Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,751-3,800 of 12,463

[Hazel]

nope, wasn't phish food, it was dough-ble whammy... I had to go check that..

[[deleted user]]

Ah.... Grew up about 20 minutes from the Ben and Jerry's factory in Vermont! Yum! I don't eat it often, but I think my favorite is, well, I guess it depends on my mood. ;)

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "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 cultu..."
I said nothing about middle class or white, it's interesting you would jump there.
When I said right ethnicity I meant for the particular faith . A white middle class heterosexual christian male may be the oppressed individual if he lives in the "right" place.

[Xdyj]

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

That's not quite the same imho. When a physicist writes in the language of math it would have an unambiguous literal meaning, and given enough time everyone, regardless of faith or occupation or cultural background, can understand it in precisely the same way (at least in principle). Whether or not one agree w/ his or her explanation, or to what extend one can grasp the full implication of such explanation, would be another issue.

And I like that Tim Minchin movie:)

[Shanna]

Maria wrote: "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 wa..."

I love I Claudius

[Angela]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Would anyone that would rather have a world with religion and no science be as happy if the religion they ended up with wasn't the one they held themselves?
Or would you just allow all religion, ev..."

Excellent answer, Barbarossa! I agree with everything you said. In fact, I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Feckin' browncoat!"

*bows*"

Book: "What are we up to, sweetheart?"

River: "Fixing your Bible."

Book: "I, um...(alarmed)...what?"

River: "Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense." (she's marked up the bible, crossed out passages)

Book: "No, no. You - you can't...

River: "So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem."

Book: "Really?"

River: "We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat." (rips out page)

[Gary]

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

The three wise men walk in to the stable where Mary and Joseph await, one stubs his toe and lets out a loud exclamation.

"That's a good name!", exclaims Mary in response.
"Well two-thirds", says Joseph, "we will probably leave out the f-bomb in the middle."

[Gary]

cs wrote: "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."

Well for a start I don't see the relevance of what my answer to that question is to the discussion, except for you to try to once again evade difficult points with irrelevancies.

Should Iran be invaded? I don't know. I don't have the Military Intelligence given to me to determine how close Iran are to having a bomb, nor how likely more lives would be saved in the conflict.

Should the US invade Iran? No. Because the Muslim world won't see the US liberating an oppressed population, or preventing terrorism, or freeing women from dehumanising bondage. They will see Christian Crusaders invading Muslim lands ... again ... and the religious war will burn on.

So do the people of Iran deserve better? Yes. Ask their bloggers and young activists who risk the attentions of an extremely brutal regime that follow morals that are practically identical to biblical morals (except the names have been changed).

However, morality is increased through education and the comprehension of the advantages of a egalitarian society. Morality is not increased by trying to enforce one set of tribal superstitions over another.

Thank you for allowing me to illustrate another point, now please answer the points I made.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "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."

Actually re-read, we can. Your hypothesis is that Christian societies are morally superior. There are societies and cultures out there with differing amounts of Christian influence. From places that have laws strictly separating Church and State, to places that have many laws that are directly religious in origin. In the US you also have states which have a lot more fundamentalist Christians than other states.

If your hypothesis was true, we would expect to see a correlation between a regions Christianity and a dip in the number of crimes or other immoral activities. This trait is not observed and is if anything reversed in general.

This means your hypothesis is effectively disproved unless you can change your model to explain this problem.

That's how science works.

[Gary]

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

We all are, well except those people who are not thinking.

From www.dictionary.com,

phi·los·o·phy   [fi-los-uh-fee]
noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

So if your dismissive comment about me using a philosophical point of view is to admit you are not investigating truth in a rational fashion, I think you have again made my point.

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

Actually being someone who understands the mathematics of black holes I also know that most people probably could understand it given enough explanation. Like a lot of things, it isn't as complex as it is daunting.

Plus the mathematics does not stop a scientist being able to explain the consequences of the mathematics in laymans terms.

So in laymans terms, please answer the question asked without further evasion. "When you refer to 'God' are you meaning a male, all powerful, good god, similar in attributes to those claimed by the majority of Christians?"

[Gary]

Hazel wrote: "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."

