Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
how is science, an evidence based method for understanding the world, a religion? And how is religion, a faith based, non-evidence based ideology a science?Guidance and support can be provided without religion.
Science is not a religion. This is a false equivilency that keeps getting spit out.The minute religion provides some concrete proof, then there's a chance they are equal, until then stop telling me your imaginary friend is the equal of something real, based on facts.
the only believe science deals with is if you are bad at math or too lazy to read or research yourself.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I read books when I want to know stuff."careful, some people make that claim about the bible ;)
Hazel wrote: "Its called a discussion, Maria. Whether it makes a difference or not, there is intrinsic value in the discussion."It was a simple question
Hazel discusses better than me, plus she has patience. I get sick of saying the same things over and over. So, while, I'm following, not religiously, though, I'm letting Hazel speak for me, so-to-speak.As to why i continue to follow, the comments can be remarkable. From some of them, it can be inferred there has been NO reading or wikipedia, or googling or college schooling. I won't say who or what, because I believe in civility and free speech. But I also believe in education, and I find myself biting my tongue, in reading this thread, both from laughing in scorn at the imbecility and ignorance (I'm not going to point at anyone) as well as frustration, amusement and admiration for the intelligence behind some of the arguments, including the ones I don't agree with.
I respect having questions, and I respect trying to find answers. I appreciate people trying to understand viewpoints they don't agree with, and yes, I can get overheated and disrespectful, but that goes with the game. (constant disrespect is different). If you are one that can't take the occasional disrespect or ranting, then don't play. However, in these religion threads, my participation in debating tends to fade when the same person is repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating......
Hazel can DO repeating with he same individual. I can't.
Sometimes, I want to make points, though. Sorry.
Maria wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Its called a discussion, Maria. Whether it makes a difference or not, there is intrinsic value in the discussion."It was a simple question"
and it was a simple answer.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Hazel discusses better than me, plus she has patience. I get sick of saying the same things over and over. So, while, I'm following, not religiously, though, I'm letting Hazel speak for me, so-to-s..."oh great, now I have performance anxiety...
: p
Travis wrote: "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..."So tell us what life would be like today, 2012, had there been no religion in the world. Of course it would not be 2012 but apart from that what would life be like.
You should not make any reference to religion since it does not exist.
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "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 peopl..."music would be better, as christian rock would not exist, for a start.
People would be encouraged to take care of the young, sick, poor etc for the good/strengthening of the community/tribe etc rather than to gain a magic reward.
People would still occasionally ignore that and be greedy and evil, but they would have to work harder to come up with an excuse if they didn't want to take responsiblity for their actions or at least be honest about their motivation.
People would be generally more cheerful and well rested as they'd get to sleep in on sundays.
more money and resources would be devoted to science and medicine and people would be healthier, live longer and we'd have jet packs and household robots that look like K-9 from 'Doctor Who'.
(that last one is just a personal hope, based on no hard evidence.)
People would speak of alien encounters and seeing UFOs and be taken seriously.
People would still be jerks, selfish and bad drivers ( there would also be a completely different set of swear words) but there would be a more general view that life is precious, since it's all you get and more focusing on today.
There would still be two towers in New York and Salem would just be known for its nice beaches, pirate museum and candy shops.
There'd be 6 million more people living in germany and the middle east would be a nicer place to visit.
Especially after Disney Land Palestine opens.
Raiders of the Lost Ark would be a very different movie and there'd probably be no 'Hellboy' comic.
Christmas would be the celebration of the solstice, so we might not have trees and most of the hymns, but there would still be a 'Frosty' cartoon.
Would you rather live without your legs or without your arms. Oh gee, having both sure improves your quality of life. Or another one ... Do you still beat your wife/husband/children/grandmother ... getting the point yet?
Actually Micheal, the question is more like would you rather live without your right arm, or without the third arm that is invisible underneath it.You second question makes no sense without context. Is it purposefully trite and pointless?
Michael wrote: "Would you rather live without your legs or without your arms. Oh gee, having both sure improves your quality of life. Or you could say 'would you rather have life saving medicine or an imaginary friend?'
and doesn't the bible contain verses about when it is okay to beat your children or spouse...?
