Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,451-2,500 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Shannah, sweden was one example, and yes, it is lower than the US on the PISA scores for education, but Finland, Denmark and Norway all rank above the USA and they all have the same secular and highly atheist society as Sweden.

PISA testing is done on a sample of 5000 students from each country, so the USA is on an equal footing and tested in the same way as other countries. The only international comparisons we see are based on these tests.

There are some of the best doctors in the world in the USA, its well known. However, the way health care works there means that only the richest people get access tot he best doctors. Having to pay for healthcare makes these doctors out of reach of the average person. Thats why people go to the USA for treatment, the good doctors work there, but the people who do go to the US for treatment are the rich people, or people who have spent 2 years selling themselves as a charitable cause in order to pay for the treatment. However, its worth noting that WHO have ranked healthcare according to country, and the US is number 37 in the rankings, and Sweden is number 23, so sweden does provide better healthcare than the US.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healt...

Charity, the following is a list, compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, showing the percentage of each countries gross national income that is donated to charity

Sweden – 1.12%
Norway – 1.06%
Luxembourg – 1.04%
Denmark – 0.88%
Netherlands – 0.82%
Belgium – 0.55%
Finland – 0.54%
Ireland – 0.54%
United Kingdom – 0.52%
France- 0.47%
Spain – 0.46%
Switzerland – 0.45%
Germany – 0.35%
Canada – 0.30%
Austria – 0.30%
Australia – 0.29%
New Zealand – 0.28%
Portugal – 0.23%
United States – 0.21%
Greece – 0.19%
Japan – 0.18%
Italy – 0.16%
South Korea – 0.10%

If we compare by the actual amount of money, the USA wins, but thats an unfair comparison, it doesn't take into account how much money each country has, or population sizes etc. So, the fair comparison of percentage of GNP is the one we should pay attention to, and in that the US doesn't fare so well. These figures are based on public donations, not humanitarian aid from the country itself

When considering the humanitarian aid provided by the county, as a percentage of GNP, rather than by public donation, then it looks like this:

Saudi Arabia – 0.15%
Luxembourg – 0.13%
Sweden – 0.12%
Denmark – 0.09%
Kuwait – 0.06%
United Arab Emirates – 0.04%
United States – 0.03%
Germany – 0.02%
Japan – 0.01%
Portugal – 0.01%

[Matt]

Cerebus wrote: "If they're doing it out of convenience then they're stupid 'cos it will come out. Scientists are generally (not always) careful about announcing results as they know they will be put to the test by plenty of others, who won't hold back if they find the results are unrepeatable. Take a look at the recent 'faster than light neutrino' example....it was only when they could find no other explanation that the original group released their results, and attempts were immediately made to repeat the results....and as it happens they were not repeatable. That's the way science works, and it's the way it will work with the Higgs...and they know that, so they'd have to be pretty stupid to make any announcement that it had been found without carefully checking their own work.


I agree. But it's a somewhat different situation when the people making the claim have the only Large Hadron Collider in the world. Makes it tough on the people trying to disprove.

Can't remember where I saw this, but statistically humans generally wind up getting the result they were looking for. Which makes sense, since we are largely incapable of true objectivity. So disprovable is a much more important aspect of science than provable - we can manage prove whatever we want a lot of the time, but if you can disprove something then it's usually disproved forever.

And of course, the foundation of religion can't be disproven :) Even if the big bang theory is proven, then you have to figure out where all that matter and energy came from. And you're right back where you started.

[Hazel]

Matt, there are a number of highest energy particle accelerators around the world, LHC is just the name for one of them.

If you want to be specific to hadron colliders, then there are 1 at cern (with two modes), 1 in New York (with 2 modes) and 1 in Chicago.

Proving and disproving. Science is about falsifiabilty. In other words, if a hypothesis is false, then data, observation, the results of experimentation etc, will produce results that conflict with the hypothesis being investigated. A simple example,

hypothesis: all doves are pure white
Observation: this dove has speckles
conclusion: the hypothesis is false

As for your last statement, I've posted this previously, and I suspect the person I posted it for ignored it, but I reckon you'll probably find it interesting, you'll need a free hour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS...

