Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,451-4,500 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Maria wrote: "I find myself looking forward to stirring some of the folks up, simply because they are so prone to it."

So, is this one of the reasons you take part in this thread? ..."

I hadn't heard the term until I started following this thread. A month or so, I admitted to not knowing the term. People sent definitions and sites.

I'm glad to hear your purpose for taking part is not just to stir people up.

[Scott]

Religion provides meaningful insights into the nature of things, and doesn't require thinking. For most people, this is quite appealling. Science provides empirical answers about the universe around us, requires a lot of thinking, and provides us NO insight about the meaning of it all. Must I decide one way or the other???

[Maria]

I think that gender identity is definitely physiological, that is, whether a person "feels" like a man or a woman inside. I do think that a physical man can feel inside like he is a woman and vice versa due to brain activity, chromosomes and hormones.

But homosexuality, at least as I understand it - is more of who a person is attracted to sexually and falls in love with. Not that you can control this, it just happens - and you don't always fall in love with the person who is best for you, male or female.

Maybe someone who is a homosexual can answer that - is it just the attraction to same rather than opposite sex or do you actually feel like the other sex in your mind?

[Maria]

Scott, I don't think you have to choose at all. Plenty of scientists claimed to believe in God, and some even said that the more they studied the universe in all it's glory, the more their belief in a higher power/Creator grew.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I don't think that a loving god would punish his "children" for something they didn't know was wrong, any more than you'd punish your baby for not knowing something you hadn't taught them yet. "

I agree, but the biblical scripture is quite clear on the concept that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong until they ate the fruit. They did not even know it was "wrong" to be seen naked (apparently!)

And then they hid from god, which is weird.

This is why some early Christian texts viewed Jesus as the messenger of a loving god sent to free us from the evil clutches of the old testament god, who is frankly a bit of a psychopath in the old testament.

Just grabbed the description off Wikipedia as I don't have my books with me. "Gnostics considered the material world to be a prison created by a fallen or evil spirit, the god of the material world (called the demiurge). Gnostics identified the God of the Hebrew Bible as this demiurge. Secret knowledge (gnosis) was said to liberate one's soul to return to the true God in the realm of light. Valentinus and other Christian gnostics identified Jesus as the Savior, a spirit sent from the true God into the material world to liberate the souls trapped there."

[Maria]

Gary said:

"some early Christian texts viewed Jesus as the messenger of a loving god sent to free us from the evil clutches of the old testament god, who is frankly a bit of a psychopath in the old testament."

That actually makes sense, Gary. Maybe God felt bad about being so abrupt and quick to punish, so he gave people a "way out" so to speak.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "You don't have to be religious to think the 'act' to be unnatural.Unnatural does not have to mean wrong, although some will see it that way and those people are allowed to see it that way."

So sin isn't wrong, and unnatural isn't wrong?

What is unnatural then but "to go against ones nature", but if ones nature is that you are attracted to the same sex, how can this be unnatural?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Not ignoring you, Gary. Had a long day with middle schoolers and there are a lot of points in your post. I need to re-read it when I have more caffeine on board. ;) "

No problem :) looking forward to it.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "To be fair the actual cause is not yet fully understood, however the scientific consensus is that there does appear to be physiological differences. More study is needed but obviously it is rather politically charged as many people do not want it to be thought of as a physiological defect that can be "cured".
"

I wasn't aware that it hadn't been proven. If it is genetic, why would it be viewed as a defect that should be cured? I waxed poetic (or not) about genetics and the Black Death and AIDS awhile ago ... a type of chromosome or some such thing that allowed and allows people to escape dying of these diseases. Scientists are studying this in order to hopefully find more information in the fight against AIDS. This is a genetic difference that is extremely beneficial.

I mean, I know there are other things within genetics that aren't beneficial. A predisposition to certain diseases, etc.... But, I don't know why people wou .... Well, I was going to say that I didn't know why people would think it needed to be cured. Stopped myself, though.

