Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 3,801-3,850 of 12,463

[Gary]

cs wrote: "'How do I say 'America was discovered' without saying 'America was discovered'. When talking about the the migration of Europeans?"

Well the America "discovered" is not really accurate as the evidence is that the Vikings were there before the Europeans, the Native Americans before them and the Clovis that they either descended from or replaced before them.

Whether or not the Columbus 'stumbling' across the continent is completely true, it was certainly convenient to the colonial powers to treat it as newly discovered and stake claims in the names of their Monarchs.

So perhaps the terms, "encountered", "re-discovered by Europeans", "colonised" or "invaded" would be more accurate?

[Molly]

without religion

[[deleted user]]

I think I prefer invaded. ;)

Went to a Pow Wow this weekend and saw a lovely t-shirt that I've seen before ... always makes me smile, though. Pics of Geronimo, etc... and the words ... Homeland Security ... fighting terrorism since 1492.

At any rate ....

Regarding intent, cs ....

You're linking this to morals. To advancement. We will never know what the natives would be like if we hadn't found them and if they hadn't been influenced by Jesus.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "We will never know what the natives would be like if we hadn't found them and if they hadn't been influenced by Jesus. ."

But we can make a good guess based on what we know of tribes that have avoided the influence of Jesus.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "I think I prefer invaded. ;)

Went to a Pow Wow this weekend and saw a lovely t-shirt that I've seen before ... always makes me smile, though. Pics of Geronimo, etc... and the words ... Homeland ..."


insulting and condescending, are these the words you're looking for Shannon? and being too nice to say...

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "'How do I say 'America was discovered' without saying 'America was discovered'. When talking about the the migration of Europeans?"

Well the America "discovered" is not really accurate ..."

Well, this is a wiki history lesson.

I asked Shannon to replace the word 'found', as the word 'discovered' suggests the land was uninhabited previous to the discovery; which she has not been able to do.

The word 'found' was used in the context of....

'I found a new friend today' even though that person was not lost.

Your suggested words are all relevant and in the right context, appropriate. But a bit strong for a friendly debate. Even though Shannon likes 'Invaded', with a smile.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "I think I prefer invaded. ;)

Went to a Pow Wow this weekend and saw a lovely t-shirt that I've seen before ... always makes me smile, though. Pics of Geronimo, etc... and the words ... Homeland ..."



You're linking this to morals. To advancement. We will never know what the natives would be like if we hadn't found them and if they hadn't been influenced by Jesus.

Thank you for backing me on this one.

The subject matter seems to have drifted form Christian morals to Native American History(something I have read a lot about), but the Native American question was to illustrate a point.

Left 'uninvaded' :)and away from the rest of the world their society could have progressed in a completely different direction from the one we know now.

You said we will never know.........and that was my point, to the atheists, we will never know what a non religious world would have been like.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Well, this is a wiki history lesson."
Actually that is off the top of my head so apologies for inaccuracies. :-) I know a bit about it due to hobbies and also the 'Clovis incident' from my astrophysics which is a suspected asteroid/cometary impact.

cs wrote: "Your suggested words are all relevant and in the right context, appropriate. But a bit strong for a friendly debate. Even though Shannon likes 'Invaded', with a smile. ."

Perhaps a bit strong :-) but 'encountered' seems neutral enough to me. Though I'd say the stronger ones are just as appropriate as long as we remember that no one alive now is the invader or the invaded, but it is good to remember the lessons, injustices and mistakes of history.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I think I prefer invaded. ;)

Went to a Pow Wow this weekend and saw a lovely t-shirt that I've seen before ... always makes me smile, though. Pics of Geronimo, etc... and the wor..."




....are you holding a wooden spoon?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "You said we will never know.........and that was my point, to the atheists, we will never know what a non religious world would have been like."

And as repeatedly said, we may never know for 100% sure, but we can make informed opinion rather than guesswork.

You offered the opinion that the lack of religion would make for a less moral society. To back that opinion your sole point is that "we can never know"

I have offered the opinion that this is wrong and have offered both rationale and evidence to support my opinion. Neither of which have you countered, debated or even acknowledged.

Just as a meteorologist will never 'know' exactly what the weather is tomorrow (until it is tomorrow), or a historian will never know exactly what happened on May 17th 1878, this does not stop us making informed 'guesses' using rationale and logic.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "...which she has not been able to do."
You are quick to pull this one, for someone who has a well established reputation on here of avoiding questions. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question asking you to explain the relevance of your opinion on the speed of progress in science.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "....are you holding a wooden spoon? "

@cs, can you please learn how to reply and quote correctly so we can have at least some indication as to what you are on about.....

