Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,651-3,700 of 12,463

[Hazel]

James Purefoy has a certain interesting charm as well.

[Shanna]

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

I tend to think Robert Redford/Brad Pitt."
Wait! What did I write? Oh I meant Robert Redford. Dang it, I need more than three hours sleep, it's mothers day and would they let me sleep noooo! (in their defence, they are 2 and 4)

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "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 Macc..."

the Karate Kid was awesome though...in the 80s... when I was 8...

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "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 Macc..."

Me too and Jason Patric, Harrison Ford and Johnny Depp
oooh and I'd better not forget Kevin Costner

[Hazel]

just as long as you didn't have the two Coreys...

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "just as long as you didn't have the two Coreys..."

Eeeewww.

[Shanna]

Oh and there was a guitarist in an Aussie band the Screaming Jets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5JaDP...

Back when Mullets where cool (If they ever were)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "the Karate Kid was awesome though...in the 80s... when I was 8... "

Ha, ha! Rub it in. I was 14/15.

Regarding Patric, Ford, and Costner ... I like them sometimes. ;)

Where have all the men gone? On this thread, I mean.

Ah, well ....

Dare I admit that ... when I was in high school, ... I had a bit of a thing for Don Johnson. (Miami Vice) Sigh....

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "So...was Jesus "new"?"

???????

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "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."

All have questions have been answered. Maybe not to your liking, and I guess not because you seem to have a whole pack of 'troll' cards. I am always happy to elaborate on anything you need clarification on.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "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 he..."

if he existed If anyone from history existed, we only have records.

[Ayaash]

A World Without Science.. morality is far more important than some god forsaken experiments..!!!

[Shanna]

True, as far as I understand it there is some debate.
But if we allow that "Paul" is the founder of christianity logically there had to be someone, so "Paul" is as good a name as any for our purposes.
Hazel has explained to you many times about the quality of evidence and multiplicity of record sources, so I decline to reiterate.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "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 ca..."

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 ....

Quite simple and no hidden adgenda.

We are all influenced by the society we are born into. Here in the UK over 70% of the population is Christian. So the other 30% will have been influenced by living in a Christian society. Even more so if you are a non Christian in a catholic country.

If we lived in a world without religion there would still be morals, some as good as we have now, some the same and some worse. My feeling is it would be less tolerant society.

But we do have religion and it follows that societies morals have a religious foundation. As more religions move around the planet and mix with each other we are starting to see conflict, this conflict effects individual countries morals.

We now live in a world where we point the finger at what other countries are doing and try to force our morals on to them. Whether it is bullfighting, stoning woman, capital punishment, nuclear weapons or a hundred other things.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "My feeling is it would be less toralent society. "
Religion creates the intolerance, it condemns entire groups of people for merely being born the way they were, women, homosexuals/LGBT, (historically) mentally ill, the poor, other faiths and ethnicities, and provides justification for people to act on their prejudices.

cs wrote: "But we do have religion and it follows that socities morals have a religious foundation"
Just because religion claims it, doesn't make it so. Morals don't come from the bible the bible writers took them from the society around them, precisely why it contains just as many awful rules, nonsensical rules and good ones as you would expect from a man made document attempting to dictate all behaviour.

cs wrote: "As more religions move around the planet and mix with each other we are starting to see conflict, this conflict effects individual countries morals. "
A selling point for getting rid of religions, don't you think? Or do you think there should be no travel abroad?

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "So...was Jesus "new"?"

???????"

Just amused at apparent double standards...

[Sara]

cs wrote: "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."

The term "Christian countries" is a bit of a misnomer when you are talking about countries formed upon Enlightenment and intentionally secular constructs. Again, a great number of people came to this country to get AWAY from the influence of the Church, either because they wanted to practice their own version of religion or . To the Catholics of the time (the "accepted church"), the majority of the folks crossing the Pond were very much Pagans. And some of our own founders would be considered "Pagan" even by modern standards. A great number of the Founders were Deists, and Benjamin Franklin was a member of Sir Francis Dashwood's "Hellfire Club." Not exactly a nation founded by Christians that so many want people to believe.

