If Religion / Science Never Existed..

Answer two questions in your post

1. If religion never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think we'd be more technologically advanced? How do you think society would be? Would there be such a thing as "faith" and if so, what would people use it for? In essence, If all forms of religion and spiritual beliefs/practices NEVER existed.. how do you think we as humans would be today?


2. If science never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think (in 2010) that we'd still foster beliefs about the world as our ancestors did in archaic times? How do you think government would be as a result? Howabout people? Would Friday the 13th be an international holiday so everyone could stay home? Paint a picture for me as to how you would view the world if science never existed.

Quote:

---

1. If religion never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think we'd be more technologically advanced? How do you think society would be? Would there be such a thing as "faith" and if so, what would people use it for? In essence, If all forms of religion and spiritual beliefs/practices NEVER existed.. how do you think we as humans would be today?

---

In the modern age, without religion, yes I would say we would be more advanced. However it's also possible that religion of some form was essential for forming stable societies in our early history and so if it never existed, societies would never have taken off.

But I do object to lumping religion and spirituality together, especially as "spirituality" is such a nebulous concept anyway. Someone could watch the sunset, and whilst doing so has a flash of insight or thought regarding one's connection to the Earth, an experience that some might describe as "spiritual"

"Spirituality" (however one wishes to define it) has played a useful role in inspiring people to discover and create things. If it never existed, I would conjecture that we would be far less inquisitive as a whole, and would have far less use for the arts.

Quote:

---

2. If science never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think (in 2010) that we'd still foster beliefs about the world as our ancestors did in archaic times? How do you think government would be as a result? Howabout people? Would Friday the 13th be an international holiday so everyone could stay home? Paint a picture for me as to how you would view the world if science never existed.

---

Science is, fundamentally, the art of gaining knowledge via observation. For science to never exist, that would essentially mean humanity would be incapable of learning and adapting. Being physically weaker than many species and instead relying on tools, and the ability to predict behaviours and to use foresight, without this I would say we would not have survived to exist in the first place. Or at least failed to evolve past our ape cousins.

A man discovering that a fire can cook meat and make it safer and easier to eat has made a crude scientific discovery. Same as the man who realises that a certain substance makes his crops grow better.

If science ceased to exist in the modern world, we would quickly degenerate back to a primitive state at best, as our entire modern infrastructure and society is based on scientific knowledge. It's also an excellent mechanism for separating what is true from what is false, so we'd also become far more superstitious, as were the people in earlier societies.

1. Due to the number of occasions on which religion has surpressed scientific progress, I can only guess we'd have advanced faster.

2. It depends what you classify as science; if you go the way of Photolysis and include everything involving learning from observation, we'd still be hunter gatherers. If you take a more restricted idea of science limited to things where you need something more than basic human intuition and which require a good understanding of the philosophy of science (only that which is observable can be asserted to be true), then we may be living in relatively organised social structures, but we'd be constantly stuck in the pre-Renaissance era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

[CENTER]
1. If religion never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think we'd be more technologically advanced? How do you think society would be? Would there be such a thing as "faith" and if so, what would people use it for? In essence, If all forms of religion and spiritual beliefs/practices NEVER existed.. how do you think we as humans would be today?

---

I believe we would be nominally more advanced from a technological standpoint, but morally in the dark ages.

Because we wouldn't know that it's wrong to kill without The Almighty Bibble.

But of course stoning children, commiting acts of genocide and selling people into slavery is all fine.

Are you people so obsessed with hating Christianity that you ignore the birth of humanity?

It was spirituality that gave birth to man. It was spirituality that made us walk of the woods in awe for nature. It was spirituality that made us wonder and question and realize there is so much more to life that what we know now. TODAY we call that ancient quest to find the answers of this mysterious universe religion. But that is ignoring that the time this most primal and most ancient religion was the cusp of human creativity and intelligence.

Without it, we would have continued living as mindless animals. Never questioning. Never caring to question. Science was born because of this spiritual curiosity. You take spirituality away from human history, science would have never existed.

Where would we be?

Naked and wild! (not that that is a bad thing)

Except we wouldn't be, would we?

