Whats so good about religion?

[PLAYER57832]

These are just 2 examples of how religions are not "equal".

They are equal in the sense that none of them can claim logical grounds for their beliefs. Sure, I think a religion which slaughters babies is abhorrent but it has the same justification for believing in it as other religions have for their beliefs.

I divide religions into "harmless" and "non-harmless", not in "ridiculous" and "logical".

Some religions, or strains/ideas within certain religions have been disproven. The earth is not the back of a turtle, nor is it 4000 years old. Folks have the right to believe these things, but not to expect them taught side by side, equal to, other beliefs.

Other than that, some ideas have more support than others, but no, none is (or probably every will) be disproven or proven.

And, folks have a right to believe as they wish .. even if it is silly. BUT, they don't have the right to expect the rest of the world to honor the silly. Tolerate, yes, honor ... no.

[Snorri1234]

In a sense, yes. I don't think Christianity is somehow less ridiculous than belief in the Greek Gods. The only reason to not ridicule Christianity for example is the fact that a large portion of western people wouldn't consider it funny.

I make fun of every religion, not just the ones you think are silly because you've grown up in a different culture.

Hmmm. Well I couldn't say that either system of beliefs was particularly ridiculous in that so much of Western thought, law, and culture in general were based on them. Historically some very good ideas have been carried, and still are, by religions. I can see no reason to summarily single them them all out for ridicule. What's your basis for this? Are philosophies thrown into the same bin?

I get the feeling I'm being a little misunderstood, I'm probably not clear enough.

When I say "ridicule" a religion, I'm talking about the supernatural beliefs of that religions. I.e. that Jesus walked on water and rose from the death, or that Zeus had sex with countless women in the most silly disguises ever. That kind of stuff.

I'm not saying that I ridicule all of their belief. I'm not going to ridicule the message of "Thou shalt not kill", I'll merely ridicule the idea you need some magic deity to tell you that. Logical portions of the religion (most contain parts of that) are okay.

Andd yes philosophies I ridicule a lot too, except when they are logical.

Harmless can be a dismissive term for "useless but not in the way", my mistake if you didn't mean that and see that religions are useful.

No problem.

[CrazyAnglican]

I'm not saying that I ridicule all of their belief. I'm not going to ridicule the message of "Thou shalt not kill", I'll merely ridicule the idea you need some magic deity to tell you that. Logical portions of the religion (most contain parts of that) are okay.

Then if they have logical portions, can't one have more logical portions than the others and then be more logical and less "ridiculous"?

[Snorri1234]

I'm not saying that I ridicule all of their belief. I'm not going to ridicule the message of "Thou shalt not kill", I'll merely ridicule the idea you need some magic deity to tell you that. Logical portions of the religion (most contain parts of that) are okay.

Then if they have logical portions, can't one have more logical portions than the others and then be more logical and less "ridiculous"?

Good point. However, this would work if ridiculousness was quantifiable when talking about supernatural things. I'd say it isn't, so any religion is equally ridiculous as all others. You could argue that some religions are more logical, but not less ridiculous.

Also, the problem with the logical portions in religions is that they aren't justified by logic. I agree with the notion that murder is bad, but I don't agree that it's bad because God says so.

[tzor]

Science is "equal" because science is a process, not any particular idea.  Are some ideas, realms of thought easier to prove than others, yes.   This means that science cannot provide equal answers, not that science itself is unequal. Religion is a different story.  Everyone has an equal right to believe as they wish.  They do not have an equal right to act on those beliefs.   Nor do they have an equal right to expect the world to respect and teach their ideas.  (come again???)

When I say science is or is not equal I am referring to specific sciences, which you need to consider because we are comparing them to relgions which are also specific instances and not a general process. The scientific method is indeed a process. But the application of the scientific method is known as a science. Not all sciences are equal because not all apply the scientific method equally.

