Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,801-1,850 of 12,463

[Old-Barbarossa]

Whirlwind wrote: "That's another argument, of course. The name I have is my father's name, his father's name and all their father's names before them. And if I wanted to take the name of my grandmother, I'd have to go with Smith or Fraser, all the names of still more forefathers..."

Keep your birth name or change it.
As I mentioned previously Scot's common law enables women to keep their names, there may be similar old laws in other countries, I don't know.
Do a Malcolm X. Why not just change your name if the surname is found to be opressive?
If you go back far enough with the "his father's name" etc you'll end up with something along the lines of "his father's profession" or "his father's overlord" or "where his father came from" etc.
In many ways even our first name is forced upon us, with family/cultural baggage attached, why keep it if you don't want/like it.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Damn, see what I did...
Anyway, back to the science vs religion thing...

[Ricky]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Damn, see what I did...
Anyway, back to the science vs religion thing..."

taken for granted, we all are. damn it

[Old-Barbarossa]

Ricky wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Damn, see what I did...
Anyway, back to the science vs religion thing..."

taken for granted, we all are. damn it"

I don't think I'm damned I meant it purely as an expletive with no intended religious overtones.
We're all starstuff, we owe our existance to dead stars, it's what we are and when I'm a lump of inanimate meat I'll still be starstuff. In a few billion years we'll all be back in a star burning away again.
Mind, if I had a choice of afterlife I think Valhalla sounds a blast...

[[deleted user]]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "If I could just nudge things back onto the science vs religion topic...and to play devil's advocate...
First, when I'm talking of science I mean that which has occured due to implementation of sci...

Any thoughts? "

I think you're right, Old-Barbarossa. You were oversimplifying with the science is bad due to Hitler thing.

:)

Really, though ... my thoughts ...

Whether we're talking religion or whether we're talking science, as far as I'm concerned, it's all about the people. It's the people who decide what to believe or what to attempt to prove. It's the people who decide how to live out their beliefs or how to use the tools that come from science. For me, ultimately, regardless of the choice, it's about the people who make the choice ... and about the choices that will continue to be made.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Aye, it's about how things are used in some respects. It's easy to view things as black/white when we look at the big nasty stuff like religious ritual abuse. It's also easy when we look at atom bombs (or any weapon tech) to say it was the person that used the bomb and no the bomb that was resposible for the carnage.
But...
With more everyday aspects of science it's a bit trickier, science that is interwoven into daily life globally. Pesticides, mining, carbon emitting power plants. Even improved medicines leading to people surviving and living longer, therefore increasing global population, therefore pushing for more food, leading to more deforestation etc.
While there is an increased awareness of trying to ethically source food and to try and do so locally, this is a luxury for people who live in the more affluent countries. If you live somewhere more prone to famine or drought you need food, you will use what you need to use to grow it, you will clear the land to plant.
In many cases the use of science is about the survival of the individual, but also in many instances it is about the exploitation of the masses.
Again I note I am just trying to play devil's advocate here, trying to move things into more morally grey areas where the answers are less obviously partisan.

[Ricky]

Shannon wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "If I could just nudge things back onto the science vs religion topic...and to play devil's advocate...
First, when I'm talking of science I mean that which has occured due to..."

since the very moment of creation, the universe esp. humanity, from its very primordial times, human has developed into many distinct civilizations. each of them have various rituals that may practice human sacrifices or not. the sacrifice which i'm highlighting, like the Mayans, of course has a correlation with a superior being addressed as a God (may be single or plural). but, as enlighted minds and inspiring figures speak up their thoughts, conflict happens, and will always happen because we are different in the first place. from there, people mindsets are developing which helps understanding a much more universal code of humanity : peace, love, respect, etc. the ritual is abandoned by itself

people are developing, slowly, immoral issues are being left behind. its slow because it has a much more complex situation just like Old-Barbarossa said, its not about white and black anymore, its grey. which why i said it previously, we were born in this place, in this family, in this situation, in this country, and it affects us deeply. could you resist it ? No. it has became your very own identity. we are simply just taking what is granted, so just do your thing

[Kathy]

What I'd like to see is for us all go back to before the big bang when science and creator are one and bureaucracy has never raised it's ugly head.

[Ricky]

Kathy wrote: "What I'd like to see is for us all go back to before the big bang when science and creator are one and bureaucracy has never raised it's ugly head."

there is no 'before' the big bang. time didn't exist before it

[Old-Barbarossa]

Kathy wrote: "What I'd like to see is for us all go back to before the big bang when science and creator are one and bureaucracy has never raised it's ugly head."

If you think the "big crunch" idea holds water then just wait around...we'll get there eventually...well, obviously "we" won't but all matter will...

[Kathy]

This magnificent, incredibly complex, infinitely well designed cosmos just happened for no rhyme or reason. Athena leaping full grown out of the forehead of Zeus makes more sense than that. Not having to be responsible for every thought or action, and human ego are probably caused that philosophy. For every effect there is a cause, I certainly consider the big bang an effect.

[Connie]

Kathy wrote: "What I'd like to see is for us all go back to before the big bang when science and creator are one and bureaucracy has never raised it's ugly head."

Ricky wrote: there is no 'before' the big bang. time didn't exist before it

Ah, but there is no such thing as time, only change.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Kathy wrote: "This magnificent, incredibly complex, infinitely well designed cosmos just happened for no rhyme or reason. Athena leaping full grown out of the forehead of Zeus makes more sense than that. Not hav..."

Not sure what you're getting at, please expand or clarify...

[Kathy]

This cosmos or multiverse, science is now showing us new universes are continually being born and dying, is so immense, complex and well ordered and brilliantly thought out, again science proves this all the time, I can't fathom how all this perfection just popped up out of nowhere, from nothing. I believe that five minutes before the big bang there was the mind of Source creating the template in the fourth dimension and then bringing it into density in the third. Which science is now realizing is how man creates.So I believe science is how man discovers the mind of Source. But there is a Source, a cosmic mind, that is certainly not the old guy in the sky that so many religions use to wield power over the populace. I'm from the old religion power with Source is good magic any thought (illusion) of power over anything is black magic. I don't believe in bureaucracy especially when it comes to Spirit.

[Connie]

Again Kathy, you bring the reality of the progress of the universe back to a supernatural cause. Can't it just BE? Long before the myth or birth of the historical Christ, if he even existed at all since there were previously many such myths, the ancient Greeks had recognized the worthlessness of their Olympic divinities. They realized that the belief in the supernatural was futile, and turned their studies to something that was progressive and which really did begin to reveal some true knowledge about the workings of Nature. Of course their knowledge and techniques were pretty rustic back then, but it was a beginning, akin to the biological evolution of the planet itself. Religion is static and stubbornly holds on to this belief in supernatural wonders, and refuses to acknowledge the credibility of scientific revelations and discoveries. They are terrified that their various god(s) will vanish, loosening their their grip on the minds of their followers. And again, you insist on anthropomorphizing this thing you call "source", as if it has a mind and can think, does it have notebooks and a blackboard? By removing this old guy's beard and long robes, you're simply re-inventing a mythic image. And intelligent people know full well there's no such thing as magic, black or white. And another thing, you don't HAVE TO believe in bureaucracy, it exists anyway, no matter what you think. (As if thought can control what comes into your life or not.) If you really want to control the bureaucracy around you, the only way you'll be able to achieve that is to move yourself to a patch of land on the tundra and live all alone.

[Connie]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Aye, it's about how things are used in some respects. It's easy to view things as black/white when we look at the big nasty stuff like religious ritual abuse. It's also easy when we look at atom bo..."

Good points. I'd say one thing is that science at least is constantly trying to improve on itself and correct past mistakes...I think that's true. As an example we recognized the harm that car gas emissions have been doing to the atmosphere, and now we're attempting to change that.

Science takes on the tangible challenges in life--related to plant and animal, animate and inanimate. When they recognize that a virus has mutated for example, they soon change the serum to control the new mutation. And on it goes. So that's a good thing-- progressive, positive, and helpful to humankind.

Yes science has made its mistakes and they would not deny it, but science seeks to improve constantly. But religion? Nope. It sits on its "throne" of authority holding fast and furiously to archaic notions that can only do harm to others. In fact, as I sit here, I can't think of anything that religion does or achieves under its umbrella that people don't already do outside of its influence. People help the homeless, give to charity, help rebuild destroyed homes after disaster, volunteer to comfort the sick and dying, knit bonnets for premature babies...we do it all without religion...kindness is a human thing and so is morality, so I hope nobody comes back to say that without religion there'd be no morality. That's bunk. So what real, true, good is religion anyway, other than providing a means towards blind faith?

[Edward]

People don't need religion. Doesn't mean there's no God, just getting rid of the corporations that profit on him. People do need science. Prayer by itself won't heal an inflamed appendix. A surgeon will, and praying that he has a steady hand and his full faculties during the operation is having God help those who help themselves. Sorry religion.

[Kathy]

My definition of religion is deep meditation where my higher self that atom of Source that is in EVERYTHING connects with Source. It requires no church, no dogma and no middle men. I was raised Roman Catholic until I discovered that it was just a way the roman emperor Constantine took over another su/on god bureaucracy that just had one deity rather than many. He'd discovered a way to have power OVER people two ways rather than one. That is bureaucracy as as religion as well as bureaucracy as government. I really don't like bureaucracy. I do believe something can BE and that is the energy that is the thought power of Source that could create the concept of a cosmos in all it's magnificent complexity and then will it into density. I don't think science could exist without that original thought. That template science has been studying since day one. Too many people I know who tell me their atheist are just using it as an excuse for bad behavior, like worshiping power and money. My father was like that and he went into a coma before he died of lung cancer. The doctors couldn't understand why because they ran all the tests and there had been no metastasis. He could not deal with dying, while he said he was an atheist in the end he wasn't. Again science is learning how the energy that is Source works.

[Connie]

Edward wrote: "People don't need religion. Doesn't mean there's no God, just getting rid of the corporations that profit on him. People do need science. Prayer by itself won't heal an inflamed appendix. A surgeon..."

So you're saying that people don't need an intermediary in the church.

Okay, but I don't pray, nor do I attend church any more. I've had surgery on my sinuses, wisdom teeth, and other little minor things. I've never prayed before I went under the knife. I healed just fine, and had healthy recoveries. Healing depends on many things such as your current state of health, lifestyle, diet, family history, whether or not you smoke or drink too much and many other factors. Where does prayer come in, other than thinking out loud and wishing for a good outcome? Isn't an answered prayer exactly the same as a wish come true?

What does god do, exactly, to help guide the surgeon's hands? I'm not sure about that.

[Kathy]

I agree with Edward Source is all powerful, he doesn't need human help. That's just another sign of human ego.

[Connie]

Kathy wrote: "My definition of religion is deep meditation where my higher self that atom of Source that is in EVERYTHING connects with Source. It requires no church, no dogma and no middle men. I was raised Rom..."

My friend, as a nurse, I can tell you on no uncertain terms that there is NOTHING mysterious that would leave doctors scratching their heads over a terminally ill cancer patient lapsing into coma before death. Coma is usually caused as a result of disease or injury. All the body's systems are shutting down, the patient is no longer responsive to verbal or physical stimuli and they are unconscious, that's all. Coma takes place when someone is very, very sick and the body is too weak or damaged to respond any more. Period.

This does not happen in all cases, but death has no prejudices, so believers and non-believers alike heal on equal terms, get sick on equal terms, suffer on equal terms, and die on equal terms. All the praying in the world cannot save you from what happens to us all.

You said: Too many people I know who tell me their atheist are just using it as an excuse for bad behavior, like worshiping power and money. My father was like that and he went into a coma before he died of lung cancer. The doctors couldn't understand why because they ran all the tests and there had been no metastasis. He could not deal with dying, while he said he was an atheist in the end he wasn't. Again science is learning how the energy that is Source worls.

Are you saying that people become atheists so they can get away with things that they couldn't or wouldn't do if they 'believed'? Do they pile up their money on a table like a little altar, and worship it like that? I'm not sure how that's done. Hmmm, interesting.

And are you also saying that because your father didn't 'believe' before he died, god zapped him into a coma for punishment, or what's your point? I wasn't sure about that. Just wondering.

[Kathy]

Oh no, you're buying into that old guy in the sky crap, my father went into a coma because he couldn't deal with the "what if this isn't the end" question. All he wanted was unconsciousness, so that's what he created. As far as doctors, my dad,s doctor was a personal friend and they made all the available tests. As far as what you said about doctors it's seems to me you do believe in a god called science. And all scientists make mistakes that's how we learn. You seem to want o god that that you can control all that is, is ego. One last thought, if everything just occurred, by happened by happenstance and at random then why is the cosmos not happenstantial and random. Why does science have such beautifully ordered rules. Because there is a perfectly ordered mind behind it.

