woman "because she surrendered her name to her husband". It is the IDEA
that she should give up her name in the first place that is disturbing. Why should she and not he?

Why do you insist that any comment that is an attempt to question the status quo on such topics, you have to resort to negative
comments about women and feminism? What's that all about? Who's got the inferiority complex?

If a relationship between a man and a woman were TRULY mutual, then they would either create a new name together or they would
exchange names, or hyphenate, but as it is, it's quite one-sided. You can't deny that.

Did I say that it had anything to do with ownership?

Women would not have to fight for their rights if they'd never been taken away in the first place...by the patrilineal, patriarchal,
masculininst cultures that developed via religion.

Now, give me a few examples of how "women rights 'fractions' " are "quite deluded" and "harm their own cause" as you claim? Please,
I'm anxious to hear your examples.

[Connie]

Hazel wrote: "oh, Whirlwind, those men you listed, all of them are or were muslim, specifically sunni muslims."

Thought so, but didn't have time when I posted it to verify which religion they adhered to. I don't think it's really relevant which religiton it is, since they all have their horrid prejudices which allow the male to dominate and control in some of the most hideous ways.

[Elisa Santos]

Whirlwind- i gave myself as an exanple merely to try and explain that it´s really a choice of either party - male or female. The roots of that tradition can be discussible and they are what they are: in the early days, a form of legitimazing children that came from that couple - anyone knew who the baby-dady was.
And that my "vision" is not being clouded by any sort of prejudice - anti-male or anti-female. The tradition here is to do that, although i have a brother-in-law who exchanged surnames with his wife: her surname comes before his own. I did not do that - and i am still married, so just the one change of name, as you so rightly ask....i wonder what made you ask me that - because of my definition of marriage? It is what it is: you go to a legal building - register - you sign papers determining that you hold a contract with that person, you define your pre-nup and you have a contract to keep: if either party brakes it, divorce ensues - simples enough, i think: maybe a bit cold but simple and truthfull.
I am pretty much laid back and relaxed - sort of live and let live kind of person - and a discussion about the relevance of religion is always going to be controversial.

[Giansar]

Whirlwind wrote: "It is the IDEA
that she should give up her name in the first place that is disturbing. Why should she and not he?"
Just read again what you wrote:
"SHE GIVES UP HER NAME"
It is you and only you here that victimizes yourself.
I could turn the whole thing around and it would be no more and no less silly:
"WHY DO I HAVE TO GIVE MY NAME TO SOME WOMAN? IT IS SO NOT FAIR. MY FAMILY WORKED FOR THAT NAME FOR CENTURIES AND NOW SHE COMES AND JUST TAKES IT."
It's all in your mind!

Whirlwind wrote: "Now, give me a few examples of how "women rights 'fractions' " are "quite deluded" and "harm their own cause" as you claim? Please,
I'm anxious to hear your examples. "
Well, one of my favorite ones is parity. I am not sure whether I use a proper English term here but this is the idea to equalize opportunity by giving preference.
To give a specific example. In Poland we have this large strategic consortia that are controlled by boards of directors appointed by the state authorities. Some politicians have an idea (which in itself is quite praiseworthy) to use the fact that they can exercise some control over who is selected for the board and try and enable more women to hold these lofty positions. But the peculiarity of the idea is that they want to enforce the law that says that there must be 50/50 proportion between men and woman on the board. It means that if they have 10 sits on the board and 5 are occupied by men than the main criterion for filling in the remaining sits will not be any particular skills, knowledge, experience but being of a specific gender.
Setting aside what this approach is supposed to have with equality and fairness, it is arguable for me whether this would serve women well because every woman holding a sit on the board would have to prove over and over again that she didn't get the sit only because of her gender.

Whirlwind wrote: "Why do you insist that any comment that is an attempt to question the status quo on such topics, you have to resort to negative
comments about women and feminism?"
When do I commented negatively on women?
By feminists I don't necessarily mean women. The stuff about parities I mentioned above I heard from some male left-wing politician (and no, I am not a right-winger - I am practically a commie).

