Whats so good about religion?

[PLAYER57832]

Well, I'm stumped to explain how mtg can know how when people are looking at him from behind, unless they only looked at him because he performed an unusual action (turned around) which caught their attention. Does anyone know a neurologist or something? I feel that research is needed on this subject. Under double-blind circumstances. That especially applies for transferring spirit from one person to an other, that abstract that was linked to earlier mentioned something like that and my first thought was what the people in the experiment thought of it themselves and whether they knew what to expect would happen.

this has nothing at all to do with martial arts as some women have exhibited this skill for millennium. they are collectively referred to as 'mothers'. i am sure we all remember those times how they didn't need to be looking at us but they knew we are up to no good. that skill is commonly referred to as 'eyes in the back of their heads' or 'mother's intuition'.

so it would seem the purpose of the training that CrazyAnglican was undergoing was to allow him to get in touch with his feminine side.

shh ... you're giving away our secrets!

[jonesthecurl]

So who can tell me where this quote is from?

"Theology bears the same relationship to religion that history does to truth: that is, none to speak of."

[MR. Nate]

What about this one?

"Theology is the queen of the sciences"

[AlgyTaylor]

Religion = orgasm. That is what's so good about it.

What he said. What's good about religion is essentially the same as what's good about drugs, sex, anything .. people get off on it. Look at your evangelical churches in the US, how people react when they believe that God's in da house or whatever - they are in tears, falling over, generally being totally wacked out.

All placebo effects, of course, but it just goes to show you how bloody powerful your mind is. Don't believe me? Drop some acid. It's all in the mind, all created from a simple release of chemicals. Yet reality has totally changed.

Religion just gives you another (misguided) way of releasing those chemicals in your brain.

[MeDeFe]

What about this one?

"Theology is the queen of the sciences"

Wasn't that philosophy?

[got tonkaed]

What about this one?

"Theology is the queen of the sciences"

Wasn't that philosophy?

Im pretty sure everything that could be or could have been at some point in the past a science...has laid claim to that phrase. Whether or not theology was the first to make the claim is probably googlesearchable.

[MeDeFe]

What about this one?

"Theology is the queen of the sciences"

Wasn't that philosophy?

Im pretty sure everything that could be or could have been at some point in the past a science...has laid claim to that phrase. Whether or not theology was the first to make the claim is probably googlesearchable.

Then I'll venture to claim that it's probably a safe bet to say that it was first claimed for philosophy.

[tzor]

Religion = orgasm. That is what's so good about it.

Not to get nit picky and at the potential of possibly insulting someone, I really think that only applies to the Pentacostals; after all they are the only one where in a serivce a person can simply by being touched on the forehead get muscle spasams (ie orgasm) and then faint on the spot.

[AlgyTaylor]

Scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone.

Since there is no way to prove what we can know or what we will know or that everything is knowable, believing that science can prove, explain or answer everything is a step of faith in itself.

Would someone please respond to this statement and explain how they believe only in science even thought it has limits (it can only help us learn about what the physical universe) and why that faith is any different that a religion?

Thanks
WM

You're wrong. Science =/= faith. I can't be bothered arguing it right now because it's nice & sunny outside but here's a good article as to why this is the case

Incidentally what you are actually trying to argue is that ATHEISM is a belief. Which is true. Science =/= atheism.

That said, we can scientifically disprove Genesis. That's not tantamount to science being a belief, though - it's just things that have been proved. Which is the opposite of belief, really. (unless you get pedantic and start arguing about not being able to 'prove' that 1+1=2. But I'll assume for the moment that you're not going down that route)

[MeDeFe]

must ... resist ... urge ... to ... derail ... thread

/me gives in to urge

Well, you can only prove that 1+1=2 under a set of definitions that cannot be based on anything more fundamental than themselves, those definitions are simply stated and taken as the basis. Period. No further evidence is given for them. In other words 1+1=2 only makes sense within a system of mathematics that needs to be accepted as a whole before you can go about proving or disproving anything specific that you might encounter within this system.

[tzor]

That said, we can scientifically disprove Genesis.

But there is the rub. How can you "scientifically disprove Genesis?" Genesis is a story. You can disprove the "science" in Genesis. You can disprove scientifically a literal interpertation of the story is not how the world was created. But it's hard to scientifically disprove a story.

Case in point, suppose I take Chapter 1 of Genesis and call it Science Fiction. You see I have this space ship, and suddenly everything in the chapter can be scientifically explained.

But the notion for or against a literal interpertation of the entire Bible (a document shared by several religions) has nothing whatsoever to do with the queston about how good or not good religion is.

Shortly after getting into trouble by writing the Sanatic Verses, Salman Rushdie wrote another book that was eventually turned into an opera, "Haroun and the Sea of Stories." One of the recurring statements (and indeed the central theme of the work) is "What's the use of stories that aren't even true?"

And thus we get back to science and the scientific heresy (as it were) of scientism. Science is a way of looking at the universe, a methodology of looking at the universe. It is not the ture way. It is not the one way. It is a way. As it is a way of looking and observing it cannot solve anything. People solve things, not ways of looking.

There are many ways to look at the universe; the scientist, the artist, the dreamer, the story teller, and they are all important.

"There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

"What's the use of stories that aren't even true?"

[greenoaks]

"What's the use of stories that aren't even true?"

entertainment

[PLAYER57832]

Scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone.

Since there is no way to prove what we can know or what we will know or that everything is knowable, believing that science can prove, explain or answer everything is a step of faith in itself.

