Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,901-2,950 of 12,463

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Really? I'm not sure about that ....

Why say I'm taking this personally? Does saying I'm taking it personally, hmmm, take away from my point? Ahh, we don't need to listen to Shannon. She's just like a woman ... to get emotional and take something personally.)
.."

That is a low blow coming from another woman Shannon.

(You have no idea how hard it type your name I automatically type my own, are you experiencing the same thing?)

[[deleted user]]

I didn't mean it to be a low blow, Shanna. I wrote that because ... I know that's how some people think. Please note, I added I didn't know if that's where you were going. And, I meant it when I said it.

Some, in order to take away from another's point, insult that other person. Sometimes, they say things like ... you're taking this personally ... in order to detract from the person's view.

That's just the truth, in certain circumstance. I'm not sure if it was true in this instance, as I said.

And, I do know some men, some, who would eat something like that up. Just like the women to go and take everything personally. That's also just the truth. That's where some minds would go.

I wanted to point that out.

(And, yes, I've almost typed my own name when typing yours.)

[Hazel]

I have to constantly check which one of your names I've written...

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "why don't you address the main point? Actually no, don't bother, I'm bored of you and your avoidance dances now."

It is you who use avoidance rather than address the point.

My 'survival of the fittest' comment was in reply to Shannon, and you, rather than stick with the spirit of the point, had to make an issue of the phrase itself. Quoting Darwin (2966), yet in previous threads you rule out 'quotes'.

Having displayed what you think is your 'philosophical' superiority you then revert back to the topic in hand by saying.....

However, if I accept your definition for the moment of
'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'

..... you do this on a lot of threads; displaying a kind of superiority.

[cHriS]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "why don't you address the main point? Actually no, don't bother, I'm bored of you and your avoidance dances now."

It is you who use avoidance rather than address the point.

Ps maybe you did google it, thats why you are backing off.

My ..."

[Hazel]

I'm not backing off because I think I'm wrong cs, we've gone round in circles on several threads, and I'm getting bored of it. You stick to arguing semantics, and to avoidance tactics, and I'm bored of it. I won't be replying to you after this. have a nice day.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "I'm not backing off because I think I'm wrong cs, we've gone round in circles on several threads, and I'm getting bored of it. You stick to arguing semantics, and to avoidance tactics, and I'm bore..."

Just to prove my point to anyone bothering to follow this....

The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival...

[cHriS]

Tracy wrote: "I don't have enough time in the next year and a half to answer the replies I feel are ridiculous. For example, "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this expla..."

.....although I like this better, giving the athiest a hard time :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "I didn't mean it to be a low blow, Shanna. I wrote that because ... I know that's how some people think. Please note, I added I didn't know if that's where you were going. And, I meant it when I..."

I see where you are coming from and I sorry I never meant it that way and would never resort to that, and would jump to correct anyone who tried to make a meal of it.
Gender insulting is not on (though my husband does have man-vision, you know stand in the middle of the room turn in a circle while looking at the ceiling and if he can't see the object of the search, that almost certainly is not up on the ceiling he has to ask me where it is. The worst of it is, it appears genetic, O.o, my sons appear to be developing it too) simply not on.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "though my husband does have man-vision, you know stand in the middle of the room turn in a circle while looking at the ceiling and if he can't see the object of the search, that almost certainly is not up on the ceiling he has to ask me where it is. "

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!

I mean, clearing throat, huh? Not sure I know what you mean.

;)

[Hazel]

looking at the ceiling? In my experience its looking at where its usually kept, not seeing it, demanding to know where it is, and then me having to pick it up from 2 inches on the right of where he was looking...

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "looking at the ceiling? In my experience its looking at where its usually kept, not seeing it, demanding to know where it is, and then me having to pick it up from 2 inches on the right of where he..."

Ah yes stage 4 of the condition the terminal end stage, 5 is the complete inability conduct any form of search and almost total object blindness alas no form of treatment has been discovered except the extreme wife or motherectomy :-D

[[deleted user]]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... I mean, huh?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

(And, men, if you have any equally funny quips, I'd laugh, too. I believe in equal opportunity.)