I have a sense of awe at nature and it has nothing to do with spirituality.

My curiousity also drives me to 'wonder and question'; again, this has nothing to do with spirituality.

In fact what religion does is to substitute meaningless or incorrect answers to those questions. Science concerns itself with what is actually true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Except we wouldn't be, would we?

I have a sense of awe at nature and it has nothing to do with spirituality.

My curiousity also drives me to 'wonder and question'; again, this has nothing to do with spirituality.

In fact what religion does is to substitute meaningless or incorrect answers to those questions. Science concerns itself with what is actually true.

---

Meaningless? Some of these answers, even when incorrect, are pretty meaningful to some people. Is truth all that matters? What about personal truth?

I'm not religious myself, but I've known a depressed girl who started to believe in God very fanatically. It helped her to see life in a different and less depressive way. Before she felt alone, but when she had God at her side it made her feel like somebody was watching and protecting her all the time. This gave her faith in her life, which gave her energy, which she was able to use to do more with her life and so she became happier. I'm not saying that religion is necessary for everyone, but that it's very appealing to some people and that it produces real effects in their lives.

Without religion I can only assume we would have progressed much further than we have as a species and would be divided along slightly different lines.

Without science; I don't really think that's possible. Science is basically everything we've ever done to move forward. Without science we would be primitive, very primitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koalaman

Meaningless? Some of these answers, even when incorrect, are pretty meaningful to some people. Is truth all that matters? What about personal truth?

I'm not religious myself, but I've known a depressed girl who started to believe in God very fanatically. It helped her to see life in a different and less depressive way. Before she felt alone, but when she had God at her side it made her feel like somebody was watching and protecting her all the time. This gave her faith in her life, which gave her energy, which she was able to use to do more with her life and so she became happier. I'm not saying that religion is necessary for everyone, but that it's very appealing to some people and that it produces real effects in their lives.

---

Well, I find it sad that she couldn't find anybody else to fulfil that role, rather than somebody who essentially was a figment of her imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I find it sad that she couldn't find anybody else to fulfil that role, rather than somebody who essentially was a figment of her imagination.

---

I find it sad you couldnt just be happy for her that she got better.

seriously...Im not very religious myself but I agree with pyro on his points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I have a sense of awe at nature and it has nothing to do with spirituality.

---

Spirituality is AWE. Spirituality is WONDER. Spirituality is wanting to know more, wanting to be connected. Seeking truth and unity. All true scientists that see a mystery they want to unravel are spiritual. Einstein was spiritual. You don't know what spirituality is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I find it sad that she couldn't find anybody else to fulfil that role, rather than somebody who essentially was a figment of her imagination.

---

That figment of her imagination was something she shared with the people from her church. So she could socialize easier with them and feel more connected with them. They helped her to have faith in something to empower her. Does it really matter what it is from this perspective? As long as it's not harmful. Or do you think that religion is harmful?

Quote:

---

I find it sad you couldnt just be happy for her that she got better.

seriously...Im not very religious myself but I agree with pyro on his points.

---

When did I say I wasn't happy for her?

I just find it quite a depressing fact about the human condition that people feel they have to imagine things in order to be happy; that they can't be happy with what is real.

Quote:

---

That figment of her imagination was something she shared with the people from her church. So she could socialize easier with them and feel more connected with them. They helped her to have faith in something to empower her. Does it really matter what it is from this perspective? As long as it's not harmful. Or do you think that religion is harmful?

---

I think religion is at best inert. I wish people could just connect with each other due to their mutual humanity.

Quote:

---

Spirituality is AWE. Spirituality is WONDER. Spirituality is wanting to know more, wanting to be connected. Seeking truth and unity. All true scientists that see a mystery they want to unravel are spiritual. Einstein was spiritual. You don't know what spirituality is.

---

Spirituality does not equate to curiosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

When did I say I wasn't happy for her?

I just find it quite a depressing fact about the human condition that people feel they have to imagine things in order to be happy; that they can't be happy with what is real.

Spirituality does not equate to curiosity.

---

But it takes a lot of learning to know what's real. What's wrong with the easy road when you look at it this way?

