Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,951-2,000 of 12,463

[Xdyj]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought up that passage because it sugge..."

Agreed:)

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought up that passage because it sugge..."

Ok...
I'm not of the ilk that feels that beliefs are too sacred to be questioned. That said, I am of the opinion that I don't have to defend them either. My beliefs stand on their own. I don't need to prop them up any more than you can tear them down.

[Shanna]

Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought up that passage b..."

But they don't stand on their own
"By "Darwin sense" I am specifically referencing the idea that mankind rose from apes. While I know that we are genetically similar/related, I don't believe that they were necessarily our progenitors"


If you are not of the ilk that beliefs can't be questioned, so it's ok with you to question beliefs right?
Then why do you feel you are exempt from questioning or at least responding to, defending of, or being apologetic (I mean that in the debate/philosophical sense of defence and proving of your stance)or is only ok question beliefs that are not muslim?

[Shanna]

Actually, if you were to understand this passage literally, then one would believe that upon disobedience these people would be transformed into apes, and NOT what you're trying to insinuate, that it suggests that we descend from apes.
But, since it would be ludicrous to take the absolute literal interpretation, let me explain. Simply, the passage says that those who do not follow the command of God will be as apes...ie. regarded as being in the same position/caliber as apes. In a word, "low".

Do you worry that by not taking your god at his literal word (as 2.106, 6.115 Allah says don't, but that he might)that you've got it wrong?

[Khaalidah]

Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Khaalidah wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I never suggested that you couldn't comprehend you leapt to that all by yourself I asked if you believed your holy book.
I brought..."

I'm not exempt from questioning. Hammer away. I am, however, exempt from having to defend my beliefs, as would be anyone from any faith at any time. You may believe that the days of respecting the beliefs of others is over, but I don't.
I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. The "beating a dead horse" thing is not my bag.
I think this has gotten a bit off topic. Continuing in this vain seems a bit unproductive as it appears your intent is to bait and ridicule, which of course, you have the right to do. Again, I have the right not to partake.
Apologetics? *smiles* Don't hold your breath.

[Shanna]

Sure I can't make you do anything you don't want to, nor do I particularly want to. I'm just questioning, if you find it ridiculing perhaps you recognise the ridiculous.

[Paula]

Wow to me it is a no brainer. Religion has killed so many 10's of millions of people in the world I don't even get to the question of science being important to our world. Religion (organised) is all about telling masses of people that this religion is the best stuff the rest. while I am a moral person and follow the "commandments" to the best of my ability I would give up religion in a flash for the chance to stop so much of the fighting in the world. Science doesn't have to become evil just because religion is gone. People have a moral code anyway religion is just a way of making it organized.

[Soutrik]

I would prefer living in a world without religion as i am an atheist and everything we see or claim to be natural or supernatural is all science at play :\

[cerebus]

"I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me" -- Rush, 'Faithless'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJKFu...

[Maja]

Soutrik wrote: "I would prefer living in a world without religion as i am an atheist and everything we see or claim to be natural or supernatural is all science at play :\"

I agree completely. But for some weird reason, when you say you are an atheist, people see it as if you worship the devil! It is such a negative term and I am having a hard time understanding why. I usually get - What do you believe in then?!?! I go - science. And people stare at me like - Science doesn't count!

[Maja]

And also, the whole - you can't be a moral person if you don't have a religion is crap! I am an atheist and was raised by parents to chose whether to believe or not. They were the ones that taught me all about right and wrong... And they never used religion.

[Xdyj]

Maja wrote: "Soutrik wrote: "I would prefer living in a world without religion as i am an atheist and everything we see or claim to be natural or supernatural is all science at play :\"

I agree completely. But..."

I think it kind of depend on where we live. Many of my friends are also openly atheist, and some are more critical to major religions than me, and I don't think it's considered as anything bad here. And I know Christians who strongly distrust religious fundamentalism while being more or less ok with atheism. Still, it's sad that atheists in certain communities are treated differently because of what they don't believe.

