Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 251-300 of 12,463

[Tiffany]

I see your points more and there are valid, I corrected that first statement. My children will be able to make their own decisions but I will inform them they have options to follow whatever they like too. My parents gave me the option if I wanted to be a Jehovah Witness or just follow my own path. I do agree with life making the most of it, not for me its not that bad but for others yes it is that bad and they need religion to believe in. At some points in my life battling depression, I've held on to that belief myself. I can see how my statement sounds like a fear based position but I don't act morally because I'm afraid of going to Hell, I don't believe in Hell nor do I believe in the Bible. The Bible was written by man, and man is flawed so I don't trust the Bible myself, but I understand those who do. I don't blame them for that. I guess I'm still a bit traditional and nowadays it bothers me that people today can't believe a miracle without trying to resort to a scientific method. I think as this world becomes more advanced in science we are losing some of our humanity. I know when I was growing up, and when I did go to church there was a sense of community, respect for elders, and obedience. Yes, it could be said that obedience can come from fear but for me I obeyed because I had hope that I would be able to see my lost loved ones again. Not saying that science is to blame mostly for that loss of humanity because obvs. during september 11th it hadn't been for those images etc. i don't think people all over the world would've been able to resonate sympathy etc. However some of these advancements in science, where do we draw the line? For those who are prolife...that advancement in science was not a good one especially if you're Catholic. I seem to be going all over the place here all I'm saying is that if we all together came to work together and respect the diff. pros/cons that each bring to the table instead of having to chose it seems between a person's faith or mans' science we'd be better off. My point, though I'm all over the place is that both should be respected and appreciated. I don't think people can survive living a life purely of science or one purely of religion. Once again, not trying to offend anyone here. And I thank you Cerebus because I am a bit ignorant of a view outside of my interactions wit the church...may I ask have you always been an atheist or were you once religious?

[for-much-deliberation]

Steven wrote: "We need Science.

I'd rather live in a world without Religion.

Too many people have died over Religion and Religious Differences."

Quite true...

[Tiffany]

Tiffany wrote: "I see your points more and there are valid, I corrected that first statement. My children will be able to make their own decisions but I will inform them they have options to follow whatever they ..."

I meant that the due to the technologically advancement of television, radio etc. that I think people were able to see those images on sept 11th and that def. was good in creating that sense of community, etc. And not saying that people who dont' go to church aren't obedient or have a good moral compass. Look at many priest who say they are holy but are molesting children, etc. But where do we draw the line? I think in the pursuit of trying to answer of of life's questions some scientists take it too far and try to be a god, and when you are trying to be a god you are morally compromised.

[cerebus]

"...may I ask have you always been an atheist or were you once religious?"

You may certainly ask :) I was once religious, including into adulthood. For me it all came down to a realisation that I just didn't believe....it was something that having grown up with I'd never questioned, but when I looked at it and examined it, realised there was nothing there. To borrow a religious expression it was quite a revelation :)

"My point, though I'm all over the place is that both should be respected and appreciated."

To an extent I agree with you, but there is frequently a problem where some people see that respect as meaning those of us without faith cannot question theirs in any way, that religion is in some ways a subject above discussion and questioning. In the same way I think it is acceptable for me to have a (respectful) discussion with someone about (for example) books and to disagree (even passionately disagree, as I would with some who rated Angels & Demons with 5 stars :)), I think it is just as acceptable for me to have the same (respectful) discussion (and disagreement) about their religion (and my lack thereof). I won't call someone stupid for their religious beliefs, but I reserve the right to discuss it with them and tell them where I feel they are wrong. I should clarify I mean this as a discussion, I don't randomly go up to religious people and start arguing with them :)
But yes, I fully respect everyone's right to believe, but I also expect them to respect my right not to believe, and to be open to a discussion on it. I don't live in the US, but I have read and seen reports of how low an opinion a large amount of Americans have of atheists, which from what I've seen seems to stem from a misunderstanding about what it is all about, so I think a discussion (which requires discussing religion) can only be a good thing....

[Patti]

I agree with Lisa completely. Organized religion is flawed and annoying. I hate being lumped in with radical believers because I belong to the same faith as them. We're not all fanatics! I also dislike religious 'leaders'…(cough cough the Pope.) In Catholic School we're basically forced to comply with 'dogma.' I don't know if it's the same in all Christian schools or just my Theology class, but I disagree immensely with some of the beliefs that Catholics are required to follow, like papal infallibility. In my Theology class, free thinking and interpretation is discouraged, and it's disconcerting to see so many of my classmates blindly follow the rules the Church has set. To me, that's not true belief. True belief is something you need to find yourself, without the influence of parents or priests. And whether you choose not to believe or to believe in some higher power, should be up to you. Wow I'm kind of rambling here, but I just needed to get my opinion in this discussion.

