What contributes more - science or religion???

[jarofthoughts]

Jarofthoughts officially has my respect and although he didn't name three.non-monotheistic religions he provided some answers instead of answering my question with a question.....jar I am currently about to give a power point presentation so I will give you my response shortly.....

Thanks.
Instead of going for specific religions I tried to find common denominators that could apply to any religion, at least those covered by the dictionary definition of the word.
Of course, there are other definitions, and for instance certain types of Buddhism would not be covered by the one I've used, although I've always held that Buddhism was more of a philosophy in any case.

 

[waitasec]

Iliad?
Tao Te Ching?
Nihon Shoki & Kojiki?
Rig Veda?
Epic of Gilgamesh?



Your question is vague. It doesn't even make any sense unless you elaborate on what you mean.

what have these religions contributed as far as a positive influence on society?
it's the title of the thread...

 

[Breathe]

what have these religions contributed as far as a positive influence on society?
it's the title of the thread...

Actually, the title is "what contributes more - science or religion"? It does not say "positive influence", just contributes. Religious materials are still contributions. Just not very good ones.

And, the question that was asked--not by me--was in response to another member's post which was that religion retards science--the question was, "name three non-monotheistic religions that do that".

Maybe now you can understand what's being discussed, you can actually answer the other member's post instead of harassing me with it. After all, I didn't make the claim, I just pointed out that one member had misread a sentence.

 

[waitasec]

Not my words. Hence the quotes.

ok, but you understood those words as meaning something

Besides, just because they lost out in the numbers game doesn't mean anything. Wouldn't they still "retard science" as a small group if they would a large one?

but that's the reality of it, isn't it?

the question of this thread is, what has not what could have been...

 

[Orias]

Is faith considered to be conducive towards society?

 

[Breathe]

ok, but you understood those words as meaning something

Yes, but you should ask the member in question to clarify. Not me.

the question of this thread is, what has not what could have been...

You're missing the point of the person's request with this. It slightly deviates from the thread, but it's not exactly a bad question.

I was kind of hoping it would get everyone to think beyond "Christian-Muslim-Jewish". Doesn't look like that is coming to play though.

 

[waitasec]

Actually, the title is "what contributes more - science or religion"? It does not say "positive influence", just contributes. Religious materials are still contributions. Just not very good ones.

And, the question that was asked--not by me--was in response to another member's post which was that religion retards science--the question was, "name three non-monotheistic religions that do that".

Maybe now you can understand what's being discussed, you can actually answer the other member's post instead of harassing me with it. After all, I didn't make the claim, I just pointed out that one member had misread a sentence.

oh i see,
well if that were the case
if you consider progress a contribution i would attribute that to science
if you consider regress a contribution i would attribute that to religion

ps
i didn't mean to harass you
:sorry1:

 

[Breathe]

ps
i didn't mean to harass you
:sorry1:

No need to apologize. You're just talking to the wrong person for the questions, lol. I'm just someone who likes to play Devil's Advocate.

Especially since I see science as contributing far more anyway. Doesn't mean I agree with you that religion brings regression necessarily though, although sadly it often ends up like that.

 

[waitasec]

No need to apologize. You're just talking to the wrong person for the questions, lol. I'm just someone who likes to play Devil's Advocate.

Especially since I see science as contributing far more anyway. Doesn't mean I agree with you that religion brings regression necessarily though, although sadly it often ends up like that.

unfortunately it seems we take 1 step forward but the influence of religion takes us 2 steps back.

for instance, there are now test couples can take to see if their off spring would have higher chances of getting a life threatening disease even before they get pregnant. for some that would be a moral dilemma. for others it's a good thing. we now have the ability to cure certain diseases and i'm curious why is that not a moral question...

 

[Breathe]

You mean, why is it not a question or morality to cure those with life threatening diseases before they have them?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Religious beliefs hold society back from what....Killing people!

From The Sunday Times
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world.
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

 

[Breathe]

Religious beliefs hold society back from what....Killing people!

It's not like religious people ever kill others in the name of their G... oh wait. Never mind.

