A possible cenario

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree, religion taught us to live together gave us boundaries in
behaviour that we may not otherwise have had. Given in some areas
of the world humans ate other humans those types of boundries
were a good thing, science teaches nothing along those lines.

With respect to tecnology that is just a tool, nothing more, it is a better
hammer. Science ...[text shortened]... of ways, if you want to claim science
as your guide in life, spell out how this is done.
Kelly

Science doesn't tell how do guide my line. Science tells me how things work, and how to get the best of this world.
To guide my life, I had my parents education, I have history, I have philosophy, and yes, there's Theology too to tell me about actions and morale. In resume, all experiences I have tell me what I should do.
There are many bad things in the Bible. Who tells you how to filter the bad things? Or do you simply take the whole thing as your guide ?

Originally posted by serigado
Science doesn't tell how do guide my line. Science tells me how things work, and how to get the best of this world.
To guide my life, I had my parents education, I have history, I have philosophy, and yes, there's Theology too to tell me about actions and morale. In resume, all experiences I have tell me what I should do.
There are many bad things in the ...[text shortened]... tells you how to filter the bad things? Or do you simply take the whole thing as your guide ?

Okay you want to change your tone, that is fine, but you did say
this!

"Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives."

The Bible has a lot of bad things in it, it does not promote all the
bad things in it I think are bad but it does not hide them either. Like
all things, it needs to be looked at in context, there is much in the
Bible I use as my guide yes. It does point to the living God which
is where I put my hope too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay you want to change your tone, that is fine, but you did say
this!

"Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives."

The Bible has a lot of bad things in it, it does not promote all the
bad things in it I think are bad but it does not hide them either. Like
all things, it needs to be looked at in contex ...[text shortened]... se as my guide yes. It does point to the living God which
is where I put my hope too.
Kelly

Yes, I said that.. not the best choice of words. I was thinking between science and religion , science is the best guide to our perception of reality.

The Bible needs to be looked at in context? But you seem to take some assumption very literaly.
I've been reading the old testament. That thing is a LOT more stupid then I thought. It's an awfull morale guide, awful explanation of things, awful in many ways.
It transpires it was made by men, and has no divine inspiration. It's self contradictory and really obsolete. What some call "prophecies" are ultra-ridiculous.
The Bible doesn't serve our times anymore.

But this is off-topic.
The point I want to make is that religion is local, i.e., it depends on society and on specific details that happened in history.
How do you think science and religion would be if we were to start things all over again?

Originally posted by serigado
Yes, I said that.. not the best choice of words. I was thinking between science and religion , science is the best guide to our perception of reality.

The Bible needs to be looked at in context? But you seem to take some assumption very literaly.
I've been reading the old testament. That thing is a LOT more stupid then I thought. It's an awfull morale g ...[text shortened]...
How do you think science and religion would be if we were to start things all over again?

They would pretty much show up the same way in my opinion, mainly
because I think wiith man we would fall into the same errors and that
there is still a real God and a real devil. We have been doing the
things over and over throughout history now just changing the names
of a few things, but they are all basically the same.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
So you admit there's no real objective reasons to choose Christianity to Islam or Hinduism?
Don't you find odd religion comes to answer mens biggest fears and needs? It's seems a little too mundane to me.

Science has no dogmatic beliefs, by definition. Not since it has become independent of religious people who controlled it to their own agenda.
Some p ...[text shortened]... of science. A scientist NEVER takes anything for sure. Science NEVER takes anything for sure.

Of course there are objective reasons to follow one prophet over another. For instance, one may choose to follow Buddha because he provided detailed instruction in how to overcome the desires of the self.

Pehaps as you mature, you'll come to realize that, if anything, it is science that is mundane. The questions that the great prophets have tried to answer are remarkably profound. You might want to look up the definition of mundane:
1. ordinary: commonplace, not unusual, and often boring
2. of this world: relating to matters of this world

You might also want to look up the definition of dogmatic:
1. expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs and opinions
2. relating to dogma: relating to or expressing a religious, political, philosophical, or moral dogma

I suppose that ideally no scientists would hold dogmatic beliefs, but that's not the world we live in. Fear and pride get in the way for them as well.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne


The questions that the great prophets have tried to answer are remarkably profound. You might want to look up the definition of mundane:
1. ordinary: commonplace, not unusual, and often boring
2. of this world: relating to matters of this world

You might also want to look up the definition of dogmatic:
1. expressing rigid opinions: prone ...[text shortened]... ng to dogma: relating to or expressing a religious, political, philosophical, or moral dogma

Of course there are objective reasons to follow one prophet over another. For instance, one may choose to follow Buddha because he provided detailed instruction in how to overcome the desires of the self.
But the reasons to choose one over the other are personal and subjective. So, no religion can claim to be absolute.


