I believe it's a double-edged sword.  It can give people hope, comfort, and a will to live, but it can also make them co-dependent.  It's been used to justify slavery, wars, genocide, abuse towards women including throwing them on the funeral pyre of their dead husband, human sacrifice against both men and women, and shutting out rational thought and logic.

I would like to see a world where people maked informed decisions without consulting their religion first, and are able to reason for themselves rather than being suspended on a bed of arbitrary morals laid down hundreds or thousands of years ago.

I'd like to see people stop using magic, folk medicine, hedge remedies, and superstitious wive's tales as a basis for healing the sick. 

I'd like to see a world where religion is something that just forms a minor quadrant of a society's traditions and is not used to harm anyone, intentionally or unintentionally.  I have no qualms with people having religion, it's when they try to substitute science or reason with it that I have issues.

Yeah, agreed... I mean, I feel it's being used to stop or alter progress.

For example, gay marriage. Marriage is defined through religion as the joining of a man and a woman, and through law as a joining of property and assets. The connotation of marriage comes from religion, and people are unwilling to change that, or even allow civil union (which is governments lovely word for marriage) anyway.

All I'm seeing are roadblocks..

You mean unwilling to change that from a transitory pockmark on the history of marriage thus defined by Christianity and solidified in just the past century or two.

Before that people practiced polgyny and, arguably, gay marriage quite commonly in Christian Europe.  And it was sanctioned by the church, because for the former there was nothing against in the Bible, and for the latter no one gave a ****.  It was the Victorian Age that solidified marriage into its modern concept--namely by the Puritans that eventually formed the vestiges of America. 

Hell, more than one culture considers the love between two men to be more "pure" than between that of a man and a woman--because the woman taints the relationship with her lust for sex.  The backlash of that view of women being insatiable beasts of lust being the Puritanical view of women not being allowed to enjoy sex. 

LtStorm (05:37pm Mon, May 11, 2009)

Before that people practiced polgyny and, arguably, gay marriage quite commonly in Christian Europe.  And it was sanctioned by the church, because for the former there was nothing against in the Bible, and for the latter no one gave a ****.  It was the Victorian Age that solidified marriage into its modern concept--namely by the Puritans that eventually formed the vestiges of America. 

Wow I didnt know that! God bless America? lol..

Quote

Hell, more than one culture considers the love between two men to be more "pure" than between that of a man and a woman--because the woman taints the relationship with her lust for sex.  The backlash of that view of women being insatiable beasts of lust being the Puritanical view of women not being allowed to enjoy sex. 

...Well, I think I can understand that, though I'd like to object because it's unfair .

Quote

...Well, I think I can understand that, though I'd like to object because it's unfair .

Women not being the hornier of the sexes is a very modern concept.  I'm not sure who got it started, possibly Sigmund Freud.

So we're meant to be hornier?

Up until Victorian times, yeah, they were considered to be the hornier of the two. Men had to keep women in line because they couldn't control themselves.

Sounds like my kind of women!

LOL Andre.

Some of us would give you a run for your money

Oh, I'm sure.

Okay, I know it's terrible....but I LOLed

ah, that's amazing

Religion is an interesting topic to debate as it is a fundamental part of society, everyone discuss's religion even if they don't believe. Furthermore as a student of religion i find the concept of it highly intriguing as there are many philosophy's. However i completely agree with Bunny that the church and communal worship is just another way to control man. However it is unfair to blame religion for past wars when most of them have been down to political leaders attacking each other(cough,cough Vietnam). Furthermore religion is there to help us understand the basis of why we are here, for science might provide a strong basis of how everything works it does not provide us with a reason for living. Furthermore science has gaps in its knowledge which can have religious meanings, therefore religion and science explain answers together. However religious texts such as the bible are debatable when trying to accept the material, is it one big story which was written like Harry Potter. We don't know? However I personally think the Bible is not factually true but holds mythical truths, the reason for this is because the Bible was not written by God himself but by man and therefore it is a secondary source not really reliable. Therefore i do question why some follow these texts to the core of their words. Anyway they are some of my views not really that interesting so i won't continue. lol.

