Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,651-4,700 of 12,463

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "'crap' is not a religious term, so that one is safe to use.
Yeah but apart from the scatological or sexual they have all the best sh.. oh f... oh g... JE...!

Travis wrote: "I checked in the atheist handbook.

How long do you have to wait before you're issued that? I have been hanging out abusing poor defenceless preachers and apologists for ages!

Travis wrote: "and religions don't have all the best curses. The United Kingdom has that title."

Yay! No wait...

[cerebus]

Gary wrote: "You'd think she'd have noticed. :-) "
Especially if he kept that hat on.....

[cerebus]

Gary wrote: "We are well aware that we could be googling answers at the same time, but I for one am not. :-)..."
For the record, I didn't google either :)

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "Gary wrote: "We are well aware that we could be googling answers at the same time, but I for one am not. :-)..."
For the record, I didn't google either :)"

me neither, that would be cheating.

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "Gary wrote: "You'd think she'd have noticed. :-) "
Especially if he kept that hat on....."

maybe mummy is a dryad

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "maybe mummy is a dryad"

There's lotions for that....oh...wait.....

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "I don't see whatever jumbled contribution a parent makes to a kid's developing belief system as 'forcing' it upon them."

Well there are examples, Sunday School, baptism, mandatory C..."

True, but to be fussy, any beliefs a kid picks up from his parents are 'forced'. Kids do not grow up in a null limbo state.
wether you are doing it purposefully or not, with a deliberate 'any kid of mine will be raised as a good druid, muslim, jedi, first church of Sean Bean , it's happening.

Or as I tell my kids 'My parents screwed me up, I will screw up my kids and if they are lucky, they will get a turn to screw up some kids of their own. It's the circle of life'.

I just thought using terms like force and belief bullying had no reality when describing a thing that there is no way to avoid, short of shutting your kids in a box ( don't tempt me) even if you leave them to be raised by wolves or koalas, they will be immersed in a belief system.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "'crap' is not a religious term, so that one is safe to use.
Yeah but apart from the scatological or sexual they have all the best sh.. oh f... oh g... JE...!

Travis wrote: "I checke..."

If you have not received your handbook, you might want to contact your local United Atheists office.

and yes, the UK wins on cursing, for their creative, all purpose use of the term 'bastard' alone.

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Gary wrote: "You'd think she'd have noticed. :-) "
Especially if he kept that hat on....."

Well, there's an image I can now never 'unsee'.
Gonna go wash my brain with bleach and start looking for a therapist.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "they will be immersed in a belief system. "

As I said, the only solution I could find was to teach her to question beliefs. That may be a belief system in itself, but then she can question that one too!

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "they will be immersed in a belief system. "

As I said, the only solution I could find was to teach her to question beliefs. That may be a belief system in itself, but then she can ..."

Tricky stuff, this parenting.
All you can do is try and teach them to think and do the best you can and then you get to worry for the next forty years if you got it right.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "If you have not received your handbook, you might want to contact your local United Atheists office."

Are they the ones coordinating the forum attacks and conducting the war on America for Satan? I've tried dialling 666 again and again...

Travis wrote: "and yes, the UK wins on cursing, for their creative, all purpose use of the term 'bastard' alone. "

I am strangely fond of the word "wazzock" when delivered in the native Scouse accent. It is very cathartic!

I liked Joss Whedon using a lot of British cursing in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" :-) but one of my favourites comparisons was in http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12...

US Marine: examining the Witchhunters license "It says here that we have to give you 'faggots'!" *
British Witchhunter: "Aye."
US Marine: "And what do you do with them?"
British Witchhunter: "We burn 'em!"
US Marine: Looks impressed, he always thought the British were soft.

* Note, in the UK "Faggot" is the term for a small log of wood, usually for a fire, and "Fag" is the term for a cigarette. So if a British guy asks you for a fag, don't panic straight away :-)

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "If you have not received your handbook, you might want to contact your local United Atheists office."

Are they the ones coordinating the forum attacks and conducting the war on Amer..."

Think you are mixing up atheists with devil worshipers.
Common mistake.

We are trying to undermine America, but we are allied with the liberals, gays, hippies and socialists, not the satanists.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "So to a truly believing parent, the true penalty for failing to perform the mutilation is to potentially lose their child to sin, to not just lose their lives but their very souls, and perhaps condemn them to eternal suffering."

