Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 151-200 of 12,463

[Dave]

Will, I wasn't responding to anything you said in particular, so please do not take offence to my comment. It was merely my take on the matter. Of course both can exist together, this appears somewhat acceptable, but if someone were to claim that because the bible isn't perfect is the sole reason to believe it isn't the word of God is over analytical. Changes have been made to the bible, so it's up to you to decide if it's believable beyond the fact.

[Dave]

A popular take on religion indeed.

[Heather]

Pianolove, it was just one of those things where it didn't feel right to me; it was like walking around with someone else's arm attached to your shoulder. It's hard to say whether it's one god in us or separate gods in us, because some of us are monotheistic, and others polytheistic.

[Heather]

Will, You're an author? Cool! What sort of books do you write?

>>>"Despite humanities' contribution, I will say that I accept that the universe is perfect, in some coherence that escapes me."<<<

Than how can you say the Bible isn't perfect? Maybe it's coherence also escapes you. ;)

>>>"Religion is but a set of rules created to comfort and control society."<<<

I wonder then why Christianity focuses so strongly on inward issues of the heart. The Bible doesn't just say "Thou shalt not steal", it also says "Thou shalt not covet". The Bible doesn't just say "Thou shalt not murder", it also says "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." And why does it primarily focus on the one thing that makes no difference to the others around us, "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind".

Heather,
So fundementalism just doesn't feel right to you. I guess that makes sense if you've got an all-controlling god inside who always makes you do and think right.

>>>"It's hard to say whether it's one god in us or separate gods in us, because some of us are monotheistic, and others polytheistic."<<<

O.K. Thanks. I was just wondering because it seemed to me that if you each had separate gods, that would explain why people have such different worldviews, beliefs, priorities etc. But, I don't see how it could explain how the universe got here in the first place or any of the orderliness we see around us. Does yor group have any absolutes for anyone? Is tolerance mandatory? Is there any agreement amongst you on what outward and/or inward behavior is acceptable? I hope you don't mind all my questions, I'm just trying to make sense of everything in my mind. :)

Pianolove

[[deleted user]]

My preference would be not to get rid of either on eof them since they are both very important. And I agree with everyone who says that there is religion in sciencs. There is religion in everything. If we got rid of religion then we would automatically get rid of science as well.
But if I had to choose, definetly science since God is more precious to me than anything.

[Will]

No, Dave; I took no offense. I was just commenting on the "coherence" comment. Coherence is a wonderful thing, but "Where is it?" I often wonder. It is in the apparent lack of coherence that we struggle, I think. It's there, but elusive.

Heather: Yes, I've had a few books published that have done reasonably well; not great, but good. My best selling novel was "Shifting Sands; A Clash of Cultures" where I attempted to make sense of the struggle between the peoples of the Middle East and the Western cultures.

I find it interesting that the huge majority of religions practiced from west of India to the western shores of the Americas are essentially three religions--all from the same area, with the same God, which have caused great friction for centuries. And all three teach us to be nice to one another.

Oh, how I wish tolerance were manditory! That would be cool.

Michael: At one time there was no religion? I doubt that. I think mankind has always had some religion. I think it's in our DNA to look outward for inner answers.

As we approach the holy days in Western cultures, we light trees to ask the sun to please return soon, and sing songs of joy, peace and love...let us all rejoice that we have more than just science in our lives. Happy Holly Days! (or holy days if you prefer)

[Old-Barbarossa]

"At one time there was no religion? I doubt that. I think mankind has always had some religion."
Hmmm, depends on our definitions.
If you look at tribal societies then the shamanic way of doing things (apart from all the ritual) tends to be results based. With rubbish shaman being expelled or sometimes worse.
I don't think this is the same as organised religions though...the main results of which tend to be based on good behaviour = nice afterlife. What constitutes good behaviour varying from culture to culture, or between branches of the same religion...look at the 30 years war in Europe.
I think there is a massive difference between personal and organised religion.

[Heather]

Pianolove, we do teach a code of ethics because that does make it easier when working with people. For example, we do have to listen to others even if we don't like them or agree with what they say with an open mind. We're also careful not to push our spiritual beliefs on anyone who isn't interested. Tolerance is also very big because we are such a diverse group of people.
We all do agree that there are four main gifts that everyone has in different levels. They are prophecy, or gut instinct and dreaming, vision, the ability to see and visualize, feeling, the ability to heal and o detailed work, and intuition, the gift to listen and be empathetic. Everyone has these gifts in a different order and it affects their personality. The first gift is their strongest, the fourth the one they mastered last. We also believe in the importance of cleansing, or keeping bad thoughts out of our minds and bodies.

[Ezra]

I just want to interject here and say that this is one of the most measured and respectful internet debates about religion I have ever read. Kudos to you all.

As far as the question goes I think a world with-out either commodity would be a terrible place to live. Both Science and Religion are two factors that define us as a species and both have been used for good and bad. It is our choice in how we use them that defines who we are as indivduals.

[Ellie]

I am not particularly religious, but on the other hand nor am I a scientist. I am however deeply interested in both. I dont actually think that you can have one without the other.

However I dont think there is a moral argument for religion. I believe there is a spititual one, in that to have religion gives, for many a sense of fulfilment and peace they lack elsewhere.

But the idea that religion give anyone a moral code that they will live by is ludicrous. There are many thousands of good people in the world who live with out practicing any religion, just as there are amny thousands of bad people who do.

As humans we need something to strive for, whether that be greater knowledge or personal fulfilment, and therefore I dont think we could exist without either sicence or religion

[Old-Barbarossa]

Most of the Christians on this thread are behaving like lawyers, quoting chapter and verse...discussing minor points of doctrine. And that's with each other.
Isn't that reason enough to avoid religion?

[Will]

Uh,oh, we may have to seperate Barbarrosa and Wittystar. Settle down children.

We have strayed from the title question, Science or Religion, with a lot of duscussion about religion. What about science? I think the title comes from our national argument to teach science in schools, maybe, or teach religion-based "science" on evolution. I'll state here for others to disagree: I don't think Darwin got it right. I don't think molecules accidentally formed life that evolved. I think there is an intelligence in all atomic particles so it knows how to organize into different life-forms. Until science confirms my belief, I don't think it should be taught in science class, though.

[Emma]

I think I would much rather have science than religion.

[Heather]

I think that we did have a Big Bang that consequently created the universe, but I think that the ancients' take on the universe being created by a "Big Bang" was just one way of explaining it.
For example, the ancient Celts believed it was two deities copulating that created the universe; the Goddess entity giving birth to the sun.
Of course, there is the ever-popular judaio-christian concept which also is suitable for this situation.
I don't necessarily think Darwin was entirely correct, but I think he was pretty close. If there can be a way of illustrating the gap in the fossil record(aside from the punctuated equilibrium theory of the speed of adaptation) then we will have a clearer understanding of how we are today.

[Will]

Science has only scraped the surface of all there is to discover. Isaac Newton said that every time he learned a new bit of science, he felt as though he was discovering one more grain of sand on a massive beach (paraphrased; I don't remember the exact wording).

In the beginning...and God said, "Let there be light," is a pretty good description of the Big Bang. The universe began to expand across the void and continues, still. I'm always amazed at how well the Bible describes the formation of our earth fairly closely to how scientists do, the "...six days...and on the seventh day God rested" part excepted: the waters seperated and land was formed, then the fish and later the animals on land, then mankind last. That fits Darwin's theory if you move the time-decimal over a few places. Not bad for a primitive people with no science for reference.

Are there other theories? There are always new theories, but not any are taught until they stand up to examination--Creationism (in some areas) excepted.

[Mumtaz]

I agree. I think that if no one had any religious values to hold them back, the world might just become a free experimenting ground, and eventually someone would go to far. i don't think that things like the Crusades would not have happened if there wasn't religion. Religion provided a convenient excuse for war and conquering, but people would have found others. all religions (that i know of, i'm not exactly a religion expert) advocate love, and the golden rule. religions work well, as long as people avoid extremism.

[Travis]

I'd go with science.
Religion just seems to be used as the excuse for people to do/say/ believe something hateful. "It's okay to do (fill in the blank) it says so in my holy book of instructions.'

Plus, I don't get how people can look at the big, wide world and instead of going 'That is fucking amazing!', they go 'Well, it's okay, but it's not enough. I need more. A big invisible man in the sky made everything. Now, it works for me.'


To give religion some credit, they have created some good art, and I think 'the little drummer boy' is a great song.

[Heather]

Hi!! I'm back!! Still alive!!

>>>"Yes, I've had a few books published that have done reasonably well; not great, but good. My best selling novel was "Shifting Sands; A Clash of Cultures" where I attempted to make sense of the struggle between the peoples of the Middle East and the Western cultures. <<<"

Neato, now I can say I know an author! :)

>>>"I find it interesting that the huge majority of religions practiced from west of India to the western shores of the Americas are essentially three religions--all from the same area, with the same God, which have caused great friction for centuries. And all three teach us to be nice to one another."<<<

Well, see, being nice is not the first commandment for any of us. It's important, but there are things that take precedence. That's where the friction comes from.

The interesting thing about tolerance (or any of the virtues) is that if we treat it as the most important, it's not a virtue anymore. I shouldn't force my neighbor to go or not to go to a certain church that paints their walls a certain color but if my neighbor's church applauds serial murder than tolerance for his beliefs becomes a vice. And, then, there are lots of issues in the middle that are important to discuss, but not get hysterical over.

>>>"Like I said somewhere in an earlier post(I think) Hell really can't be that bad of a place."<<<

Lake of eternal fire sounds pretty bad to me.

>>>"I think God made the Bible imperfect on purpose. Why? To throw off those who have hardened their hearts. Have you heard the parable of the sower? It explains why Jesus spoke in parables. I believe it is the same throughout the Bible (because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever). It's in Matthew 13:1-17 for the actual parable, and then 18-32 for the explanation. I think that's how it goes."<<<

So what do you mean by imperfect? I believe the bible is perfectly mysterious, if you will. I believe there are parts that are difficult to understand, I believe everyone brings their own interpretation, I believe there are parts that seem to contradict at first, I believe we won't understand it 100% perfectly this side of the river, but I don't believe there are mistakes, errors, or falsehoods, and I believe the Holy Spirit will guide our minds according to his glory if we ask him when we read.

>>>"I think some facts of The Law of Moses were corrupted, which is why Jesus later had to clarify them? Maybe they never changed, but because of the corruption, it became required that Jesus return them to how they were. Then, if the Law of Moses had been so corrupted by the Pharisees and what I believe is called "the traditions of the fathers", then it wouldn't surprise me if the writings, and the difference between God and Jesus and The Holy Ghost was lost as well."<<<

What the Pharisees did was add on. That's what Jesus was upset about. They had the Law of Moses, but they wrote whole volumes of extra rules and ritualized everything to the extreme.

I agree with what you said about Jesus speaking in parables, I just don't think that makes them imperfect. (But maybe this is another case of mistaken definitions)

>>>"When does the Bible ever say "I" and without a doubt mean all three?(Possibly when I read those scriptures you gave me I might find one.)"<<<

Hmm.... Good question. There are a several places where I believe "I" means all three, but not exactly provable.

What about John 10:29, 30" "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." John is one of my favorite books.

Wittystar, my reply to your reply to my reply on the Philippians 2:5-10 are below. I tried quoting you, but it was all getting mixed up with your quotes of me, so I think it will make more sense this way. If it doesn't, let me know and I'll edit this post.

We are made in the image of God, we aren't equal to him. It says Jesus was equal to him. Yes, As a child of God you will inherit a piece of heaven. No, you won't become equal with God.

God the Father is called "Lord" some places and he doesn't like it when we put that title on someone else in a worshiping context, "The Lord your God is a jealous God" (from the ten commandments).

>>>"Remember the parable of the Master who had three servants, to which he gave different talents? The first two servants who served the master did well, and in the end the Master said "Enter into the joy of Thy Lord" or something, which sounds to me like they got a promotion."<<<

The master in this parable is a "picture" of God. So maybe that's just another clue to his identity for us.

>>>"Well, first of all, Jesus is half god"<<<

So what's his other half? Man? Then he isn't really either. I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man. I guess I can't say anything else about the Trinity if we don't agree the bible is 100% accurate.

>>>"Until science confirms my belief, I don't think it should be taught in science class, though."<<<

I think that all the major opinions concerning the beginning of life should be taught in schools. It would probably be pretty hard for kindergartners to sort through them all, so maybe we should hold off on the stuff we can't "prove" until high school or so. I'm a firm creationist, but I think it would be--pardon the term--stupid not to study at least a little evolution.

There's a great book out there, Starlight and Time, by D. Russell, Humphreys Ph.D. on the young earth vs. old light challenge to a literal 6 day creation week.

Did I hit everything here? Any more questions?

Pianolove

[Heather]

Wittystar, Sorry about the delay on my part. :(

I guess I can't say anything else about the Trinity. All my arguments come from the Bible! LOL! I will say this, an image does not equal the person/thing it reflects. My avitar is not equal to me.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologet... This link talks about the number of translations made and the time length between them and so on.

I noticed something interesting the other day, Galatians 3:16 says, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Here the apostle Paul is quoting the covenant between God and Abraham way back in Genesis 22:17, 18 (1450 years earlier!). I thought it was interesting that the Old Testament was still accurate enough in Paul's time that he could note the absence of a single letter to prove his point.

Heather/Pianolove

[Kate]

I'd ratherlive without religion. But then again, I am a scientist!
And in reply to Heather - how much "proof" do you need that evolution occurs? It's not even a debate in the scientific community, it's just accepted. Only Intelligent Deisgn-ers/Creationists try to make it into a debate. It's a theory, buit in the same way that "the sun is made of helium" is a theory....have we actually been to the sun to see if it's definitely helium? No...but I'm sure no-one has a problem with that being taught in science without alternative explanations (the sun is actually made of the divine essence of god, for example).
Anyway for the various people on here wondering about human evolution and intelligence/personality etc I'd really recommend Matt Ridley's book Nature Via Nurture. I's a very good explanation of different theories and scientific evidence and very interesting to read.
Right now I'm gonna duck for cover.....

[Heather]

Kate, I wasn't saying that I didn't believe in evolution. Evolution actually shows why whales still have useless limbs and why my family are slowly not developing wisdom teeth.
What I did say was that the theory isn't quite complete. We have yet to explain the gap in the fossil record aside of course from the punctuated equilibrium idea of how animals evolve. It would take further observation of animals to see how quickly they mutate to see the pace of evolution.

[Heather]

I totally believe in MICROevolution, but I see no evidence for MACRO evolution. Sorry.

Pianolove/Heather

[Heather]

Wittystar, it's not that there's a gap in the evolution process; scientists get that species develop new traits due to certain environmental changes. For example, the scarcity of a certain seed followed by the animal that eats said seed to switch to eating nuts, resulting in some of the animals' young to have beaks better suited for eating nuts.
The problem is, they don't know how fast animals evolve.
There are two theories of how quickly animals evolve. One, gradualism, says that animals slowly but steadily acclimatize to changes in their surroundings, which explains why some people have as few as one or two wisdom teeth. The other, punctuated equilibrium, says that animals adapt very quickly to their environment, which would explain the gap in the fossil record.
I think that more research needs to be done to figure out the rate that these changes occur.

[Heather]

>>>"I don't see how Paul pointing that out proves that the Bible is perfect. He was merely making a point, not editing the Bible."<<<

Yeah, I know it doesn't prove anything. I just thought it was kinda interesting that somehow Paul knew that letter hadn't been changed in circa 1450 years.

>>>"Exactly, that's why God and Jesus are two different people. Just because Jesus looks and acts in the name of God doesn't mean He is God."<<<

I think I missed something somewhere. It would be robbery for an image to consider itself equal to the real thing, right? If my avatar started demanding all the rights I have as a person, I think I would consider that robbery. ???

Heather/Pianolove

[Kate]

The "gap in the fossil record" is largely down to poor preservation. It's actually quite hard to make a fossil out of a corpse and chances are it won't happen for most dead organisms. For land animals the chances are very remote, and often millions of years of an organisms evolutionary record are missing. That doesn't mean that the organisms didn't evolve or weren't there, it just means they didn't get preserved as fossils.
For some creatures such as fossil plankton there is a very complete fossil record spanning millions of years preserved on the sea floor that is captured by drilling. It is quite possible to see one species gradually evolve into another in these deposits.
In the case of punctuated evolution - this is still a gradual process happening over thousands if not millions of years. It just appears rapid in the context of an evolutionary record spanning tens and hundreds of million years. In a human lifetime it would be very unlikely to witness one species evolve into another. Again this does not mean macro-evolution doesn't happen. A good study of evolutionary changes in a population due to selection pressures is written in The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time.
I don't get how people can understand that microevolution happens within a single species yet not be able to extrapolate that process to macro evolution tinto new species? To me that makes even less sense than not believing in evolution at all?
Also I'm very interested in what someone who believes in intelligent design makes of mass extinction? Did God say - "Naughty Dinosaurs! now I'm gonna punish you?" Or was it kind of "I'm bored of you now, lets wipe you out and start again with something else..." Or "It's not time for Adam and Eve just yet, what can I do to amuse myself in the meantime? I'll make some trilobites and watch them swim around...." It just makes no sense.