Yep, well you know the phrase "be careful when you hand someone a loaded gun, that you know which direction he will point it..."

[Gary]

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."

4 reasons April I think...

1. I honestly do enjoy debate and try to keep an open mind. I actually am willing to change my mind about things if someone honestly persuades me through logic and evidence.

2. Repeatedly refuting someone's points who is not listening to you and is just trying to "win" through fair means or foul, may not effect them. However, other readers will see the evasions for what they are, and may listen to the counterpoints even if the evader refuses to.

3. I often debate "professional" Christian or Muslim apologists and this kind of debate helps me identify the common deceptions, tricks and mistakes that the "professionals" tend to obfuscate much better.

4. Giving up on ignorance just means victory for ignorance.

[cHriS]

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

That's not quite the same imho. When a physicist writes in the language o..."

That's not quite the same

....but enough to illustrate a point, maybe?

If there is a discussion between a few people and some debate purely from a philosophical standpoint; constantly quoting philosophers well tested principles and not being able to discuss 'out of the philosophical box', then it can be compared to mathematics.

Everyone can understand....... if they can understand

[Gary]

cs wrote: "....but enough to illustrate a point, maybe?

If there is a discussing between a few people and some debate purely from a philosophical standpoint; constantly quoting philosophers well tested principles and not being able to discuss 'out of the philosophical box', then it can be compared to mathematics.

Everyone can understand....... if they can understand."

Read the definition above re: philosophy. The rational discussion of matters of truth, principles of being and reality.

So your basic argument is that some people are not thinking outside of that box (like you?). I.e. being irrational, not seeking truth, or not talking about reality.

[cHriS]

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

We all are, well except those people who are not thinking.

From www.dictionary.com,

phi·los·o·phy   [fi-lo..."

So in laymans terms, please answer the question asked without further evasion. "When you refer to 'God' are you meaning a male, all powerful, good god, similar in attributes to those claimed by the majority of Christians?"

I think the issue may well be with the length of this discussion. I have answered this question on more that one occasion for more than one person.

Believing in a god from a non religious view, the 'god' would be something that I guess would be beyond our imagination. From a religious Christian view the bible explanation is good enough.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "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."

Actually re-read, we can. Your hy..."

your hypothesis is effectively disproved

It is something I 'think' that neither needs to be proved or disproved and it's not a phenomenon, which an hypothesis refers to.

We were talking about a 'world' without religion not a state or a country. Those will still be influenced by what goes on around them to a greater or lesser degree.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "We were talking about a 'world' without religion not a state or a country."

Actually, I don't think that's what you were talking about, cs.

If memory serves, you started with a general statement about religion and morality. But, for a considerable amount of time, you've been talking about Christian society. You've attempted to argue that Christian society is moral due to the influence of Jesus. You've said non-Christian's in Christian societies are influenced by Jesus and, therefore, have morals influenced by his teachings. You've said there's no way of knowing how societies would have developed, morally, without Christianity due to the fact of Christ's influence for the last 2,000 years.

Different people have made arguments against the above.

Now, instead of answering questions or addressing points, like Gary's ... example ... if Christian societies were more moral than any other, one would expect to see a drop in crime rates ... look at states in the US that are VERY Christian ... why isn't there a drop in crime rates.

Someone mentioned intellectual honesty, I believe ....

You could try and look into Gary's argument. You could look at Evangelical states ... their crime rates and New England states ... their crime rates ... and see if he's even correct. If he is, if crime rates are higher in highly Christian states, could their be other reasons, population, etc....

Instead ... after talking about Christian society for days and seeming to hold Christian societies above all others, discounting, it seems, other societies, you say we were talking about a world without religion ... not a state or a country. The UK is 70% Christian and that's what I'm talking about ... didn't you say something like that?

So ....

Instead of dealing with what you've been saying for days, you're going to go back to the original statement/question? Your original statement and the original question of this thread? Is that it?