 

[waitasec]

You mean, why is it not a question or morality to cure those with life threatening diseases before they have them?

i mean if you and your spouse took a blood test and found out your would be child is prone to get a certain life threatening disease (for which there is no cure), and you are not pregnant yet, you have the knowledge of it. some would either opt for surrogates or adopt instead... the moral issue is, we have the knowledge, we have a choice?

 

[Orias]

if you consider progress a contribution i would attribute that to science
if you consider regress a contribution i would attribute that to religion

What makes you think that?

 

[waitasec]

What makes you think that?

read post 313

i'm curious what you think of that...

 

[Breathe]

i mean if you and your spouse took a blood test and found out your would be child is prone to get a certain life threatening disease (for which there is no cure), and you are not pregnant yet, you have the knowledge of it. some would either opt for surrogates or adopt instead... the moral issue is, we have the knowledge, we have a choice?

Many people, will still want their own kids--fully theirs, They may not see surrogates or adopted children as their own, sadly.

A major problem is those scans can be wrong - until it's 100% certain, people will not trust them. Even them, some people won't. Unless it involves minor genetic alterations of the zygotes and stuff as opposed to say, abortions, I think there will be some opposition, and not always religious.

I'll share with you a little story, if you don't mind.

When my wife was first pregnant (I was still 17 when we found out, she was 18) the midwives told my wife and I that the child she was carrying had Down's Syndrome. It was one hundred percent, they told us. Have an abortion, because the child would not have a good life, they can't do anything, so on and s forth. Things that are, quite frankly, a large steaming pile of bull excrement.

Unfortunately for them, my wife had experience teaching adults and children with Down's Syndrome. They accused her of lying and told her she and me that we were being foolish. It was one hundred percent with our child, so we should--we must (yes, we MUST) have an abortion. It would be disgusting of us not to. This carried on quite regularly, even with the midwives doing the ultrasound scan saying our child had Down's Syndrome, so we should get rid of it.

We didn't. We changed doctors and reported the scanner for harassment, but we didn't have any more scans after.

Guess what? Perfectly fine. I now have a beautiful four year old girl. No Down's Syndrome. Not like it would have made a difference to me.

When one of the doctors tried it with our second born, claiming our second child had Down's Syndrome (one hundred percent again, that was), the **** hit the fan. I lost my cool and kicked up a real storm because every time I asked them to show me some proof on the ultrasound, they said I wouldn't understand because I wasn't a doctor and I should stop being arrogant and just listen to them like a good boy.

I now have a beautiful four year old boy. Like his sister, no Down's Syndrome.

When there are events like this still going on, people will still risk the child's health because it may be.



Were my wife and I irresponsible for disregarding the medical staff's claims, despite them obviously being wrong? How do factors such as this fit in, if at all?

 

[Orias]

i mean if you and your spouse took a blood test and found out your would be child is prone to get a certain life threatening disease (for which there is no cure), and you are not pregnant yet, you have the knowledge of it. some would either opt for surrogates or adopt instead... the moral issue is, we have the knowledge, we have a choice?

But morality doesn't always have to be religious.

Some would have the child anyways, regardless of belief.

It is man's drive for self preservation, to keep the blood alive.

And as for choice, well it was their choice to get a blood test.

I don't really see how this relates to religion being regressive though, more like man being regressive towards himself by considering "morals", which again, is not necessary religious, more so ethical.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

are these judgments made upon false facts?
did gandhi call black africans a derogatory name?

You did not provide context for the quote so I do not know.

-The source I provided showed that Gandhi was 50 years ahead of his time on race rights and started the black consciousness movement in South Africa. This source was written by no less then Nelson Mandela
Please give me the reasons that you believe he was wrong. Why do you believe he did not start the black consciousness movement in Africa. Please back you comments up with Historical Facts.

-Gandhi Personally wrote a news paper. Many of the racist comments he has been accused of making have been shown to be taken out of context. Since Gandhi wrote news papers and books both in South Africa and India. Due to the fact he spent his whole life working for the rights of the poor both black and Indians. The huge amounts of literature he wrote would take me years to read. And put those comments into context. That is how the religious fundamentalist hide their lies.

