Re: Science and Religion; Contrast and Comparison
nagasiva
>nocTifer wrote:
>> Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
>>>Both religion and science have done great harm as well as good. Which
>>>is why i am fond of Crowley's motto of his Equinox: "The method of
>>>science, the aim of religion."
>> I'm familiar with the method of science ("the scientific method"),
>> but what is "the aim of religion"? is there only one? what is it?
>> why is it laudible?
> ...to me the motto, taking Crowley's other writings on "Magick"
> into consideration, suggests an ongoing struggle to define a
> relationship or even 'obligation' to a sense of deity that
> through the 'method of science' the understanding of constantly
> recedes.
I thought he was just reiterating his mystical interests,
and subsumed religion to these or sacrificed it thereby.
his general interest seemed to be to do this like Hermetics
of most stripes. he did this within his Magick also.
> Not unlike the science of astronomy, as our tools to observe
> the universe get bigger so does the universe exposed by them.
neat idea.
>The more we learn about 'neuroscience' the more questions we have.
>Rather then settling for dogma (religious or scientific) we question
>the assertions of the dogmatists. Some of us have a, perhaps misplaced,
>faith that eventually science will get around to an 'scientific'
>explanation of the seemingly instinctual aspect of human nature to
>adore, and mythologize its existence.
sure, why not?
>Also, i think, one has to consider a progression of intellectual
>development, even if science is ultimately able to substantiate or prove
>the atheistic ideal of a random causeless universe,
that, i don't think, will ever happen.
>religion can be a
>necessary (however false) brake on sciences mad rush to trivialize and
>brutalize the human experience, perhaps at some point in human evolution
>these human will have the ability to wield power in a compassionate and
>thoughtful manner, until then, it seems to me, false or not, religion
>plays a significant role in at least trying to restrain science from its
>tendency to trivialize the individual.
the Church of Reality has the jump on science in that area
(churchofreality.org).
>Perhaps all Crowley meant was an 'enlightened' science that does not do
>more harm than good?
I think he was identifying his cause as Hermeticism.
nagasiva
--------------------------------------------
naga...@yronwode.com ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
--------------------------------------------
mika
>
> >religion can be a
> >necessary (however false) brake on sciences mad rush to trivialize and
> >brutalize the human experience, perhaps at some point in human evolution
> >these human will have the ability to wield power in a compassionate and
> >thoughtful manner, until then, it seems to me, false or not, religion
> >plays a significant role in at least trying to restrain science from its
> >tendency to trivialize the individual.
The idea that science has a tendency to trivialize the individual is
based on religious beliefs, and the idea that religion is a necessary
brake on this supposed tendency is also a result of religious
beliefs. There is no place for religion in science or in the
scientific pursuit of knowledge.
nagasiva: re: your thread title. Science and Religion are apples
and orangutans, there is no basis for contrast or comparison.
Meltdarok
>There is no place for religion in science or in the
> scientific pursuit of knowledge.
>
In the pursuit of knowledge, the scientists are still asking,
"What is really going on?" The big block between the workings
of scientific philosophy, using the scientific method, and
religion using "mostly" faith, is the attempt to move from the
supernatural God(s)--to the unimaginably huge Entity who we are
a very small part of.
We already have two statements where we can start:
1.) The universe is finite, yet unbounded.
2.) We are only "sure" about life *as*we*know*it*; so far. (Heh.)
As you are aware Mika, I am of the opinion that the journey
inward into one's own consciousness is a valid route to the
discovery of, or uncovering of, one's True Nature©.
A couple of nice things that I've run across:
Bulkeley, Kelly. "Gods and REMS: the Implications of Recent Dream
Research for the Psychology of Religion." Pastoral Psychology 41.6
(1993): 349-354.
[Here there is a study of the dream data reports from neuroscience,
anthropology, and psychology.]
Doniger, Wendy. "Western Dreams About Eastern Dreams." Dreams: A Reader
on Religious, Cultural, and Psychological Dimensions of Dreaming,
edited by Kelly Bulkeley. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 233-237.