Your argument about belief, action, and respect applies as much to science as it does to religion. There were many things that people wanted to do in the name of the "science" of eugenics, and killing people in the name of "science" is a part of mandkind as much as killing people in the name of their gods have been. Then again there are many who go out of their way to save others, some in the name of science and some in the name of religion. People use science and religion badly all the time. They used science to explain why slaves were inferior and why poor people were born to a life of barbarism and crime. One could argue that it was more the abuse of science but I can also argue other cases as the abuse of religion.

[PLAYER57832]

Science is "equal" because science is a process, not any particular idea.  Are some ideas, realms of thought easier to prove than others, yes.   This means that science cannot provide equal answers, not that science itself is unequal. Religion is a different story.  Everyone has an equal right to believe as they wish.  They do not have an equal right to act on those beliefs.   Nor do they have an equal right to expect the world to respect and teach their ideas.  (come again???)

When I say science is or is not equal I am referring to specific sciences, which you need to consider because we are comparing them to relgions which are also specific instances and not a general process. The scientific method is indeed a process. But the application of the scientific method is known as a science. Not all sciences are equal because not all apply the scientific method equally.

Your argument about belief, action, and respect applies as much to science as it does to religion. There were many things that people wanted to do in the name of the "science" of eugenics, and killing people in the name of "science" is a part of mandkind as much as killing people in the name of their gods have been. Then again there are many who go out of their way to save others, some in the name of science and some in the name of religion. People use science and religion badly all the time. They used science to explain why slaves were inferior and why poor people were born to a life of barbarism and crime. One could argue that it was more the abuse of science but I can also argue other cases as the abuse of religion.

I think we are discussing semantics, rather than an actual difference of ideas here.

There is a distinction between "soft" science and "hard" science in that hard science generally makes for easier linear proofs. For a long time, it was debateable whether portions of social science really were science, psychology really medicine. But, in each case, the method of forming a hypothesis, testing it and then reviewing is the "same". The technics vary, but the overall methodology is the "same". Now, computers allow folks to analyze such reams of data that marketers can, for example predict with reasonable reliability what folks will and won't buy (in general terms... sometimes specific terms). We know more about how the mind works to know, for example, that many behaviors are affected by upbringing, society,chemical influences and genetics (plus other factors). However, though it is harder to find an answer in biology and psycology because of all the variabilities involved, it is still science.

Even such things as how a stream flows, how smoke travels, etc. can be quantified to a certain extent by chaos math. All of this would have been impossible just a few years ago.

Religion, on the other hand needs no proof except belief. I do not believe in God because of anything I can provide as proof to you or anyone else. I know mostly because of feelings that I have inside myself and experiences I have that are truly impossible to quantify or even describe. Folks can an do try and that attempt at proof is science. If proof is provided, then science and religion cooincide ... BUT that is concurrance, not merging. Also, Religion can potentially be disputed or changed by science, (as has happened with Christianity) but they can not be considered the same.

Also, because science relies on proof, the same test will yeild the same result no matter if conducted by a sociologist, or a geologist. It is just a matter of different expertise, not different truth.

Religion is individual. Generally (exceptions exist)one cannot believe 2 religions simultaneously. You EITHER believe in a serpant or you believe in the Greek Gods or you believe in one God. Understand, it is certainly possible that there is more than one way to view the same truth. Hinduism sort of gets at that. BUT, that idea in and of itself is a separate religion. A Psychiatrist doesn't tell students that they have to disbelieve Geology ... it might not be necessary for them to learn it, but it is compatible. Religions are not.

Anyway, once again a far too long-winded explanation.

[WidowMakers]

I agree with the notion that murder is bad, but I don't agree that it's bad because God says so.

Then why is it bad? If there is nothing to measure goodness from, how do we know that anything is really bad?

Think of a clean cloth. It is clean or perfect for this illustration. If we get it dirty we know it is dirty because we can compare it to the clean cloth. If there never was a clean cloth or perfect item to measure everything else by (GOD) then dirty is just an opinion and nothing is actually good, bad, right or wrong.

