What is Religion?

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy It is pretty clear that you are implying that science plays a special role in the corruption.

The scientific structures that have grown up in civil society are, just like the religious structures that have grown up in civil society, vulnerable to human weaknesses. It's a property of human organization, scientific or religious.

You are not trying to say that twisting anything for power and gain is a trait of people.

Maybe you should ask me what i'm trying to say. I don't think it's a trait of people, i think it's a trait of conspiracy.

You are trying to place the non-cooperative traits of people as being the result of scientific investigation.

I suppose, according to how you are wanting to read what i am writing, i can understand why you'd say that.

If this was not your intention then why bring it up at all?

To point out the fact that you can call it whatever you like, it's just people being assholes.

Another possibly kinder interpretation is that instead of being dishonest you are simply stupid. That is a very likely possibility. But an even more likely explanation is that you are both. But do not feel too bad. The stupid part you were born with. The dishonest part is what happens when you become religious. Starboy

Again, your bias is showing. I will not apologize.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl The scientific structures that have grown up in civil society are, just like the religious structures that have grown up in civil society, vulnerable to human weaknesses. It's a property of human organization, scientific or religious.

If that was your point then why bring science up at all. The issue has nothing to do with science but is about human nature. Why would you try to make the connection between science and the greedy uncooperative parts of mans nature?

Maybe you should ask me what i'm trying to say. I don't think it's a trait of people, i think it's a trait of conspiracy.

And this conspiracy is being carried out by a group of demons or evil angels I suppose. You magical thinkers are a hoot!

I suppose, according to how you are wanting to read what i am writing, i can understand why you'd say that. To point out the fact that you can call it whatever you like, it's just people being assholes.

Wait I thought you said it was a conspiracy?

Again, your bias is showing. I will not apologize.

Which bias is that? My bias against stupid people or lying people or both?

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

BY GORGO...I'm reading. What is majack?

merlin writes ....I selected the spelling because it is difficult to find using the browser search, well easier than magic. Magic is the modern practice of magic. Below is the definition as per a wiccan dictionary. I have read the definitions and approve them. Out of all the forms (of magic) below I practice folk majack.


Black Magick is performed with the intention of harming another
being, either as a means of building the practitioner's power or as the
goal itself. The underlying ideology upon which black magick is based
states that, "the practitioner and his or her pursuit of knowledge a
physical well-being are more important than other concerns, theological or
ethical."


Green Magick involves the practitioner's self-attuning to nature.


White Magick is where the practitioner self-attunes to the
needs of human society and attempts to meet those needs. This is a form of
"personal betterment" magick, and does not entail harming other beings.


Earl (mine) Grey Magick is magick that is neither green, nor black, nor
white, and usually replaces the absolute stand of these realms with an
ethical code that is particular to the practitioner. It is a type of
magick all its own, and may be used for many different purposes.

>>>>>>Folk Magick<<<<< is an eclectic collection of >>>herbalism<<<, faith healing,
curses and hexes, candle magick, and other workings that have thrived in
rural areas for centuries.

yes herbals and other stuff that would be me, take your best shot your giong to need it.

mb







mb

[Gorgo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte rural areas for centuries.

Well, I suppose there are worse things to waste your time with, like talking to people like me on the internet.

I tried different kinds of all that myself. Like I said, I tried the Satanic Bible, and I was fascinated with Pennsylvania Dutch hex magic. Ever read Lee R. Gandee's "Strange Experience?" It's a strange experience.

All bunk of course. But everyone has to waste time somehow.

[MerlinsByte]

by starboy Merlin, the first scientists were not priests. You appear to be lumping all explainers in the category of priest/scientist.

Mrelin writes...below are just a fraction of excerpts. I'm tired of doing your basic research for you starboy.

QUOTES FROM HISTORICAL REFERENCES..Lunar eclipses were the first major celestial events that Mayan priests
... Eclipses that occurred in Yucatan when the Mayan priests

By 2300 BC, ancient Chinese astrologers, already had sophisticated observatory buildings, and as early as 2650 BC, Li Shu was writing about astronomy.