I tend to put the truth before politics. And, whoa ...? Would scientists not investigate this and publish data due to politics? That would be really scary .... Right?

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I'm not sure."

Good answer, that's the start of wisdom.

Maria wrote: "I was raised Christian -and to take the Bible as being the final say on matters - but as has been said, some things just don't make sense, and don't reflect a loving god as I've been taught that he is."

I was once in the same position.

Maria wrote: "I do not think that evolution makes sense"

I'd be happy to discuss this with you at some point. I find that a lot of people don't really understand what evolution is, or has had its concepts explained well. Then add to the Creationists spreading misinformation recently the situation has got much worse, especially in the US.

The irony being that the Communists also thought evolution was false as it was a "capitalist" concept.

Maria wrote: "Thanks, guys! "

Thank you.

[Gary]

Scott wrote: "Religion provides meaningful insights into the nature of things, and doesn't require thinking. For most people, this is quite appealling. Science provides empirical answers about the universe around us, requires a lot of thinking, and provides us NO insight about the meaning of it all. Must I decide one way or the other??? "

Hi Scott, this has been covered before but I am not expecting you to go back pages and pages.

One thing I feel no one has answered is what supposed meaning does religion give us? As far as I can tell for most religions it is obedience to god in return for eternal life. First that seems somewhat depressing, to be created to serve something so much more powerful than yourself that it doesn't actually need your service, second if your reward is eternal life, then what is the meaning to that life?

[Maria]

Totally off topic, but speaking of evolution, did you guys see the Animal Planet special the other night about the Mermaids or "aquatic apes" that washed up on the shore along with beached whales? That was extremely freaky, but not all that far-fetched. Google it if you didn't see it, you will be either stunned or greatly entertained..

It actually was a great argument FOR evolution.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Maybe someone who is a homosexual can answer that - is it just the attraction to same rather than opposite sex or do you actually feel like the other sex in your mind? "

I have both transgender and homosexual friends, and I can tell you they seem to know the difference.

Some transgender people actually retain technically heterosexual feelings (which become homosexual). However, most gay men do not feel particularly female, however they sometimes have traits culturally associated with females.

Interestingly enough there are also a few who are not "gay" except for the person they fell in love with.

It is a lot more complex than males simply feeling "female" and vice-versa.

[Gary]

Rachiie wrote: "They are both one in the same, branches of the same tree, one cannot thrive without the other. Science was born from religious practices (first surgery was a result of a supposed religious ceremony..."

Interesting idea, but chemistry was born of alchemy. Do we still need alchemy? Astronomy was born of astrology, do we still really need astrology? Medicine was born of a lot of practices including exorcisms, should surgical patients receive an exorcism before surgery?

And again when the claim comes that religion is necessary, which religion? do we mean the religions of the past, of the present, or some yet unfounded religion of the future?

[Maria]

Gary wrote: "Maria wrote: "Maybe someone who is a homosexual can answer that - is it just the attraction to same rather than opposite sex or do you actually feel like the other sex in your mind? "

I have both ..."

Oh, I know, I agree that it is very complex, almost different for each individual. So, really, I guess it's not a "choice" - it's just how a person is "wired" either physically or emotionally..

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I wasn't aware that it hadn't been proven."

"Proved" means something different in science than people often understand. If something is 'proved' it has to have a certain weight of evidence, and it doesn't rule out new evidence causing a better theory to come out.

The problem is that human behaviour by its nature is incredibly complex. When people think "gay" or "straight" the answer is a lot more difficult than they imagine. Our gender identities and sexuality are
complex results of dozens of cultural and biological factors.

So there is evidence that certain genetic traits confer an increased likelihood of being gay, but that is simplifying a rather complex question.

However, all this aside, I am also not a geneticist and do not know what the most up to date research is!

Shannon wrote: "Well, I was going to say that I didn't know why people would think it needed to be cured. Stopped myself, though."

