BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:52 AM

I can't find the joke thread. Figured maybe you folks could use a break.

A teacher was doing a study testing the senses (taste)



The children began to identify the flavors by their color:

Red........................Cherry
Yellow................Lemon
Green.................Lime
Orange...............Orange

Finally the teacher gave them all HONEY lifesavers. None of the children
could
identify the taste.

The teacher said, 'I will give you all a clue. It's what your mother may
sometimes call your father.'

One little girl looked up in horror, spit her lifesaver out and yelled,
'Oh my
God! They're ass holes!

The teacher had to leave the room!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:47 AM

Actually, a true skeptic truly *is* still looking - always. Skeptics do not accept "it's a miracle', or "it's unexplainable". Skeptics keep looking for the undiscovered answer. That is not faith. It is a total rejection of faith. Why accept that we cannot understand some phenomenon? Why not keep on looking (lifelong even) for the explanations?

Refusing to accept "a miracle!" is not "faith" in science, it is the goll darn scientific method top to bottom. "Faith Free".

Now, I will completely accede that there are some people who won't or can't keep looking. But they are not true skeptics, and certainly not scientists. They are just bullhead stoopids.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 09:58 PM

"I have seen no evidence, and I ain't lookin, either!"

That's it in a nutshell, Amos. ;-) That sums up the pigheaded attitude embraced by religious fanatics, anti-religious fanatics, professional skeptics, and stiff-necked, stubborn, prejudiced people the world over.

Every belief system contains some such people, sadly, and they make life unpleasant for the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:07 PM

"...confirmed by independent observation."

I know....and that, to me, makes it "more unexplained" and interesting. The myriad of questions that can be asked are why I remain a skeptic... Has this person done anything like this before or since? If not..why not? Why a sneaker 'out there' and not a broken light bulb in the closet?

When we can have replicable instances, we can begin to sort things out.

"Go figger"... I went... I figgered... I wonder...I wait....

The phrase I prefer is "...if I can find some way in which it COULD be flawed, it needs more investigation."

It remains the case that the type of assumptions I would have to make about the very nature of reality in order to accept these concepts are way beyond what I can manage.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:46 PM

BillD:

You say "when we can" without researching what exists in the literature. It is easy to assert "no evidence" when what is meant is "I have seen no evidence, and I ain't lookin, either!"

I have posted various sources in the many discussions we have had about these border territories and what has and has not been observed there in.

One of the problems with the excessive skeptic approach is this line of reasoning: any report of evidence must be flawless, because if I can find some way in which it COULD be flawed, that proves that it WAS so!" This of course is nonsense, just as much as accepting purely anecdotal superstition is.    In matters of this sort, the actual probabilities have to be assessed even-handedly.

The girl with the sneaker is a case in point. It did not occur under clinical conditions. But the report was confirmed by independent observation. Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:45 PM

Well, that's always been my point: these are natural occurrences that have been reported by people from all over the world and throughout history. The mental states can now be scientifically measured somewhat, but not the inner light or universal connectedness. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:01 PM

JohnP...even I KNOW that things like meditation can allow interesting mental states. I know that some Hindu & other practitioners can control even heartbeat & respiration with elements related to bio-feedback. I know that, with effort, calmness and heightened awareness can be achieved.....but these ARE natural occurrences and not the things really at issue...for me, at least... *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM

Bill, that's why I said "badgered" into talking about it. I generally don't talk about it at all, and never present it as anything other than a subjective experience. Skeptics that are easy about it are no problem. The problem is the ones who seem to take glee in somehow "proving" that these experiences didn't really happen. Oh, and I'm not talking about being the reincarnation of Ghenghis Khan or being abducted by aliens. I'm talking about mental states, visual effects, and spiritual realizations that come as a result of meditation. All that other stuff is just plain CRAZY! ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

"When a child clearly remembers a whole bunch of stuff he or she can't possibly know about a prior life and other people hear that info from the child and check it out, and it turns out to be correct, it's validated. But not for a skeptic." Says a skeptic, if it were truly checked out and correct, there would be a publication about it, and I could believe the publication. I have no reason to believe anything unbelievable when somebody just says so.