"Oracle" bones are pieces of animal bones and tortoise shells inscribed with astronomical observations, of about 2,600BCE

Babylonian astrologers. Sumer and Babylonian clay tablets that have survived since dawn of civilization in the Mesopotamian region record the earliest total solar eclipse seen in Ugarit on May 3, 1375 BC Dresden Eclipse Table was devised for warning of the possible occurrence of such phenomena.

The eight pages of the Moon table of the Dresden Codex are a chain of numbers across the bottom line of each page translates into a time packet of lunar synodic intervals

Egypt priests - Ra/Re is the eclipsed Sun shining past the third contact as the Diamond Ring effect.

MERLIN WRITES AGAIN....HI HOE SILVER INTO GOLD...Your first sentence is answered by the above. The first scientists were priests and religious people. I may scan the rest of your post for a good laugh when I get back from church.



mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Mrelin writes...below are just a fraction of excerpts. I'm tired of doing your basic research for you starboy. QUOTES FROM HISTORICAL REFERENCES..Lunar eclipses were the first major celestial events that Mayan priests ... Eclipses that occurred in Yucatan when the Mayan priests By 2300 BC, ancient Chinese astrologers, already had sophisticated observatory buildings, and as early as 2650 BC, Li Shu was writing about astronomy. "Oracle" bones are pieces of animal bones and tortoise shells inscribed with astronomical observations, of about 2,600BCE Babylonian astrologers. Sumer and Babylonian clay tablets that have survived since dawn of civilization in the Mesopotamian region record the earliest total solar eclipse seen in Ugarit on May 3, 1375 BC Dresden Eclipse Table was devised for warning of the possible occurrence of such phenomena. The eight pages of the Moon table of the Dresden Codex are a chain of numbers across the bottom line of each page translates into a time packet of lunar synodic intervals Egypt priests - Ra/Re is the eclipsed Sun shining past the third contact as the Diamond Ring effect. MERLIN WRITES AGAIN....HI HOE SILVER INTO GOLD...Your first sentence is answered by the above. The first scientists were priests and religious people. I may scan the rest of your post for a good laugh when I get back from church. mb

Why don't you do some actual research and read Bacon. Where he made a very important distinction between physical and metaphysical explanations and which type of explanation should be used. As usual you parade your ignorance as if it were knowledge and then try to impress everyone by trying to pass off completely inappropriate responses as if you were actually educated. Just so you know, science began when explainers demanded that natural phenomenon be explained naturally. A major component of the history of science is the battle by scientists to get the supernaturalists to leave them alone. What chaps the asses of all you supernaturalists is that at the heart of it science is atheistic. No supernatural required and in fact no supernatural is allowed. When people realized that any explanation of reality should be solely based on what can be observed in reality is when science was born. Prior to that, observations rooted in supernatural constructs were a practice of religion, it was not science.

Quote by: Francis Bacon "There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms: this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried."

Merlin, ask for your money back. Your education has failed you.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

to starboy

I said priests and religion you can add astrologers as the first astronomers, you said that priests did not practice science ... babble. I took pity on your inexperienced butt and proceeded to educate you (again), exposing your ignorance as I have many times in the past.

Now call daddy and tell him how a bad man spanked your sad juvenile ass in the forum

Do you like bacon starboy?

mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: MerlinsByte to starboy I said priests and religion you can add astrologers as the first astronomers, you said that priests did not practice science ... babble. I took pity on your inexperienced butt and proceeded to educate you (again), exposing your ignorance as I have many times in the past. Now call daddy and tell him how a bad man spanked your sad juvenile ass in the forum Do you like bacon starboy? mb

Merlin do you really think that astrology is science? Are you that stupid?

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

@ quotes by Gorgo..."Well, I suppose there are worse things to waste your time with, like talking to people like me on the internet." "All bunk of course. But everyone has to waste time somehow."

I don't consider talking (and sometimes learning) to anyone a waste of time, quite the . In fact, opposite. If I learn nothing else i can learn new debating techn. or new cuss words.I rather enjoy a bit of mudslinging. I kick myself in the ass every time that I answer a malicious post, knowing that I could win over the adversary much easier by treachery and or psychology, and lies.

I give starboy a break because of his age. Pooey? well, I like his style, you Gorgo? Don't know, there is something there, I think I empathize with you somehow, don't ask me how I just do. Call it some kind of information exchange and astral projection.

I think that a real waste of time would be to reject out of hand any tenant that one doesn't agree with.