[Lakshmee]

I think rather than religion, one means spirituality in this sense. If religion is what you're talking about then there's no way to evade it. Religion, in a sense of the word, after all means a set standard or edicts upon which one leads one's life. The guiding force behind religion is probably spirituality. For this, we need faith. As for a world with either science or religion, I'd like to quote the essence of the poem 'God's Grandeur' by Gerard Manley Hopkins- Science is the language through which we understand the grandeur of God. Whoever that may be.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Believing in a god from a non religious view, the 'god' would be something that I guess would be beyond our imagination. From a religious Christian view the bible explanation is good enough. "

But by labelling it a "god" that you believe in means that it is by definition not beyond your imagination. The very label means that you believe that it is a conscious entity or person, probably male and since a single god is specified, probably monotheistic.

All of that is the basis of the modern view of the Abrahamic god (Judeo-Christian leaves out Islam for no good reason.)

As soon as you "believe" in a god, that is religion. You cannot have belief in a god without religion unless that god is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to all, and then you don't need belief.

So no. You cannot believe in "god" and be non-religious, because you are following a religion that posits a single god instead of a goddess, a pantheon or other spiritual force.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "It is something I 'think' that neither needs to be proved or disproved and it's not a phenomenon, which an hypothesis refers to.

Actually you made the claim that "without religious culture, we would have less morality" in support of your choice of religion over science.

Your assumption that religious influence makes a more moral society is a hypothesis by definition.

Therefore, what you 'think' I have disputed, providing rational and corroboration. You are free to continue to 'think' this in spite of rationality and evidence but I am also free to think you are wrong and tell you why. Just as you have been trying to do to me and others.

cs wrote: "We were talking about a 'world' without religion not a state or a country. Those will still be influenced by what goes on around them to a greater or lesser degree. "

Exactly. This statement supports my point. People should be influenced to a greater or lesser degree. This should produce a pattern of influence to a greater or lesser degree across places were the influence has been less or more. This predicted pattern from your hypothesis is not in evidence. Therefore the conclusion you have made is most likely wrong.

[Gary]

As a interesting point, the last "New Scientist" magazine had a review of this book that may be relevant.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...

It's about the evolution of morality in both other species and man and apparently the author does a lot of research into tribes and cultures outside of Christianity. I will be interested in reading his conclusions.

[Gary]

Lakshmee wrote: "Science is the language through which we understand the grandeur of God. Whoever that may be."

Or whatever. Why not the grandeur of the universe instead of limiting the grandeur to that of a person or entity like us being involved at some point?

The problem with "spirituality" is that I have never heard the term used contextually except in circumstances were it was an attempt to indicate it was something "beyond" science, which both misunderstands the point of science and attempts to rationalise the irrational. Whenever "spiritual" is used it seems to artificially define a limit to our knowledge usually at the same time as the person who sets the limit then starts professing knowledge beyond said limit.

From my experience the universe is far more vast and beautiful than any vision of pearly clouds and golden gates, and reality is stranger and more wonderful than a place were disembodied spirits that are suspiciously mundane in their similarity to us, lurk.

[Lakshmee]

Gary wrote: "Lakshmee wrote: "Science is the language through which we understand the grandeur of God. Whoever that may be."

Or whatever. Why not the grandeur of the universe instead of limiting the grandeur ..."
I concede that spirituality is mostly used in the context of the 'beyond' or 'meta'... it is not entirely true in my opinion. Spirituality is so personal an idea that it becomes far too subjective to discuss. This is one interesting parallel one can find between spirituality and science. it is often believed that science is too objective and mundane to the spirit. This becomes a fallacy when one's spirituality dwells in the context of science. So spirituality isn't something beyond science, but a marriage of the two. I like that you say 'rationalize the irrational' this is the beauty of life itself, some things are too profound and beautiful in themselves that one doesn't need to articulate it. And in the context of the poem 'Grandeur of God', i think God isn't particularly who or what but a mere symbol constructed by us to attribute the irrational to. This seems, to most of us, to some extent explain the unexplainable wonders of life.

[Gary]

Lakshmee wrote: "Spirituality is so personal an idea that it becomes far too subjective to discuss."

I would say that nothing relevant should be beyond discussion, certainly people have their own ideas and intuitions but why should they not be discussed and challenged? In fact that should surely start with oneself, challenging and discussing with yourself your own personal intuitions and ideas.