Of course religion has the potential to be harmful. Most forms of ideology and belief system do. Religion has just shown time and time again that it possess great potential in this regard. The unshakeable belief that what you are doing is right, coupled with the belief that you will be rewarded with eternal life upon death is a dangerous mix. Add the fact religion has often been used by those with power to control the populace and you get the picture of something that has the potential to be extremely dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Spirituality is AWE. Spirituality is WONDER. Spirituality is wanting to know more, wanting to be connected. Seeking truth and unity. All true scientists that see a mystery they want to unravel are spiritual. Einstein was spiritual. You don't know what spirituality is.

---

This is a bit ridiculous. I don't think you know what language is. Language is much more subjective than you're aiming to make out here. There are lots of different definitions of spirituality. Everybody has their own personal understanding of the word. Yours I quite like. It doesn't mean he doesn't know what spirituality means, just because you decide you do. Don't be so arrogant as to think your personal definition of the word is somewhat universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Spirituality does not equate to curiosity.

---

All spiritualities will ask you to dig deeper for truth

Therefore digging for a deeper truth is being spiritual.

Oops, fallacy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

When did I say I wasn't happy for her?

I just find it quite a depressing fact about the human condition that people feel they have to imagine things in order to be happy; that they can't be happy with what is real.

---

I suppose you didnt explicitly state it, but the tone of your response just made me feel that way.

Perhaps that part of the condition is sad to some, but to me it is actually quite useful. There really are some people who are so loathsome to themselves that they need an external jolt to pull them out of it. I guess I just think as long as they arnt harming anyone else and they are happy then good for them.

1. I think at one point in time religion would have been necessary in order to get masses of people into the same kind of mindset. To work as a collective to build their societies before they got too complex. As for modern day, I don't think religion serves its purpose anymore. We don't need religion to maintain a cohesive society, and it's irrelevant and counter-productive to the advancement of our species.

2. If science never came about, I'd say yes, our worldview would be very much like our archaic predecessors. Probably not the exact same, since beliefs can evolve, but more or less a long the same level of sophistication. We'd be full of superstition with a variety of different gods for controlling the wind and rain and fire and agriculture etc. We'd have a god for everything we couldn't explain, which is pretty much everything without science.
For example, lightning is pretty cool. But imagine having no system for explaining this stuff, lightning would be a pretty mysterious and spooky thing. There must be a god doing that.

Interesting posts. Thanks for the replies guys. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

It was spirituality that gave birth to man. It was spirituality that made us walk of the woods in awe for nature. It was spirituality that made us wonder and question and realize there is so much more to life that what we know now.

---

[citation needed]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

[citation needed]

---

Travel way back in time, before we recorded time. There are many things all around you to make you feel you are more than just a body of flesh of blood. For one dreams. The brain of the first modern humans is the same as our brains today! If we can lucid dream, then they can lucid dream.

But you're a wild human. You don't have an advanced culture (yet) telling you that hallucinations and dreams aren't 'real'. So what happens when you, the wild human, has a vivid lucid dream? How do you think that would affect you when you wake up? There is a reason why humans began to believe in the spirit world. They had to have experienced something to make them belief they are more than just their physical body.

And if it wasn't lucid dreams, then it was psychedelics. And the great thing about these psychedelics is anyone could take them, and experience it for themselves. Which made it, to the wild humans, an objective shareable reality! Through lucid dreams and psychedelics we were tasting divinity! We were experiencing the duality of the mind and body. That the mind can some how 'detach' from the body. This possibly gave rise to the belief of the soul and the spirit world, and all the gods and demons in it.

But more importantly it took our attention from just trying to survive to something larger and more meaningful. Culture was born. And that meant for one, we were creating an abundance of artwork. By looking at ancient cultures that have survived today, art is magical. By carving or painting a creature you capture it's essence. And shamens could depict their spirit journeys to share it with their tribe

We wouldn't have true science until we had advanced math. And even then, our math was being used to count and measure the stars. Not for the sake of science, but for the sake to understand divinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Naked and wild! (not that that is a bad thing)

---

Juroara, let's get naked and wild in the primeval jungle :shadewink:

And I completely agree with what you're saying... it was magical beliefs expressed through the first art that brought mankind up from an animal state.

