Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 201-250 of 12,463

[Travis]

But the use of herbs and plants as medicine is science.
Religion's idea of medical help is prayer, or throwing a virgin in the volcano.
Though, the catholics would give you a piece of bread and some grape juice. That might help if your malady was nutrition related.

[Hina]

Hmm, that's true...

[Maja]

My husbands grandfather got really sick once. His bladder was infected. His grandma, being a great believer, refused to take him to the doctor because, she said - God will cure him!

As it became obvious that he is only getting worse, he was taken to the hospital and was ok in the end.

Just sayin...

[[deleted user]]

To me, this isn't an either or situation. I think both are critical and I also think both are compatible.

First of all, I don't think a world without science is possible as science is the study of the natural world. Secondly, I think religion is a very critical aspect of human life. We all believe something - we have to believe something. If religion were taken away I think the world would be very monotonous. In religion, are we including all world views or just different worldviews? Does this mean we would all be atheists and of the same mind? Because that would mean no free will. And without free will, we are practically robots.

Since religion and worldview are the basic groundwork of everything a person thinks and does, without it, I believe the world would be a mess.

I also think religion and science can work together. They are not at war with one another. Science is as critical to the natural world as religion is to the human being, even if they don't realize it.


@Travis: Not every religions idea of medical help is prayer. I'm a Christian myself and I certainly think if someone is need of medical help, prayer is important but I also think that person should receive medical help. I believe God gave us science so we could use it and he made us to need the help of other people. I think science is wonderful and I think we need it. But I also think people need religion. No one has all the answers to life's questions and people want the answers. We need something to believe in. I think we need to have religion because figuring out humanities ultimate destination and purpose is critical.

[Stephanie]

I don't think you need religion to have an ethical society. There are natural consequences to things we do. Abe Lincoln said, "When I do good I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad. And that is my religion."

There are people on the earth RIGHT NOW who live without religion, and people who 'live' without science. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

[Travis]

The idea that if religion goes away all those people will suddenly become sex crazed, ax murdering, puppy kickers always bothered me.

Do people really believe that? How screwed up are religious folks that one book is the only thing holding them back?

[Maja]

Travis wrote: "The idea that if religion goes away all those people will suddenly become sex crazed, ax murdering, puppy kickers always bothered me.

Do people really believe that? How screwed up are religious fo..."

LOL! So true!!

[[deleted user]]

@Mela Lynn: you just said "you don't need religion" and then gave, as an example, Abe Lincoln talking about his religion... So, he needs his religion. To have a religion you do not have to believe in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam or a major world religion. There are hundreds of different religions, maybe thousands.

Also, religious people don't necessarily think that everyone else is stupid and evil and wrong because they believe something different - everyone's beliefs are personal to them. "Religious folks" aren't all "screwed up". True, there are plenty of extreme religious people, but there are extreme atheists too, who think everyone else is stupid and evil and wrong because they believe something different.
And I agree with Elizabeth, everyone has a belief. Atheism is believing that there is no God, so it's still a belief.
To be honest, a "world without religion" would not be possible, because there is no way of preventing people from believing something. It's just part of being human to have some kind of belief.

[Rachel]

I loved Angels and Demons and the interesting points it made about religion and science, but I'd have to say that I'd definitely prefer a world without religion. I understand a lot of the points many of you have been making in this discussion, but I feel it is unfair and actually insulting to have people saying that without religion we would not know how to love, or simply "how to be good". Religion is a man-made invention, so clearly the morals that many religions encourage existed before the religion itself. This means we don't need religion to be ethical or to decide right from wrong. As an atheist, I find this slightly offensive as it suggests that I'm going to go out and kill someone because I don't have any religious "moral guidelines". I respect others' beliefs and ideas about religion, and I understand the comfort and support it might provide to people with nowhere else to turn, but I think generally the world would be better off without it. I'm not saying science is perfect and doesn't have its downfalls, but the problems and violence created by religion far outweigh the benefits in my opinion.