Would someone please respond to this statement and explain how they believe only in science even thought it has limits (it can only help us learn about what the physical universe) and why that faith is any different that a religion?

Thanks
WM

You're wrong. Science =/= faith. I can't be bothered arguing it right now because it's nice & sunny outside but here's a good article as to why this is the case

Incidentally what you are actually trying to argue is that ATHEISM is a belief. Which is true. Science =/= atheism.

That said, we can scientifically disprove Genesis. That's not tantamount to science being a belief, though - it's just things that have been proved. Which is the opposite of belief, really. (unless you get pedantic and start arguing about not being able to 'prove' that 1+1=2. But I'll assume for the moment that you're not going down that route)

Two falsities here.... few people say that you have to believe ONLY in science. Science is just a tool for finding truth. Faith is a matter of belief. They are not necessarily contradictory, just different.

Science deals with what IS ... Faith and belief deal with WHY things are and what MIGHT be. Science will raise questions that might be answered by EITHER science OR by faith, but only if the answers are proveable regardless of your belief can they be science. Plants drink water ... whether you are an atheist, Christian, Buddhist or Pagan. The idea that certain cactus store water as a gift of God or the Gods . .. is faith and belief.

As for the "proving Genesis wrong" bit ... that applies ONLY to the most conservative and absolutely literal interpretations of Genesis. MOST scientists in this country believe in BOTH genesis AND evolution, to some extent or another. Those who are true atheists are still in the minority. If you want to see more discussion of Creationism and Evolution ... visit Widowmakers Thread trying to prove that Creationism is correct. Basically, that very narrow interpretation of Genesis was never the interpretation of ancient Jewish scholars or of most Christian scholars. There is a growing group of folks who try to say that this is, was and should be the interpretation ... but they are still in the minority (though they claim otherwise and generally live in a world where what the rest of us see and learn are not considered at all ... again, look at the creationist thread for more on this subject ... it is MUCH too involved to cover here).

[greenoaks]

Basically, that very narrow interpretation of Genesis was never the interpretation of ancient Jewish scholars or of most Christian scholars.

how would you know several thousand years later what the scholars of the times thought ?

[PLAYER57832]

Basically, that very narrow interpretation of Genesis was never the interpretation of ancient Jewish scholars or of most Christian scholars.

how would you know several thousand years later what the scholars of the times thought ?

The Same way we know about Socrates, Aristotle, etc. They wrote their thoughts down. Christ (earthly form)  & Christianity only came about just over 2000 years ago, after all.

Oh,   I completely disagree with Tzor's statement that Genesis was "only a story".  I, along with most Christians and Jews believe it is a record of real events, just put in a form understandable by unscientific humans.  It is not a scientific document, but neither is it "just a story" any more than I consider it "just a story" when I tell my son that his great grandmother is "at peace in heaven" instead of going into all the biological details of how she died.  But, there is already a VERY lengthy thread on Creation and Genesis.

[tzor]

Oh, I completely disagree with Tzor's statement that Genesis was "only a story".  I, along with most Christians and Jews believe it is a record of real events, just put in a form understandable by unscientific humans.  It is not a scientific document, but neither is it "just a story" any more than I consider it "just a story" when I tell my son that his great grandmother is "at peace in heaven" instead of going into all the biological details of how she died.  But, there is already a VERY lengthy thread on Creation and Genesis.

I don't recall writing that it was "only a story" but in one sense it is a story. Unlike most stories Christians and Jews believe it was divinely inspired and thus in a very special sense it contains "truth," but the real purposes of the story are neither fully scientific nor fully historical. The first chapter deals a lot with heirarchies and domains and why man is made above all other creatures under the dome of the heavens (which was the science of their times). The second chapter is a model for the traveling temple tent structure which was used by Moses and the explanation for why not only there was suffering in the world but why we don't run around naked like the animals.

This is why, for example, there are actual mismatches between chapter 1 and chapter 2 because they are in effect two different stories with two different purposes in mind.

This can be applied to more than just Genesis. Was the "sermon on the mount" given on top of the hill or at the bottom of the hill? Or was it like a "stump speech" that he gave at various locations or on the top or bottom of various hills so it was recorded differently by the Gospel writers (who with the exception of John tended to borrow from the similiar source material).

Once again the answer to the question "What's the use of stories that aren't even true?" is that they are important because they contain within them a higher truth. If that is true of stories that are simply written by men what of those that have been writen by men inspired by the spirit of God?

[CrazyAnglican]

so it would seem the purpose of the training that CrazyAnglican was undergoing was to allow him to get in touch with his feminine side.

Yup, but you should see some of the ladies I've trained with. They're vicious. Guys fight; women kill.

[muy_thaiguy]

so it would seem the purpose of the training that CrazyAnglican was undergoing was to allow him to get in touch with his feminine side.

Yup, but you should see some of the ladies I've trained with. They're vicious. Guys fight; women kill.

I'll second that, no hesitation here.

[Gregrios]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

[muy_thaiguy]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Martial Arts.

[greenoaks]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

[Gregrios]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

[greenoaks]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

it has no such connection. that story comes from the aborigines of australia.

the stories of the Dreamtime itself are proof. i'm sure if people had a video camera back in those days they would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. since there wasn't, story telling and drawings were the only form of proof they had available.

[Iliad]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

FAIL.

[MeDeFe]

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

it has no such connection. that story comes from the aborigines of australia.

the stories of the Dreamtime itself are proof. i'm sure if people had a video camera back in those days they would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. since there wasn't, story telling and drawings were the only form of proof they had available.

I'm convinced. All hail the rainbow serpent!