Ihana (04:41pm Sun, May 17, 2009)

Religion is an interesting topic to debate as it is a fundamental part of society, everyone discuss's religion even if they don't believe. Furthermore as a student of religion i find the concept of it highly intriguing as there are many philosophy's.

Oh?  What kind of student of religion?

Ihana (04:41pm Sun, May 17, 2009)

However it is unfair to blame religion for past wars when most of them have been down to political leaders attacking each other(cough,cough Vietnam).

That's one war out of hundreds, if not thousands, throughout human history.  And that's just counting really big wars.  Pretty much any war for a throne in Europe was a religious-based war.  Crusades used religion as an excuse to get started, etc.

Ihana (04:41pm Sun, May 17, 2009)

Furthermore religion is there to help us understand the basis of why we are here, for science might provide a strong basis of how everything works it does not provide us with a reason for living.

I'd say science provides me with a reason for living, but then, that reason is to do science, so I doubt that really applies to non-scientists.  Still, just because science doesn't directly give us a reason to live doesn't mean religion has to.  Why can't your reason to live just be to live?  I mean, most people don't have grand goals they're out to achieve, and are just trying to eek out a day-to-day living.  So to them I guess religion handing them a reason to live that isn't their own is comforting.

But that hardly means that religion has to give you a reason to live because science can not.

Ihana (04:41pm Sun, May 17, 2009)

Furthermore science has gaps in its knowledge which can have religious meanings, therefore religion and science explain answers together.

What gaps in science's knowledge have religious meaning?  Could you provide some examples, please?

At any rate, any gaps in science are there simply because they haven't been filled yet.  They could be filled tomorrow, or the next day, or might never be filled before the Heat Death of the universe.  But the potential to be filled is there. 

Religion explains nothing other than potentially giving an insight into human psychology. 

Ihana (04:41pm Sun, May 17, 2009)

However religious texts such as the bible are debatable when trying to accept the material, is it one big story which was written like Harry Potter. We don't know? However I personally think the Bible is not factually true but holds mythical truths, the reason for this is because the Bible was not written by God himself but by man and therefore it is a secondary source not really reliable. Therefore i do question why some follow these texts to the core of their words. Anyway they are some of my views not really that interesting so i won't continue. lol.

Very true.  Though, what do you mean "mythical truths"?

I kinda go along with the idea that religion is meant for people who can't think for themselves. To me, it's kinda how a lot of women are with boyfriends. Their parents, peers, and society in general has consciously or subconsciously stuffed it into their brain that they NEED one. Heck, for the longest time I felt awkward without one! (both religion and boyfriend ) In that aspect, religion is both a good and a bad thing. It gives the insecure people the crutch they need to continue on, but if they lean too heavily on that crutch and fail to think for themselves, it turns into a...parasite, of sorts.
But, there are always the masses who are meant to follow and the fewer who are meant to control those followers, so I guess it's just another way to put things in their "proper place"

i am a student of philosophy and ethics (i study Christianity mainly). Science has things within its findings that don't seem to fit with their logical approach. Science would say that everything and anything is made up of atoms, these being very structured and containing electrons, protons and neutrons. However when we look at what these are made up of, we discover quarks. Quarks disobey science laws as they follow no pattern or structure, this meaning that if the quarks were to move in a certain way it may be possible to stick our hand through a table. Therefore this surely shows that the world is made by something higher as there are evidence of quarks which scientist cannot explain. Furthermore the gap between when monkey evolved into man is still empty and there is not much evidence suggesting how the change came about. The Bible holds mythical truths such as creating a sustainable society that is important to care for each other, this is shown in Jesus's teachings.etc. As for wars there have been many not based on religion, WW1, WW2,Korea etc. Most modern wars are disputes over land or the abuse of power. erm again that is all i have to say for now. lols.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

i am a student of philosophy and ethics (i study Christianity mainly).