You are right that science is usually viewed as "mundane" which is highly amusing to scientists that study Quantum Physics. In fact at the moment there is a discussion about quantum physics and subjective reality and the role consciousness plays in the universe. However, this does not mean we cannot discuss it, on the contrary several experiments have already been performed to try to probe the edges of subjective and objective reality.

[Lakshmee]

Gary wrote: "Lakshmee wrote: "Spirituality is so personal an idea that it becomes far too subjective to discuss."

I would say that nothing relevant should be beyond discussion, certainly people have their own ..."

Precisely, we are discussing it, aren't we? :) but why discussion becomes difficult at a certain point with spirituality is that one would be unable to precisely articulate it. However, we can always work towards it.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "We were talking about a 'world' without religion not a state or a country."

Actually, I don't think that's what you were talking about, cs.

If memory serves, you started with a genera..."

Actually, I don't think that's what you were talking about, cs.


It is. We live in a world populated by religion. I was talking about Christian religion since I live in a country that is Christian.

We can only guess what the world would be like if religion did not exist, and in my option it would be a world with different values from what we have today.

If you are anti religion, of course you will say it would be a better world, but I don't think so, at lease not without the christian religions.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "It is something I 'think' that neither needs to be proved or disproved and it's not a phenomenon, which an hypothesis refers to.

Actually you made the claim that "without religious cul..."

Your assumption that religious influence makes a more moral society is a hypothesis by definition.

It was you who gave the hypothesis.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Believing in a god from a non religious view, the 'god' would be something that I guess would be beyond our imagination. From a religious Christian view the bible explanation is good eno..."

But by labelling it a "god" that you believe in means that it is by definition not beyond your imagination.

I use the word 'god' with a small 'g' as a default word in this discussion.

As soon as you "believe" in a god, that is religion. You cannot have belief in a god without religion

Wrong. This is a philosophical, not thinking out of the box response.

[Hazel]

1,2,3. Thats three stock responses that I've seen from cs a dozen or so times before.

[Maria]

I think a lot of people cling to their religious beliefs simply because of sentimentality and maybe even fear. Example, if someone was raised in a particular religion, but decided later in life that they really didn't believe in it, they would have to accept the fact that, if none of it is true and there is no god or heaven, then they have no chance to see their dead loved ones ever again. They also have to always wonder in the back of their mind - when I die, am I just SOL, gone, pushing up daisies in the dirt? You mean there's nothing ELSE? It's not a really good reason to be "religious" - but I really think that this is in the back of some people's minds. That's why people say, "I'm a nonpracticing Catholic - (or some other religion"). They want it to be known that they really don't adhere to the religious beliefs but - "hey, I'm associated with this religion, so I still have a chance to go to heaven." I know this doesn't make much sense, and I don't feel this way, but I know people who do - even if they don't realize they do.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "It was you who gave the hypothesis."

No. It was your hypotheses, perhaps you don't know what we mean by that. Fortunately one post earlier you clearly repeat your hypotheses for Shannon.

cs wrote: "We can only guess what the world would be like if religion did not exist, and in my option it would be a world with different values from what we have today. If you are anti religion, of course you will say it would be a better world, but I don't think so, at lease not without the christian religions.

That is your hypotheses, that a world without religion would not be better without the christian religion.

Now we can test that hypotheses. Yes this is "guess work", but so is holding out a rock and predicting it will fall to the ground when you let go. An educated guess based on evidence and comparison will allow you to discern the most likely results of a hypotheses.

So testing the hypotheses that christian religions lead to a "better world" is fairly simple. We would expect regions with higher Christian influence to show statistically significant lower rates of crime and immorality. This prediction does not hold true, therefore your hypotheses (or your "option") would appear to be fallacious.

By the way, when you say "in my option" do you actually mean "in my opinion" or do you literally mean you have opted to believe this?

cs wrote: "If you are anti religion, of course you will say it would be a better world

Now that is a bit petty. You are implying that people have chose to be anti-religion and are then saying things based on that choice. I think you will find most people you term "anti-religion" on here are basing their opinions on observations that have made them dispute the value and morality of religion.