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

[Dave]

If given the choice as posed in the topic question, I would rather live in a world without religion. Among the many reasons for this, is that no scientist has ever persecuted someone else for their scientific beliefs.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... I mean, huh?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

(And, men, if you have any equally funny quips, I'd laugh, too. I believe in equal opportunity.)

Ha, ha, h..."

Oh yes please, equal opportunity :-D

[Shanna]

Dave wrote: "If given the choice as posed in the topic question, I would rather live in a world without religion. Among the many reasons for this, is that no scientist has ever persecuted someone else for their..."

How true, but I'm sure some pretty severe mocking has occurred for patent idiocy.

[Dave]

Severe mocking has some place in the world, and it doesn't leave corpses.

[Shanna]

Hi Kat,
There is always something to be added.

I see science as the dream for mankind, yes some of it focus on nuts and bolts (but reality is pretty amazing and requires no religion to be so), but some of it is focused on disease eradication, adequate food production, environment and sustainability.
I don't see religion doing any of this, let alone a dream potential. The catholic church alone has so much accumulated wealth that if it was serious about saving people and not just their "souls" it could purchase (and I'm sure much of it would be donated lessening event that cost) the mountains of excess food discarded daily and distribute it to the starving, it could provide education and tools to break the poverty cycle, instead there is a nobility in poverty and suffering as Mother Theresa (who had donated millions sitting in bank account while her nurses re-used blunt needles and provided no pain relief for patients) used to say.
I see religion promoting a kind of passivity at best of just mucking through this life accumulating "enough points" for a hypothetical afterlife, you only have to look at creationists who actively reject the nuts and bolts in favour of potentially gaining points.
The idea that some were blessed to born in a wealthy first world family and others were not, why not? some inherent defect? are thy some how not deserving of the same blessing? are they suffering as a tool for you help gain your points?
The problem with thread weaving is that religion won't keep it's threads to itself, and insists all find that thread worthy, or else.

[Shanna]

Sort of spiritual humanism then?

[Xdyj]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "and this one that popped up on my facebook feed, its sick, the implications are horrible, and it preys on peoples insecurities

"

Really? This is the answer. Really?

Regarding w..."

I completely agree with your argument wrt the Scandinavians & test scores. I also agree that not all religions are guilty of those "-isms", nor being atheist can automatically make one not being a hateful bigot. Also I think it's a bit unfair to call liberal religious ppl "moderates" (in message #2997) as if their faith is less "authentic" than fundamentalists, while in reality they do stand for a faith that support individual freedom, secularism and equal rights for everyone.

[Ram]

No two separate realms. Religion is science of self realization. A science dealing with inner spirituality (forget about God or some supernatural almighty), religion is nothing but science to know and comprehend nothing but human mind.

[Hazel]

Xdyj wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "and this one that popped up on my facebook feed, its sick, the implications are horrible, and it preys on peoples insecurities

"

Really? This is the answer. Re..."

I used the word moderate because I had a brain fart and couldn't remember the word liberal... but at the same time, the word moderate is a good counterpoint for the word extreme

[Hazel]

Ram wrote: "No two separate realms. Religion is science of self realization. A science dealing with inner spirituality (forget about God or some supernatural almighty), religion is nothing but science to know ..."

first, religion doesn't use the scientific method, thus cannot be considered to be science in anyway, it doesn't meet the criteria for it.

second, the science of self actualisation is generally considered to be psychiatry and psychology.

[Ram]

Hazel, First, what I intended to say is science for me and I guess for most people means to reveal and unravel (Disentangle). What at this point seems incomprehensible for mind may be solved later.
Second, "Psychiatry is a medical field concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental health conditions"
and "Psychology is the study of the mind, occurring partly via the study of behavior". What I meant by self realization (or actualization, the word u used), is to know the purpose of life.

