BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:51 PM

"There are lots of cases where "the scientific method" has not worked, where other methods have."

When someone comes to a doctor with a tumor, sometimes there is no time, or not enough data for scientific the method. Medicine is and art and a science.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 11:06 PM

I had a singing buddy who was a Christian Scientist. He was not one to wear his religion on his sleeve, but he stubbornly stuck to his religious beliefs when he got cancer and refused all medical treatment. He died an angry, unhappy man - and he suffered a lot of pain in the process of dying.

Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science as a reform movement, and much of what she taught were health practices that were far ahead of her time - many are used by "alternative health practitioners" today. I wonder if Mary Baker Eddy intended for her followers to refuse medical treatment so rigidly, or if her followers got set in their ways after her death. I think that happens often in reform movements. After the enlightened founder passes on, the followers forget the reasoning behind the reforms and change everything into rigid rules.

One could make a case for that happening with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: EBarnacle
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 11:36 AM

It is possible to disprove a positive. The Law of Gravity should actually be the Theory of Gravity or the Rule of Gravity because all we can truly state is that all of the observations to date of things falling bear the theory out. If we eventually observe something we would expect to fall not falling then the law/theory has been disproved by the one exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:21 PM

"The House Science Committee."

An oxymoron if ever there was one.

And peopled with regular morons.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:08 PM

Stilly river Sage quoted Hitchens's razor. I would go further and quote Occam's razor, because as complicated as scientific discovery can be, it is far easier than trying to believe medieval fantasy and translations of parts of old scriptures as an answer.

Newton's law of gravity was using words of the day, and then the Latin words... Ever since Planck and Einstein, we are used to theories rather than laws and are comfortable with that. After all, classical physics describes the observable universe and many of the "laws" had been back calculated through observation prior to the 1890's when everything started kicking off.

I once put in a paper I had published that "pure" science is that researched with no hypothesis whilst theology is to work only with a hypothesis. Just a throwaway comment without the perspective and context of what I was writing about but I would gently nudge it into this type of debate, as it paraphrases that which many people realise. Sadly, it also questions the intelligence of faith, and many people get a lot of comfort from their faith, so must be less than happy with the idiots hijacking it for pure secular megalomania reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:38 PM

> "pure" science is that researched with no hypothesis whilst theology is to work only with a hypothesis.

Well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:33 PM

Science tests hypotheses; Faith (religious or otherwise) accepts it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM

Most Christian theologians are reluctant to publicly endorse scientific theories of cosmology and human evolution because the concept of Original Sin requires a historical Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. An evolutionary perspective doesn't allow for such an event. And if there's no Original Sin, no fall from grace, then the idea of the necessity of personal salvation through Jesus gets a bit wobbly.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM

i think that on this side of the pond a lot of theologians do accept evolutionism.as a result their theology is inconsistant.even dawkins recognized this and mocked the compromising theologians.
so as a creationist,i agree with your assessment bee....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

Well I disagree with Bee-dubya-ell, pete and apparently even Dawkins. Aren't I a disagreeable fellow?

The concept of original sin does not require a literal, historical Eve, being primarily one way of expressing - albeit a very important way - that we are fundamentally flawed as human beings when compared with how we would wish to behave. Now, to go beyond that form, which does not require any sort of God, to one which relies on a God is to enter into the whole debate of what religion is about, so I'll pass on that one. But I do say it is mistaken to assume the concept of Original Sin is really dependent on a literal Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bert
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 01:56 PM

...that we are fundamentally flawed as human beings...

Nope, tain't true. Observation shows us that most people are nice, caring and loving. It is a minority that are bad, but they are the ones that get noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM

Well, bert, we can disagree about that one as well! However nice and caring we are, there are occasions where we lose or tempers or whatever, and most of us feel pretty bad about that afterwards. Whether that feeling bad is a sign of our fundamental goodness is an interesting discussion ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM

And there was me thinking that theology was about studying religion rather than accepting facets of it.

Still, nice to see starry pete weighing in. This thread was getting a bit too serious. We can have a bit of fun now.