I rejected evolution of the species (for now) because I could no longer believe it, and I was accepting it on faith, not facts.

When I began reading some of Hawking books (a brief history of time was the first one), I realized that the entire universe might not be what it seemed! Indeed. When I read about string theory, and the infinite universe or multiverse theories, branes, and the new revelations in Quantum field mechanics, I became convinced that intelligent design was the most logical method of the universe coming into existence. A logical progression led me to examine everything, biology, evolutionary biology etc....I didn't like what I saw. I have never said that my way or the hi way, I have said my way IS the hi way....; } >

Oh well, thanks for your input and you aren't that much different from I ....Are you? Did that scare you? We are all of one blood and one spirit (a piece of God) casually connected by Quantum transactions each living in a slightly different reality, we have to be brothers by the theory of evolution ...hee hee.

mb

by gorgo...Ever read Lee R. Gandee's "Strange Experience?" It's a strange experience.

I will have a read of it if it comes up on a browser search.

[Starboy]

Oh Merlin thank you so much for giving me a break. There is just so muh of your stupidity that I can stand.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

I don't know how old Starboy is, but if memory serves, he's about the same age as me or older, and I'm 51.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Oh well, thanks for your input and you aren't that much different from I ....Are you? Did that scare you? We are all of one blood and one spirit (a piece of God) casually connected by Quantum transactions each living in a slightly different reality, we have to be brothers by the theory of evolution ...hee hee.

Not much reason to think there are gods and spirits, but other than that, people are not that much different, no. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

[MerlinsByte]

By Gorgo...Not much reason to think there are gods and spirits, but other than that, people are not that much different, no. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Merlin writes.....I am happy to entertain other belief systems or an individual with no belief systems. Usually when posting an unpopular or original weird and therefore scary Idea, I attempt to include the disclaimer that it is my opinion, and not the only explanation. My true passion in life is (after region) is art. Originality is to be admired in art or science. Maybe that is why I don't subscribe 100% to any traditional religious belief or scientific doctrine.

However I also refuse to be closed minded to anything from articles that say Jesus was a Bastard, twice married, that indulged in orgies with the magic shrooms, to back woods, snake handling, God fearing well armed, moonshine swilling fundamentalists. Its all good. I learn something from any post.

I truly believe that true religion (most of the worlds true religions) preach love as the only way to achieve happiness, peace, and a sustainable social structure. Maybe one day it will happen, and we can prove biblical predictions wrong. I happen to think that If we could learn and apply this simple (but insanely difficult to implement) concept we would not need to destroy 2/3rds of people on earth before big J comes back to save our dumbasses from ourselves....

mb

Thanks for your comments Gorgo. And I look forward to your (pro or con) comments in the future.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I truly believe that true religion (most of the worlds true religions) preach love as the only way to achieve happiness, peace, and a sustainable social structure.

To the extent that they do that, I am grateful. However, it is a false love. Theism is a fear of life. It is based on a lie.

[Runa216]

Wow, it seems Gorgo is the only one here that is capable of debating withou mocking or insulting the other debater. Might I remind you, the lowest form of debate is to insult the person, not the argument, and by constantly going back and forth insulting each other, claiming the other is ignorant, yet you all use big words that make you look like yo do in fact know what you're talking about.

So here it is, Religion and Science are Similar in that they both attempt to offer an explanation on the world. They are open to change (somewhat) and they are dymanic, evolving as time goes on, getting better and more updated versions. The diference is that members of a religion rely on faith, whereas science relies on fact and research to back their points. Another major difference is that scientists are open to newer, more accurate theories, whereas the Religious people tend to be stubbuourn and ignore newer facts. This leads to hatred, crusades, Hatred, and unease. Scientists advance their reaserach for the good of mankind (usually).

So, who would you believe? the man who can explain things on a real level, using science that is proven, or the one who tells you to believe, just because of what he 'believes'.

Of course, there's always the argument that 20 years from now, 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years from now, our sciences will be laughed at and taunted. I accept this, and that is why I follow science, I know that those with a scientific mind are eager for change, whereas the religious folk refuse to move on. They are clinging onto a belief for one reason, modern science can't prove it wrong. I think that'll change.