I hope you realize that you've just defined "spirituality" as "being on drugs and not knowing any better" ;)

I agree with you that that has influenced our progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Answer two questions in your post

1. If religion never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think we'd be more technologically advanced? How do you think society would be? Would there be such a thing as "faith" and if so, what would people use it for? In essence, If all forms of religion and spiritual beliefs/practices NEVER existed.. how do you think we as humans would be today?


2. If science never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think (in 2010) that we'd still foster beliefs about the world as our ancestors did in archaic times? How do you think government would be as a result? How about people? Would Friday the 13th be an international holiday so everyone could stay home? Paint a picture for me as to how you would view the world if science never existed.

---

1. The world would be a better place. Gay people would be more accepted, for one. We would most definitely be more advanced. The ancient Egyptians would have been more concerned with life than their Gods and invented more things that were useful. They would have written down more of their history as well, probably.

2. It is physically impossible for science not to exist. We live in science. Oxygen itself is science. We are science. Our anatomical makeup is science. Everything we do is science. So, I refuse to answer a question that is 100% hypothetical. If there was a single possibility of this, yes, I would answer. But seeing as how we are completely surrounded by science and everything in existence is science in some sort, I cannot answer this.

Also, if we had no science, I wouldn't be typing this :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Juroara, let's get naked and wild in the primeval jungle :shadewink:

---

lol....with fig leaves right? :eek:


http://hypnaimages.com/Studies/what.png

LOL well, as long as you don't want some kind of crazy-expensive designer fig leaf.... :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Answer two questions in your post

1. If religion never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think we'd be more technologically advanced? How do you think society would be? Would there be such a thing as "faith" and if so, what would people use it for? In essence, If all forms of religion and spiritual beliefs/practices NEVER existed.. how do you think we as humans would be today?


2. If science never existed, how do you think the world would be today? Do you think (in 2010) that we'd still foster beliefs about the world as our ancestors did in archaic times? How do you think government would be as a result? Howabout people? Would Friday the 13th be an international holiday so everyone could stay home? Paint a picture for me as to how you would view the world if science never existed.

---

1. We wouldn't be here for one... More people would try to fill their spiritual void by using drugs and sin, and America would be much less of a nation. Religion does not stop technology, I find it sad that some people try to accuse it of that. I for one am religious and don't oppose Stem cell research, nor hate gays :) However I suppose immoral experiments would not be allowed (but what's wrong with that?). In all the accusation just shows that some people are completely incapable of working with and accepting other's beliefs.

2. I don't know what you quite mean by Science. Without the idiotic theory of evolution we would be fine and humans would sometime find an intelligent explanation of the earth, but without all the great technology that Science has awarded humanity with the earth would most certainly be a more primitive place. I am not up for debate about this.

Quote:

---

More people would try to fill their spiritual void by using drugs and sin

---

By "sin" I'm assuming you mean "lifestyle choices I do not personally agree with, which using what I falsely perceive as a supreme moral viewpoint afforded by my religious beliefs gives me the audacity to label them as sinful and immoral, all without presenting a valid argument to back up my stance". What it lacks in punch and brevity it makes up for in truthfulness.

How very judgemental. And clearly not working very well in the case of the Catholic church, with all the raping, child abuse, and the covering up of said crimes as well.

Quote:

---

Religion does not stop technology

---

Religion stops, or impedes science. Science creates technology. Therefore religion stops technology. QED.

What about stem-cell research which was held back on largely religious grounds?

Quote:

---

Without the idiotic theory of evolution

---

Congratulations, you win my "moron of the day" award. It's ironic how you admit that without science the world would be a worse place, and that the technology is "great", yet because the scientific evidence shows your silly dogmatic views to be, well, silly dogmatic views then you label it as idiotic.

Even though the exact same process that gave the evidence for evolution is responsible for all scientific knowledge and the existence of the technology you praise.

Take modern medicine. Sorry, bad example; plenty of fools out there still don't believe in it. Let's go with a computer then. The technology used to built it comes from many areas, and this is founded on the exact same kind of evidence for evolution: empirical evidence and observation.