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "....are you holding a wooden spoon? "

@cs, can you please learn how to reply and quote correctly so we can have at least some indication as to what you are on about....."

oh, I got that one, he's suggesting that Shanna asking Shannon if she was being too polite to say "insulting and condescending", is Shanna attempting to stir. And if he thinks that, then he's never actually met anyone who was born with a wooden spoon in their hand.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "oh, I got that one, he's suggesting that Shanna asking Shannon if she was being too polite to say "insulting and condescending", is Shanna attempting to stir. And if he thinks that, then he's never actually met anyone who was born with a wooden spoon in their hand. "
It'd still be handy in all of his other replies :)

[Hazel]

oh, absolutely, but that would take away one of the tricks for avoiding answering questions...

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "....are you holding a wooden spoon? "

@cs, can you please learn how to reply and quote correctly so we can have at least some indication as to what you are on about....."

You may not understand but Shanna should.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "...which she has not been able to do."
You are quick to pull this one, for someone who has a well established reputation on here of avoiding questions. I'm still waiting for a reply to m..."



I'm beginning to think you are winding me up. I have answered you question more than twice. It was in response to a previous post, a good few pages back. the person I responded to never replied but others did, including you, asking what the relevance was. It's the curse of joining a conversation half way through and the time difference across the pond, posts build up over night and replies get lost.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "You said we will never know.........and that was my point, to the atheists, we will never know what a non religious world would have been like."

And as repeatedly said, we may never kno..."



this does not stop us making informed 'guesses' using rationale and logic.

....like some do about Jesus?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I'm beginning to think you are winding me up. I have answered you question more than twice. It was in response to a previous post, a good few pages back. the person I responded to never replied but others did, including you, asking what the relevance was. It's the curse of joining a conversation half way through and the time difference across the pond, posts build up over night and replies get lost. "
I know the feeling.....
You have claimed an answer before, and when asked to point to it failed to do so. Again,I ask, can you point to the post which you feel answers the question, as I, and others, have searched and failed to find a post from you which explains the relevance.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "You may not understand but Shanna should. "
Again, evasion. The question was not "who understands this?"' but was "@cs, can you please learn how to reply and quote correctly so we can have at least some indication as to what you are on about....."

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Well, this is a wiki history lesson."
Actually that is off the top of my head so apologies for inaccuracies. :-) I know a bit about it due to hobbies and also the 'Clovis incident' f..."

Thats ok.

You may have heard of the singer/songwriter, Buffy Sainte-Marie, she is a Native American Cree. I built the UK web site, with her approval.

www.buffysaintemarie.co.uk

[[deleted user]]

Umm....

To be clear, when I said ...

"Regarding intent, cs ....

You're linking this to morals. To advancement. We will never know what the natives would be like if we hadn't found them and if they hadn't been influenced by Jesus."

...I was explaining your intent, cs, as asked.

I was not making that statement myself ... or backing you.

And, by focusing on word choice alone, you're not addressing the main point. The main point, which people have been trying to discuss with you for days ... whether we're talking about atheists or American Indians or any non-Christian group ... is that your statements can be seen as condescending. Since you've used that word to describe others, I'm guessing you're okay with that particular word.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "You may have heard of the singer/songwriter, Buffy Sainte-Marie, she is a Native American Cree. I built the UK web site, with her approval."
You may have good taste in msic, in this instance (yes, I am familiar with her work), but that doesn't mean you can avoid, once again, answering the question....if you feel you have answered it, indulge us, and repeat....hell, cut and paste!....your previous answer.

[[deleted user]]

It seems the conversation has strayed from the original question. But to go back to the issue at hand, I think that when it comes right down to it, science is religion. Just like anything else a person strongly believes in, dedicates her/his life to it. Even atheists have a strong belief in non-existence of God. And to also stray a little from the direct question, religion founded on spirituality is not the only one that should be subject to scrutiny, especially when used for.asinine purposes. There's been plenty if evil done in the name if science inadvertently or on purpose. It's us, human beings that make a conscious choice to do good or evil. Those who believe in God know or at lst should that first and foremost,.God.gave us free will and atrocit

[cerebus]

cs wrote: some stuff about Buffy Saint Marie.....

btw, I like Robbie Robertson and John Trudell, and have read plenty on native American history. Doesn't make me an expert, and far from willing to correct or try and trump someone who is actually native American. There is a difference between interest and experience, much as there is a difference between cultural and moral relativity.