[Connie]

Oh, my gawd. I am not "buying into" anything about your imaginary god. I said, "By removing this old guy's beard and long robes, you're simply re-inventing a mythic image." Kathy that does not translate into me buying into the old man with a beard.

So your father essentially put himself into a comatose state because he didn't know whether there was an abrupt end or an afterlife, is that what you're telling me? You said that they "made all the available tests" and then you drop the subject. What tests did they perform? Care to tell me what those tests revealed, and what sort of tests they conducted? What were the results? What did they see? Now if his doc was a personal friend you should be able to phone or email this dude and get him to sit down with your dad's medical records and explain things to you.

What was your father's prognosis anyway? What type of lung cancer did he have? Had he been a smoker? How long had he had it? What drugs did he take? Did he have chemo or radiation? Or both? Did he have chemo pills or not? Did he ever take Iressa? Did he have tube feeds or an IV PICC line and was he on TPN? Or was he trans-abdominally intubated? You said his cancer had not metastasized...to where? The brain? The brain is one of the more common sites to where lung cancer spreads. But you say your dad went into a coma how? Because he wanted to, is that what you're telling me? Now, there is such a thing as medically induced coma, but I don't think they did that with your father.

Then you say: "As far as what you said about doctors it's seems to me you do believe in a god called science." What I said about doctors was this: "There is NOTHING mysterious that would leave doctors scratching their heads over a terminally ill cancer patient lapsing into coma before death."

And this innocuous little comment means that I "believe in a god called science"? Where do you get the notion that I want a god that I can control, LOLOL!

I'm sorry, but you're next to impossible to converse with.

Oh, and those perfectly ordered minds behind science? That's right, the minds of the women and men doing all the hard work.

[Hazel]

I'd like to add, Kathy, you don't actually need to answer all those questions about your fathers death, we all understand how emotional it would be for you to have to think too much about it and expose yourself to us on an emotional level. Plus, I'm sure that, assuming that you're a reasonable person who is capable of rational thought, you get the idea that Whirlwind is getting at about all the reasons that you have simply overlooked and not taken into consideration, or that you can't draw conclusions over an occurrence without all the evidence, or as much of it as possible, being available, and to make claims about something happening to someone because they were "scared" is simply a non sequitur.

[Edward]

Whirlwind wrote: "Edward wrote: "People don't need religion. Doesn't mean there's no God, just getting rid of the corporations that profit on him. People do need science. Prayer by itself won't heal an inflamed appe..."

Prayer's optional. Sometimes people need it psychologically. Not going to take it away from them. Doesn't cost anything to pray.

[Connie]

Edward wrote: "Prayer's optional. Sometimes people need it psychologically. Not going to take it away from them. Doesn't cost anything to pray. "

Yes it's optional. And you're right, all it is, is a psychological assist...er, maybe.

People can pray all they like; it doesn't change anything in the long run and rationally, I think people know it. It makes them feel good but it certainly doesn't prove there's a god. I think people pray as a "just-in-case" measure in case there really is a god, or because they think that maybe what they've been taught is true, or that it's "the thing to do".

All kinds of people I've met in my life have told me little anecdotal stories of how Jesus was "there for me" when their husband was sick and died, or when the fire destroyed their house, whatever. Well, wouldn't they have got through the trial and hardship anyway? Prayer didn't hand them any solutions, and it didn't sweep away the mess, and it didn't reverse the death process, so what did it--in fact, mind you, in fact--do for them?

[[deleted user]]

Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'd like to add, Kathy, you don't actually need to answer all those questions about your fathers death, we all understand how emotional it would be for you to have to think too much a...

Taking her side when there is no reason to do so, is very obnoxious on your part, and you're meddling. That's really, really, petty.
"

Whirlwind -- Did you really, truly, mean to make the above statement? Is that what is truly in your heart and mind to say? Is this really what you want to stand for?

Kathy made a choice, yes. So did you. So did Hazel. So am I.

I believe you once asked me if I thought I was the moderator of this thread ... or made a statement along those line.

My question to you would be .... Do you think you're the moderator of this thread?

If Hazel wants to comment, doesn't she have every right to comment?

If she wants to make a connection with Kathy ... say something to Kathy, doesn't she have that right?

