Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,501-3,550 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Then we get into stuff like nipples on men."

I will not link this statement with Sean Bean.

I will not link this statement with Sean Bean.

I will not ....

;)"

and we've lost her ;P

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Then we get into stuff like nipples on men."

I will not link this statement with Sean Bean.

I will not link this statement with Sean Bean.

I will not ....

She's probably happier in her own little world.

;)"..."

[[deleted user]]

Ha, ha, ha....

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cs wrote: "Jill wrote: "I'd rather live in a world without religion. I still believe we need faith and spirituality but they can exist with the formal organization know as religion.

Science is eve..."

What's the time frame for new?

Say 50 years.

The internet is just another way of sending information....nothing new.

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "The internet is just another way of sending information....nothing new. "

Of course it's new.
Unless we are now going to be drawn into a semantic argument over the word "new".

[cHriS]

It's just a Variations on a Theme, the theme being communicating. It started about 1876 when the telephone was invented. Or even 1835 when
Samuel Morse proved that signals could be transmitted by wire

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "It's just a Variations on a Theme, the theme being communicating. It started about 1876 when the telephone was invented. Or even 1835 when
Samuel Morse proved that signals could be transmitted by wire"

Or when Guldur the hunter of mammoths discovered he could use fire to signal his fellow Neanderthals?
You are havering.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Then we get into stuff like nipples on men."

I will not link this statement with Sean Bean.

I will not link this statement with Sean Bean.

I will not ....

;)"..."

Well and truly...

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "cs wrote: "It's just a Variations on a Theme, the theme being communicating. It started about 1876 when the telephone was invented. Or even 1835 when
Samuel Morse proved that signals could be trans..."

No you are 'havering' a laugh.

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "cs wrote: "The internet is just another way of sending information....nothing new. "

Of course it's new.
Unless we are now going to be drawn into a semantic argument over the word "new"."

New as in completely new, appearing for the first time, come into knowledge.

Rather than just improving something or doing a similiar thing better.

Inventing the wheel, sort of thing.

[[deleted user]]

YALL TAKING THIS TO FAR!!!!!!

[cerebus]

@cs, what has your definition of 'new' got to do with anything? So science is giving us incremental improvements and you see this as bad? And your beloved religion from 2000 years ago is somehow better? You are the king of straw men, I'll give you that much....

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "@cs, what has your definition of 'new' got to do with anything? So science is giving us incremental improvements and you see this as bad? And your beloved religion from 2000 years ago is somehow be..."

cs is just feeling bitter over the lack of jet packs.
I know that feeling.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "@cs, what has your definition of 'new' got to do with anything? So science is giving us incremental improvements and you see this as bad? And your beloved religion from 2000 years ago is somehow be..."

Off you go again, I reply to something about science and you come back with religion in your reply. If I was to join in the Sean Bean thing, you would somehow connect it to the Pope and Aids.

My point about science is that while there have been many great improvments and advances in science, over the last 50 or so years there has been nothing new.

3d movies for example, have come a long way from Louis Lumiere's first motion picture camera in 1895. But the greater of the two has to be the first motion picture camera.

[Mylene]

Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."

Distinct personalities by babies or any other species for that matter are explained by survival of the fittest, Charles Darwin. Diversity exists to ensure the existence of the species.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Off you go again, I reply to something about science and you come back with religion in your reply. If I was to join in the Sean Bean thing, you would somehow connect it to the Pope and Aids."
in a discussion about religion and science, and I bring up religion, what a surprise!

cs said: "My point about science is that while there have been many great improvments and advances in science, over the last 50 or so years there has been nothing new. "
And my point is your definition of 'new' and science's failure to keep up with that definition are a wholly irrelevant straw man.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Off you go again, I reply to something about science and you come back with religion in your reply. If I was to join in the Sean Bean thing, you would somehow connect it to the Pope and ..."

The informal fallacy is your suggestion that my use of the word 'new' does not support my proposed conclusion. If you feel that changing the word 'new' to something that has much the same meaning and will help you understand better, then feel free to change it.

Other wise it is you who are introducing 'the straw man' to deflect from my statement.

[Old-Barbarossa]

New testament?
Nothing new about it then by cs's way of thinking.
Sure it's just a slightly different way of sitting in a cave round a fire drinking mushroom tea.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Are you really called (insert name of favorite troll)? cs, are you?

Edited post due to discovering the translation from Icelandic of the initially inserted troll name was way more insulting than is suitable, or actually meant, in jovial banter.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "If I was to join in the Sean Bean thing, you would somehow connect it to the Pope and Aids."

Is now the wrong time to admit that I found myself chuckling to myself at the oddest times today? Every once in awhile I'd think about the comment Travis made yesterday about nipples on men ... and the willpower I exerted in not linking that comment to Sean Bean.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "If I was to join in the Sean Bean thing, you would somehow connect it to the Pope and Aids."