[Hazel]

Lila wrote: "It seems the conversation has strayed from the original question. But to go back to the issue at hand, I think that when it comes right down to it, science is religion. Just like anything else a pe..."

you couldn't be more wrong about science being a religion, or needing faith for it. Science is based on evidence, and if you have evidence you don't need faith. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is belief without evidence, or even despite contradictory evidence.

Also, there is no such thing as free will if there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, because that sort of deity would already know what is going to happen for the rest of time, and has the power it change it, and you'd never know if it had been changed. Also, christians should know that god made a divine plan at the beginning, and there is no deviating from it, thus everything we do must be part of that divine plan, and thus was set out from the beginning and is not our choice at all. Of course, this is assuming the existence of god, which there is no proof for.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "I asked Shannon to replace the word 'found', as the word 'discovered' suggests the land was uninhabited previous to the discovery; which she has not been able to do.
...

Even though Shannon likes 'Invaded', with a smile. "

Actually, I liked Gary's word and picked invaded ... as you seem to recognize as you said I liked "invaded" with a smile.

Since you mention I picked "invaded" with a smile, I think I should define the smile. It was a smile in Gary's direction for having gone there. Not everyone is honest. I appreciate his honesty and his using that word.

Now, if the problem at hand is the fact that you think the word is too strong for a friendly debate, well, that's something different altogether. Yes?

I'll pick another word ... colonized.

[Hazel]

heh, I could come up with several words that are much stronger than "invaded", for example "decimated", "obliterated", "eradicated". All would be true to some degree or another. I still find it distasteful that thanksgiving in the states is no longer just a harvest festival, but essentially the celebration of the beginning of the slaughter of the native population. I understand that one group of native americans have declared it an official day of mourning.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

My mother was an Alaskan Native. From experience, outside of her own community, she seemed to be a symbol first, whatever else she was. To racists and liberals alike. I guess it's unavoidable. As a 'half-breed' who looks white with a touch of something, I've been part of interesting conversations with racists who didn't know my background. Perhaps it's why I look at everything askew. It's always fun to read commentary by Christians who pretty much wipe out indigenous races wherever they go for the sake of saving their souls.

[cerebus]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler was influenced by the treatment of native Americans...
'7.  "Adolf Hitler", John Toland, Publisher: Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York 1976. "Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." Pg 702 '

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "heh, I could come up with several words that are much stronger than "invaded", for example "decimated", "obliterated", "eradicated". All would be true to some degree or another. I still find it dis..."

I must admit those words have gone through my head a time or two.

Interestingly, most of the students at my school think Thanksgiving is "the stupidest holiday" ever to be created. They understand that Columbus didn't "discover" the Americas and think it's wrong to celebrate something that's based in a lie. They like having the days off, mind you, but they don't like celebrating a man who got lost and wasn't even the first to "discover" the Americas. Heck, they even go on about native people's finding the land bridge and truly being the first and ....

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "You may have heard of ..."

but that doesn't mean you can avoid, once again, answering the question....if you feel you have answered it, indulge us, and repeat....hell, cut and paste!....your previous answer.

Are you not able to read back on the previous posts yourself, I have twice before answered your question and 'cut and pasted' once. You are becoming monotonous now.

[Shanna]

Regarding the wooden spoon, I wasn't really attemping to stir (really :p) but for native peoples I could imagine that "discovered and found" in a discussion linked with morality and religion especially as the said religion at least initially imposed their "superior" faith and morality often at sword and gun point on a "savage" people that "needed saving" "the lost sheep having been "found" and returned to the flock" would be insulting.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler was influenced by the treatment of native Americans...
'7.  "Adolf Hitler", John Toland, Publisher: Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York 197..."

You have just cut and pasted this from here....

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/pgr...

A Belated Apology to Adolf
by Philip Greenspan

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "but for native peoples I could imagine that "discovered and found" in a discussion linked with morality and religion especially as the said religion at least initially imposed their "superior" faith and morality often at sword and gun point on a "savage" people that "needed saving" "the lost sheep having been "found" and returned to the flock" would be insulting. "

Well said, Shanna.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Are you not able to read back on the previous posts yourself, I have twice before answered your question and 'cut and pasted' once. You are becoming monotonous now. "
And you are an idiot. I specifically said I had read back and found nothing that answered the question. Either you can point to your answers, or you are a bald faced liar. Point to where you have answered the question, or cut and paste. Anything else in reply to this is evidence of your stupidity.

[cHriS]

Lila wrote: "It seems the conversation has strayed from the original question. But to go back to the issue at hand, I think that when it comes right down to it, science is religion. Just like anything else a pe..."