"Even" Dawkins? Surely, a clever person might be expected to "recognise" something, so why a clever person who is intelligent enough to believe in creationism is surprised that one of the leading evolutionionary scientists we have ever had can recognise hypocrisy when he sees it....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 11:11 AM

> Observation shows us that most people are nice, caring and loving.

While not entirely incorrect, this is a vast and misleading exaggeration.

It looks like most Nazis, Khmer Rouge, French Jacobins, etc., loved and cared for their families. Southern slaveholders did too. Hitler's Alsatian was his best pal.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bettynh
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM

Richard Feynman was pretty articulate about the problem of science vs. belief. His observation that scientists are comfortable with uncertainty seems to define the difference. Fundamentalists require certainty. If it's just a theory there's a possibility it's wrong, whatever you're talking about. That makes it OK to dismiss anything labelled as a theory. To consider God a theory is literally unthinkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:00 PM

I had a singing buddy who was a Christian Scientist....he got cancer and refused all medical treatment. He died an angry, unhappy man - and he suffered a lot of pain in the process of dying.

Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science as a reform movement, and much of what she taught were health practices that were far ahead of her time - many are used by "alternative health practitioners" today.

"Alternative health practitioners" condemn untold thousands to miserable, painful and often avoidable deaths, and even worse, lives, by their embracement, often for personal profit, of superstitions like Christian Science. It's one thing to call for open- mindedness, but quite another to claim for oneself open- mindednes while dogmatically rejecting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:01 PM

alternately to consider that there is a God is unthinkable to the fundy atheist-
albeit protestations about proving negatives.....

leading evolutionary scientist recognizing hypocrisy?
i wonder if he would recognize it in himself?
either way;-he will debate compromising theologians and creationists-as long as they are not as qualified as him [and contrary to atheist assumption there are suitable opponents]

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:20 PM

Pete... "alternately to consider that there is a God is unthinkable to the fundy atheist-"

The actuality is, Pete, that most atheists HAVE considered it!

Think about it- IF religion were obviously true and some Supreme Being reminded us daily of his wishes and rules and explained out history, it would be a LOT easier to cope with the frustrations of this world.

Atheists HAVE tried to see the reasoning ..and seen the problems with accepting one book and eons of preachers telling them what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 08:00 PM

I've been told that God *doesn't* make his existence and presence crystal clear, or even provable by science or reason, specifically *so that* some people will believe on faith and be saved, while others can misuse their divinely granted free will and reject him and be condemned to hell for their blasphemous pride.

Thus it's far safer to believe than not to believe. No matter what science may say about the Big Bang, Evolution, you name it.

Of course, God also created human curiosity and science, presumably as terrible temptations. Just look what curiosity did to Adam and Eve - curiosity and being tempted directly by a fallen angel who, by definition, was more evil and devious than they were. Nevertheless, they had to be punished for disobedience, even though God must have known they were going to disobey even before he created them.

Troubling? Or reassuring? Or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM

Don't forget the late Mr Hitchens (who by now can answer the ultimate question at last..) has been referred to above.

Anything put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Whilst Dawkins can appear slightly forthright at times, and occasionally as forthright as those whom argue with him, let us not forget why he started his crusade in the first place.

As a genetics scientist he got somewhat fed up with his carefully researched evidence being debunked by powerful influencial people on the basis that it doesn't accord with scriptures and accepted superstition.

I reckon I'd be a bit pissed off too.

I'm not sure there is an alternative TO science, just a few traditional interpretations of answers to what "science" tries to qualify and quantify. As religion is not evidence based, I think it is safe to dismiss it.

Handy as a crutch for those who need it, but keep an eye on it when it tries attracting children and vulnerable adults all the same. After all, plenty of evidence that religions have form in that arena.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:25 AM

Is is too snarky to point out that the assertion "Anything put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is itself put forward without evidence? To take a silly example, if I am walking along a mountain path and come across a sign saying 'Caution: Avalanches' I will be cautious without waiting for the evidence, thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:00 AM

That's just a restatement of Pascal's Wager, Mr McG, which only works if the alternative to no god is The God. In these times of multiple contending gods, backing the wrong one is as disastrous as not placing any bet.