Pehaps as you mature, you'll come to realize that, if anything, it is science that is mundane.
I think science is mundane. Science doesn't try to be more than it really is. Mundane is not a negative thing. I used with sense #2: "from this world/reality".

I suppose that ideally no scientists would hold dogmatic beliefs, but that's not the world we live in. Fear and pride get in the way for them as well.
I know of no scientist with dogmatic belief towards science itself. I knew many dozens (hundreds?) of them, including nobel prize winners. Some may defend a viewpoints in a stubborn way, but they are aware of the limitations of what they are defending.
Some are proud , it's true. But either they are refuted or acknowledged. If what a scientist claims has no background, his ideas fall into oblivion.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]Of course there are objective reasons to follow one prophet over another. For instance, one may choose to follow Buddha because he provided detailed instruction in how to overcome the desires of the self.
But the reasons to choose one over the other are personal and subjective. So, no religion can claim to be absolute.


Pehaps as you mature acknowledged. If what a scientist claims has no background, his ideas fall into oblivion.

[/b]A given person may respond best to a given methodology, but the ultimate goal is the same. Does this really differ from a given patient responding best to a particular chemo regimen? I fail to see the importance of there being a 'one size fits all' religion.

First you call religion mundane. Then you call science mundane. Is there a point here?

Perhaps with a more experience, you'll be able to see how dogmatic views effect even science. People are people.

You might want to consider that you're so deeply entrenched in science and the scientific method, that you have difficulty approaching an animal as different as religion on its own terms. It's analogous to a fan of rock music not being able to appreciate classical music because he tries to apply the same criteria he uses for judging rock music to classical music.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
A given person may respond best to a given methodology, but the ultimate goal is the same. Does this really differ from a given patient responding best to a particular chemo regimen? I fail to see the importance of there being a 'one size fits all' religion.

First you call religion mundane. Then you call science mundane. Is there a point here?

P ...[text shortened]... ause he tries to apply the same criteria he uses for judging rock music to classical music.[/b]

A given person may respond best to a given methodology, but the ultimate goal is the same. Does this really differ from a given patient responding best to a particular chemo regimen? I fail to see the importance of there being a 'one size fits all' religion.
The problem is if by using a certain chem, the person starts do to crazy things that can cause damage to others. That happens with fundamentalist religion - that's the only one I'm against. That kind of religion stupidifies people and leads to clashes. I've never seen a war about a scientific dispute...

You might want to consider that you're so deeply entrenched in science and the scientific method, that you have difficulty approaching an animal as different as religion on its own terms.
So it's kind a like a junkie saying "you'll never understand it, you must take this drug to know this is the way". Of course I can't simply inject faith in my vein, I don't need to experience it to know it is an illusion, both drugs and religions. (Bad analogy, I know...)
People can live in their illusions with their gods, but I can't understand it!
The thing is: there's no objective reasons for people to believe current religion's God except indoctrination, fear of punishment or need to connect to something.
Religion comes from people's needs. There's no God wanting to save us. Only people wanting that someone saves them.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]A given person may respond best to a given methodology, but the ultimate goal is the same. Does this really differ from a given patient responding best to a particular chemo regimen? I fail to see the importance of there being a 'one size fits all' religion.
The problem is if by using a certain chem, the person starts do to crazy things that can ca ...[text shortened]... There's no God wanting to save us. Only people wanting that someone saves them.[/b]

Based on your response I suspect that you're not familiar with the term 'chemo'. It's short for chemotherapy, like in cancer treatment.

Actually there's much to be appreciated about the various religions even from a purely secular point of view. For example, from what I can tell, many are well ahead of psychology when it comes to understanding human behavior. Try not to get so wrapped up in the 'God' thing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Based on your response I suspect that you're not familiar with the term 'chemo'. It's short for chemotherapy, like in cancer treatment.

Actually there's much to be appreciated about the various religions even from a purely secular point of view. For example, from what I can tell, many are well ahead of psychology when it comes to understanding human behavior. Try not to get so wrapped up in the 'God' thing.

Always learning 🙂 knew chemotherapy, not chemo.
Yes, there's to learn from religions. For me there's to learn from everything.
Well... about psychology... i'd rather go to a church then to a psychologist. At least churches are well decorated and the babbling is for free. Psychology is now at the same level of physics among apes.

hm.. what was this topic about?
whether we could recover science and religions (different then "Religion"😉 the same way, if we could reboot our system.
My opinion is scientific knowledge would be rediscovered one way or another (with a different formalism), but religions would be completely different (maybe a monotheistic regim, but no "6 day criation" nor "archangel" and "4 armed gods"😉.