[Connie]

I think something is being misunderstood through the language barriers here.

This is an interesting discussion, but sometimes intent, meaning, nuance, etc. are missed either by language differences, or just by the mere fact that we're unable to see each other, nor can we hear each other's voices.

[Xdyj]

In my native language we have a word for human and call "man" and "women" as "male human" and "female human", but stuff like "s/he" are also being gradually adopted as non-sexist language.

As to the names, I do know quite a few people (both male and female) who are uncomfortable with the patrilineal naming scheme.

imo the feminist movement has improved people's lives around the world significantly during the past decades. Since second-wave feminism started in my (somewhat socially conservative) home country in the 90s domestic violence has been illegalized, sex-ed has become compulsory and people are no longer prosecuted for sexual orientation.

Back to topic, I don't quite agree that no religion is better or worse than another b/c imo religions, esp. organized religions are often more than spirituality. They also have moral codes on how to interact with others as well as social institutions (from churches to families) to exercise control over their members and protect the dominating power structure. As a world view maybe non of them makes more sense than another, but in practice some could be much more barbaric than others.

[[deleted user]]

Xdyj wrote: "As a world view maybe non of them makes more sense than another, but in practice some could be much more barbaric than others. "

You know, I think you make a very good point.

[Connie]

Domestic violence in Xdyj's home country is illegal. That's just too damn exciting. (Sarcasm intended.)

Would you care to name that country for us? Just so that I make sure never to go there since it took them until the 1990's to make beating, maiming, or killing a woman a crime.

Oh, bravo to the macho male brains that did all the dead women such a favor.

Xdyj, you seem such a sweet person by your comments, but I sure hope you don't live there any more, and it sounds like you don't. Maybe a good thing you got out?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Whirlwind wrote: "Domestic violence in Xdyj's home country is illegal. That's just too damn exciting. (Sarcasm intended.)

Would you care to name that country for us? Just so that I make sure never to go there si..."

Are you a troll? (I mean in the internet sense of the word and not in the Nordic mythology sense.)
Is that tone necessary?
Then after discussing equality you say: "Oh, bravo to the macho male brains that did all the dead women such a favor."
So you want equality, but it seems to make you angry if the equality is given rather than taken? Any comments?
Would it be better if women were still abused?
I don't know the country Xdyj is talking about or the obstacles/traditions in the way of change, but any progress in the area of domestic violence should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
As to "since it took them until the 1990's...", is it a race?

[Shanna]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "Domestic violence in Xdyj's home country is illegal. That's just too damn exciting. (Sarcasm intended.)

Would you care to name that country for us? Just so that I make sure ne..."

China, I think, from the rough timeline he gave.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Giansar wrote: "I, of course, can't be sure but so far rationalism and is unable to find anything that would hint at even a possibility of existence of something like free will. Science, so far, give us only the choice between determinism or random chaos at quantum or even lower level. The latter seems to be much more 'in' recently..."

I think for all intents and purposes (apart from philosophical ones) we have free will...I think we touched on this earlier in this thread.
If we knew every variable and had enough computing power we could predict ever action anyone takes.
But...
Due to the variables being huge in number and stretching back to the begining of the universe we will never have a good enough machine or knowledge of all the variables to input into it.
We can't even predict the Wx with certainty (although we can offer probabilities) due to the chaos/variables involved.
Due to the unimaginable complexity of the influencing factors on human behaviour (influenced by familiy? who influenced them? and what influenced that? etc back into infinite regress), I think that for all intents and purposes we have free will.
I still don't see where irrationality comes into it though.

[Old-Barbarossa]

In addition to my earlier question:
When the dogma and ritual are removed from religion, and the good works are left, is there any need for religion?
Let me add:
When dogma and ritual are removed from religion what is left?