[Paul]

I'm going to vote for a world without religion. It still amazes me that religion is still clinging on. I know it's very much a minority thing, but even so.
A world without science would be truly terrifying. Simply getting rid of medicine would mean that I would have survived this long and my children would never have existed.

[Paul]

Kristal wrote: "I feel I should mention that I think Dan Brown is an insultingly bad writer. Just a cheerful note to add to the discussion. :>"
Personally I found much of his writing very entertaining. Surely that's the most important measure of an author? I don't buy his books for his literary prowess, I buy them to enjoy.

And, to get back to the topic, a world without religion can only be an improvement on what we have now. Maybe then we could sort out some of the other problems.

[Özlem]

I guess John Lennon answered it pretty well in his awesome IMAGINE.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

[Paul]

I second that one, Marti.

[Amanda]

A world without religion most definitely. I won't even get into my reasons why as I could go on forever.


http://divaliciouzbookreviews.blogspo...

[Giansar]

MARTI wrote: "
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living li..."
I hate to tune down the high note but I'm sure we people will always find something to kill and die for. Take away religion and we will find another crutch to support any bad deed imaginable.

[cHriS]

Religon. We need science and we need God, but we can do without religon.

[Paul]

But "God", in the sense of this discussion, is a product of religion. I always think that religion is the means of maintaining the god idea.

[cHriS]

God and religion are seperate. One can and may exist without the other.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "God and religion are seperate. One can and may exist without the other."

And they certainly do, religion exists and god does not.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "God and religion are seperate. One can and may exist without the other."

thats only true if you assume that god predates religion. It also assumes a separation of god and religion, whereas beliefs, when not considered within the confines of a set institution or denomination are still religion, it is still a set of beliefs that people hold in relation to the creation of the universe, and all within it, including the belief that god made them, and that god exists. As such, simply holding the belief that god exists is religion, just not an organised form of it.

Thus if we remove religion, we also remove the belief in god. And seeing as we have seen, as a species, the creation of new religions (including documented cases in the last couple of hundred years), we can see that the gods worshipped in religions are created along with the religion. The great number of religions that have existed tells us that belief in deities change almost continuously, without consequences for the people who are moving from one deity to another in their beliefs, or who are giving up belief entirely, at least not from a supernatural source (people have killed people over it, but thats a different issue altogether, and doesn't prove any form of deity).

If a god is unheard of until a person espouses them, then that suggests that they are a creation of the religious, this means that deities cannot be considered without also considering religion and religious thinking. As without religion and religious thinking we would not even spare a thought for any deity, and we wouldn't even be considering whether we want to live without religion or science.

No deity can be separated from the religion that espouses its existence, as without the religion there would be no thought spared for the deity. I know, technically, it could be claimed that if there is a deity or deities, that they exist despite what people actually believe, but in that case, one would have to wonder why they would not want to be known about, if they are gods they can rule over us, why would they chose to ignore us or not make themselves known? If they/it has no interest in ruling over us and is more of the deistic idea of a god, then why do we even need to consider it at all, as that god obviously doesn't have any interest in us, and would not care if we discount it, and do not believe in it. And if the god is deistic, then why call it god at all, if it has no interest in us, and will not even consider affecting us. If there is a deity or deities, and they want us to worship them, then they should make it obvious, as they don't we can assume they don't care (and are deistic) or, more likely, that they don't exist.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "God and religion are seperate. One can and may exist without the other."

And they certainly do, religion exists and god does not."

sometimes I think I take things too seriously. So seriously, that it didn't occur to me to think of it that way round. Bravo Shanna :D

[Ole]

“Faith without wisdom will develop ignorance; wisdom without faith will develop a perverted view".-Yin Hai

(I'm not implying that faith and religion are the same here.)

But think of it: Religion tries to answer questions we have about life and the world generally. And isn't that what science does too??