[Sara]

Hazel wrote: "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."

It's hardly siloispistic to be responsible for your own state of mind and your own fuckups. Realizing the influence of your own perceptions and attitudes (being "the maker of your world") means that you can't abdicate responsibility for your actions or perceptions to an outside source. It means striving to be conscious always.

And the responsibility of writers and artists is sometimes to take things to their extreme ends for the sake of imaginative exercise. We can't all be scientists. But I'll check my quantum physics with Brian Greene for permission next time I presume to write a book about the idea.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "My feeling is it would be less toralent society. "
Religion creates the intolerance, it condemns entire groups of people for merely being born the way they were, women, homosexuals/LGBT,..."

Religion creates the intolerance

People are intolerant of some religions rules, I am as well. But religion does not creates the intolerance, the people do.


A selling point for getting rid of religions, don't you think?

I think within the last few decades since air travel has become less expensive and more people are moving around the planet and settling other lands, it is inevitable that people will be less tolerant of each other. This may change with future generations.


Or do you think there should be no travel abroad?

I'm off to Florida later this year, ask me again when I get back.

[Hazel]

Sara wrote: "Hazel wrote: "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 in..."

you sound a bit offended, which was not my intention, so I apologise for that. Honestly, i think we're working at cross purposes, I misinterpreted what you meant.

[Drew]

cs wrote: "Shannon wrote: "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. ..."

I have to disagree with you on the tolerance issue, religious people are far less tolerant than non-religious people.

[cHriS]

Drew wrote: "cs wrote: "Shannon wrote: "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 Christiani..."

Is this because you are a some what tolerant non religious person and you have family and friends who are religious and are not so tolerant?

[[deleted user]]

Drew wrote: "I have to disagree with you on the tolerance issue, religious people are far less tolerant than non-religious people. "

I have to agree with Drew.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "Is this because you are a some what tolerant non religious person and you have family and friends who are religious and are not so tolerant? "

While you didn't ask this of me originally, since I agree with Drew, I'll answer it. Drew might have a different answer ... but my answer follows.

I'm a spiritual person, not religious. I think I'm tolerant of a lot of things, see past posts for more information. However, I've very intolerant of some things and some people. I can't stand it when people lie, use others or are hypocrites. I've little use for bullies. And, I can not stand and think very bad thoughts about sex offenders, people who abuse and/or neglect their children, and men who threaten and beat their significant others ... I suppose women who threaten and beat their significant others, too.

So, on the one hand, I'm tolerant. On the other, I can be pretty cold and judgmental.

I have family and friends who are spiritual and not religious and family and friends who are religious. I know people in both groups who aren't that tolerant. Most people in my family, for example, would not hold with my dating a man of another race. While my parents would be okay with that, my mother would absolutely flip out if I thought of dating someone who wasn't Christian. While none are mean or have ever done anything bad to homosexuals, they do not approve of gay marriage, perhaps even gay adoption.

So, to a certain extent, cs, it's best not to overgeneralize, in that, different people have different levels of tolerance .... People who are spiritual and religious, people who might believe but don't practice any spirituality or faith, and atheists can all be tolerant in some respects and intolerant on other things.

Generally, however, when I think of the religious people I know, they can be pretty intolerant in a lot of respects. Then, when we think about it from a historical standpoint, we'd have to admit to a huge amount of intolerance from those who were and are religious. From the treatment of Jews during the middle ages in Europe to "witch" hunts, from thinking Native Americans were heathens and forcing their conversion to religious parents disowning their gay children, there is a world of intolerance practiced, past and present, by people who claim to be religious.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "People are intolerant of some religions rules, I am as well. But religion does not creates the intolerance, the people do."

Again the bible condemns entire groups of people and religions who hold the bible to be the word of god do too! Yes it's people being intolerant from the bible to church rules. But religion as institution provides confirmation that they are "right" in that prejudice and they are "right", or even mandated, to act on it. And if you are good faithful adherent to the religious doctrine you are encourage to adopt the prejudices so in this way it does create them.

