Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,601-2,650 of 12,463

[cerebus]

C.C. wrote: some stuff
( )*( )

[cerebus]

C.C. wrote: "...your facts are terrible...."
Having already stated my minimal interest in the boredom that is Bond, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong in this case :) Luckily I have more interest in the main subject of this thread.....

[[deleted user]]

Can't sleep. Likely all the talk of Daniel Craig.

At any rate, the oddest thought is coming to mind. It's likely the lack of sleep. Exhaustion, followed by insomnia. Yes. Quite likely.

But, here's the thing ... the English teacher is coming out in me ....

C.C., I have the oddest question. Your "voice" seems strangely familiar. The way you write, use words ... your tone. Yet, .... Did you once go by a different name, on this thread?

Again, I know it's an odd question ... and likely the lack of sleep.

[Shaun]

Anna wrote: "I just feel that maybe, if there was only religion, that maybe we'd be able to say God is the reason for everything and we would'nt have to investigate further. WHy do we need to look for answers, ..."

Allow me to offer a real life example about why we should look for answers beyond God.

"Why are all these people catching Cholera and dying a horrible death?"

Answer A "God wants it that way"
Result: People continue to catch cholera and die.

Answer B:
"Let's investigate scientifically"
They all use the same well.
The water looks clean.

Hypothesis - the water, whilst appearing clean, is carrying something that makes people sick.

Further investigation: The Well is near a cess pit.

Hypothesis: The sickness causing agent is coming from the cess pit.

Test of Hypothesis:
Dig a new well at a greater distance from the cess pit.

Result:
People stop catching Cholera.
Having withstood testing, our Hypothesis is now a Theory.

Theory: Invisible agents can travel through the ground from cess pits, contaminating nearby sources of drinking water, even though the water looks clean.

Publish: Advise people to not build cess pits close to wells or vice versa.
Publi

Result: Literally thousands of people prevented from dying a horrible death due to Cholera.

***

If you care about the death and suffering of others, science wins hands down because it doesn't stop at identifying a problem, it provides solutions.

[Shaun]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Well, if we disagree on religion and coffee than there's no hope. Next you'll tell me that Roger Moore was the best James Bond and I will weep in despair for the human race.

and I l..."

Obviously the star of the first Casino Royale film - David Niven ;)

[Shaun]

Cerebus wrote: "First is best.....Lazenby!"

Surely Connery was first - Dr No in 1962,and for the next 4 films, then Lazenby took over for On Her Majesty's Secret Service in '69, Connery returning for Diamonds are forever in '71 then Moore takes over for the next 7 films.

[Shanna]

Anna wrote: "If all we had was religion, why would we need science to explain things further?"

This is one of the silliest comments here. You are actually sitting with a computer/phone/tablet/technology on the internet and you typed this.

[Shaun]

Shanna wrote: "
This is one of the silliest comments here. You are actually sitting with a computer/phone/tablet/tech..."

Maybe she is one of those people who in all genuineness consider inventions to be engineering, not science...

I've actually seen somebody make that argument with a straight face.

[Shanna]

I bet your face wasn't straight...

[Hazel]

C.C. wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "First is best.....Lazenby!"

Aside from your absurd opinion, your facts are terrible. Lazenby was the second to play Bond in a Broccoli Bond movie. There was also Barry Nelson in ..."

the first Bond was Bob Holdness.

But Sean Connery is the quintessential James Bond for the image that the films originally went for, but I consider Daniel Craig to be more like the complete and utter bastard that was represented in the books.

[Matt]

I actually think Craig is the best Bond so far. Although the movies themselves have become pretty generic.

Connery was playing it as a caricature of a caricature - he never took it seriously, never liked the job, always thought it was stupid though he did like the money. The Connery Bond films only work as camp comedy. So similar to the Batman TV show.

Moore did as good of a job as you could expect, I guess, as a well preserved 60 year old playing a 35 year old. Or at least that's what it looked like.

Brosnan and Dalton aren't even worth talking about.

[Hazel]

Moore was in his late 40's when he started bond. He was the one who I recall most from childhood.

[Matt]

Hazel wrote: "Moore was in his late 40's when he started bond. He was the one who I recall most from childhood."

Wow. He looked really old in those movies. I guess playing The Saint really ages a guy :)

[Hazel]

I had to look it up, as I was sure he couldn't have been in his 60s then, and still be alive today. He's 84 now, 85 in october. If he'd been 60 in 1973 when he took on the bond role, he'd be 99 this year. Technically still within the realms of possible lifespan (my other halfs grandma is 97, and would kick deaths ass if he turned up) its beyond generally accepted predicted life spans.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "the first Bond was Bob Holdness."
"Can I have a P please Bob?"

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "the first Bond was Bob Holdness."
"Can I have a P please Bob?""

The first Bond was Barry Nelson, Holness was the radio voice of Bond two years later.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "the first Bond was Bob Holdness."
"Can I have a P please Bob?""

The first Bond was Barry Nelson, Holness was the radio voice of Bond two years later."

I stand corrected, thanks cs.

[[deleted user]]

Well, I don't know about all of you, but ....

Bob or Barry, it matters not. There's one thing I do know.

Martinis.

Yet, I heard this morning that Bond will ask for a Heineken in the next movie.

Shudder ...

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well.

Looks like my man of my dreams is dropping his uptown blue trunks and going for the downtown dirty!

[[deleted user]]

Ha, ha, ha!!

[Michael]

Religion is just about inevitable because of the way our brains work. Science - as in the deliberate application of the scientific method - is an unnatural act, for the same reason. If we define science as including trial and error, then in a world without it we'd have been lucky to last as long as the Australopithecines.