The foolishness of people never ceases to amaze me. "Yeah, these scientist guys get a lot of things right, but for some reason, and only on the subject of Evolution, they get it completely wrong and come up with some crap". Please.

You're a moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidApprentice

I am not up for debate about this.

---

You're a true religious nut.

1 - As other people have said we'd be more advanced. We wouldn't hate people for being different because science shows us that we are basically the same, with only minor differences that don't matter socially.

2 - We would be pretty fucked. Science isn't the technology and all that, it's the very concept of questioning our beliefs and wondering if they're correct. We probably wouldn't have even changed any of our views. Someone said religion may have changed, but I don't think it would. It would be exactly the same, or maybe we wouldn't even have it at all, because we wouldn't really question anything.

Science stems from questioning, but then we test to see if we are correct in our questions. So it depends how exact you want to be.

If you want to leave our ability to question on the table, we would have religion, and it would be madness, because nobody would be able to decide who is right. The alpha male would probably just be assumed to be correct with whatever shit they come up with.

We wouldn't have advanced at all because we would have no knowledge to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

We wouldn't hate people for being different.......

---

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. :? Science doesn't liberate the human condition. Was there a reason for Photolysis to call LucidApprentice a moron? No there wasn't. Not unless the reason is just to feel bigger and better than another person. That's just a simple example of how we hate other people for being different.

Science isn't going to stop us from being individuals. Science isn't going to stop us from being different, because being different is in our DNA. Science isn't going to stop us from being angry, hateful, spiteful, vengeful, proud. Were still going to have various cultures, because culture is created by a place in time. The american culture is what it is because we had very large open fields that our food industry relies on. Imagine if all of America was a jungle, or a desert - we would be a different culture and our technology would follow suit!

Were still going to have cultures who think they are better than others.

And even if all cultures were based and founded on science, the world could still be at war. Some cultures might like to study and respect nature. Others might see nature as their lab experiment. The two don't always get along, yet both are founded on science.

Stop blaming religion for all the terrors of the world and look in the mirror and face the real enemy - HUMANITY!

We basically evolved from chimps, or a common ancestor. All of our negative behavior can be found in chimps. As far as I know chimps are not religious. We have the monkey mind. That is to blame for our problems, not religion. Yes, close minded dogmatic religion sucks, but that is because of our monkey minds that make it like that. Atheists have done very horrible things also. Science has done horrible things. Look at China, the Soviet Union. Look at the atom bomb. Just a fraction of examples possible.
It is good to liberate your mind from the dominant paradigm and the status quo. If you were raised with religion, indoctrinated with religion, controlled, manipulated by religion, then you may feel free when you throw off the shackles of religion. You may feel educated, you may feel sane, that common sense is yours. However, you cannot blame humanity's close-mindedness on religion. Organized religion is actually politics more than it is real religion. They keep you dumb in order to keep their power and control you. This is politics, not religion. And dumb people will always exist, whether or not religion ever did or not. And these dumb people will be a burden on the rest of us. Even science cannot liberate them even if there never was religion.

But science is just a body of knowledge and a method to gain more knowledge. It can't really do horrible things. It's the businessmen and politicians that apply the knowledge in horrible ways. For example, nuclear technology can also be applied to generate energy and to propel us through space.

Right, the problem is not science or religion, but greed.
Science used rightly and true spirituality are good things,
until the greedy politicians and big business get their hands on it.
It was kings and empires that created the Roman church and formed doctrines.
It is kings and politicians and big business that create war to take and destroy what other people created and loved. It is politciians and big business that use science for their own means and use religion to manipulate people.
It is nationalism and xenophobia that they use to keep people
against each other so we don't all unite against them and take their power away.
They encourage us to stay ignorant so that we don't understand the core of truth in all religion, rather they want us to serve them and the priest class and cling to our superstitions and false doctrines.
Truth liberates. Whether it is from science or spirituality.
But if used wrongly it enslaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. :? Science doesn't liberate the human condition. Was there a reason for Photolysis to call LucidApprentice a moron? No there wasn't.