I, for example, used to be Christian. Unfortunately I committed the sin of wanting to know more. I read the bible and studied the history of Christianity and realised that not only did I not believe in it any more, but that it was a particularly horrible and brutal cult that is only softened by modern secular society.

[Maria]

Gary, did you study the Bible by yourself or with members of a certain religion - I just wonder if you were influenced in a bad way by some wacko evangelical that turned you off to religion in general. Not being mean, just wondering.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "It was you who gave the hypothesis."

No. It was your hypotheses, perhaps you don't know what we mean by that. Fortunately one post earlier you clearly repeat your hypotheses for Shann..."

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Mine was just a guess, as you said.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Wrong. This is a philosophical, not thinking out of the box response."

You do not seem to understand the terms hypotheses, religion or philosophy.

A belief that there is a god is a religion, because it involves "belief". You could instead hypothesise that there is a god, and that would not be a religion, however that hypotheses you would then have to assume was potentially wrong and you need to test the hypotheses until you get consistent results that you can then formulate a theory on.
-----
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek, which literally means "love of wisdom"
----
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose".
----
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Gary, did you study the Bible by yourself or with members of a certain religion - I just wonder if you were influenced in a bad way by some wacko evangelical that turned you off to religion in gene..."

No that's a fair question.

When I was young, I tended to get interested in a wide range of different subjects and to read and study them alone. I am just a curious fellow (heh, in many ways).

I had a mixed upbringing of catholic and protestant influence, but neither parent tried to indoctrinate me heavily preferring me to choose between the two when I was old enough.

I was told when I was young that I was a Christian and I could not imagine myself not trying to be a good Christian if it was important, and lets face it there is nothing more important than the entirety of existence.

Therefore I took it on myself to read all of the bible and then study Catholic and Protestant literature to see what I believed was true.

Three books into the bible, Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus and I was shocked and horrified. I stuck it out and then read the New Testament only to find the expected "nice Jesus" story surrounded by other aspects that showed Jesus was definitely not as nice as popular culture makes out.

That pretty much ended my faith, Catholic or Protestant. Not long after that I discovered the truly ugly underside of christianity when it became known that I had lost my faith.

Since then I have also read the Apocrypha, the Qu'ran, the book of Mormon, and a wide variety of works by religious apologists. During that time my search for truth led me to cosmology, astrophysics and science in general.

No it's not religious extremists or dodgy cults that got me, it was realising the truth of what Christianity stands for, a truth that most modern Christians conveniently ignore for the few lines of Jesus that seem to be morally just.

[Maria]

Interesting, Gary. So do you not believe that stuff in the Bible really happened or do you believe it happened and is just horrifying? That's where I stand pretty much, myself. Because lots of what's in there can be verified through historical, secular writings. I guess it's just the divinity of it that is in question...

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Because lots of what's in there can be verified through historical, secular writings.."

Actually there isn't much that can be verified by historical writings. There is little or no corroborating records that were not written after the ascension of the Christian religion almost 100 years after the alleged events of the New Testament took place. The Old Testament is even worse with very few corroborating records, the Egyptians for example have no records of having hordes of Israelite slaves and by ancient standards the Egyptians kept very good records. So good that even the attempt by Egyptian priests to destroy the memory of Akhenaten and his Monotheistic cult of the "Aten" (a pre-abrahamic almighty god figure) was not successful.

Maria wrote: "Gary, did you study the Bible by yourself or with members of a certain religion."

Just to demonstrate, one of the first things I noticed was in Genesis. No one else I know has ever said they noticed this until I pointed it out to them.

(The following is extracted from http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org because it was the first result on Google.)

Genesis
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Do you see what happened there? God said "if you eat that fruit you will die". The serpent said "no you won't surely die, you will know good and evil".

They ate the fruit and didn't die (not that day and not for many years) and knew good and evil. Then God kicked them out of Eden in case they "take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever". He then had the fruit guarded.

So God lied, but the Serpent told the absolute truth. Moreover, God's warning that they would die was disingenuous because he had the frikking cure hanging off another tree nearby!

That is just one of many reasons, but it was one of the first ones I came across.

