Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,051-2,100 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Without belief there is little need for morals

You keep making statements like this, I wonder, do you realise that what you're doing is saying that without an authority figure to slap you on the wrist, theres no point in being moral? do you honestly believe that? I'm reasonably sure that I'm a moral person because a) I don't want to be a dick to other people, b) it make sme happy to be a good person and c) it means that I will receive good treatemnt from other people, and will be known as a good person who is reliable in a time of need. If I were only good out of fear of god punishing me, that means I'm only good our of purely selfish reasons IE I don't want to be punished.

There is no requirement for belief in any form of deity for us to be good, moral people. In fact, telling people that they have to believe something for which there is no proof in order for them to have any reason to be moral is actually, in and of itself, an immoral act.

I wonder, do you actually know what survival of the fittest means? As well as your definition of god, do you think you could also give me a couple of sentences explaining the term "survival of the fittest"?

[Sophie]

Shaun wrote: "No contest. A world without science is a world of apes that don't even use tools."

Love it!

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Without belief there is little need for morals. We may as well adapt the 'survival of the fittest' theory and not concern ourselves with things we have little control over and this inclu..."

How does an hyena show concern for future generations?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry cs, I've looked through the last two pages of replies, and no, I can't find a reply from you in which you actually define god. If I've missed it, thats my bad, but could you put in a sent..."

The creator.

[Hazel]

Thats it? you can't define god beyond that? The creator. Does this creator have any attributes that you would define as part of what it is, or is it a non-descript entity with no attributes to speak of? I asked you to define god, not to give it a title or epithet.

[Maja]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry cs, I've looked through the last two pages of replies, and no, I can't find a reply from you in which you actually define god. If I've missed it, thats my bad, but could you..."

The creator?!? Does he have a form? How does he create? Has he created anything since he "created" the Earth and a man... ? Creator is a bit too vague of an answer...

[cHriS]

Come on now, you must know that he created everything in six days.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Come on now, you must know that he created everything in six days."

Are you being sarcastic? I think I missed your point here...

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Thats it? you can't define god beyond that? The creator. Does this creator have any attributes that you would define as part of what it is, or is it a non-descript entity with no attributes to spea..."

The question always was 'what existed before the Big Bang?' The answer was, Nothing existed before the big bang. But that seems to have changed and now the theory (in laymans terms) is, that there has always been something, there was never nothing.

I still go with the creator idea, it makes more sense to me.


I could no more explain this creator to you than you could explain to me, how there has always been something.

[Paul]

Easy explanation of how there has always been something:

Time started (along with everything else) at the big bang. So there was no before, as there was no time. I would imagine it would be like asking a religious person "What was there before God?"

[Maja]

cs wrote: "Come on now, you must know that he created everything in six days."

The more I read your responses, the more I think that you are here only to provoke certain people into trying to prove something to you that you already know.

I see no other explanation, because none of your responses actually argue the other side. They are just random statements contrary to the non-existence of god.

[Hazel]

so, you cannot define this god, you cannot say what attributes it has, you cannot tell me what it is that you believe in? If you don't even know what it is that you believe in, if you can't define it, how can you make any claims about it, what it has done, and whether it is actually there or not. You don't even know what you're looking for. Until you can define what it is, any claim you make about it can automatically be assumed to be your wishful thinking, as you can't be basing it on any knowledge of god, as you claim to be unable to explain it.

The question was not "what existed before the big bang", the question I put to you is "what is god?". Or more specifically I requested your definition of god, instead of giving it, you gave one of its titles.

Me being unable to explain how there has always been something is neither here nor there, as at least the evidence available points to that being how it was, you simply choose to ignore the evidence and continue to believe in something for which there is no proof at all. Thats an irrational position to take, you choose to believe something that has absolutely no support over and above something that does have support, based purely on the grounds that you find it hard to comprehend. also, me being unable to explain it does not mean there isn't someone now, or in the future who can explain it. In the meantime, filling the gaps of knowledge with god is a pointless tack, as the gaps are getting smaller and smaller, and that means the idea will eventually disappear altogether.

If the creator idea makes more sense to you, then knock yourself out, whatever floats your boat. The scientists will get on with learning more about the universe regardless, and will push back the boundaries of understanding time and again. They will eventually see past an event horizon, and see what is on the other side, and come that much closer to understanding what was there before the universe started expanding, as thats what the universe is once it has collapsed back down in the big crunch, it is an event horizon.