"When someone dies on the operating table, has a spiritual experience out of their body, then comes back to life and tells people in the operating chamber things that the person saw from spirit...and those things are accurate and correct...it's validated. But not for a skeptic." Again, there are plenty of valid publications about people perceiving things they ought not to have been able to perceive, but which were indeed happening, and thus COULD HAVE BEEN perceived. I have no problem with that, all it means is that they weren't as dead as it was thought. People often lose their body perception but continue to perceive, and those perceptions appear to come from outside the body since they have lost the perception OF their body. No biggie, nothing to disbelieve. Nothing spiritual about it, either. It's just biology, again.

I am going to try to take the time this weekend and do the tallying.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:00 PM

As to the reasonable concern:

"When I have been badgered into describing experiences I've had that can't (yet) be measured in a scientific sense, I've been asked to prove the reality of the experience to the skeptic. "

It's all in HOW you report these things. If you simply say "I had this strange experience and I wonder about it and what it means..", even *I* won't harass you! But when you suggest that it must BE true and that NO other explanation is possible...and often, that others who have NOT had such experiences should accept it and act in some way as a result, you do get resistance.

I would never assert that someone did not 'seem' to have the experience they report. But I am not willing to agree that you are the reinacarnation of Ghenghis Khan or that you were abducted by aliens or that we should evacuate Schenectady because you 'saw' it burning in your dreams. Yet...many believe everything Nostradamus and others said...

If it ain't the sort of thing that can be proved, be aware of how you present it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:00 PM

Why is scepticism suspect? Is it because those who have had unusual experiences crave affirmation, the one thing the sceptic cannot provide? As a sceptic I can respect your understanding of your experience, but not necessarily share it. Surely no problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

Amos.. Paul Burke asked for validated instances of "childhood memories of prior existence, or validated remote viewings".

You state that there are.

I am sure there is equivocation on the idea of validated involved. There are 'unexplained' instances of such things, but when you accurately describe all the conditions, including who did the reporting and whether there was corroborating testimony and controlled environment, I doubt most of the stories would pass any severe scrutiny.
When we can design a test and control what is 'viewed remotely', and have something like two or more subjects pass the test, AS we monitor their condition...etc...etc...then we might get some data to seriously investigate.
There is so often this 'mysterious' element in reports, such as
'near death' and stories from children whose reports may be not only vaguely worded, but reported inaccurately by others.

So VERY many reports are hyped with the generalized - "Well, *I* can't think of any other explanation for such a strange occurance!"
Perhaps not....but often I can. It is not a matter of dis-proving strange experiences, but rather of them being totally convincing to the mass of us who seem to be excluded from actually having them.
(As Paul said above,"...my DREAMS are queer enough!". I'm sure 'almost' dying can do strange things to the synapses in the brain that make simple 'dreaming' seem tame.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: 3refs
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM

All I want the skeptics to do is convice me, and you can!

The other side of the coin is, show me a miracle, and they have!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM

That's right, JohnP. Well said. One cannot "prove" the reality of an experience that does not leave behind any physically observable data nor should one be expected to prove it. Yet we all have many such experiences. We have them every day of our lives. We have inner mental and emotional and, quite possibly, spiritual experiences that ARE real experiences, but that do not leave behind any physically observable data.

As you say, it isn't about proving anything.

It's about not prejudging reality strictly on the basis of your own prejudices...and not prejudging others' experiences and perceptions of their experiences strictly on the basis of your own prejudices.

And that sort of pre-judgment of others is exactly what is done by both the religious fanatic and the anti-religious fanatic or the confirmed skeptic. They prejudge on the basis of their own prejudice.