Is now the wrong time to admit that I found myself chuckling to myself at the oddest times t..."

and we are all very proud of you for it.

[Shanna]

Roflol

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "The informal fallacy is your suggestion that my use of the word 'new' does not support my proposed conclusion. If you feel that changing the word 'new' to something that has much the same meaning and will help you understand better, then feel free to change it. "
I never said that.....I never even suggested that. Your point, no matter how true, is, I say yet again, irrelevant. Science hasn't come up with anything sufficiently 'new' recently? And? How do you feel this is relevant to the discussion? What is the purpose of your statement?

[Shanna]

I was just wondering if "new" is the qualifier what has religion offered that is "new" lately?
Or should it be dismissed based on the "newness" qualifier?

[Carla]

A world without science? Our cosmos is science. Our bodies are science. We are made up of chemical molecules and our brains only work because there are neurons transmitting electrical pulses around. Emotion and consciousness are incredible but born of science. Religion is something we created to cope with a world that's tough to understand sometimes, but you cannot decide between the two like they are equals. If you didn't have science, you wouldn't be able to 'decide' at all.

Yes, this is an old thread and I may not even get a response, but I don't care. If anyone believes they can exist without science, they have lost the plot – or they're just too scared to try and understand it.

[Shanna]

Science is more a tool to understand these things cosmos and bodies and such, which come under the broader heading of nature.

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "New testament?
Nothing new about it then by cs's way of thinking.
Sure it's just a slightly different way of sitting in a cave round a fire drinking mushroom tea."

Ok you can't grasp 'new' try major advances....

fire
language
agriculture
philosophy
mathematics
maps
Ships and trade
medical knowledge
books
art
democracy
transport
power
flight
photography
comunication
laser

I'm sure you could add more to the list above. But not many, if any, major, advances in the last 50 years that do not stem from something previous to 1960.

We seem to be in an age of reconstruction rather than discovery.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "The informal fallacy is your suggestion that my use of the word 'new' does not support my proposed conclusion. If you feel that changing the word 'new' to something that has much the sam..."

It started round about post3632, as a comment and like most debates expanded.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "It started round about post3632, as a comment and like most debates expanded."
None of which explains the relevance of your opinion on the pace of science. Your opinion on the matter does not add to the debate in any way at all...it is a tangential dead-end.

[Carla]

Science, nature, astronomy, physics (which I was lucky enough to study at University) – they come under the heading 'reality'. Religion is just a tool that allows us to avoid it.

[Gary]

Bob wrote: "You would not have science without religion. Most early scientist were believers. It was only people who believed in a rational ordered universe created by God who pursued truth."

Not true, most early creation myths have the gods being created from some sort of primal matter, not created by a single "god" (perhaps the earliest example being the 'Aten' about 1300BCE)

The point you made is still cart before the horse though. Describing the universe with science and religion starts the same, with a hypothesis or model. The difference is when faith gets involved and makes you forget or ignore the fact that you might be wrong.

Good science criticises its own ideas and discards them if they don't fit the evidence. Bad science and religion makes its ideas unassailable and criticises any evidence that would cause them to face up to the idea they may be wrong.

(By the way, Hi all, been away for a week running an event for 100 people. What did I miss?)

[Shanna]

Or perhaps cs, if newness is the qualifier, are new religions better than older ones Islam better than christianity. Oooohh I guess that makes scientology the best religion, as the biggest latecomer religion.
Had your thetan's audited recently.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "According to Tom Waits: 'Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk.'"

(Like!)

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Or perhaps cs, if newness is the qualifier, are new religions better than older ones Islam better than christianity. Oooohh I guess that makes scientology the best religion, as the biggest latecome..."

nope, Kopimism would be the newest, have you been busy kopyacting recently?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Ok you can't grasp 'new' try major advances...."
Everyone can grasp 'new', what we can't 'grasp' is why you keep going on about it....it doesn't prove or demonstrate anything of relevance to the discussion.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Andrew wrote: "I can only wish to live in a world without religion! That would be some kind of wonderful."

Why?"

Because people would stop acting on beliefs that are based on institutionalised bigotry, tribalism and arrogance and start actually thinking about why they have certain opinions or prejudices?

Because people would stop worrying how to please something that is apparently infinitely greater than each of us and instead start thinking about how to make things better for each other?

Take your pick...

[Shanna]

Amaya wrote: "Science, nature, astronomy, physics (which I was lucky enough to study at University) – they come under the heading 'reality'. Religion is just a tool that allows us to avoid it."

Agreed, but these things (nature, cosmos and our bodies) are not science in and of themselves they are studied with science (astronomy, Physics and science are)

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "nope, Kopimism would be the newest, have you been busy kopyacting recently? "

My personal fave and should it come about that we must choose a religion I pick this one.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "nope, Kopimism would be the newest, have you been busy kopyacting recently? "

My personal fave and should it come about that we must choose a religion I pick this one."