[Hazel]

Ah, the purpose of life is to create more life. Simple really. For a more deep and meaningful purpose, we provide that ourselves, and it doesn't need religion.

I don't see how meaning can truly come from something that cannot be shown to be true. Meaning comes from the things that we can see and touch and that are true. Religion is based on unsubstantiated claims, and thus has no solid basis for giving reason. All the good things that we get from religion can be achieved through purely secular means. The main thing religion gives is a sense of belonging to a group or community. Communities and groups form without the need for religion, so you can get that feeling without religion.

Religion doesn't provide real answers to any of the hard questions in life, not really, it provides a cushion, not an answer. These answers come from investigating and understanding the world as it really is. Religion does not provide meaning if you step back and really look at it, it provides a cushion, a blanket, an easy non-answer to the difficult questions in life.

[Mahnoor]

w3 kn0w that w3 hav3 t0 inclin3 infr0nt ov our religi0n,we cant fill s0m3 of 0ur d3sires,s0 i pers0naly thnk that w0rld sh0uld hav3 bin wid0ut religion!

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Religion doesn't provide real answers to any of the hard questions in life, not really, it provides a cushion, not an answer. These answers come from investigating and understanding the world as it really is. Religion does not provide meaning if you step back and really look at it, it provides a cushion, a blanket, an easy non-answer to the difficult questions in life. "

This has me cringing a bit, Hazel. It seems to be a very ... broad ... statement. And very definitive. I know you believe it to be true. But, I don't believe everyone would agree with you.

And, I wonder what you base this upon.

The fact that we can't prove to you, scientifically or verifiably, that there is a God?

People continually say the Scandinavian countries that are largely atheist (not reflected in encyclopedias, CultureGrams, etc...) have low crime rates ... because their populations are largely atheist. But, they've not proven that claim. I asked the question a couple of times this weekend. And, I meant the question sincerely. Are there non-bias studies that prove Scandinavian countries have low crime rates because they're largely atheist (something that is disputed by widely respected texts)? The response? Crickets chirping. Yet, people, including you, Hazel, put forth this idea and seem to, I think, find meaning in it.

But, if God's existence can't be proven by a non-bias source, we shouldn't believe in God or find meaning in religion?

The idea that religion doesn't provide real answers to any of the hard questions in life ... that it just provides a cushion ....

I just don't know about that. I just really don't. I've said that I've found comfort and solace in my faith. I suppose some would call that a cushion. But, here's the thing ....

It's almost as if a new theme is being brought up. At least, I've not seen this before. Does religion answer the hard questions of life?

Is it appropriate for atheists to assume it doesn't ... I assume since believers can't scientifically prove God's existence ... therefore ... religion can't offer anything of meaning? I'm sure there are some who would think it's appropriate to make that leap. I don't agree.

I almost want to ask ...

What answers does religion or individuals' spiritual paths give for the hard questions of life?

How would people answer? I'd be willing to give some answers. However, I bet you anything someone would come out of the woodwork and accuse me of preaching and forcing my beliefs upon everyone else.

Like I said, it just makes me cringe a bit ... to say religion provides no answers to life's questions? Really? That's just not been my experience. It really and truly hasn't.

So ... I find myself wondering. Is this a path down which we want to go? Do we want to ask the question? What answers have you found through your spiritual path?

Would that be the scientific thing to do? Keep in mind, everyone, that I'm a confirmed humanities person. But, it seems to me that ... if we were to approach this in a scientific way ... we wouldn't assume we know the answer to that question ... we'd ask the question ... we'd gather evidence.

Now, hold on ... give me a minute. I can see a bunch of posts popping up saying something like ... if you can't prove God exists, you shouldn't believe and shouldn't belong to a religion ... and if God doesn't exist, you can't learn anything from your time spent in those pursuits.

Really? I just don't know about that.

Not sure I'm really putting my thoughts together as I mean them and feel them.