[Maja]

Ole wrote: "“Faith without wisdom will develop ignorance; wisdom without faith will develop a perverted view".-Yin Hai

(I'm not implying that faith and religion are the same here.)

But think of it: Relig..."

I don't think religion is trying to answer any questions. It already has all of the questions answered for you.

Science is always pushing things to the next level. Asking questions, trying to find the answers, discovering new things.

In my opinion, science it trying to push us forward, while the religion is holding us back.

[Connie]

Love the question. Science is imparative, no doubt, for example medications, and what about stem cell research? Stem cell is fascinating in a science aspect but, without religion and ethics to reign in and guide "frankenstein" misuse of advancement the world would run amok. So, we need both but I would have to choose science first.

[Maja]

Religion and ethics are not the same thing. I do believe that a person can be moral and ethical without religion.

[Shanna]

Maja wrote: "Religion and ethics are not the same thing. I do believe that a person can be moral and ethical without religion."

Very much so, morality of exists much of the time in spite of religion, not because of it.
In think Hazel might be able to help us out on the statistics of the percentage of religious vs atheists in prison.

[Paul]

Maja wrote: "Religion and ethics are not the same thing. I do believe that a person can be moral and ethical without religion."
I'll second that. The major religions try to make out that they invented ethics and morality. Being good and helping others isn't even unique to humans.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Maja wrote: "Religion and ethics are not the same thing. I do believe that a person can be moral and ethical without religion."

Very much so, morality of exists much of the time in spite of religi..."

theres a post about 12 pages back I think... maybe more...

Anyway, in short, the percentage of theists in prison is higher than the percentage of theists in the population of the country in which the prison is situated, and the percentage population of prisoners that are atheist is lower than the percentage of the general population is atheist. In other words, theists are over-represented, and atheists are under-represented, according to what you'd expect and predict from the percentage split in the general population. Also, highly secular countries, like Sweden, have lower crime levels in general than countries with a highly theistic population. The USA being one of the worst offenders.

In regards to what Connie says, it is not religion that sets the ethics for science, it is scientists. That is how it has always been and how it should be. Unfortunately, the religious institutions bring their power to bear on such subjects as you mention without fully understanding them, and as such, the growth of individual organs from a persons own donated cells, and the search for cures for genetic diseases has been massively stunted by religious interference.

Of course, there are examples of misuse of science, but again, the people who catch the misuse, and deal with it are scientists, its built into the scientific method, in which peer review is required in all areas (so they'll catch misuse that way) and in which ethics is built in from ground level. And the ethics is constantly upgraded, rather than being the black and white blanket statements of religious "morals".

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Maja wrote: "Religion and ethics are not the same thing. I do believe that a person can be moral and ethical without religion."

Very much so, morality of exists much of the time in ..."

I knew you'd know :))

[Hazel]

Ole wrote: "But think of it: Religion tries to answer questions we have about life and the world generally. And isn't that what science does too?? "

That is what Science tries to do, yes. But religion does not. Religion has conclusions, and tries to find evidence to support it (and fails), whereas science looks at evidence and tries to formulate conclusions from it.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "God and religion are seperate. One can and may exist without the other."

thats only true if you assume that god predates religion. "

If there is a God then we could assume that this God predates everything.

[Hazel]

but first you have to prove there is a god. Until then, its nothing more than a concept created by the religious.

[Adam]

I didn't make it through 42 pages of comments so I apologize if this is a retread. While I think both play valuable roles in society, we have come pretty close to living in a world without science (the dark ages). A world without religion has never really been tried. Just for experiment's sake I say I'd rather live in a world without religion.

[Giansar]

Maja wrote: "Religion and ethics are not the same thing. I do believe that a person can be moral and ethical without religion."
It is not even a question of belief. It is a fact that can and has been proven scientifically - I think you can read about it in 'God Delusion'.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "but first you have to prove there is a god. Until then, its nothing more than a concept created by the religious."
No not created by the religious at all, the religious have 'discovered' what has been there all the time. l
Like science does, only science needs proof rather than belief.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "but first you have to prove there is a god. Until then, its nothing more than a concept created by the religious."
No not created by the religious at all, the religious have 'discove..."