The World Health Organization gives the following information regard FGM, Female Genital Mutilation.

The reasons given by families for having FGM performed include:


psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure;

sociological reasons: identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration and the maintenance of social cohesion;

hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal;

myths: enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival;

religious reasons: Some Muslim communities, however, practise FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith. The practice, however, predates Islam.

Please note religion is just one factor and FGM came before Islam. Here's the cite ...

https://apps.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact24...

[Hazel]

oh yes, it definitely predates Islam, and its not only practised by Muslims, some Christians practice it too, and I think it has a small adherance within Judaism too, and among animist tribes. Its a cultural tradition, it just happens that Islam became the predominant religion in areas it was already practised. Unfortunately, the practice worked its way into the hadith, and so now you have muslim scholars arguing for it on those grounds. Luckily, other muslim scholars are arguing against it.

If I could have my way, all forms of circumcision (male and female) would be banned, except for proven medical need.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "convicted, I might add ... but the judge didn't jail him immediately. He didn't want to ruin his senior year, don't you know. Yeah. "

That's sick.
"

I agree totally. The judge didn't give a flying fig about the victim's year. It's a small school, so he was "in her face" literally every day ... until she left, of course.

He was in my room every day for five months. I knew he was a convicted rapist, and I had to be polite and professional and teach him. Day in and day out.

It made me sick.

[Marie-pier]

Pandora wrote: "I agree respect and love are most important. Back to the original question if I had to choose between science and religon. Agnostic though I am I think I would choose religon. Religon gets a bad..."

why would a world without religion would necessary be a world without morale or ethic?
World without religion would be my pick. Only because from my perception of things, historically, religion hasn't always been 'a major force for reform and it is where love is found that leads to redeemption best I kind do reform'.
Normally, regligion result in two people saying 'mine's right, you infidel'.

If my pick had to be religion, I would probably pick a religion more flexible then the three majors we have in place now.

[[deleted user]]

Marie-pier wrote: "historically, religion hasn't always been 'a major force for reform and it is where love is found that leads to redeemption best I kind do reform'."

True. It hasn't always been a source for reform. However, it has been in certain circumstances. Think Quakers and slavery. Think Methodists and prison reform. Granted, there is the opposite. For sure. However, I did want to site instances in which certain believers of certain religions have been pivotal in positive reform movements.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Please note religion is just one factor and FGM came before Islam. Here's the cite ..."

I agree that the reasons are not solely religious, however they underpin (ouch) a lot of the other reasons given and are fundamentally (sorry) difficult to argue against when belief is involved.

Specifically out of the reasons in the citation the psychosexual ones are supported by ideas of female submission and modesty that may be indeed psychosexual, but are also justified by religious concerns about sex. Cultural reasons and rite of passage are also inextricably linked with religion as are sociological. Hygiene has also links with religious edict (e.g. do you know that the Bible says you should have no contact with a menstruating woman) and I can only say that both "myths" and "religion" require belief.

So to say it is only one of several factors is both correct and yet potentially misleading. Removing the religious factor would also remove one of the justifications (at least in part) for the other factors.

FGM does pre-date the Abrahamic religions, however it is easy to see how their obsession with repressing female sexuality would feed into the cultural beliefs and perpetuate them.

[Gary]

Zakaria wrote: "Don't you sleep people ?!"

I don't sleep ... I wait...


(Oh and in some places the sun is up at different times :-D)

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "FGM does pre-date the Abrahamic religions, however it is easy to see how their obsession with repressing female sexuality would feed into the cultural beliefs and perpetuate them. "

Agreed.

However, one could ask ... where did it start ... what is the root cause. I haven't ... nor would I ... argue that religion isn't a factor. My point is that we should look at the big picture.

There's a danger, on both sides, of being "correct and yet potenitally misleading" ....

On a side note, please, please tell me ... when I check this in a few hours ... that there won't be 138 posts dealing with all things troll.

A personal request .... If certain folk are about to bombard this thread with comments about people's names, looks, etc..., could you please, please, please focus on Sean Bean's name and looks. I'd ever so much appreciate it.