[This one I like as she relates a Hindu tale of a sage who discovers
that he is living within the dream of another dreamer.]
> nagasiva: re: your thread title. Science and Religion are apples
> and orangutans, there is no basis for contrast or comparison.
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7
Joseph Littleshoes
>>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>religion can be a
>>>necessary (however false) brake on sciences mad rush to trivialize and
>>>brutalize the human experience, perhaps at some point in human evolution
>>>these human will have the ability to wield power in a compassionate and
>>>thoughtful manner, until then, it seems to me, false or not, religion
>>>plays a significant role in at least trying to restrain science from its
>>>tendency to trivialize the individual.
>
>
> The idea that science has a tendency to trivialize the individual is
> based on religious beliefs,
Not at all, i know professed atheists that feel the same way. Are you
familiar with actuarial tables?
> and the idea that religion is a necessary
> brake on this supposed tendency is also a result of religious
> beliefs.
So substitute philosophical for religious, the problem with that though
is that there are philosophical orientations that would legitimize
trivializing the individual. No one person is more important or
necessary than another, individually humans ARE trivial and insignificant.
Some people believe bad rules are better than no rules, having a false
ideal can produce better results than having no or a nihilistic ideal,
striving for an ideal may be better than accepting that there is nothing
ideal existent to strive for.
Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every individual may
be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to become more
compassionate.
> There is no place for religion in science or in the
> scientific pursuit of knowledge.
Obviously some people disagree with you.
>
> nagasiva: re: your thread title. Science and Religion are apples
> and orangutans, there is no basis for contrast or comparison.
In your mind, in mine they are both products of human consciousness and
are so linked, as irrational as 'religion' may be it exists as a concept
if nothing else, and as people are socialized by it, it effect their
approach to the rest of their life. It does not HAVE to be so, it just
happens to be so.
--
JL
mika
> mika wrote, On 5/19/2008 3:13 PM:
>
> >There is no place for religion in science or in the
> > scientific pursuit of knowledge.
>
> In the pursuit of knowledge, the scientists are still asking,
> "What is really going on?" The big block between the workings
> of scientific philosophy, using the scientific method, and
> religion using "mostly" faith, is the attempt to move from the
> supernatural God(s)--to the unimaginably huge Entity who we are
> a very small part of.
No. The "big block" is that science uses the scientific method, while
philosophy ("scientific" or otherwise) and religion are purely
speculative. End of story.
mika
> mika wrote:
> >>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> >>>religion can be a
> >>>necessary (however false) brake on sciences mad rush to trivialize and
> >>>brutalize the human experience, perhaps at some point in human evolution
> >>>these human will have the ability to wield power in a compassionate and
> >>>thoughtful manner, until then, it seems to me, false or not, religion
> >>>plays a significant role in at least trying to restrain science from its
> >>>tendency to trivialize the individual.
>
> > The idea that science has a tendency to trivialize the individual is
> > based on religious beliefs,
>
> Not at all, i know professed atheists that feel the same way.
Apparently, these "professed atheists" are still attached to certain
religious beliefs.
> Are you familiar with actuarial tables?
Sure. They have nothing to do with the individual. They present
probabilities based on statistics involving millions of people, that's
about as far from "the individual" as you can get.
If you take them personally, that's your own problem, not the problem
of science.
> > and the idea that religion is a necessary
> > brake on this supposed tendency is also a result of religious
> > beliefs.
>
> So substitute philosophical for religious, the problem with that though
> is that there are philosophical orientations that would legitimize
> trivializing the individual. No one person is more important or
> necessary than another, individually humans ARE trivial and insignificant.
First you complain that science trivializes the individual, now you
say individuals ARE trivial. Ridiculous.
> Some people believe bad rules are better than no rules, having a false
> ideal can produce better results than having no or a nihilistic ideal,
> striving for an ideal may be better than accepting that there is nothing
> ideal existent to strive for.
So what? What does that have to do with science, specifically?
> Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every individual may
> be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to become more
> compassionate.