Exactly. Homophobia is not purely a religious thing, it is just heavily facilitated by it. Well thanks to the Abrahamic religions anyway.

In ancient Rome and Greece religion didn't have a problem with homosexuality. However, the Romans at least saw "submitting" sexually (as in receiving a penis) as being 'feminine' or unmanly. (A trait rumoured to be similar in male prison populations)

Shannon wrote: "I tend to put the truth before politics. And, whoa ...? Would scientists not investigate this and publish data due to politics? That would be really scary .... Right?"

Scientists are unfortunately subject to the whims of funding and public pressure. Some no doubt will investigate and publish, but not all. Not forgetting that scientists are not one homogeneous mass. Some scientists are religious and have their own beliefs that they would like to confirm too.

What is far more scary is the war on science in the US and UK thanks to some evangelical Christians and Muslims.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:I never ridiculed Hawking, I did however come close to ridiculing you for misrepresenting him so badly. Have you read Hawking's books? Have you looked at his conclusions? Hawking didn't support the idea of God being before the universe anymore than Einstein supported Creationism.

."

Oh but you did ridicule Hawking while at the same time blowing your own trumpet.

I have read Hawking and it was his conclusion I was talking about and again you have got it wrong, I did not say he supports the idea of God being before the universe. I suggest you go back and read my message and then read Hawkings philosophical conclusion to what was before the big bang.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "That actually makes sense, Gary. Maybe God felt bad about being so abrupt and quick to punish, so he gave people a "way out" so to speak. "

Which rather undermines the idea that god is all-knowing. Regret would mean having made a mistake which should be impossible for an omnipotent being (unless he wanted to make a mistake... which is back to the age old question of "can god make a weight so heavy he cannot lift it?")

God in the Old Testament does a lot of this sort of stuff. How many times does he punish innocents for the crimes of others. Where there really not even 10 innocents in Sodom? Not even 10 babies or toddlers? Why did god kill all the firstborn in Egypt for the orders of the Pharaoh, a Pharaoh who hardened his heart against them?

Why would an all powerful, all knowing god create people then have to obliterate them as mistakes in a flood? Why would he punish Adam and Eve for a crime they committed in pure innocence when he knew what would happen when he created them and the tree?

There is little logic to any of this, and even less in the idea that Jesus had to die for a supposedly loving god to forgive the descendants of those guilty of the crime.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Oh but you did ridicule Hawking while at the same time blowing your own trumpet."

Another unsubstantiated claim.

How did I ridicule him, exactly?

And blowing my own trumpet? Again you are the guilty party here. Several times you have arrogantly claimed victory in your arguments despite failing to provide rationale or reason to your increasingly desperate statements.

cs wrote: "I have read Hawking and it was his conclusion I was talking about and again you have got it wrong, I did not say he supports the idea of God being before the universe. I suggest you go back and read my message and then read Hawkings philosophical conclusion to what was before the big bang. "

I have read it. There was no before the Big Bang because time was created at the big bang therefore there was no "time" to be a "before" in, What was before the Big Bang is not even nothing. There was no before the Big Bang just as there is no way to go "North" from the north pole, it is not nothingness or something, the direction literally doesn't exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." - 'The Grand Design' Professor Stephen Hawking

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Oh, I know, I agree that it is very complex, almost different for each individual. So, really, I guess it's not a "choice" - it's just how a person is "wired" either physically or emotionally..
"

Do we ever really have a choice who we fall in love with? I can tell you now that I wish I had a choice about it sometimes!

Of course some people will claim its "unnatural" but as has been indicated before, the complexities could make for some completely natural reasons for there to be homosexuals. Indeed the very fact that humans are one of the rare few creatures that have sex for pleasure rather than just mating when on heat has been linked to the idea that regular sex helps form a bond of trust and compassion between two people, important for our species because of the sheer length of time it takes our young to mature. Homosexual attraction between some couples may help bind a group together without leading to too many offspring to cope with.