Travis wrote: "Michael wrote: "Would you rather live without your legs or without your arms. Oh gee, having both sure improves your quality of life. Or you could say 'would you rather have life saving medicine ..."
: D
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Hazel discusses better than me, plus she has patience. I get sick of saying the same things over and over. So, while, I'm following, not religiously, though, I'm letting Hazel speak for me, so-to-s..."
Guess my answer is that you don't really want to have a meaningful discussion with me regarding what reading I've done or not done. It is sometimes easier to make assumptions and/or judgements, I suppose.
Still waiting on the evidence I asked for this weekend ....
While waiting, true story, I tried to look into it last night. I found the following article ... which I found fascinating for several reasons. Well, I also found it quite sad. Here it is .... And, interestingly, with regard to Scandinavian countries, low crime rates, and faith, they propose the idea that the low crime rates came first. Some of you might find this interesting. Disturbing and insulting on several levels, but also interesting.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
Guess my answer is that you don't really want to have a meaningful discussion with me regarding what reading I've done or not done. It is sometimes easier to make assumptions and/or judgements, I suppose.
Still waiting on the evidence I asked for this weekend ....
While waiting, true story, I tried to look into it last night. I found the following article ... which I found fascinating for several reasons. Well, I also found it quite sad. Here it is .... And, interestingly, with regard to Scandinavian countries, low crime rates, and faith, they propose the idea that the low crime rates came first. Some of you might find this interesting. Disturbing and insulting on several levels, but also interesting.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
Excellent topic! Personally I do not understand why they can't just exist in harmony. So much we don't know about science and religion. They tend to fill in each other's gaps. I'm a Christian and can't imagine living without any kind of spirituality. Dina Rae
Shannon wrote: "Still waiting on the evidence I asked for this weekend ...."remind me what evidence it was you asked for :)
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Still waiting on the evidence I asked for this weekend ...."
remind me what evidence it was you asked for :)"
Would people think I was repeating myself? :)
Flying cars and talking cats?
What evidence (non-biased) exists that links a religious south (US) with low test scores and poverty?
What evidence (non-biased) exists for believing atheism is the reason Scandinavian countries have low crime rates?
What evidence, speaking of Scandinavian countries, exists to prove said countries are largely atheist? (I know I've heard that before. But, encyclopedias, CultureGrams, etc... list those countries as having high %'s of believers. Confused on that point.)
Of course, I've asked the last two questions before this weekend. For some reason, no one has every supplied any answers.
remind me what evidence it was you asked for :)"
Would people think I was repeating myself? :)
Flying cars and talking cats?
What evidence (non-biased) exists that links a religious south (US) with low test scores and poverty?
What evidence (non-biased) exists for believing atheism is the reason Scandinavian countries have low crime rates?
What evidence, speaking of Scandinavian countries, exists to prove said countries are largely atheist? (I know I've heard that before. But, encyclopedias, CultureGrams, etc... list those countries as having high %'s of believers. Confused on that point.)
Of course, I've asked the last two questions before this weekend. For some reason, no one has every supplied any answers.
correlations occur, and though they don't prove cause and effect, they give strong support to the statement that secularist societies have lower crime rates, and studies of prison populations compared to the population of the country the prison is in show that theists are over represented in prison, and atheists are under-represented in prison, when compared to their percentages within the general population. I posted it previously, months ago, I'm sure during a conversation with you, though my memory may be faulty on that.As for the percentage of people being atehist in scandanavian countries, I have nothing specific to give you at this point, but can draw a comparison to a study done in the UK that showed that though people put that they belonged to a particular religion in a survey, 65% of those who had said they were a member of a religion, when subsequently asked if they were religious, then answered "no".
Also, in some scandanavian countries, everyone is registered automatically as being a member of the state church at birth (except the people who subscribe to a religion different to the state one), whether they attend or not, whether they believe or not. They can be unregistered, but then you can here in the UK too, but I only discovered that recently, as its not a well publicised thing.
I'm not in the best mood for looking for more concrete information for you at the moment, my partners grandmother died yesterday, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not as present as usual.
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?"
