luckydog1
Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
|
Zensee, Not all religions have had slaughter periods. Most of the officially Athiestic states have, with huge body counts. Both were killing to maintain and extend thier power. Belief in or official denial of the existance of the Divine is not the determinate factor in either case. You can claim Communism was the worship of a dictator, but that is not really the case and you know it. Officially they were Athiestic. It was taught in schools, Religous worship was banned/heavily regulated controlled. Religious people were heavily persecuted, for being religious. And they killed tens of millions (if not more) people in less than a century. Compare that to the Inquisition what was that 1 million total over a few centuries? And only 10,000 in the really dreaded Spanish one? I don't want to condone any such thing, but historically it is easy to see why after liberating thier country from 500 years of occupation, they wanted to get rid of the remaining occupiers religion, and drive out the overseer class, which in that specific case were Jews. To place the belief in a diety as the root of that seems way simplistic.
And the religious have been the driving force in many social goods also. Abolition of Slavery for one. As well as helping uncountable people in myriads of ways. But religion can never be more than a distorted reflection of the Divine. I like the term Divine, because it de-anthrophomorphs the concept of God. Religions are institutions of man, and as such reflect thier cultures, and are flawed. All science is deeply flawed also, any honest scientist will admit this, but it is an attempt to learn as much as possible. Scientific thinking is constantly changing, and things that were considered known are found to be completely wrong. Science has in its 500ish years also conformed to the cultures in which it operates. Many scientists asserted (and a few still do) that whites are superior to the darker races. The concept of the races of Man was standard science for hundreds of years. Now we know its bunk. Likewise theological thought has constantly evolved over time, and will continue to.
"Lucky, your understanding of what science is seems limited to a notion that it is an organised belief system originating from a single source (like religious doctrine). "
The misstating of my position is getting rather boring. It is not using logical reasoning, and is unscientific.
Science is an orginzed way of thinking( a conceptual framework), not a specific belief system (though there is an underlying belief that thiers is the proper way to think), misdefining my position only shows yours to be weak. Science is using the Scientific Method. Which was developed at a time and place by a specific culture.
"It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"
In the history of science, alchemy refers to both an early form of the investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art all as parts of one greater force
The making of stone tools was far more akin to Alumbrado's analogy with the cat making up rituals/religion to go along with the food dispeners and proto alchemy, than what you described. They observed spirits in the rock that controlled whether they would get a usefull tool or not. They had no numbers. They had not developed logical reasoning. They had only a protolanguage for describing what they saw. They were not doing Science. They were experimenting and observing from a different framework, there are many, and they are quite dependant on the specifics of a given culture.
"As I have said before, it is a method of using our minds through observation and experimentation. It's been with us for hundreds of thousands of years."
That is just plain wrong. It (science) is one of many methods of using our minds through observation and experimentation, and it has only been with us for about 500 years. You are leaving the testing and verifying parts of the Scientific Method out of what you are saying. And any scientist would agree with me on that.
Science has had and will continue to have a huge beneficial effect on the development of theological thought. Exactly as Intelligent design would have it. Many Religions (institutions of Men) have resisted change for selfish reasons, but that is in no way limited to religious institutions of Men. Institutions of Athiests torture and kill also. Attacking Religion in no way touches on the existance of the Divine.
Lets use the Scientific Method on the premise that -Since some Religions have commited horrible atrocities at periods of history, belief in the Divine in any form (the existance of God) is harmfull to humanity/ deluded/ based on an ego need/ false.-
If that is true it would also apply to other issues and can be tested. Lets apply the same premise that Socialism is the way people should live. Since the USSR, as well as others, commited horrible attrocities, the belief in the Benificial nature of Socialism in any form is harmfull to humanity/ deluded/ based on an ego need/false- Do you agree with that? I don't.
Sorry for the formatting issues.
|
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread