Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,151-3,200 of 12,463

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "The reality of the event is not necessarily the issue, it is the true cause that is elusive."

Gary ... You had asked, "Gary wrote: "One thing I would ask though is simply 'are you ope..."

I realize I'm vearing off from the religion topic, but I want to reiterate: I've had a telepathic moment or two that were HUGE, and lots of minor maybe coincidences....but definitely two of my experiences were unmistakable and witnessed. Like you, started with overwhelming creepy skin, hair standing up, sense of something wrong.

And I'm not making fun here, but my CAT appeared to have some of this too, by showing up at the door whatever time I was coming home. (husband, friend verified, and no, I was usually ten minutes away so how could he hear my car).

But - never did any god speak, never. No advice, no 'you're welcome in advance', nothing.

[Drew]

Shannon, I would never laugh at you for having such a special ability. I very much believe in the possibility of psychic abilities. It sounds a whole hell of a lot more reasonable than saying it has something to do with a god. Scientists have been studying these phenomena for years, no they may not be able to prove it at this time but it also took many years to prove that the Earth was indeed round too. Now, you said you know there are things that exist that can't be explained, and I WOULD add to that the word "yet".

[Travis]

As we have yet to learn everything about how the brain is wired and worked, psychic phenomenon fall into that grey area that science has only some theories and guesswork.

I'm in the camp that these telepathic flashes may be our brains developing and evolving. It could be the early steps of what we'll be like in the future or just stuff come floating up from the dark recesses of the mind when wires get crossed.
Or I just read too many X-men comics.

Either way, it still seems more likely to be science rather than the voice of the almighty.

[Drew]

Travis wrote: "As we have yet to learn everything about how the brain is wired and worked, psychic phenomenon fall into that grey area that science has only some theories and guesswork.

I'm in the camp that thes..."

I very much agree with you Travis.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Travis wrote: "As we have yet to learn everything about how the brain is wired and worked, psychic phenomenon fall into that grey area that science has only some theories and guesswork.

I'm in the camp that thes..."

Ooh, just flashed on Wolverine.......

[Jennifer]

I would rather live in a world where Science and Religion co-exist and mingle freely. I myself identify as a Christian, although; I believe in science (evolution) and wonder if God's creationism hasn't been merely lost in translation. I digress that is another topic all together.

Religion would be my pick if I really had to I would rather live in a world with religion. I have run the gambit of being with regards to study. Agnostic, Semi-Atheistic, Pagan (curious), Free Wheeling hippie (i.e.-Bihai and Unitarian), but I finally decided to go back to my roots. I was raised Episcopalian and decided I needed to learn my Christian Bible as an adult. Once I realized what I had been seeking was Jesus (the messiah) I finally submitted to becoming a Christian. I think any religion that feeds your soul is where you need to be. This isn't an ad for Christianity it in fact is more of an Ad to seek religion and see if it is for you. I now attend a non-denominational church that classifies itself as seeker friendly. Religion despite the wars it has spurned is needed. It not only teaches morals and defines morality, it governs, safeguards humanity, and above all lends hope to a ever failing society. It shows us what love is and teaches us how to love. I am better because of religion and maybe as a society we benefit from science but, it doesn't sit in our souls and show us how to live. It merely explains how we exist and without the why it means nothing!

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Jennifer wrote: "I would rather live in a world where Science and Religion co-exist and mingle freely. I myself identify as a Christian, although; I believe in science (evolution) and wonder if God's creationism ha..."

I don't want to be nor do I mean any disrespectful-ness - I can be harsh sometimes, sorry in advance, but why can't these excellent attributes be nourished and nurtured by your own better nature and wisdom? Why do you have to go to a church and be told what goodness you need to practice? Wouldn't it be more worthy and edifying and maturing if you relied on yourself and your own inner strengths? Wouldn't you be more competent and self-respecting if you thoughtfully examined your own self and decided what kind of person you wanted to be, instead of relying on some guru or grey-beard man espousing wisdom he's deciding that's good for you? There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with your own sense of what is the best.

[Drew]

Jennifer wrote: "I would rather live in a world where Science and Religion co-exist and mingle freely. I myself identify as a Christian, although; I believe in science (evolution) and wonder if God's creationism ha..."

...and once again religion has taken us backwards.