You are walking on a mountain, and come to a crossroads. The sign pointing ahead says DANGER: AVALANCHES. The sign pointing to the right says: MINEFIELD. The one to the left says: MAN EATING CTHULU. So you turn round to go home, only to see the sign THIS WAY TO JIM'LL FIX IT. You know at least three are lies, but you don't know which one (if any) is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:14 AM

I don't think it requires deep philosophical debate. Put simply, if you say something without evidence and somebody says that is bollocks, it is hardly fair to say "prove it."

I say that I am a sex God to all women. If a single woman says no, she is in denial. If you can't prove I am wrong, I must be right.

Now, I have had my moments but also know my limitations so I certainly am not a sex God. However, it I said there is a God and went through the same argument with an atheist, few would fault my logic.

Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:53 AM

That's just a restatement of Pascal's Wager, Mr McG

Not really. I was not saying that therefore it is appropriate to believe in God, which was Pascal's Wager. I was saying that the assertion that you can use lack of evidence to dismiss anything is going too far.In fact, of course, precisely the reason that scientific research happens is that the scientist suspects something to be the case, but at that point lacks the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:01 AM

That would be research from a hypothesis. A more common research is to observe something and try to figure why it is so.

Again, too deep.

If someone says something without evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence too. Just because you can't prove something is wrong doesn't mean it is right till you prove otherwise.

If that were the case, the corrupt logic of religion would be valid. Saying a religious text is true defeats the object of faith unless I am mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:19 AM

If someone says something without evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence too.

I don't think that is the case, and it does not follow that therefore I must be insisting religion is right. It simply means that I think that that particular line of attack is weak. My biggest criticism of Dawkins, actually, is that he makes so many weak attacks when I am convinced he could do so much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:46 AM

""Atheists HAVE tried to see the reasoning ..and seen the problems with accepting one book and eons of preachers telling them what to do.""

And when you add to that the fact that even those who DO see a need for a Deity are at each others throats on the subject of "Our God is the only TRUE GOD", it all gets somewhat silly.

If there were substance and sense to the thinking of the US Christian Right, the Fundamentalist Muslims and the Orthodox Jews, surely they would be forced to conclude that God, Allah and Jehovah MUST be one and the same.

So why are they so bitterly opposed on religious grounds?

One for you to consider Pete?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 10:45 PM

Well, Don, Christians, Muslims, and Jews do generally think they worship the same God.

There's no accounting for the actions or opinions of the extremist element in any group, and I think it's important that we not blame a group for its extremist members. Every town has its idiot.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 06:34 AM

""There's no accounting for the actions or opinions of the extremist element in any group, and I think it's important that we not blame a group for its extremist members. Every town has its idiot.""

I thought I did a reasonably clear job of categorising the most extreme of the three religions Joe, though perhaps a little unfair to the Jews. Perhaps Zionist would better fit as a description.

I am aware that these are minorities of the three religions, but you cannot deny that they have the greatest prominence and are, as the authors of most of the atrocities of the modern world, the greatest threat.

Until the weight of the majority of moderate believers is thrown against them and they are ejected, they will destroy any chance of accord and harmony, not just between faiths, but between nations too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM

The alternative to science is ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:48 PM

Muslims at least accept that Jesus WAS a prophet sent by God....


"Muslims believe in the prophets and messengers of God, starting with Adam, including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them). But God's final message to man, a reconfirmation of the eternal message, was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad . Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet sent by God, as God has said:

Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the last of the prophets... (Quran, 33:40)"


...this doesn't exactly please Christians, most of whom who are determined to insist that Jesus was sent as a messenger for 'the entire world'.
So the problem remains that ANY religious system that demands that its basic premises must supersede any seemingly contradictory ideas of science are in constant conflict with the evidence of the world around them. There are technical names for these flaws of logic & reasoning, but the ability of hoomin beans to simply state that they don't CARE what science & logic say makes teaching science a difficult task.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:08 PM

well bill-you are perhaps right that most atheists HAVE considered that there might be a God but the fundy ones at least would think it unthinkable anyway.you present yourself as couteous and friendly so i am not including you in that description.


lighter-maybe pedantic but science does not say anything does it?.
when it comes to origins it is the scientist that speaks out of his prepropositions and INTERPRETATION of the data.

don-that their are competing faiths or that sometimes there may be hostility does not logically mean that none is right.
neither do i accept that religion poses the greatest threat.atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:36 PM

atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities

Outnumbered only by those inflicted by "Christians"[sic].