[Travis]

religious people are intolerant because their rule book tells them it's okay.
You can blame the people, but the same source that cs claims as the wellspring of morality is also what they use to justify their intolerance.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "All have questions have been answered. Maybe not to your liking, and I guess not because you seem to have a whole pack of 'troll' cards. I am always happy to elaborate on anything you need clarification"
No they haven't, you have failed to answer the repeated questions on what relevance your opinion on the pace of science has to do with the discussion. Troll.

[cerebus]

Ayaash wrote: "A World Without Science.. morality is far more important than some god forsaken experiments..!!!"

Another religionist who secretly yearns to be selfish and live a life without morality but refrains for the base reasons of fear of punishment and desire for a selfish reward.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "Is this because you are a some what tolerant non religious person and you have family and friends who are religious and are not so tolerant? "

While you didn't ask this of me originally..."

So, on the one hand, I'm tolerant. On the other, I can be pretty cold and judgmental.

I guess that is similar to about 70% of everybody.


Then, when we think about it from a historical standpoint, we'd have to admit to a huge amount of intolerance

It is very easy to sit in our cosy homes on our pc's and other mod.cons, talking to the rest of the world about past generations who we know very little about and judging then intolerant. Society was very differant than, you can't put our morals and standards on to them.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "People are intolerant of some religions rules, I am as well. But religion does not creates the intolerance, the people do."

Again the bible condemns entire groups of people and religion..."

Governments do just that.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "My feeling is it would be less tolerant society"
Do you have anything to back up this 'feeling'?

cs wrote: "But we do have religion and it follows that societies morals have a religious foundation."
Explain how this 'follows'.

cs wrote: "We now live in a world where we point the finger at what other countries are doing and try to force our morals on to them. Whether it is bullfighting, stoning woman, capital punishment, nuclear weapons or a hundred other things. "
I infer from this you are a moral relativist? You think we shouldn't look at another country and say, for example, that capital punishment is wrong?

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "All have questions have been answered. Maybe not to your liking, and I guess not because you seem to have a whole pack of 'troll' cards. I am always happy to elaborate on anything you ne..."

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "All have questions have been answered. Maybe not to your liking, and I guess not because you seem to have a whole pack of 'troll' cards. I am always happy to elaborate on anything you ne..."

You must have missed the answer, try again.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I guess that is similar to about 70% of everybody."
a figure you get from where?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "You must have missed the answer, try again. "
Point it out then. Troll.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "It is very easy to sit in our cosy homes on our pc's and other mod.cons, talking to the rest of the world about past generations who we know very little about and judging then intolerant. Society was very differant than, you can't put our morals and standards on to them."
Of course we can, there are some basics to that should be applied to all, murder, rape, child abuse, ect ect... You mentioned stoning women, are you saying this is ok because it is a part of their society and religion? Is it Ok to kill kids for Emo haircuts in Jerusalem? Burn old people in Africa accused of witchcraft? These are example of recent "moral" religious violence practised in a different cultural setting. We can and should apply basic moral standards and human rights, and religion and cultural practice shouldn't have the right to supersede these.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Governments do just that. "

What? use the bible or appropriate holy books, religion and doctrine to justify horrific acts? I agree, some certainly do.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "It is very easy to sit in our cosy homes on our pc's and other mod.cons, talking to the rest of the world about past generations who we know very little about and judging then intolerant. Society was very differant than, you can't put our morals and standards on to them. "

Yeah, right .... I can totally see myself burning homosexual men to death and burning a "witch" on top of them ... or ... I can totally see myself believing a bunch of middle schoolers who were rolling around on the floor claiming specters were flying around the air and, as a result, carrying a bunch of women up a ladder, tying ropes around their necks and letting them swing ... witches, don't you know. Different time. Hey. I'm sure I'd do those things. Yup. Or, I can see myself forcing Native Americans to cut their hair and not letting them speak their languages or see their families. Right. Oh, oops. I'd have been the Indian being forced to act white. Almost forgot.