Ah, how's that panning out?  Learned anything interesting about Christianity or other religions?

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

Science has things within its findings that don't seem to fit with their logical approach.

No it doesn't, but okay.  Well, I should say, science has things that don't seem to fit with the current logical approach.  But nothing has been found yet that has lead scientists to believe it can't fit a logical approach.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

Science would say that everything and anything is made up of atoms, these being very structured and containing electrons, protons and neutrons. However when we look at what these are made up of, we discover quarks.

Right, and quarks are currently the smallest known fundamental units of the universe. 

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

Quarks disobey science laws as they follow no pattern or structure,

...Except they do.  Protons are composed of two "up" and one "down" quarks.  Neutrons are composed of two "down" and one "up" quark.  That's a pattern.  As for their structure, at current they are only known to be geometric points, but String Theory suggests that this appearance is simply because we don't yet have the technology/ability to look deeper.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

this meaning that if the quarks were to move in a certain way it may be possible to stick our hand through a table.

But quarks won't move in that certain way.  Or any other way.  Quarks never appear alone, they're always bound up into hadrons such as protons and neutrons.  This is due to the current nature of the universe.  There was an epoch--for a few nanoseconds--after the Big Bang that is theorized to have contained free quarks in it.  There's currently too little energy free in the universe to make it so the quarks in your hand could dissociate and allow it to pass through a table.  At least without causing catastrophic damage to the rest of you, the table, and everything around you.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

Therefore this surely shows that the world is made by something higher as there are evidence of quarks which scientist cannot explain.

Or it just shows that we still have more to learn about the universe.  One of these things.  You're coming dangerously close to playing the God of the Gaps card here.  Meaning you cite God as only being present for phenomena that we can not explain through science.  Which is a really silly concept anyway.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

Furthermore the gap between when monkey evolved into man is still empty and there is not much evidence suggesting how the change came about.

Well, I would hope the gap between monkeys evolving to man is empty, as man didn't evolve from monkeys.  He evolved from apes.  Which shared a common ancestor with monkeys that was not a monkey itself.

As for the gap between apes evolving into man, if by "empty" you mean "filled with things," then yes, you're right.  It is indeed filled with many transitional forms found in fossils, as well as a genetic trail found in the differences between our DNA and that of our closest living relatives, chimpanzees.  This comparison of genomes has illuminated a whole bunch of details about how we evolved from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, and has even been used to discover why we're ravaged by HIV. 

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

The Bible holds mythical truths such as creating a sustainable society that is important to care for each other, this is shown in Jesus's teachings.etc.

And who did Jesus learn that from?  The Bronze Age goat farmers discovered it thousands of years before he was born. For Jesus to set forth the concept that a sustainable society requires caring for each other, he'd have to have been the first human--or for that matter proto-human--to suggest shifting from a hunter-gatherer system to an agricultural system.  Hell, you'd probably have to go further back than that.  You could easily argue that the first hunter-gatherers--homo erectus--realized this "mythical truth" by forming an egalitarian society.  So, I could accept Jesus was a homo erectus and was the first to realize this concept.

But he's a few thousand years late to suggest it during the Classical Antiquity period.  Either you've forgotten that Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon set that idea forward in those very same words almost six hundred years before Jesus was born, or Jesus was one ballsy son-of-a-bitch to try to cash in on their work.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

As for wars there have been many not based on religion, WW1, WW2,Korea etc.

That's three.  Let me counter that; Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Hundred Years War.  Three religious wars, similar in size or larger than the ones you listed at the time they occurred.   

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

Most modern wars are disputes over land or the abuse of power.

Arguably most abuses of power are religious wars.

Ihana (04:32pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

erm again that is all i have to say for now. lols.

No, please, keep digging yourself a hole!  I can't wait for your reply!  I'm also curious about more of these "mythical truths."