And which religion's ideals would you have enshrined? Which religion
do you think would help the species become more compassionate?
Do you really believe that forcing a religion's ideal on those who do
not share that religion could possibly be a good thing in the long
run?
Joseph Littleshoes
forgot when responding to you that it is rarely ever worth while.
--
JL
Mike Painter
>>> may be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to
>>> become more compassionate.
>>
shown why the "golden Rule" has popped up so often in history.
Mirror cells are responsible, some people have none and some have a lot.
The species as a whole is comapssionate, as are some other animals, and
evolution explains it nicely.
No god or religion needed.
Joseph Littleshoes
> >>> Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every individual
>
>>>>may be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to
>>>>become more compassionate.
>>>
> It is not and never has been necessary to do that.
As i so noted in that part of my post you are responding to that you
edited out. And in doing so you also edit out the bit where i agree
with you that it is not necessary but it is what has been done, religion
and philosophy HAVE had and continue to have effects.
> Science has recently
> shown why the "golden Rule" has popped up so often in history.
> Mirror cells are responsible, some people have none and some have a lot.
> The species as a whole is comapssionate, as are some other animals, and
> evolution explains it nicely.
> No god or religion needed.
>
Not needed i agree, but unless your going to enforce with scientific
extremism the conformity of thought modern technology is capable of your
going to have a majority of people influenced by religion.
It really doesn't matter if religion is a false concept, people believe
in it, have believed in it and it has been a factor shaping all
cultures, one could only wish it had been been better, or that
wonderfully compassionate beast the human animal less instinctually
brutal & selfish.
--
JL
>
Meltdarok
Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or not,
science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and speculative.
The hardest part of the speculations are making the quantum leaps in
paradigms needed for new breakthroughs in practical applications that
the scientific method is so useful in bringing to the human race.
hhya...@gmail.com
You have a compromising attitude.
Religion is derived from lies about the existence of god and science
could not compromise on that.
Moreover, the god (or people's word) preaches sacrifice and
blood....since ancient times.
hhya...@gmail.com
I am sure as day goes by, the educational standard gets higher, no
religion is going to stand up to scrutiny.
Even, without higher consciousness derived from education, if our
children have been "brainwashed" that there is no god, there will be
no god.
hhya...@gmail.com
Are you trying to ignore the fact science has been beneficial to
current human race?
Why do you think science is philosophy? Or is your understanding of
scientific work so poor?
Meltdarok
> Religion is derived from lies about the existence of god
Truth? You can't handle the truth!
Believer in "God" or not--you all want a *big*freaking*miracle*
for proof of the existence of the Prime Infinity. That in itself
is just anthropomorphic horse manure.
> and science
> could not compromise on that.
Indeed.
> Moreover, the god (or people's word) preaches sacrifice and
> blood....since ancient times.
Well here's another person's word: People misunderstand or misuse
the conceptions of sacrifice. The response to sacrifice is *always*
a negative one! However, If you get a response from
God; who cares if it's negative or not? Jesus Christ man you got a
response from God!
Meltdarok
> Are you trying to ignore the fact science has been beneficial to
> current human race?
No.
> Why do you think science is philosophy?
Because it is, period.
> Or is your understanding of
> scientific work so poor?
What's my income have to do with anything?
You seem to forget that when you say scientific
work, you are only referring to tasks oriented
towards using the scientific method; which of
course is merely the most reliable procedure that we
have uncovered *so*far* in our history of Western
Culture.
Tom
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:4831F7FC...@isp.com...
> mika wrote:
>>
>> The idea that science has a tendency to trivialize the individual is
>> based on religious beliefs,
>
> Not at all, i know professed atheists that feel the same way.
Being an atheist is not the same as being a scientist.
>> and the idea that religion is a necessary
>> brake on this supposed tendency is also a result of religious
>> beliefs.
>
> So substitute philosophical for religious, the problem with that though is
> that there are philosophical orientations that would legitimize
> trivializing the individual.