Of course certain people believe that sex is only for procreation, which is ironic as they are the same people that also tend to claim that we are completely separate and above other animals, but in this regard we should act like them?

[Gary]

cs ... Just to help you avoid more accusations of avoiding questions here is a summary for you.

1. Please cite the reference where you claim cs wrote: "Hawking has suggested that there was never nothing, there was always something, as an answer to what caused the big bang."

2. Please quote where I (as in Gary) ridiculed Hawking.

3. Please provide any reference to a contemporary account of""an atheist who has atheist parents, grandparents and all this family are atheist, who never went to a religious school and never had an interest in religion, wakes up one morning and believes his thinking is wrong and that his family are wrong in their way of thinking and he now believes that there could be a god", also explaining how he avoided religious influence in comtemporary culture. (To do so would cede your claim that we all modern people have been influenced by Christendom, to fail would cede your claim that I am "unable to separate religion and god")

4. You have claimed that intolerance in atheists would maybe be "even more hateful because there is no religion to blame", please explain how this is not tacit admission that religious convictions allow people to justify immoral or hateful behaviour.

5. Please provide independently verified contemporary reference from a non-dogmatic source for the reference cs wrote: "We all know that Jesus existed, he was a real person"

6. Please explain "Catholic parents talk about hell, ... is not much different from parents telling their children that the boggey man will get them." with reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says "Finally, those who persist in living in a state of mortal sin and do not repent before death subject themselves to hell, an everlasting separation from God."

7. Please explain why "Sin" is not "Bad" when Sin earns you "eternal damnation in hell". Is this just a catchy name?

8. Please clarify your statement cs wrote: "If you believe that you are doing nothing wrong then in the Catholic eyes you are not sinning"" Does this mean that you believe that it is ok to break any commandment as long as you do not feel you have done nothing wrong? Indicate how this is moral? Does this mean that Anders Behring Breivik was not sinning in murdering around 70 people and injuring hundreds in his self declared Christian crusade against the encroachment of Islam?

9. Please explain where the updated version of the 2012 Christian religion comes from, who gets to decide the teachings and if the teachings are indeed modernised and up to date, then why didn't god give us the modern version in the first place?

10. Please provide reference to evidence that homosexuality does not occur in nature.

11. Please explain how you can have a discussion about "why" you believe things without ever explaining "why".

12. Please explain how you equate religion giving us a meaning to life when you have stated that our "job" is to procreate. Do you believe the point of our existence is just babies?

13. Please explain why you support bigotry cs wrote: ""Unnatural does not have to mean wrong, although some will see it that way and those people are allowed to see it that way."

If necessary this youtube clip may be helpful in your responses.

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

[Maria]

Gary wrote:

"God in the Old Testament does a lot of this sort of stuff. How many times does he punish innocents for the crimes of others. Where there really not even 10 innocents in Sodom? Not even 10 babies or toddlers? Why did god kill all the firstborn in Egypt for the orders of the Pharaoh, a Pharaoh who hardened his heart against them?"

Gary, I know, that's the thing I can't reconcile, the killing of so many innocents for "the sins of the father" - a loving God would not do that, would he?

Again, that's why I'm not sure........

BTW - your opinion on the Mermaid thing, please?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "My ‘preaching ‘ as you call it is in response to questioning I receive..."
Unfortunately this 'preaching' rarely, if ever, contained answers to the questioning you received. Personally I wouldn't use the word 'preaching' for your responses, I would use 'trolling' instead.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "And as you well know the vision of hell that you like to paint here is not what Christians perceive it to be now ..."
Enlighten us, what is the current officially sanctioned perception of hell, and how does it differ from the fire and brimstone version of the bible? When was the change in perception made, and on whose authority?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Times change and the effects of the change can be seen in science, religion, politics, philosophy etc. But you like to paint the 2012 Christian religion with colours from past...."
But the bible, the official manual of christianity hasn't changed, so who is making these changes to your religion? Again, on whose authority?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "If you believe that you are doing nothing wrong then in the Catholic eyes you are not sinning, so there should not be a conflict...."
So a catholic murderer who doesn't believe what they are doing is wrong is not sinning? Paedophiles?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I have mentioned this before, but instead of seeing my point or discussing it, I get all the usual ‘flip’ remarks that I have come to accept on this forum...."
You get flippancy because people are tired of your prevarication in the face of direct questions. If I had to guess at your profession I would guess some form of politics.....

