Cynique

@Mel Hopkins that's eerie that you would cite an example similar to one i had just been thinking about myself last night, in regard to the 3 blind men touching an elephant, which one described as having rough skin and the other described as having a tail, while the last one insisted it had tusks; all 3 were telling a truth that was influenced by their sense of feel. Everybody does have their own truth when it comes to a body of truth. In this discussion, the goal seems to be prove whether science encompasses religion. I say that If a religious person makes a discovery and is credited with this, then his religion is besides the point. Pioneer claimed the Hippocratic oath was an example of science adopting religion. But Hippocrates was as an ancient Greek physician, not a religious figure. Serindipity was what inspired scientist and Isaac Newston's theory about gravity, not his religion. Science is about proven fact, religion about blind faith. Mythology is about fictional gods and gave rise to Paganism , whereas the Bible purports to be true accounts about real people. The Pantheism which believes all things in nature are connected is a spiritual philosophy, not a religion. This is my mind-set, and actually we are, in deed, all affected by our mindsets. Mel, i absolutely love your anecdote of using brown paper bags to roll your hair up as an ingenious example of "making do",- with using what's available because - you do not have another choice at hand. Statistics and proof Religion preaches statics and proof ? Science has blind faith? i disagree.

@DelSee how easy that was. You could've saved yourself and me a lot of time by just saying that; instead of going on and on about your having no opinion while offering anecdotal evidence about the opinion you don't have.

@Deli don't remember. i'm sure i had a good reason. Probably something to do with the "high-fives" between you and Pioneer in your attempt to alternate religion with mythology in an effort to prove that science idolizes Greek and Romans gods. Don't bother with a response because i'm sure no minds will be changed on this subject.

Do tell.

And how many times do i have to say that i am not talking about single people or mate swappers?? I'm talking about a house hold where either a man or a woman has multiple spouses.

What is your explanation for polygamy(multiple spouses) not becoming a reality in this modern open society? Tell us.

@Del You and Pioneer are standing on shaky ground, depending on your smugness to support you, totally unaware of how transparent you are. LMAO

@Del My point was that polygamy is about multiple spouses, not about single people having various partners. And given the unlikelihood of the male ego being unable to deal with sharing a wife with other husbands, and considering how straight women envision a happy marriage with the man of their dreams fathering their children in a family unit, polygamy hasn't emerged as a feasible choice in today's modern society. Especially with how women are currently focusing on such issues as equal pay for equal work and, most recently, on men sexually harassing them. And, yes, i do think polygamy makes it easy to exploit people. I don't have a problem with accepting your point of view because, as far as i can discern, it amounts to nothing more than you empathizing with a "different-strokes-for-different-folks" stance. Your prerogative. If you're gearing up for a prolonged discussion de-constructing sentences and word usage and analyzing the mindset which motivates a point of view, then count me out. i don't care enough about this subject to go around in circles in pursuit of getting the last word. It's much simpler to agree to disagree if, indeed, that is the case.

i do see your point of view. Do you see mine?

Interesting reading. Yet, when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, i've always been rather puzzled by all of their dire warnings in regard to the side effects of taking certain medications. Especially on TV commercials. I'm left thinking "the cure is worst than the disease", after the voice-over has recited a litany of dangerous possibilities when taking the drug being advertised. Consumers are not exactly in the dark about "Big Pharm".

If you can't explain something then maybe you ought not appoint yourself as the spokesman of "other people". When i said spouse, this applied to marriage; not a harem. This is a dead end-conversation, rife with speculation.

@DelWould you want to be one among the multiple husbands of a woman? What's "open and progressive" about this? It is a form of exploitation, by the person who has more than one spouse. Who would voluntarily want to be in the pecking order for a shared mate? You? It's more beneficial to just be a "side piece".

@zajiYes, objectivity is difficult to maintain and it is easier to be objective when you are not acquainted with the people involved in a debate. Once personality permeates the exchanges, then this has an influence on who you side with. I, for instance, could never be objective about anything Donald Trump says because his smug overconfident demeanor prejudices me. People can be forgiven for being sore losers, but bad "winners" prone to gloating, are the pits. We are all flawed individuals, but recognizing our shortcomings is, in itself, a form of enlightenment.

