Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,701-3,750 of 12,463

[Gary]

Sara wrote: " We can't all be scientists."

Why not? Science is the search for knowledge using the methodology of questioning, analysing and trying to remove ones own ego and preconceptions from your view of the truth.

Anyone can be a 'scientist' by simply having the humility to accept that the current ideas you have about reality are probably wrong at some level, but the path of wisdom is to refine those ideas, and always improve the model without forgetting that it is a model.

Scientists aren't just guys in lab coats.

[Gary]

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

Again it seems to be easy for theists to blame the intolerances of Religion on people when the people are just following exactly what their religion tells them to do.

The monothestic religions are intolerant, misogynistic, homophobic and divisive. This can be easily shown through scripture and through the common claims used by religious groups to support their intolerance. Some have even attacked measures and laws to promote equality with the protestation that it is intolerant to not allow religion to practice intolerance!

If the majority of Christian groups could point at their ideology and say that it is completely clear that intolerance and bigotry is against said ideology, then it would be true that it is the peoples fault. However, it is almost universally the intolerant and bigoted who cite the bible and other texts to support the idea that the lord of the universe just hates some people (that he apparently created and gave urges to).

So if the ideology of religion is intolerant then the fault lies with religion and the demand of faith not to question said ideology.

cs wrote: "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."

Actually all the evidence of multicultural metropolis and increased travel and trade has led to less intolerance not more. Typically it has been people who are not regularly exposed to other ideas that have been more intolerant of them.

[Gary]

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."

Well that undermines your entire religion influencing morality argument then. If religious society does equate to morality then your (i.e. Christian) morals and standards have to be applied to them as they are defined by the religious as a set of "god given" morals and rules.

Without religion we can still apply 'our' morality and rules to those times so we can apply them to our own. So when someone says "the bible says gays should be put to death" we can say actually by our evolved morality we now believe that to be wrong, just as the average modern Christian should recognise that God condoning the enslavement and rape of the women of conquered nations is wrong, as is the execution of rape victims or the beating of children.

More than ever before we should apply our ethical instincts to times past, or risk a loss of our modern comfortable life to be replaced by intolerance, bigotry and the harshness of our own Taliban.

[Gary]

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? ."

With most (typically monotheistic) Religions, intolerance is intrinsic to its nature. When you have faith in only one god, and that god you believe has a particular set of characteristics and a particular list of demands of the faithful, then that religion is by its very nature intolerant of anything outside that faith. This is why sectarian divides still lead to violence and even genocide over which faith is the most "right".

Saying that many pagan faiths were a lot more tolerant simply because they accepted their own pantheon of gods and were happy to accept that other people had other gods.

Notable exception too.

“We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.” - The Dalai Lama.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” - The Dalai Lama.

Now this is a theist that I can applaud.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: " 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 intoleran..."

At what point should we get our own house in order before we start telling others?

Should we now do to Iran what we did to Iraq?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "At what point should we get our own house in order before we start telling others?

Should we now do to Iran what we did to Iraq?."

Quite true. We should divorce ourselves from religiously inspired intolerance and bigotry before having the audacity to commit violence on a culture that is after-all following biblical rules on the role of women and the punishment of "sin" in a more direct and honest manner than the US or UK do.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "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 c..."

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

70% of the UK

[Gary]

cs wrote: "70% of the UK"

Fair enough. About 82% identify as "White British" so what is the difference between claiming that since most of the UK is white then therefore morality is based on "whiteness" with the other 18% influenced by white-british citizens, that is just the same as claiming that the 'superior' morality of Christianity has influenced the other 30%.

You still need to establish a clear link between increased religiosity and increased morality. This has not been done.

[Shanna]

Gary said it perfectly

Gary wrote "Quite true. We should divorce ourselves from religiously inspired intolerance and bigotry before having the audacity to commit violence on a culture that is after-all following biblical rules on the role of women and the punishment of "sin" in a more direct and honest manner than the US or UK do."

I agree that we could all improve, and removing the unique protection, justification, "targeting" and condonation provided by religion for acts of violence against various groups in society who aren't heterosexual males in the "right" faith and of the right ethnicity, would be a great step in the right direction.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "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..."

Nice speech, and all that because I don't agree that our ancestors had the same values as we do now. You do sound as though you have a chip on your shoulder, and maybe you have and maybe you have a right to, but others do have their opioion and you should hold back a bit and listen. There are enough folks here who think the debate is more important than the content.

If society does not learn, grow and change with each generation, what’s the point of evolving?

I'd have been the Indian being forced to act white. Almost forgot.

No you would not, you are living now not then. If you lived then you would not be the same person.

I could argue that because I was not born with blonde hair, and if Germany had won the war I would not have been allowed to live

[Gary]

cs wrote: "If society does not learn, grow and change with each generation, what’s the point of evolving?"