Something to ponder ... maybe.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

why do you think God exists, if you agree with the point there is no proof he exists? Because of feelings?

[Suzanne Richardson]

This is such a good question, and a lot of great, honest answers. I would rather have science than religion, and here is my train of thought:

Without science, there would be much more death for reasons we wouldn't know or understand, and we wouldn't be able to plan ahead and predict like we can now. While somewhat unreliable, weather forecasts are pretty awesome and help us figure out what days to do what. There is nothing wrong with being primitive, but if we don't have to, that would be fantastic.

There are some good things to be said for religion: it has brought families together, given something common to bond about, given a lot of people comfort when they are near death's door, and when they felt hopeless gave them 'someone' to talk things out with (after all, that's kind of what prayer is.) For all the good it has done a number of people, it has also done some incredible damage.

Religion has destroyed families, torn nations apart, been the cause of wars, and persecuted members of society - zoning in on those whom are already in a vulnerable state.

The worst I can think that science has done is told us stuff we didn't necessarily want to know, and we've done things with it that maybe we shouldn't have done/shouldn't do very often.

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "why do you think God exists, if you agree with the point there is no proof he exists? Because of feelings?"

I answered this question with a lot of depth several months back. If you'd like to check, I'd say it was around mid-October. But, I will say, I agree there's no scientific proof. I had "proof" ... but it had to do with personal anecdotes, which isn't accepted as proof by some. At any rate, that was in October if memory serves ... maybe November, but I think October.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "If you ment that religion and the belief in god went then you would be left with a world where the survival of the fittest ruled. "
You come out with variations on this theme so often that the most logical conclusion is that your faith is the single thing stopping you from stealing, killing and doing everything you can to get one over on other people. In case you missed the previous comments on this concept, let me repeat it for you one more time....BELIEF IN A DEITY, OF ANY BRAND, IS NOT THE SOURCE OF MORAL BEHAVIOUR.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Ok so you have googled 'survival of the fittest' and have found some connection to Darwin and from the little you have digested in a few minutes you conclude that there is no other meaning outside of your findings. phew "
Even if that were the case it would appear to be more than you have done. Hazel's comments on 'survival of the fittest' are correct....even Dawkins recently said on a tv debate in Australia that a *society* based on 'survival of the fittest' would be a horrendous place, and that the concept applies to biological evolution...

[Shanna]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Ok so you have googled 'survival of the fittest' and have found some connection to Darwin and from the little you have digested in a few minutes you conclude that there is no other meani..."

Saw that show it was far to short and abbreiviated to be satisfying to me though Dawkins acquitted himself well.
Here a link to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO...

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "Saw that show it was far to short and abbreiviated to be satisfying to me though Dawkins acquitted himself well."
I agree...some of the tweets that come through during the show are excellent though :)

[Roderick Gladwish]

If there was no science someone would discover it.
If there was no religion someone would invent it.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Ok so you have googled 'survival of the fittest' and have found some connection to Darwin and from the little you have digested in a few minutes you conclude that there is no other meani..."

You may have missed my reply to Hazel........

The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival...

[Paul]

Roderick Gladwish wrote: "If there was no science someone would discover it.
If there was no religion someone would invent it."

Absolutely correct. They did, in both cases.

[Travis]

Interesting that science is something we find that was already there, religion, we had to make up.

[[deleted user]]

I wonder ...

Was science, as such, something that was already here? Was the scientific method, a cornerstone, I believe, in science already here? Existing and operating without humans?

Again, I'm the humanities person. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I'm not sure that science, as we know it or would recognize it, existed prior to human thought, invention and action.

Of course, religion, as such, wasn't already here either. Dogma, etc.... No, religion as we know it was developed by humans.

Were some of the parts and pieces of science present prior to human thought and invention? Does evolution count? Parasites? Germs? The mutation of viruses? I'd say parts and pieces were present, yes.

Was an intelligent being ... energy, higher power, Great Spirit, God present prior to human thought and the invention of religion? Some believe the answer to that question is yes. Some argue that people invented religion and God came from that.