[Shanna]

It's a deliberate act not unnatural, we have developed a highly refined version but experimentation is a very natural act for humans even primates, some birds and other animals. Heck as I type this my two year old is doing rudimentary science experiments with volume and echo of sound with a cardboard tube and other toys.

[Vipula]

I would like to live in a place with science rather than religion because till people think themselves first as humans than religionsists its fine, even peaceful as religion gives us guidelines according to which we should live but when religion becomes more important than humanity then its a mess. Like the Hindu n Muslim riots in India some time back. So when religion takes turns ugly like this, then its better to have no religion at all. Acc. To me.... :)

[Vipula]

I would like to live in a place with science rather than religion because till people think themselves first as humans than religionsists its fine, even peaceful as religion gives us guidelines according to which we should live but when religion becomes more important than humanity then its a mess. Like the Hindu n Muslim riots in India some time back. So when religion takes turns ugly like this, then its better to have no religion at all. Acc. To me.... :)

[Vipula]

I would like to live in a place with science rather than religion because till people think themselves first as humans than religionsists its fine, even peaceful as religion gives us guidelines according to which we should live but when religion becomes more important than humanity then its a mess. Like the Hindu n Muslim riots in India some time back. So when religion takes turns ugly like this, then its better to have no religion at all. Acc. To me.... :)

[Vipula]

I would like to live in a place with science rather than religion because till people think themselves first as humans than religionsists its fine even peaceful as religion gives us guidelines according to which we should live but when religion becomes more important than humanity then its a mess. Like the Hindu n Muslim riots in India some time back. So when religion takes turns ugly like this, then its better to have no religion at all. Acc. To me.... :)

[Vipula]

I would like to live in a place with science rather than religion because till people think themselves first as humans than religionsists its fine even peaceful as religion gives us guidelines according to which we should live but when religion becomes more important than humanity then its a mess. Like the Hindu n Muslim riots in India some time back. So when religion takes turns ugly like this, then its better to have no religion at all. Acc. To me.... :)

[Vipula]

I would like to live in a place with science rather than religion because till people think themselves first as humans than religionsists its fine even peaceful as religion gives us guidelines according to which we should live but when religion becomes more important than humanity then its a mess. Like the Hindu n Muslim riots in India some time back. So when religion takes turns ugly like this, then its better to have no religion at all. Acc. To me.... :)

[Hazel]

so important, you had to say it 6 times :P

[Vipula]

Nope server problem. Sorry :)

[Jessaka]

I don't think religion handles moral issues, bascially becauses there are many in it who have no morals. You either desire to be moral or you don't.

I prefer science but at the same time I think spirituality is essential, but I don't mean organized religion.

I was a Christian, then Hindu and then Buddhism. Now I find that even Buddhism sucks. I read Unmasking Buddhism and the writer was right up my alley.

Believe me even these three religions that I have mentioned contain a lot of immoral behavior in regards to teachers, monk, nuns, etc. Now I think you have to find it within. And I don't believe Dawson is correct either.

[cerebus]

Josey wrote: "And I don't believe Dawson is correct either. "
Dawson?

[Suhani]

Hazel wrote: "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..."

As I wrote that the religion was introduced in the time when constitution did not exist.I am not entirely in the favour of the religion as some people used religion for their benifit but there are some principles in some religion which are indeed true.If you have read bible you must know that it is written several times if you have faith everything could be achieved.Well I never read bible myself and I read this from an external source and bible is indicating to the virtue of positive thinking.I am not saying that religion is always right but religion never says that people of different faith are idiotic.It is we humans who fight ourselves in the name of our religion.Maybe,we don`t need religion anymore as we have constitution.

[Ashley]

I wouldn't want to live with out either one but if I had to choose I would chose not having science. You can't expalin everything away. I do enjoy science and what it has to offer but I feel like if we don't have some place better to go no matter what religion you are then what is the point in being here. We go through all this suffering pain enjoyment momentes moments and in the end there will be nothing left. I don't belive that for one minute. Ther is something after we die and I for one look forward to the day when I can meet my lord and savior. I still feel that we need scienc but religion is some much more improtant to me.

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "Josey wrote: "And I don't believe Dawson is correct either. "
Dawson?"

[Old-Barbarossa]

Take my mother inlaw...please.

[Maria]

id rather live in a world without science i dont like science

[Hazel]

MAria, you're using a computer to state your hate of the thing that is responsible for the computer you're using.

[Maria]

i did't say i hated it just that i dislike it

[Hazel]

ok, you're using a computer to state your dislike of the thing that makes it possible for you to have a computer. Whichever way you put it, the irony is dripping from this situation.

[Maria]

im using my phone:)

[Old-Barbarossa]

Which isn't science...computers are sciencey...phones are magick...there's elves in them that make them work.

[Hazel]

the irony is still in place.

[Old-Barbarossa]

So are the elves...

[Maria]

ok well i never pass my science tests so i still dont like it

[Maria]

lol i wonder what the elves eat if theyre in the phones

[Hazel]

so, you don't like having to study it, but should probably accept that you're willing to use the fruits of scientific discoveries and research in your every day life, and are happy with the projected lifespan of 80+ years it gives you, rather than the one of 40 years (ish) of 150 years ago...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Phone elves are fond of ear wax so have a symbiotic relationship with the phone user.
If you stop using your phone for too long then when you do you run the risk of them devouring you.

[Maria]

I read in a book a long time ago people could live up to 900 years if science was that good we would be able to live longer than that

[Hazel]

no-one has ever lived that long, the book lied to you.