I agree w/ you. I would say no to that question. There's a wikipedia page that might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Still waiting on the evidence I asked for this weekend ...."
remind me what evidence it was you asked for :)"
Would people think I was repeating myself? :)
Flyi..."
According to the poll cited in this ppl in Scandinavian countries are fairly non-religious. The high % of religious affiliation is probably b/c a lot of ppl are Christian in name only. In fact, IIRC in general, excluding ex-communist countries, there is indeed a strong correlation btw high percentage of atheist population and high income & high social equality. However correlation doesn't imply causation. I completely agree w/ you that it's very likely that this is the result of the high income & low social inequality in Scandinavian countries and not the other way around. The same might also be true regarding southern US states i.e. poverty & low test score are probably the reason, and not the result, of strong religious affiliation.
Hazel wrote: "correlations occur, and though they don't prove cause and effect, they give strong support to the statement that secularist societies have lower crime rates, and studies of prison populations compa..."Condolences.
Hazel wrote: "correlations occur, and though they don't prove cause and effect, they give strong support to the statement that secularist societies have lower crime rates, and studies of prison populations compa..."
I'm very sorry for your loss, Hazel. I wish you and your family the best during this time.
Regarding evidence .... You're not the only person who has something to say on this issue. So, others can jump in. At some point, you might want to consider what I'm about to write. Now likely isn't the time.
A lot has been said in this thread regarding evidence. People who say they believe in God are, basically, told they shouldn't spend time believing in something they can't prove scientifically. There was a back and forth at one point regarding proof. Did it have to be scientific? It seemed that way for a bit. Then, it wasn't. Proof ... evidence, but not personal experience ... anecdote, etc.... The bar for proof is high. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.
Here's the kicker though .... The same people who propose a high standard for proving God's existence (and sometimes make rather judgmental statements regarding those who believe yet have no proper evidence) have made very definitive statements of their own.
Example ... Scandinavian countries are largely atheist.
Example ... Scandinavian countries have low crime rates because they're largely atheist countries.
Now, for some time, given the definitive nature of the statements, I accepted them as true. Of course, I'd also heard of the low crime rates in these countries.
But, then .... One day I started to look into it. I started to read about those countries.
Man, was I ever shocked!
The evidence before me ... information on the CIA World Fact Book (wasn't sure if that was non-biased information ... so I checked other sources later), CultureGrams, and encyclopedias list high percentages of believers in those countries.
Huh?
I tried to find information on the net. I found a lot of pro-atheist cites that claim these countries are largely atheist, etc.... I attempted to find non-biased sources. There were a few news articles that stated few people in these countries attend church services.
Well, at that point, I started to wonder. Are people confused? Do people believe if attendance at church services is down then atheism is taking root? The man or woman who doesn't attend church must be an atheist? Surely not. I mean, that just doesn't make sense. Does it?
Huh?
Now, I don't remember which country I was reading about, but .... I learned that one country had a state-sponsored religion until something like the year 2000. That blew my mind. I had no idea that was the case. So, regarding that country, I wondered if such a high percentage of believers was due to this fact. Were people registered, period? I just wasn't sure.
I can say this.
Evidence is evidence. Is it not? Either it's appropriate evidence, verifiable evidence, or it's not.
Let's look at the percentage given for UK residents who said they were a member of a religion, 65%. The 2001 census has a higher percentage. It will be interesting to see new data. At any rate, what assumption, if any, can be made regarding the same group stating they were not religious. Holy carp! They must be atheists!
Ah, I don't think so.
At this moment in time, if I were asked if I were a member of a religion, I would likely say I'm a non-denominational Christian. There was a time; however, when I would have said I was a United Methodist. I was baptized and confirmed as such. Shock of all shocks, if I were asked if I were religious, on the same day or two months later, I would have said and would still say no. Does that mean I'm an atheist? Given the fact that I believe in God and pray daily, I'm guessing I'm not an atheist.
Studies can show all sorts of things. It totally and completely depends on how the questions are phrased.
I believe in God. I am a non-denominational Christian and was a United Methodist. But, I am not religious. In my mind and in the mind's of many people I know, "religious" equates with ... attending church regularly, donating money to a church (tithing for some), believing church dogma w/out question, etc.... I don't attend, donate or believe certain points of church dogma. Yet, I still believe and still pray.
