Jump to content

The New Religion


Recommended Posts

No.  While the world's major religions appear to be losing adherents.  It is not like these people are becoming more versed in science.

 

Besides science and religion serve two entirely different purposes, so science can not be a substitute for religion or vice versa.  Religion gives meaning to life, while science attempts to explain how it works.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science and religion would seem to be polar opposites.  Religion is about faith and emotion. Science is about facts and intellect.  But they both pass the  litmus test for being steadfast.  Science has unshakable faith in its evidence.  Religion is totally convinced that God is a fact of life.  They are both sects which co-exist because they are 2 sides of the same coin minted in our psyches.   

 

IMO, science is already a religion complete with disciples and self-worship.  And religion is a science with the power to convert the human species. i make these assertions by thinking outside the box when it comes to what is what.  :huh:   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to add to my previous post that I prefer science to religion, because science consists of examination and enlightenment, and religion is about instruction and obedience. Science stimulates; religion stagnates.  

 

Religion claims the power of prayer, but to me, praying is an exercise in energizing positive thought waves, and has its counterpart in the "wishing" indulged in by the non-religious. Whether prayers or wishes come into fruition depends upon Fate, which is not wedded to the hopes of mere mortals because it is fickle. 

 

A meme which always pops when a national disaster occurs. Just substitute "Florida"' for "Texas".

empty truck ful of wishes and prayers.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaji

Absolutely science has become the new religion in the West!

Most organized religions require people to have BLIND FAITH and to accept things based on hand-me-down knowledge instead of directly investigating things for themselves and coming to their own conclusions.

And the science that is practiced in the West is the exact same way!

Infact, if you don't believe in the THEORY of evolution in most scientific circles, you are usually ridiculed and everything else you have to offer is dismissed.

Which is the same bullying tactic that most organized religions engage in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?!  Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false.

 

Indeed, it is often religion that holds science back, even killing people for speaking the truth because it conflicts with religious doctrine.  This practice continues to this day.

 

I'd even argue that religion holds back spirituality.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2018 at 12:42 AM, Troy said:

@zaji, without understanding the motivation for your question, it might be interesting to note that while religion and science are largely incompatible, because of religion's dogmatic nature; spirituality and science are not.

Does that mean Christians can't be mathematicians? Since reliqion and science are incompatible

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Zaji

Absolutely science has become the new religion in the West!

Most organized religions require people to have BLIND FAITH and to accept things based on hand-me-down knowledge instead of directly investigating things for themselves and coming to their own conclusions.

And the science that is practiced in the West is the exact same way!

Infact, if you don't believe in the THEORY of evolution in most scientific circles, you are usually ridiculed and everything else you have to offer is dismissed.

Which is the same bullying tactic that most organized religions engage in.

Isaac Newton was the last Magician/Scientist or it became less popular to openly be both.

 

10 hours ago, Troy said:

What?!  Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false.

 

Indeed, it is often religion that holds science back, even killing people for speaking the truth because it conflicts with religious doctrine.  This practice continues to this day.

 

I'd even argue that religion holds back spirituality.

 

 

Do you realise how wrong you are. I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

What?! Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false.


You speak as if the scientific community is a monolith.

There are many conflicting and contradicting positions WITHIN Western science.

You see this with BIG PHARMA all the time where certain drugs are deemed safe now but were considered dangerous in the past....only because there wasn't much money to be made or some politician didn't receive a big enough bribe to vote for it.

So this so-called "science" changes based not only on new information but fresh money....lol.



 

 

 

 

Indeed, it is often religion that holds science back, even killing people for speaking the truth because it conflicts with religious doctrine. This practice continues to this day.

I'd even argue that religion holds back spirituality.


Some religions may hold people back spiritually but science tends to rob them of their spirituality ALL TOGETHER.

Keep in mind that when I say "science" I'm not talking about KNOWLEDGE in general from where the word supposedly got it's name from; I'm talking about that general body of information that has been ordained as acceptable by the majority of Western institutions.

There is a lot of truth and wisdom and knowledge in Voodoo....but it's not accepted as "science".

There is a lot of truth, wisdom and knowledge in Native American, African, and ancient Asian culture and belief systems.....but the knowledge they offer is not accepted as part of official "science".

People all around the world for millions of years and more have believe in spirits and souls, but because Western scientists claim they can't test it in a laboratory....they don't consider it part of "science".

As far as many in Western academia are concerned, if it didn't come from a White man in a white coat with glasses....it must not be true, lol.