My reaction to such an attitude is the same as yours: "When I have been badgered into describing experiences I've had that can't (yet) be measured in a scientific sense, I've been asked to prove the reality of the experience to the skeptic. I've come up with a good response: "I don't feel any need to do so. I don't care if you believe me or not."

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:39 PM

Ah, yes, the confirmed skeptic. When I have been badgered into describing experiences I've had that can't (yet) be measured in a scientific sense, I've been asked to prove the reality of the experience to the skeptic. I've come up with a good response: "I don't feel any need to do so. I don't care if you believe me or not." They usually laugh and move on. The fact is, I don't even feel any need to prove it to myself. It doesn't really matter if the experience is "real" or just a artifact of brain chemistry. If it has an effect on my perceptions and understanding, it has it's own reality. Besides, artifacts of brain chemistry are real . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM

When you have such an experience personally, it's validated. But only for you, not for a skeptic. When a child clearly remembers a whole bunch of stuff he or she can't possibly know about a prior life and other people hear that info from the child and check it out, and it turns out to be correct, it's validated. But not for a skeptic. When someone dies on the operating table, has a spiritual experience out of their body, then comes back to life and tells people in the operating chamber things that the person saw from spirit...and those things are accurate and correct...it's validated. But not for a skeptic.

A skeptic already BELIEVES things like that simply can't be true. A skeptic has ironclad faith that such things can't be true. A skeptic is not impressed by anyone else's experiences or anyone else's testimony, because a skeptic already knows what is possible and what isn't.   (grin)

How does the skeptic know? Well, that's the question, isn't it? Godlike ominscience? Papal infallibility? Sheer brilliance?    Goodness knows, when you're as smart and well-informed as the average skeptic knows he is, the last thing you would ever question is your own absolute certainty, right?

That, baby....THAT is faith! Religions can only dare to hope that their own adherents will show faith of a similar level to that of the confirmed skeptic. The confirmed skeptic's faith is harder than a diamond. It is as a solid rock. It cannot be moved.

This is also true of the religious fanatic. I regard both the confirmed skeptic and the religious fanatic as being cut from the same cloth, psychologically speaking. They are an impediment to human progress, and they deserve to be pestered by each other.

The rest of us don't deserve to be pestered by either one of them...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:03 PM

Ah. But, I submit, indeed there are.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:46 PM

If there were any validated childhood memories of prior existence, or validated remote viewings, I would not have any problem. There aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:16 PM

um, tally-ho?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 10:27 AM

Paul:

The definition of death used in medical practice is not disingenuous. It's the best they can come with for a definition.

"Soul as process" is a nice phrase. The implications of it are that the chemical and electrical ingredients of the nervous system are the entire source of thought, and awareness. Pull the battery and it all goes black.

There are some phenomena which it doesn't cover, though. Childhood memories of prior identities, remote viewing (where it has been validated), are a couple of items in the bin of relevant anomalies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:55 AM

You're being either obtuse or deliberately so, Amos, which is dishonest. You can't take refuge in clinical judgement- which at best is state-of-the-art- to make a claim about the structure of the Universe- which is what a claim about a dual body/ soul complex is. As I've stated far above, the concept of soul-as-process does not violate any physical or biological concepts, and fits the phenomena at least as well as does the soul-as-separate-object model- though it also raises intriguing questions that science does not yet answer, or sometimes even address. There's s research opportunity for you.

If you want a separate soul, you need clear cases of separation. Near death won't do- it isn't death, infinitely less even than near-beer is beer. Yes- you really need the kind of communication with the dead- with a soul clearly separated from a body- that the Spiritualists claim, and whose claims have been so often and so thoroughly debunked.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:53 PM

The Ontological Argument has been around for a long time. I don't personally see the importance of a "soul". It has no bearing on behavior or value systems. It is always assumed that a "soul" is a good thing. Why? You don't need one to be a compassionate and considerate human being. A "soul" is a reference to a theological concept that has no concrete basis in fact. It is Descarte's homunculus.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 07:39 PM

ROFLMAO!