LtStorm (08:11pm Mon, May 18, 2009)

As for the gap between apes evolving into man, if by "empty" you mean "filled with things," then yes, you're right. 

That just cracked me up

LMAO!!!!! i do say you are very close minded storm, maybe you should just accept religion exists and that science and religion are of different language games so therefore they can not be compatible, however if you do think about religion and science they both use empirical evidence to base their beliefs on so why believe science when it might not be true. Many theories of science have been disproven by later theories whereas religion has always been the same so why should we believe science when it constantly changes. I am only shining a light on religious beliefs and how it contrasts to science and how religion explains the world around it. But I'm used to scientists and atheists having a jolly old laugh about it anyways. Surely though to be so anti religion you have had to think about it more as first you have had to accept the theory to reject it. 

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

LMAO!!!!! i do say you are very close minded storm,

I prefer it to being so open-minded that my brains leak out my ears.  But really, I'm not close-minded.  I'm at least as open-minded as the James Randi Foundation.  I just don't believe people when they try to make claims that skate by having any factual evidence or proof to them. 

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

maybe you should just accept religion exists and that science and religion are of different language games so therefore they can not be compatible,

Oh, that's exactly what I accept.  Science is a way of exploring, cataloguing, and defining the world around us.  Religion is a social construct used to manipulate and control people.

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

however if you do think about religion and science they both use empirical evidence to base their beliefs on so why believe science when it might not be true.

...What empirical evidence does religion base its beliefs on? 

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

Many theories of science have been disproven by later theories whereas religion has always been the same so why should we believe science when it constantly changes.

...Yes, that's a very good point.  It means the opposite of what you think it does, though.  Humanity is constantly learning new things.  Every day new discoveries are made, and things we previously did not think of are thought of.  Science adapts to these.  Its intention is to best fit the universe around us, so it has to change to keep up with the times.  Sometimes things don't work quite how we think they do, and a new discovery shifts our view of it, requiring new theories to be put forth to explain it. 

Religion doesn't change because it's disconnected and uninterested in how the world around it actually is and is instead focused inward on how it wants it to be.  For example, the Book of Leviticus.  It's a Bronze Age health code.  Pork and shellfish are particularly likely to cause food poisoning if improperly prepared, so they are forbidden.  Sodomy is forbidden because it's a potential vector for disease if proper precautions aren't taken.  It even sets out how you clean cooking utensils and such.  It doesn't know why this needs to be done, but it knows it does.

Instead of updating itself to fit with the times, such as acknowledging that modern cooking techniques make pork and shellfish perfectly safe to consume, or that Sodomy can be made perfectly safe, it instead deems these things to be sins and closes them off. 

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

I am only shining a light on religious beliefs and how it contrasts to science and how religion explains the world around it.

You mean how it explains the world around it by not explaining the world?  Or rather, please, give me an example of how religion explains the world around it.

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

But I'm used to scientists and atheists having a jolly old laugh about it anyways. Surely though to be so anti religion you have had to think about it more as first you have had to accept the theory to reject it. 

Eh, not really.  Generally atheists and scientists don't consider religion a barrier or hurdle they have to get their thinking over.  They consider it a non-entity.  It has nothing to do with them or their work, so they don't even give it a thought.  Rejecting it isn't hard, as there's no need for a theory to reject it.  There's no need for a theory to disprove something.  If it offered some hint at its existence, then it might warrant someone hypothesizing it does exist.  But until then it's a non-entity.

I also can't help but notice you entirely ignore the points I made in my last post.  What did I say that marked me as close-minded?

LtStorm (10:36am Wed, May 20, 2009)

I prefer it to being so open-minded that my brains leak out my ears.  But really, I'm not close-minded.

I STILL have that problem .

Quote

Oh, that's exactly what I accept.  Science is a way of exploring, cataloguing, and defining the world around us.  Religion is a social construct used to manipulate and control people.