If any religion is guilty of holding people back spiritually, it's the organized religion of WESTERN SCIENCE.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pioneer you know Black people invented science.  Why do you insist on making it a western presumably European thing?  Also don't confuse science with it practitioners.  Science is a monolith, but there are practitioners who are liars and would pervert science to their own purposes.  People do the same thing with religion.

 

Voodoo and science can coexist it does not have to be science.  Why make it an either/or proposition?

 

Del, your question, "Does that mean Christians can't be mathematicians? Since reliqion and science are incompatible" is almost bizarre.  Who said religion and science are incompatible? Of course a Christian can be a mathematician, but who was talking about Christians and Mathematicians?!  Again that was a very odd question...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2018 at 12:42 AM, Troy said:

@zaji, without understanding the motivation for your question, it might be interesting to note that while religion and science are largely incompatible, because of religion's dogmatic nature; spirituality and science are not.

You did @Troy

 

I agree the statement is bizarre.  And you made it first. The beauty though is that you didn't see your post right above mine. Clarity indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Troy said:

 

Del, your question, "Does that mean Christians can't be mathematicians? Since reliqion and science are incompatible" is almost bizarre.  Who said religion and science are incompatible? Of course a Christian can be a mathematician, but who was talking about Christians and Mathematicians?!  Again that was a very odd question...

 

We are in agreement. You make odo statements. @Troy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

IMHO, No.  Science has not become the new religion. Science requires a query, observation, contemplation, analysis, etc. Religion requires obedience.

I disagree. I went to a Jesuit school and we discussed religion. I think religion can have all of the elements that you mentioned. And it definitely is true for priest.  The following "priest'' were big thinkers Buddha ,   St. Thomas Aquinas , Albert Einstein , Martin Luther King , Cornell West .
Also I would include the monks who were also scribes. At one point churches funded universities and there priests who studied alchemy magic astrology /astronomy and mathematics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Del I disagree.  All the things you say religion has espoused are extra-curricula activities.  None of these pursuits altered the adherence to the arbitrary religious tenets of those who dabbled in other fields.  Science never espouses religion. BTW,  whether Buddhism is  a religion or a philosophy is debatable. Many call it a way of life.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Delano

 

I attended St. John's University, where there is a Vincentian mission.   I didn't find out my philosophy books were censored until my oldest daughter went to college and took the same philosophy class!   I still have my Socrates to Satre text book and guess what's missing? The allegory of the cave LOL!

 

Anyway, I'm not talking about clergy or scientists and their individual pursuits.  I'm referring to  the differences between religion and science. 

We have  CERN where they are smashing atoms -  "Its business is fundamental physics, finding out what the Universe is made of and how it works."

 

Today, Pluto is no longer a planet .   

 

However- alterations aside, there  hasn't been any updates to the quran , or scriptures.  Religion requires obedience.  You can think and discuss it until the cows come home;  but you either follow its tenets or you don't. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 20/02/2018 at 12:42 AM, Troy said:

@zaji, without understanding the motivation for your question, it might be interesting to note that while religion and science are largely incompatible, because of religion's dogmatic nature; spirituality and science are not.

 

On 21/02/2018 at 10:52 AM, Delano said:

Does that mean Christians can't be mathematicians? Since reliqion and science are incompatible

Isaac Newton was the last Magician/Scientist or it became less popular to openly be both.

 

Do you realise how wrong you are. I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out.

 

22 hours ago, Troy said:

 

 

Del, your question, "Does that mean Christians can't be mathematicians? Since reliqion and science are incompatible" is almost bizarre.  Who said religion and science are incompatible? Of course a Christian can be a mathematician, but who was talking about Christians and Mathematicians?!  Again that was a very odd question...

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Troy said:

 

Del I'd discourage you from ever critiquing anyone's writing.  As far as the other stuff, I give.

 

@Troy you said science and religion are largely incompatible. Then ask who even said that. Then you critique me for  the word misspelling the word odd.

2 hours ago, zaji said:

 

I have always seen Buddhism as a way of life. 

 I mean adherents that are the gatekeepers. So that can be scientist, priest and leaders of movements. Buddhism has  monks.

 

 @Mel Hopkins "religion" for me includes the belief set, the followers , the priest and the high priest.  Rupert Sheldrake  is talking about science , the practitioner and the entire structure, that is how I read it. However you can decide what aspect you prefer to focus on or exclude. We can decide to discuss it from each others perspective. Which only requires that we accept the other person assumptions and then see whether our perspective position  change.