Well, if you define the word as "irreversible" rather than clinical, obviously the whole subject is closed until someone comes back discarnate and starts borrowing your keyboard to type "You won't believe what happened to me today....".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: 3refs
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

Thanks for your comments and enlightening me somewhat.
As I have said many times, I'd like think I'm a spiritual person, but I do have a bit of a problem with organized religion and some of the doctrine. The literal meaning of Muslim is "one who surrenders" or "submits" to the will of God. According to the Quran, those who submit to one God are Muslims. The Old Testament books of the Bible describe numerous struggles of the Jewish people and they're belief they are God's chosen ones. Buddhism has the four basic truths which kind of takes the fun out of a lot of things. The core of Hinduism is the belief in Brahman, the underlying universal life force that encompasses and embodies existence, but if you don't believe your reincarnated for eternity. Animism kind of gives life and souls to everything and connects the birds with the stones, which confirms what most people say that we're all made of the same basic stuff. I'll admit that if I was to be labeled, it would in all likelihood, be that of a Christian. I happen to like a lot of what Jesus had to say! I celebrate the holidays. I have no desire to delve into the dark side of things. To be honest, it scares the shit out of me!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

I wish I had your time and stamina to post, but with limited time available, it's you who is settling for an arbitrary definition of death- whatever the best clinical practice of the moment says- and making it an absolute. I doubt if you'll find a medical professional who will be prepared to say that a clinical estimate of death is anything but a provisional statement- at least before more obvious signs, like decay, become apparent. People diagnosed as brain- dead sometimes recover after being kept in suspended animation on life- support for years. It's surprising, and a challenge to diagnostic procedures, but not to philosophy.

No, if they recover, whatever a diagnosis said, they weren't dead. Doctors can be wrong, you know.

Incidentally, it's why in my old age I tend to prefer funerals to weddings- the protagonist doesn't come back a couple of years later, saying it was all a mistake, they've changed their mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 04:59 PM

Well, your argument seems to be that regardless of all clinical criteria adopted by specialists, any instance of reversal hinges only on a misdefinition of the term.

This semantic loop, of course, completely closes the door on whether life outside the body can ever be demonstrated since by your argument the only real case of death is one in which no such evidence appears. Neat loop. But not rigorous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM

The point I made is that all experiences which have been interpreted of presagements of an afterlife were made by living- often seriously ill, but not dead- people. Dying is NOT dead. It's only to be expected that a seriously disrupted system will give strange interpretations; hell, my DREAMS are queer enough. It's interesting that there may be some consistency between different people's expoeriences, but again, there are strong cultural reasons why this should be so- you are bombarded with instructions about what to expect from childhood onwards. Similarly, different cultures give people different expectations concerning a ghost's appearance and behaviour- and they see the ghosts they expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:31 PM

I never drank a metaphysic,
Never hope to drink one.
But I can tell you right enough,
It's easier to think one.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:02 PM

I never metaphysical
I couldn't be

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:00 PM

The term "clinically" may have escaped your attention, Paul.

It reflects the fact, I suppose,that the boundary conditions between life and death are probably not completely understood.

I have known other cases where death was medically declared and thought to be indisputable, but was reversed anyway. The ones I have heard of all include an act of will or consciousness taken indepently of the body, often while watching the body from an exterior position with clarity.

You might also pursue some of the evidence ccollected by Moody and Kubler-Ross on the subject.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 02:14 PM

She had no brain activity and was clinically dead.