[Tiffany]

Cerebus wrote: ""...may I ask have you always been an atheist or were you once religious?"
You may certainly ask :) I was once religious, including into adulthood. For me it all came down to a realisation that I ..."

yes i agree with that statement because there is a stigma along with a judgement attached to those who are atheists and are looked down upon by others, which is in itself wrong...you know it can go both ways, and i always get the sense that if you do talk to many religious people and tell them your beliefs or non beliefs that differ from their's they will shut you out or try to convert you. i once got into it with a church deacon because he told flat out told me gay marriage was an abomination...right next to my gay co-worker. she had the class to stay quiet, i on the other hand, did not. that was quite the work day ill tell you that much ;) and don't you know us americans? we tend we know everything lol ;) *note sarcasm* we could get on the discussion of america but im afraid i might keep you going all night long. i don't think we are the worst country but man even sometimes i put my head down like oh man what are we thinking as a country sometimes...where in the world are you from?

ps.
do you think in your opinion that the majority of atheists become that way due to their experiences with religion? that was why i asked if you had any religious background because many i've come across have had religious backgrounds, including my boyfriend who went to a private Catholic school and got kicked out for..well let's just say they got tired of him asking for proof of the existence of God lol

[Tiffany]

Tiffany wrote: "Cerebus wrote: ""...may I ask have you always been an atheist or were you once religious?"
You may certainly ask :) I was once religious, including into adulthood. For me it all came down to a rea..."

its a closed minded assumption but figured i'd ask your opinion on that theory anyway...

[Tiffany]

Patti wrote: "I agree with Lisa completely. Organized religion is flawed and annoying. I hate being lumped in with radical believers because I belong to the same faith as them. We're not all fanatics! I also dis..."

I missed Lisa's post but thank you for posting that, I agree. I'm more against organized religion. I'm spiritual and I take a little bit of everything into my beliefs. I believe in God but I don't believe in the Bible, and I believe in Heaven, but I don't believe in Hell. Hard to say how to believe in one and not the other but that's my belief. And ramble on Patti! Get it out there because you never know how your words may just help someone else figure out some things.

[cerebus]

"...where in the world are you from?"

I was born and lived in Ireland for 26 years, lived in Australia for the last 12 years....btw, wasn't having a go at Americans, been to the US a few times and enjoyed it each time.....

"do you think in your opinion that the majority of atheists become that way due to their experiences with religion?"

Hard to say really...from people I know it has usually been similar to mine but most often at a much earlier age (often combined with the tooth-fairy, santa claus moments), rather than the awful religious based experience (e.g. school etc).
But much like it is possible to come to religion for many reasons, I think it is possible to leave it for just as many, and I'm not sure if it has ever been studied.

"its a closed minded assumption but figured i'd ask your opinion on that theory anyway... "

Are you saying my opinion is closeminded? :D (only joking :) )

[Tiffany]

Oh Ireland okay, I've never been there before but I hear its nice. I know you weren't having a go at Americans I meant I would keep you going all night by my ranting of the state of my country it is in...we are making progress in some areas but this economy is just atrocious. But every country has their problems I guess, but that's another discussion and whole other topic lol.Oops lol I meant my assumptions were close minded about the linkage of religious background and then turning to atheism ;) and I agree it would be an interesting study. I think the more one is exposed to something as intense as religion its harder not to question it. But I think if people were willing to have a more open discussion about religion/science such as we all have had it would be more beneficial than to say one is better than the other. I know tonight from reading your posts and others I'm going to take some of these viewpoints into perspective with me and open the eyes a little bit. Its around 11:07pm here, work in the morning so I shall bide you goodnight Cerebus, I appreciate having this discussion with you. Def. makes me question the ways I might fix my approach to situations in where I may have another discussion with an atheist or etc. or even dealing with my boyfriend when he goes on rants about religion lol ;) men..can't live with them or without them. ;) Anyway you have a good night, and take care ;)

[Anne]

I was born and raised in Ireland in a very devout catholic family and I tried to raise my children the same way until my seven year old went to confessions and forgot her words, the priest put her out of the church. A couple of years later I had to go to theatre for an operation and asked for the last rites. I was told that as a divorved woman he could not give me them .There and then I decided that if that is the way your God works keep him. I have no religion I believe in God but I attend no group worship my motto in life is try and be as good as you can. It works.