 

An attempt to clarify my position with the exception of Troy I am not saying you are wrong. However I disagree with your statements which may be definitional. And contingent on the word "priest" and "religion"

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Del I disagree.  All the things you say religion has espoused are extra-curricula activities.  None of these pursuits altered the adherence to the arbitrary religious tenets of those who dabbled in other fields.  Science never espouses religion. BTW,  whether Buddhism is  a religion or a philosophy is debatable. Many call it a way of life.


How can you sit up there and say science never espouses religion when the very DATING SYSTEM Western science uses is "B.C" which stands for BEFORE CHRIST?????

Claiming that Jesus was a "Christ" or even than a "Christ" was born is a CHRISTIAN/RELIGIOUS concept!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delano said:

However I disagree with your statements which may be definitional. And contingent on the word "priest" and "religion"

@Delano  I already mentioned I'm not talking about practitioners.

 

Whatever a priest does in his private life does not change the tenets of religion.  S/he may be changed by it but it doesn't change the religion.  In fact, this is why excommunication is a thing.  If one doesn't adhere or obey the tenets - they can't participate.  


 Science is a study and can be tested.  Religion is a belief and even if it could be tested  obedience is still required.     

20 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

DATING SYSTEM Western science uses is "B.C" which stands for BEFORE CHRIST?????

 

Or @Pioneer1 that can be Before Common Era / Common Era  or Current Era  AND 

"Astronomical year numbering is based on AD/CE year numbering, but follows normal decimal integer numbering more strictly."  Other science disciplines also use this dating.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

@Pioneer1 You will have to go and  research calendars- julian,  gregorian , hebrew and coptic and whatever else is out there to determine how  Dionysius Exiguus  came up with "date" demarcation.


Why on Earth would I go through all of that....lol.....when I already KNOW why?

Western society (including it's so-called science) is an out-growth of CHRISTIANITY or CHRISTENDOM in which "Christ" is a prominent figure.

And his supposed birth date is the demarcation period, full stop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:


Why on Earth would I go through all of that....lol.....when I already KNOW why?

 

@Pioneer1because instead of assuming you might discover something new - 

 For example, if that statement you made were accurate - then today wouldn't be Mars-Day,  the god of war day...  - If you researched a bit - you'd probably learn that the demarcation probably had to nothing to do with jesus and everything to do with politics ... further if you got really deep you'd know western science IS African Science - but you'd only know that if you took the time to research.

 

The oldest fossils of modern man are nearly 150,000 years old. Probably on a rainy day, a human walked in wet sand near what is now known as Border Cave in the Lebombo Mountains between South Africa and Swaziland. In the 1970's during the excavations of Border Cave, a small piece of the fibula of a baboon, the Lebombo bone, was found marked with 29 clearly defined notches, and, at 37,000 years old, it ranks with the oldest mathematical objects known. The bone is dated approximately 35,000 BC and resembles the calendar sticks still in use by Bushmen clans in Nimibia.

swaziland.gif
click for an expanded map

The closest town to the Lebombo Mountains is Siteki, renowned for its Inyanga and Sangoma School, a government school to train healers and diviners. It's a fascinating mix of botany, spiritualism and natural science, and you can visit the school if you arrange it in advance through Swazi Tourism in Mbabane.

zebrarule.gif

Edited by Mel Hopkins
to Add information on the first calendar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mel

For example, if that statement you made were accurate - then today wouldn't be Mars-Day, the god of war day... - If you researched a bit - you'd probably learn that the demarcation probably had to nothing to do with jesus and everything to do with politics ...


You say it PROBABLY had nothing to do with Jesus....lol.

If you're not sure about it why are you arguing the point in the first place?

Besides, I didn't say said Western society was built around Jesus....I said it was built off of CHRISTIANITY with the FIGURE of Christ holding prominence.

And yes it has to do with politics, because Christianity WAS/IS a political movement designed to unite the Roman Empire. Which is why they continued using the same Roman deities and customs disguised under different names.

 


 

further if you got really deep you'd know western science IS African Science


Calling Western Science "African Science" is like pointing to a turd in the toilet and calling it a pizza or fruit salad....lol.

It may contain ELEMENTS of the original, but it's far too modified to be considered the same.



Listen, stop arguing with me about this, you know I'm right.....lol.

If you noticed....
Cynique is STAYING OUT of this....lol....because she knows better than to fight with me on it.
She's sitting back hiding and leaving you here all by yourself.