[Matt]

I have to think there are things that can be found from a very large hadron collider that can't be learned from smaller ones. Otherwise we wouldn't have need the LHC, or the one they were trying to get built in Texas.

Maybe it's just me, but science seems to have become more about what we can prove, and we don't wait for it to be disproven any more. Wolfram says it will take 50 years (now 40) for A New Kind of Science to be properly vetted. How many scientists wait even 50 weeks?

Video looks interesting. I'll try to watch today.

[Hazel]

a new kind of science, matt, not a single discovery. So, for the example of higgs bosun you gave, it particle physics as a whole that Wolfram meant, not the search for higgs bosun itself. And particle physics has been in action since John Dalton in the 19th century. It really took off in a more modern form in the 50s and 60s, thats more than the 50 years that Wolfram suggested.

And do watch the vid if you can, its informative and entertaining, as Lawrence Kraus is a skilled orator.

[Paul]

In my experience many scientists work on things for years, sometimes decades and are reluctant to release results until they are absolutely sure of everything. Of course the press picks up on the less scrupulous ones who seem more interested in the publicity, and those are often all you hear about. I don't think they are representative of Science as a whole.

And on the subject of colliders, the bigger they are the higher the energy level can be used, which allows you to search across a wider range. This allows more things to be investigated, hopefully more things to be discovered and increased the useful life of the machine. It's worth looking at the range of technologies which would not have been discovered without hadron collider research (such as MRI scanners).

[Matt]

Paul wrote: "In my experience many scientists work on things for years, sometimes decades and are reluctant to release results until they are absolutely sure of everything. Of course the press picks up on the l..."

You can't really be trusted to disprove something you proved. You can test if the results are reproducible, but once you prove something you have to leave it up to others to disprove it. Just not possible to be completely without bias.

[Paul]

Isn't that why scientists usually work in teams, getting other experts in the same field to verify results?

[Matt]

That's the point - they are trying to verify, not disprove. If your goal is to show that the results are correct, there is a much better chance of you finding that they are correct than if you were trying to show that they were wrong.

[Hazel]

Matt, the goal is to falsify the results, not to verify them, Paul used an unfortunate choice of words. Everything in science is about falsifying the hypothesis.

[Matt]

But if you are working on the same team, you stand to benefit from proof just as much as the one who proved it. Not saying you can't do it internally, if you have the right people. It's just a lot harder, and it isn't true peer review.

[Hazel]

thats why its not done internally, its done externally. Peer review means other teams look at it, and assess it, and reviews what you've done, looks for mistakes, and retests.

And yes, all members of a team benefit from proof, but none of them benefit from being called for making false claims in relation to their work, as the way the scientific method works means they will be caught if they do it, they lose credibility, and possibly even their positions, and stop getting paid. It pays for each of them to be very careful about releasing results until they have been thoroughly checked and peer reviewed.

For example, Jan Hendrik Schön carried out a lot of work on nanotechnology, and published papers. However, he was caught out, and it was shown that he was using the same graphs etc, and he admitted that he'd made up data. As a result, he lost his job, and after a few back and forth legal battles, his doctorate was revoked, while this back and forthed, the german research foundation had brought sanctions against him, meaning he was not allowed to peer review others works, or have a vote in their elections for 8 years. He can now no longer be a member of that organisation, as he has no doctorate anymore. He has lost pretty much everything

[Matt]

I'm not saying that they would purposely make false claims, although obviously there are some who would.

But everyone has a bias. Better to have someone who thinks your work is the dumbest thing they ever heard of review it. If they can't knock it down, it's probably solid.

[Hazel]

Its usually reviewed by a number of people, some who will hold opposing views and adhere to different theories to the author. So, bias is evened out by having reviewers who have different biases.

It remains though, that releasing results and making claims before they have made sure that it can't be falsified leads to problems for all concerned. As such, this doesn't happen in the majority of cases. And when it does, the scientist involved will get blown out of the water.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "The hardest thing for me to understand is this......if we ARE alone in the universe and earth is destroyed......... what was it all about? "
Nothing. It doesn't have to have a meaning."