In my mind, this is not evidence of ... atheism. Is it seen as such? If it is, we have a serious problem. Assumption not evidence. We'd need more information. Low church attendance, in and of itself, does not prove people no longer believe.
Yet another personal anecdote alert ... My parents, grandparents, several aunts and uncles, most of my cousins, several of my friends, and some of my co-workers do not attend church. Not only do we not attend church regularly, we don't attend and haven't attended in years. But, we believe. Every last one of us. We believe. Some of us read the Bible and other religious books. All of us pray, though not all of us pray daily. If people assumed our lack of attendance at church or the fact that we don't believe we're religious (but believe we're spiritual) meant we didn't believe in God, those people would be sadly mistaken. Their beliefs would be just that. Beliefs. Not evidence.
Further, correlations are not evidence. You're right, Hazel. They do not prove cause and effect. And, strong support is not evidence. (Yes, you gave me the cite for the studies of prison populations. I read it at the time but can't remember all of the points or who did the study. I do question, though, whether or not theists are over-represented and atheists are under-represented. We'd have to iron out what percentages we were looking at, wouldn't we? Hard percentages? Or ... well, they say they're not religious and they don't attend church, so they must be atheists percentages. If well over 80% of Americans claim "membership" in a particular religion and the majority of prisoners in American jails are believers, does that mean believers are over-represented? I think not.
My point ....
Well, my point is two-fold. I don't have scientific evidence to support God's existence. I admit that. I'm the first person to admit that. And, ... I don't fault anyone for asking me why I believe or if I have evidence.
My expectation; however, is for everyone to play by the same rules.
Why would atheists question the proof of believers, set a high standard for evidence, and make claims about certain things (see the above) as if they're true, when they don't have evidence to back their claims?
I find that, frankly, rather curious.
(Xdyj ... thank you for your post and info!)
I'm very sorry for your loss, Hazel. I wish you and your family the best during this time.
Regarding evidence .... You're not the only person who has something to say on this issue. So, others can jump in. At some point, you might want to consider what I'm about to write. Now likely isn't the time.
A lot has been said in this thread regarding evidence. People who say they believe in God are, basically, told they shouldn't spend time believing in something they can't prove scientifically. There was a back and forth at one point regarding proof. Did it have to be scientific? It seemed that way for a bit. Then, it wasn't. Proof ... evidence, but not personal experience ... anecdote, etc.... The bar for proof is high. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.
Here's the kicker though .... The same people who propose a high standard for proving God's existence (and sometimes make rather judgmental statements regarding those who believe yet have no proper evidence) have made very definitive statements of their own.
Example ... Scandinavian countries are largely atheist.
Example ... Scandinavian countries have low crime rates because they're largely atheist countries.
Now, for some time, given the definitive nature of the statements, I accepted them as true. Of course, I'd also heard of the low crime rates in these countries.
But, then .... One day I started to look into it. I started to read about those countries.
Man, was I ever shocked!
The evidence before me ... information on the CIA World Fact Book (wasn't sure if that was non-biased information ... so I checked other sources later), CultureGrams, and encyclopedias list high percentages of believers in those countries.
Huh?
I tried to find information on the net. I found a lot of pro-atheist cites that claim these countries are largely atheist, etc.... I attempted to find non-biased sources. There were a few news articles that stated few people in these countries attend church services.
Well, at that point, I started to wonder. Are people confused? Do people believe if attendance at church services is down then atheism is taking root? The man or woman who doesn't attend church must be an atheist? Surely not. I mean, that just doesn't make sense. Does it?
Huh?
Now, I don't remember which country I was reading about, but .... I learned that one country had a state-sponsored religion until something like the year 2000. That blew my mind. I had no idea that was the case. So, regarding that country, I wondered if such a high percentage of believers was due to this fact. Were people registered, period? I just wasn't sure.
I can say this.
Evidence is evidence. Is it not? Either it's appropriate evidence, verifiable evidence, or it's not.