If they have discovered it, they can provide proof. If there is no proof, we can assume it was created by the religious to explain the world in the absence of any other form of understanding. The key thing here is proof, if there is no proof, or if any evidence presented can be rebutted and be shown to be something else entirely, then why accept the concept of god as true? Until there is proof, then the only rational thing to do is reject the concept.

You see, what you originally said in response to me was "if there is a god". And thats exactly the point, if there is a god. So first, if you claim there is a god you have to prove there is a god, any other claim beyond that hinges on that proof. And any claim made in regards to gods existence and/or gods actions that is made without that proof can be rejected completely, because until you prove god exists, then anything else you claim regards its existence or actions is grounded in the same basic baseless assumption.

[Paul]

Well I'm moral and very ethical, and just about as unreligious as is possible to get. I don't believe in starsigns, gods, fairies, psychics or the tooth fairy.

Science: The reason we no longer live in caves.

[Deale]

I could do without religion, frankly. I think one needs to be moral and ethical. Does one get that from religion(s)? I don't think so. If religion has taught us one thing, it is not morals and ethics. Some religions try, maybe all religions try, do any succeed? I do not mind others' religion, eating preferences, fashion choices, but I really dislike others forcing their ideas on me. I behave in a moral ethical fashion (most of the time). War over relgion, murder of doctors over religion, racisim and homophobia leading to murder over religion. I just got slammed badly on FB because I explained!!! something to do with religion and told I wasn't a "Christian". Insult=religion.
Science...well, it did bring us the bomb. And the moral people dropped it.
I choose science anyday

[Lisa]

I would choose science. I think religion and science try to accomplish the same goal - explain that which can't be explained. Besides, it might be nice to reach God without jumping through all the hoops.

[Deale]

while I don't agree with your comment. I like the statement about reaching God without jumping through hoops....
Would science do that?

[Paul]

I think you'll find that Science invented hoops.

[Deale]

LOL

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "but first you have to prove there is a god. Until then, its nothing more than a concept created by the religious."
No not created by the religious at all, the religious hav..."

This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough?

[Maja]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "but first you have to prove there is a god. Until then, its nothing more than a concept created by the religious."
No not created by the religious at all, th..."

Me personally, I would need beyond any reasonable doubt proof in that case (like science provides us with). But am curious to know where did you see this god?

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your word would not be good enough. As you could be suffering from hallucinations, you could have a mental illness, you could quite simply be lying. And if you have seen god, I suggest going to the doctor, because if it were anything that wasn't linked with religion, such as a giant spacehopper bouncing through downtown, you'd go to the doctors, and we shouldn't accept hallucinations as fine to live with just because they have religious content.

As I'm capable of being rational some of the time at least :P I recognise that a personal experience is not proof of a deity, I've had such experiences, and I know better than to attribute it to something without any evidence that thats what caused it. And often, on investigation, such experiences have a perfectly rational and natural explanations, usually explainable using biology, chemistry, physics or psychology. Proof would have to be something that is verifiable, that is repeatable, and that is backed up by strong supporting evidence of the higher levels of evidence. Thus personal experience, anecdotes and eyewitness testimony are right out as the lowest forms of evidence available to us. Even a photograph wouldn't do, as photoshop can do pretty much anything these days. So proof would have to be empirical, and would have to be fully investigated, and peer reviewed by a large cross section of reputable persons. Any source material would have to be reliable, which means that it is supported by other sources that have also been shown to be reliable, that the authors identity is known, and that has been proved to be genuine, rather than falsified or forged (thats the bible out the window then :p) There would need to be a lot of it too, that couldn't be explained away using natural explanations, like most things people present as evidence for god can be. Even the evidence of my own eyes is not good enough.