[Jennifer]

Good question I like theology and study religion. I believe that man truly needs a higher power. If you look at AA meetings which are 12 steps for Alcoholics the first thing you are asked to do is to turn yourself over to a higher power (doesn't have to be Christian) just a higher power. It makes people accountable to something bigger than themselves. When we all start to worship our own intuition we feed the ID, Ego, and Super ego if you are familiar with Freud. I agree that most people don't need to jump on some bandwagon. I am a highly educated woman who denied the existence of GOD, a higher power, or the need for it for most of my adult life. I will say once the unimaginable awesomeness of god shows you your errors you no longer look at logic. You just believe and instead of studying theology I finally was able to become a seeker and for me find Christ. The entire world before I found meaning to it was useless, and even though yes I believe I was a good person, I was not living to my fullest. I was too obsessed with me, and when you are engulfed in selfishness for too long it creates a environment of self preservation and with that your inner humanity starts to diminish. I truly believe we need religion I love when people differ in opinion. I love open minded discussion but, I have learned one very important thing from becoming a Christian most people who do not have a religion of some sort condemn all people who do as pious idiots and are not themselves very open minded. That is so curious.

[Drew]

Jennifer wrote: "Good question I like theology and study religion. I believe that man truly needs a higher power. If you look at AA meetings which are 12 steps for Alcoholics the first thing you are asked to do is ..."

...and again.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Jennifer wrote: "Good question I like theology and study religion. I believe that man truly needs a higher power. If you look at AA meetings which are 12 steps for Alcoholics the first thing you are asked to do is ..."

I find it curious that decency, goodness, morality is something you can't define appropriately yourself or hang onto day by day despite your intelligence and education. You still evidently need a god and church ( though only a minister will tell you what he heard god say to you how to raise your kids, to have sex or not, who to date or how much to drink or not, whether to swear or not, where your hem should be, what songs to sing) and punish you when you need it for transgressing your church's morality as defined by the men running the church and being so kind to tell you that you should surrender your will and freedom to God's authority because of your weak vessel.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Meher wrote: "Religion is essential and so is science. I think that we should quit saying wich is better and start appreciating both"

Not on your sayso, lord Meher.

[[deleted user]]

R.C. wrote: "The 5% success rate of AA is no better than people quitting without any higher power mumbo jumbo. "

What evidence do you have, R.C., to back this claim?

When believers write about their belief on this thread, people write back and say there is no evidence for God, a Higher Power, etc.... The truth is we don't have scientific evidence. Agreed.

However, I'm starting to find that people who argue that believers shouldn't have faith due to lack of evidence sometimes make claims of their own, without evidence or with sketchy "evidence" ... definitely using the term "evidence" loosely.

Now, I just tried to look into the success rate of AA programs.

I found the following ...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/...

Found the article and information within it to be fascinating!

Now, if one has a bias and, dare I say it, cherry picks, s/he could come away from reading that article believing your claim.

However, if one reads the entire article, without bias, one would find problems with your claim.

Just putting that out there ...

[John]

Shannon wrote: "I think we should be careful of making over-generalizations.

[...]

Not all Christians are Catholics, obviously. In addition, while I know the Catholic church and the pope make the statements and take the positions mentioned in your links, not all Christian denominations take the same stance ... with regard to safe sex, etc...."

I agree, and I tried to express that by saying that I mean those from the Church (numerous examples) or the "mainstream" (as in "City of Cranston" or the story with Damon Fowler, Bastroph High School in Louisiana and the following ostracizing through the people of the city):
my actual argument was that Christian Morals are not a "benefit" to our society, at least not if the Believers orientate themselves on the teachings of the christian mainstream or the church instead of their own conscience.

I fully agree that Christians can and usually are moral. But as soon as organized religion or a big group of believers comes into play, things get complicated.

[Drew]

Shannon wrote: "R.C. wrote: "The 5% success rate of AA is no better than people quitting without any higher power mumbo jumbo. "

What evidence do you have, R.C., to back this claim?

When believers write about th..."

The thing is Shannon, that when we make a claim it isn't based off of faith with no hope of proof, it is based off of studies that scientists are actually doing.

[Jennifer]

Johndoe: I would agree that life is complicated and any group (government or religion) has it's pitfalls. I am not saying religion is for everyone but, it is for me.

Shannon the article you linked was very interesting...(Addiction specialists cite numbers closer to 8% to 12% for sobriety by members after the first year. Even Dr. Drew Pinsky of "Celebrity Rehab" acknowledged that Sheen's statement had some cred. "He's got a point," Pinsky said to TMZ recently. "Their success rates aren't that great. But the fact is, it does work when people do it.")

I think that last sentence is the point when you work it, it works. For the rest of the people who suffer or become sober without it that's great too.