[Marie-pier]

1:50 PM Canada

[Robin]

I just looked up Sean Bean, he sorta looks like Alec Baldwin, but Sean is much cuter and sexier looking.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "True. It hasn't always been a source for reform. However, it has been in certain circumstances. Think Quakers and slavery. Think Methodists and prison reform."

Quite right, again there are good religious people who operate on the basic assumption (or even wish) that their religion is good. In fact a lot of religious reformers where at the time rebels against the oppressive nature of their religion. Jesus allegedly took a stand against the Jewish authority of the time, Mohammed allegedly took an oppressive system of religions and pushed for a new version based on social responsibility and the care of the needy.

The problem is that soon the force for change becomes the new oppression, the new authoritarianism, sometimes simply delaying any moral evolution for a few generations, sometimes backsliding to something worse than the original reformer would even recognise.

The Quakers and other Christians opposed slavery, however mainstream Christianity in the Southern States pointed out that the Bible sanctioned slavery. The book of Mormon goes as far as to contain specifically racist language (2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.)

Yes religious people do good things, but that is never the problem, the fact that religious people do bad things and claim them to be good because "god told them to do it" is bad for two reasons. First because people then use religion as an excuse to do terrible things to others, Second because a lot of people end up believing that it is not an excuse, it is a good and godly reason!

Some white Christians honestly did believe that by enslaving blacks they were helping them to find god, some Christians and Muslims believe it would be good and right to execute homosexuals in accordance with biblical law.

So yes, some religious people do good things, as do some secular people, some of both do bad, this is still not a strength of religion, and the righteousness and inflexibility of belief is a big problem.

[Marie-pier]

(e.g. do you know that the Bible says you should have no contact with a menstruating woman) and I can only say that both "myths" and "religion" require belief.

Don't sweat it, book's old, back then menstruating women were disgusting, not understanding the monthly breach in the uterus and all that.
It also order us to sacrifice a ridiculous amount of dove and sheep. But to take this book with our computer-car-running water-electricity eyes is to make a grave reading out-of-context mistake.

Thanks to science we now understand that bleeding women aren't 'dirty' or 'possessed', and that no matter how many dove you kill, it won't stop the sun from rising.

That this book still get that much followers, along with the internet, amazes me.

Having said that, I do respect the individual need to spirituality and to belong. Mine is just not dictated by a couple of hundred years old books, that has been amended and translated dozen of times

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "However, one could ask ... where did it start ... what is the root cause. I haven't ... nor would I ... argue that religion isn't a factor. My point is that we should look at the big picture. "

Obviously the cause is human nature. Evolution has put humans in a fairly unique position of desiring a wide genetic mix (as with most animals) while also desiring a stable familial unit and social bonding. Mix that with the factors involved with having two genders with different roles and it gets complicated.

(Very simplistically) Women are pre-deposed to want a strong individual (good DNA) and a reliable individual (child support), men are pre-deposed to want fidelity (to ensure that effort isn't wasted on nurturing another father's DNA) but also to pass their seed around (maximum chance of DNA inheritance and potentially someone else looks after the offspring.)

All these factors lead to a situation where males will try to control females if they get the chance. Those forms of control include everything from the subtle to the drastic. At the same time as humans we have the tribal bonding instinct that pre-deposes us to create communities, those same instincts lead to the evolved trait of altruism, which may not benefit an individual directly, but does add a mutual benefit to all individuals within a society. Of course all this is instinct. As thinking humans we have it within us to choose different.

With FGM (and homophobia, racism, and general misogyny) the causes are myriad and some are deeply ingrained, what the question should be is not "how did this start" but "how can this stop". The best way to do that, as a society and a species, is to refine our ideas about morality and ethics and work toward the fair and free society we all want to be part of, instead of the authoritarian society that we only want to rule.

The answer of course is education and civilisation. A society needs justice and law, but a law based on authority is only ever as good as the authority that laid it down. A law based on understanding and comprehension means that people actually understand why society works in this way.

Hence we return to the pseudo-morality of religion. Just as "God created thunder/eclipses/people" is not an answer to those scientific questions, so "don't kill/thieve/download because it god forbids it" is no answer to those ethical questions.

There may be many other factors that cause racism/homophobia/misogyny etc. but most can be countered with simple ethical arguments. However, faith denies the chance to engage and change peoples minds.