[Heather]

Wittystar, Sure, you can write a story about avatar people. I'd like to read it. :D Kidd Radd, I'll have to find that. Maybe it's on youtube somewhere. Sounds hilarious!

About the fossil record, I'm gonna quote a few experts.

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, palaeontologist and Evolutionist

>>>"Also I'm very interested in what someone who believes in intelligent design makes of mass extinction? Did God say - "Naughty Dinosaurs! now I'm gonna punish you?" Or was it kind of "I'm bored of you now, lets wipe you out and start again with something else..." Or "It's not time for Adam and Eve just yet, what can I do to amuse myself in the meantime? I'll make some trilobites and watch them swim around...." It just makes no sense."<<<

I have no idea. Of course, your time frame is a little off for a literal six-dayer like me. BTW,how did life begin?

Pianolove

[Heather]

>>>"I've thought that maybe when it says 'six days' in Genesis about the Creation, that maybe it meant a different kind of day, like, maybe a day to God, or something. Even though it says 'day', I wonder if perhaps it means 'era', or 'generation.' I mean, this IS God, so maybe 'day' was the best way we mortals could understand, or how the human mind translated it? I really don't know :D What do ya'll think?"<<<

I've heard that in the bible's original languages the word "day" can actually just mean a period of time. But they also say the when it's specific like that "and it was evening and it was morning the first day" it really means a literal day. I don't know for sure myself. I just go with the Bible seems to be saying until proven otherwise.

Pianolove/Heather

[Heather]

Found the cartoon, thanks!

[Elijah]

I feel that everyone I read on this post so far has missed some keys factors when trying to even begin speaking on this subject. One must define religion and science before moving forward. The reality however, in my opinion, is that religion and science are intertwined because the religious life is one filled with many references ancient and modern to the world of science and vice versa. Before we enter into this discussion you must have some type of historical analysis of how science has come to be defined and religion as well. However I do have the answer to this question and I know this. I just feel that this is the best way to possibly come at trying to explain the two phenomenon, respectively, and then to explain how they compliment one another. Just a thought...

[Linda]

No question, a world without religion. Religion does harm. Decency, ethics, love, all of these can exist with science and yet all have been damaged by organized religions.

[Lucius]

The history of the three Abrahamic religions is characterized by the unremitting slaughter of human beings and the suppression of knowledge. Religion breeds intolerance, is based on delusions, and decrees the alientation of the 'other'.

The Enlightenment was supposed to have transcended the transparent foolishness of superstitious beliefs by means of Reason. Apparently, true believers didn't get the message.

[Heather]

>>>"The history of the three Abrahamic religions is characterized by the unremitting slaughter of human beings and the suppression of knowledge. Religion breeds intolerance, is based on delusions, and decrees the alientation of the 'other'."<<<

Could I have some examples of the Christians and Jews?

The Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims do NOT worship the same God. We call him by the same name, but he is not the same God.

[Heather]

Thanks for furthering the information, Kate. We really didn't get to hear much on the process of evolution in school because a lot of parents were very vehement that evolution not be taught in class. It's nice to have more light shed on what I've learned.

[Kate]

Pianolove - Jews follow the Old Testament and Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of their god but follow the teachings of the final prophet Mohammed. Therefore Christians, Muslims and Jews are following teachings from the same source - the same God.

Wittystar - there are more non-religious charities than you could list! Some famous ones are: Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Medicin sans Frontieres.

[Will]

Heather: You continue to write that Jews, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God; you add that they use the same name. Both are wrong. They do not use the same name but both worship "the one true God" of Abraham. They worship differently, but it's the same God.

Oh, yes, there are many sectarian charities. I remember a missionary couple I met in Nigeria many years ago. They worked (for a pittance) for a non-religious charitable organization providing medical and developmental services to underdeveloped communities in the deepest jungles of a very backward nation--Nigeria. I was surprised, but then, I was young; most things surprised me, then. That was before Doctors w/o Borders (or before I'd heard of them).