Or, does she not, Whirlwind? And, if she doesn't have the right to comment, why not? Who says she can't have a voice in this, regardless of the voice? You can disagree with her. But, is it really for you to tell her she shouldn't make a comment?

You feel you have every right in the world to say whatever you want to say on this thread, including calling people names and such. You've claimed that right and stood by that right. If you have the right to do that, don't the rest of us have the right to comment as we see fit and feel moved.

If there are certain rules that should be followed on this thread ... certain people who can and can't respond ... certain things people can and can't say ... "sides" that can and can't be taken ... etc..., perhaps you should post them.

However, it truth, I don't think that's what you truly stand for. Is it? That, after all, would be allying yourself closely with things you don't believe in ... wouldn't it?

[Elisa Santos]

This thread seems to be taken by Whirlwind´s rightousness - she is a know-it all, all-mighty - ops: didn´t mean that, after all it is refering to something that you truly hate and get vexed at the mentioning, right? - you live in the greatest sountry in the world, you read, and writte - hoorah for that! Thank the...nothingness, because you will have fit if you see anything remotly close to religious stuff.
You are simply a higher-educated, but very rude person - you claim the right to call people names and mock their very different thoughts from you - we are all different so we should think different and be heard and not scolded like murder was commited.
If there are persons with education that are deff to other people´s feelings and even...creeds (oh, here we go again!) you are one of them: refering to someone who has whatever kind of belief as "your imaginary god" it´s simply insulting! As you have previously tried to ratle my cage but missy - i am too much busy for your your mad rants and besides: it´s a forum, not a batle! Look around and smell the coffee - no one here is more envolved and more out of her mind in this conversation except you.
There should be rules on this debate...or every other for that matter.
Keep you hair on, good night and good luck.

[Connie]

Maria: quite the tirade. "Know-it-all"? No, I know a lot, and everything that I've talked about is based on what I've learned over many years, not based on opinion or belief, but from knowledge.

Am I actually 'rude' as you say, or am I simply challenging people to think before they say silly things, make unfounded claims? I can be painfully honest and I'm not sorry for that. I am hard on people, deliberately, no apologies for that either. I'm not the same in person as I am on this thing because this is impersonal and it's for the most part, anonymous. So people shouldn't let their feelings get hurt, I sure don't worry about it. Chill out already.

I'm not [deaf] to other people's feelings in any way at all. If I were, I could not be a professional nurse; for that profession, it takes a hell of a lot of guts, compassion and kindness, which operates in full force when I need it. And no more personal verbal assaults, thank you very much, you don't stand a chance of winning on that one but it is not my intent or purpose to have a go at your posts.

When having a debate like this on the internet--it's anybody's game, like in politics or any hot topic, things can get testy. Why not? As the saying goes: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

You don't know a thing about me, except from this topic, and I have passionate feelings about the damage that religion does and has done. Anything you want to criticize about a person's passion? I'm not prone to fits by the way. And I don't scold, I point out. And I did not ever claim "a right" to call people names. I take your accusations literally here, and it seems you do misinterpret a lot.

God is imaginary and we all know that, even the religious do, they're not stupid. Imaginary isn't a dirty word.

This is a debate about science vs religion, no one ever said it was a battle. And oh, I got more involved in it recently because the topics got a bit more interesting to me. Notice that conversations do have a tendency to wander from topic to topic and back again? People come and go? Madly off in all directions.

Shannon: Hazel can comment all she wants to, nobody is stopping her, particularly me. However, speaking as if to block a response from another person reduces her comment to meddling. Think about that: who was trying to stop someone from commenting?

And yes, Shannon, I really, really did mean to make that comment. Is that what I want to stand for? What kind of a question is that? You're patronizing. Still, it doesn't bother me, it just shows how you think.

I'm anonymous on this thing; so as a consequence, I present a different persona. You all should know and understand that, folks. This is the internet.

I didn't "claim a right" to call names. Besides, when and what "name" did I call? I really can't remember. So please point out where and when, and what names I called anyone.

And please explain what this is about: However, it truth, I don't think that's what you truly stand for. Is it? That, after all, would be allying yourself closely with things you don't believe in ... wouldn't it?

Now, I expect to be criticized for this post. I guess we can't straighten this out until people start reading more carefully, and writing more clearly.