Agreed. Only by discarding old superstitions and prejudices can society develop ethically. Hence why religions that depend on scriptures and morality penned at a more ethically primitive time actively holds us back rather than bringing us forward. You have admitted all of the parts of this concept but are still arguing against your own obvious conclusion.

cs wrote: "I'd have been the Indian being forced to act white. Almost forgot.

No you would not, you are living now not then. If you lived then you would not be the same person. "

Again, fair enough, but if she was a different person, does that then mean it would be ok in your eyes to mistreat her just because people around her 'don't know any better at this time?'

Personally I condemn what I see as prejudice and intolerance no matter what the context of the culture. I don't think slavery was 'right at the time'.

cs wrote: "I could argue that because I was not born with blonde hair, and if Germany had won the war I would not have been allowed to live "

Yes you could argue that, perhaps it may even be true (though unlikely considering the source material) however it still maintains that an ideology contains a prejudice that you can clearly see is wrong with or without the context of the time or place.

[Dish Wanderer]

This is easy. I would want a world without religion.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "Gary said it perfectly

Gary wrote "Quite true. We should divorce ourselves from religiously inspired intolerance and bigotry before having the audacity to commit violence on a culture that is afte..."

Here we go, middle class heterosexual white male, every one else in society is some how a victim.

[Maria]

I think that Gary and I are on the same wavelength here, although I think I can understand some of cs's points, convoluted as they are.

I don't think we, individually or as a society, have the right to inflict violence on people for their sexual orientation even if we believe that what they are doing is sinful. They obviously DON'T think it's sinful or they wouldn't be doing it. If it turns out to be "wrong" and there is a "God" - he'll take care of the violence and extermination of people doing things he says not to do. If there's not a "God" then who cares - do what you want, as long as your behavior does not harm anyone (besides yourself).

If you believe in living by Bible standards, then you must believe that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible: This is from the "New Testament", 1st Corinthians 6:9-10.

"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom."

IF, and that is a big IF - you profess to abide by Bible standards, you cannot ignore the fact that "men who lie with men" are lumped in with all kinds of other "bad" things in this scripture and that God does not approve of them. Justify, rationalize, whatever, any way you want - but there it is.

I'm not saying that I believe it, but you can't ignore the fact that it is written that way.

It's the hypocrisy that gets me. Don't say you are a Christian and that you believe that the Bible is the word of "God" and then turn around and say, "yeah, but I can still be/do what I want". You can't. If you say you believe it, then you have to at least try to live by it.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "If it turns out to be "wrong" and there is a "God" - he'll take care of the violence and extermination of people doing things he says not to do."
If there is a god and this is how he treats people, he's not worthy of worship, he's just a petty dictator.

Maria wrote: "It's the hypocrisy that gets me. Don't say you are a Christian and that you believe that the Bible is the word of "God" and then turn around and say, "yeah, but I can still be/do what I want". You can't. If you say you believe it, then you have to at least try to live by it. "
So, are you a christian who believes the bible is the word of god?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "If society does not learn, grow and change with each generation, what’s the point of evolving?"

Agreed. Only by discarding old superstitions and prejudices can society develop ethicall..."


Agreed. Only by discarding old superstitions and prejudices can society develop ethically. Hence why religions that depend on scriptures and morality penned at a more ethically primitive time actively holds us back rather than bringing us forward.

I agree with most of that, and I've said many times that you can believe in god without having a religion. The issue I have with atheists is that they always want to bounce back and forward between religion then and religion now. Most Christians go to church or not on a Sunday and that’s about it, we don't even get to celebrate Christmas as we should in case we offend other religions.


Again, fair enough, but if she was a different person, does that then mean it would be ok in your eyes to mistreat her just because people around her 'don't know any better at this time?'

Well that is my point, many of them did not know any better at the time. It is still wrong what happened, but the world now is not the same. We had no control over what our ancestors did, we only have control over what we do now and it is for our children to look back and judge us.

Should the US invade Iran before it uses it's weapons (if it has any) on Israel? If they get that judgement wrong then the next generations will judge us. But it will not be their fault.

[cerebus]

@cs, answer the questions that have been asked of you. Troll.

[Maria]

Cerebus wrote: "Maria wrote: "If it turns out to be "wrong" and there is a "God" - he'll take care of the violence and extermination of people doing things he says not to do."
If there is a god and this is how he ..."

What I believe is not really the issue. I'm just saying IF someone believes it, they can't just put their fingers in their ears and go, "la la la la la" when they get to this particular scripture. Sure, everything is open to interpretation, but that one is pretty straightforward, at least the way I read it.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "What I believe is not really the issue. I'm just saying IF someone believes it, they can't just put their fingers in their ears and go, "la la la la la" when they get to this particular scripture. Sure, everything is open to interpretation, but that one is pretty straightforward, at least the way I read it. "
It is entirely the issue. You make a statement, with a big IF, that you say applies to christians who believe the bible is the word of god. Are you a christian who believes the bible is the word of god?