[Maria]

I was always told that a day with god is like 1000 years. A day for a year.. I have heard that too. And no human has ever lived more than 1000 years to my knowledge, I think Methuselah supposedly lived to be 969. Adam, maybe 925 - not sure. So they really did die within that figurative day. I think that people pick and choose what to take absolutely literal - like creating the world in 7 actual 24 hour days, and what to take "in context" like the stuff about homosexuality being condemned. Is it all literal? All figurative? A mixture?

Like where Jesus told his disciples "I and the father are one" - people use that to defend the trinity doctrine. But right after that Jesus said to the disciples "I am one with all of you just as I am one with the father" - so are all of them really literally one entity? Makes no sense.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I was always told that a day with god is like 1000 years. A day for a year..."

That's fairly irrelevant though. The point is that if Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Life they would live forever. (god says so) So why would they need to eat that fruit if they were never going to die in the first place? If eating the fruit did mean that they would 'eventually' die, why did god then actively prevent them getting the cure?

Either.

Adam & Eve were immortal and by eating the fruit of the tree of life they were no longer immortal, but god didn't have to let them die like he warned, he could let them eat the cure.

or.

Adam and Eve were not immortal and ate the first fruit and god panicked and kicked them out before they could also make themselves immortal.

Either way, the Serpent told the truth, God lied, Adam and Eve were deliberately cursed by god and all of their innocent descendants. Then thousands of years later god had to incarnate himself as Jesus to be murdered as a blood sacrifice to forgive the curse he himself imposed.

Which itself is a problem. Apparently Judas was fated to betray Jesus to allow the sacrifice to happen. However, Jesus spent 3 days in hell and then was whipped out to heavem, while Judas suffers for all eternity. Therefore why do we honour Jesus and not Judas who had to suffer the much greater sacrifice of eternity in hell?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Wrong. This is a philosophical, not thinking out of the box response."

You do not seem to understand the terms hypotheses, religion or philosophy.

A belief that there is a god is a rel..."

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Wrong. This is a philosophical, not thinking out of the box response."

You do not seem to understand the terms hypotheses, religion or philosophy.

A belief that there is a god is a rel..."






Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems

And sometimes it is good to 'think out of the box', use other ways
----
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. "to put under" or "to suppose".

None of these apply to what I said 'I think'.

suppose is to assume something, thats not what i said.

----
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

moral values

Thank you you have made my point (s).

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems

And sometimes it is good to 'think out of the box', use other ways

What other ways can you think about it? The only alternative you have cited is "faith" which is an intellectual dead end.

cs wrote: "None of these apply to what I said 'I think'."

If you "think" that something causes something then you are also "supposing" that something causes something.

Either you are supposing that christianity leads to better morals or you are not. What you are doing is trying to evade the point by playing word games. Again.

cs wrote: "suppose is to assume something, thats not what i said."

No to suppose would be to postulate something, not assume, unless the assumption was potentially hypothetical at which point that is a postulation.

All of this is word games to get around the simple fact that you have stated that you believe that without Christianity we would have a less moral culture, I have refuted that fact with evidence. What evidence do you have to support your assertion?

moral values

Thank you you have made my point (s).
None of these apply to what I said 'I think'.

suppose is to assume something, thats not what i said.

----
cs wrote: "moral values

Thank you you have made my point (s).
."

Well since I simply quoted the definition of religion which includes the claim that it pertains to moral values (neither stating positive or negative morals, nor any particular religion nor if said moral values were derivative) if I have made your point then you are in agreement that religion claims to pertain to moral values but you have no evidence or rationale to show those moral values to be superior to moral values derived from other sources?

Put more simply, just because the definition of religion includes a reference to morality, that no more makes the religion of christianity any more moral than Islam, Buddhism, Paganism or Satanism.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems

And sometimes it is good to 'think out of the box', use other ways

What other ways can you think about it? The..."


All of this is word games to get around the simple fact that you have stated that you believe that without Christianity we would have a less moral culture, I have refuted that fact with evidence. What evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Once again I will explain. I have never claimed that without Christianity we would have a less moral culture. I have said that in my option that without Christianity we would have a less moral culture.