Let's look at the percentage given for UK residents who said they were a member of a religion, 65%. The 2001 census has a higher percentage. It will be interesting to see new data. At any rate, what assumption, if any, can be made regarding the same group stating they were not religious. Holy carp! They must be atheists!
Ah, I don't think so.
At this moment in time, if I were asked if I were a member of a religion, I would likely say I'm a non-denominational Christian. There was a time; however, when I would have said I was a United Methodist. I was baptized and confirmed as such. Shock of all shocks, if I were asked if I were religious, on the same day or two months later, I would have said and would still say no. Does that mean I'm an atheist? Given the fact that I believe in God and pray daily, I'm guessing I'm not an atheist.
Studies can show all sorts of things. It totally and completely depends on how the questions are phrased.
I believe in God. I am a non-denominational Christian and was a United Methodist. But, I am not religious. In my mind and in the mind's of many people I know, "religious" equates with ... attending church regularly, donating money to a church (tithing for some), believing church dogma w/out question, etc.... I don't attend, donate or believe certain points of church dogma. Yet, I still believe and still pray.
In my mind, this is not evidence of ... atheism. Is it seen as such? If it is, we have a serious problem. Assumption not evidence. We'd need more information. Low church attendance, in and of itself, does not prove people no longer believe.
Yet another personal anecdote alert ... My parents, grandparents, several aunts and uncles, most of my cousins, several of my friends, and some of my co-workers do not attend church. Not only do we not attend church regularly, we don't attend and haven't attended in years. But, we believe. Every last one of us. We believe. Some of us read the Bible and other religious books. All of us pray, though not all of us pray daily. If people assumed our lack of attendance at church or the fact that we don't believe we're religious (but believe we're spiritual) meant we didn't believe in God, those people would be sadly mistaken. Their beliefs would be just that. Beliefs. Not evidence.
Further, correlations are not evidence. You're right, Hazel. They do not prove cause and effect. And, strong support is not evidence. (Yes, you gave me the cite for the studies of prison populations. I read it at the time but can't remember all of the points or who did the study. I do question, though, whether or not theists are over-represented and atheists are under-represented. We'd have to iron out what percentages we were looking at, wouldn't we? Hard percentages? Or ... well, they say they're not religious and they don't attend church, so they must be atheists percentages. If well over 80% of Americans claim "membership" in a particular religion and the majority of prisoners in American jails are believers, does that mean believers are over-represented? I think not.
My point ....
Well, my point is two-fold. I don't have scientific evidence to support God's existence. I admit that. I'm the first person to admit that. And, ... I don't fault anyone for asking me why I believe or if I have evidence.
My expectation; however, is for everyone to play by the same rules.
Why would atheists question the proof of believers, set a high standard for evidence, and make claims about certain things (see the above) as if they're true, when they don't have evidence to back their claims?
I find that, frankly, rather curious.
(Xdyj ... thank you for your post and info!)
Xdyj wrote: "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..."
Just read the information from the cite you listed ....
I wonder what "belief in spirit or life force" means? Could that include people who believe in God as ... Great Spirit, as a higher power, as energy, etc...? Could this percentage include people who believe but see themselves as spiritual vs. religious?
If that's the case, I would not say Scandinavian countries are largely atheist. More than other countries, yes. Largely, no.
I'd need more information, though. (Found the information in that cite interesting, especially the information on over-reporting and under-reporting of some countries.)
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..."
Just read the information from the cite you listed ....
I wonder what "belief in spirit or life force" means? Could that include people who believe in God as ... Great Spirit, as a higher power, as energy, etc...? Could this percentage include people who believe but see themselves as spiritual vs. religious?
If that's the case, I would not say Scandinavian countries are largely atheist. More than other countries, yes. Largely, no.
I'd need more information, though. (Found the information in that cite interesting, especially the information on over-reporting and under-reporting of some countries.)
message 2975:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Apr 24, 2012 11:38PM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
1. Semantics: how do you define being religious? Some religious folk don't think other self-declared religious folk are religious. I have family folk that did not believe in professions of faith unless one went to church, tithed, prayed to God in Jesus's name and read only the Bible, watched only religious Tv, listened only to Christian music, and dropped all friends without this life style. Of course, no swearing, drinking, or immodest clothes.