We don't need religion to understand or feel love, or to decide what is morally right or wrong. Religion has been the cause of so much violence and wrong-doing in the world that I would find this concept hard to accept even if I was religious. This stereotype that a world with only science would be "cold" and "without love" is simply ridiculous. I am a science student and am very passionate about what I study, and I feel that science can teach acceptance and understanding of many ideas, cultures and creatures in the world that religion has either turned people against or has encouraged ignorance of. Science, especially biology and genetics, teaches us that we're not so different from other races, and not so different from other animals too, whereas many religions seek to turn people against this idea and say that only one race is superior or that humans are far more important than other animals. These are ideas that science has been striving to change. Religion is therefore not the sole source for love or morality. If anything, it tries to challenge these ideas and eradicate the acceptance and understanding that science tries to encourage.

[Deb]

It is an impossible (although perpetually intriging) question; both science and religion are human constructs.

So, as long as you have humans you will have something resembling science and something resembling organised religion.

Pretty much every human culture we know anything about has variations on a 'belief'. To my mind this includes atheists who 'know' there is no god. How do they know? they belive it.

As long as there is a self awareness of the world around us there is the urge to examine its limits - and there you have 'science'. Which to my mind includes some behaviour exhibited by animals, in rudimentary form at least.

[Rachel]

Ideiosepius wrote: "To my mind this includes atheists who 'know' there is no god. How do they know? they belive it. "

I have heard this concept countless times, condemning atheists as still being religious because atheism apparently requires faith. Atheists do not BELIEVE there is no God, we think that there is no God because there is no evidence to support it otherwise. The idea of a God or Gods was created by humans based on no scientific or proven evidence. It's like saying (as Richard Dawkins would probably put it) "I believe in a flying spaghetti monster that lives in the sky, and you can't disprove my belief because it's based on faith, and there's no evidence to support my theory, therefore there is no evidence against it". This is just ridiculous. Therefore, atheists don't BELIEVE there is no God, we just choose to reject the man-made idea that there is one, which does not require belief at all because there is no evidence to support that there is a God to begin with! We're just following what the lack of evidence suggests. I would not say this counts as a belief in any sense.

[Deb]

Actually Rachel, I would argue that there is no 'condemnation' - as you put it - inherent in having a belief, whatever the belief in question is.

And I think we are back to the old argument of what an atheist versus an agnostic is. I have not looked in a dictionary recently but as a teen I called myself an agnostic because that was the classification that admited to not knowing. Atheist was the word for someone who KNEW that there was no god... and how did they know?...

[Travis]

We 'know' there is no god, due to the lack of any evidence.

See, I know there are such things as eggplant, the ocean, Africa, Badgers, Anne Hathaway and bean bag chairs.
How do I know...?
There is actual, physical evidence that these things exist.

god...well, there's a bunch of people who have a book and really believe he's real.

and science is not a man made construct. The scientific method is, but science itself is basically the physical laws of the universe.
The word gravity is a man made construct, the actual force...not so much.

[[deleted user]]

Yeah, I always understood "atheist" to be someone who believed there was no God - that was what we were told at school. I just looked up the definitions - and you might be agnostic rather than atheist because an agnostic is one who believes there is no way to know whether God exists or not.
And Rachel, I don't really understand your argument... Comparing it to the "flying spaghetti monster" thing hardly made any sense. You said "therefore atheists DON'T believe there is no God", as though the flying spaghetti monster obviously explained that. Actually, I BELIEVE that there is no flying spaghetti monster in the sky, so I'm not sure how what you said proved atheists have no beliefs...

[Travis]

See, atheism is a lack of belief, so labeling it a belief system is a bit like saying standing still is a mode of transportation.

The 'Flying Spaghetti monster' example is used to show that atheism is about not believing in things that there is no evidence for. She could have used the tooth fairy, Easter bunny or an entertaining episode of 'Jersey Shore'.
anything that has no physical evidence or proof of existence would have worked.