So I will ask again. Why is anything bad if there is nothing that is absolute?

WM

[Neoteny]

I agree with the notion that murder is bad, but I don't agree that it's bad because God says so.

Then why is it bad? If there is nothing to measure goodness from, how do we know that anything is really bad?

Think of a clean cloth. It is clean or perfect for this illustration. If we get it dirty we know it is dirty because we can compare it to the clean cloth. If there never was a clean cloth or perfect item to measure everything else by (GOD) then dirty is just an opinion and nothing is actually good, bad, right or wrong.

So I will ask again. Why is anything bad if there is nothing that is absolute?

WM

Really, the clean cloth is probably not that clean to begin with. There's no telling where that cloth has been. Illusory cloths aside, if there is no such thing as a "perfectly clean cloth" absolute to compare our dirty cloths to, how do we know our real cloths are dirty?

We measure goodness based on social structures and interpretations of sympathy and empathy. There are definitely no absolutes there. We have philosophy and ethics to ponder the overall "good or bad" situation. We definitely do not need a made-up absolute.

[WidowMakers]

I agree with the notion that murder is bad, but I don't agree that it's bad because God says so.

Then why is it bad? If there is nothing to measure goodness from, how do we know that anything is really bad?

Think of a clean cloth. It is clean or perfect for this illustration. If we get it dirty we know it is dirty because we can compare it to the clean cloth. If there never was a clean cloth or perfect item to measure everything else by (GOD) then dirty is just an opinion and nothing is actually good, bad, right or wrong.

So I will ask again. Why is anything bad if there is nothing that is absolute?

WM

Really, the clean cloth is probably not that clean to begin with. There's no telling where that cloth has been. Illusory cloths aside, if there is no such thing as a "perfectly clean cloth" absolute to compare our dirty cloths to, how do we know our real cloths are dirty?

We measure goodness based on social structures and interpretations of sympathy and empathy. There are definitely no absolutes there. We have philosophy and ethics to ponder the overall "good or bad" situation. We definitely do not need a made-up absolute.

I agree there is no "perfectly clean" cloth but is an example. The only way we can state the cleanliness/dirtiness of something is if we have an item to compare it to.

def. Clean
1)Free from dirt, stain, or impurities; unsoiled.
2)Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated

So to compare how dirty or clean something is, we do need a clean item to judge others.

As far as your question of "how do we know how dirty our real clothes really are?", well that seems pretty easy. When you wash them.
Are you telling me you don't have the ability to tell the difference between clean and dirty?
Or that since we have no perfectly clean there really is not dirty, it is only an opinion and relative.

Somehow I don't think your coworkers or family would agree with you if you never washed your clothes. They would smell, they would look bad, they would be dirty.
Neoteny, if you truly believe that there is no way we can "know are clothes are dirty" then why do you wash your clothes?

And now lets take this to the moral level. If there is no absolute good, then there can be no evil right? So nothing is wrong, right? And if nothing is wrong because there are no absolutes, why should anyone do anything for anyone else or care about them?

Listen, it is easy to say:
"There are no absolutes. Anyone can feel or do anything they want anytime because nothing is right or wrong." but not easy to live that way.

How many times has someone lied to you? Or cheated you? Or hurt you? Hit you? Stolen from you?
How many times have you hit someone? stolen from someone? Lied to someone? Cheated someone?

Do you see where I am going here? If there are no absolutes, then every person you (or anyone else) did these things to has no reason to be mad. And you have no reason to be mad or angry either when these things are do back to you. I have yet to find anyone that agrees with that.

If you get mad when someone steals from you or "wrongs" you in some way are you justifiably mad? If nothing is absolute, you have no reason to be.