I agree. God gave us free will but maybe atrocity is the people's choise .

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "You have just cut and pasted this from here"
One of several places I found that reference. Your point is? You disagree? You think the genocide of native Americans was acceptable? If you have a point to make, or disagree with the one I made, do so, then answer any questions on it. Troll.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I agree. God gave us free will but maybe atrocity is the people's choise"
If there is a god all he gave you is an inability to deal with other people honestly.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: his standard trolling stupidity.
Did you even read the text at that link, or just the title? Maybe this quote from the text will clarify things for you, troll.....
"These activities are only a fraction of Hitler's evil. He was responsible for so many heinous crimes that he set the standard by which evil can be judged. "

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Lila wrote: "It seems the conversation has strayed from the original question. But to go back to the issue at hand, I think that when it comes right down to it, science is religion. Just like anyth..."

Whatever makes you happy, Hazel.

A word of advice, talking in definitives does not make your case more convincing or you, more right. Let people decide on their own, we're not drones, you know .

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: his standard trolling stupidity.
Did you even read the text at that link, or just the title? Maybe this quote from the text will clarify things for you, troll.....
"These activities are ..."

You can farm stuff from the web but you have a mental block when it comes to reading back a few pages.

I will now do a Hazel and no longer reply to your posts. Your insults have gone beyond what I would want to respond to.

I will even let you have the last insult, I know you won't be able to resist.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I will even let you have the last insult, I know you won't be able to resist. "
Doesn't need to be an insult, it is as clear as it could be that you cannot answer questions with even a modicum of honesty.

If anyone else feels I have dealt with cs unfairly, I am willing to discuss this....if anyone feels cs has answered the question I asked of him, you can point it out to me, something he is unable to do. In my whole involvement in this thread I have been civil where it is warranted, but I got tired of the trolling and sheer dishonesty, somewhat amusing from someone who claimed to be more moral due to his faith. Again, if you feel I have been unreasonable in my dealings with cs, or anyone else, please say so.....you will see from my previous postings that I am not this strident with others, only with trolls, or in this case, just the one troll.

[cerebus]

Lila wrote: "Even atheists have a strong belief in non-existence of God."
This is, as discussed previously in this thread, a misconception about atheism. It is not a belief, it is the abscence of a belief that you happen to hold. Assuming you are a christian (if not switch the names of deities around, the point still holds), then you are just as much an atheist as I am when it comes to the likes of shiva, ganesh, thor, loki or ra......I just go one deity further. Would you describe your opinion on the real, live elephant in my fridge as a strong belief, or a disinterest based on lack of evidence?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I will now do a Hazel and no longer reply to your posts. "
The end result of which will be the same as when you did 'reply'......although, now we'll get the same no answers but without the amusing evasive trolling.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "I will even let you have the last insult, I know you won't be able to resist. "
Doesn't need to be an insult, it is as clear as it could be that you cannot answer questions with even a m..."

You have NOT been unreasonable.

[[deleted user]]

I understand what you're saying. I'm well aware of current position of atheist on religion. However, we are talking if two different things. Your opinion on religion as a belief in a deity/ deities and my opinion that religion doesn't have to be a belief in a god/gods only. Sure, we vcan play semantics here, but I don't believe this discussion was initiated for that purpose. Besides, it would be just arguing for the sake if argument. Let's be honest, neither you are going to convert me to atheism, nor am I going to be converting you to theism. Not to mention, I could have sworn this is a site dedicated to readin

[Travis]

Lila wrote: "I understand what you're saying. I'm well aware of current position of atheist on religion. However, we are talking if two different things. Your opinion on religion as a belief in a deity/ deities..."


How can it be a religion if you don't have to believe in a god? What are you believing in?
Can you have a religion without a god figure of some kind?

I'm confused on that point.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Lila wrote: "I understand what you're saying. I'm well aware of current position of atheist on religion. However, we are talking if two different things. Your opinion on religion as a belief in a d..."

Here are a couple of definitions of 'religion', so you'll know I didn't just make up my own (although there's nothing wrong with it):

1. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

2. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.[The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language]

4. something of overwhelming importance to a person [Collins English Dictionary]

Pretty much every dictionary you open will have such a meaning listed among other definitions. No mention of a god.

[Ara]

Just imagine living in a world without science, then we should live in caves, it means we were just a type of other animals in this world. But now imagine a world without religion, there were no crusade, no war, no more hate from other religions ... now you judge yourself, although I think this is not a good compareable subject.