[[deleted user]]

Ok, well I get where you're coming from. I just thought that atheism was belief, but I could easily be wrong.
It's true there's nothing to prove God exists, or doesn't exist, but there's plenty evidence that could support either. Some stories in the Bible have evidence that supports it, though doesn't prove it.
Anyhow, I still maintain that everyone has beliefs. Everyone believes in gravity, right? That's a theory someone came up with to explain why we stay on the ground and things fall etc - this is a theory everyone accepts. Accepting a theory takes belief. Another theory I assume you believe is evolution, as well as the Big Bang. There's lots of evidence for these, but there's evidence for other things you don't believe in so you have to think about how strong the evidence is, to form your own belief. Both science and religion take beliefs - in my opinion anyway.

[[deleted user]]

Also, read this website: http://www.everystudent.com/features/...

What are your thoughts on it?? (I'd genuinely like to know)

[Travis]

The initial theory takes belief ( I believe so and so happens to cause such and such), once you have tested your theory and have proof/evidence, we have then moved into the realm of science.

Religion is that first step ( I believe this happens because...) without ever moving on to step two.

Science is also able to say 'We don't know' and keeps looking. Religion gets to 'We believe' or 'god said so" and then stops asking.

the website takes the common religious/creationist stance of 'the universe is complicated, god must have done it.'
That overlooks an infinite universe that changed and evolved over millions of years and the last two aren't even theories, they are just 'the bible says'.

[Rachel]

Travis wrote: "The 'Flying Spaghetti monster' example is used to show that atheism is about not believing in things that there is no evidence for. She could have used the tooth fairy, Easter bunny or an entertaining episode of 'Jersey Shore'"

Thankyou Travis. Pretty much all of what you've said has put into words my same ideas. And Elena, yes the definitions of agnostic and atheist can be a bit confusing sometimes. When I was first having doubts about religion when I was younger, I had trouble myself coming to terms with what either term meant and which one I was. In the end, I decided that I was an atheist because by looking at the evidence, or lack of, it was obvious to me that there couldn't be any god. I wasn't recognising that there might or might not be one, like an agnostic would. I just decided that there wasn't one at all.

And I wouldn't really count the Bible as evidence of any sort. I was speaking of evidence in more the scientific and proven sense. Using the Bible as physical evidence for a god is like taking a fairy tale that has been changed and altered over and over again by different authors and story-tellers over hundreds of years and then saying "Yes, this is evidence that Cinderella truly existed," or something of the sort. I understand the Bible has great spiritual value to many Christians, but just because it holds religious messages and morals doesn't mean that it is evidence. It is really just a story in my eyes.

On the subject of evolution, gravity etc, yes these ideas are still considered "theories", but to be honest they're both pretty much fact. Although there are some questions still to be answered about evolution, there is just so so SO much physical and scientific evidence for it that it is so difficult to dismiss it as something that has happened and is actually happening right now. It is not the same as a "belief". Belief or faith means that one has to think an idea is true based on absolutely no evidence. Gravity and evolution do not compare to this in any way.

However, I do agree with what you said about having "to think about how strong the evidence is" before deciding what you agree with. This is exactly what I did regarding religion and science. I took my pick based on what evidence seemed strongest to me, and that ended up being science. I wouldn't say I "believe" in science though. I just take ideas like evolution and gravity as the correct way of looking at the world. I don't need to believe in it because there is so much evidence supporting ideas like these that it does not require belief in the slightest.

[Deb]

Travis - I was using the word science, but I am open to calling it scientific methodology if you prefer. It is however man made in the sense that it developed using Arabic numerology mostly in Europe. So that is why I would say it is very much a human construct used to examine theories about the world around us.

Look at the scentific methodologies that developed on the Asian subcontinent and you find diffrent underlying assumptions about the way the world works.