I believe in GOD he is not fake or imaginary to me despite what others think about faith. Faith is innate to humans since the dawn of time every society has believed in a higher power. Why is it only now in our modern society when we know so much about the universe that we can explain. And might I add so much we still can not. Do we choose not to (as a majority of these online posters) even allow to contend that there could be a GOD a creator. When people have a near death experience a study found

"A divine being was seen by (75%) of those in the atheist category. This high percentage may reflect the possibility that these atheists, in general, are "getting what they need." The same percentage of Christian and non-Christian NDErs (63%) saw a divine being. This suggests that a NDEr doesn't have to be a Christian to see God."

http://www.near-death.com/experiences...

I see that the majority of the anti-religious argument is the same as Bertrad Russell the famous atheist argument "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

But he still contends "I would never die for my beliefs because they may be wrong" which showed great humility.

He also stated that "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless"

and even he is misguided when it comes to knowledge of Christianity and the bible. "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

In the Christian bible there are three intelligent truths.

(1) God is a god of reason "Come now and let us reason together" Isaiah 1:18

(2) God created the human mind "Then God said' Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness..." Genesis 1:31a in the original Latin translation imago dai

(3) You can love god with your mind. "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength and all your mind" Luke 10:27

It is commanded by god to, learn ass much knowledge as possible. "Give yourself to disciplined instruction; open your ears to tested knowledge." Proverbs 23:12

"Through knowledge [the rooms of a house] are filled with all sorts of precious riches and valuables. A wise man is mightier than a strong man, a man of knowledge is more powerful than a strong man." Proverbs 24:4-5

"Work hard and cheerfully at whatever you do, as though you were working for the lord rather than for people." Colossians 3:23

Learn as much wisdom as knowledge.

"Study this book of the Law continually. Meditate on it day and night so you may be sure to obey all that is written in it. Only then will you succeed." Joshua 1:8

"Teach us to make the most of our time so that we may grow in wisdom." Psalm 90:12

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

That sums up what I was trying to do and so with that I am now leaving this thread.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Might want to take a look at ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02... It was satire ...."

Oh excellent. Well done that woman!

Sometimes US satire gets me hook line and sinker, mainly because of the amount of times something like that turns out to be real. (E.g. the Discovery Institute)

Shannon wrote: "Not all Christians are Catholics, obviously. In addition, while I know the Catholic church and the pope make the statements...."

Yes, and not all Catholic or other Christian moral positions are bad.

You will notice that many secular or atheist people will point out the shortcomings of religion, not necessarily religious people. While theists will excuse the ideology and blame any shortcomings on the individual.

Religion (in whatever flavour) generally demands an adherence to a certain idea, ideology or dogma. The problem with this is that it does so while denying analysis or critique. This means that often people of otherwise good morals are obliged to accept immoral ideas simply because that idea is a given part of scripture.

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steve Weinberg.

Shannon wrote: "My answer was no. No, I'm not open to the concept that the feeling may not have been real. Is the true cause elusive? Yes. As I also stated, I don't know the how's and why's of it."

My apologies Shannon, my wording was clumsy and my meaning was lost. I was actually referring to the idea that it was a feeling from God or some other supernatural source was real. If you accept that you don't know the true cause and it may or may not be something not known to modern science then that is what I was meant to be asking.

Shannon wrote: "Atheists have said, in past posts, that such things do not exist. Science can't prove their existence. So, they don't exist."

Well remember that because an atheist said it, does not mean that that idea is part of atheist dogma, because the whole point is that an atheist does not accept dogma.

Also are you sure that is what was actually said? Sometimes theists believe that is what was said because they don't 'get' the point made.

For example, I would not say that "God does not exist", what I would say that the hypothesis of god existing is highly improbable, there is no compelling evidence to support the hypothesis and it is commonly rendered untestable by the evasive nature of the hypothesis.

Just the same that Zeus is unlikely, as is Thor, as is Akhenaten, as is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as is Gozer the Gozerian. I do not spend time 'denying' that any of them exist, I just see that each hypothesis has no real evidence and yet demands major assumptions to be made, and therefore I discount them as reasonable.

Shannon wrote: "As always, live and let live. This is my experience. But, I recognize and respect the fact that it's not everyone's experience."

A fine sentiment, but one that is entirely absent from a theological setting. It is fine to say "hey I don't know" but when you put a label on it like 'god' or 'telepathy' you are making a statement on the fact that you do know what it is, and that means that you are not keeping an open mind on the idea.

Your stated sentiments of "some things are not [yet] explained" and being open minded on ideas are both skeptical/atheistic viewpoints, however you then turn that on its head by implying that if science cannot yet explain it then it must be god/supernatural. That is not saying things are inexplicable, its trying to state the explanation that they are supernatural.

[Gary]

Jennifer wrote: "I needed to learn my Christian Bible as an adult."