In my option it will might rain next Sunday. No one can have proof of that anymore than they have proof that it might not rain next Sunday.

You are avoiding or, not reading my previous posts or, not understanding my original comment because I said...... if there was never religion in the world then today we would have a less moral society, in my option.

So how can you prove that? You can only guess at what life would be like without religion.

A previous example I gave was that of the Native American. What would the Native American be like today if they had not been found. We will never know because we have found them.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "A previous example I gave was that of the Native American. What would the Native American be like today if they had not been found. We will never know because we have found them. "

I should imagine we'd be much as we were ... before we were "found" ....

Of course, I wonder. Does that imply we were lost? No, I know that's not your point. But, for some of my people, that type of comment is insulting.

Given the fact that we're sharing experiences and ideas, I thought I'd pass that on.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems

And sometimes it is good to 'think out of the box', use other ways

What other ways can you think a..."

Do you mean "option" or opinion cs?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "A previous example I gave was that of the Native American. What would the Native American be like today if they had not been found. We will never know because we have found them. "

I sh..."

should imagine we'd be much as we were ... before we were "found" ....

No, I know that's not your point. But, for some of my people, that type of comment is insulting.

.....and I know that many Native Americans don't like the word discovered, so what word would you use?

should imagine we'd be much as we were ... before we were "found"


I'm sure progress would have been made.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: ".....and I know that many Native Americans don't like the word discovered, so what word would you use?"

I think you just might be missing the point.

Hint ...

It's not really about word choice. It's about the idea and intent behind such statements.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Once again I will explain. I have never claimed that without Christianity we would have a less moral culture. I have said that in my option that without Christianity we would have a less moral culture."

So you do mean "opinion" and not "option". Please don't take this as offensive but is English not your first language as you seem to have some issues with grammar and definitions?

cs wrote: "In my option it will might rain next Sunday. No one can have proof of that anymore than they have proof that it might not rain next Sunday."

Actually you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is statistically unlikely that the planet will not have precipitation somewhere on its surface on any single 24 hour period (e.g. the Rain Forests, Wales).

If you are talking about rain where you are currently, well you may not be able to prove but by using the science of meteorology and the technology of satellites and weather sensors you can certainly show whether your "option" is likely to conform to reality or not.

cs wrote: "You are avoiding or, not reading my previous posts or, not understanding my original comment because I said...... if there was never religion in the world then today we would have a less moral society, in my option."

In your "option", i.e. you choose to believe, or "opinion" as in what you believe or estimate?

cs wrote: "So how can you prove that? You can only guess at what life would be like without religion."
Just as by your example, we can only guess what the weather is like tomorrow? True. However, we can make that guess fairly accurate for the majority of the time by formulating a theory based on evidence.

cs wrote: "A previous example I gave was that of the Native American. What would the Native American be like today if they had not been found. We will never know because we have found them. ."

But we can extrapolate and hypothesise based on what we know about their history and original society and comparing and contrasting with over one hundred modern hunter-gatherer societies including the Netsilik and !Kung.

It's fairly obvious you do not understand the scientific process and how the computer in front of you was developed. No one still knows with 100% certainty how a transistor gate works, but we know to 99%+ certainty how to get one to operate on a circuit board. All this originates from the process of observing->guessing->hypothesising->criticising->theorising->applying

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Of course, I wonder. Does that imply we were lost? No, I know that's not your point. But, for some of my people, that type of comment is insulting.

Given the fact that we're sharing experiences and ideas, I thought I'd pass that on."

Thank you. I appreciate the insight there.

Personally perhaps the word 'encountered' would be more appropriate? Though in historical context perhaps 'invaded' would be more honest?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: ".....and I know that many Native Americans don't like the word discovered, so what word would you use?"

I think you just might be missing the point.

Hint ...

It's not really about wo..."

I get the point, I know quite a bit about the Native American.

But 'How do I say 'America was discovered' without saying 'America was discovered'. When talking about the the migration of Europeans?

America has alway been there and it was the the Native Americans land.

As was Austraila and New Zealand.

PS. What 'intent behind such statements' do you think I ment?