[Maria]

If I am, then I have to obey ALL the rules and regs in there. Or at least try.

If I'm not, then I don't have to worry about it.

That's my point.

[Hazel]

in response to what cs has put, once again:

1) the most basic definition of religion is "belief in a deity or higher power", thus you can't have belief in god without religion, because the belief is religion. You can believe in god without being a member of a particular religious institution, but you still have religion, because thats what the belief in god is.

2) christmas was a pagan festival first, bastardised by early christians in order to keep having the festival. If you want to celebrate the season properly, go to a saturnalia

3) Answer the god-damned questions that are being asked of you, instead of being intellectually dishonest and evading them again and again.

[Maria]

Christmas is definitely a pagan festival dressed up as a "Christian" holiday. Most of the "Christians" I know don't seem to care, they celebrate it anyway, pagan or not.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "70% of the UK"

Fair enough. About 82% identify as "White British" so what is the difference between claiming that since most of the UK is white then therefore morality is based on "whi..."

Christianity comes in all shades and colours.


You still need to establish a clear link between increased religiosity and increased morality. This has not been done.

I have said that it is my option. I could look for links to back up my option but I guess there would be others suggesting not.

What do I mean by a christian influence?

Like anything that will have an influence on a person, thats what I mean. If you grew up in a family that loves sport, with friends that play a lot of sport it is bound to influence you, for better or worse.

Same with christian morals in a society with 70% christian. More so in some Catholic countries where the percentage is even higher. And less so if the percentage in lower or of a different religion.

[Hazel]

I'm atheist, I celebrate it anyway, because.. well, Linus puts it best:

[Maria]

There you go, Hazel. Since you're an athiest, you are not being "disloyal" (for lack of a better word) to your "religion" by celebrating a holiday that a christian "God" would disapprove of. You're being honest and just celebrating it because you can. I like that - honesty and lack of hypocrisy. Can't say the same for those professing to be "Christians" though....

[Maria]

Hazel wrote: "in response to what cs has put, once again:

1) the most basic definition of religion is "belief in a deity or higher power", thus you can't have belief in god without religion, because the belief ..."

I think it's funny that an athiest would say "god-damned". Just sayin....

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "Hazel wrote: "in response to what cs has put, once again:

1) the most basic definition of religion is "belief in a deity or higher power", thus you can't have belief in god without religion, becau..."

its a turn of phrase that has very much become part of our general language. I do my best to not do it, but meh, its just words really. I usually just say damned or "goram", but then I'd have to explain the reference to anyone who isn't as much as a geek as I am

[Old-Barbarossa]

Feckin' browncoat!

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Feckin' browncoat!"

*bows*

[Maria]

I know, Hazel, I was just being funny! It's like the old joke where one guy says to another "Wow, I can't believe you're an athiest, are you really??" The guy answers, "Swear to God". :)

[Hazel]

Maria wrote: "I know, Hazel, I was just being funny! It's like the old joke where one guy says to another "Wow, I can't believe you're an athiest, are you really??" The guy answers, "Swear to God". :)"

I had a friend at uni who was catholic, and when someone asked him "so, does that mean you go to church?" He replied "not religiously" :P

[Maria]

That's great!

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Here we go, middle class heterosexual white male, every one else in society is some how a victim."

Not the victim of society, but certainly the victim of Christian "morality". Look at the uproar about women priests, why can't a woman have authority in the Christian church? Look at the homophobia that calls for murder, why does a loving god condemn love? Look at the passages that the slave owners used to justify holding other men in bondage.

You cannot dismiss this by claiming it is some sort of 'liberal guilt', this is biblical morality, however we have managed to evolve a more civilised set of ethics in spite of biblical values, not because of them.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I agree with most of that, and I've said many times that you can believe in god without having a religion.

That doesn't make sense for if you believe in "god" are you talking about a male, all-powerful deity? As soon as you believe in such an entity you are following a religion of some sort. Belief in "god" is just one of many many religions, but the only way not to be part of a religion is not to believe.

cs wrote: "The issue I have with atheists is that they always want to bounce back and forward between religion then and religion now."

I think you will find that they don't. In fact one of the main issues is theists taking lessons from the past (ancient hygiene laws in Leviticus etc.) and then applying them now to oppress or control. I think you will find that atheists would be happy if you left religion in the past.

cs wrote: "Most Christians go to church or not on a Sunday and that’s about it, we don't even get to celebrate Christmas as we should in case we offend other religions. "

This old chestnut. Actually it's religious pluralists that worry about that sort of thing. Atheists are actually more likely to celebrate the cultural tradition and only get annoyed when various evangelistic types try to ram "reason for the season" down everyone's throats. Especially since the christmas festival is a solar tradition that predates Christianity significantly.
cs wrote: "Well that is my point, many of them did not know any better at the time. It is still wrong what happened, but the world now is not the same. We had no control over what our ancestors did, we only have control over what we do now and it is for our children to look back and judge us."