[Xdyj]

I'm from mainland China, which was largely isolated from the world before 1980s, but please don't judge a country by its past. Of course serious beating & murder has always been a crime but before 1990s they didn't have the concept of "domestic violence" in the law so law enforcement sometimes can not interfere with such cases until it is too late. However it's no longer the case anymore. Most of the rights you take for granted nowadays are the results of decades or even centuries of struggle so you should expect people in the third-world would need a few more years to earn them. If you ever visit there you might see that despite having a highly corrupted government & little political freedom many people are not very different from those you meet here, and it now has a much homicide rate than both Canada and the US.

[Elisa Santos]

Whirlwind wrote: "Domestic violence in Xdyj's home country is illegal. That's just too damn exciting. (Sarcasm intended.)

Would you care to name that country for us? Just so that I make sure never to go there si..."

No need for this tone, at all - it is rude and really not necessary - if you didn´t understand the statements all you had to do was ask. There are no language barrier in rudeness - anyone can see it coming!

With minds like these, it is impossible to have a profitable discussion, about whatever it maybe, least of all religion versus science which the ultimate controversial theme.

As someone said earlier, you don´t give credit to any achievements in equality that are given but rather the one´s you value are the one´s you have to take from whatever identity - that is so....backwords - i don´t have another word for it! Feminism had donne a lot for women´s conditions all around the world - no one it taking that away, it is a seen and proven thing; but the whole "burn the bra" feminism just creeps me out to no end - it is just protesting and whining just for the sake of it.

I am really donne wit this question, it has gonne completly off-track and is starting to too rude for me to care about it - bye.

[Hazel]

Its a shame to see you go, Maria.

On the whole domestic violence thing, first, who cares when the law was passed, as long as it was passed, any progress is good progress. Second, why is it assumed that men can't be victims of domestic violence? Why is it all about "oh, those dead women thank you". I'll admit, its more likely to be men abusing women, but thats no reason to assume that its the only way it is. I know enough men who are at the whim of domineering women, not to the point of physical abuse (as far as I'm aware) but its more common than people give it credit for.

[Giansar]

Whirlwind wrote: "Would you care to name that country for us? Just so that I make sure never to go there since it took them until the 1990's to make beating, maiming, or killing a woman a crime. "
Hey Whirlwind - and would you mind telling us what country you come from? I don't think you have this set in your profile and I am curious.
Thank you!

[Giansar]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Giansar wrote: "
If we knew every variable and had enough computing power we could predict ever action anyone takes.
But...
Due to the variables being huge in number and stretching back to the begining of the universe we will never have a good enough machine or knowledge of all the variables to input into it.
We can't even predict the Wx with certainty (although we can offer probabilities) due to the chaos/variables involved.
Due to the unimaginable complexity of the influencing factors on human behaviour (influenced by familiy? who influenced them? and what influenced that? etc back into infinite regress), I think that for all intents and purposes we have free will. "
If the statement above were to be true it would mean we don't have free will at all - we live in a perfectly deterministic universe and we have a delusion of free will because we don't have the capability to predict the future, which in actuality is set in stone.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Giansar wrote: "If the statement above were to be true it would mean we don't have free will at all - we live in a perfectly deterministic universe and we have a delusion of free will because we don't have the capability to predict the future, which in actuality is set in stone..."

Aye, so regarding free will: if there is no such thing as true randomness then there is no such thing as free will...otherwise there is? I think...
Anyway, back to the god stuff...