Originally posted by serigado
Always learning 🙂 knew chemotherapy, not chemo.
Yes, there's to learn from religions. For me there's to learn from everything.
Well... about psychology... i'd rather go to a church then to a psychologist. At least churches are well decorated and the babbling is for free. Psychology is now at the same level of physics among apes.

hm.. what was this top ...[text shortened]... be a monotheistic regim, but no "6 day criation" nor "archangel" and "4 armed gods"😉.

Yes, the state of psychology is a travesty. I'd have to say that medicine isn't too far behind. Perhaps in your scenario, these disciplines would be radically different.

If you consider things like "6 day creation", "archangels", "4 armed gods" to be the core of religion, then your conclusion is justified. I see them as being extremely superficial, so I conclude that the differences would be inconsequential. Perhaps you should consider learning more about the various religions, so that you can see past the surface.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yes, the state of psychology is a travesty. I'd have to say that medicine isn't too far behind. Perhaps in your scenario, these disciplines would be radically different.

If you consider things like "6 day creation", "archangels", "4 armed gods" to be the core of religion, then your conclusion is justified. I see them as being extremely superficial, so ...[text shortened]... onsider learning more about the various religions, so that you can see past the surface.

If there's no evidence to support the existence of a God of a particular religion, that religion doesn't make sense. God is the essence of a Religion.
If I had the smallest evidence or suspicion any Religion could be true I'd go through it to the end. But the more I learn about them, the more I'm sure it's all a bunch of lies. Worst: badly made lies.

What could make a sane person believe anything that's in the Bible is true?

Originally posted by serigado
If there's no evidence to support the existence of a God of a particular religion, that religion doesn't make sense. God is the essence of a Religion.
If I had the smallest evidence or suspicion any Religion could be true I'd go through it to the end. But the more I learn about them, the more I'm sure it's all a bunch of lies. Worst: badly made lies.

What could make a sane person believe anything that's in the Bible is true?

Go outside the box. Though you beg to differ, your responses lead me to believe that you are quite close minded to religion - even as to your concept of what religion is.

What is God? An external entity? The universe in its totality? The essence of truth, love, compassion, justice, etc.? Something else?

Try to focus on the teachings of the prophets instead of what man has done with with them.

You seem fixated on Christianity. Try Buddhism since you seem to have such an aversion to Christianity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Go outside the box. Though you beg to differ, your responses lead me to believe that you are quite close minded to religion - even as to your concept of what religion is.

What is God? An external entity? The universe in its totality? The essence of truth, love, compassion, justice, etc.? Something else?

Try to focus on the teachings of the prophets ...[text shortened]... m fixated on Christianity. Try Buddhism since you seem to have such an aversion to Christianity.

To be fair to serigado, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that the “G-word” must apply to some external, supernatural entity; and that Buddhism and its like are not religions (or even a “spirituality” ) if they have no such god. You’ve taken your share of hits, too.

I have given up caring whether or not something like Buddhism (or Zen Buddhism, anyway) is a religion or a philosophy.

The Stoics used the G-word for nature as a whole and it’s coherence (logos). (“Call it Nature, Fate, Fortune; all these are names of the one and selfsame God.” Seneca.) It would be a stretch to call them theists, simply because they employed that old word (theos) in a different way. [Note: there may have been theistic stoics, but their general use of the words theos, logos and pneuma had no such connotation.]

If someone uses words like “god” and “religion”, I just want to know how they’re using them. Just for the sake of discourse, I might provisionally adopt their terms, even if I don’t use them normally myself. If knightmeister is using the word “god” in a theistic sense, and I am using it in the stoic sense, and we don’t make that clear, we’ll just be talking past one another. One can reject the “g-word” altogether—but then, if one starts reading the stoics, for example, one has to realize that the meaning he rejected is not theirs.

There is simply not a single normative usage for the word “god”—about that, you are correct. But its application solely to an individual, supernatural entity is pretty predominant on here; I think I can come close to counting those who do not use the word in that way on the fingers of one hand.

Originally posted by vistesd
To be fair to serigado, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that the “G-word” must apply to some external, supernatural entity; and that Buddhism and its like are not religions (or even a “spirituality” ) if they have no such god. You’ve taken your share of hits, too.

I have given up caring whether or not something like Buddhism (or Zen Buddhism ...[text shortened]... e close to counting those who do not use the word in that way on the fingers of one hand.

Which hand? 😕