Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,601-3,650 of 12,463

[Hazel]

eloquently put, Shannon.

[cerebus]

Sara wrote: "So then we get to that sticky, "who am I?" question that is even more befuddling than it ever was before. Postmodernism (Post-postmodernism?) and science have made this whole idea of Fidentity an in..."
Post modernism is bollocks....

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "It was that comment from Jill that I was responding to. But I guess neither you or Maria bothered to read back to see where it started."
Oh ffs, of course I read it, and ..."
Troll.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Aye...but trolls have to feed.
This is the perfect thread for it...surprised there aren't more under the bridge.
Still not as entertaining as Whirlwind and their mutable personality traits.
All Hail Discordia!

[Hazel]

ah, feck it, lets have some light relief:

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

[Old-Barbarossa]

Another random tangent: Old Pulteney is a rather nice malt from Wick. If any posters enjoy a dram it's worth the effort to track down.
Well...it is a spiritual matter after all...
Now, off to watch season 6 of Dexter with all that apocalyptic pish.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track. I did not want them to go off on a tangent. But you managed it anyway. "

Y..."

I know... your point?

[Travis]

Might be time to move on as this...I'm not sure really what the point was, all that talk of head transplants creeped me out too much to focus.

We could always talk about the Avengers. Thor's in that and he's a god, so it counts.
Personally, I always thought when Thor fought the Hulk it was a perfect representation of religion vs science.

and if that doesn't work, the guy that plays Thor looks a bit like Sean Bean.
There, I at least have Shannon's attention.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Might be time to move on as this...I'm not sure really what the point was, all that talk of head transplants creeped me out too much to focus.

We could always talk about the Avengers. Thor's in th..."

How did you know, Travis? I was just reading your post and saw the part about The Avengers ... and your idea of Thor vs. the Hulk symbolizing religion and science ... and thought ... fascinating.

Then, I remembered the actor who played Thor and my eyes started to sparkle ... and ...

What was the topic?

;)

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "My point was that everyone in a christian society has been raised with christian morals, it is not possible to say how society would have evolved if there was never a Jesus. Although you..."

Is your point, though, that only Christians have morals

No thats not what I meant. The country I live in is a Christian country where the majority of the population are Christian, and so it was for the last 2000 years. Therefore it is mostly Christians making the rules and laws and setting the standards. It is these rules and standards you abide by even if you are atheist. And yes some of these rules, laws and standards will, over the last 2000 years, have been influenced by religion.

You can see today that many non Christian countries culture and laws are part of their religion. At least in the west religion and politics are separate from each other. Although it’s good that some religious leaders do speak their mind if they think a government is over stepping the mark.

Maybe the dad gets too much money back at the store, realizes it, but doesn't mention the mistake. Instead, he laughs it up! Woo hoo! Struck it rich.


Or maybe you took a paper clip home from the office you work at or used your employers phone to make a personal call without asking.

We all do thing that in another persons eyes seem wrong.

[Sara]

Hazel wrote: "Another thing you have to consider is that we do not directly experience the world, including our own bodies, what we experience is actually the model our brains make of the world, as informed by our sensory perception, thus it could be extended to the idea that the perception of our bodies, and memories we link to certain sensory information etc is actually part of a model we hold in our brain, and not our physical bodies at all. As such, it could be postulated that the memories you speak of remain because its actually held in a model of your body, not your physical body."

This is one of my favorite ideas to postulate and consider, which is one reason why I love postmodern lit so very much. We all make the world, and in some ways, we ARE the center of the universe--at least of our own universe. This can make for some exceptionally creepy literature.

[Hazel]

Sara wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Another thing you have to consider is that we do not directly experience the world, including our own bodies, what we experience is actually the model our brains make of the world, as..."

this isn't post modernism, its simply the way it is. Our brains can only experience things through our sensory input, labelling it as anything is unnecessary. This is coming from science, not literature.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "It was that comment from Jill that I was responding to. But I guess neither you or Maria bothered to read back to see where it started."
Oh ffs, of course I re..."

I guess when your argument fails you can always play the 'troll' card. A bit like old barba.