[Travis]

Yes, the scientific methodology and its terms are all man made constructs and they varied from place to place, but they have been tested and developed into common, universal ideas.

gravity is the same in Asia, America, Arabia and the Congo.

In science, belief is step one, in religion belief is the first and last step.

religion , myth and the supernatural used to be step one in explaining how the world worked, it eventually evolved into science, and once there was a scientific explanation was established, there wasn't as much a need for the others and they tended to fade away.

Zues no longer tosses thunderbolts to cause bad weather, we no longer throw virgins into the volcano and when you sneeze you no longer worry about devils trying to take your soul if no one says 'bless you'.

religion used to be a step on the way to explaining the world, unfortunately too many people refuse to move on and want to take it along through all the steps.

[Syahira]

People forgets... especially those who are not scientifically inclined.

Science always come first even before mankind existed. Science always existed. Science is a religion of creationism by God itself. People are finding it and found it was not coincidence. Its quantifiable. Some can be seen by naked eye. Some can be seen in numbers. Some can be seen in amplifications. Science is malleable. Science provide some detailed understanding and theorized. There's beauty in equation of every way. Golden numbers. Nano particles. Prions. Evolution of microorganism and virus by replications. The mathematics within genetics. The movement within atoms. Quantum mechanics. Vibrations.

Science is unpredictable. There's always questions that need answering.

I find some religion have severe lacking in tolerating science.

Some always expecting God is SIMPLY behind it like symmetrical webs or hexagonal bee comb. "It is God's work." argument is tiring for me as there's always a long length of reasoning behind it.

To me, God is always behind the mechanism of everything. But it lies in the essential depth of the creation itself. There's no way to explain things simply until you prove the other is wrong.

I'm not atheist. I'm barely religious but I do have a line to cross between either both.

[Steven]

We need Science.

I'd rather live in a world without Religion.

Too many people have died over Religion and Religious Differences.

[Deb]

ok - I should probably resist resuming this conversation. For the record I thought a few of the comments very weird. The aggression of the anti-religion crowd baffled me until I saw this clip on utube. Now the vehemence makes more sense at least as far as Americans go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7srP...

[Jeff]

Science & religion are the same thing, both beliefs, faith in something that's a perception of reality, but is really only an abstract (in our mind, imagined). Religions are just earlier versions of science, both attempting to explain/understand existence and both used to the believers' advantage. Faith/trust/belief is the most important thing for any conscious/sentient animal as ACTION will not be performed by the body unless the mind/brain believes/trusts some illusion representative of reality (whether that belief is conscious or subconscious). Mankind has used both over the last 10,000 to take an ever increasing number of UNNECESSARY risks. Unnecessary in the sense that the species (genepool) could survive without these risks, it's only the GROWTH of the species that wouldn't.

[Anne]

I think a little of science and religion is good for us but I think religion is a very personal thing I hate being preached to, told how to live my life, what to change, by people who have probably been worse in their lives than me then they get religion and put themselves up high to teach us.

[Maja]

Jeff wrote: "Science & religion are the same thing, both beliefs, faith in something that's a perception of reality, but is really only an abstract (in our mind, imagined). Religions are just earlier versions ..."

I have to disagree on science and religion being the same thing...
Science asks quesions and tries to answer them. Religion doesn't... It kind of sticks to things they are not proven, but doesn't question them because they call it the leap of faith... believe into something that there is no proof for...
science is not like that..

[Stephanie]

I'd rather live in a world without religion than a world without science. In fact, I think the world would be a better place without religion (much as John Lennon did).

A world without religion would be a world without Jihad, genital mutilation, holy wars, genocide, priests touching little boys, and men murdering their own daughters for their son's crimes. We would still have morality, because it comes from common sense and the need for our species to thrive. People would still do good; maybe even more of it. People would realize that life is still worth living, even if the purpose of it isn't to heap praise on an invisible creator.