If relativism is true then nothing could be true. Why? For one cannot claim that it is an absolute truth, that something is only relative truth for him. This is like saying I’m absolutely certain everything is relative. Then everything isn’t relative if he is absolutely certain. But if everything is relative to each different person, to this one , and that one , ad infinitum, then its not true at all and everyone is believing falsehood. If relativism were true you can never be mistaken or wrong or learn anything.
Because its true to me at that time and it may not be another time , by my own standard even if I’m wrong its true. You can only find out what is wrong if something is true.

There has to be a ultimate standard of measure that is truth.

WM

[PLAYER57832]

Rampant killing is wrong, even without God, because life is much easier when we agree not to kill each other.

Except .. the Bible is full of exceptions. The Mennonites generally believe it is wrong to kill ... period. Most other Christians feel it is OK to kill in direct defense of another or one's self. St Augustine introduced the "just war" concept.
Jews don't even use the word "kill", they refer to "murder" and thereby change the entire debate.

I don't consider the Bible to be relativism because of these convolutions. I consider right and wrong to be too complicated to put into easy human terms. Call it relativism if you like. I call it reality.

[tzor]

I think we are discussing semantics, rather than an actual difference of ideas here.

There is a distinction between "soft" science and "hard" science in that hard science generally makes for easier linear proofs.

I agree that there is a distinction so bear with me a moment. It is why I say this is for the most part an apple orange comparison. Consider the question of who created the universe. This is really a historical question and as such needs to be compared to the science of history which is a soft science at best. (Example: Who killed the dinosaurs ... the declining O2 percentage in the atmosphere and the lack of diaphrams in large dinosaurs or the impact of a large asteroid or a combination of the two?)

Religion is more than just historical statements of belief. There are moral, ethical and social dimensions (again still in the area of soft science); just war theories and so forth. There are many religions that combine faith and reason presenting logical models from the basic axioms of their faith.

Even hard science has its problems, for everything we think we can explain there are two more things we discover we can't explain yet. The non constant expansion of the universe is one current major problem we need to solve and the notion of parallel and partly intersecting universes is only one attempt to do so.

Generally (exceptions exist)one cannot believe 2 religions simultaneously. You EITHER believe in a serpant or you believe in the Greek Gods or you believe in one God.

And yet dualism does exist in science consider the particle / wave argument. One can also make the same argument between newtonian mechanics and the mechanics of relativity. No theory is perfect but many are true within the respective framework which the theory was developed for. Likewise it is possible to find arguments of "truth" in a variey of religions out there.

The inability to put things to the test means that religion can only be compared to a soft science in order to make apple and apple comparisons. Although we cannot easily put a Q.E.D. on all tennents of a specific religion we cannot throw out the baby of reason within that religion out with the bathwater.

[ParadiceCity9]

Nothing but senile crack-pots who decided one day to play their primitive game of telephone, thats what.

nothing but illogical, downright impossible fairy tails.

Im so glad Im an atheist, cause that way my true sciences can obliterate your false pipe-dreams of a so called god.

I agree with literally everything you just said. I love you.

[Snorri1234]

I agree with the notion that murder is bad, but I don't agree that it's bad because God says so.

Then why is it bad? If there is nothing to measure goodness from, how do we know that anything is really bad?

Because it's unrational.


Are you saying that you only refrain from killing everyone you dislike because God says so?

[MeDeFe]

Proof of God's existence
inspired by Widowmaker

We perceive degrees of dirtiness in the world.
In order to perceive these degrees we must at some level be aware of the ultimate degree of dirtiness.
This is degree of dirtiness is God.
Therefore God exists.


Thank you, now let's all convert and and praise the rainbow serpent.

[WidowMakers]

Proof of God's existence
inspired by Widowmaker

We perceive degrees of dirtiness in the world.
In order to perceive these degrees we must at some level be aware of the ultimate degree of dirtiness.
This is degree of dirtiness is God.
Therefore God exists.


Thank you, now let's all convert and and praise the rainbow serpent.

Thanks for taking my words and twisting them. I appreciate it.