[Sara]

cs wrote: "No thats not what I meant. The country I live in is a Christian country where the majority of the population are Christian, and so it was for the last 2000 years. Therefore it is mostly Christians making the rules and laws and setting the standards. It is these rules and standards you abide by even if you are atheist. And yes some of these rules, laws and standards will, over the last 2000 years, have been influenced by religion.

You can see today that many non Christian countries culture and laws are part of their religion. At least in the west religion and politics are separate from each other. Although it’s good that some religious leaders do speak their mind if they think a government is over stepping the mark."

You haven't read much ancient history, I'll bet. The Laws of Manu and other legal codes that long pre-date Moses and the Jewish codes (Ten Commandments, since we're obviously not talking about Leviticus, where the laws are much, much more brutal) are very much the same as the Jewish system of laws (which is what you postulate as a "Christian" law code).

The law codes of America were inspired by Enlightenment principles, which didn't derive solely from Christian inspiration, but also from the Greek and Roman ideals of the republic, which were decidedly secular. So while some of the founders (NOT all) were Christian, that does not follow that there would be no law without Christianity. Humans were obviously capable of creating law codes absent of Christian (and even, in some cases, religious) influence.

[Sara]

Hazel wrote: "this isn't post modernism, its simply the way it is. Our brains can only experience things through our sensory input, labelling it as anything is unnecessary. This is coming from science, not literature."

The literature sprang from these scientific realizations, however.

[Hazel]

Sara wrote: "Hazel wrote: "this isn't post modernism, its simply the way it is. Our brains can only experience things through our sensory input, labelling it as anything is unnecessary. This is coming from scie..."

yeah, but fictional literature usually gets it utterly wrong, and take such things off on a tangent that makes the scientists cringe.

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "It was that comment from Jill that I was responding to. But I guess neither you or Maria bothered to read back to see where it started."
Oh ffs..."

Haven't actually put forward any arguments for ages.
Just gentle trolling myself...

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

And darn good books, too.

[Xdyj]

Sara wrote: "This is one of my favorite ideas to postulate and consider, which is one reason why I love postmodern lit so very much. We all make the world, and in some ways, we ARE the center of the universe--at least of our own universe. This can make for some exceptionally creepy literature."

I'm not sure but afaik this idea is as old as George Berkeley & David Hume, or arguable the Yogācāra school of Buddhist philosophy :)

[Travis]

Yeah, the concept of self and all that stuff, is as old as there has been philosophy, as well as religion and literature.

or when the first cave man looked up and scratched his head.

[Hazel]

just to clarify, nothing I said was anything about us making or constructing the world, it was about us only perceiving our own models of the world as informed by our sensory input, this has nothing to do with us constructing the world, its about how we perceive the world, theres no solispism in what I was saying, there is a real world, that doesn't need us to construct it.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel wrote: "just to clarify, nothing I said was anything about us making or constructing the world, it was about us only perceiving our own models of the world as informed by our sensory input, this has nothin..."

And one never steps into the same stream of water....wait. Wrong concept.

Kidding.

Stream of water exists and flows whether we see it or not. Whether we are there or not. It simply exists. Until we dam it.

[cHriS]

Sara wrote: "cs wrote: "No thats not what I meant. The country I live in is a Christian country where the majority of the population are Christian, and so it was for the last 2000 years. Therefore it is mostly ..."

does not follow that there would be no law without Christianity. Humans were obviously capable of creating law codes absent of Christian
That is true, but I am talking about today and in Christian countries.

Going to far back in history does not explain much about the morals of the people from that time. And eventually those people would be influenced by Christianity anyway.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Sara wrote: "Going to far back in history does not explain much about the morals of the people from that time. And eventually those people would be influenced by Christianity anyway. "

Or rather christianity was influenced by them.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Sara wrote: "Going to far back in history does not explain much about the morals of the people from that time. And eventually those people would be influenced by Christianity anyway. "

..."

Not really, Christianity came into being because of Jesus being who he was. It would have changed what was before it.

[Old-Barbarossa]

So...was Jesus "new"?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I guess when your argument fails you can always play the 'troll' card. A bit like old barba. "
Address the issue at hand and answer questions asked of you. Troll.