You know this or you are guessing or you just believe it to be so?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "He at least listed three of an exhaustive list of thousands, Including planetary orbits, the earth is not flat, the earth is not 6000 years old, disease is not the result of god's displeasure but g..."

creation

[Hazel]

ok, now explain where religion has topped science on that one? surely, the jury is still out, and thus your statement is unfounded.

[Michael]

The appropriate answer to your question is mu: I cannot answer your question because it is based on false premises. It uses "reason" (one experience path and the vehicle of science) to address an issue of faith (another experience path) which induces a paradox and in effect "violates" the logic of categoricals (Whitehead or Russell). Perhaps you can answer a question for me. Do you still beat your wife/children/husband/neighbors? :)

[Brian]

It was a scientist who invented the printing press. I believe it was so they could make bibles. Figure that one out.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "ok, now explain where religion has topped science on that one? surely, the jury is still out, and thus your statement is unfounded."

Well I have given two examples so far but philosophy is again getting in between science and religion. Can you not argue the point for science with out using philosophy. As I said previously many scientists do not agree with Hawking because of his use of philosophy explaining the big bang theory.

But just one more then.....Heliocentrism

[Natacha]

Shanna wrote: "Natacha wrote: "I didn't say they were the only, I said those were the essential teachings. I'm not sure I believe the other stuff about forced conversion; that is not what Jesus would teach as it ..."

I totally understand your points, and I will be the first to say that there are tons of passages in the bible that are difficult to interpret/accept. It has been a great source of frustration for me and probably will continue to be so until I get better acquainted with it.
How do I know what is true? It sounds cliché, but you know in your heart what is true, it really is that simple, at least to me.

I mean is it logical to think of Jesus, coming to earth as a human being, susceptible to all the sins we are as humans, protecting a prostitute from getting stoned to death by saying "let the first who is without sin cast a stone," allow himself to be betrayed, heal the soldier who is capturing him to bring him to his end, have nails driven through his hands, feet and pierced on the side of the body out of love for humanity, only to turn around and force people to do things against their will?!


However it has also been my experience that the bible is mostly not to be taken literally, and how we interpret things has a lot to do with the way we view Jesus. I mean assuming we see Jesus as our Creator, we forget that God looks at the inside of us, not the outside. So the passage you highlighted must show that God already knew from the woman's spiritual side that she did not want Him in her life, causing him to act a certain way towards her. It might not make sense to US, who are on the outside looking in, but my belief is that God knows how to handle His children and as such it's easy for us to judge what He does when we don't even know the whole story in the first place. If He is the source of everything, of course he knows what's best for us, regardless of us liking the way He proceeds or not, or if we understand it. I believe the bible is full of such passages that upon FIRST glance make no sense (and I often feel that way) but with further reflection, I can better understand. I do keep in mind that everything God did to His people back then where necessary for THOSE people at the time, and might not be necessarily relevant to us today.

I was not always a person of faith, and in my heart I do believe that I have "proof" that God exists, but as with many other things in life, it is not something that is easy to prove, nor am I looking to do so in the first place. Everyone deals and experiences spiritual matters at their own pace in life depending on their own spiritual status. It's just clear that we view and interpret things very differently because I cannot discredit God's existence in my interpretation of things, whereas you don't believe in Him. I'm not saying one is better than the other; just that each view is unique and affects our perceptions as a whole.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "You know this or you are guessing or you just believe it to be so? "
As with god in the absence of evidence to the contrary there is no reason to create a meaning just to satisfy a human weakness.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "But just one more then.....Heliocentrism"

You're going to have to expand on how exactly you see heliocentrism, the concept that the catholic church persecuted Galileo over, as a win for religion?

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "creation"

I specifically stated cases where agreement has been reached. Since agreement has not been reached on creation, its irrelevant - epecially since whether or not science or religion is most likely to be right about it is the whole generating statement of the "when has religion proved to be right over science" question.

cs wrote: "Heliocentrism"

So, you are suggesting that it was scientists who said "The sun goes around the earth" whilst the church said "No, the earth goes around the sun", the scietists that imprisoned members of the church for daring to disagree, and the scientists who then said "Oh, yeah, our bad. You were right all along."