So I assume you to have actually read the bible? How can you then equate the statement "[Religion] not only teaches morals and defines morality, it governs, safeguards humanity, and above all lends hope to a ever failing society." with Exodus 12:12, Deuteronomy 20:13-14, 22:23-24, 2 Kings 2:23-24, 2 Thessaloinans 2:11-12, Hebrews 9:22? Not to mention the rest of the bible.

Jennifer wrote: "It shows us what love is and teaches us how to love."

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." - 13:24 Proverbs

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." - 19:18 Proverbs

I guess my daughter is happy that I don't derive my morals from biblical example.

Especially since Lot, the only apparently 'righteous' person in Sodom, volunteered his own daughters to be raped by a mob, rather than letting them touch the angels who had visited him.

Jennifer wrote: "I am better because of religion"

It is strange that it seems that we have a lot of theists that believe they would be evil without their religion while the atheists would rather be moral for morality's sake.

Jennifer wrote: "and maybe as a society we benefit from science"

Maybe? Well just remember that religion benefits from science. Language is a result of 'science', writing and paper is a result of 'science'. The ideas contained within the bible are the result of early minds looking at the world around them and attempting to comprehend it in a manner that made logical sense. That is science. It only ceases to be science when you discard the pursuit of knowledge for the dead end of dogma.

Jennifer wrote: "it doesn't sit in our souls and show us how to live."

Neither does religion in the modern secular west very much and *tongue in cheek* thank god it doesn't!

Murdering people over what they choose to say, who they choose to love, keeping and marking slaves, taking the enemies of Jesus before him and slaying them...

Ok perhaps some of that last is going on around the world.

Jennifer wrote: "It merely explains how we exist and without the why it means nothing!"

When has Religion explained "Why" we exist? Beyond the idea that we exist because god created us to worship him, which is frankly the actions of a megalomaniac. Most religious people claim that the reason "why" we exist is to serve in gods 'plan' or to obey god. That isn't an answer to "Why". "Why" did he want and need to do such a thing. "Why" did he then give us free will to choose to disobey him? "Why" did he create the opportunity to disobey him? "Why" didn't he see disobedience coming? "Why" punish the children of those who disobeyed for the crimes of their parents.

If the answer to any of that involves God not revealing his plan, or working in mysterious ways, then religion has no more idea of "Why" than anyone, and blatantly is disinterested in the "How".

[Hazel]

Jennifer wrote: "That sums up what I was trying to do and so with that I am now leaving this thread"

translation: I'm going away and won't look at any post that may logically refute my statements, thus showing I'm not interested in actual discussion, and as such I render all I have said moot. Jennifer = may as well not have posted in the first place, as is not willing to participate in discussion, all she has written can be ignored.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "However, I'm starting to find that people who argue that believers shouldn't have faith due to lack of evidence"

No ones arguing that because it is nonsensical. If you have 'Faith' then by definition you are not requiring evidence. If you require 'evidence' of any kind, then you are not practising Faith, you are practising a form of 'science'. 'Evidence' here includes the testimony of others, scripture, strange happenings, the authority of Church or parents. etc.

What 'we' are saying is that the conclusions you derive from the evidence are no more likely than hundreds of competing explanations, while there are explanations that have testable and workable models.

You cannot "prove" God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean he does. There is an unimaginably huge list of things we could not prove do not exist, a lot of them mutually exclusive and some a lot more probable.

Faith is the antithesis of reason, because it presupposes an answer and then searches for corroborating evidence while at the same time trying to claim that not requiring said evidence is somehow a virtue rather than a combination of foolishness and vanity.

Certainly some of the evidence presented here is not of great quality, but only some of it, and again that question of quality is relative. For example the 5% quoted may not be shared in all studies and perhaps does not take into account the known placebo effect. However, people here are making statements based on pure faith and refusing to offer any corroboration because they feel that faith somehow trumps reason. On the otherside you have the net result of the learning of myriads of humans over tens of thousands of years and expecting that to be diluted to a pithy proof in the couple of lines on a web debate.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The atheist point is that atheism is not claiming the existence of anything at all. Including the intrinsic reality of this world. However, they would rather accept the current model and then discard it for a better one, in an ongoing search for truth, rather than choosing a preferred answer and claiming it to be true because we want it to be.

[cHriS]

Johndoe wrote: "You still did not tell me how many people are dying and why they are not allowed to use condoms.

Yes, I did. If you choose not to read the sources then it's your problem, not mine.

Regarding the ..."

No you are way off the mark and still providing links.

In message 3247 you made a sweeping statement ‘Like Witch Hunts, Crusades, Inquisition, suppression of women, torturing and/or killing scientists if they went contrary to the Church, forcing rape victims to marry their rapist as the rapists "punishment", condemning homosexuality, people dying of Aids because they are not allowed to use condoms, the church protecting paedophiles in their ranks…..