[Hazel]

Maja wrote: "cs wrote: "Come on now, you must know that he created everything in six days."

The more I read your responses, the more I think that you are here only to provoke certain people into trying to prov..."

I've started thinking that too, but I like the exercise in critical thinking, so don't care over much.

[Maja]

Hazel wrote: "Maja wrote: "cs wrote: "Come on now, you must know that he created everything in six days."

The more I read your responses, the more I think that you are here only to provoke certain people into t..."

I do enjoy your responses, so I am all for it. :)

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I'd prefer a world without religion because above everything else I like physical comforts such as indoor plumbing and refrigeration and computers, and I hate being on my knees for any reason without padding........

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "The creator."

Oh, you mean Brahma?

[Old-Barbarossa]

I smell troll...
cs, do you live under a bridge?

[Nada]

Hazel wrote: "the universe isn't created to meet our needs, the vast majority of it is uninhabitable to us. even this planet has so many things in it that are detrimental to our existence that we cannot claim it..."
Animals have limited abilities ,,,limited..!! What you're talking about ain't called feelings it's called Encroachment or instinct ,anyway you talked about everything except the most important idea I mentioned which is about how impossible it is to this great universe to have just happened by coincidence which is mathematically proven. If you don't want to listen no one can make you. It's to you but I really hope that you open both your mind and heart broadly before you claim anything. Just tell how this universe happened?! What are your beliefs I really want to know.

[Giansar]

Nada wrote:"What you're talking about ain't called feelings it's called Encroachment or instinct"
Can you make distinction between your feeling (love let's say) and dog's instinct to protect its litter? I am really curious about that.
Nada wrote:"how impossible it is to this great universe to have just happened by coincidence which is mathematically proven."
Can you paste some link, reference to this mathematical proof?

[Nada]

Giansar wrote: "Nada wrote:"What you're talking about ain't called feelings it's called Encroachment or instinct"
Can you make distinction between your feeling (love let's say) and dog's instinct to protect its li..."
Though I know this can be responded to but I'm not the one with enough knowledge to do so.
You can read about that yourself if you're interested. search. But without reading or anything it's common sense,,say you bring about 100 babies and you put a keyboard in front each of them then gather all the letters they have written it's very possible to find an actual word or words written and it's possible that you find a simple sentence it's less likely that you find a paragraph that has an aim but how possible it is to find a poem written ..utterly impossible don't you think..? that's what I'm talking about the more complicated things get the less likely it is for them to have just happened by coincidence, anything in this world has a cause volcanoes don't just happen they happen because of a cause. A chair doesn't just move it moves because you or he she moved it. Things can't create themselves.

[Hazel]

Nada wrote: "Hazel wrote: "the universe isn't created to meet our needs, the vast majority of it is uninhabitable to us. even this planet has so many things in it that are detrimental to our existence that we c..."

Tell you how the universe happened? The honest answer is I don't know. And thats the only honest answer that anyone can give. Anyone claiming that god made it is making an unsubstantiated claim, as they have not proved that god exists. The answer will not come from religion, it will come from science, the scientists are getting closer and closer to understanding the origins of the universe, its just a matter of time. And until someone can show, with good supporting evidence, what created the universe, the only honest answer anyone can give is "I don't know".

I too would like to see the maths you speak of, but as you've replied to Giansar about that already, i won't repeat his request. You're are arguing for a first mover, but that assumes there was a first move, we don't know if there was, and as such, to make the assumption that there was is fallacy, to make a claim without any proof of it is actually considered to be unethical among scientists. And to take it a step further, you seem to be claiming that complex, and intelligent things cannot exist without a creator, and there your logic breaks down, as god, the designer and creator must be a complex and intelligent being in order to have created everything, but if nothing complex and intelligent can exist without being designed and created, who designed and created god? And who created gods designer, as they must be even more complex. You are arguing for a logical fallacy.

If you consider that each action was a simple one, and that it is only the accumulation of millions of simple actions that results in it looking complex, then you can start to understand how what you're saying is incorrect.