Really?

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "creation"

I specifically stated cases where agreement has been reached. Since agreement has not been reached on creation, its irrelevant - epecially since whether or not science or rel..."
Was it not the Polish Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus who pointed this out first.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "Was it not the Polish Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus who pointed this out first."

Correct! Now, was he doing it in accordance with the beliefs of his church, or in accordance with his experiences as an astronomer?

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "I don't understand why I have to provide you with some sort of proof that a religion has won a dispute over science. "

Because you made that claim, and when you make a claim the onus is..."

Three points
1. Show me what claim you think I made that has sparked you into wanting me to defend religion when I have already stated that God and religion are seperate from each other. Why not ask me to defend God.

2. 84% of the worlds population believe in some sort of religion, so what did you want to prove?

3. I have given you three examples, even though it is a loaded question in favor of science. You might as well compare Science and History.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: " Show me what claim you think I made that has sparked you into wanting me to defend religion when I have already stated that God and religion are seperate from each other."

1) Easy! Your bold statement that you dispute my claim that in every resolved conflict between science and religion, science always ended up being accepted as being right. Asking you for one example where that was not the case doesn't seem much to ask.

Out of numerical order but

3) I only spotted 2 examples - creation and heliocentrism. Could you repost your 3rd? As for the others:

Creation hasn't been resolved yet, so is specifically excluded as being an example until such time as the scientific community agree that god did it, or the religious community agree that it was a natural event.

Heliocentrism - it was the practice of science by Copernicus that led him to publish a learned treaty that went against his faith. It was the church that claimed he was wrong. Eventual victory went to science in that one - there are no mainstream religions that still claim heliocentrism to be the case.

2) Just because only 16% of the worlds population are atheists does not mean only 16% of the worlds population accept the science behind the big bang. In fact, the official stance of the Catholic church - the single biggest sect of the worlds single largest religion - is that the big bang theory is perfectly acceptable science.

So, still waiting for that one instance were the scientists backed down and agreed that the godly were right all the time. You disputed that it was always the other way around, surely you don't go around mouthing off random assertions without evidence to back them up?

[Crystal]

I think I would rather live in a world without religion because religion causes war while science doesn't =D xx

[[deleted user]]

Okay ...

First, someone posted ...

"an eduction system that is being corrupted by creationist crap" in relation to the education system in the US. As a teacher in the US, I can tell you, promise you, that we are not allowed to and do not teach creationism. There have been, over the last several years, incidents of teachers attempting to teach creationism or intelligent design. In those cases, law suits have been brought against the school and teachers have been disciplined or fired. I've even read news reports of teachers allegedly being fired for wearing a cross necklace and having a personal Bible in the teacher's desk. So, I wanted to clear that up.

Regarding charitable giving and what I might hear a lot of given the fact that I live in America, I actually make it a point to read "newspapers" from other countries online. Here are two sources from which I've based my ideas regarding charitable giving ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/databl...

Regarding Sweden and the US, I found some interesting information.

The first set of figures will be for Sweden and the second for the US.

Population

9,103,788 313,847,465

Ethnic Groups

Sweden/indigenous population: Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities and general immigration; Finns, Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks and Turks. (No percentages were given.)

US/79.96% white (No percentages for which countries these people originally came from was mentioned.), black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaskan 0.77%, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.18% and other 1.16%

Language

Sweden/Swedish with small Sami and Finnish speakers a minority

US/English 82%, Spanish 10%, Indo-European 3.8%, Asian and Pacific Islander 2.7%, other 0.7%

Religion

Sweden/Lutheran 87% and other 13%

US/Protestant 51%, Roman Catholic 23%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist .7%, Muslim .6%, other 2.5%, unaffiliated 12%, none 4%

Infant Mortality Rate

2.74 deaths/1,000 5.9% deaths/1,000

Life Expectancy

81 yrs 78 yrs

Health Expend.

9.9% GDP 16.2% GDP

EDU Expend.