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "People have a right to not approve of the unnatural act of homosexuals. ..."
What makes it 'unnatural'?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "So are you going to apply this logic to every historical person in the same way?..."
It's a good starting point, yes.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "... that he simply pays no attention to anything anyone else has written, that he is so sure of his rightness that he simply dismisses what anyone has written..."
This is the certainty that blind faith gives those of faith....

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "Actually they were punished for disobedience. They were given a test by being told not to eat from a particular tree. It wasn't the tree that was bad, necessarily, it was the fact that their Creator gave them a command and wanted to see if they would obey. God could have said "Don't sit on that particular rock." No reason given. The command did not have to make sense - just don't do it because he created you and he said not to. Either way, they disobeyed so got punished. ..."
But if god is omniscient then he knew they would do this, they could only do this as he created them with the knowledge they would do this. Seems a bit unfair.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "If one chooses to believe in the Bible..."
Apologies if I missed your reply to this Maria, but do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god?

Edit: Sorry Maria, please ignore, you have answered this in a post I got to after I asked this....

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Gary, I know, that's the thing I can't reconcile, the killing of so many innocents for "the sins of the father" - a loving God would not do that, would he?

The entire concept of a monotheistic god in a world with inequality and injustice made less and less sense to me the more I thought about it and the more I learned. The God of the Bible (Old and New Testament) does not read as a good person. Why would an omnipotent creator create us to be his obedient servants? Why would a creator require Jesus to die on the cross to free us from the sentence he originally convicted of us before we existed?

In fact why would an omniscient creator create anything at all when he would already know how everything would turn out?

--

I looked at the docu-drama briefly but I didn't have time to watch it all. The write up I read was intriguing but some of the questions it asked are already known. Several sea creatures have been cited as the origin of the mermaid theory, and it is not hard to see how it came about.

I am not sure how it was a good argument for evolution though. There was a hypothesis a while ago called "the Aquatic ape", that postulated that several physiological traits in humans (specifically hairlessness, ability to swim from birth, and large brains that would require food heavy in EFAs like seafood) would be explained if human ancestors had returned briefly to the sea. However, DNA and archaeological evidence have not supported the conclusions.

Good evidence for evolution can be shown with a piece of graph paper and accepting (I think) 4 basic fairly undisputed premises. That gives the basics, the rest only becomes uncomfortable when the logical conclusions become apparent.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Not strictly true, there are mixed options on this...."
Some examples of these mixed opinions please.

[cerebus]

Dan wrote: "Without religion, we would not have had the belief to dig deep and discover what we have so far. ..."
Can you expand on this please? I'm not entirely sure why religion is necessary to dig deep....people are curious by nature, I don't see religion in that, but I may be misinterpreting your point.

Dan wrote: "I am an atheist but yet I still believe in myself to keep pushing and discovering more, could that not be classed as a religion?"
Personally I would say no, it's nothing like a religion, but again I'm interested to hear more....

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Your rational does not allow you to have a discussion. ..."
In much the same way you are unable to answer questions?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "The mission here is not so much to exchange ideas, it is to prove anyone with a belief is wrong to have that belief.
..."
"Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on the line for you..."

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Unnatural does not have to mean wrong, although some will see it that way and those people are allowed to see it that way...."
You could just say "it's not my cup of tea", but to say it is unnatural is more pejorative .....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Maria wrote: "I find myself looking forward to stirring some of the folks up, simply because they are so prone to it."