---

LMAO, good call. But you miss the point. We are in a society based largely on religion. Seeing people be hateful almost always makes the witness hateful. If we started out with only science, we would all know that there is only very minor differences between each person, and it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Were still going to have cultures who think they are better than others.

---

Again, culture is born largely out of religion. I can't think of any other reason that there is different cultures. You mention habitat. But the habitat people are in influences their religion, which makes the culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

And even if all cultures were based and founded on science, the world could still be at war. Some cultures might like to study and respect nature. Others might see nature as their lab experiment. The two don't always get along, yet both are founded on science.

---

Maybe. Or maybe we would see that we are part of nature, instead of the religious bullshit that all this was put here for us and somehow we are above it all.

I agree with dannon's last post and special interests' last post.

You make it sound like science can magically poop out of the ground. Science develops slowly over time. It took us thousands of years for our science to be what it is from the days we just counted sticks and stones. Are you going to tell me, in this long time period, no culture will develop? NONE? :cheeky:

ps. The dominating culture you live in right now is capitalism, that is fueled by money, not religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

You make it sound like science can magically poop out of the ground. Science develops slowly over time. It took us thousands of years for our science to be what it is from the days we just counted sticks and stones. Are you going to tell me, in this long time period, no culture will develop? NONE? :cheeky:

ps. The dominating culture you live in right now is capitalism, that is fueled by money, not religion.

---

Of course we would have a culture, we can't exist if we were to have no culture. That's obvious, because culture is just how people live and how they think. But it would just be a culture based on science. It would only change as our understanding of the universe changed, not every time someone decides their religion is wrong and starts another CULTure.

Oh and capitalism is fueled by greed and hatred, not money.

Quote:

---

Was there a reason for Photolysis to call LucidApprentice a moron?

---

Yes, there was a reason: I called him a moron because his statement was moronic, and I explained why. If I said something similarly stupid (though few statements are so profound as declaring the Theory of Evolution to be "idiotic"), I would actually be grateful that someone took the time to explain why I was being stupid. LucidApprentice's bold assertion based on what can only be described as staggering ignorance and arrogance deserves scorn. People like you who enable such people, by shielding them from the few who do say "you're wrong and you're being stupid, and this is why" are almost as bad.

Facts are not determined by popular opinion. Facts are not determined by what is "nice". Facts are not determined because people like or dislike them. Facts simply facts, and evidence helps us to determine what is a fact. If I started making statements about how the Earth was flat, and ignored all the evidence otherwise, it would indeed make me a moron. If I started praising science whilst simultaneously decrying the foolish scientists who think the Earth is round, it would make my position nonsensical. Someone would be entirely right to point these things out because they would be true.

I post in this forum to engage in discussion, to have my views challenged, and because I generally enjoy the topics that are found in here. I post in an extremely blunt way (to the point of rudeness when I feel it is necessary) because the world would be a much better place if people who said, did, and believed stupid things were told about it rather than the "live and let live" attitude of the enablers. This is because it gives such people a chance to learn from their errors, which benefits society as a whole when they take that opportunity.

If I do insult you, rather than politely explaining why you are wrong, or disagreeing then that is also for a reason. Either my reasoning is readily obvious (possibly because someone else has already explained) and hence I will not bother with an explanation myself, or I will explain why. Maybe it's because the magnitude of your stupidity is so great that such a reaction is deserved. Maybe it's because you ignored the same counter-point ten times in a row whilst insisting on claiming victory. Whatever the reason, there will be one, because it is utterly pointless of me to spend my time insulting people for no reason. Frankly, I have better things to do.

Yes, I care little for social norms, so what? If I say something foolish then someone else who is more knowledgeable is welcome to say "Photo, you're being stupid and need to educate yourself on this subject better". And I would look at it, and if they were right I would be grateful they took time out of their day to inform me so. I have no problem with being wrong, because if I know I'm wrong, I can fix it. If I know I'm being stupid, I can fix it. The only people who cannot handle being wrong are those with low self-esteem, which is ironically what you implicitly accuse me of with your amusingly incorrect attempt to psychoanalyse my motives.

If people have problems with others correctly pointing out facts, then they have severe issues. My points are valid and that's all that matters.