But for those who have a scientific mind, look back at some of the remedies we had. Drink whiskey for a snakebite....that's been proven wrong. Draining the 'bad blood' from an evil person didn't work. Burning witches was a load of BS.....witches aren't real. So you see, those with scientific minds can look back and see how wrong we were, and laugh. The religious people refuse to admit that their practices were foolish and didn't work. The worst part is, all the religions disagree with one another, they can't even get along. They think that Zeus was a load of bull, Ra was made up, and Buddha is a foolish idol.

The bottom line, Faith is okay, but don't be blinded by it, accept change.

(I realize I said the same thing three times in different words, but sometimes it needs to be said that many ways or peope don't get it.)

Runa

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Runa216 Wow, it seems Gorgo is the only one here that is capable of debating withou mocking or insulting the other debater.

Would you be willing to testify to that in a court of law? :)

It's all symptomatic of the same thing. We all do it to some extent. We don't think much of ourselves, so we create religions so that we can be in special clubs that go to heaven, or we put others down in order to build ourselves up.

The difference is, religions institutionalize worthlessness and make it sacred.

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin wipes tears of laughter from smiling eyes... Runa you are saying that you accept my argument that your scientific beliefs will be a myth in a few years.Thank you dear! So you are defending lies and professing faith in these lies that saying that they are good theroy! And by the way, you are soooo correct when you say todays scientific theroys (will be) false in the future. Hint runa:::: they are false today TODAY:::.If its going to be false in 100 years that means its false now!...think about it RUNA! Dang...girls fight funny.

How could you accept something that you have said will be inclined to be untrue? This is truly a pathological state of denial. An even greater indicator of your sanity, or motive, or both, is posting that Gorge doesn't insult to make (some point). Read the posts before commenting a falsehood like that.

It seems to me the people who make off color comments about religion, know nothing about it. Or when they comment on science they make basic assumptions based on a limited understanding of the subject in any case I thought this was a post on gravity not about taking obvious cheap (comical) shots at religion.

mb

by runa... Draining the 'bad blood' from an evil person didn't work

Merlin sez...We now use leeches to suck blood on reattached extremities to improve blood flow. I could dismantle your entire post point by point if you would be so kind to start a new thread? ...hee hee...yes thats a challenge.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Runa216 So here it is, Religion and Science are Similar in that they both attempt to offer an explanation on the world. They are open to change (somewhat) and they are dymanic, evolving as time goes on, getting better and more updated versions. The diference is that members of a religion rely on faith, whereas science relies on fact and research to back their points. Another major difference is that scientists are open to newer, more accurate theories, whereas the Religious people tend to be stubbuourn and ignore newer facts. This leads to hatred, crusades, Hatred, and unease. Scientists advance their reaserach for the good of mankind (usually).

Close enough. Science is a best attempt at explaining reality whereas religion claims to have "the" explanation of reality. Unlike religious explanations it is understood that scientific explanations are tentative which carries with it an implicit recognition that they could very well be wrong. On the other hand religious explanations are the result of some sort of revelation which is presumed to be from god and therefore is perfect. An explanation that is considered a tentative best attempt could hardly be called a "myth" any more than a current work of music could be called a "myth". A scientific explanation simply represents the best attempt to date at explaining reality and is a work in progress that will change as we improve our ability to observe and explain reality. Just as the work of a musician or the musical culture in general will change as musicians learn more about making music and the effects it has on the listener so do scientific explanations.

So, who would you believe? the man who can explain things on a real level, using science that is proven, or the one who tells you to believe, just because of what he 'believes'.

As far as who to believe the answer is simple. Believe the one that does what it claims to be able to do and does it in a way that cannot be the result of trickery. People do not believe in electricity because they are taught about it in church, they believe in it because they see it in action hundreds if not thousands of times each day. The word belief is inappropriate. It would be like saying that you believe that the big bright yellow thing in the daytime sky is the sun. You do not believe it is the sun, you know it is the sun. You know it because it is right there in your face and has been for your entire life and the lives of your parents and their parents and on and on and on. The word belief is a completely inappropriate word. It is the kind of word that is appropriate for something like religion which requires faith in order to consider its constructs to be real. Using the word belief in the scientific context is just the dishonesty of the religious to try to conflate scientific knowledge with religious knowledge because in this scientific age it is the only way that they can complete at all. They must resort to dishonest tricks.