So, is this one of the reasons you take part in this thread? To purposely stir people up?

If so, I wonder why that's something you look forward to doing?

In addition, ... and I don't want this to sound harsh ... but ... is that not the definition of a "troll" ...? ..."
In some cases it can be trolling, but to be fair to Maria I think her 'stirring' has been more of the making people think variety. I will admit that like others I was struggling to see where Maria was coming from, but I think that has been mostly answered now, and while we may be coming at the point from different sides, I think we're getting at the same thing....if you are religious you shouldn't be able to cherry pick the bits of the bible that suit you and ignore the bits that don't. Either it (in its entirety) is the inerrant word of god as you are meant to believe, or none of it is.

[cerebus]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "atheists here seem to sit down with their degree in philosophy"..."
Physics and Computer Science, & Database design.

[cerebus]

Scott wrote: "Religion provides meaningful insights into the nature of things,..."
Can you give some examples of these insights please?

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "Plenty of scientists claimed to believe in God, and some even said that the more they studied the universe in all it's glory, the more their belief in a higher power/Creator grew. ..."
This is something I have a problem with. To be a scientist and rely on the scientific method for one part of your life, but then to exempt your religious beliefs from that same scrutiny is hypocritical in the same way picking and choosing which bits of the bible to believe is.

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "Maybe God felt bad about being so abrupt and quick to punish, so he gave people a "way out" so to speak...."
That sounds like a very human, and very un-godlike, realisation? Not the omniscience we are led to believe god possesses...

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "People have a right to not approve of the unnatural act of homosexuals. ..."
What makes it 'unnatural'?"

Yeah, no one has really answered this, except for a couple 'the bible says..', but what I want to know is if it occurs all through nature, how can homosexuality be 'unnatural'.

Yes, we are supposed to procreate, but there must be some kind of natural thing that occurs to keep a species from procreating until they flood the ecosystem...say, maybe a form of sex that doesn't result in procreation...?

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "atheists here seem to sit down with their degree in philosophy"..."
Physics and Computer Science, & Database design."

I was an English major myself.

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Dan wrote: "Without religion, we would not have had the belief to dig deep and discover what we have so far. ..."
Can you expand on this please? I'm not entirely sure why religion is necessary to d..."

Again, atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If not believing in something is a religion, than all christians are also hindus, mormons, druids and Jedi.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Maria wrote: "I find myself looking forward to stirring some of the folks up, simply because they are so prone to it."

So, is this one of the reasons you take part in this thread? ..."

I was going by Maria's words, Cerebus ... which were that she looks forward to stirring people up.

That's a pretty plain and clear statement, in my opinion, on a couple different levels.

Of course, when asked, she said that's not what she meant.

We'll see.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "if you are religious you shouldn't be able to cherry pick the bits of the bible that suit you and ignore the bits that don't. Either it (in its entirety) is the inerrant word of god as you are meant to believe, or none of it is. "

That's one way of looking at it.

However, for me, I'm more interested in finding my own truths ... than in telling other people what they should believe.

Just a thought ....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "However, for me, I'm more interested in finding my own truths ... than in telling other people what they should believe. ..."
But for those of the main abrhamic religions they have a holy book which in each case is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. As soon as you question one part of it, or choose to ignore one part of it, the whole thing fails....I agree with Maria, if someone says they are christian, then by definition they must accept the bible in its entirety, same for muslims and the quran, jews and the torah.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "if you are religious you shouldn't be able to cherry pick the bits of the bible that suit you and ignore the bits that don't. Either it (in its entirety) is the inerrant word of god..."

Which is cool, unless you declare yourself a christian ( or any group with a holy handbook) or use the bible ( or book of your choice) to defend your arguments.
It's either the word of god or it's not.

If it's the word of god, except for the bits I don't like, but it got it bang on the money with the bits I do like...then, that's the same kind of attitude that people who read comic books use to describe X-men continuity.

believe in your book of choice, but lay off the 'excepts'.