She clearly wasn't dead, as proven by the fact that she recovered. Hence her "death" is irrelevant to any concept of "soul".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:26 PM

THe story you report supports the model that a soul is not something one has, while being a body+mind machine. Rather, the soul is who you are while having a body+mind machine.   My own opinion is that this model goes a great deal further in explaining a lot of fringe phenomena (such as the experience of the woman in your story). Her story, BTW, is fairly typical of the class. The ones that are really appealing are the "sneaker on the window ledge" variety, in which a patient had an OOB experience under surgery and reported floating up outside the window and seeing an old sneaker (trainer) on the ledge above the window in a place she could never have seen it physically. The existence of the sneaker as well as the fact that she had never been on the upper stories or the roof of the building were included in the story.

A story of this sort does not lend itself to hard-core scientism, in that it cannot be readily replicated, and the variables are too many and subtle to make for good control.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:17 AM

Tally - ho?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:58 AM

"You never can tell what people will think."

                   But if you're gunna have a meaningful discussion, folks gotta be able to say what they think.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:26 AM

And..................300!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:24 AM

Rig's an old friend of mine, Don, and we've shared some good laughs over stuff here on the forum. We often agree, and sometimes we disagree. I think he can take a little satire from me without taking it too seriously and getting bent out of shape over it. He knows perfectly well that I think he has an emotional hangup regarding his unrelenting hostility to religion...and that doesn't throw him off balance one bit. We've discussed it numerous times before, and it hasn't caused either one of us to think ill of the other.

When it's from me to Rig, Don, it's banter. If it was from me to someone else, it might not be, but from me to Rig, it's banter.

I put in the disclaimer about the sarcasm at the end mainly to fend off the odd very literal-minded visitor here who might imagine that I actually mean the things I said there about various groups of people. You never can tell what people will think.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: 3refs
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 12:53 AM

I listened to an interesting program recently that discussed the soul. What was it, where did it reside and so on. The usual suspects all had their opinions, including those who professed it did not exist at all, and that it was invented by those who believed(or hoped)in something beyond our earthly existence.
One of the more insightful commentaries came from a neurosurgeon who had operated on a woman. The procedure included dropping the patients body temperature and stopping the heart to repair a torn blood vessel deep in her brain. She had no brain activity and was clinically dead. One of the attending nurses in the theatre, discussed at length her impending wedding. After all was said and done, and quite some time later, the patient, after recovery, asked about the nurse and her wedding. What is important here is she had no contact with this nurse before or after the operation. She was able to retell much of what was discussed during her operation. The doctor explained that as she had no brain activity(flat line), and her core body temperature was much below normal, this was impossible.
Now as much as I understand the brain and how it works, this makes perfect sense to me! What was left out of the conversation was the chemical interactions that go on in the brain. Dopamine, adrenaline and so on.
I don't know where my soul is. I certainly hope I have one. So until I know different, it will be in my heart!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 09:41 PM

Spoken like a true Asperger's candidate!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 09:17 PM

I think we like to systematize knowledge for two basic reasons.

1. so that we can learn more and remember more of what we learn.
2. so that we can feel better about the stuff we don't know.

As to the second: We seem to take comfort in the feeling that if something was important enough to be worth our time to learn, it would or could have already been systematized so that we could learn it. This notion itself is (somewhat comically) circular. In other words, implicit in the probability that something worth knowing would already be systematized is the notion that even systematizing is systematized. And it is. But some systems are more accepted than other systems.

And systems sometimes seem to be sort of like a project of assembling a multiple part puzzle. Often we work for a very long time, can tell we're nearing the end, and then we realize there's a piece or two left over that can't be made to fit externally, but rather might require starting over. But the project LOOKS complete (if we can but find a way of hiding or destroying the evidence of incompleteness – those leftover pieces).

And in real life, when it's not just a puzzle, but rather, a real bit of evidence that just maybe the system under which we've assembled all of our knowledge, such as to hold it all conveniently usable, has a weak spot or two, we may be under even greater pressure to hide, or hide from that evidence.

Maybe it's professional pressure. Maybe our employment is with a system manager (so to speak) and further investigation of weak spots may not just rock the boat, but throw us overboard.