[Audreyvizuete]

Jeff wrote: "Science & religion are the same thing, both beliefs, faith in something that's a perception of reality, but is really only an abstract (in our mind, imagined). Religions are just earlier versions ..."

In fact, i'm agree with Jeff. It helps people to believe in something that can help them to have the answer of lot of questions but not at the same level. People who believe in science are like St Thomas : they can only trust in what they see. And religious people don't need to see something. This point of view is a little beat difficult to accept in a society where we always want answers, proofs...

I think that it could be difficult to live without religion and science. Don't forget that even the Vatican has some laboratories in which they work to learn more about for example : "Neuroprotection in Parkinson's Disease",Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene, Water is Life, Which future for humanity? ...

[Tiffany]

i think that without religion there wouldn't have been science...

[Jeff]

Maja wrote: "Jeff wrote: "Science & religion are the same thing, both beliefs, faith in something that's a perception of reality, but is really only an abstract (in our mind, imagined). Religions are just earl..."
Science is exactly like that, science doesn't indicate certainty, it only reduces uncertainty.

[Jeff]

I actually believe in God, in that I believe I'm part of something far more complex and impossible to consciously comprehend. I'm like a single grain of sand on 7-mile beach, and the whole beach, the sum total of everything, that's god. What I DON'T believe in is a single, omniscient, all powerful being up in the heavens who is more on my side than any other organisms. We tend to only assume God's presence in LIFE, but God (that great cosmic balance) is in everything, including DEATH. The idea that God & the Devil are somehow different is ridiculous, and makes people hate themselves for doing what they have to do in order to survive. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." anyone?

[Jenny]

The world would be a better place without religion. Science is not a matter of belief, science is based theories that through experiments can be proven as facts.
Religion is all smoke and mirrors - thousands are interpreting lines in the sand differently and then fighting each other over their belief.
I do not believe that the human race is the only sentient race in the universe.
I do believe that NO-ONE should have the right to tell me what to think or how to feel.
There is an equal capacity in everyone for good and evil and how individuals are brought up tips the balance.
I agree with Jeff when he said "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

[Rebecca]

I will take science any day.

[Jeff]

Jenny wrote: "The world would be a better place without religion. Science is not a matter of belief, science is based theories that through experiments can be proven as facts.
Religion is all smoke and mirrors ..."
actually that was Shakespeare, but he's right. The paradox, however, is that if you want to get anywhere in life, you HAVE to believe in right/wrong, as all creatures do. Basically, that anything good for YOU is GOOD, and anything not good for you is BAD.

[Maja]

I don't think you have to BELIEVE in right/wrong... You just need to have strong morals and that comes from your parents... I am not a religious person by any means, but I do know right from wrong and from my experience, I am more moral than a lot of religious people I have met in my life...

[Jeff]

Maja wrote: "I don't think you have to BELIEVE in right/wrong... You just need to have strong morals and that comes from your parents... I am not a religious person by any means, but I do know right from wrong ..."
Maja, what are you smoking?!? Morality itself IS defining this as Right & that as Wrong, regardless of what this & that are. Everyone is moral, people just don't agree on what is right/wrong because what's wrong for one person is right for another.

[Maja]

Jeff wrote: "Maja wrote: "I don't think you have to BELIEVE in right/wrong... You just need to have strong morals and that comes from your parents... I am not a religious person by any means, but I do know righ..."

Oh, so you are saying I need religion to tell me the difference? You are saying you cant say right from wrong without religion? What are you smoking?
When I said you dont have to believe in right and wrong, I meant, you dont have to believe in God and Bible to know right from wrong and be a moral person... As for everyone being moral, I am not so sure about that one either.

[Travis]

Basic morals, the idea of right and wrong are not a religious invention ( though they do try and claim copyright) they came from the same place as religion: they evolved as people did.

If you kill the other members of the tribe, the tribe doesn't do well etc. They were social inventions created to ensure the survival of the tribe.
Religion just decided, like they tend to do, decided morals couldn't be something men came up with, they needed something to keep the peasants in line, so morals then came from 'god' and he would smite you.
Which works great, as there's no killing, lying, worshiping false idols and adultery amongst the religious community.