You cannot simply substitute "philosophical" for "religious" and still
maintain you're talking about the same thing. There are religious
philosophies and non-religious philosophies. What you're trying to argue
here is that, because some cows are brown, all cows are brown.
The fact remains the philosophy of science does not trivialize the
individual.
> No one person is more important or necessary than another, individually
> humans ARE trivial and insignificant.
Wait a second. Are you saying that if some people are not more important
than others then everybody is trivial and insignificant?
> Some people believe bad rules are better than no rules, having a false
> ideal can produce better results than having no or a nihilistic ideal,
> striving for an ideal may be better than accepting that there is nothing
> ideal existent to strive for.
Who are these "some people", exactly? What is the definition of a "bad
rule"?
> Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every individual may be
> a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to become more
> compassionate.
One doesn't need a religion to see worth in all people. The only people
claiming that are religious.
That's like saying that in order to be an American, you have to be a
Republican.
>> There is no place for religion in science or in the
>> scientific pursuit of knowledge.
>
> Obviously some people disagree with you.
Obviously some people have no understanding of the philosophy of science.
Tom
"Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>
> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or not,
> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and speculative.
Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely speculative"
too.
> The hardest part of the speculations are making the quantum leaps in
> paradigms needed for new breakthroughs in practical applications that
> the scientific method is so useful in bringing to the human race.
It's like somebody stuffed too many post-modernist buzzwords into your brain
and they all tumbled out as soon as you opened your mouth.
Do you have anything beyond the faintest idea of what you're talking about?
mika
You did. What do you think "enshrining" means?
> or any specific religion?
You did. You expressed desire to integrate religion into science.
You must be thinking of specific religious beliefs, otherwise your
statements about the need for more religion in science are
meaningless.
Christopher A. Lee
>hhya...@gmail.com wrote, On 5/20/2008 5:44 AM:
>
>> Are you trying to ignore the fact science has been beneficial to
>> current human race?
>
>No.
>
>> Why do you think science is philosophy?
>
>Because it is, period.
What a fucking moron.
mika
scroll down to: Religion In Public School Science Classes
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8995&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=resources
http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=resources&page=NewsArticle&id=9063&security=1441&news_iv_ctrl=2422
Joseph Littleshoes
> On May 19, 9:28 pm, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>mika wrote:
>>
>>>On May 19, 2:58 pm, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every individual may
>>>>be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to become more
>>>>compassionate.
>>
>>>And which religion's ideals would you have enshrined? Which religion
>>>do you think would help the species become more compassionate?
>>
>>>Do you really believe that forcing a religion's ideal on those who do
>>>not share that religion could possibly be a good thing in the long
>>>run?
>>
>>who said anything about forcing
>
>
> You did. What do you think "enshrining" means?
Would you prefer the word 'idealize'?
>
>
>>or any specific religion?
>
>
> You did. You expressed desire to integrate religion into science.
> You must be thinking of specific religious beliefs, otherwise your
> statements about the need for more religion in science are
> meaningless.
Less so than your convoluted nonsense, granted im not the best writer in
the world but now i think your just taking a cue from tom and trying to
be a nuisance, your not you know, a nuisance, cause i just don't think
enough of your reading ability or your attempts at reason to continue to
read your 'contributions' to this thread.
--
JL
>
Meltdarok
>
> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>>
>> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or not,
>> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and speculative.
>
> Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely
> speculative" too.
>
Missed that one, eh? Yes even anthropology is speculative for us since
we have yet to collaborate with a researcher, from say the Andromeda
galaxy, to assist us with our data.
>> The hardest part of the speculations are making the quantum leaps in
>> paradigms needed for new breakthroughs in practical applications that
>> the scientific method is so useful in bringing to the human race.
>
> It's like somebody stuffed too many post-modernist buzzwords into your
> brain and they all tumbled out as soon as you opened your mouth.
>
Uh, I am typing.
> Do you have anything beyond the faintest idea of what you're talking about?
Yes. In a nutshell, "There's just too much damn stuff to know it all."
Meltdarok
Is it cold enough for you?