[for-much-deliberation]

Anne wrote: "I was born and raised in Ireland in a very devout catholic family and I tried to raise my children the same way until my seven year old went to confessions and forgot her words, the priest put her ..."

Quite true, Anne, too many focus on religion and not just on, as you put it 'being as good as you can'...

[Lauh - Random Utopias]

I would rather live in a world without religion. Though I'm pretty sure I only have this opinion because most of the religious people I know can't really defend themselves or their religion. And don't understand my arguments.

[Deb]

I was raised to make up my own mind, however one of my primary schools was atheist. I got the living daylights mocked out of me for saying I was agnostic; that I did not know for sure if there was/was not a god and that they did not either.

These days I am a scientist and I maintain that both science and religeons (all of 'em, not only christianity) are human ideas, human constructs and human belief systems.

Most of the Atheists I know in Quensland are athesits because they were tormented in school by strict christianity.

And again - science does not 'prove' anything. ever. It is a system of disproving and collecting evidence that suggests -but leaves open to disproof- that a given conclusion is an accurate reflection of reality. It is not an alternative to religeon, the two do diffrent things.

In my opinion, humanity will always have both.

[Vickie]

I think that people get too caught up in the rules of religion and forget that it is suppose to be a relationship. Also, the human component more often than not makes things go wrong.

[Mira]

These exact two are the main reasons for living itself. You live through your love to the surrounding atmosphere, obligations to your own religion, and pursuit of knowledge and different sciences. I believe religion and science merge in a wonderful harmony as long as we look upon them from the right perspective. As for me, I cannot live in a world where such essential integrated elements are not bound together.

[Deb]

I agree with Mira. I think that historically it is quite clear that all societies do have a merger of both disciplins.

Quite a few people think they would rather live in a world that had science without religion, those people should read more science fiction; there are some pretty nasty ways that society can go when it worships science alone.

[cerebus]

@Ideiosepius & @Mira, I'm afraid I have to disagree that religion is necessary, and that science fiction is a guarantee of what will go wrong without religion. I read *loads* of science fiction, and it covers a wide range where science has caused evils, but also created utopias, which do we choose as the true predictor? The answer is neither, we take both for what they are, fiction. If we want to take lessons from it that's fine, but even as a massive SF fan I would never use it as a crystal ball.
I personally believe humanity is inherently good and that this does not require religion.
Having said that, it does not mean I feel science should be given free reign, I think it does require ethics to be applied, but we do that already with medical studies etc, and it does not require religion in order to be able to make an ethical judgement on these things.

I would also vehemently deny that my position on science is 'worship'....that would imply a faith based position, whereas the whole point of science is it is a testable, evidence-based method. If evidence is presented, and repeated, to disprove a theory, then the theory is modified or replaced accordingly. That is the one thing all religions are specifically set up to not do....they must not waver in the face of evidence, or lack thereof....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I respect everyone's right to their beliefs when it comes to religion, but I reserve the right to discuss it and debtate points I see as incorrect or misleading :)

[for-much-deliberation]

Vickie wrote: "I think that people get too caught up in the rules of religion and forget that it is suppose to be a relationship. Also, the human component more often than not makes things go wrong."

Yes Vickie, too many get caught up in the rules, like you know that thing about being disfellowshiped when disobedient?

[for-much-deliberation]

Cerebus wrote: "@Ideiosepius & @Mira, I'm afraid I have to disagree that religion is necessary, and that science fiction is a guarantee of what will go wrong without religion. I read *loads* of science fiction, an..."

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I respect everyone's right to their beliefs when it comes to religion, but I reserve the right to discuss it and debtate points I see as incorrect or misleading :)"

Cerebus, I totally agree with your closing statements here, but you know sometimes its such that cause further discord? Anyway a very good point it is...