Quote:

---

That's just a simple example of how we hate other people for being different

---

Again, another bad attempt at psycho-analysis. I don't hate anyone here. I actually pity the lack of intellect and knowledge a lot of people here display. It is especially sad when someone chooses this position willfully.

It is wise to learn to disagree and accept differences on subjective or meaningless things. What is not intelligent is to claim that opposing factual statements are equally valid. LucidApprentice's stance on Evolution is not "being different", it is just plain wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Religion stops, or impedes science. Science creates technology. Therefore religion stops technology. QED.

---

Religion's never stopped any of my technology. :cheeky:


In my eyes religion has a lot of wisdom in it. But wisdom and science are two completely different paradigms that don't necessarily conflict with each other. I think that's pretty straightforward.

1. Humanity wouldn't have evolved to the point we are at today, if at all. Something else would have taken our place and our inferior strength/resiliance to nature would have caused us to die out.

2. Humanity wouldn't have evolved to the point we are at today, if at all. Something else would have taken our place and our inferior strength/resiliance to nature would have caused us to die out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

LucidApprentice's stance on Evolution is not "being different", it is just plain wrong.

---

Evolution may be the truth. But at the same time, so what? We were living just fine on the earth while being completely ignorant to it. :lol: So a person chooses to ignore what you call truth? Is the world going to turn flat? Is gravity going to stop?Where is the anger coming from?

I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm talking about all the atheists and fundamentalists that go at each other like insane lunatics. Have you any ever stood back and listened to yourselves? You all (fundies and atheists arguing each other) sound exactly the same!!! Insulting each other left and right and tossing logic (sometimes false human logic) in between the mix. What's the point?

I think it's great to want to educate people on what you believe is truth. You know, liberate them and set them free from ignorance that's preventing them from being happier. But you do it for the individual. And when you do it for the individual you say "Look, here's the truth as I know it. Here's all the resources on it". And you can give them books and books on evolution. And if they still turn around and say "No, I don't believe". Then, there's nothing else you can do. You already did all that you can do.

All you can do at this point is respect their human free will to be who they choose to be, even if who they choose to be is what you call an idiot. And if at this point you (THE GENERAL YOU) get angry, then you weren't trying to educate this person for this person. Whats the other motive? I don't know.

Why do atheists get angry at fundies?

I can understand why fundies get angry! Fundies have always needed NUMBERS.

I think we'd be more "Robotic."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Why do atheists get angry at fundies?

---

Because they impede human advancement (social, technological or otherwise) with their ignorance and lack of free thought. Many of them don't keep to themselves. They spread their morals and dogma in schools and politics. They indoctrinate children and are generally beacons of intolerance. Atheists may think that fundamentalists are idiots, but fundamentalists think that atheists belong in hell to suffer for eternity.

Another explanation could be that it's really annoying for a person with a scientific mind to try reasoning with a completely irrational person that puts doctrine before logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Because they impede human advancement (social, technological or otherwise) with their ignorance and lack of free thought. Many of them don't keep to themselves. They spread their morals and dogma in schools and politics. They indoctrinate children and are generally beacons of intolerance.

---

I understand where you're coming from. That does explain a lot of the anger.

But is it entirely fair to bring all of this baggage to the table to a single forum a member here when discussing evolution? Did that single member commit all of these things that we should take our anger out on him personally? :whyme:

And please understand, I'm not defending fundamentalism and I would like to see schools continue to teach evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I understand where you're coming from. That does explain a lot of the anger.

But is it entirely fair to bring all of this baggage to the table to a single forum a member here when discussing evolution? Did that single member commit all of these things that we should take our anger out on him personally? :whyme:

And please understand, I'm not defending fundamentalism and I would like to see schools continue to teach evolution.

---

I was talking in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LRT

I believe we would be nominally more advanced from a technological standpoint, but morally in the dark ages.

---

We are morally in the dark ages. It hasn't advanced anywhere . People kill people for the same reasons as ages past. Allthough, if religion did not exist, we wouldn't use the worn and old excuses it has enabled us to invent.

We would have political and scientific excuses, which we already do as well right now.