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote, On 5/20/2008 12:18 PM:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:10:48 GMT, Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hhya...@gmail.com wrote, On 5/20/2008 5:44 AM:
>>>
>>>> Are you trying to ignore the fact science has been beneficial to
>>>> current human race?
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> Why do you think science is philosophy?
>>> Because it is, period.
>>
>> What a fucking moron.
>
>Is it cold enough for you?
What a fucking moron.
Meltdarok
You failed to answer the question!
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote, On 5/20/2008 4:04 PM:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:59:33 GMT, Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote, On 5/20/2008 12:18 PM:
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:10:48 GMT, Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hhya...@gmail.com wrote, On 5/20/2008 5:44 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you trying to ignore the fact science has been beneficial to
>>>>>> current human race?
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think science is philosophy?
>>>>> Because it is, period.
>>>> What a fucking moron.
>>> Is it cold enough for you?
>>
>> What a fucking moron.
>
>You failed to answer the question!
What a fucking moron.
mika
What was that you were saying about "null content verbiage"? and your
incessant complaints about people who insult others rather than
sticking to the topic at hand?
You're still as pathetic and transparent as ever.
Joseph Littleshoes
I was not comparing your non - sense to an anatomical orifice or
suggesting that your lack of understanding of my writings was a genetic
defect, rather that you seem to me to be 'hot headedly' defending an
attitude rather than speaking to the actual content of what i wrote.
This does not mean i think you are a 'bad' person, nor 'stupid' just
very, very uninteresting. And that with a propensity to get all 'hot
headed' over semantic quibbles.
--
JL
Tom
> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 11:43 AM:
>>
>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or not,
>>> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and
>>> speculative.
>>
>> Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely
>> speculative" too.
>>
>
> Missed that one, eh?
Apparently not, since I mentioned it. Missed that, did you?
> Yes even anthropology is speculative for us
Then it's senseless for you to have even brought it up.
>>> The hardest part of the speculations are making the quantum leaps in
>>> paradigms needed for new breakthroughs in practical applications that
>>> the scientific method is so useful in bringing to the human race.
>>
>> It's like somebody stuffed too many post-modernist buzzwords into your
>> brain and they all tumbled out as soon as you opened your mouth.
>
> Uh, I am typing.
That's why I said it was "like" that, not that it "was" that. You really
should learn the rudiments of your native language.
>> Do you have anything beyond the faintest idea of what you're talking
>> about?
>
> Yes. In a nutshell, "There's just too much damn stuff to know it all."
While you answer my question with a "yes", the rest of your response clearly
indicates you don't.
Meltdarok
>
> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:V2GYj.3875$HJ5.1545@trnddc01...
>> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 11:43 AM:
>>>
>>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>>>>
>>>> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or not,
>>>> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and
>>>> speculative.
>>>
>>> Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely
>>> speculative" too.
>>>
>>
>> Missed that one, eh?
>
> Apparently not, since I mentioned it. Missed that, did you?
>
>> Yes even anthropology is speculative for us
>
> Then it's senseless for you to have even brought it up.
>
Not at all.
>>>> The hardest part of the speculations are making the quantum leaps in
>>>> paradigms needed for new breakthroughs in practical applications that
>>>> the scientific method is so useful in bringing to the human race.
>>>
>>> It's like somebody stuffed too many post-modernist buzzwords into
>>> your brain and they all tumbled out as soon as you opened your mouth.
>>
>> Uh, I am typing.
>
> That's why I said it was "like" that, not that it "was" that. You
> really should learn the rudiments of your native language.
>
Heh.
>>> Do you have anything beyond the faintest idea of what you're talking
>>> about?
>>
>> Yes. In a nutshell, "There's just too much damn stuff to know it all."
>
> While you answer my question with a "yes", the rest of your response
> clearly indicates you don't.
What it indicates is that clearly you do not as well.
mika
>
> you seem to me to be 'hot headedly' defending an
> attitude rather than speaking to the actual content of what i wrote.