Or, gee .... I can even take this to recent history. I can totally see myself, about 14 years ago, turning in my homosexual colleagues to a school board chair who was demanding names.

Yeah, right. Time were different. Can't put our morals on them. Right. Real easy to go all pc on them, huh?

Some things, cs, have NOTHING to do with political correctness. Some things are totally and completely vile and disgusting and always were, always. Claiming otherwise is a joke and a copout.

In addition, either the thing is moral or it isn't. You're saying, I believe, that morality comes from religion, specifically Christianity. So, does that mean that you're saying the injustices perpetrated by said Christians were moral? Is that what you're saying?

Because, frankly, either you're confused, trying to confuse us, or are saying the horrors perpetrated in the name of Christ were moral.

I have to say, I take issue with all but your possible confusion.

[[deleted user]]

I left something out ....

While I have no proof, I truly believe people are born, to a certain extent, with a certain sense of morals. I doubt everyone would agree. But, I do believe this and have for some time. I, unlike many religious folk of various religions, believe babies are born good. I believe we're born good and actually learn to be nasty. We learn, in my mind, how to bully and discriminate and rape and murder and ... That, well, that is not moral. It's the opposite.

Some of us rise above. Some don't. Both have morals. Clearly, I try to stand with the first group.

[Cameron]

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

Because people have personalities...babies are people. That question has already been answered, and not by religion

[Cameron]

A world without religion would be beautiful. It's unfortunate that so many people actually think religion is what makes people good. All these rights we have, all this tolerance, came about during the enlightenment. All these women commenting on how religion is good wouldn't even be allowed to voice their opinions if rational, thinking people didn't come along and literally pull us from the dark ages. You do not need religion to be a good person, but it takes religion to make a good person do bad things. You do not need religion. Nobody does.

[[deleted user]]

Cameron wrote: "A world without religion would be beautiful. It's unfortunate that so many people actually think religion is what makes people good. All these rights we have, all this tolerance, came about during ..."

You have a point to a certain extent, Cameron; however, you're also overgeneralizing. Many Native American people believed in a Great Spirit. Yet, they didn't, for the most part, treat their women like pond scum.

[Kokay]

I think this is a very important question of our time. Because the answer is not as simple as choosing one over the other. We must contextualize this. Though, it might be easy for me to say that yes, I'd rather live in a world without religion, but it is also true that the biggest religions in the world are like major corporations that if taken out of the equation, I don't know, economies will suffer.

I'd say, religions like Christianity, Islam, are struggling in a world where their relevance is being questioned by every problem this era had offered us. Like family planning, cloning, the exploration of the universe and the continuos questions is always, where is god in all this?

How can we continue to live with the virtues of our religion/faith, when survival to modern society challenges like capitalism, materialism with values from our religions?

It's not an easy question. Time will come and this question will vanish and only one obvious answer will surface. But till then, who knows?

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "I left something out ....

While I have no proof, I truly believe people are born, to a certain extent, with a certain sense of morals. I doubt everyone would agree. But, I do believe this and ha..."
While I don't agree that healthy babies are born with anything other than a survival instinct, and some personality traits. I don't believe they're evil or immoral just amoral, in the literal not derogatory sense. I do believe if the infants care givers as the child develops demand and demonstrate moral behaviour then this child will too, it is also true of immoral behaviour. One need only look at the cases of Romulus and Remus children that occasionally occur in the world where children have been "raised" by animals and display the "morality" of the foster animals, or children raised "orphanages" that little human contact (of course you can't create a study, that would immoral), whose social development is arrested, and survival is what remains.
I'll find the links but I have to go to kinder for my four year old's Mother's day presentation...

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "I don't believe they're evil or immoral just amoral, in the literal not derogatory sense. "

Perhaps you're right .... They're babies and ... learn to be moral or immoral from their parents, etc....

However, I think we've gone here before, but there are those few ... people raised in certain conditions who are so different, who choose a different course despite all the odds. I just don't know.