I shall worship ceiling cat, personally, all he wants is for me to bring the noms, and in return I'm protected from the malign machinations of basement cat. That and he's cute and fuzzy. And he purrs when you tickle him under the chin.

[Shanna]

Yeah, them basement cats, something we should all be concerned about.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I don't believe God is the problem either. I believe some of the people who interpret God have messed things up horribly and are the problem. "

Actually I agree with you Shannon, but as you said, I don't think you'll like why.

It is very common for theists to absolve religion of any blame for the bad stuff that happens in its name, and instead blame people. Personally I blame the ideology of religion because most of the people who follow it genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing, even when atrocity results.

The problem is "interpretation". Because there is no clear evidence of gods existing, let alone which particular God or nuance of God exists, you have religion. Each religion says "God(s/ess/esses) is like (x) and wants us to do (y)" and will not brook any argument against it.

Hence what you are left with is a millenia old argument that keeps spawning different opinions, all of whom defend their position with the idea that they are right by definition (by divine will / god is on their side)

In the absence of a clear unarguable sign to all of humanity about which mythology is correct (and before anyone claims there is, well the fact this debate exists is direct evidence to the contrary) whether god or gods exist is irrelevant. The problem still is religion.

If there was a god, then why would they care about churches, scripture and whispering in 'special' people's minds. If there was a god then the universe is all the scripture you could want and your reason the best way to understand it.

Science (when done properly) is looking at existence around us without projecting our own ego and our own presuppositions onto it. Pretending that after a few million years on one planet around one star out of trillions of stars in this galaxy out of the trillions of galaxies in the universe, we already know 'the truth' is hubris of the greatest degree. How could you come to know any 'god' through such hubris.

Humility is asking questions knowing that the answers may take many many lifetimes to understand, may not ever be fully comprehensible and most of all, not claiming that your personal feeling of superior inherent knowledge has any relevance to what reality is truly like unless it is tested by yourself and others.

[[deleted user]]

I would rather live in a world with religion only.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Yeah, them basement cats, something we should all be concerned about."


I wouldn't pray to ceiling cat though, as though he restrains basement cat, theres not much else he could do, I would pray to Mickey Rourke, as he is a man who looks like he can get things done.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I'm sure you could add more to the list above. But not many, if any, major, advances in the last 50 years that do not stem from something previous to 1960.

We seem to be in an age of reconstruction rather than discovery. "

All advances are based on previous ones. That's why they are 'advances' and not 'magic'.

You are also not defining terms very well. For example one of the biggest advances in recent times is the internet, spawning a renaissance in information sharing, social interaction, and it's own economy. It is such a tremendous change that we have yet to fully comprehend what it has done to even traditional things like nations and borders.

Apart from that there are also technologies that are in development that are truly staggering in potential. Fission/fusion hybrid reactors, exotic materials, quantum computation, genetic engineering and biological printing to name just a few.

Ironically here a fair amount of these technologies are being held back by the fear and assumptions of uninformed, ill-educated people. Some of whom even use the expression "playing god" out of pious outrage without seeing the hypocrisy of them literally "playing god" by attempting to be his mouthpiece.

[Gary]

Shani wrote: "I would rather live in a world with religion only."

Turn the computer off, walk into the wilderness naked and pray for the best then! :-)

[Shanna]

Shani wrote: "I would rather live in a world with religion only."

[image error]

[Gary]

I do like the way that some people are saying that they would rather live in a world with only religion despite the fact that without the sciences of language, writing and indeed philosophy they could not have religion.

However, when religion is criticised, the response is "oh you are only looking at the bad bits".

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Shani wrote: "I would rather live in a world with religion only."

"

Gary wrote: "Shani wrote: "I would rather live in a world with religion only."

Turn the computer off, walk into the wilderness naked and pray for the best then! :-)"

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, sorry if mine seems a little unusual.

But, I'd never leave my religion no matter what the circumstances.

And, I love the wilderness, why not?!

[Hazel]

you know you wouldn't be able to make fire without science, yes? Or the tools needed to capture, cut up and prepare food? You wouldn't be able to create clothing, as you wouldn't have the tools for skinning and tanning, or for growing veg based clothing fibres, like cotton, and be unable to make thread, be unable to weave. All this is due to science. Oh, and no building anything, thats basically science too. As soon as you start trying to work things out, such as how to build shelter, how to capture food, how to prepare, how to keep warm, thats all applied science. Your religion won't provide you with these things. I suspect if you really were thrown into this situation, you'd drop your religion in favour of survival at the drop of a hat.

[Shanna]

Your welcome to your opinion, you just expressed it through the very medium you would dispose of, that's all.

The wilderness doesn't love you back, and it only through the various sciences the vast majority of us are here.