I questioned you about just one of your examples, ‘aids because they are not allowed to use condoms’.

You made the statement you should know the figures and be able to supply the answers without just giving links.

1. Is that three or three million people dying of aids because they are not allowed to use condoms?

2. Are they all Catholic? Or are non Catholics dying of aids as well.

3. Is it only Catholics that are dying?

4. Why are they not allowed to use condoms? Or are you only referring to the Catholics that done use condoms. If they don’t use them that is their choice.

If you are making a statement like that then give the numbers to go with it. Don’t ask others to look then up on your behalf.

I don’t think you can give real numbers.

[Gary]

Meher wrote: "Religion is essential and so is science. I think that we should quit saying wich is better and start appreciating both"

I read this and thought of an amusing concept. As I have said before 'science' isn't our current understanding of the universe with Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. Science is the search for knowledge.

Many mythologies have been created to try to explain the world around us, from the watching of the stars to understanding the turning of the seasons, to the explaining of where all of what we experience came from and why things happen in certain ways.

Religions are just the fossils of now extinct scientific ideas...

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I don’t think you can give real numbers. "

I'll give you a number. 1. Because if even one person dies from AIDs because the Catholic church bans condoms for their followers then that is a tragedy.

I note that you are very fond of picking the most arbitrary part of someones point and obsess about it in an attempt to try to pull someones rational down like a game of Jenga, yet you refuse to answer substantive points made against your unfounded claims.

Provide proof that religion is the source of morality.

Use links if you wish, use accurate numbers or round to the nearest thousand. Even use scripture as a source as long as you accept that if you use it as a source then it can also be used against your point.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "can you answer Johndoe's question, without links. "

Which question of JohnDoe's? I believe I was agreeing with him.

Further to the point, what is this aversion to links? You have ask..."

Johndoe said "people dying of Aids because they are not allowed to use condoms".

Giving me links to wiki so that I can try and work out what he ment by that is not on. All he needs to do is elaborate and give numbers, which he does not seem able to do.

He wrote that for effect, nothing else. He wants the reader to read into that statement, that the Pope has stopped all Africans from using condoms and unlike other people in other countries, Africans are somehow less intelligent with regard to their religion.

[Drew]

Jennifer wrote: "Johndoe: I would agree that life is complicated and any group (government or religion) has it's pitfalls. I am not saying religion is for everyone but, it is for me.

Shannon the article you linke..."

If I said that unicorns and fairies are real, you'd say "show me the proof", but when I ask you to show me proof of your imaginary sky fairy you say "you must have faith". You are all hypocrites!!!

[Gary]

cs wrote: "He wrote that for effect, nothing else. He wants the reader to read into that statement, that the Pope has stopped all Africans from using condoms and unlike other people in other countries, Africans are somehow less intelligent with regard to their religion."

Ah, clever, trying to imply that the poster is racist for disputing your point.

No not Africans, Catholics. By Catholic tradition the Pope is the undisputed head of the Church, so when he bans the use of condoms for anyone who is part of the Catholic Church he is using the belief that he is the appointed infallible representative of god to put people in the position of choosing between their religion and their health.

Now this problem is certainly greater in the third world, as the average African is not stupid, but they do have lack of access to modern education, media and opposing viewpoints.

To turn that on its head, are you racist for being unable to tell me the exact number of Jews and Homosexuals that died in the Holocaust. If you cannot elaborate then by your reasoning you are claiming it did not happen or is somehow irrelevant. The fact that the atrocity occurred is undisputed by most sane people, but the true numbers are obscured by the lack of precise records and the deliberate misinformation given.

Oh by the way.

Please provide proof for your claim that religion (or a religious society) is the source of morality.

[Drew]

I am done with this conversation, you can't argue with someone that is unwilling to use their common sense.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I don’t think you can give real numbers. "

I'll give you a number. 1. Because if even one person dies from AIDs because the Catholic church bans condoms for their followers then that ..."

So you are also not able to give any numbers to that ridicules statement either.

When you say arbitrary, do you mean 'impulse'? Johndoe said it on impulse and is not able to give numbers.

"Provide proof that religion is the source of morality".

Provide proof that it isn't.

I said 'I think it is', it is my option, in other words. Unless we can all relive the last 2000 plus years again without religion we have nothing to compare.

[Alkmini]

I think I would prefere to live in a world without science. Science can only give you some answers and explanations about life and how it all started, but religion-if you believe- gives you hope. And I think that hope is more important than any answer or scientific explanation.