No....

You know, there's just something missing in this. I don't know what it is ... but .... I was born with a protective instinct. Born with it. I know it. I know it because people talk about how it was always there. I wasn't taught that. Not that young, at least. It was just there. So, maybe that was part of my personality. I don't know.

But, it's become my moral compass. People should be safe. People have the right to be safe. If they're not safe, they should be protected. Period. That's what I base most of my choices around.

Yes, as I grew, I experienced certain things that enhanced this. But, I was born with it. I just know that I was. As I lived my life, the people around me could have supported it or squelched it. It was there to begin with, though.

I'm rambling and can't form thoughts. I just know that, regardless of the time and the conditioning, there are some people who would stand up against horrible things because they're horrible. Some stand up. Not because it's politically correct or expedient or a game. They stand up because it's right. Yes, I'm the live and let live person. But, hell ....

[Robin]

I think I would chose religion. Because many wars have been fought over religion. And in Palestine and Israel the fighting is still going on, and Belfast also. I would rather everyone be on the same level playing field. I think science is important for mankind. That's why it is not a good idea to talk religion or politics at family gatherings.

[Dorothy]

I would love to live in a world without religion. Living without science means being slaves to superstition. Women do not thrive in religious societies.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I don't believe they're evil or immoral just amoral, in the literal not derogatory sense. "

Perhaps you're right .... They're babies and ... learn to be moral or immoral from their..."

I'm not saying babies don't have personality traits, I just don't think they are born innately knowing right from wrong. Perhaps those that "choose differently" choose different role models when their primary ones prove detrimental, another manifestation of survival.
Who knows what may have happened if you didn't have the "luxury" to develop your protective instinct, thankfully we don't engage in such experiments. Perhaps it may have persisted perhaps it may have become focussed purely on self, who knows...
I agree that some people just stand up and as I write this I remember a story my mother told me of my 5 yr old brother, telling my mother's, then, partner "Don't hit my mum" but again is it doing what's "right" or survival in ending the assault on his primary care giver...

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "I agree that some people just stand up and as I write this I remember a story my mother told me of my 5 yr old brother, telling my mother's, then, partner "Don't hit my mum" but again is it doing what's "right" or survival in ending the assault on his primary care giver... "

Your brother is awesome!

That story reminded me of one about my father when he was the same age. His sister, an infant, was crying and crying and my grandmother wouldn't go to her. He marched up to my grandmother and said, "You're the one who wanted her. Take care of her!"

Clearly, I don't know if these are incidents of doing what's right or examples of survival instinct kicking in. I lean toward the former, but I just don't know.

I do know this ... your brother is awesome.

[Shanna]

Oh yeah, he's awesome, either way there is no doubting the courage to do what he did at 5, and if my memory of that man is clear, and I think it is, he was large and intimidating and to a 5yr old...
I think you lean towards the former because you're generous. I'd like to think the former too, but I don't know, when it comes to protecting my babies I'd both kill and die in a heartbeat, but is that survival or something more...

[Gary]

cs wrote: "You must have missed the answer, try again."

Actually, you haven't answered the question "please provide reasoning and evidence for your unfounded claim." You have just restated your claim repeatedly.

You claim that since about 70% of western society is Christian then the other 30% must have been influenced by Christian ideas.

Approximately 50% is made of men, does that mean that therefore morality is based on male ideas? A large percentage of the US and Europe is Caucasian, does that mean that you believe that morality is based on white ideas?

Correlation is not causation. More to the point you don't even have a conclusion to your argument. If your argument was sound you should be able to point out a difference in morality based on the percentage of Christian influence. Also you should be able to point out a sharp moral contrast between the morality of the times before Jesus and that of afterwards. Unfortunately the Roman Republic vs the Empire and the following Dark Ages does not support that claim.

So your answer amounts to "I believe that good morals are based on Christian society and my evidence is that both good morals and Christianity exist in the same place", conveniently forgetting the places were the Venn diagram definitely does not cross.