I still don't see why you two don't think they can work together. I mean both require faith, both are revised, corrected, and popular....I don't see why they really conflict so much. Yeah, so we're made of atoms. Who made those? Maybe god did, maybe some primordial soup did, who knows? Pretend I can spell if that's spelt wrong ..

Quote

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

Many theories of science have been disproven by later theories whereas religion has always been the same so why should we believe science when it constantly changes.

...Yes, that's a very good point.  It means the opposite of what you think it does, though.  Humanity is constantly learning new things.  Every day new discoveries are made, and things we previously did not think of are thought of.  Science adapts to these.  Its intention is to best fit the universe around us, so it has to change to keep up with the times.  Sometimes things don't work quite how we think they do, and a new discovery shifts our view of it, requiring new theories to be put forth to explain it. 

I was about to say something to that effect. I change my mind one hundred times about things I want to do, does that make me any less trustworthy? I mean, science isnt rocking the world with discoveries like "gravity doesnt exist, it's all in our heads!" so it's not something you can claim as unstable, which I think you're trying to do. Both religion and science have their weak points, their instabilities, their holes and unknown parts. Neither can stand and say "Bitch, I'm perfect" because both were made/written/explored/etc etc by man. Man is flawed, so perfectly, that nothing we ever create is ever really perfect.

Quote

Religion doesn't change because it's disconnected and uninterested in how the world around it actually is and is instead focused inward on how it wants it to be.  For example, the Book of Leviticus.  It's a Bronze Age health code.  Pork and shellfish are particularly likely to cause food poisoning if improperly prepared, so they are forbidden.  Sodomy is forbidden because it's a potential vector for disease if proper precautions aren't taken.  It even sets out how you clean cooking utensils and such.  It doesn't know why this needs to be done, but it knows it does.

Okay so you make a judgement on religion because of one teeny part of it? Religion doesnt want to change because it wants to honour its traditions. Some of the "new age" stuff is considered to go against the traditions anyway. Now with that said, I doubt that followers are expected to follow those instructions these days, as they were written for a time that didnt have the tech stuff we have....[cont below]

Quote

Instead of updating itself to fit with the times, such as acknowledging that modern cooking techniques make pork and shellfish perfectly safe to consume, or that Sodomy can be made perfectly safe, it instead deems these things to be sins and closes them off.

Rewriting the holy book? Yeah, that will go down well. It's not a law book, it's not meant to have amendments....then again, it does say the book is there for correction, so that depends entirely on your interpretation (cant find the passage).

Also, I thought pork was considered sinful because they had evil spirits or something?

Quote

Ihana (08:40am Wed, May 20, 2009)

I am only shining a light on religious beliefs and how it contrasts to science and how religion explains the world around it.

You mean how it explains the world around it by not explaining the world?  Or rather, please, give me an example of how religion explains the world around it.

Sorry Ihana, I have to agree with Storm here. Science was "created" because the bible, and other religions, didnt answer the when/where/how/why questions adequately.

Quote

I also can't help but notice you entirely ignore the points I made in my last post.  What did I say that marked me as close-minded?

Taking a gamble here.... your tone portrayed a tone that you knew best and couldnt be swayed any way - so debating was pointless on her side because she couldnt win .

A bit to your last point, Bunny, nobody's mind has ever been changed by a debate on the Internet. If someone wants to "win" a debate, that's judged by the audience, not those who are debating itself. If "You're closed minded!" is the end-all of a debate, the one who utters it is showing signs of a poor debater. Or just not understanding the nature of debate itself.

Well I play devils advocate and swap sides like an idiot, so I appear to chop and change sides lol.


And to be honest my mind has once. I found some stuff I didnt know before which totally changed my opinion and I was like "shit. You're right".

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

I still don't see why you two don't think they can work together. I mean both require faith, both are revised, corrected, and popular....I don't see why they really conflict so much.

Science doesn't work on faith.  There's a priori knowledge, and you can form hypotheses off of that, but the science community as a whole doesn't take things on faith as a whole.  Just their fellow man.  And that's only because when work is published, it's possibly for you to take a paper, go into the lab, and reproduce that experiment.  If you can't, the person that wrote it can get in a **** load of trouble (see my signature). 