[Maria]

Alkmini wrote: "I think I would prefere to live in a world without science. Science can only give you some answers and explanations about life and how it all started, but religion-if you believe- gives you hope. A..."

I compleatly agree with this

[[deleted user]]

with ou SCIENCE BECAUSE!!!!!! its boring

[Hazel]

Alkmini wrote: "I think I would prefere to live in a world without science. Science can only give you some answers and explanations about life and how it all started, but religion-if you believe- gives you hope. A..."

again, the plain irony of someone sitting on a computer, using the internet, that sends this post to the site via a network of various cables, created by science, through satellites, and through another series of cables, to be shared with anyone who wants to read it, in order to say "get rid of science", is of lethal levels.

Science is why we're not still in the trees.

[Maria]

Hazel why do you like science so much?????????????????

[Hazel]

Maria, why do you ask that while on the internet?!

Why do I like science so much?

- it tells us how the world actually is
- it means my life expectancy is twice that of my great great great grandparents
- it allows me to communicate with people all over the world
- it means my child won't die of measles, or the mumps, or rubella, or small pox.
- it means my drinking water is clean, and comes straight from the tap
- it means I have glasses and contact lenses so I'm not straining to see, and can even have my sight corrected with lasers.
- it is beautiful
- it allows us to see further away than anything else
- it allows us to see things so small, that without science we'd never know about them
- it means we no longer think disease is spread by evil spirits and faeries.

need I go on?

[[deleted user]]

science is boring i cant pass school because of science

[Maria]

Science is the explanation of gods creation.Science and religion are interrelated. Religion is one kind of science.But it is unfortunate that we sometimes create conflict between them. We should create harmony between religion and science.

[Hazel]

YAIR, that doesn't make science boring, it means that its not your strong point. BUt without science you wouldn't be able to post on the internet, you'd have probably died very young from a currently curable disease, and you'd be unlikely to have a life expectancy of more than 40. And really, how can you look at something like these:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPFwDa...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b2SV3...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHCUod...








and not think that science is amazing, how it reveals these beautiful things to us

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Science is the explanation of gods creation.Science and religion are interrelated. Religion is one kind of science.But it is unfortunate that we sometimes create conflict between them. We should cr..."

that sentence makes no sense, as before you can claim that science explains gods creation, you first have to show that god actually exists. Without proof that god exists, and statement such as that you made has no meaning. I might as well say that science explains the woobleplots creation, it has as much proof behind it as your statement about god.

[[deleted user]]

look all you have to say has a point but i think god is more important dont u think?

[Hazel]

no, i don't think god is more important, as theres no proof that god exists, as such, I reject the concept of any sort of deity.

[Maria]

To Hazel
If god does not exist...then who creates the whole universe.......and how does the life began on earth? And How does human being created?

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "To Hazel
If god does not exist...then who creates the whole universe.......and how does the life began on earth? And How does human being created?"

imagine my hand... my hand is held out flat...it is now making contact with my face palm first...

seriously? why does anyone have to have created it? I don't know how the universe came into being, but that doesn't mean I fill in the gap in my knowledge with the unsubstantiated story of a god. There are thousands of creation myths, and none of them, the judeo christian one included, has any supporting evidence. I'd give you a link to a lecture about how a universe can come from nothing, but I suspect, based on your dislike of all things scientific apart from those that make your life easier, that you'll not want to watch it, thus its a losing battle to even try to get you to have a look at something that may educate you away from thinking "god did it".

How does life begin on earth? Abiogenisis, they've recreated it in the lab. Ah, feck it, I'll give this one a try:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDd...

How does the human being created? First, that sentence hurts, but I'm not here to pick apart your lack of grammar, but its called evolution, and if you paid attention in science, you might have the slightest idea what its about.

take your pick of evolution vids:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search....

[cHriS]

Maria wrote: "Science is the explanation of gods creation.Science and religion are interrelated. Religion is one kind of science.But it is unfortunate that we sometimes create conflict between them. We should cr..."

correct

[Eileen]

Interesting question. As someone who alternates almost daily between belief in God and belief in the purely scientific, I can say I've not come up with a satisfactory answer yet. BUT I do make a distinction between religion and belief in God. Organized religion as been the bane of mankind ever since some idiot decided he was better than his neighbor and needed an excuse to prove it! So, IMHO, I think mankind needs a moral compass and if spirituality and the belief in God does that for someone who am I to tell him he is wrong. If he uses it to practice superiority over his fellows, belittle him, subjugate him, enslave him, kill him, then I have no use for him or his religion. Science with no spirituality is also less than entirely satisfying to me. So, once again, I vacillate. Rational science must prevail in physics, geology, biology, medicine, engineering, etc. But alone in the woods, in the dark, cold and without protection - I sure am going to say a prayer to a deity.