[Pet]

Hazel wrote: "Pet, why would your answer be different? The way I see it, if you chose god over science, then you are reducing the human species back in its evolution to when it didn't use any form of tools, back..."
Excellent argument Hazel, choosing "religion" over science is indeed opening the possibility of de-evolutionizing humanity, however that argument is based on one error.
God and Religion are not one and the same. (Which I realize just opened the door to a whole 'nuther argument) and by God I mean whatever divinity could so wonderfully have invented a species that can create this kind of forum, and have this kind of an argument on a machine that can connect millions of people around the world instantaneously.
Some would say that divinity is actually us, our brain, our courage, and our constant search to better ourselves. While others will attribute all belief to an outside source, whichever one it is Religion is that persons interpretation of that divinity's doctrine, and based on how they want that divinity to be. (Some have even made science their god.)
So yes, my answer would be different, because if I believe in a divinity that can create us to who and what we are today, the surely I believe that same divinity would continue to let us blunder along, often winning despite our own selves.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Its a shame to see you go, Maria.

On the whole domestic violence thing, first, who cares when the law was passed, as long as it was passed, any progress is good progress. Second, why is it assum..."

It doesn't happen often, no. But, I know of men who have been physically abused (on a regular basis) by their wives.

Years ago, I volunteered as an advocate for those being battered and needing advice, help getting restraining orders, etc.... It was covered in our training. Though rare, we needed to be prepared for it. And, it does occur. One of the sad things, when it involves men, is they rarely come forward and seek help.

[Hazel]

only one small problem with your statement there, Pet (it feels really weird, yet quite nice calling you pet, I lived in Newcastle for several years, and Pet is a term of endearment), and that is that you assumed I was talking about removing the science from the picture, and leaving religion, when I was actually talking about leaving god in the picture. I understand your logic about the god being able to produce us as were are, but without science, but we wouldn't last long among the natural world this way without science. If we were as human as we are now, but without any science, then we still wouldn't be able to make fire, or tools or even clothing, we wouldn't be able to farm, or produce food of any sort, we wouldn't be able to use traps, or create knifes, bows etc for hunting animals, we'd have to restrict ourselves to what we can catch with our hands, and then eat it raw, without being able to prepare it properly. We'd have to take chances when gathering food, because many things that grow are poisonous, and we'd never know which, as catergorisation is a process of science. We'd have massive amounts of death through child birth etc. We would infact still be back to where we were before Homo habilis, even if we looked like we do now, in fact we'd be worse off than that, as our ancestors were able to think in a scientific (if primitive) way, and this developed into what we are today. We wouldn't have the understanding of science to create houses, or even something as simple as a sewing needle or knitting needle, as its a tool, which is technology, which is science.

If god (under an assumption that such exists) made us as we are, then it can't make us without giving us an understanding of science and a drive to learn, otherwise we simply won't survive unless said god simply hands us everything we need, ala the Simpsons version of eden, with a talking pig that you can pull already cooked spare ribs out of without killing it... And as said god, if assumed to be real, obviously doesn't hand us everything we need (hell, if its real, it doesn't even make sure that its creations understand it enough to not war in its name... either that, or it likes that we war in its name), then the scenario can only end with us failing.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, that's another form of sexism Shannon. Males are used to be the strong sex, so when they are victimized they are ashamed. Society also has a big role on this because it ridicules men that are abused by women. In some things we're so retarded...

[Pet]

:D
I actually totally agree with you there, LOL I'm all for leaving God in the picture with the science, if we could have both, but the question was one or the other. And I would rather live in a world where I eat raw meat, than in a world where I don't care enough about others to bother if they are eating raw meat. So the question then would be, since we know what would happen to us without science, then without "god" what would we become?

[Hazel]

how would having no god mean that you wouldn't care about others? Also, why would you like to be in a position where you can care that the people you love are having to eat raw meat, and not have the scientific ability to do something about that state of affairs? The ability to cook, after all, is based on the ability to make fire, which is applied science.

Without god, we would be essentially the same as we are now, but without a lrge number of people making themselves credulous to a claim that can't be substantiated, and for which there is no evidence.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Pet wrote: So the question then would be, since we know what would happen to us without science, then without "god" what would we become?"

Warm, better fed, literate, numerate, and with longer lifespans.
As previously noted in other posts, you don't need god or religion to be altruistic.