Shannon wrote: "On a side note, please, please tell me ... when I check this in a few hours ... that there won't be 138 posts dealing with all things troll.
"

No promises :-)

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However, faith denies the chance to engage and change peoples minds."

I would change this to ... faith can deny ....

You have the United Methodists, for example, who believe ... yet ... have voted to allow it's churches to become "reconciling" churches. You have people, myself included, who are spiritual and have faith in a higher power ... but who also think and work very hard to be moral and ethical and stand up for the rights of others.

Yes, you can list examples of the opposite. I know I can.

My point ... things are a bit more complicated than they might seem, and these sorts of questions aren't necessarily easy to answer.

[Steven]

We're not playing this game anymore Shannon.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

People who really want answers go to the library. I myself have previously listed books to read about comparative religions, history of religion, etc., many weeks ago on this thread. I've also posted Wikipedia links. Since then, it's obvious most posters are not reading any academic books, or the discussions would broaden out beyond the same 15 posts each of you appears to be copying over and over to all the religion threads. You have all lost your serious audience except the lonely and obsessed.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Well I have already explained why that doesn't work. There was never nothing before the big bang as there was no "before". Time began at the big bang, so you cannot have a time before when time does not exist. It is possible that you are thinking of some of the potential models of M-Theory which are confusing you, that is not a thing to be ashamed of……..."


You said that in response to this………cs wrote: "No I was not. I suggested that Hawking’s conclusion about there never was ‘nothing’ before the big bang, because there was always ‘something’, still left room for something or someone to have created the ‘something’; which I suggested could be god."

There you go again lecturer and student scenario once again. You may be able to express your self more succinctly than others because you have studied some subjects in more depth and you may be right more times than you are wrong, but you are still sometimes wrong.

….” and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

An extract from ‘The Grand Design’. My something/nothing point.

Spontaneous, meaning ‘developing without apparent external influence’.
Apparent, meaning ‘appearing as such but not necessarily so’.

Not necessarily so; and my original point was that there is still room for god in this Grand Design. We are no further on than we were with the big bang theory, and what triggered it if not god.

I do understand the M-Theory, up to a point anyway. But I do not agree with Hawking or Mlodinow about their explanation of time. As a laymen I have my own theory about this but I am sure it must be something I have read along the way and retained it, I doubt it is unique.

Sorry, this is a bit of a jump. Do you mean "The Grand Design

Yes, you read in the hope the book reveals something groundbreaking and new but, all it is , is a new way of looking the same thing, we just understand a bit better. Like the mars landing in a couple of months, we expect great things, but we will be lucky if it headlines the news.

So now you are trying to claim that if someone is more educated on a subject than you they are therefore close-minded……………………


I am making a comparison to the ‘between the lines’ suggestions I have heard here, that if someone is a Christian they should know all about their religious teachings and know nothing about science; oil and water they should not mix. As I have said before one can be a Catholic and a royalist and someone can have a belief in god and science and religion and take the best bits from each to form their own ideas.

Well assuming that religious knowledge is not passed on by DNA (metaphorical or not) then your claim that by being a Catholic you know more about Catholicism than others has no backing.


I can add that I know of some folks with a bag full of degrees and are almost broke, and one or two who did not even pass an eleven plus but are now very rich. In money as well as knowledge.

[Hazel]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "People who really want answers go to the library. I myself have previously listed books to read about comparative religions, history of religion, etc., many weeks ago on this thread. I've also po..."

which reminds me... I really must get on with reading The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality, though theres no way I'm gonna be done in time for the group discussion starting...

[[deleted user]]

Steven wrote: "We're not playing this game anymore Shannon."

How mysterious, Steven. What game?

[Robin]

I am getting kind of irked by all this back and forth between cs and everyone else. I realize that this post is in regards to Angels and Demons, but come on, maybe take the debate somewhere else, start a cs thread or something, then he can expound to all and sundry and not take up valuable space.

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "beyond the same 15 posts each of you appears to be copying over and over to all the religion threads."

Are people posting the same 15 things to all the religion threads? Who?

Other than my book club, speaking for myself, this is the only thread I post to.

[Hazel]

sorry robin, not gonna happen, the conversation is happening here, where it developed from earlier conversations. And really, a thread all for cs to expound on? *shudder*

[Robin]

thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend.