Oh, and animals and feelings, its been proved. One example is elephants mourning their dead. Dogs and cats suffer from depression. Rats have been recorded laughing. Almost every animals on the planet displays fear. just because these animals are not considered to be on a par with humanity, does not lessen the emotion they feel, and many animals are as intelligent as young humans. The African Grey Parrot is considered to be on a par with a 3 year old (on average), there are chimps that have shown themselves to on a par with 4 or 5 year olds. I wonder, at what point do you think that a human baby has developed enough for its responses to be emotion and not instinct?

Higher apes, such as chimps, have been shown to hold a theory of mind, and have massive capabilities for empathy. Empathy certainly is not an instinctive response, its an understanding of how another individual is feeling, an ability to put yourself in their place.

Dogs have been shown to suffer from the same negative feelings, and psychological conditions as humans, and to have the same methods of dealing with them, and of overcoming them. They also seem to know when the people in their lives are upset, or happy, and seem to show empathy over it.

Cats have been shown to be capable of manipulating their human owners to make them do what they want them to do because they're intelligent enough to associate what they do with what we do. (I always knew cats were here to conquer the world ;P)

Personality traits have also been observed in trout.

[Nada]

My religion provides enough and sensible answers for me that make happy and grateful and most important certain of why I'm on this earth. If your beliefs -well if you have any- give you this and not an all-time confusion stick to them. Btw here you are saying it scientists are everyday closer to prove the origins . There's an origin for the universe but once they know what is the origin they'll wonder from where did that "origin" come..they are everyday a step closer to prove that there is a greater power who owns this world and it's better for us to believe in that.

[Hazel]

If your faith is enough for you, great, go with it. But its not an answer to the big questions, not really. I'm happy for you that you can be happy with just believing, and not knowing, it must make life a lot easier, and a lot more comfortable. That lack of curiosity is anathema to me, I would rather know how something actually works as well as we actually can, rather than to assume a reason without investigating it, and I certainly couldn't base the way I live my life on an unsupported hypothesis, such as god.

[Nada]

Everything is justified and plainly clear for me if I;m curious to know except this specific thing how god happened but I tend to believe because it makes me happy and comfortable and life has taught me that when you feel good about sth,,it's right. May I ask on what do you base your life at the moment?

[Giansar]

Nada wrote: "Giansar wrote: "that's what I'm talking about the more complicated things get the less likely it is for them to have just happened by coincidence, anything in this world has a cause volcanoes don't just happen they happen because of a cause."
Roll a dice 10 times. Write down the number from each roll. Then think that the particular sequence of numbers had a 1/60000000 (that is one chance in sixty millions) of happening.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?! You did something that had 1 chance in sixty millions of happening. You did it in seconds and effortlessly. IT MUST BE GOD!
There's the mathematical proof for you!

[Nada]

I once watched a a scientific program they calculated how possible it is to an atom to happen ..it was undefined quantity .. I'm not going further into this discussion because I can't put the great belief in me that's being assured every second of my life in words.
I wish that god takes your hands to the light of believing. :)

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "Personality traits have also been observed in trout..."

I want to quote that at some point today!
Can you give a ref please?
Not trying to start an arguement (I think you know my views by now from this and other threads), I'm genuinely looking forward to dropping it into conversation.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Nada wrote: "I once watched a a scientific program they calculated how possible it is to an atom to happen ..it was undefined quantity .. I'm not going further into this discussion because I can't put the great..."

If something has a 1:500000000 chance of happening then by this chance 499999999 times it doesn't so no miracle most of the time. Like a lottery winner...all great and miraculous for them but dull for eveyone else.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uJD1...

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Personality traits have also been observed in trout..."

I want to quote that at some point today!
Can you give a ref please?
Not trying to start an arguement (I think you know my..."

It was a study that was published in the journal Animal behaviour, it showed that trout could have braver or more cowardly personalities, and can be social or anti-social.

A news article can be found here:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/fe...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Great stuff.

[Hazel]

Nada, assuming you read this, as you did say you were dropping out of this conversation, I base my life on the people I love,and on ensuring that my daughter gets all that she needs. I base my life on making myself and other people happy. I base my life on enjoying it, and making the most of this one life that we have.

Oh, and things like this:

I wish that god takes your hands to the light of believing

I'd rather you didn't, I find that very condescending, and consider it to be a little insulting.