6.6% GDP (2007) 5.5%

Literacy rate

99% 99%

Unemployment (youth 15-24)

25% 17%

Now, where did I get this information. The CIA World Fact Book. I'm at home, so I can't check encyclopedias and such at school.

I found two things to be very interesting. I'd say the population of Sweden is homogenous by comparison. And, I was shocked to find that 87% of the population allegedly claimed to be Lutheran. I'm somewhat confused on that point, as people have said it's an atheist country. I don't have any answers there.

So, again, I find myself thinking ... huh ....

[Matt]

Shannon wrote: "Okay ...

First, someone posted ...

"an eduction system that is being corrupted by creationist crap" in relation to the education system in the US. As a teacher in the US, I can tell you, promise..."

What's interesting, and yet confounding, is that the argument being used for and against "balanced treatment" is that if you teach evolution, you have to teach creationism to show the other side.

Setting aside the fact that creationism isn't the other side of anything, really, evolution in no way addresses creation or denies the notion that their may be some higher power who created the universe.

I never understand how someone can say God can do anything and then the next minute say he/she/it couldn't have created a universe where life evolves.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Matthew 22 21:28 contains a scene in which a desperate woman whose daughter is ill comes to Jesus looking for help rather than saying "Why yes, here witness the glory of god and go forth and tell the world" No he ignores her until the apostle say the equivalent of "For goodness sake lord can't you do something about the wailing woman" ."

I'm not trying to force religion or belief upon people by writing this post, to be clear. But, I would like to clarify something. Matthew 22 21-28 does not deal with a woman who asks Jesus to save her child. This portion of Matthew deals with giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and a question of who one would be married to in heaven.

But, I am aware of that story. It's from Matthew 15 21-28.

A gentile woman is said to have come to ask that Jesus help her daughter. My translation states Jesus did not say anything, not a word. Then, it states his disciples urged him to send her away and stated she was was bothering them with her begging.

At that point, Jesus says something that seems, frankly, horrific. By the way, the translation I'm looking at is the NLT translation.

"I was sent only to help God's lost sheep -- the people of Israel."

She asks for help again.

Jesus is credited with stating, "It isn't right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs."

(Ouch.)

The woman states, "That's true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters' table."

Jesus is said to have replied, "Dear woman, your faith is great. Your request is granted."

Just to clarify... I think if we use statements from the Bible, for example, it would be best if the information given was accurate.

I'm not sure about forced conversion. Did she convert by asking for help? Was the idea that she had to convert in order to be helped?

It would seem this way, yes? But, I'm not sure that she did convert prior to receiving help or after. I'm just not sure. I think the words could be read either way.

I can tell you I heard someone speak once. I honestly can't remember who said this. A minister. Someone in my family. I'm just not sure. But, the person said s/he thought Jesus was making a point. There was a lot of racism, etc... at the time. This woman was a gentile and they were Jews. She was a woman and they were men. This person said s/he thought Jesus was so harsh/crass in order to point out how horrible it is to look down upon people who are different. What proof did the person offer? The way Jesus is said to have responded to others in other portions of the gospels and the fact that he called her "dear woman" ... that showed he had a loving heart, etc....

Now, I don't know. None of can know, can we? Some might say the person who made the above statements was trying to make what seems harsh and crass palatable. I just don't know.

It is interesting, for some, to think about it, though.

[Matt]

Read The Mythmaker, by Hyam Maccoby. Much about the New Testament is explained there.

[cHriS]

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: " Show me what claim you think I made that has sparked you into wanting me to defend religion when I have already stated that God and religion are seperate from each other."

1) Easy! Yo..."
My statement of dispute was made after your claim, my point which you still have not answered is; why did you make it in the first place, as I am not defending religion? I think that you may have missed a few previous comments I have made.

The Catholic church may think the big bang to be perfectly acceptable science as I do and they can also believe that God put in place 'stuff' for the big bang to happen.

I don't go around 'mouthing off' anything.

Science has discovered the cause of earthquakes and religion has not. Whats your point.