[[deleted user]]

Whirlwind --

You and your words speak for themselves. If I were to go back to every post and jot down every name and type them in order to prove my point, well, that would be what you accused Hazel of being, petty. I don't take on a different persona due to the anonymity of the Internet. I'm a very honest person. I don't know if you've forgotten about some of the comments that you've made or what. But, the truth of the matter is ... you have done a fair bit of name calling and thrown insults around and about ... and ... have stood by your words.

Fine. In a recent disagreement I had with Hazel ... a week or two ago ... I realized something. I spoke out about saying certain things in this thread ... said there were certain things I'd never say ... attempted to explain the reasons why ... my culture, etc.... But, ultimately, I sat back and thought about it. It's important to me that people be allowed to have a voice. As such, I was in the wrong. I still think it's inappropriate, for me, to call people names, belittle them, disrespect their beliefs, etc.... But, that's me ... that's how I feel and I try to live my life accordingly. I'm uncomfortable by that behavior. However, more importantly, I believe each individual should have a voice. It's not for me to limit that.

Now, if you'd like me to explain my comment about allying yourself closely with things you don't believe in ... I thought my point was clear. And, I made it, not to stop you from voicing your beliefs, Whirlwind, but to truly ask you if that's the path you really wanted to travel.

You've been discussing women. The role of women. Women's rights. Atrocities committed against women through the ages. From my reading of your posts, you've blamed religion for this. Men. Patriarchy.

What has patriarchy done? Throughout time, patriarchy has attempted to limit and silence the voices of women. Literally and figuratively.

From one woman to another ... do you, as a woman, as a woman who has said that you are against this "silencing" of women, want to attempt to silence another woman? You might tell me that was not your intent. But, I'll tell you truthfully, when I read the following ...

Taking her side when there is no reason to do so, is very obnoxious on your part, and you're meddling. That's really, really, petty.

I felt you were telling Hazel to, for all intents and purposes, shut her mouth. Obnoxious, meddling, petty.

In my life, when people have used such words or similar words, they've done so in an effort to intimidate ... to shut someone up.

Again, whether or not that was your intent, please consider the fact that some might see it as that.

Those religious folk you talk about, sexist men that you speak of, they try to limit people and silence them.

I don't, in truth, think you really want to ally yourself with them.

Am I patronizing you? I don't think so ... as I don't feel superior to you and I'm not telling you that I'm superior to you. I'm asking you a question.

[Edward]

Whirlwind wrote: "Edward wrote: "Prayer's optional. Sometimes people need it psychologically. Not going to take it away from them. Doesn't cost anything to pray. "

Yes it's optional. And you're right, all it is, i..."

I think people's concepts of God are clouded by what organized religion could use to control the masses. There is as little proof that God doesn't exist as there is that he does. I would even go to say there might be more evidence that he does, but not because of what the priests and rabbis say. Take a class in cosmology and astronomy... the construction of the universe is magnificent. I see God in the laws of physics, not dusty old tomes. I see God in the construction and rhythm of a beautiful poem more than in scripture. I can't definitively tell you whether prayer helps or not. Who knows what the supreme being wants to listen to.

[Shanna]

Here's why prayer is dangerous
It is cheating, you request god to grant you something you have not earned.
It is selfish, you request god to give you a carpark (or lotto or whatever) at the expense of someone else.
It is apathetic, you pray for something rather than work for it.
It provides false hope, everyone dies of something, sometime, It allow's a why me attitude rather than a why not me!
If you are true believer is it not presumptuous, presumably you have what you have, and you live the life you live according to the deities plan. To request a change to this, according to your wishes rather than your actions isn't that presumptuous.
It is self delusitory, enables one to think they are doing good but actually aren't.
It enables people to blame the victim ie: "you should've prayed 'harder' 'more'..."

I have this image of a deity in heaven tallying up prayers before hitting a smite or non smite button
"Ok quota reached, fine we'll cure Christopher Hitchens' cancer then" :-P

No proven good comes from prayer,

[Debbie]

I do not believe they are seperable to humans. If science was all there was it would become the religion. Religions bring compassion, love, slowly expanding boundaries, warmth, life, and indignation at wrong directions. It brings a balance to curiosity, analysis, cold hard fact and death, all of which are necessary to science. One without the other (either way) would bring another dark ages. We need both but they need to be in balance.

[Edward]

Whirlwind wrote: "Edward wrote: "I think people's concepts of God are clouded by what organized religion could use to control the masses. There is as little proof that God doesn't exist as there is that he does. I w..."