This is the common American image that comes to mind, mostly, when people say they are religious. Usually, anything less than this creates doubt that a person is really religious or Christian anymore, despite whatever protestations.
In real life, of course, many people who profess Christian faith do nothing to show they have faith other than say they have faith and maybe pray when they are in trouble. To me, this is not only not a real Christian, this is an unexamined life, where the majority of Christians actually are in their 'faith'.
One of the difficulties and confusions of discussing religion is those folks who get embarrassed or defensive because they have always thought of themselves as Christian, but when 'called out', don't want to really examine how little beyond verbally affirming they are Christian that they really are.
The other is folks who think they are believers even though they do nothing to live the Christian faith, while angrily refuting they are unbelievers in anyway. Oh, yes, they believe in God, even though they dress immodestly, have unmarried sex, drink, smoke, don't attend church or pray or tithe or turn the other cheek.
These comments in these threads keep covering the same ground with the same 'facts'. It is about how the question is framed and what the definitions of 'believing' are. The comments are sliding all over because our definitions keep moving to suit the argument.
The Christian commentators here, if they were in the same room, would not approve of each other as demonstrating Christian commitment.
Many Christian majority countries have a Christian population that never performs any Christian rites except baptism and funerals, with nothing in between. My fundy family would not consider them Christian in any shape or form. My fundy family also would sneer at believers who do not live the life of a Christian as defined by 1950's American churches.
As an atheist, I can't buy a person as a Christian unless they follow the fundy life style. The rest who say they believe in god but don't follow the rules of any faith are standing on a different ground from fundamentalists, but many commonly use Christian statements to prove their arguments of faith while not actually being a follower of Christian attributes in any real life demonstration of faith.
Statements like 'I believe in God because I believe in parts of the bible' are intellectually dishonest. In my opinion this is the real state of faith around the world, whatever the Religious Organization. I use the Christians simply as an example.
Statements like 'I believe in god but no organized religion' is I think where most people are today in belief. Despite all of the arguments from this group, it appears from the previous 7,000+ comments it boils down to 'I feel god even if there is no evidence.'
Atheists need more than 'I feel god'.
What does it matter if the whole entire world says they believe in god, if almost no one does anything except check the box if asked and pray when they are in trouble? As far as I'm concerned, the world in reality is mostly agnostic, not really religious, just intellectually dishonest.
"The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing." -Socrates
Do you feel god, Shannon? And that's enough for you? Your wisdom?
yes i agree on the balance factor, no extremes. But what if there was a world where there was no star wars...where would we be culturally??
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Do you feel god, Shannon? And that's enough for you? Your wisdom?"
Yikes, ATCM.
Actually, in my opinion, wisdom is knowing we don't have all the answers and respecting the right of people to search for and attempt to find their own answers.
Honesty along the way also helps a great deal.
Yikes, ATCM.
Actually, in my opinion, wisdom is knowing we don't have all the answers and respecting the right of people to search for and attempt to find their own answers.
Honesty along the way also helps a great deal.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: ": D" Shannon
I am pretty sure without religion ALL this will still happen and without science the wars, land taking, genocide, racial wars etc will still go on, but without all the weapons there are now, maybe back to stick, swords and whatever else they used. Regardless there will always be bias opion(race, colour, creed) greed, dictatorship and people trying to find where they fit in. Let's get rid of both and all you stated will still go on, they will find something else to make war over! Personally I would prefer science over religion any day, whatever way the human race was created, I think it is what we do with the life, that we have been given that is important. And around we go!! :)
Then again if we get back on track and make our choice of answer solely on the book that brought up this debate, remembering that the Catholicisum depicted in this fictional book is of by our time and standard fanatical, all other things aside(hard is it may be for some), religion or science. It's a choice of who we are and where we came from, there is no wrong or right answer, each to their own, how about when I die, science will bring me back to life and I can tell you if there is a god or if I had a roast with the devil himself!! Lol...................