Of course, there's always the argument that 20 years from now, 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years from now, our sciences will be laughed at and taunted. I accept this, and that is why I follow science, I know that those with a scientific mind are eager for change, whereas the religious folk refuse to move on. They are clinging onto a belief for one reason, modern science can't prove it wrong. I think that'll change.

It is not much of an argument because people hope that the scientific explanations of 20 to 50 years from now or later will be different than they are now. They very much would like our knowledge of reality to improve and increase because we are creatures of reality and our ability to understand it and control it is key to our human condition. Any argument that tries to say that scientific knowledge is suspect because it improves with time is just a very silly and stupid argument. It is typical of the tactics employed by Merlin and his ilk and such is the poverty of the religious position that as stupid as the argument is it represents one of the best arguments they have.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Runa216 Scientists advance their reaserach for the good of mankind (usually).

And the 'usually' will become less frequent as the value of proprietary information increases. That was my point previously. Ofcourse it's foolish to ignore science; science is great, but it is incomplete. When you complete the ground of science, so that the experience of being is acceptable as fact; then you provide ground for the spiritual beliefs of all cultures in their context, and each of us if we don't insist on error. Truth becomes something, and more.

It's not an either/or, it's each to its place.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl And the 'usually' will become less frequent as the value of proprietary information increases. That was my point previously.

As usual jeffl you spew nonsense. We have had patent law since the beginning of this country and eventually such proprietary knowledge enters into the public domain. All the common devices we use today such as screw drivers, twist drills, lathes, radio, TV, electrical generation were all patented. The patents expired and then anyone who wanted could make these things. The government understands that there is a tension between invention and the public good. Patent law exists because without some protection there is many times no way to payback and make worthwhile the effort and cost of invention. The law is intended to give the inventor some time to make money with little or no competition and then their time is up and the idea can be used by anyone. The government understands that too little or too much protection of new ideas will actually decrease invention. Patent law exists for our benefit because the richness of our inventiveness is one of the measures of the wealth of our nation.

Ofcourse it's foolish to ignore science; science is great, but it is incomplete. When you complete the ground of science, so that the experience of being is acceptable as fact; then you provide ground for the spiritual beliefs of all cultures in their context, and each of us if we don't insist on error. Truth becomes something, and more.

What are you talking about? The experience of being is accepted as fact. Unless you are like Merlin and have decided to overload your terms with some other meaning to make your ideas appear to be legitimate by using words with already well established meaning that you completely ignore.

Starboy

[Runa216]

Never debate an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

this is what I feel like doing with merlinsbyte. I hate it when people just point and laugh, and I hate it when he acts like we're a bunch of ignorant toads because he's so convinced of his own superiority. trust me MB, you're not right. You're not entirely wrong, but you're definitely not right. you CLAIM to be very educated and open minded, but so far, everyone on this topic has given completely legitimate points countering your arguments, and you just sit back, laugh, and call us all ignorant, even though we're the only ones brining valid points to the table.

For instance, you say that scientific theories are wrong today? well, at least those with a scientific mind can actually move ahead and discard old theories. and as far as what I believe, and what science worked....well, I had my belief longer than I've been a part of any online forum. I don't think I need to repeat myself. think about it this way, I'm not following things that have been proven wrong a long time ago. I'm not blindly following the dark arts that simply aren't real, and if they are, they can be explained through science.

forget it, for now, I have to do homework, I've written this reply six times, and I've come to the conclusion that MB is not a man, woman, or child worth debating with. He or she refuses to admit that there is solid evidence for these things (and yes, I'm sure the people of old thought they had evidence) look at it this way. the only truth there is is what you see, feel and experience. I see that medical practices have become far more efficient and accurate. I see chemistry has come a long way, and why is that? because we learn to see what REALLY is causing that chemical reaction, and we can recreate it every time. we KNOW what it is now, we can see the molecules workign as it happens.

one thing though, I think that as religion was taken out of modern life, science has not had nearly as many instances where old things are proven wrong, we just advance what we have because it's been right all along. I don't think that there will be any incnsitencies any time soon, but it's possible.

you know what? screw it....I've had enough trying to prove this guy wrong, I'm too frustrated to think clearly. perhaps I'll come back with an organized reply later.

Runa