I don't know if God is judging us at all. That's another creation of religion. What if some transcendent force just created everything and gave us free will. What if there's no judgement. I'd hate to think the only reason I don't murder, steal, or do adultery is because I live in fear of judgment in some afterlife. What if it's just a more intelligent way to live in this life. As for nature, it doesn't have to be independent of some higher power? It's the height human arrogance to think we can understand the motives of a higher being or simplify it when we can't.

[Connie]

Edward wrote: "I don't know if God is judging us at all. That's another creation of religion. What if some transcendent force just created everything and gave us free will. What if there's no judgement. I'd hate to think the only reason I don't murder, steal, or do adultery is because I live in fear of judgment in some afterlife. What if it's just a more intelligent way to live in this life. As for nature, it doesn't have to be independent of some higher power? It's the height human arrogance to think we can understand the motives of a higher being or simplify it when we can't. "

Okay, there could be a transcendent force I'll give you that. I'll push you a bit further--is this force deserving of worship? I do believe we should be grateful for our lives but is devotion, prayer, church, and belief in a deity the only way? Can we humans come up with another creative way in which to show our love for life in a contemplative, even reverential, way?

Maybe it is hubris to think that we can understand creation, and so far we haven't been able to, but we hear people saying all the time, "He died because it was God's will" or "I lost my job so I guess God has another plan for me". Is that not arrogance on the part of the people who pretend to know and understand the intentions of the deity?

I do like the fact that you said you don't live in fear of a punishing deity, and that right living is simply the more intelligent choice. That's a more reasonable stance.

[Cheri]

Whirlwind is a bully and this discussion has become difficult to read and impossible to partcipate in. This is too bad because I actually agree with a lot of what she says. However, I believe, that as civilized people, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Save your breath calling me names, Whirlwind; I won't be back to see it. Goodnight and good luck.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Whirlwind wrote: "I'm not [deaf] to other people's feelings in any way at all. If I were, I could not be a professional nurse; for that profession, it takes a hell of a lot of guts, compassion and kindness, which operates in full force when I need it..."


And yet your tirade directed at Kathy over the death of her father shows little in the way of compassion or kindness.
Now fair enough she brought him into the discussion, but there are ways of asking questions without being an arse about it. To ask them in the way you did and then claim the moral high ground...no points for compassion there.
You may, as you note, "know a lot, and everything that I've talked about is based on what I've learned over many years, not based on opinion or belief, but from knowledge..." but by the agressive nature of many of your posts it seems you've also learned bullying tactics.
"I'm not the same in person as I am on this thing because this is impersonal and it's for the most part, anonymous." But people are on the receiving end of your posts, they are people...it may be easier for you to be an arse in the tone of some of your posts when you think of them as anonymous, but it's still real people reading them. Do you save your compassion etc for the workplace and only bring it up in posts when you can play it as a trump card?
As to your profession: smashing, you may even be good at it, you've mentioned it a few times...that's nice.
But I'm sure this little post will be water off a ducks back to you. As you said: "So people shouldn't let their feelings get hurt, I sure don't worry about it."

[Hazel]

Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'd like to add, Kathy, you don't actually need to answer all those questions about your fathers death, we all understand how emotional it would be for you to have to think too much a..."

You know what Whirlwind. Fuck you.

[Elisa Santos]

Whirlwind - i do work with a lot of nurses and i have to say that i have never found one as disagreable as you! I am glad i am nowhere near as to be your patient! Compassionate? Hahahaha don´t make me laugh! Jack the Ripper has more compassion on one of his toe-nails than you on your whole body! Do you still have a heart/feelings or was that also surgically removed?You are rude and as someone called you rightly - a bully.
Assuming another personna on the internet? How last 10 years is that???? So you are bipolar, Dr. Jeckil and Mr Hyde kind of person? I am on the internet as i am on my regular, day-to-day life - i don´t NEED to assume another identity just because i am behind a computer screen: that´s what normal people do - they show they tru personnalities on every aspect /situation in their lives. The idea of having a split personnality just for internet purpouses seems to me that you have something to hide....but i don´t care to know what it is. Of all the time that i go on forums you are really the most abnoxious person to talk to - you don´t listen, you go on your high pedestal of knowledge and you take the "if you´re not with me you´re against me" atitude.
Oh and another thing - i do not mis-interpret: English may not be my primary language but a rude word is a rude word everywhere.
Like Old-Barbarrossa rays - water off a duck for you this post will be....ah well, we do try to bring sense.
Chill, keep your hair on!

