If you had a choice, would you live in an Earth without religion, or an Earth without science?

[sonofspam1972]

I would rather live without religion because without science there would be no internet or video games and life would be pretty boring.

[yet another]

I would rather live without religion because without science there would be no internet or video games and life would be pretty boring.

Since when is running away from sabre-tooth tigers boring?

[Paradox]

sonofspam1972 asks:

And how far back would we have to go to see a world without science?

We still seem to be juggling what we're defining as science, so either "all the way" or "the early 1600s" depending on how you're looking at it.

[The MunchKING]

Since when is running away from sabre-tooth tigers boring?

"Away from"?? *Confused*

CHARGE!!

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

I can't live with one thing and leave the other, I have to have my share of both

[sonofspam1972]

We still seem to be juggling what we're defining as science, so either "all the way" or "the early 1600s" depending on how you're looking at it.

Well even creating fire takes some science even if you don't know what your doing.

[Paradox]

Like I said, it depends on if we're going by the actual "creation" of the scientific method as we know it today, or the little proto-science steps along the way or the things science reveals.

[PwrdOn]

The problem with arguing for the value of religion to society is that there's little to no connection between what its supposed benefits are, and whether the concepts it teaches are actually correct. Whether or not there actually is a God commanding you not to murder is irrelevant and has little bearing on the degree to which people follow such principles. There's no such confusion with science, sound science helps people, incorrect science inevitably harms them.

[The MunchKING]

There's no such confusion with science, sound science helps people, incorrect science inevitably harms them.

That's not entirely accurate. Sound Science made the atom bombs, mustard Gas, and all sorts of things with no other purpose than hurting people.

[Paradox]

That's another question. Do we separate pure science from its applications?

[PwrdOn]

That's not entirely accurate. Sound Science made the atom bombs, mustard Gas, and all sorts of things with no other purpose than hurting people.

I don't know about that, mutually assured destruction may not be the nicest sounding concept, but it has worked pretty well so far in preventing World War III.

[The MunchKING]

I don't know about that, mutually assured destruction may not be the nicest sounding concept, but it has worked pretty well so far in preventing World War III.

That's Social science after we already had the bomb, and had used it to kill people.

[Paradox]

Economics have been a huge factor in preventing world-wide wars, as well. It became a "safer" battlefield for countries to screw with each other.

[Jonah Weiland]

This thread is being closed. It's needlessly antagonistic and a number of you -- on both sides of the debate -- aren't showing any sort of tolerance. Comparing God to a mass murderer? The hyperbole has gotten out of hand and we're done with this thread. Attempts to resurrect this thread will result in immediate disciplinary measures.

Have debates and discussions about religion and science, but if you can't have a discussion without hyperbolic craziness, go somewhere else.