[Jeff]

I'd rather live without either, but that hasn't happened for 10,000 years. It's pretty clear that our behavioral use of scientific knowledge causes more problems for the biosphere of life on earth than anything else. People babble about religion creating violence, that's a load of crap, look at every other animal species; none of them has a religion, but all behave in violent ways. People like to think the human adaptation of our conscious understanding mind is a good thing, but we should really just behave as our senses/feelings dictate (as children do before they are brainwashed by language/"thinking"/education/religion). For some reason people imagine we'll just be able to colonize another planet after WE (cuz it's ONLY homo sapien behavior that is altering the biosphere negatively) METHODICALLY destroy all living organisms' common mother (the unliving processes such as the water cycle, etc.). First of all, we won't have the energy/fuel to do so. Second of all, our physical beings evolved to exist in this planets' environment, and no attempt to colonize another planet will ever succeed. It almost really sucks to have critical thinking skills today cuz if you do you realize life itself is doomed by human greed for it/our conscious fear of death/conflict/change. And that's the point: don't think, ACT based on your senses. All "knowledge" is fear based and truly evil/ineffective, if you define evil as anything against the sustainment of the biosphere of life (not just human life). "Everlasting life" is only possible at the genetic level (genetic reproduction), not as individuals, but humans seem to be willing to pay any cost for a few more seconds of consciousness as individuals, and this method we call civilization is not only destructive to the biosphere, but extremely destructive to the psyche. Instead of allowing individuals with weak genes to die, we waste our time saving that individual life, even though it negatively affects every other individual. The real reason we do this isn't compassion though, it's money, or the abstract idea of debt (owing another living organism your own individual effort is simply ludicrous). We like to think cooperation is good cuz it allows us to dominate the environment and we think it reduces risk/negative consequences, but it doesn't at all. civilization is far more dangerous to the biosphere (and therefore homo sapiens as well) than living like chimpanzees. The mayans were right, or damn close anyway, cuz they mathematically realized the result of population increase in a finite environment. You want proof that civilization will inevitably crumble, either read some history books or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2r.... Knowledge sucks, it's only our behavior that has any direct influence on reality. LIVE & let DIE.

[cerebus]

@Jeff, you're a glass half empty kinda guy I'm guessing?

[Jeff]

@cerebus, not at all. I simply believe that human civilization is the worst thing upon this earth. That glass empty or full metaphor is used simply to show the duality of perspective, it's got nothing to do with reality, only the perception of reality. The fact is the glass is always half full and half empty at the same time.

[Destructo]

Jeff wrote: "People like to think the human adaptation of our conscious understanding mind is a good thing, but we should really just behave as our senses/feelings dictate (as children do before they are brainwashed by language/"thinking"/education/religion)"

You really believe this? Have you ever met a toddler?

[Maja]

Destructo wrote: "Jeff wrote: "People like to think the human adaptation of our conscious understanding mind is a good thing, but we should really just behave as our senses/feelings dictate (as children do before th..."

Jeff, are you saying we should be animals?

[Patti]

Jeff wrote: "Instead of allowing individuals with weak genes to die, we waste our time saving that individual life, even though it negatively affects every other individual. The real reason we do this isn't compassion though, it's money, or the abstract idea of debt (owing another living organism your own individual effort is simply ludicrous)."

Maybe I'm reading into this wrong, but are you saying we should let mentally challenged, diseased, etc. persons die because of weak genes? I agree with some of your points but I just have trouble agreeing with this point.

[Kerri]

neither. Both are important to humanity, and they don't have to fight each other. They can coexist, and even support each other.

[cerebus]

@Kerri, in what way do you see science supporting religion?

[Maja]

Cerebus wrote: "@Kerri, in what way do you see science supporting religion?"

Or the other way around?

[Jeff]

Patti wrote: "Jeff wrote: "Instead of allowing individuals with weak genes to die, we waste our time saving that individual life, even though it negatively affects every other individual. The real reason we do t..."of course you have trouble with it, anyone brought up with the standard of living we enjoy in the US would have trouble with it, but that's life, and if you want LIFE to continue, you gotta overcome trouble.

[Menna]

I want to make a comment on this discussion from month ago but I was reading (Islam Between East and West) which says "There are only three integral views of the world: the religious, the materialistic, and the Islamic"
It's a wonderful and useful book I wish you all read it.

[Antriksh]

That is such an interesting question. I would personally live in a world without religion.

However, there would be absolutely no problem in a world without science either. I am an atheist. If a world was based on religion, with 0% science in it, it would still go on smoothly. People would never know what the other side of the field looks like in the first place. Everything would adapt itself to live with no need for science for aid. There would be no need for medicine for humans.

Religion is based on beliefs. If belief is strong enough with no knowledge of otherwise, everything is possible.