-These anti Gandhi comments have been spread by the forces of religious intolerance. Thats the funny thing about this argument. The secular folks in India are not pushing these false ideas about Gandhi. It is only the Hindu Fundamentalists who what to ethnically cleanse India of all Muslims. They are the ones spending so much time and money spreading these lies. You in fact are siding with the very people you hate.

-I have in the past, read an article by Demond Tutu that also showed that these comments are false.

-There are two sides to this Argument the side of Tutu, Mandela, and King. and the side of the folks like the VHP (Violent religious group) I find it ironic the side you are on.

-All the quotes provided by those who think he is a racist, are from the time when he was a young man. So even if they are true ( I do not see any reason to believe they are ) Gandhi would have changed his mind. Just like he changed his mind about the Caste system, British Colonialism, War and the place of Women.

Do you believe Gandhi was a racist at the end of his life?


The really great thing about Gandhi is the change that came over him due to his desire to find the truth.

 

[waitasec]

Many people, will still want their own kids--fully theirs, They may not see surrogates or adopted children as their own, sadly.

A major problem is those scans can be wrong - until it's 100% certain, people will not trust them. Even them, some people won't. Unless it involves minor genetic alterations of the zygotes and stuff as opposed to say, abortions, I think there will be some opposition, and not always religious.

I'll share with you a little story, if you don't mind.

When my wife was first pregnant (I was still 17 when we found out, she was 18) the midwives told my wife and I that the child she was carrying had Down's Syndrome. It was one hundred percent, they told us. Have an abortion, because the child would not have a good life, they can't do anything, so on and s forth. Things that are, quite frankly, a large steaming pile of bull excrement.

Unfortunately for them, my wife had experience teaching adults and children with Down's Syndrome. They accused her of lying and told her she and me that we were being foolish. It was one hundred percent with our child, so we should--we must (yes, we MUST) have an abortion. It would be disgusting of us not to. This carried on quite regularly, even with the midwives doing the ultrasound scan saying our child had Down's Syndrome, so we should get rid of it.

We didn't. We changed doctors and reported the scanner for harassment, but we didn't have any more scans after.

Guess what? Perfectly fine. I now have a beautiful four year old girl. No Down's Syndrome. Not like it would have made a difference to me.

When one of the doctors tried it with our second born, claiming our second child had Down's Syndrome (one hundred percent again, that was), the **** hit the fan. I lost my cool and kicked up a real storm because every time I asked them to show me some proof on the ultrasound, they said I wouldn't understand because I wasn't a doctor and I should stop being arrogant and just listen to them like a good boy.

I now have a beautiful four year old boy. Like his sister, no Down's Syndrome.

When there are events like this still going on, people will still risk the child's health because it may be.



Were my wife and I irresponsible for disregarding the medical staff's claims, despite them obviously being wrong? How do factors such as this fit in, if at all?

i am very happy that you shared this story. and i am so very glad you have 2 healthy children. i would have done the same not to mention i would have been scared sh**less. the courage both you and your wife have is commendable, indeed.
my intention of bringing up this test is not to forego an abortion, because that would go against my principles 100%. my intention is that people will eventually have the ability to know and prepare before hand and based on religious dogma that would be a cause for concern for most. but from your incredible story, down syndrome tests do not seem to be very accurate or you had a really bad doctor. i remember when i had my son at 37 i took a amniocentesis test and thankfully all was well.
i guess the point i'm making is that
we are on our way to know more accurately than now and hopefully it would be up to the parents to decide for themselves. could you imagine if you lived in a society that would have you abort?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

did gandhi call black africans a derogatory name?

As it turns out even if he did use the word kaffir it was not derogatory at the time he used it.

The word kaffir, sometimes spelled kaffer or kafir, is an offensive term for a black person, most common in South Africa and other African countries. Generally considered a racial or ethnic slur in modern usage, it was previously a neutral term for black southern African people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(ethnic_slur)