[Shanna]

More because of Paul and who he was. Jesus never suggested anyone break with Judiasm, he was born, lived and died a Jew (if he existed), extorted people to keep to the jewish laws, stated he was here for the jews and not the gentiles.
The idea that cultures preceding the birth of Jesus (of which there are many and those that never heard of christianity until hundreds of years later), had no idea of morality is ludicrous. To develop a culture, by necessity, one must have at the minimum socially accepted mores of acceptable behaviours.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "Going to far back in history does not explain much about the morals of the people from that time. And eventually those people would be influenced by Christianity anyway. "

cs ...

We can learn a lot about the morals of people who lived in the past. Will we ever have all the answers and the pieces of every puzzle? No. But, the study of history is amazing ... fascinating ... and historians, archeologists, and anthropologists have discovered some pretty awesome things.

Perhaps we should do a group read ... not of Angels and Demons ... but of a book about history.

And ...

To say, "And eventually those people would be influenced by Christianity anyway," ...

I'm having a hard time formulating a response to that.

I guess I'll settle with two things ... because I'm somewhat taken aback ....

Really?

And, if accurate, so what?

Nope. I have a third thing ...

And ... making that statement, frankly, detracts, in my mind, from the lives and experiences of the people who lived prior to Christianity ... or who lived and live as Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc... since Christianity.

And ... fourth ...

Please, atheists, please don't write about about Jesus calling people dogs. I'm about to make a point, I hope, and it would be nice to carry that point out a bit. Since cs is a Christian, let's talk Christianity and supposed Christian morals ...

cs ...

Would Jesus make this statement or think along these lines? I mean, granted, I don't know exactly where you're coming from. I'm guessing, but it seems to me that you're downplaying the thoughts, morals, and experiences of others ... those not Christian. Yet ....

Jesus is alleged to have held up Samaritans ... or a Samaritan ... as more moral than the Jews ... the people of his community and faith.

Hello!

That story tells us, those of us who believe it, that, for Jesus, it was about the individual and the individual's choices and actions ... not about the person's affiliation.

But, back to history ....

Shanna is right. Christianity was influenced by what came before. Look at the Code of Hammurabi, which outlaws killing and, if memory serves, acts of adultery. And, that's not the first set of laws to be created by humans. Civilizations going back to the beginning of time had laws against murder and coveting .... The Jews did not come up with those laws/morals. Jesus didn't. Such mores have nothing to do with religion or Christianity.

They have to do with human beings.

While I risk raising the "new" discussion again ... and trust me, I'd rather talk about Sean Bean ....

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun ..." Ecclesiastes 1:9

That is definitely true when it comes to laws, morals and mores, cs.

Christianity has nothing to do with it.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "More because of Paul and who he was. Jesus never suggested anyone break with Judiasm"

Agreed. I agree with Shanna on this point.

I wonder ....

Is the point to share and learn and challenge ourselves and our thinking? Is that the point of this thread? Of course, it would depend on the individual. It's my point.

I don't agree with everything Shanna says ... or Hazel ... Travis, etc.... I do believe. They don't. Sometimes I gasp at their tone and the words they use to describe God ....

But, the point is not to disagree for the sake of it. To argue just to argue. For me, at least, that's not the point.

And .... Sometimes, well ... sometimes they're right.

They're right when it comes to morals. Well, I'm right, too, but that's beside the point. Some things just are what they are ... factual, true. To argue them smacks of arguing for argument's sake.

There should be some things on which we can agree.

(Especially ... ;) ... on all things Sean Bean ...)

[Shanna]

Thanks Shannon (nice to see we can agree on somethings :-)), and, as usual eloquently put.
Now not to be argumentative for it's own sake but it's time for someone new, I'm a bit partial to Eric Balfour myself.

[Hazel]

I was looked at funny earlier, for saying Danny John Jules is still a bit of alright, even if he's getting on a bit.

Eric Balfour doesn't do it for me at all.

I finally got round to watching Thor,its only saving grace was that it had Tadanobu Asano in it.

there, with Shannas contribution, thats 3 more on top of Sean Bean to think about...

[Shanna]

No? oh well each to their own... :-P

[Hazel]

His face is too long, he has the same effect on me as David Beckham, which is that I'd expect him to be selling knock off watches out of a suitcase, from an alley, next to a market. He makes me think of Mickey Pearce from Only Fools and Horses.

[Shanna]

Seriously Mickey Pearce?? It's true, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.... but I agree, I don't get David Beckham either.