[Lisa]

I would rather live without ORGANIZED religions. Let us explore our spirituality in our own way, no matter what that way happens to be. Too many wars & horrible things have been done to people all over the world, in all time periods in the name of "religion".

[Alice]

I agree with Lisa. The leaders with power in ORGANIZED religions are the source of countless horrors done in the name of God. Of course I could say the same of Research Science. But I'll take my chances in a world without religion. TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE is what's most needed.

[Steve]

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

I have no need for religion myself, but do not begrudge those who feel that need. I was raised Roman Catholic, so I have seen 'both sides' if you will.

Can "science" answer every question? Probably not, but I'd rather have someone with a background in science & medicine treat me for my illness than have the local holy man pray over me.

[Ruby]

Religion does have its place for some, but not for all and in today's society, everyone depends upon science. How else would we have the microwave meal miracle? You know...and the other really important things like medicine and well I know you're all thinking it, tvs.

My dad makes a point which I do not whole heartedly agree with. He believes that religion is only now really holding its place to prevent fear. Science helps to take away illness and explains phenomenon’s such as natural disasters. When socially viewed as sane, one does not believe that a devastating tornado was the work of God as he cleansed the land.

Religion has been put on the back burner as science progresses in its discoveries.

I believe that religion is a stable base for some. It is something they know, accept and have always been told about throughout life. I would definitely say that it is impossible to live in a world and be entirely ignorant of religion.

As a positive view of religion however, I do accept that it is used to regulate behaviour in our very volatile species where science sometimes only accelerates the violence. I mean look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the school syllabus you are taught that one of the reasons the Americans used the bombs was because they could. In what religion are they people told to run riot and set the world ablaze.

I feel that science saves in the physical and religion, in the - okay I do not want to say spiritual - mind.

The basis of religion however, I view does not just have to be associated with God or the afterlife or hell, it can just be recognised as the correct and least self destructive way to live.

For the most part, religion is no longer forced down our throats and we have the option to choose. And now thanks to this change, many are choosing to follow the morals but not the rituals that follow specific religions.

This does not make humanity any better or worse, our behaviour is the same, but our habits are changing. Changing in a way which makes the Church fear as they see that they (as an organisation, not in the believing in God sense) they are losing the power they once held.

[Ruby]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "As the English speaking world is nominally Christian, why are the days of the week named after Germanic pagan gods? The months changed their names to the Roman ones we use now, but the days stayed...."

Because the Christians came along and forced their religion upon people who were quite happy before in their own belief system. Loads of things were altered to make Christianity mesh easier with life before hand. I mean, don't they believe Jesus would have been born in October? And of course its not at all convinient that December twenty fifth was a Pagan holiday first.

I'm sorry, its just one word - crusades. That conviniently forgotten event in the history of the world when people talk of other countries around the globe choosing Christianity. No, it was to try and protect themselves against the death and destruction.

Anyway, waiting for the die hard Christians to start yelling at me now. Just going to point out though, I chose to be a Christian when I was a child, chose myself to go to a Christian school and then later, gradually I became disallusioned with 'the good news'. I know Christianity, I simply do not wish to live my life following the commands of the Church any longer.

Coughs, sorry that was a bit much wasn't it.

[[deleted user]]

Definitely without religion. No question.