[cHriS]

Crystal wrote: "I think I would rather live in a world without religion because religion causes war while science doesn't =D xx"

Most wars are fought over land not religion.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Not to add anything whatsoever to this serious but heartfelt conversation, I just finished reading, 'Power, Sex, Suicide' by Nick Lane. It's all about the mitochondria, bacteria, eukaryotic cells, ATP-producing organelles, and proton pumping. Perhaps looking to heaven or the sun isn't the answer, but the Electron microscope? Of course science wins!

[Xdyj]

I'm also very skeptical towards the Sweden argument b/c correlation does not imply causation. Maybe we can take a look at historical data and see which happened there first: the decline of religious affiliation or the institutionalization of democratic socialist welfare state? Same with other atheist-dominated European countries like UK and Germany. I think a more likely explanation of this might be the welfare state reduced certain psychological drives behind religious beliefs.

[Shaun]

I'm not sure why you list the UK as being an atheist dominated country. The last available set of census data lists us as being 70% Christian, hardly surprising in a country where we still have a state religion and daily acts of communal worship are required in state schools.


That said, a lot of people are "Christian in name only" in as much as they don't go to church or pray but because their parents told them they were Christian, that's what they put on their census form.

Plus, that data is 10 years old, we are still waiting (as far as I can tell) for the 2011 census results to be released.

What we do seem to be almost entirely free of are fundamentalist Christians pushing an anti science agenda (though there was a group sending creationism packs to high school science departments).

[Shanna]

"I totally understand your points, and I will be the first to say that there are tons of passages in the bible that are difficult to interpret/accept. It has been a great source of frustration for me and probably will continue to be so until I get better acquainted with it."

If it require interpretation how can you possibly be sure you’ve got it right? It can’t be externally verified.

"How do I know what is true? It sounds cliché, but you know in your heart what is true, it really is that simple, at least to me. "

But some people know with just as much certainty that the alfoil hats will interfere with alien signals, that god wants them to kill their neighbour and that flying a plane into buildings will ensure they have a place in heaven. Their delusions are just as certain to them as your belief is to you

"I mean is it logical to think of Jesus, coming to earth as a human being, susceptible to all the sins we are as humans, protecting a prostitute from getting stoned to death by saying "let the first who is without sin cast a stone," allow himself to be betrayed, heal the soldier who is capturing him to bring him to his end, have nails driven through his hands, feet and pierced on the side of the body out of love for humanity, only to turn around and force people to do things against their will?!"

Then why worship him if he’s fallible human being?
Jesus was not betrayed (let’s just say I buy into the story for a moment) Judas had a job to do, a role to play, if he didn’t do it where would Christianity stand today? Jesus would be another dead Jew (maybe a Jewish prophet or not) Judas is unfairly maligned for just doing his job, given to him by an omniscient, omnipotent god whose plan this all was…

"However it has also been my experience that the bible is mostly not to be taken literally, and how we interpret things has a lot to do with the way we view Jesus. I mean assuming we see Jesus as our Creator, we forget that God looks at the inside of us, not the outside. So the passage you highlighted must show that God already knew from the woman's spiritual side that she did not want Him in her life, causing him to act a certain way towards her. It might not make sense to US, who are on the outside looking in, but my belief is that God knows how to handle His children and as such it's easy for us to judge what He does when we don't even know the whole story in the first place. If He is the source of everything, of course he knows what's best for us, regardless of us liking the way He proceeds or not, or if we understand it. I believe the bible is full of such passages that upon FIRST glance make no sense (and I often feel that way) but with further reflection, I can better understand. I do keep in mind that everything God did to His people back then where necessary for THOSE people at the time, and might not be necessarily relevant to us today."

Again how do you know what is for them and for us? How do you know that the injunction against eating shellfish is not more important to god than the proscription against homosexuals? Or that god requirement to stone mouthy children isn’t the deal breaker for him? Why has god permitted his message to bastardised and not corrected the inaccuracies? Or even updated the message for us if his old laws don’t apply anymore?