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:50 PM

Atrocities are inflicted by those of any belief or none who think they know better what everybody else should be thinking or doing than everybody else. That means mostly all of the smug ones who look for people to blame. "Holier than thou" doesn't have to apply to religious people.

Science isn't a belief system, and I don't know that does any good arguing with people who are stupid enough to think it is. I'm not calling it "ignorant" because ignorance is an absence or knowledge and "stupid" is what you get when you ignore it. Science requires proof, and require being challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:52 PM

""don-that their are competing faiths or that sometimes there may be hostility does not logically mean that none is right.""

Why do you always start from a position of misquoting those with whom you disagree Pete?

I did not and do not say that none is right.

I said that, assuming there is a God, ALL are right, but none will admit that the others are right. Each starts from a position of exclusivity which is neither justifiable nor logical.

It is this that sets up religions as a barrier to international and religious harmony, instead of the unifying force which they should be.

I made no claim as to whether there is or is not a God. My beliefs on that are my own affair and I don't attempt to impose them on others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:56 PM

The problem is, Pete... that IF it ".. does not logically mean that none is right.", it follows that all 'could' be wrong.

Since it comes down to a matter of **belief**, it becomes very like gambling.... you are making a bet that a certain belief system will get certain rewards in an afterlife. Of course, if you are wrong, you'll never know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 07:38 PM

An alternative to Science? Well, I'd suggest imagination and poetry and song and dreaming and creativity. I wonder if Science, as most people perceive it, could have come up with Quantum Physics. Science is certainly a valid perspective, but I question whether it is or should be the only perspective. To deify Science (with a capital "S") may be as problematic as biblical fundamentalism.

Make room for diversity of thought, people. The wider our perspective, the better off we are.

It is common for believers to put science alongside their belief system as some kind of equivalent alternative. That is a very poor way of seeing things. Moreover, anyone who thinks that they can put imagination, poetry and creativity forward as alternative perspectives to science has it arse about face. Science, and not least mathematics, provides all the beauty, imagination, creativity and poetry that anyone could ever ask for. Belief, on the other hand, stifles imagination. Religions tell us that they have the explanation for everything (forgetting, conveniently, that their explanation is by far the most unlikely and most inexplicable thing that the human mind could ever come up with). Thinking you have the explanation for everything stops you looking. Your poetry is subverted and your creativity and imagination are stunted. You might think you can tell me that you are just as imaginative, creative and poetic as a free-thinking atheist can be, but you would be wrong. Far from being closed, the minds of those who have shunned religious faith are open to everything. Reality is the true magic and the beautiful synergy of form and function is more than enough to exercise the mind and trigger the wonder that keeps us looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 08:43 PM

There is no more alternative to science than there is an alternative to belief in G-d/god/God. The argument that presupposes one person is wrong to begin with is foolish.

I would no more denigrate or ridicule Pete (7SL) than question the knowledge or erudition of the assembled folk. Sometimes in life both sides of the equation are actually equal.

Pete, sometimes people just don't get it. I'm not sure that I always do, but that doesn't really matter. You are a good and true man, and when you and I disagree, I always know I've won or lost to a darned fine person. And I always wonder whether won or lost enters the equation at all.

B

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 09:14 PM

There is definitely an alternative to belief in God. You can easily live your life well, unshackled by such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:23 AM

999 puts the defence of starry pete most eloquently.