That's because you have very poor reading comprehension, not because I
wasn't responding to the actual content of what you wrote.
> This does not mean i think you are a 'bad' person, nor 'stupid' just
> very, very uninteresting.
Apparently, you do find my posts to be interesting, since you keep
reading and responding to them.
You're in a hole and sinking fast. As usual.
Joseph Littleshoes
> "Tom" wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Meltdarok" Wrote:
>>>>
>> While you answer my question with a "yes", the rest of your response
>> clearly indicates you don't.
>
>
> What it indicates is that clearly you do not as well.
And their off! ...in this the Nth running of the great tautology
sweepstakes...and its neck and neck with "Tom" and da melted rock:)
Next up the semantic quibble quarter mile, will "ideal" win over the
odds on favorite "enshrine"?
Stay tuned, film at 11.
--
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> On May 20, 2:48 pm, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>you seem to me to be 'hot headedly' defending an
>>attitude rather than speaking to the actual content of what i wrote.
>
>
> That's because you have very poor reading comprehension, not because I
> wasn't responding to the actual content of what you wrote.
Welll...i will admit my writing is probly worse than my reading skills,
but i think you just demonstrated an even worse comprehensional lack of
them, than i:)
>
>
>>This does not mean i think you are a 'bad' person, nor 'stupid' just
>>very, very uninteresting.
>
>
> Apparently, you do find my posts to be interesting,
Less and less so with each one.
since you keep
> reading and responding to them.
That's a tautology.
>
> You're in a hole and sinking fast. As usual.
That's just a bad use of metaphor.
Your a piece of glass and i can see right through you.
Have a nice day:)
--
JL
Mike Painter
> Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> >>> Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every
>> individual
>>>>> may be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to
>>>>> become more compassionate.
>>>>
>> It is not and never has been necessary to do that.
>
> As i so noted in that part of my post you are responding to that you
> edited out. And in doing so you also edit out the bit where i agree
> with you that it is not necessary but it is what has been done,
> religion and philosophy HAVE had and continue to have effects.
>
>> Science has recently
>> shown why the "golden Rule" has popped up so often in history.
>> Mirror cells are responsible, some people have none and some have a
>> lot. The species as a whole is comapssionate, as are some other
>> animals, and evolution explains it nicely.
>> No god or religion needed.
>>
> Not needed i agree, but unless your going to enforce with scientific
> extremism the conformity of thought modern technology is capable of
> your going to have a majority of people influenced by religion.
I'm not sure that's true any more, at least not where I live in Northern
California.
My county ha more than 50% of the people claim no religious affiliation in
2000.
None as opposed to other. One county over two of the much larger and better
educated cities were at over 70%.
>
> It really doesn't matter if religion is a false concept, people
> believe in it, have believed in it and it has been a factor shaping
> all cultures, one could only wish it had been been better, or that
> wonderfully compassionate beast the human animal less instinctually
> brutal & selfish.
If religion actually did what you wish it would still not bee needed.
It does not and probably never will.
Most demand you admit you are worthless in the face of their god and many
will actively attack those who do not believe as they do.
The news channels today show what happenes when a fundamental religion has
power. Thry kill for minor variations in what they think is right.
Christianity was like this at the time of the reformation. You could be
burned alive in one village for a beilef that made you a saint in another.
Mike Painter
> mika wrote, On 5/19/2008 9:24 PM:
>> On May 19, 2:06 pm, Meltdarok wrote:
>>> mika wrote, On 5/19/2008 3:13 PM:
>>>
>>>> There is no place for religion in science or in the
>>>> scientific pursuit of knowledge.
>>> In the pursuit of knowledge, the scientists are still asking,
>>> "What is really going on?" The big block between the workings
>>> of scientific philosophy, using the scientific method, and
>>> religion using "mostly" faith, is the attempt to move from the
>>> supernatural God(s)--to the unimaginably huge Entity who we are
>>> a very small part of.
>>
>> No. The "big block" is that science uses the scientific method,
>> while philosophy ("scientific" or otherwise) and religion are purely
>> speculative. End of story.