Again think about it

Why do you wash your clothes?
It is because they are dirty?
But how do you know they are dirty?
Is it because we understand the concept of clean?

So taking the same principle of knowing what dirty is because we have the concept of clean...we know what evil is because we have a concept of good.
Where did that concept of good come from? If it comes from man then there is no real concept because we all perceive the world differently.

If there are no absolutes, anyone can feel or do anything they want anytime because nothing is right or wrong." but not easy to live that way.

How do you react when someone has lied to you? Or cheated you? Or hurt you? Hit you? Stolen from you?
How do others react if you hit someone? stolen from someone? Lied to someone? Cheated someone?
Do you get mad when someone "wrongs" you in some way? Are you justifiably mad? Can people do wrong to you?

If nothing is absolute, you have no reason to be angry or mad at someone else's action because to them they are justified, right?

Or to put it another way, can you ever be mad at me if I feel I am right?

So please just really think about it and answer truthfully. Don't just post the answer without analyzing your life and thinking.
Why and how do you react to these types of situations?

WM

[Snorri1234]

Again think about it

Why do you wash your clothes?
It is because they are dirty?
But how do you know they are dirty?
Is it because we understand the concept of clean?

And where did we get this concept from?
If it's from man, then there is no real concept because we all perceive our clothes differently.

Hey, that seems actually pretty close to the truth. I know for example that what I consider dirty and what my parents considered dirty was radically different.

[Snorri1234]

Also, you haven't answered my question.

[WidowMakers]

Again think about it

Why do you wash your clothes?
It is because they are dirty?
But how do you know they are dirty?
Is it because we understand the concept of clean?

And where did we get this concept from?
If it's from man, then there is no real concept because we all perceive our clothes differently.

Hey, that seems actually pretty close to the truth. I know for example that what I consider dirty and what my parents considered dirty was radically different.

So you are telling me that a sweat stained muddy shirt is clean because you say it is not dirty? I doubt it.

Just because you and your parents have different levels of dirty does not mean you both don't understand the concept of NOT DIRTY.

Now how about answering the questions dealing with moral judgments.

WM

[Iliad]

Proof of God's existence
inspired by Widowmaker

We perceive degrees of dirtiness in the world.
In order to perceive these degrees we must at some level be aware of the ultimate degree of dirtiness.
This is degree of dirtiness is God.
Therefore God exists.


Thank you, now let's all convert and and praise the rainbow serpent.

Thanks for taking my words and twisting them. I appreciate it.

Again think about it

Why do you wash your clothes?
It is because they are dirty?
But how do you know they are dirty?
Is it because we understand the concept of clean?

So taking the same principle of knowing what dirty is because we have the concept of clean...we know what evil is because we have a concept of good.
Where did that concept of good come from? If it comes from man then there is no real concept because we all perceive the world differently.

If there are no absolutes, anyone can feel or do anything they want anytime because nothing is right or wrong." but not easy to live that way.

How do you react when someone has lied to you? Or cheated you? Or hurt you? Hit you? Stolen from you?
How do others react if you hit someone? stolen from someone? Lied to someone? Cheated someone?
Do you get mad when someone "wrongs" you in some way? Are you justifiably mad? Can people do wrong to you?

If nothing is absolute, you have no reason to be angry or mad at someone else's action because to them they are justified, right?

Or to put it another way, can you ever be mad at me if I feel I am right?

So please just really think about it and answer truthfully. Don't just post the answer without analyzing your life and thinking.
Why and how do you react to these types of situations?

WM

You're making a few wrong mistakes in your logic. Since I don't have a lot of time, I will state this very briefly
We wash our clothes because we are conforming to society. We are doing it because it is seen as the thing to do.

Good is the same thing. My morals may differ to yours, but as a society, and a nation, we agree on what is wrong. There aren't absolutes, just the set of things we consider right, wrong and grey. Of course people go against the flow and this is slowly changed: sexist, racist and other views have been changed.