Again, i ask, who said that polygamy should be limited to men? i didn't. But in an era where woman are becoming increasingly assertive and demanding, when homosexulaity has set a precedence in challenging societal taboos and subsequently become acceptable, i find it significant that polygamy is conspicuously absent from the agenda of women. Single women, like single males, lead the kind of lives they want to so why was the subject of polygamy even raised by the person who raised it? No reference to it was included in the movie Black Panther because it has no relevance.

@DelNobody said they were against woman having multiple husbands. I simply made the realistic observation that in today's modern open society, single woman can and do play the field, but when it comes to marriage, they are looking for that one Mr. Right, rather than deluding themselves into thinking that any man worth having would consent to being a member of a team of husbands married to one woman. Get real.

What's true is that you can't spell "definitely", something I have called to your attention before, but it went right over your head. Typical of you would be a "well dressed lie" declaring that the correct way to spell "definitely" is the white man's way of spelling it. When it comes to you, the truth is what you decide to believe. That's why you can't accept what Science says is true about there being only one race. Ditch the platitudes and heed your own words.

@Pioneer1 I make a distinction between "God" and "gods"; between "religion" and "myth", between "Christianity" and "Paganism". Apparently you can't bring yourself to fine-tune your view on this subject. i was who first used the word "espouse." and this is what i had in mind when i said science never espouses religion. Definition of espouse: adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life): This definition does not describe science's position on religion. BC/AD is a single isolated convenience, not a doctrine. And your giving your blessing to Del's observation about America's universities doesn't negate the extenuating circumstances which were pointed out by Troy and me. Christian is, as Christian does. This is a subject which has many aspects.

@Pioneer1Bottom line, you were wrong in saying that the only reason i said Troy had good character was because he was the administrator. Everything you brought up after that was your attempt to draw attention away from your petty remark. if you're expecting me to say that i was all wrong and you are all right, you should know better. And it comes as no surprise to me that you cling to the idea that you can do no wrong. And so it goes.

Misconstrue my eye. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, trying to do damage control. blah, blah, blah Del was right when he said that arguing with you is a waste of time. zzzzzzzz

Are you saying my definition,which mentions nothing about Buddhsim, isn't in alignment the dictionary one??

What god does science worship? What science does religion preach?

When i said "enlightenment", i meant the possibility of not only learning something from listening to other points of view, but also about the people who hold these opinions. I also associate enlightenment with opening your mind, not closing it; with seeking an understanding of life and those who live it, hoping that in the process you are able to separate what's important from what's trivial. Needless to say, this is a journey.

These hallowed elitist institutions of higher learning were Christians in name only. Founded during slavery, they were not examples of people who practiced what Christianity preached when it came to the golden rule. They were hypocrites.

The ongoing discussion blowing up the board, started out with the question "is science the new religion", and proceeded to morph into a slugfest over whether science espouses religion. As a debate, it exemplified the "irresistible force meeting an immovable object" axiom. The passion with which participants proselytized their arguments was akin to religious fervor, with everybody trying to exorcise the demons of those with opposing views. From another perspective, the heated exchanges were also a war of words, aiming verbal weapons that missed as often as they hit their targets. Truth was twisted and facts were bent. What had an equally interesting effect was the side-liners who chose not to enter the fray or take sides, not to mention a mediator who injected challenges. In the end it was, not surprising, me against Pioneer. Me, trying to rise above my ad-hominem arguments, to say in so many words that they're 2 sides to every question, and Pioneer probably sticking to his guns. This brouhaha was more of a showcase for a clash of personalities than anything. Very little was resolved before the subject meandered off on another tangent, asking whether acknowledging religion was on a par with accepting it. Conflict seems to be a very dominant factor in human interaction. Most people are not only looking for reinforcement of their views but for conversion to them. Everybody wants to be right and in the process the end doesn't always justify the means. Kudos to those mature enough to be open-minded good listeners, and who make enlightenment their priority. When i grow up, i want to be just like you. This is knowledge i have come to comprehend and it's going to the top of my bucket list.

@Del I suggest you start a new post, posing this question. This one is already too long.