>
>
> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or
> not, science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and
> speculative. The hardest part of the speculations are making the
> quantum leaps in paradigms needed for new breakthroughs in practical
> applications that the scientific method is so useful in bringing to
> the human race.
We managed to land a man on the moon with such speculation and the
technology that came out of that science has effected almost everything we
do.
I'v yet to see a philosopher chage his or her mind about the number of
angels that can dance on the head of a pin, but science changes constantly.
Joseph Littleshoes
Again! its not that it is necessarily needed bur rather that it IS a
response of the species to a hostile universe, that despite its evils
has also produced good. Same with science.
> It does not and probably never will.
> Most demand you admit you are worthless in the face of their god and many
> will actively attack those who do not believe as they do.
> The news channels today show what happenes when a fundamental religion has
> power. Thry kill for minor variations in what they think is right.
> Christianity was like this at the time of the reformation. You could be
> burned alive in one village for a beilef that made you a saint in another.
>
>
Same with "science"
Joseph Littleshoes
Then you obviously know fewer philosophers than scientists.
Meltdarok
>
Do you see what's happening here? Science is now a magic word.
Tom
> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 5:51 PM:
>>
>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:V2GYj.3875$HJ5.1545@trnddc01...
>>> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 11:43 AM:
>>>>
>>>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or
>>>>> not,
>>>>> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and
>>>>> speculative.
>>>>
>>>> Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely
>>>> speculative" too.
>>>
>>> Missed that one, eh?
>>
>> Apparently not, since I mentioned it. Missed that, did you?
>>
>>> Yes even anthropology is speculative for us
>>
>> Then it's senseless for you to have even brought it up.
>
> Not at all.
Then make some sense of it. Where and why does one set of speculations
"enter the picture" of some other set of speculations?
Dagon Productions
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> mika wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 9:28 pm, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>> mika wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 19, 2:58 pm, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Religiously enshrining the worth and importance of every individual
>>>>> may
>>>>> be a good thing in the long run, if it helps the species to become
>>>>> more
>>>>> compassionate.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> And which religion's ideals would you have enshrined? Which religion
>>>> do you think would help the species become more compassionate?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that forcing a religion's ideal on those who do
>>>> not share that religion could possibly be a good thing in the long
>>>> run?
>>>
>>>
>>> who said anything about forcing
>>
>>
>>
>> You did. What do you think "enshrining" means?
>
>
> Would you prefer the word 'idealize'?
>
>>
>>
>>> or any specific religion?
>>
>>
>>
>> You did. You expressed desire to integrate religion into science.
>> You must be thinking of specific religious beliefs, otherwise your
>> statements about the need for more religion in science are
>> meaningless.
>
>
> Less so than your convoluted nonsense,
Heh, the only thing covoluted here is your perception.
> granted im not the best writer
No doubt about that.
> in
> the world but now i think your just taking a cue from tom and trying to
> be a nuisance, your not you know, a nuisance, cause i just don't think
> enough of your reading ability or your attempts at reason to continue to
> read your 'contributions' to this thread.
> --
> JL
This is one of the more chickenshit excuses for
bowing out of an exchange where you are getting your ass kicked.
Hilarious!
-Douglas
Tom
"Dagon Productions" <missam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4833A134...@aol.com...
>
>
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> in the world but now i think your just taking a cue from tom and trying
>> to be a nuisance, your not you know, a nuisance, cause i just don't think
>> enough of your reading ability or your attempts at reason to continue to
>> read your 'contributions' to this thread.
>
> bowing out of an exchange where you are getting your ass kicked.
Joseph is well-known for his chickenshit excuses. In fact, he has virtually
nothing else to offer but chickenshit excuses.
Meltdarok
>
> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:FZHYj.11117$IK5.2827@trnddc04...
>> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 5:51 PM:
>>>
>>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:V2GYj.3875$HJ5.1545@trnddc01...
>>>> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 11:43 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or
>>>>>> not,
>>>>>> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and
>>>>>> speculative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely
>>>>> speculative" too.