[Tiffany]

I mean I'm not a very religious person though the whole side of my father's family are Jehovah's Witnesses, since my father and I aren't J.W's they don't have contact with us, etc. which has made me distrust the institution of the churches etc. However, there's a part of me that can't shut off the possibility of there being a God, I mean just the functions of our bodies, everything around us, etc. Yes, I've heard all about Evolution and the Big Bang even watch a few episodes of Through the Wormhole and how we are basically stardust, etc. But who created all of this, I can't picture that these scientific things happened and we've come to be, not without some
divine intervention. I'm more of a spiritual person than actual true believer, I know the Bible has been used to justify the hateful nature of others (racism, sexism,slavery, etc) however I believe in that quote "He who does not come to love, has not come to know God because God is love." I think that some people need religion for their moral compass and to believe that there is something more. I think to say that we could survive as a society without religion is a bit absurd. I see scientists as people who contribute a lot to this world, no doubt, but at the same time are most likely to be those corrupted. You sort of see it now in this technology dominated world we live in, people's morals are more blurry by the minute. It's sort of scary, though I'm not religious I'm glad that some religious tinged beliefs were instilled in me.

[cerebus]

No religion....and to those who ask how we can have morals without religion, I would say empathy is not a religious concept, and I would also ask the question, if you feel you need religion to be moral, does that mean you only behave in a moral way out of a fear of punishment from a higher source, or as a result of blind faith in that same higher source? If that is the case then I would suggest atheism is more moral than religion. If that is not the case, then I think the suggestion that those of us without religion have no morals is both offensive and demonstrably incorrect. I don't need to be threatened with punishment, or to blindy follow a book, to know right from wrong.

[Tiffany]

Cerebus wrote: "No religion....and to those who ask how we can have morals without religion, I would say empathy is not a religious concept, and I would also ask the question, if you feel you need religion to be m..."

Well I can't speak for everyone else but I never suggested that those without religion have no morals and I don't behave in a moral way from fear of being punished but I do think some religion based themes introduced in life especially in children can be a good thing to live their life the right way...and if people don't have religion thats fine too, my boyfriend is an atheist and thats fine of course when we have children we'll have to decide on how to raise them to think for themselves and they can chose to believe or not, that's fine. I think to be aggressive and say the charge people blindly follow a book is offensive. Not trying to offend anyone here but I think to not give credit to religion or science is wrong. I don't think you can live in a world without one or the other. I think science wouldn't have advanced as it has because obv. man wanted to explain things in a scientific way that religion doesn't. With religion its just oh because it was meant to be, etc. I give credit to the scientific community for saying, no these are other reasons, etc. For me. I've chosen a spiritual path because I can't have nothing to believe in, that this life is it, and that the ones I've lost I'll never see again. Once again, not trying to offend because once again, I don't think you can live without the other.

[Tiffany]

Tiffany wrote: "I mean I'm not a very religious person though the whole side of my father's family are Jehovah's Witnesses, since my father and I aren't J.W's they don't have contact with us, etc. which has made m..."

perhaps I shouldn't have said that only scientists morals are the ones that are becoming blurry, even those who claim to be most devout aren't. but when man tries to explain everything with science and really try to becomes gods is when I believe that they are morally compromised is how I should've put it.

[cerebus]

"I think to be aggressive and say the charge people blindly follow a book is offensive."

Apologies, didn't mean it to be offensive, I was trying to make a distinction between what I see as a considered approach to morals, and one which (in no small part) relies on faith...assuming someone is claiming that they get their morals from religion that is.

"my boyfriend is an atheist and thats fine of course when we have children that'll be another story"

My suggestion (and that's all it is, a suggestion) is that when you have kids you teach them to think for themselves...I teach mine neither atheism nor religion, but to think for themselves, and in time they will make their own decision. Anything else is indoctrination.

"For me. I've chosen a spiritual path because I can't have nothing to believe in, that this life is it, and that the ones I've lost I'll never see again."

Again without wanting to start an argument, or to come across the wrong way, but that sounds like a fear-based position? I would love there to be a way I could meet friends and relatives who have died, but simply wanting it isn't enough for me to abandon (what is for me) reason. As for "that this life is it", is life really all that bad? For me not having religion means this is all I get, so I'd better make the most of it and enjoy it (seeing as this has been misinterpreted before elsewhere, this is not saying I think can do whatever I want with no regard to others or to morals!).