Sim wrote: "Then again if we get back on track and make our choice of answer solely on the book that brought up this debate, remembering that the Catholicisum depicted in this fictional book is of by our time..."What on earth makes you think this conversation is "off track". This will be the 3100th post if we still just giving opinions based only on the book's premise, boring. This is a very natural "evolution" of the original post.
What on earth makes me think this is off track, is that a religious pun and then we have evolution of the original post, scientifically speaking. Are you fence sitting? I can't quite figure it out . I quite enjoy this debate. Never did I state it was boring you came to that conclusion about my post all by yourself, and because there is 3100 posts it is quite hard to grasp an opinion solely on the typed text that people have posted for the last 4yrs. ie:off track. It is very educational to read others opinions. Not pass judgment on them.
Oh I must have misunderstood you I thought you were suggesting we get back to discussing with in the framework of the book, the book was enjoyable but not some three thousand posts worth of discussion good (that where the boring came in).Nope definitely not a fence sitter.
Travis wrote: "cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "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 grou..."It's this bit that you have got wrong.....
People would be encouraged to take care of the young, sick, poor etc for the good/strengthening of the community/tribe etc rather than to gain a magic reward.
It would be every one for thenselves 'the fittest win'.
The reason the working class christian person will sit on a checkout at Tesco for tewnty five years earning peanuts while the gap between the rich and poor gets bigger, is because the christian believes that there is more than just this life.
If there was no religion and we all thought we had just a few years on this rock at the centre of the universe and then nothing, people would want the best for thenselves and their family for the short years that they had. To achive this governments could not waste money on the old or the sick or the disabled or on benefits, it would be survival of the fittest.
How can I be wrong in a made up scenario?and why do you keep throwing around 'survival of the fittest', when I'm discussing atheists?
Are we comparing atheists to a pride of lions?
survival of the fittest would, like in this world, be how things were originally established in primitive cultures, but as we progressed, that would change.
Much like how christians have stopped paying attention to so much of the bible.
'not want to waste time on the old and the sick'...so, that'll be a big difference from this world.
(insert sarcastic emoticon here)
and again, we are informed that the bible that is all that is keeping you from going on a rampage and yet, I the atheist just act like a nice guy for the heck of it.
so all this selfish evil you are imagining must be done by the hordes of ex-christians.
Today 'survival of the fittest' is the rich against the poor. This year alone in the UK, you can see how the less well off are made to pay for the mistakes of the rich. And if government had it all it's own way with no intervention from the church etc. the less well off would be hit even harder.
Imagine a world with no morals, only laws; that’s what you would have if religion was taken out of the equation.
Maria wrote: "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 p..."
It's a loaded question to give atheists a platform to have a poke at religion.
Maybe a better question would have been science or art.
I hate breaking my word, but cs, the tories in charge here in the UK are trying to promote religion, the very rich people who are fucking over the poor are the religious ones. Said what I wanted, back to ignoring you.
religion has a monopoly on morals? morals started as rules to keep the tribe safe and healthy, otherwise those small groups were all dead. They had to work together. It was just easier to make up a volcano god or monster. That way the priests and prophets got to be the guys in charge.
The church invented morals so they could be the guys running things. They took those rules, added a bunch more that helped them keep the masses under control and then were told by the man in the sky that they were his favorites and could do whatever they wanted to the unbelievers and a good portion of the believers as well.
Imagine a world with no morals...easy, it's the ones that believe whatever they are doing is right because god told them to.
Those people will screw you over faster than any group on the planet.
I have to disagree with something you've said, Travis, the church did not invent morals (though I'm reasonably certain that you didn't intend to imply that they did, I'm addressing what you wrote though), morals exist without them, but the church, and religion, have waylaid morals for their own ends, and though the bible, and such books, include some good morals, the fact that they're peppered among very immoral things, means that the line between the two blurs.The main question with morals from religion is "does god say to do it because its moral? Or is it moral because god says so?" If the first, that means that morality is independent of god, and of religion, and god/religion is simply guiding people to their innate better natures, if the latter, then its utterly immoral, as if god sent a messenger tomorrow to say that rape and murder is morally correct, then its ok to do both, because god says its ok.
Travis wrote: "religion has a monopoly on morals? morals started as rules to keep the tribe safe and healthy, otherwise those small groups were all dead. They had to work together. It was just easier to make up..."