>>>>
>>>> Missed that one, eh?
>>>
>>> Apparently not, since I mentioned it. Missed that, did you?
>>>
>>>> Yes even anthropology is speculative for us
>>>
>>> Then it's senseless for you to have even brought it up.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Then make some sense of it. Where and why does one set of speculations
> "enter the picture" of some other set of speculations?
>
I've already made sense of it. If you don't want to acknowledge the big
picture, that's your own fear(s).
Absorbed
> Welll...i will admit my writing is probly worse than my reading skills,
I think it's just as bad. I stumbled across this study, which is
relevant:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2005-16185-007
"Abstract
Without the benefit of paralinguistic cues such as gesture, emphasis,
and intonation, it can be difficult to convey emotion and tone over
electronic mail (e-mail). Five experiments suggest that this limitation
is often underappreciated, such that people tend to believe that they
can communicate over e-mail more effectively than they actually can.
Studies 4 and 5 further suggest that this overconfidence is born of
egocentrism, the inherent difficulty of detaching oneself from one's own
perspective when evaluating the perspective of someone else. Because
e-mail communicators "hear" a statement differently depending on whether
they intend to be, say, sarcastic or funny, it can be difficult to
appreciate that their electronic audience may not. (PsycINFO Database
Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)"
Executive Function
> "Meltdarok" <meltda...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:FZHYj.11117$IK5.2827@trnddc04...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 5:51 PM:
>
> >>news:V2GYj.3875$HJ5.1545@trnddc01...
> >>> Tom wrote, On 5/20/2008 11:43 AM:
>
> >>>>news:zHuYj.24096$_g.7106@trnddc07...
>
> >>>>> Well now, that's where anthropology enters the picture. Like it or
> >>>>> not,
> >>>>> science and the scientific method are merely philosophy, and
> >>>>> speculative.
>
> >>>> Anthropology is a science. So, according to you, it's "merely
> >>>> speculative" too.
>
> >>> Missed that one, eh?
>
> >> Apparently not, since I mentioned it. Missed that, did you?
>
> >>> Yes even anthropology is speculative for us
>
> >> Then it's senseless for you to have even brought it up.
>
> > Not at all.
>
> Then make some sense of it. Where and why does one set of speculations
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science and religion both make use of ancedotal evidence. I recall a
phrase...'the universe *is* the laboratory'.
Tom
"Executive Function" <generally...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbbebd09-aac9-412e...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Science and religion both make use of ancedotal evidence.
But only religion relies on anecdotes exclusively, treats them as
indisputeable fact, and punishes an questioning of them.
Meltdarok
Oh, oh! Who was eating at the Y again?
Executive Function
> >news:cbbebd09-aac9-412e...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Science and religion both make use of ancedotal evidence.
>
> > But only religion relies on anecdotes exclusively, treats them as
> > indisputeable fact, and punishes an questioning of them.
>
> Oh, oh! Who was eating at the Y again?
>
> --
> meltdarokhttp://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7
Y is a really nice symbol, isn't it? The one line branching off into
the two, or the two lines branching into the one, depending on your
perspective. :)
Executive Function
> "Executive Function" <generallyanonym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Religious people often don't understand the function of religion is
not to make a mass narrative, nor ask that it's narrative is
identically cloned in each member of the species. Even Buddhism is
suffering from this tendancy, the mass narrative clothed in the
sensual rituals and images, has the smell of samsara in the air. It's
not dead yet but it seems to be in it's final days, even if the
tradition carries on for a couple more centuries. I won't be joining
a monastery after all, btw.
Meltdarok
Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. Doctor, lawyer, *gasp* Indian Chief.
Meltdarok
What are your views on Moppo?
Executive Function
:P
> --
> meltdarokhttp://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7- Hide quoted text -
Executive Function
No idea. Never heard of it. Go on - enlighten me! :)
> --
> meltdarokhttp://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7- Hide quoted text -
Executive Function
>
> - Show quoted text -
This?
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo
Bloody Hell!