[[deleted user]]

Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

What would you like to discuss, Robin? Let us know. :)

[Maria]

Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

No, you just have to scroll down (and scroll, and scroll...ad infinitum.. )past his posts to get to the others.

[[deleted user]]

Steven wrote: "We're not playing this game anymore Shannon."

One more thing ... because I find I'm infinitely curious ... who is "we" ...?

[Maria]

Shannon wrote: "Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

What would you like to discuss, Robin? Let us know. :)"

Yeah, we're all over the place around here! It's great!

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

What would you like to discuss, Robin? Let us know. :)"

yes, we're more than happy to be led off on tangents and down blind alleys, and to talk about whatever you may want to :D

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

While your apology is good spirited, and perhaps wise, check back through the comments here. Not only will you find plenty of crocodile tears (American saying for false hurt feelings), but lots of thickened skin and obsessive endless same conversation. Click on some of the profiles, go to their clubs, click around. You will see the same GD comments going back 3 years. Some of these folks can't be dislodged from commenting on the same religious commentary until they will be cold meat in the ground. I wasn't exaggerating about the obsessiveness or loneliness. This is a subject you can keep getting a rise out of people, the same ones, over and over and over and over

[Maria]

Shannon wrote: "Steven wrote: "We're not playing this game anymore Shannon."

One more thing ... because I find I'm infinitely curious ... who is "we" ...?"

Shannon, that's a weird post - do you know him?

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Some of these folks can't be dislodged from commenting on the same religious commentary until they will be cold meat in the ground. I wasn't exaggerating about the obsessiveness or loneliness. "

Who?

[Hazel]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

While your apology is good spirited, and perhaps wise, check back through the comments here. Not only will..."

you're sounding kinda bitter there April. You ok?

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Shannon, that's a weird post - do you know him? "

No, I don't know him.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

While your apology is good spirited, and perhaps wise, check back through ..."

Not bitter -amazed, flabbergasted, eyes opened, wised up etc. you guys really clarified my ideas and positions, I learned, AND I went to academic sources.

But after months, I saw instead you guys keep in with a kinda, "you said this, I said that, so you say those, and I say what" in an endless same call-and-response cycle. The atheists need to repeat because the new religious commenters have the same responses learned from their Bible studies, but once you've responded to the same religious commenter on the same question 50 times...and that person is restating their position ad ad nauseum...

My eyes keep getting wider and wider with dumbfounded amazement . At this point, I'm following to see how long, say, for example, atheists keep responding to the immovable object but saying the same factless 15 responses of cs. I'm impressed by everyone's mindless time wasting forever continuing like an endless domino game.

Now, I'm wondering, simply because this has become like a ninth wonder of the world, how much longer many of you, for example, after being exposed as endless obsessive responders to cs who NEVER uses real debate, will continue to egg the rest of you otherwise super intelligent debaters on.....

It's hilarious to me. I'm not feeling bad. Perhaps hysterical with laughter.

[Hazel]

You may be right, but meh, you know, its something to do when its raining out ;P And banter is good for the... well I would say soul, but I don't believe in souls...

though if it makes you feel any better, when someone says something I don't know about, I do try to go away and find out about it, and I do do the reading (though things like physics are hard work). And I do try to always add to what I know, and alter it if the evidence shows I should.

[cHriS]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Hazel wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

While your apology is good spirited, and perhaps wise, check..."

You know what, I agree with you, so to make all of your days that much brighter and let the real debaters have the floor to discuss Sean Bean, and until the next new poster happens to reply that they would rather live in a world without science and the atheists can repete the cycle, I will not post any more here.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel wrote: "You may be right, but meh, you know, its something to do when its raining out ;P And banter is good for the... well I would say soul, but I don't believe in souls...

though if it makes you feel a..."

Oh yes, there is a huge obvious information and fact gap between the atheists, who REALLY read the books, and the religious who comment who go by hearsay including sermons, folk tales and the Bible. It's all in the previous pixal-ated commentary obvious to see.

Hazel, you really have changed MY life, anyway, you and Dan and the others. Seriously. I went from agnostic to atheist from reading your posts on other threads. I'm grateful. I REALLY read the academic stuff too. It was a huge relief. This stuff matters, and the truth is important.

But I don't have your stamina for reiteration against ignorance and the stubbornly unread and those who will not look it up in academic resources.