Unless they interfere with one another, they aren't in conflict.  As I said before, to scientists, religion for the most part is a non-entity.  It's removed from their sphere of thought, at least while they're doing work.  The two should be kept separate from one another.  Religion shouldn't be used to describe the world or medicines or anything like that, and science shouldn't be...uh...I can't really think of anything that science itself needs to stop doing to accommodate religion.  I'm sure there is something, though.  But really, it's usually the people on both sides that are in conflict.  Scientists telling religious people they believe in silly imaginary friends, and religious people refusing the aid of science-based medicines in favor of religious remedies.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Yeah, so we're made of atoms. Who made those? Maybe god did, maybe some primordial soup did, who knows? Pretend I can spell if that's spelt wrong ..

Maybe no one made them?  They arose from natural processes?  While we'll never know that for sure, we can thrust open the veil of time as far as possible, and learn all that we can about the origins of the universe, and the processes it underwent to get to where it is today. 

The Primordial Soup comes about 12 billion years later.  That refers to the oceans of Earth back when the planet was enshrouded in a cloud of methane, the oceans were tinted green with dissolved iron, and there was no free oxygen.  That's where it's thought the conditions became right for amino acids to be naturally generated, and from there combine in the oceans into complex molecules, etc.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

I was about to say something to that effect. I change my mind one hundred times about things I want to do, does that make me any less trustworthy? I mean, science isnt rocking the world with discoveries like "gravity doesnt exist, it's all in our heads!" so it's not something you can claim as unstable, which I think you're trying to do. Both religion and science have their weak points, their instabilities, their holes and unknown parts. Neither can stand and say "Bitch, I'm perfect" because both were made/written/explored/etc etc by man. Man is flawed, so perfectly, that nothing we ever create is ever really perfect.

Actually, the conflict between Newtonian Gravity and Quantum Gravity is one of the current major topics of physics....  But I digress!  Though part of the problem there is that while science generally accepts and embraces mistakes and errors (many a great discovery began not with "Eureka!" but with "That's funny...."), while many religions tend to swear up and down that their beliefs are infallible. 

Quote

Religion doesn't change because it's disconnected and uninterested in how the world around it actually is and is instead focused inward on how it wants it to be.  For example, the Book of Leviticus.  It's a Bronze Age health code.  Pork and shellfish are particularly likely to cause food poisoning if improperly prepared, so they are forbidden.  Sodomy is forbidden because it's a potential vector for disease if proper precautions aren't taken.  It even sets out how you clean cooking utensils and such.  It doesn't know why this needs to be done, but it knows it does.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Okay so you make a judgement on religion because of one teeny part of it?

...Okay, I prefixed that with "For example."  I could pick other examples, but Leviticus is a very stark and apparent example that's easy to see. 

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Religion doesnt want to change because it wants to honour its traditions.

Yeah, when I said it doesn't change earlier I was wrong.  A friend pointed that mistake out to me, and I see now that that's very untrue.  Religion is constantly changing, even though it often times deny it.  Watch how Christianity has evolved over the years, from the split that gave us the Eastern Orthodox church, the split that lead to Protestantism, and gave rise to fundamentalism, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  And that's just Christianity.  Islam did a similar song and dance, and there's at least a half dozen major sects of Hinduism. 

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Some of the "new age" stuff is considered to go against the traditions anyway.

Which is why I tend to unintentionally show rancor towards "new age" stuff.  The eldritch religions have the excuse of their founders not knowing any better, but anything made since then should know better before it starts making claims like using crystals to heal sicknesses, etc.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Now with that said, I doubt that followers are expected to follow those instructions these days, as they were written for a time that didnt have the tech stuff we have....[cont below]

And that's how it should be.  But it isn't.  People still cling to those instructions, and can't even agree on what the instructions mean oftentimes. 

