It's true - we totally have the best religion!

[Twinsenboy (imported)]

http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/peace1.html

The Truth for the World by the real Jesus himself.

Peace be with you;-)

[Richard_Less (imported)]

Thanks to Christianity, we've had the Unholy Crusades, the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

It seems unfair to single out Christianity - many religions/belief systems are taken to reidiculous extremes. If you consider that a basic summary of Christianity is "do unto others as you would have done onto yourself" you can appreciat that it could do a lot of good. For those that believe, and live this, wether they are ultimately right or wrong, waht harm is there - if they are right, there are rewarded in Heaven for their good behaviour on Earth. If they are wrong and all there is after death is rot and decay, then at least they lived well.

It's just very tragic that people can't be so simple.

[charlie murell (imported)]

But if we didn't have Religion and money, what the hell would the world be able to fight over?

[kennath7 (imported)]

Rule of government , land , wealth , freedom

The list can be quite long with out even listing religion

[Riverwind (imported)]

Yep, if they don't kill you because you don't believe as they do they steal your holidays. Yes its true, the Yule celebration, the spring mating celebration, they have even demonized and changed one of my favorite, Halloween.

River the Pagan.

[sensenbender (imported)]

NOW WAIT JUST A SECOND HERE!

A-1, I understand that you are angry and hate filled at the "shit-zo-prenics" who suffer from "shit 4 brains" syndrome. Believe me, I hate them just as much if not more. The human race would be infinitely better off if we had rid ourselves of this collective sickness called "faith." Seriously and honestly, when you take an honest accounting of all the good that religions can do - and let's be honest, sometimes the influence of faith IS a good thing, but totalled up, I think the damage caused by religion far far far outweighs the good. So, it is clearly in the best interest of every human being to better understand this mental disorder, and hopefully cure the collective insanity.

While I am not in any position to direct scientific research efforts, I seriously wish I were, and that we could find out the WHY of it, and maybe even cure this disease.

Consider this, IF Dr. Salk had given in to his natural reaction to be disgusted and repulsed by sick and crippled people (as some idiots still do today), he would have never cared, never investigated, never discovered the first workable vaccine against polio. You seem to be (quite reasonably) disgusted and repulsed by the sick and mentally crippled people who suffer from "shit-zo-phrenia" or what I call "religious fervor." But if we could actually cure this, bring the insane zealots back to their senses, think about the benefits.

It is actually quite a worthwhile endeavor, to study the brains and brain chemistry of these people, see if there is some sort of chemical disorder or brain damaging defect that causes this behavior. Don't you think the benefits would be worth it? I do not for one second think it is a "waste" of time.

It is in my estimation, unrealistic to expect to see a world wide cure in my lifetime, but just think, IF I could make a world for my grandchildren that was free of this insane religious superstition, wouldn't that be worth some of my effort? A world WITHOUT religious zealots, no more "faith based" idiocy, no more rabid fundamentalist muslim, christian, what-ever-ist suicide bombers. It would be soooooooo worth the effort to cure this disease that has vexed the human race since our very beginning.

If any of us including you had been alive 500 to 1000 years ago you would not have been an atheist. Science is a religion like any other. No scientific theory is ever 'proven', just believed in like everyone believed in God 1000 years ago. We are wired to 'believe' because for the first 100,000 years of our evolution we had no other way to make sense of the world. We have not evolved much more than that in the last 500 years so we still have much of our brains devoted to 'faith' as we had 100,000 years ago. Sneer at religion all you want, but all you're doing is denying an essential part of your brain.

[bobover3 (imported)]

No. Religion and science are not the same, or even similar. The difference is that all religion rests on faith - belief without evidence except the belief of others - while all science rests on evidence despite the disbelief of others. Religion is a social phenomenon (one can't imagine a religion without a community of believers). Science is an empirical phenomenon (a single scientist, strengthened by evidence, but opposed by established opinion, has often been the source of new knowledge).

The notion that scientific theories are merely beliefs comparable to religious dogmas is a sly misdirection often used by the religious. When scientists say their theories are tentative, they're asserting that those theories must be supported by evidence, and that the scientists stand ready to change or renounce their theories should the evidence lead them to do so. It is this very willingness to stand corrected by evidence which allows the intellectual and moral integrity that makes science so compelling.

The religious faithful claim their dogmas are divinely inspired, and need not be supported by evidence; that the faithful will not change or renounce their dogmas regardless of any evidence. It is this very unwillingness to stand corrected by evidence which allows the intellectual and moral dishonesty that makes religion so unpersuasive.

Science and religion are not only dissimilar, they're in opposition. Scientists are proud of their willingness to adjust theory to fit reality. Religious are proud of their unwillingness to adjust dogma to fit reality. The assertion that scientific theory is comparable to religious dogma slanders science.

[Eromel-1 (imported)]

Actually, what is called "Christianity" in this cartoon is closer to what is more accurately described as the "Anti-Christ"...comfortable, bourgeois, subjective...especially subjective. The difficulty of existence is to raise oneself to objectivity. The greatest quantum leap in the direction of moral objectivity was the realization that a crucified criminal was acutally the bearer of divininty.

There is no "we" and there is no "having" but there is definately a "total" or perhaps better a whole, which is re-legio...reunited...

[bobover3 (imported)]

Actually, the cartoon doesn't mention Christianity.

Objectivity, moral or otherwise, concerns itself wholly with verifiable facts and logic. Any sort of "realization" which claims to transcend facts and logic is subjective.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but when you insist these beliefs are "objective," you're only saying what all religious say:

"It's true - we totally have the best religion!"

[sensenbender (imported)]

No. Religion and science are not the same, or even similar. The difference is that all religion rests on faith - belief without evidence except the belief of others - while all science rests on evidence despite the disbelief of others. Religion is a social phenomenon (one can't imagine a religion without a community of believers). Science is an empirical phenomenon (a single scientist, strengthened by evidence, but opposed by established opinion, has often been the source of new knowledge).

The notion that scientific theories are merely beliefs comparable to religious dogmas is a sly misdirection often used by the religious. When scientists say their theories are tentative, they're asserting that those theories must be supported by evidence, and that the scientists stand ready to change or renounce their theories should the evidence lead them to do so. It is this very willingness to stand corrected by evidence which allows the intellectual and moral integrity that makes science so compelling.

The religious faithful claim their dogmas are divinely inspired, and need not be supported by evidence; that the faithful will not change or renounce their dogmas regardless of any evidence. It is this very unwillingness to stand corrected by evidence which allows the intellectual and moral dishonesty that makes religion so unpersuasive.

Science and religion are not only dissimilar, they're in opposition. Scientists are proud of their willingness to adjust theory to fit reality. Religious are proud of their unwillingness to adjust dogma to fit reality. The assertion that scientific theory is comparable to religious dogma slanders science.

And only a heretic fit for the stake would slander science! I could list at least ten parallels between religion and science, but I've been warned by Paolo not to be too provocative or I'll be banned. If you want to carry on this debate off line, I'm game.