[John]

Ah, this keeps getting better and better. Gotta hand it to you cs, most Theists aren't half as entertaining as you.

I had written out a rebuttal to your claims, but then I stopped to think "Why? He obviously doesn't care about the argument, refuses all evidence and makes outlandish claims without providing any evidence himself. So let's see if he is actually able to argue."

So, instead of posting the rebuttal (though I saved it because there went to much time into it), I changed my first argument by replacing that one example with three others (and I can keep going on. Religion never ceases to produce bullshit).
Can we now continue to talk about your own arguments or have you already ceased the point and changed your point of view that Religion isn't the source of moral?

cs wrote: "Religion does not = morals. Today’s morals are derived from a religious upbringing. I don’t mean that a kid came from a Christian family compared to the kid next door who came from an atheist family, is morally better. They both live with-in a society that has had the benefit of a religious past that has shaped that societies laws, ethics culture etc."

Like Witch Hunts, Crusades, Inquisition, suppression of women, torturing and/or killing scientists if they went contrary to the Church, forcing rape victims to marry their rapist as the rapists "punishment", condemning homosexuality, the church protecting pedophiles in their ranks, Fox News receiving over 8.000 death threats because and atheist dared to talk about why a cross shouldn't be erected at the World Trade Center Memorial, rising teen suicides in Minnesota due to the school districts Gay policy (and some even going so far as to claim that those gay teenagers kill themselves because they are gay and not because they are bullied), Christians trying to press they're Creationism into school as a valid scientific theory equal to evolution, and - just to throw in a recent example - the good and faithful Christians of Cranston who are bullying and threatening a young girl and her family because she went to court and forced them to obey the law (Jessica Ahlquist, if someone wants to look it up).

Yeah, I'm really impressed with Christian Morals. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster they have nothing to do with our laws.
Or do you suggest that mankind wouldn't have figured out that killing, robbing and lying are maybe a little counterproductive if it weren't for religion? Makes me wonder who came up with it in the first place and how those people in the millenia preceding the big religions managed to survive...
(the first undisputed fossil evidence for a Homo Sapien dates back about 160.000 years)

[[deleted user]]

R.C. wrote: "So, did you read this study? Or did you just use the various opinions in the LA Times to draw your conclusions about how non-believers think?"

I had not. I have now.

I did notice, when reading the LA Times article, that ...


"A Cochrane Review that combined studies looking at AA and other 12-step programs found 12-step programs weren't any more effective in decreasing alcohol abuse compared with other treatments, ALTHOUGH RESEARCHERS FOUND LIMITATIONS WITH SOME OF THE STUDIES."

So, I wasn't sure what to make of that. After this post, I read the info on the link you provided and tried to find information on the Cochrane Collaboration. I don't always trust wiki, but you might want to check out the following ... especially the section on "criticism" ...

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

Ultimately, AA claims a success rate, depending on number of years, etc... of around 30+%. Dr. Drew said it's more like 8%-12%. Charlie Sheen says 5%.

What is the truth? Clearly, we don't know and can't make a claim. My gut tells me the truth lies between 8% and 30%. And, frankly, I'd say it's likely closer to 12%.

I can say I've known three family members who went and it worked. It turned their lives around, totally. So, when I saw your claim, I was shocked. The only people I knew who went that route had great success. So, I wanted to look into it. I'd never thought much about it before.

Then, my point became ... if we're going to make claims, we should know, for sure and for certain, that we have proof to back those claims. If we don't have proof, we say that. We say it outright. We say ... personally or I believe .... We say we don't know for sure,
but ....

I've said that about God. I was asked the question. Believers are always asked that question on this thread. I've admitted it. I have no scientific evidence. Further, I'm totally and completely okay with being asked that, being held to that standard, and being honest in my response.

Having said that ...

I think we should play by the same rules. And, I don't, hmmm, ....

While making claims about AA or low crime rates in Scandinavian countries being linked to atheism without solid evidence is different from saying ... I believe in God ..., a claim is a claim. Yes, one has to do with spiritual beliefs and one doesn't. But, .... A claim is a claim.

How can one demand evidence for a claim in one breath and make a claim, with no evidence to back said claim, in the next?

That just doesn't follow as far as I'm concerned.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Your stated sentiments of "some things are not [yet] explained" and being open minded on ideas are both skeptical/atheistic viewpoints, however you then turn that on its head by implying that if science cannot yet explain it then it must be god/supernatural."

Gary .... To be clear, I have never been nor am I now a person who believes in "a God of the gaps" ... a phrase used in past posts.