Morals are the distinction between right and wrong. We use the word ' boundaries' a lot now, which are guidelines for others to follow. A teenager needs boundries and should know the consequence if he over steps them. Because of the PC world we now live in there are very little boundries left for some teenagers.
Morals (whats right and wrong) have derived from religion, in a world without religion it's hard to see where they would have come from.
The survival of the fittest (as in rich and poor); the rich have a seperate set of morals because they make the rules.
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "religion has a monopoly on morals? morals started as rules to keep the tribe safe and healthy, otherwise those small groups were all dead. They had to work together. It was just ..."
Could you actually reply to what I wrote, rather than using a quote from me to launch into another blather about 'survival of the fittest'?
It would be easier to have this discussion.
Travis wrote: "cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "religion has a monopoly on morals? morals started as rules to keep the tribe safe and healthy, otherwise those small groups were all dead. They had to work together. It ..."
I did reply to it, I said Morals (whats right and wrong) have derived from religion. There are more religious people in the world than non religious so i guess yous statement "religion has a monopoly on morals" is correct.
God does not say anything; unless you believe he wrote the ten commandments then I guess those are his morals and they seem OK to me.
If god sent a messenger tomorrow and you believed the messenger was from god then you would believe in god. But you may want to question his morals if he said rape and murder is morally correct.
Don't forget that he has already sent one messenger and we are following his message.
No, you didn't. you skipped over a big chunk and starting in on the 'survival of the fittest' bit and repeated that there can be no morals without religion.Except that I don't talk about 'survival of the fittest' and explained how morals most likely preceded the invention of religion.
and if this is the world where you follow the message, how about you guys give the atheists our 2,000 year turn, as we can't do much worse.
Most atheists seem to have the same type of morals as anyone else so I guess a bit of religion has rubbed of on you.If you think morals most likely preceded the invention of religion, then maybe the word 'morals' was given to what was already built into humans when god made us and is what sets them apart from animals.
cs wrote: "Most atheists seem to have the same type of morals as anyone else so I guess a bit of religion has rubbed of on you.If you think morals most likely preceded the invention of religion, then mayb..."
Your argument sounds mildly Eurocentric to me. Certain eastern religions, like Buddhism & certain forms of Taoism, do not have a concept of God similar to those in Christianity and Islam, and do not treat their canons as divinely inspired text. Confucianism has been a bases of morality for east Asia (China, Korea, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Japan) for nearly 2000 years, yet it is completely secular with hardly any reference to personal God or anything supernatural in general. Many polls say 60%-70% Japanese identify themselves as atheists or agnostics since 1980s yet they are still doing pretty well wrt human rights & social equality.
And what does being PC (i.e. do not verbally endorse racism, sexism etc.) have to do with "boundaries for teenagers"? And what exactly do you mean by "crossing the boundary"?
cs wrote: "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."
Well for the purpose of this discussion let's clarify our terms then. I use the term 'survival of the fittest' in purely biological evolutionary terms, as do most atheists I know. If an atheist uses the term, it is disingenuous of you to assume that they mean it in any other way....I would suggest you clarify with them at that point if they mean it in evolutionary terms, or societal.
The point of my comment was that simply because someone agrees that 'survival of the fittest' is something which happens in evolutionary biology, and that evolutionary biology has overwhelming scientific evidence to support it, does not mean that we then think that the concept is immediately sacrosanct and therefore applicable to, or desirable in, other fields
cs wrote: "Most atheists seem to have the same type of morals as anyone else so I guess a bit of religion has rubbed of on you.If you think morals most likely preceded the invention of religion, then mayb..."
or we had those rules and behaviors in place when someone made up religion, so maybe our goodness rubbed off on the god inventors.
atheists are just able to tap into that goodness and act that way without needing to be threatened or bribed and that's what sets us apart from those who believe in the man in the sky.
Interestingly, making overgeneralizations and being judgmental are common to both. Neither are set apart when it comes to that.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
As for the question, in my opinion both are needed. Science is needed because it helps to evolve. Religion is needed to guide and to console those in need of guidance and support...