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Rewriting the holy book? Yeah, that will go down well. It's not a law book, it's not meant to have amendments....then again, it does say the book is there for correction, so that depends entirely on your interpretation (cant find the passage).

They don't have to amend it.  Just cutting out the parts that are no longer relevant would be a good start.  They did it at the Council of Nicaea when they pruned the Bible down by 10 or so books.  And Catholicism did it again at the Council of Trent, though I don't believe they altered the Bible at that point.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Also, I thought pork was considered sinful because they had evil spirits or something?

It's evil because it's "unclean."  I'm sure they saw e. coli as being evil spirits causing sickness in those that ate undercooked pork.  Germ Theory was a few thousand years away, so that was really all they had to go off of.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Sorry Ihana, I have to agree with Storm here. Science was "created" because the bible, and other religions, didnt answer the when/where/how/why questions adequately.

Religion drove some great discoveries, and there were plenty of scientists that were highly religious, from Newton to Darwin, and did the work they did to prove God's majesty.

Bunny (12:11pm Wed, May 20, 2009)

Taking a gamble here.... your tone portrayed a tone that you knew best and couldnt be swayed any way - so debating was pointless on her side because she couldnt win .

Well, yeah, I sounded arrogant and condescending, she sounded ignorant and deluded.  It's an Internet debate!  What Andre said.

Lols i am not ignorant and deluded i don't follow any religion really, i follow my own path. I was just doing some healthy revision by debating against science with all the stuff i learnt. Its helped loads as it refreshed my mind on all the topics so yeah thats my real point of view. lols its helped having a pro science dude on here, as one of my topics is science and religious explanations on the beginning of the universe and how they differ. Can i ask what your view is on the aesetic principle-i think thats how its spelt. lol.

I thought about it for a long time, and eventually realized that it's completely irrelevant to me.  I'm not going to live my life any differently if there is a god, than if there isn't.  So thus, it is completely of no importance.


Beyond that... well, in my teenage years, I grew to very much hate religion.  From the holy wars of its past (the crusades, for example), and the fact that far too many people use it to spread their hate and injustice.  (Look at all the stuff that happens to gays and women in the mideast.  Fred Phelps and the Religious Right in the states.)

And that is what I think.

I agree . It's pretty much brainwashing....but it does give us some good guidelines (thou shall not kill, etc).


Edward, we would LOVE you if you created an introduction topic .

Woo! Steak!

Ihana (05:27am Thu, May 21, 2009)

Lols i am not ignorant and deluded i don't follow any religion really, i follow my own path. I was just doing some healthy revision by debating against science with all the stuff i learnt. Its helped loads as it refreshed my mind on all the topics so yeah thats my real point of view.

I'm torn between taking you at your word, or instead citing this;

Ihana (05:27am Thu, May 21, 2009)

lols its helped having a pro science dude on here, as one of my topics is science and religious explanations on the beginning of the universe and how they differ.

My knee-jerk response is "empirical evidence," but I see what you mean.

Ihana (05:27am Thu, May 21, 2009)

Can i ask what your view is on the aesetic principle-i think thats how its spelt. lol.

...Do you mean Asceticism or Aestheticism?

Ihana isnt a troll Storm . And I think it's a good idea to pick up bits and pieces from everywhere - technically everyone does it anyway.

I'd just like to note that Jesus made a pretty piss-poor defiant philosopher.  His most outrageous act was kicking over the tables of a bunch of Title Loan guys. 

Meanwhile, a few hundred years before Diogenes verbally bitchslaps the god-king that currently ruled the known world to his face.

LtStorm (10:28pm Sun, May 24, 2009)

I'd just like to note that Jesus made a pretty piss-poor defiant philosopher.  His most outrageous act was kicking over the tables of a bunch of Title Loan guys. 

Meanwhile, a few hundred years before Diogenes verbally bitchslaps the god-king that currently ruled the known world to his face.

And which Diogenes do you mean by that? There were quite a few.