[cerebus]

@Menna, I hope the book has more to say than "There are only three integral views of the world: the religious, the materialistic, and the Islamic"
I am not religious, I am not Islamic, but that does not make me materialistic. That view is as simplistic as George W's "either you're with us, or you're against us".

[Çili]

I would live in a world without religions but not without science.

[Travis]

I don't get that 'religious, materialistic and the Islamic' quote, as Islam is a religion.
So, there are three views 'Religious, materialistic and religious.'?

[Deb]

@Menna: I have my doubts about a book that is described as explaining why Western countrys 'deny' Islam and which contends that education makes people unhappy.

I might read it one day however. Thanks for the recomendation.

[Guayec]

A world without this book would be an improvement, that's for sure. :P

[cerebus]

@Guayec, now there's something we can all get behind fully :D

[Julie]

Without religion, for sure. I can't think of any wars off the top of my head that were a direct result of differing scientific opinions. The question wasn't "would you rather live in a world without science or religion or would you rather have both." If I had to make a choice, it would be an easy one.

[Menna]

@Cerebus, Travis, Sorry I didn't explain the quote .. it means that Islam has both science and religion. Islam as a religion encourage science and thinking .. there is no struggle between them .. So I would rather live in a world with Islam ( religion + science).

[cerebus]

@Menna, thanks for the clarification. Whilst it is certainly true that many of the advances in early science come from the world of Islam (while Europe was in the midst of the dark ages), I do still have difficulty with the basic concept of religion requiring faith, which is totally against the scientific method. In cases where science and Islam conflict, which side are believers expected to come down on? The scientific evidence? Or are they expected to ignore the evidence and rely on faith instead....

[Deb]

Having been born and raised Catholic, I now find that I am an athiest. Once I began to think for myself and understand and learn about science, I found it held answers to all the questions I had about my place on earth.

God and religion were developed over the generations so that people could find comfort when they had no answers for what was going on around them. The sun rose in the morning and set in the evening. How? God does that. Simple answer.


I believe life is random. We can choose to enjoy what time we have on this earth, but when our times comes, it's over. Period. I'm ok with that.

[Kelly]

A world without religion. I wouldn't mourn that loss.

[[deleted user]]

neigther need both but please without exteams

[Maja]

Deb wrote: "Having been born and raised Catholic, I now find that I am an athiest. Once I began to think for myself and understand and learn about science, I found it held answers to all the questions I had a..."

It is like you read my mind! I couldn't agree more!

[Johanna]

I've never been a religious person, but used to be a member of the Evangelic Lutheran church like everyone I knew, until I realized it didn't make any sense. If I found the idea of a god ridiculous, why on Earth would I participate in religious charades and pay the church taxes? It was very easy to leave the church when my husband thought exactly the same.

Next to being an atheist, I'm also a physics teacher, so for me there really is no debate "science vs. religion". They only overlap in history and that's all. Since I left the church I read some Dawkins etc. and for the first time in my life had total clarity that there really is no God and I didn't have to pretend there was. That it was acceptable to think how I did. That feeling of knowing what's real and what's not was/is really empowering. It also made me sad that many people around me were/are still deluded... Especially religious physicists make me scratch my head!

But all this yada yada yada said, I already live in a world without religion. I'm just hoping more of my friends join me - in the end, the rest of the world.

[Amanda]

Hi Nadir, I am a Christian. Just the same, I think it would be better to live in a world without religion, given the choices you laid out. God exists independently of religion anyway. Science helps us achieve our best as humans. Whether we used religion to study God or not, he would make a way to us.


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..."

[Brette]

There is no way to choose between the two. Whether or not you believe in religion or believe in science they are inextricably linked to one another. History would be irrevocably different to the point where there would have been no advancements in technology. Some may believe that science would have been furthered if there had been a lack of oppressive religion, however the opposite is true. Science developed because of those who wished to see another point of view besides that of the 'all-knowing' church. You cannot say there could be a world without one or the other, it is impossible to have the world we have today and take away either science or religion. Faith has just as much power as science.

[Travis]

But, faith and religion are two different things.
You can take away religion and people can still have faith.
Take away faith and you have those christian experts you see on Fox news.

There is an element of faith in science, but it then progresses to the point of proof and faith isn't needed, as you can test the things you have faith in.
Science can then survive without faith, for the most part.

faith is just belief or trust in something. Even atheists have got that.

[Silly]

without religion