[Snorri1234]

So you are telling me that a sweat stained muddy shirt is clean because you say it is not dirty? I doubt it.

Are you claiming that the concept of clean is not human?

Just because you and your parents have different levels of dirty does not mean you both don't understand the concept of NOT DIRTY.

Except that what I consider "Not dirty" is different. Clean is what it is just after it has been cleaned, but dirty is a radically differnent concept. It's not clean vs dirty, it's not-dirty vs dirty.

When I've worn a shirt for 2 days I claim it's not dirty, others say it is. Is one of us right and the other wrong?

Now how about answering the questions dealing with moral judgments.

k.

How do you react when someone has lied to you? Or cheated you? Or hurt you? Hit you? Stolen from you?

I get angry.

How do others react if you hit someone? stolen from someone? Lied to someone? Cheated someone?

They get angry.

Can people do wrong to you?

Ofcourse not. Not because of some magic sky-daddy, but simply because allowing such things is bad for a society. Besides, instinct tells me those things are mine. Like animals defend their territory, I defend mine. Not consciously, but I do defend it.

If nothing is absolute, you have no reason to be angry or mad at someone else's action because to them they are justified, right?

Angry or mad, maybe not but I'm not so silly to pretend I can control that. Besides, it's not like Jesus' message was that we should all get really angry at sinners....

However, I do dissapprove of their actions because they have no rational justification for what they're doing. I think basing a belief-system on what is rational is a hell of a lot better than basing it on arbitrary rules put into place by some guy with power. The problem with an absolute good and evil in religion is that it doesn't leave anything open to rational discussion. The bible says homosexuality is evil and therefore reasonable arguments about why that's false are ignored. If the bible claimed that having sex with kids was okay it would be the same way.

The "absolute good" just takes all rational considerations away. It claims things are evil because they are evil, instead of explaining why they are evil. It's like the "God did it" explanation of the universe, it's fucking retarded because it offers no explanation.

Or to put it another way, can you ever be mad at me if I feel I am right?

Hah, I'm constantly mad at people who feel they're right. The problem is that being right isn't determined by how you feel.

[WidowMakers]

So you are telling me that a sweat stained muddy shirt is clean because you say it is not dirty? I doubt it.

Are you claiming that the concept of clean is not human?

Just because you and your parents have different levels of dirty does not mean you both don't understand the concept of NOT DIRTY.

Except that what I consider "Not dirty" is different. Clean is what it is just after it has been cleaned, but dirty is a radically different concept. It's not clean vs dirty, it's not-dirty vs dirty.

When I've worn a shirt for 2 days I claim it's not dirty, others say it is. Is one of us right and the other wrong?

-But it is still not clean. This whole issue of Clean/Dirty is based on the concept of something being clean. There is a definition of what clean means. it is not an opinion.

def. Clean

1)Free from dirt, stain, or impurities; unsoiled.
2)Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated

Now the level of dirtiness something has may be an opinion, I agree with you on that, but it is still not clean.
So again my point is, something can only be dirty if the concept of clean is defined.

-Dirtiness is, by definition, the absence of clean.
-Just as darkness is the absence of light
-Just as Cold is the absence of Heat.
-Just as evil is the absence of good.

How do you react when someone has lied to you? Or cheated you? Or hurt you? Hit you? Stolen from you?

I get angry.

How do others react if you hit someone? stolen from someone? Lied to someone? Cheated someone?

They get angry.

Can people do wrong to you?

Ofcourse not. Not because of some magic sky-daddy, but simply because allowing such things is bad for a society. Besides, instinct tells me those things are mine. Like animals defend their territory, I defend mine. Not consciously, but I do defend it.

-Hey man societies are different. Who then determines the best society. If society said slavery was ok, would it then be ok? Or what about human testing for societies sake? Is everything justified if society says it is? And who is society? The majority? The powerful? The rule makers? WHO? Or is it only relative to where and when you are born and live?