Yes, alas, with or without religion there will be wars. It just bothers me when we justify wars in the name of religion. In "Shifting Sands; A Clash of Cultures," I tried to make that point in a not-so obvious way. We may see the clash between the Western cultures and the Middle East as a religious conflict, but it's not; it's just often disguised as a religious conflict, but it's a cultural war. Religion makes it more difficult to resolve, however...I think.

It is Hannakah, and almost Christmas. Happy Holy Days (or Holly Days) to all. Let's light (burn) a tree, celebrate life and wish for good will among all people in all lands.

[Will]

Ah, yes, it's a human problem. One of my many favorite sayings is, "The only problem with society is the people."

Merry Christmas, Wittystar. Happy Christmas to my British friends. Happy (3rd day of) Hannakah to my Jewish friends. Peace and Good Will(that's me) to all.

Maybe we should have a Happy Science Day...nah, bad idea. Like someone mentioned, in science there is no 'love', so what's to celebrate?

[Duzzlebrarian]

We already tried living in a world with religion and without science - it's called pre-modern history, and I for one would rather the human race ended completely than go back to living like that. Living with science and without religion couldn't POSSIBLY be any worse.

[Daniel]

A world withou religion would be a super developed world.

Nuff said

[Hina]

I'm not too sure about this because everyone needs something to believe in whether it be celebrities, authors, science, God and many more. We have heard that religion may start a war, like with Hitler etc, but many people cling to things like a couple I've mentioned because it gives them hope no matter what the idea is.

[Maja]

For me spirituality and religion come separately. I don't see the point of the religion other than the way of control. I am all for science. And yes, there is plenty of things we don't understand, but at least science asks questions and tries to answer them. And we as a human race still have a long way to go and I do believe science will get us there. Religion... not so much.

[Darkovary]

definitely without religion!

[Destructo]

What an unfair question for religion:

A world without religion would be much like ours, minus televangelists, jihad, some cathedrals, and some truly magnificent music and art.

A world without science would be Medieval Europe, or worse. Even Ancient Greece had science and scientists. Imagine living in a world without medicine - any injury or infection you received would be a likely death sentence, infant mortality would be 1 in 3 or higher, and you would be lucky to live past 40.

[Abdullah]

Each one of them has its own goals that meant to be delivered to the humanity "Soul & Brain" and they should stand together till the end.

[[deleted user]]

Well according to Einstein - "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is dumb".
You definitely need both - in my opinion. Even people who aren't religious, still need religion in the world. Loads of charities were started by the church, and basically all religions do a lot of good in the world. Science also does good - without science we wouldn't have such good medicine and stuff like that. They're both important, and I think both are necessary to my life, anyhow.

[Travis]

Religion or mythology is what's used to help people explain the world.
Once you know what causes fire, thunder, the tides etc, it's time to move on, grow up and use science.

We are way past the expiration date for our mythology. Jesus needs to go hang out with Zues and Thor and let us get on with our lives.

[Hina]

Another point in favour of religion would be that people still survived without proper medicine centuries ago so people will still be able to survive today. If science would not have existed there wouldn't have been any new diseases such as bird flu etc. ALL people need something to believe in.

^^ Not taking any sides just stating something.

[Travis]

People did still survive without science, but life expectancy was 30, you crank out six kids because four of them wouldn't live to see double digits and many women died in childbirth.

All people do need something to believe in, I just think it's time to move on and find something different to believe in.

Though, I do agree with you, bow ties are cool.

[Hina]

Yes, but you still lived didn't you? And if we're talking about nowadays with no science there could be a possibility of that life expectancy rising much higher.

Yes, but that's like telling a Twilight fan to stop worshiping Edward Cullen and worship Jacob, but much worse. xD

Haha! :D

[Travis]

Yes, with either religion or science you still get to live, but given a choice I still think I'd pick the one that means I'll survive a stubbed toe and my wife lives to see our children born.

Actually, there's more chance of violence with the Twilight fans. I can understand people believing in Jesus, but sparkly vampires...?

[Hina]

Even if you stubbed your toe, there is a possibility that you could survive. Many tribes who live in rainforests etc have learnt to use plants and herbs to cure things. But, yes, I do see your point.

That's true. Lol. :D