Maybe it's age with its alternating smugness and weariness. One day we're pretty content with our choice of system, and quite comforted by our surety that our system is better than their system (carefully making such comparative assessments while purposely avoiding the alternative systems that MIGHT challenge our smugness). And the next day, we're just too tired to even think about starting over with a new set of assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 08:02 PM

The odd thing is that science always occur within a set of beliefs; but at least in principle they are beliefs subject to review and re-evaluation under the right conditions.

A simple example is the belief in the qualities of space. At one point it was a vapor from the gods; at another, an aether-rich box in which the Creator cast the universe; at another an elastic vacuum torqued by mass. There really is not yet in existence a bottom-line satisfactory characterization of it. Most of us are happy to work with the version we get from our habits of perception and our bodily filters, which makes it appear more or less boundless, contiguous, permeable and so on. A different approach might argue that (as some of the ancient Greeks speculated) it was a projection of viewpoints. You would think such a deep question would have been more directly contested over the centuries. I raise it just as an example of a sort of bounding belief within which all sorts of science can proceed without examining it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:42 PM

Amos-
I'm not "dismissing" belief systems--I think that some belief system or other is essentiol to human existance, even if it's a belief in a purely mechanistic world.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

"Religion, essentially, is a belief system. Science, essentially, is a technique for learning. Peaches and Pomegranates."

And there are SO many belief systems who sincerely believe that they are science, express this mistaken belief in their disdain for religion and other belief systems, all the while oblivious to their own unscientific nature(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:12 PM

"...discarding religious phenomenology as merely "beliefs" is to ignore the range of experiences included among them, some of which are potentially of great human value."

Sure, Amos... but there is so much buried in the corollaries to that 'truth' that we could spend days drawing out the threads.
I think the main point *I* would make is to note the tendency of many to see everything as black or white--- and thus to accept or reject every idea instead of just pondering some. And of course, there are experiences which are of "human value" which are neither true nor false, but simply .... experience... something that expands our 'consciousness' (which some of us define a bit differently)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:01 PM

Were there any realistic way to check the percentages, I would be willing to make a substantial bet; I don't think you would find anyting close to a significant correlation with belief or unbelief. I don't think that sickness like that is any respector of nominal beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM

""Everyone would do well to ask themselves now and then: Am I talking here in order to communicate with others? Or am I merely srguing in order to conquer and win? And which would yield a better result? And why?""

OK pal, After you.

Try asking yourself "Am I talking here to communicate with others? Or am I merely pontificating to express my feelings of superiority, and my disdain for the lesser denizens of this domain, who seem unable to grasp the wisdom of my deathless prose?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM

"I think you will find the MAJORITY of child molesters are non-attenders..."


                      Maybe non-attenders, but non-believers? I wonder!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 06:43 PM

In one place? That doesn't quite make sense, Rig; I know there are lots of churchs around, but the world is nowhere near so covered with churches as to force all the non-believers, who do all the child molesting, into one single place to be gathered up.

Of course that statement is scurilous and totally unreasonable. And of course your statement wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM

Ah, yes, those terrible RELIGIOUS people! They're sooooo awful! It's also handy, Rig, to know that all Irishmen are drunks, all Jews are greedy degenerates, all women are illogical hysterics, all Blacks are dead lazy and want nothing more than to sit in the sun and eat watermelon all day, all Republicans masturbate while watching old John Wayne movies, all Shriners are pedophiles, and all Indians walk in single file and say "Ugh!" and "How!"...

It makes it so easy to decide who the undesirables in society are! ;-)

*(I trust that the above post will be taken in the very sarcastic spirit in which it is intended and not quoted later out of context by various unscrupulous heathens who have no shame whatsoever...)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM

I think you will find the MAJORITY of child molesters are non-attenders, Rig. It's just the most shocking ones that appear in the clergy because of the expectations they promote for themselves.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM

One of the advantages, of course, is religion serves to congregate most of the child molesters in one place, so they can be rounded up with fewer paddy wagons.