[Hazel]

Shanna wrote: "Seriously Mickey Pearce?? It's true, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...."

nah its not, some people just have terrible taste :P

Now Rob Zombie, there's a man I could be interested in.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "No? oh well each to their own... :-P"

Eh.... Can't say that either do much for me. But, of course, I respect your choices. ;)

This reminds me of something that happened earlier this week ....

It was to be a dark and rainy week....

We'd just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird last week, and my 8th graders asked if we could watch the movie. I told them it was an old movie, black and white, but if they wanted to .... They said they did.

On Monday, they asked if I got the movie. I whipped out the DVD and told them I promised I would. I told them Gregory Peck was the lead actor. Atticus, they asked ...? Yes! I told them Gregory Peck was THE actor of his day! He was amazing! He was, well, THE actor. I said, "If we were to compare him to an actor today, he'd be like ..., well, he'd be like ...."

There I stood. Speechless. Who is in league with Gregory Peck?

"Ummm.... Like ...."

One of the girls said, "Johnny Depp?"

Is it wrong that I gagged?

Well, they started throwing out all sorts of names. No, no, no. I said, "Now that I think about it, perhaps Gregory Peck stands in a league all his own."

"Nope! I've got it," a boy stated with great confidence. "Daniel Craig."

Oh, my .... There I was, walking toward the projector, when ....

I fear I stopped, grabbed my heart, and got a bit misty-eyed. Is that wrong? On many levels, I'm afraid. Well, they started laughing. I said, "In truth, I don't even know that we'd say Daniel Craig."

"Oh, no," said the boy, "It's Daniel Craig. Ms. ---- likes Daniel Craig."

Now, in truth, if I had to pick someone on par with Peck, after thinking it through, I think I'd go with Russell Crow. Phone throwing aside, I think he's a fine actor ... not always the same in every role ... able to act with his eyes. Hmmm.... I don't know. Something to ponder.

Now, if I were to pick someone other than Sean Bean for reasons other than acting, ummmm....

[Shanna]

Yes some of us do.... :-P

[[deleted user]]

Sam Worthington ...

[Hazel]

nah, he's just too middle of the road, he's what Hollywood tells us is good looking, and as such, he's pretty much boring.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "One of the girls said, "Johnny Depp?"

Is it wrong that I gagged?"

I suppose they think he's old enough and been in enough "big" films that he'd qualify.

Now Daniel Craig if we could remove the "likes" and just have Ms. Daniel Craig that has possibilities.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "nah, he's just too middle of the road, he's what Hollywood tells us is good looking, and as such, he's pretty much boring."

Who? Crow or Worthington? Worthington, right? I know ....

Hmmmm.....

[[deleted user]]

I have it! For me, at any rate ... though I feel horribly disloyal to Sean Bean.

Adam Beach ...

[Hazel]

give Johnny Depp his dues, despite his "teenage heartthrob" image of the past, he is actually a damn good actor, watch some of his more serious stuff, and you can see it. He's also brilliant in Fear and Loathing.

Shannon, I meant Worthington. He is a pretty boy, but really, he's very generic.

As an aside, if you get a picture of Cary Grant, and just look at the eyes, its George Clooney.

[Shanna]

It's going to sound terribly racist but honestly I'm not, my husband has native Canadian heritage.
But I'm surprised he wasn't roped into the Twilight movies they seemed to have collected as many native american and canadian actors as they could get the hands on

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "As an aside, if you get a picture of Cary Grant, and just look at the eyes, its George Clooney. "

I get the same from Paul Newman and Brad Pitt

[Hazel]

I've gone onto memory lane, and started thinking about the people I thought were attractive when I was a teenager, like Phil Anselmo, Tre Cool, Max Cavalera, Kiefer Sutherland...

oh, and you want an actor of today, you couldn't go far wrong with Rufus Sewell

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "oh, and you want an actor of today, you couldn't go far wrong with Rufus Sewell "

Interesting .... You might be right ....

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "I get the same from Paul Newman and Brad Pitt"

I tend to think Robert Redford/Brad Pitt.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I've gone onto memory lane, and started thinking about the people I thought were attractive when I was a teenager..."

I shudder at the memory, but ....

I had a picture of Ralph Macchio in my locker in high school.