 

 

 


Zaji

Thanks for the link.

It too proves what I said about B.C. being religiously based terms.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cynique said:

I disagree.  All the things you say religion has espoused are extra-curricula activities.  None of these pursuits altered the adherence to the arbitrary religious tenets of those who dabbled in other fields.  Science never espouses religion. BTW,  whether Buddhism is  a religion or a philosophy is debatable. Many call it a way of life.

Edited 6 hours ago by Cynique

@Pioneer1this is what i said to Del,  and i'm sticking by it.  Mel doesn't need my assistance because she's doing a great job of neutralizing your inconsistent opinionated pontificating replete with horrible metaphors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1

 

I said Probably because I wasn't there.  Only a fool would claim something as certain and not  have witnessed it.  

But that's what you do isn't it? 

 As I mentioned if the west were aligned with christianity we wouldn't be worshiping roman gods every day of the week and each month...

Ain't nothing christian about polytheism. 

You did mention Jesus - man you don't even read what you write - so why I'd think you'd research something is beyond me.  But Like I mentioned the first time -it was political decision and  not jesus or "christ" .    According to reports the monk still didn't get it right.  But you wouldn't know  what I'm talking about anyway.  

You're right about one thing. I usually don't waste my time arguing with you. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

further if you got really deep you'd know western science IS African Science


Calling Western Science "African Science" is like pointing to a turd in the toilet and calling it a pizza or fruit salad....lol.

Ha Ha man that is funny.

Most people like to think they are open even when they are not

@Cynique@Mel Hopkins @Pioneer1 @Troy @zaji @Del Strachen @Del

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cynique said:

@DelSpeak for yourself. Pioneer's mixed metaphor makes no sense; not surprising considering the source. Guess since you had no rebuttal to Mel's  epic take-down of him, you had to resort to praising his sorry attempt at humor. Better luck next time.

I thought it was funny, not all humour has to make sense in order for it to be funny. If you can't picture this is will provide an example.

 

Her take down was so good that I am going to argue against myself. And do an even bigger takedown. In addition I am going to use my own style of argument. Although Mel can use whatever style of argument when it is her turn. 

@Mel Hopkins @Troy @zaji@Cynique @Pioneer1

16 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 


You're right about one thing. I usually don't waste my time arguing with you. 

 

This is true, which is why I have decided to discuss topics. Instead of arguing points.

@Pioneer1

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cynique said:

@DelSpeak for yourself. Pioneer's mixed metaphor makes no sense; not surprising considering the source. Guess since you had no rebuttal to Mel's  epic take-down of him, you had to resort to praising his sorry attempt at humor. Better luck next time.

I only speak and think for myself. Which is why I declined your request to explain the clip. 

 

Furthermore I think everyone has a valid opinion which is not subordinate to my agreement. 

 

Paradoxically if you say someone's opinion is wrong then you  are wrong. If you feel are expressing a factual statement rather than your opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DelContrary to what you say, you're doing a very thorough job of arguing  points here.   

 

If facts dispute a person's opinion, then "i don't agree" that people are wrong in disputing a person's opinion.  They are doing him a favor by educating him.  

 

i don't deny anybody an opinion. What i do find off-putting is the self-glorification that accompanies the expression of an opinion or a fact.  Your boy, pioneer, is good at one thing.  And that's gloating and patting himself on the back when he "thinks" he's gotten over on somebody. 

 

In your effort to make yourself over and become super-tolerant, you have lost all of your flavor. Under the cloak of blandness, you now use  the intolerant pioneer as an instrument through which you play out your repressed resentments against others - IMO.  LOL  Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.  ;)

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

@DelContrary to what you say, you're doing a very thorough job of arguing  points here.   

 

If facts dispute a person's opinion, then "i don't agree" that people are wrong in disputing a person's opinion.  They are doing him a favor by educating him.  

 

i don't deny anybody an opinion. What i do find off-putting is the self-glorification that accompanies the expression of an opinion or a fact.  Your boy, pioneer, is good at one thing.  And that's gloating and patting himself on the back when he "thinks" he's gotten over on somebody. 

 

In your effort to make yourself over and become super-tolerant, you have lost all of your flavor. Under the cloak of blandness, you now use  the intolerant pioneer as an instrument through which you play out your repressed resentments against others - IMO.  LOL  Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.  ;)

How is it possible that I can be both super tolerant and doing a thorough job of arguing points? 

 

What would be the source of my repressed anger. If you could detail it for me you would be doing me and my associates a great service.