[Hazel]

Actually, I'd just like to check, Pet, which god of the several thousand deities that have been, and still are in many cases, worshipped do you mean?

[Ricky]

Religion basicly offers sanctuary to their believers. Everything a religion taughts is always good, therefore God is good. Since the prehistoric ages, people already believed in a godly matter. whether you need a God or no, its your decision. However the fact shows, that people life's quality does ACTUALLY rose for having a religion/belief

[Hazel]

no it doesn't. CHeck you research.

Studies show a higher pecentage of theists in prison compared to the percentage in the normal populaton, and a lower percentage of atheists in prison compared to the percentage in the normal population. There are higher suicide rates among the religious. There are studies showing that highly atheistic and secular countries have lower crimes rates and higher eqaulity. Scandanavian countries are a prime example of this.

And if you think that everything a religion teaches is good, then I suspect you've never read the bible, or anothe rholy book, in which a jealous and capricious god encourages genocide, rape, incest, child sacrifice and slavery.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Ricky wrote: "However the fact shows, that people life's quality does ACTUALLY rose for having a religion/belief..."

Aye, I'm sure all the people that are victims of sectarian violence and ritual mutilation agree...
Praise (insert deity)...

[Ricky]

Hazel wrote: "no it doesn't. CHeck you research.

Studies show a higher pecentage of theists in prison compared to the percentage in the normal populaton, and a lower percentage of atheists in prison compared ..."

crime, homicide, or suicide have many factors that directly or indirectly impacts on the the numbers (social behaviours, education, law, wealth, etc). so you could not generalize such an issue as well by saying so.

please, enlighten me in which line of the bible says so.. and you should also define a religion teachings and a sect teachings

[Hazel]

read exodus, read leviticus. Leviticus tells us that we should kill homosexuals, that we should stone to death any child who is unruly. If you think I'm lying, go read it.

As for things like child sacrifice, ofcourse there's the story of abraham and isaac, which is a horrific story, and the story of Jepthtah who promises to sacrifice the first thing he sees on his return home if god allows him to win his battle (genocide) and god, knowing it will be Jepthtahs daughter, agrees (child sacrifice).

Rape: Lot gives his two virgin daughters to the mob to use as they will, in order to protect two angels who are guests in his house from sodomy. ANd Lot is held up as a paragon within the bible. His daughters then later get Lot drunk, and have sex with him (both rape and incest). And this is considered ok.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her". Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The rules for slavery are set down in exodus.

These are but a few examples, don'tbelieve me, sit down and read the bible, all of it.

[Hazel]

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)


A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)




Have you seen enough yet?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Ricky wrote: "please, enlighten me in which line of the bible says so.. and you should also define a religion teachings and a sect teachings..."

Aye, crime has many factors...but religious violence has justification (however misguided) from the teachings of the religion.
Asking me to quote bible passages or refer to specific sects etc is splitting hairs. The sectarion carnage in Iraq/Turkey/Ulster are driven by many factors but justified by many as religious war, but in all cases the cause is obviously more complex...having said that the labeling of "the other" as a heretic (or similar) makes the dehumanisation of the enemy easier, makes the atrociries easier to commit...as does the rightousness that throwing religion into the mix...if you think a god will reward you for the acts of violence you will have less qualms and more enthusiasm for carrying them out.
Regarding the ritual mutilation: the justification for (mainly genital) mutilation seems to be religiously sanctioned by many, similar cannot be said for many non-religious enforced mutilations...I can only think of the old practice of foot binding as a secular example...

[Ricky]

yes i am aware of abraham and isaac, and for those bibles you mention, i have my own measurements on those. the bible, quran, or any other holy books are written in a very essential meanings, could not merely be read as a textbook without a proper commentations. because religion isn't only about your logic or arithmetic skills. please have an open mind and discuss it with a priest, theologist or whatever

there is a much bigger picture than what is written. yes, there is more than meets the eye. in this topic we are speaking in a science spectacles, yet don't get me wrong, it is also about religion.