Anyway, I won't expect a response, as you said you were leaving the conversation, and I hope you have a good day.

[Barry]

Oh hey, just stopped by to see if anyone was discussing any books in here. ;) But it was a Dan Brown thread so I should have known better I guess.

Entertaining stuff, though. Carry on!

[Frank]

"..think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one." – Sam Harris

[Hazel]

Frank wrote: ""..think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one." – Sam Harris"

I'd not heard the one before, brilliant, thanks for posting it :)

[Julie]

Maja wrote: "Julie wrote: "Im not very religous myself, and even tho he wasnt my favcorite character in the novel. I adored what the carmelengo said when he was speaking to the cardinals and to the world threw the bbc crew. ..."

You wouldn't be living very well or very long in that world... "

I tend to disagree with you there. People survived long before science became a dominate feature in our world. Id rather feel secure in my humanity then have the comforts we have today. call me old fashioned, but i'd love nothing more to go back to the 1400's or even up to the 1700's...

im an 18 year old for the record and all the madness of today is driving me crazy. a simple life without global warming, car exhaust filling the air and kids spending to much time on the internet (yes i see the irony) rather then going outside.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Julie wrote: "car exhaust filling the air..."

Then you probably don't want to go back in time.
Personal hygiene is a fairly recent thing...as is everything not smelling of animal shite...even cities smelled of horse "by-product" and assorted other reeks...Versailles would have stank of human poo for most of the time as the toilet habits of the courtiers was "free range" and they only had a clean out of the coridors once a week.
And you'd be lucky if you got to 18 without major health issues...if you got there at all.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

You know, Dan Brown would advise consulting with your Thetan.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Without belief there is little need for morals. We may as well adapt the 'survival of the fittest' theory and not concern ourselves with things we have little control over ..."

By raising its children, of course.

[Shaun]

Julie wrote: "People survived long before science became a dominate feature in our world. "

Wrong! Man's link with science began the moment an ape-like ancestor picked up two sticks and began judging which one would be better to whack prey over the head with.

Just because he didn't call it science doesn't mean he wasn't engaged in it.

[Maja]

Julie wrote: "Maja wrote: "Julie wrote: "Im not very religous myself, and even tho he wasnt my favcorite character in the novel. I adored what the carmelengo said when he was speaking to the cardinals and to the..."

The world we live in today is not perfect by any means. The way I grew up is completely different than the way my 12 years younger sister is growing up. The world is changing fast and its not always perfect. But this is the world we live in and we dont get a different one. You can either hate it or try and see all the positive things we get out of technology and science.

I think someone earlier said this and I apologize for repeating it if you have already seen it, but this is a long thread... We have had the time without science where religion ruled and it was called The Dark Ages!

If that is the world you would prefer to live in, if the science ever comes up with the time machine, go right ahead! I will stay here in the world that is connected like never before, where we have antibiotics and where science is working hard in finding cure for cancer and other diseases.

Like I said, it is not perfect, but it is all we have, and as long as we are open to learning and bettering our lives and the world around us through new discoveries, I am all for it.

[Miriam]

I think they need each other to be effective. Science can only go so far and then comes god they say.. But I also believe that science can be the art of studying gods creation in a way. I'm more of a leaning toward a world without religion because I'm a true believer in science but then again you always need to have faith in something..

[Shaun]

A short excerpt from Tim Michin's 9 minute beat poem "Storm" seems appropriate here..

....

I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long as my great great great great uncles and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine

[Reenie]

Science, as science, or lack thereof, sets the intensity of religion.

[Danyelle]

"Science without religion is dull, Religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein

[Shanna]

Reenie wrote: "Science, as science, or lack thereof, sets the intensity of religion."

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I get your point.

[Shaun]

Alternative quote:

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Reenie wrote: "Science, as science, or lack thereof, sets the intensity of religion."

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I get your point."

I think Reenie means less science = more religion... I may be wrong, but thats how I read what was put.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Reenie wrote: "Science, as science, or lack thereof, sets the intensity of religion."

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I get your point."

I think Reenie means less science = more re..."

Yeah I thought that too. It just seemed a weird way to put it so I thought I'd ask.

[Shari]

Science all the way. The only faith you need is faith in yourself and the people that you love. We will never truly be 'one world' until religion ceases to be...