I suppose the nearest I come is thinking I may be being a bit cruel taking the piss out o his deluded conviction. My mate reckons the moon landings never took place. I had a good laugh till I realised he meant it. Now I worry for him, concerned that such a mindset may contain issues he may at some point need professional help with.

Hence people who think reality vs bible = bible wins get my pity. Those who would advocate inflicting their fantasy on others get my contempt.

Not that I should be of any concern to them. If they feel brainwashing children isn't abuse, then arguing with an old soak like me isn't worth their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM

"atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities."

I can certainly think of atheist groups who have committed atrocities and, of course, there are "countless" examples of atrocities committed by theists. But, help me out here, pete, I'm struggling to think of an example of an atrocity committed by an "evolutionary believer"!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:42 AM

Oh, OH!

*******GODWIN ALERT!*******

Now we get the eugenics response.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:23 PM

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution are committed by people who have twisted and perverted evolutionary theory beyond recognition. So no fear of relevant Godwinisms here. And Godwin's Law has been long-debunked, not least by Godwin himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe_F
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 08:45 PM

The alternative to science -- much older than science itself -- is wishful thinking. It has been extensively tested.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 02:08 PM

no argument with your logic bill!
as a christian i have an assurance that i am following the "way the truth and the life";-but i realize that is merely subjective to the non christian.
no doubt if i am expressing a logical fallacy in the following [!] you will inform me but it seems to me that you are making a bet.if you are right you will not know it when your time comes,but if you are wrong you certainly will.that of course is no threat for a convinced atheist.

don t -do i "always" misquote my opponents?
i dont think i actually quoted you as such but i can see where you are coming from on this one.i'm sorry but i got lost somewhere on the next point.as far as affirming God/gods most religions agree .obviously the religious position of buddism and atheism dont.
when it comes to further specifics there will be disagreement and for the bible believer ,Jesus alone is the only way to the Father.
that has never made me want to fight anyone though.

thankyou 999 for your kind words.i also dont think of winning or losing arguments.thankfully some can discuss in a friendly manner.
blessings pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,)
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 03:03 PM

Any chance of giving me an example of an "evolution believer" who has committed an atrocity, pete? Or did you just conflate the terms 'atheist', 'evolution believer' and 'atrocities', and hope that we wouldn't notice, and come to associate "evolution believer" with atrocities? Is that the best that you can do? You don't do subtle, do you?

By the way, what exactly is an "evolution believer"? I don't think I'm familiar with that term ...

Subject: Alternative to Uppercase??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 03:14 PM

Well?

Discuss!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM

Pete.. of course, we are both making bets of a sort. As far as I can tell, we also both try to lead a good life, respect others, and don't kick dogs.

My 'bet' is based on my personal feeling that *IF* there is a heavenly afterlife, 'leading a good life' should be enough to get me in without 'believing' a 2000 year old book and all the varied interpretations. "Jesus alone is the only way" feels very awkward to me. Yes, I am willing to take that chance because I know that there are so many religions and versions of each that my guess is that none of them has some Divine Truth. (I always wonder why a God would take a chance that Jesus and the 'word' could reach the entire world, given so many countries and different societal systems.)

Because I am sure that believing, as you do, in one specific religious tradition won't directly make any difference to me, I try to tolerate and respect those, like you, who live kind & decent lives. Some of its followers DO affect me in various ways by being less than respectful of others, so it is VERY hard sometimes to debate logic & philosophy without condemning totally the entire belief system.

I have no idea whether you were raised in a religious way, or came to it late... and in some ways it is not important. I was raised to think and decide for myself based on my best understanding, and studied philosophy to try to learn the best possible ways to MAKE decisions.

It would be interesting to meet you and sit and compare notes....but an ocean, age and money make that unlikely. I DO appreciate hearing your opinions and comparing ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM

It woz me wot asked pete the questions about conflation and atrocities and stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: EBarnacle
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:16 PM

Rabbi Akiva was once asked to explain Judaism while standing on one leg. His response: Do not do unto others what is hateful to you. The rest is commentary.
Note that there is no mention of God here. The true essence of religion is ethics rather than belief in miracles.