[Maja]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your word would not be good en..."

I sooooo agree with you on everything you said! When people tell me they have seen things I think they believe it so hard that they make themselves see things that are not there. Our mind is so powerful, we don't even understand it all the way.

[M.]

Just to throw those surface thinkers a curveball to ponder over...

Both religion and science merely are attempts to theorize and discover the reasons for the creation of man, and the world. Questions; Is it possible to prove that the world was created for man to conquer, or that man was put on earth to worship a divine being? Is it possible to discover the underlying principles for mans or a divine beings existence? Or that man shall receive an award for worshiping his divine being, or for solving the questions pertaining to the creation and existence of this world in the universe? I would say no, because questions like these have been popping into human minds since the time of the Greeks and our progress has been minimal. The process, understanding, and facts of creation, the divine, and existence will always remain a mystery. A logical paradox to the immense hypothesizes developed by the human mind, with the only answers residing after death, and in the darkest bosom of the universe.

A world strictly ruled by Western religion (the religion in Angels and Demons), without science, would encompass a multitude of sacrificial animals, evoked of their individuality, and functioning by the moral standards of their divine being in an attempt to attain a life of eternity after death. Moreover, people of this world would believe that their divine being created the existence of man and the world, because holy scripture is fact and law. Don’t forget, the world has lived by religion once before. There were brute Kings striving for power and destroying those who opposed religious orthodox. While Religious sorcerers kept order throughout the masses, preaching to the King that what he was doing was justice, because he was eliminating the world of evil. A team; one dealing with Platonic “becoming” by the values of pride, power, and the dream of a solidified place in the speck of his time lapsed existence. The other, dealt with the eternal divine Platonic “being,” preaching law and worship.

A world of science, without religion, will bring unfathomable discoveries, as present day twenty first century is showing. Yet the entity that will implement law, belief, faith, and the functioning of the masses will not be a divine being, it will be the the new divine being called “society.” Creation and existence will no longer remain fact provided by holy scripture. But man will write new scripture by striving, searching, and discovering common observed human behavior, and theorizing about the bosom of the universe withholding the answers to our creation and existence. Man will make progress as he as shown, yet his hypothesizes and questions will remain eternal. Government will be the King brute ruling on societies instant desires, and science will become the sorcerer, whispering in governments ear that their actions are just. Science has already solvated into the question of creation and the behavior of man, and is slowly evolving to become the new religion of this century.

Not much would change in a world ruled by religion or science. There will still be a divine being, a brute King, and a religious sorcerer. Both have theories about the existence of man, the creation of the the world, and the end of man and the world. Except science has created the means for fulfilling their theory of the end of man and the world by the development nuclear bombs.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a world without either. I don’t find value in being a sacrificial animal to a divine being, and functioning on belief or faith for an eternal life after death that is not guaranteed. The wise man is wise for what he sees and logically reasons over, not believes. And the world of science, will do nothing more than continue to make new discoveries, re question its hypothesis’s, and continue its never ending search for facts about the origin of man’s existence and the worlds creation, using society as its entity and backbone for its praise when marvels are discovered. I prefer to just love existence, and be thankful for the wind running through my hair, my hot dog and beer at a baseball game, or the sand between my toes at a beach. A world without religion would be nice, because I wouldn’t have a divine being judging my character and my every move, preaching damnation when I’m in the wrong. A world without science would also be nice, people wouldn’t be so materialistic, act on instant whims and pleasure, and people would turn off their damn televisions and search for some deep rooted knowledge.

What would the world be like without neither science or religion in it? Mass hysteria? Would we be primitive animals again? It seems we would be nothing more than lonesome people, or a lonely species in a world with no true theory to solidify why we are here. Sound familiar?

Thank you for reading my villainous monologue, and whoever put this discussion question up. Angels and Demons is one of my favorite books that I’ve ever had the opportunity to crack and read.