I don't know. It depends on our experiences, thoughts, culture and bias, I suppose.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Shannon wrote: "I wonder ...

Was science, as such, something that was already here? Was the scientific method, a cornerstone, I believe, in science already here? Existing and operating without humans?

Again, I..."

What books have you read exploring these questions?

[Hazel]

I'd say scientific method wasn't always here, but the fundamental laws of nature existed before we discovered and described them.

And see, thats the thing, god may exist, but without actually proving it, discovering it and describing it, then theres no reason to give the idea any more credence than, say, gooblespinks.

Whether god exists or not does not depend on our experience, culture or bias etc, there either is one (or some), or there isn't, and the only way to determine that is investigation, and the best and most reliable form of investigation of the universe we have is the scientific method. So, if someone can find god through proper and real investigation, not through introspection and feelings, then I will accept the claim that any such thing exists.

[Travis]

science existed before we figured out how to use it. Water, sunlight, fire, germs, minerals etc...all there.

invisible all powerful beings with a fondness for sleeping with mortals and smiting...not there till we thought it up.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I read books when I want to know stuff.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Whether god exists or not does not depend on our experience, culture or bias etc, there either is one (or some), or there isn't, and the only way to determine that is investigation, and the best and most reliable form of investigation of the universe we have is the scientific method. "

I think how we view both is dependent, somewhat, on our experience, culture, bias, etc....

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I read books when I want to know stuff."

What is your point, ATCM? Do you really want a list of the books I've read? Or ... are you trying to make another point?

Just curious.

My profile is open ... although, I've not listed all of the books I've read. Most of my scientific reading over the last few years has been in things like Scientific American and the newspapers. I've not read any actual science books in some time. My reading tastes and interests lean toward the humanities. I'm interested in literature and history, primarily. Regarding religious reading ... I've read most of the Christian Bible. I've read some of the Quran, though very little. I've read some books by Jewish rabbis'.

Not sure though. Are you really interested in having a meaningful discussion with me regarding my reading habits? Or, are you trying to make another point?

[Hazel]

yes, but how we view the world is not the same as how the world actually is. What we want is not the same as what is. And the only way to know what is, as closely as we possibly can, is to use as objective an investigation method as possible, and that method is scientific method.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "If you ment that religion and the belief in god went then you would be left with a world where the survival of the fittest ruled. "
You come out with variations on this theme so often th..."

Religion is the glue that binds society together. It keeps the moral behaviour of society in check. I am only talking about Christian religions (but I am not including or excluding other religions). We should all act in a Christian way to each other but without this ‘glue’ we would have a society of the fittest surviving.

Yes atheists like to give Sweden as an example of how a not so religious country manages, but Sweden has the benefit of influence from christian countries.

Atheists like to think that the world would be a better place without religion and everyone would still act in a sort of christian way to each other. But it is religion, and the belief of an afterlife that set the standards for people to be christian (small c) to each other. Atheists have the benefit of living in a society with Christian foundations.

Atheists have no proof that a non religious world would be better, but they like to BELIEVE that it would be. In much the same way as some use our freedom of speech to condemn us.

[Travis]

Atheists have to believe the world would be better, because religion has a strangle hold on the world and the mere thought of getting people to let it go causes large groups of people to lose their minds.

So, the atheists will most likely not get their 2,000 year turn to find out if it would work.

though, if this is how the world is with religion keeping everyone on their good behavior, who knows what would happen without it.

Atheist have the benefit of hoping the christian society doesn't decide to go back to beating the crap out of us and setting us on fire and will just stick to trying to keep any of us from gaining high political office and ranking us with the guys that sell drugs to school children.

[Maria]

OKAY so everyone has a different oppinion..
i think the world would be better without science and other people think without religion so why do we even have to choose its not like whatever other people say is going to change ourd minds

[Hazel]

Its called a discussion, Maria. Whether it makes a difference or not, there is intrinsic value in the discussion.