"I was not always a person of faith, and in my heart I do believe that I have "proof" that God exists, but as with many other things in life, it is not something that is easy to prove, nor am I looking to do so in the first place. Everyone deals and experiences spiritual matters at their own pace in life depending on their own spiritual status. It's just clear that we view and interpret things very differently because I cannot discredit God's existence in my interpretation of things, whereas you don't believe in Him. I'm not saying one is better than the other; just that each view is unique and affects our perceptions as a whole."

The difference between my view and yours is that mine is based in reality yours in the supernatural, mine is externally verifiable and yours is not. God is a hypothesis that attempts to explain how the world works and better hypotheses for how the world works have been proven time and time again. It’s not that I don’t believe in a god I reject the claim that it exists due to lack of evidence.

[Matt]

Jesus was never meant to be worshipped. He never asked for it, and the Bible itself never tells anyone to.

He was meant to be emulated. That's why it's important that he was human. Aside from a few fairly suspect miracles, he never did anything we can't - and who knows, maybe if we reach the state of grace he did we'd be able to turn water into wine as well.

He was elevated to divinity by the Church, because that's how they make their money. "You're supposed to be like this guy, but you can't because he is a deity. But you can purchase forgiveness from us at reasonable rates."

[Hazel]

I can turn water into wine, I just need a couple of other ingredients, a couple of demijohns and other equipment, and a few weeks ;P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tja3O...

[cerebus]

If he'd turned water into an American style India Pale Ale, then I'd think about the worship thing :)

[Hazel]

By american style india pale ale, does that mean india pale ale, but weaker?

[cerebus]

Oh no, not at all.....as we know America makes some of the worst beers in the world *but* their microbreweries are making some of the best as well. American style IPA's are incredible, hopped like it's about to be made illegal. Best example imo is this one...and if you're ever in San Diego their brewery is a must visit....

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel, those magicians are cute, but only Jesus can do tricks like that with impunity. Everybody else who does those things must be in league with the devil! Wait. Wait. Do ya think? It would explain a lot......

Just kidding. Pass the wine.

[cerebus]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Pass the wine. "
Once I've drunk it give it half an hour or so and I can fulfil that request.....

[Shaun]

Cerebus wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Pass the wine. "
Once I've drunk it give it half an hour or so and I can fulfil that request....."

Which brings us full circle back to american beer :)

[Xdyj]

Shaun wrote: "I'm not sure why you list the UK as being an atheist dominated country. The last available set of census data lists us as being 70% Christian, hardly surprising in a country where we still have a ..."

I think you are right, I thought I've read somewhere that about 50% Britons consider themselves to be not religious or something:)

[Suhani]

Religion and science are the two sides of a same coin.They tell same story in perhaps different language.Both of them are vital for the survival of society.
Science makes us question and tries to answer based on previous assumptions or hypothesis or discoveries.But unfortunately it limit our thinking.A person tend to think according to other scientists.
If I talk about religion,religion is a set of protocols developed by a society to maintain discipline by imposing fear when a constitution did not exist.It also answeres some of the questions which throbs the humanity(e.g-what happens after death)
Religion always interfere in our personel lives.It literally tells us what is the right thing to do.
Some people use religion for their advantage.e.g-some priests assume that endured pain during childbirth as she is a female but actually God was warning her that her son is going to commit a sin.In hindus some people humiliate people from the lower caste,saying that they committed sins in their previous life.
The whole point is we don`t have to be an extremist.We can use science as well as religon for the betterment of a socity.But we can also use both of them as a weapon for destruction.It`s up to us.
A world without religon would be wild,orderless and innocent people would suffer.
A world of only science would be cold and essenceless.
People would not have any reason to survive.

[Hazel]

really? This again? Suhani, we've covered all this earlier. Science is a tool., it doesn't dictate morals, morals come from us being humane, and not from outside sources, and certainly not from any religion, in which lessons like rape victims must marry their rapists are taught.

People have plenty of reason to survive without religion, otherwise why aren't atheists just giving up and letting themselves die? Highly atheistic countries with highly secular governments have lower crime rates, and generally happier populations than those that are highly theistic. Your points are demonstrably not true.

Sorry this is short and sweet, I have to go pick up one of my reasons for continuing from nursery.