[Hazel]

Ah, the context argument. Can you tell me in what context I'm supposed to understand:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives"

Honestly, I don't need to discuss it with a priest, he's not going to be objective about it. We're speaking with "science spectacles" because science is the only way we can truly investigate religious claims in an objective fashion.

[Ricky]

i have to agree with you Old Barbarossa, many religious violences are dominantly committed by extrimists. There are simply positive and negative comments on each teachings, no matter how old the teaching is, it is always a 2 side of a coin. for the human sake, as a concious person, choose what is good for you, and 'dont simply swallow the food without digesting it'

[Hazel]

but you claimed in your first post, that god is good, thus all religion is good, and now you're reversing that statement to "each teaching has positive and negative aspects, make it fit your morality". Which, is actually worse, because now you're saying that the bad bits can be justified.

And again, whats the other side of the coin to the scriptural quotes I posted?

And just so you know, Ricky, I'm not applying science and "arithmatics" to the scriptures I posted, I'm applying morals.

[Ricky]

you simply misunderstood me dear Hazel, i said all religion are good, not the person that practices it, because every person has different capacity and different measurements in learning and understanding, therefore the results may vary

now to mention science is the only way to investigate religious claims, what do you actually mean ? and how could we address this topic into a much more scientific way as you say so ?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Why do religious apologists note that religion is good but what people do with it isn't always good? In many cases going on to claim that all atheist scientists are bad because of the atom bomb (or stem cell research or whatever)...
I know Ricky didn't mention things in this way.
...but having gone back and re-read some of the previous posts on the thread it seems to be a case of "cake and eat it"...

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "no it doesn't. CHeck you research.

Studies show a higher pecentage of theists in prison compared to the percentage in the normal populaton, and a lower percentage of atheists in prison compared ..."

Well, now .... To use the above as proof of anything, wouldn't we need more facts ... a lot more. For example, in which countries are prisons filled with more believers than non-believers. And ... what is the population of believers and non-believers in that country, in general? If there are far more believers than non-believers, wouldn't it follow that ... based on population alone ... the maths ... that more prisoners would be believers. I don't think that fact alone proves that believers are more prone to criminal acts. No. And ... how do we know the fact that Scandinavian countries have lower crime rates is due to the fact that they're more secular? Could it be a result of other things? Their economic system, for example.

I mean, has this been studied? Are religious people more apt to commit crimes than non-believers due to their religious beliefs? I'd like to know who did that study and if the results were verified.

Or, is this not why you shared this information, Hazel? I'm not sure.

Regardless of the above or anything else, as I've said before ... as Old-Barbarossa just said, Ricky, I do NOT believe you need to be a believer to be good ... just ... moral.

[Ricky]

i understand what you are trying to say Old-Barbarossa, whether we need a religion or not, it depends on that individual itself. atomic reaction, fusion, stem cell, it is basicly a chain of technology developments, for the human sake, that is how i see it. think positive

[Pet]

Hazel wrote: "how would having no god mean that you wouldn't care about others?"
Because as much as science helps, it also isolates. We watch television, see hunger, famine, war, strife, and yes we think "Oh how terrible" then turn it off and go about our lives. Why? because there just is too much of it for us to do a damn thing about, because it's become just another fact of life.
30 to 40 years ago people talked, they got to know their neighbor, they spent time as a family, and went visiting on weekends. Yes 30 to 40 years ago life was bad in other way's, women were persecuted and socially inferior and equal pay for equal work was unheard of. Race was still a deciding factor in everything from where one worked to where one lived.
So no I do not believe things are better in the past, however I do believe that the more advanced we become the more we isolate ourselves, this very conversation as a point of example, here we are from all different parts of the world having a conversation, and yet I sit here alone, my family move in and out of the room and yet they can not partake in this exciting debate, they have their own lives inside their cell phones, laptops and desktops.
Is that the fault of science or religion? No idea, but I know growing up that I often sat with my parents and shared fascinating events learnt through out the day with them and debated them with my siblings.