But if everything is relative, which you say it is, then the person who is wronging you can justify their actions. Who are you to say they are wrong? By you saying someone is morally wrong, you are in fact saying that there are absolutes. And absolute morality is what you are arguing against in the first place.

If nothing is absolute, you have no reason to be angry or mad at someone else's action because to them they are justified, right?

Angry or mad, maybe not but I'm not so silly to pretend I can control that. Besides, it's not like Jesus' message was that we should all get really angry at sinners....

However, I do dissapprove of their actions because they have no rational justification for what they're doing. I think basing a belief-system on what is rational is a hell of a lot better than basing it on arbitrary rules put into place by some guy with power. The problem with an absolute good and evil in religion is that it doesn't leave anything open to rational discussion. The bible says homosexuality is evil and therefore reasonable arguments about why that's false are ignored. If the bible claimed that having sex with kids was okay it would be the same way.

The "absolute good" just takes all rational considerations away. It claims things are evil because they are evil, instead of explaining why they are evil. It's like the "God did it" explanation of the universe; it's fucking retarded because it offers no explanation.

-People are evil or bad because they are not good. People lie, steal, kill, cheat, are dishonest, slander, are jealous, envy, covet and deceive just to name a few.
Are any of these things good for society? Then why do we all (as human beings) have these feelings? Are these bad or wrong feelings?

If there is no Moral Absolute, then all of these feelings are completely justified rationally be each individual on an individual basis based on the events at the time.

Was Hitler evil? Who says? He did not think he was wrong?
Many people in the world through past events and history have done unspeakable things.
Where they all rationally justified at the time? They think they were. SO who decides?

When children are born, why do they disobey their parents or lie to them. Ignore their rules or hit each other. Children are selfish little people. Who taught them that stuff? I have a 2 year old and she tests our rules all of the time. Why is it that she has to be told to be nice to others and does not need to be told to be selfish. It is human nature to not be good.

Absolute good is required to judges all actions of everything else. For if there is no measuring stick (absolute good) to look to, how can you say I am bad or good if everything is relative.

- And as far as creation goes, “God did it” is an explanation. It is just not one you want to believe. Why can’t creation be true? Is it because science can’t prove it? Who says everything is provable? Since no man is all knowing, no one can say that everything in the universe is provable by science. And this gets back to my post about scientism being a religion or faith in science above all else.

WM

[Frigidus]

def. Clean

1)Free from dirt, stain, or impurities; unsoiled.
2)Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated

A human definition, a human perception. It's all in our head when it comes down to it.

[CrazyAnglican]

def. Clean

1)Free from dirt, stain, or impurities; unsoiled.
2)Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated

A human definition, a human perception. It's all in our head when it comes down to it.

Some animals clean themselves. It isn't entirely a human concept, at least it suggests that they understand the benefits of grooming on some level (especially felines and other primates, rodents as well). I say this merely to point out that if other forms of life understand this basic concept then it may be more universal than it first appears. If that is universal then other concepts harder to observe might be as well.

[Frigidus]

def. Clean

1)Free from dirt, stain, or impurities; unsoiled.
2)Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated

A human definition, a human perception. It's all in our head when it comes down to it.

Some animals clean themselves. It isn't entirely a human concept, at least it suggests that they understand the benefits of grooming on some level (especially felines and other primates, rodents as well). I say this merely to point out that if other forms of life understand this basic concept then it may be more universal than it first appears. If that is universal then other concepts harder to observe might be as well.

But animals only groom themselves because instinctual grooming is beneficial to their survival. I suppose that you can't really argue the point either way as the only clarified view we have is a human one, but any adjective only takes into account the limited amount of information that the quite lacking human mind can access. We can say with close to certainty that something has mud on it, but what makes mud so dirty in the first place?

[CrazyAnglican]

We can say with close to certainty that something has mud on it, but what makes mud so dirty in the first place?

I'm not sure, but I think it's probably the dirt in it.