 

If you facts don't sway your target either your facts aren't compelling, they aren't facts or one or both of your are mistaken about the facts. Opinons are a function of belief and life experience and to assume your opinions are  more valid is arrogant. Is Pioneer the only one gloating over being right?

 

 

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Del IMO.  LOL  Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.  ;)

An opinion is not a factual statement so it is not possible  to correct someone's opinion. Unless they think their opinion is an expression of fact. Which was the point that I was attempting to make. 

If i say chocolate is better than vanilla you can't say that is wrong.

If I say it is a fact that chocolate is better than vanilla. I am still not wrong but it is not a true statement. Since it can't be validated.

So I am hesistant to say someone is wrong I will most likely say we have a misunderstanding or I was not clear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Cynique said:

OK. i don't find it necesssary to elucidate on what are my opinions because we do agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, providing they don't try to pass them off as facts.  

Is anyone not using "facts" to bolster their argument? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF

:unsure: Ok...how did I end up being the one supposedly "wrong"????????????


Perhaps some patient person might be willing to take time to slowly and carefully EXPLAIN to me how I ended up "losing" the argument......lol.

Basically Cynique said that science NEVER espouses religion.

I thought that statement was incorrect so I pointed out that scientists use the term "B.C." when giving historic dates.
B.C. stands for BEFORE CHRIST and "Christ" is a Christian term, thus establishing the FACT that science indeed DOES incorporate religion from time to time.

Instead of Cynique defending her erroneous statement, Mel jumps in and says that B.C. "probably" stands for something else, and then goes on to interject African history and names of the month in the argument without once proving me wrong.

Ok.......

I check the thread today and all of a sudden Mel is calling me a fool, Cynique is praising my supposed "epic take down", and Del is being attacked.

Seriously.....is this some sort of joke?

 


I admit I'm not the smartest person in the world but I'm pretty sure I wasn't wrong nor was I taken down.

I'm pretty sure B.C. meant what I said it did.

I'm pretty sure it proved Cynique's statment wrong.

But perhaps I'm wrong and just not smart enough to realize  my error.
If so, can someone CAREFULLY and PATIENTLY explain to me how I was "wrong" and how I supposedly  got "took down"???????

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the OED definition

AD3  

 
 

abbreviation

  • Anno Domini (used to indicate that a date comes the specified number of years after the traditional date of Christ's birth).

     

    Before the Common Era (used of dates before the Christian era, especially by non-Christians).

6 hours ago, Troy said:

That last post was both profound and insightful @Cynique

 

(I'm using the "admin" account because I'm using a different PC and I don't know my "Troy" password, which my laptop has saved -- in case anyone was wondering)

If you want to assist someone in having a more informed opinion that is possible/ And you can dispute whther an opinion represents the known facts but you can't say an opinion is wrong. An opinion represent preferneces an as such can not be validated nor invalidated.

 

 

http://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction

“Facts are statements that can be shown to be true or can be proved, or something that really happened. You can look up facts in an encyclopedia or other reference, or see them for yourself. For example, it is a fact that broccoli is good for you (you can look this up in books about healthy diets).

“Opinions express how a person feels about something – opinions do not have to be based upon logical reasoning. For example, it is an opinion that broccoli tastes good (or bad).”

Both of these connect fact with provability. But in common parlance, “provability” seems audience-relative as well: While one person might find Anselm’s ontological argument to be a sufficient proof for God’s existence (thus rendering “God exists” a fact for that person); others may not.

The Education Oasis site announces that “An opinion expresses someone’s belief ... about something.” So if I believe that there’s beer in my refrigerator, is that just an opinion? The Enchanted Learning site muddies the waters even further by claiming that you can look up facts in an encyclopaedia (always? but then were there no facts before books?), and by including an evaluative notion (“good for you”) among examples of facts.

 

I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.” We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views. That’s my opinion, anyway. If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Delano said:

But whichever way one pitches it, the origin of Year One is , unchanged, coinciding wIth the assigned birth year of Jesus. 

 

So Pioneer is correct  


THANK YOU!


 

 


Cynique

Go think up some more nonsequitor metaphors until Mel can put you in your place. Again


What the hell are you talking about?

I was right about B.C. meaning before Christ, which means I  was correct about everything else that followed.

YOU were the one wrong about the relationship of science and religion.

And MEL was wrong for challenging me on this issue.

Seriously, what kind of DREAM WORLD are you two living in??????


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...