I'm not saying that ... because science can't explain it ... it must be God.

I've not said that.

I've said ...

Since I've lived with knowings and know they're real but know I don't have scientific evidence to prove their existence, I might, as a result, be more open to believing in God. Not believing that God is the genesis, pun intended, of said knowings. In God, period.

That's different.

I know there are things in this world that, to date, exist but can't be explained. Will we ever be able to prove they exist and explain them? Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. I know they exist, though. Scratch that. I know that knowings exist.

Do my knowings come from God? I don't know. I've been clear on that. My mother believes they do. Sometimes I think, as I mentioned, as Drew does. Maybe it has something to do with brain function. Sometimes I think they're from God. I do not know. I just do not know. Period.

Given all of this, I am open to believing in things, including God, even though I can't prove them scientifically.

Regarding whether or not I understood past posts on this phenomena, yes, I did.

And, if anyone who made those comments in the past and is reading this and knows what I'm talking about, please feel free to comment.

As I've said in the past, however, these are my experiences and beliefs. I know not everyone will agree. And ... that's fine. Truly.

[cHriS]

Johndoe wrote: "Ah, this keeps getting better and better. Gotta hand it to you cs, most Theists aren't half as entertaining as you.

I had written out a rebuttal to your claims, but then I stopped to think "Why? H..."

Lots of words but no numbers. Why don't you with draw your statement if you can't back it up, and stop trying to avoid the question.

[[deleted user]]

-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "look all you have to say has a point but i think god is more important dont u think?"

Hey, there ....

I believe in God and am not going to tell you, if you believe and your belief is important to you, that you're wrong in being a person of faith.

Having said that ....

I would like to encourage you to try to be open to science. You and any other students out there. Science is definitely EXTREMELY important to our world and our future. It might be a hard subject. You might even find it boring. But ....

Is it truly wise to give up on science?

I mean, hey, is it a good idea to give up? Period.

I don't know the answers to these questions.... They're for you to answer, if you choose. I assume you're a believer, in one religion or another ... or maybe you're just spiritual. So, here are some questions for you to think about, maybe.

Would God want you to study and learn as much as you possibly can?

Would God want you to learn about the world and how the world works?

Would God want you to do your personal best ... and then some?

Would God want you to give up on something like your studies, on science?

It's not for me or anyone else to answer those questions for you. It's for you to answer those questions. And ... it's for you to decide for yourself ... what are you going to stand for?

Giving up on science because it's hard and boring?

Or, are you going to become determined ... not to give up on something as important as science and your future in this world?

Some things to think about.

(And, have you asked your teacher for extra help?)

[[deleted user]]

R.C. wrote: "And to address your general complaint: when someone invokes an all-powerful God, it is not a requirement to give a detailed refutation to all possible outcomes of such a being, it is only a requirement to find a single contradiction to the generality, and the entire proposition collapses."

R.C. ....

You've made some interesting points. I did want to respond to the above. That's actually not my general complaint. That's not the point I was making.

Take God out of the equation for a minute. Perhaps, if we do, you'll understand my point.

Someone makes a claim. Pick the claim. ESP is real. The world will end on December 12th. Fox News isn't fair and balanced.

Okay?

Someone makes a claim and someone else says, "Why do you believe that?"

Well, the person who makes the claim has reasons for believing, but those reasons deal in personal anecdote, let's say. So, others tell the person s/he is wrong. One should only believe in things that can be scientifically proven or proven without personal anecdote.

Okay ....

Then, all of a sudden, the people who talk about the importance of scientific proof and evidence make a separate claim. Yet, low and behold, that person's claim can't be proven ... or is a bit off.

Ummm.... Huh?

Either claims need to be proven or they don't.

That is my point.

Either it's important to only believe in things that can be proven or it isn't.

I don't mean this in an ugly way. But, since people are having issues trying to grasp my meaning ....

It comes down to honesty. It comes down to hypocrisy. That's what we're talking about here. Separate and apart from the "God" question.

Do we hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold others to? If we expect others to prove their claims, regardless of the claim, do we expect the same from ourselves?

When it comes to me ....

I expect myself to answer questions honestly. I expect myself to represent myself honestly, give honest information, and answer questions to the best of my ability. Sometimes, I'll say I don't have proof and don't know the answers. But .... That's honest. I also expect myself to be respectful of others. That's the bar that I've set for myself. And, yes, I expect others to respond in kind.

It seems to me that some have set their bar at the burden of proof. People need to prove their claims ... or admit that they can't.

Okay. That's fine with me. The question is ... do they hold themselves to the same standard when they make claims.

That's my point.

But, again, you did make some interesting points.