[[deleted user]]

This was an interesting little scuffle. But enough already, will it never end?
Let's just all agree that I'm right about everything. There we are, discussion over.
By the way, you're all lovely people and I hate to see y'all quarrel.
We're humans. History proves we are stupid and wrong about most things.
Looking forward to nothing but love from now on...

[Old-Barbarossa]

James wrote: "Let's just all agree that I'm right about everything. There we are, discussion over..."

OK...
Well...that was easy...

[Elisa Santos]

James wrote: "Looking forward to nothing but love from now on... "

Yeah - love, fluffy clouds, snails and puppy dog´s tails.....

[Kathy]

My father died 30 years ago after being raised by a Jehovah's Witness and married to a Catholic, both of whom were extremely "devout'. My mother and father did not get along well, especially when it came to religion,just as his parents had done previously. While my mother and I battled long and loud over religion my father just sat in a corner reading. He could never speak to anyone about it. He just wanted to remove himself from the fray. He studied no theosophy whatsoever.His life interests became detective stories and stamp collecting.There was nothing deeper than that in his life. When he was diagnosed with cancer he had me, that was it. I tried to go through the Elizabet Kubler Ross steps with him he just turned off. Religion in his lifetime had tried to corner the market on God and my father hated religion. My father was part Mohican, he never got to know Creator as his people had. He never got to know Creator as a spirit who speaks to you through the chakras. He never knew the Creator who's only law is love for everything. He thought God had something to do with rules and laws and judgment, and he intrinsically knew that was all lies. He never went forward in search of something more, so when he realized he was at the end of his life he didn't realize that this was just the end of this grade and after a period of summer vacation he would be back to learn another lesson. At the end he had no adventure to look forward to, he wasn't positive there was no judgment, he didn't have a clue. So therefore he turned it all off and wasted the last ten days of his life. I don't want that to happen to others.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Whirlwind wrote: "I'm still standing..."

And boring the piss out of me too...
So anyone want to discuss the topic that the thread is supossed to be about?

[Elisa Santos]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "I'm still standing..."

And boring the piss out of me too...

Yep - bored to tears....

You're out of line. Ya done yet?

Oh, i am donne a long time ago - notice that i don´t care to discuss anymore about the thread at hand, if that means i will have to deal with small-minded people like you, Whirlwind.

[Connie]

Maria wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "I'm still standing..."

And boring the piss out of me too...

Yep - bored to tears....

You're out of line. Ya done yet?

Oh, i am donne a long time ago - ..."

I think you've made the right choice.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Whirlwind wrote: "Are you cowardly enough to do that, or do you have the stones to stand up and take responsibility for being the hypocrites you are? We shall see..."


I shall remove no posts.

Anyone want to talk about the thread subject? Anyone?

[Connie]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "I'm still standing..."

And boring the piss out of me too...
So anyone want to discuss the topic that the thread is supossed to be about?"

Et tu, Brute. On the bullying bandwagon.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Whirlwind wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "I'm still standing..."

And boring the piss out of me too...
So anyone want to discuss the topic that the thread is supossed to be about?"

Et tu, Brute. O..."

No...you actually are boring the piss out of me now.
As I mentioned before:
Anyone want to talk about the thread subject?

[Elisa Santos]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: So anyone want to discuss the topic that the thread is supossed to be abou..."

I am willing to.

World with science or religion?

The ideal world would be that each individual could choose whatever is right for them - between the amount of religion and science.

Since that cannot be i will say that if living in a world with religion meant that we would go back to the dark ages, women dead by 35 trying to give birth to their n- child, and all that they had to aliviate disease and general conditions was hocus-pocus, belief and prayer instead of sanitary conditions and anti-biotics - then i will say give me science. But i always try to see the balance and the head does not live without the heart so...someone said earlier that they could se the hand of something greater when they read a nice poem or saw the nature itself - i think the key is in there: heart and mind, without extremes is the way.
Organized religion as we know has it´s digmas and teachings and beliefs - personnaly, i just take what i find that makes sense to me: i don´t go to church or necessarily listen to all they say - i go my own way and find funny those who take it all without questioning if it´s right or wrong for them.