And then there is the assumption that because a person believes in a divine being they will automatically assume he will supply all, and that all science would be abolished, really?? Is that not as extreme in saying that science causes people to turn into mad conscienceless beings warring, raping and pillaging each other. The question was one of the other, however there is a point where the debate become irrelevant and it just become a matter of agreeing to disagree.
Y'all have a nice day.

[Hazel]

Shannon, if you want me to find the studies, I can. But only if you want me to.

Pet, I think you're entirely incorrect that we isolate ourselves, in fact the proof for that itself is that I'm talking to you and you're in Germany according to your profile, I'm in the UK, Shannon is in the USA, Old Barbarossa is in Ireland. Thats not isolated. And through the use of technology, I am better able to keep in touch with friends and family who live too far away to see on a regular basis. You may think that you ignoring the rest of your family while you're online as isolation, and them having their own little lives that don't include you through their technology as isolating, but thats not the fault of science, its up to you to spend time with them, if you don't then thats not the fault of the technology and science that you are using, they are just tools, you are the one to blame. Point in case, I have been away from this conversation because my mother visited, and she, my other half, my daughter and I all went out together, because we made the effort to do so... and amazingly, it was technology that allowed us to communicate so that I knew my mother was coming round, and it was her car that took us to where we went. Thatthing you say about talking with your siblings etc, nd sharing ideas with them in person, well, I still do that, and so do many people I know, I sit at home or in the pubwith actual real in the flesh people, and I discuss things with them, and talk and laugh, and enjoy their company. And technology just makes it easier to arrange a time and place do so. I'm also able to just drop in on some people unannounced, but with people working, and having commitments to other things, then arranging in advance usually ensures we do see each other. Its not the fault of your computer if you don't get off it and spend time with people (and no, I'm not assuming that you don't, but the way you put it is what I'm addressing).

As to your last paragraph, I made no assumptions, I simply extrapolated the effects of your choice further than you yourself had. If you chose god over science, as the original question asked you to do, then you are rejecting all science, all of it, including the basic stuff like making fire (something, actually,that the majority of people aren't capable of doing these days without technology). So, when you then consider that situation with god making us as we currently are, as you said, but without science, that to me means that he would have had to make us without the capacity to use or envision any form of science or scientific thought, and as such, our form as it is would not survive long without the ability to apply science to the situation, and would be unable to make clothing, or farm animals/crops, to create tools, or fire, we'd die of exposure, disease or hunger very quickly, assuming we survive being born in the first place. I then applied the idea of an omnibenevolent god to the situation, which I assume is the type of god that you believe in, and as such, if the god that you say exists created us in the way extrapolated above, then that god would either have to endow us with the ability to work out the problems for ourselves, thus creating science (therefore making your choice of god over science utterly moot), or would have to provide everything for us otherwise we'd die, thus making your choice of god over science a choice for the end of the species, as its obvious that if such a god does really exist in the real world, rather than the hypothetical one I've been describing, that god does not intervene when people are suffering, or are hungry, or are in need.

I only discussed it within the boundaries that you provided. I made no assumptions, but you made a few over what I'd said in an objective fashion over the situtaion you'd said you'd chose. No idea if you're even going to bother to read this, but I can agree to disagree, as long as you can see that you have completely misunderstood the situation that your choice would have created. Its called a thought experiment, someone provides the basic situation, and you extrapolate the likliest outcome, which is what I've done. By rejecting science for god, you reject the ability to even consider anything scientifically, and thus either your god has to step in and give us what we need (something that we see doesn't happen in the real world, the third world is still starving, despite their belief in god) or we all die from being unable to apply ourselves to the problems the world would provide us with.

Hope you have a nice day too, Pet