Exactly why we should not be looking at the religion of the past to inform our moral decisions of the present.

cs wrote: "Should the US invade Iran before it uses it's weapons (if it has any) on Israel? If they get that judgement wrong then the next generations will judge us. But it will not be their fault. "

Since traditional Christian eschatology requires for Israel to be destroyed before the second coming can occur, and since the rivalry between Judaism and Islam is the main cause of dissent in the region then next generations would be right to judge the religions of the time as being at fault.

A lot of evangelistic support of Israel is based on this idea.

If a nuclear war starts because two groups cannot agree on which ancient text is the most 'moral' then that grotesque joke will be on all of its victims.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I have said that it is my option. I could look for links to back up my option but I guess there would be others suggesting not."

So you concede that your repeated claim that without religion we would have less morals is simply the 'option' you choose to believe?

cs wrote: "What do I mean by a christian influence?

Like anything that will have an influence on a person, thats what I mean..."

I understand what you mean by influence. Your claim was that this influence would then influence the moral character for the better, and therefore if religion did not exist, we would be morally lacking.

However, since there are many religions with disparate belief structures and morality, if one was the true religion we would see the society it influenced have a marked improvement in the morality of its members. This is demonstrably not the case. Therefore by that evidence I refute the concept that without religion we would have significantly less morality.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I know, Hazel, I was just being funny! It's like the old joke where one guy says to another "Wow, I can't believe you're an athiest, are you really??" The guy answers, "Swear to God". :)"

It's like that joke: "What does Jesus say when he swears?"
"Dad damnit!"

[Maria]

HAHAHAHA -Travis, I have never heard that one. :)

Or he could say "myself-damnit" since some people think that he and god are the same entity....

It's like when Caligula had delusions that he was a "god" in I Claudius. Someone said something that amazed Caligula and he said, "By Jove - that is to say By Myself". John Hurt did a great job in that role by the way.

[Travis]

Yeah, or Jesus would just work around shout 'Me! Me! My Dad!"

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Here we go, middle class heterosexual white male, every one else in society is some how a victim."

Not the victim of society, but certainly the victim of Christian "morality". Look at ..."

If you want to change the rules join the party.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I agree with most of that, and I've said many times that you can believe in god without having a religion.

That doesn't make sense for if you believe in "god" are you talking about a ma..."

Should the US invade Iran? A yes or no would do, or are you not able to commit to an answer because of the repercussion you might get.

[Hazel]

wow, do you honestly think that moral and ethical decisions are simply black and white, yes or no? That suddenly explains one hell of a lot.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I have said that it is my option. I could look for links to back up my option but I guess there would be others suggesting not."

So you concede that your repeated claim that without rel..."

Therefore by that evidence I refute the concept that without religion we would have significantly less morality.

That's ok, most folks here will do the same, but it is something that can't be proved because we live in a christian society and we can't alter that.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I agree with most of that, and I've said many times that you can believe in god without having a religion.

That doesn't make sense for if you believe in "god" are you talking about a ma..."

That doesn't make sense for if you believe in "god" are you talking about a male, all-powerful deity? As soon as you believe in such an entity you are following a religion of some sort

Thats because you are looking at things from a philosophical point of view.

It's a bit like a scientist explaining black holes using mathematics. It makes sense to him but not to others.

[Hazel]

Gary, get used to this phrase:

cs wrote: "Thats because you are looking at things from a philosophical point of view."

he'll spout it every time you say something logical, scientific and/or factual.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

I'm not so amazed by the troll cs as much as I'm amazed at the perseverance of the rest of you to engage with cs.

[Hazel]

you're absolutely right. Fuck it, I've just eaten a pint of icecream, now its time for a minchin moment, ten minutes of Tim:

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

[Maria]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I'm not so amazed by the troll cs as much as I'm amazed at the perseverance of the rest of you to engage with cs."

I have to read cs's posts several times before I can actually understand them - even before my Pinot.

[[deleted user]]

At this point, I'm wondering ... what kind of ice cream ...

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "At this point, I'm wondering ... what kind of ice cream ..."

ben and jerrys, one of the new core ones, cookie dough ice cream on one side, chocolate on the other, with a chocolate fudge core.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "At this point, I'm wondering ... what kind of ice cream ..."

ben and jerrys, one of the new core ones, cookie dough ice cream on one side, chocolate on the other, with a chocolate ..."

Phish Food.