In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

In article
,

Bill who has about 20 F. low for four more nights before a break. 40
F. high right now. Started some caladiums this morning.

Aren't you supposed to mark the topic OT when you talk about gardening?
;O))

How far are you from North Carolina where the Cook is in full gardening
mode? Seems very strange.

Last night here it was 20 F. and in Raleigh it was 41 F. for a low. We
are in winter.
Distance I'd guess about 600 miles.

My tomatoes have stuck their little dicots out. The second round of peas
are starting to show themselves and the Romanesco broccoli is stretching
for the grow lights.

I plan to plant late as a general rule as I have light issues aka tree
work in the next two months. Trying to enhance the microclimate.

Planting through clear plastic will warm the soil.

If you like weekends, thank a labor union.

==
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Nad R wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos. I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.

I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

I was very tired when I wrote that last posting. I am going to take a nap
and hope the fogginess of the mind goes away. It was a bit gibberish.

I'm a big fan of siestas :O)
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages

I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.

I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.

Hey, let's not push. It will be 5 billion years before the Sun goes "red
giant" on us. You made me think that I was running out of time;O)

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

Thanks for the Jared Diamond cite.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ja...ieties_collaps
e.html

If you like weekends, thank a labor union.

==
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause
What are you referring to here?
and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea.
Oh, come on, Doug. This is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't address
Climate Change.

And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

You're losing me too, Doug. Instead of attacking, perhaps you could
clarify, and refrain from attacks.

Billy, are you changing your opinion about Doug being a good guy?

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to
write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.


From his postings, he sounds just like my family members. One has to dig a
little deeper to reveal his true intentions on the environment of the
planet earth.

If Doug had anything to with the construction or inspections of
California's Nuclear Power Plants, I would be moving out of that state
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:

Even "good guys" can have bad days. I've too much history with Doug to
write him off easily. He can be a very thoughtful person.

I have some reading on geological history. My major was Mathematics,
Computer Science with a little bit of Electrical Engineering. So I am not
by any means an expert on geology or Biology. I sometimes I take a first
thought route to problem solving and can make mistakes. If my reasoning is
flawed I will change it. By reading Doug's postings, He seems to be on the
Authoritative side where I am on the Anti-Authoritative side. I do not
trust those that speak in terms of absolutes. It is in my nature to be the
skeptic. Doug's last ranting is far from a thoughtful person.
Still this is usenet where all opinions can be expressed, even from my
rantings

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:

I believe in evolution of man even though all the facts are not there.

Genetic engineering and DNA sequencing are facts. The current model for
human evolution is a best guess based on current evidence and that will
certainly change as new evidence is uncovered. What will not change is
the chemical basis for evolution - inheritance and breeding both of
which are statistical in nature. There will be change in a lot of the
details in our understanding of genetics (RNA activity, protein folding,
all sorts of stuff) but not how basic DNA-RNA-protein works and not
how DNA encodes the next generation and not statistical population
models.

I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief.

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it. Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that. Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
civilized society.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos.

There have been a lot of cycles of ice ages and warm ages in
geologically recent past. Those are too evenly repeated to have
volcanic causes. The "little ice age" could easily have had a volcanic
cause.

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

Today they had a type of bromeliad I had not seen before. Flattened red
leaves that looked like a hand sticking up out of the main green leaves.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it.
How do you differentiate being poisoned from awareness of hypocrisy?

Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that.

Comparison with the known leads to an understanding (correct or not).

Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
civilized society.

Then why do my tax dollars (not optional) go to printing, "In God We
Trust" on our currency? Or do you contend that we aren't a civilized
society?

Bush's 3rd term: OBAMA


If you like weekends, thank a labor union.

===
--
- Billy
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Buddhism is an entire faith which does not require any address to deity.
There are Buddhist sects that do address deity but it is always
optional. There are also religions that are theistic in their writings
that do not require it of their members. Once you're past Christianity
and Islam, numbers one and two in world population, few of the remaining
religions make such a requirement even in theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is
seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. Hence,
Buddhism is often aptly described as a

"spiritual philosophy" [Which would be my view, not a religion.-Billy]

whose sole aim is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[2][3]
called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies
endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the
origin of the world are worthless.[6][7] Some theists beginning Buddhist
meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with
Buddhism,[8] but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose
a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana,[9] the highest goal of
Buddhist practice.[10]

If you like weekends (40 hr/5 day weeks), thank a union.


Bush's 3rd term: OBAMA

==
--
- Billy
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:

I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief.

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it. Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that. Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in

There are dozens and dozens if not hundreds of religions in this world.
Only evolution stands out over others as an explanation of our existence
without some other supernatural being creating humans. Theory of evolution
is what I believe in that seems the reasonable for our existence on this
planet. Not because of one religion being poisonous.

I see humans as the cause for the destruction of our environment and
atmosphere of this planet and no god to save us. Therefore only humans must
make decisions that can save this planet for future human survival.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it.

How do you differentiate being poisoned from awareness of hypocrisy?

Awareness of hypocricy is acknowledging the errors of a specific
religion. Look carefully and any faith will have some problems. To
assume that all suffer from the same problems is to be poisoned. They
do not.

There's a further issue not just with Buddhism not addressing deity.
All or almost all religions tell stories. Do not confuse the fact that
a couple of very popular religions make the mistake of claiming their
stories are literally true with the fact that stories get told. Those
are two separate topics. To most faiths the stories are fiction that
teaches. To a couple of faiths the stories are supposed to be literally
true that also teach.

Is there actually a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? No. It's a
tale about chasing get rich quick schemes, complete with the gold
disappearing after a day. The real gold in the rainbow is the warm
glow in our hearts when we watch a rainbow. Two levels of mythical
meaning in the same tale, both of which are true and neither of which
appear in the tale itself. That's how the tales of other faiths work.
It is in fact a tale from one of the other faiths.

Did Odin really turn into a one eyed snake, drill into a mountain,
secude a maiden, retrieve the mead of inspiration, return it home, and
dribble some onto humanity as he returned? No. It's an adventure tale
for the children, a barrage of sexual innuendo for young couples, a
view of the cycles of life for the elderly.

Did Sampson really lose his strength because his hair was cut? If there
even was a human named Sampson. No. Becoming a kept man might have
had a bit more to do with it. The hair is a symbol for changed social
status not a literal source of strength.

Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
civilized society.

Then why do my tax dollars (not optional) go to printing, "In God We
Trust" on our currency? Or do you contend that we aren't a civilized
society?

Civilization is a floating point not a binary number. Putting "In God
We Trust" on the coinage about the time of the US Civil War and on the
paper currency about the time of WWI was a departure from the principles
of freedom of religion. Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance
about the time of the Korean War was also a departure from the
principles of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion must include
freedom from religion.

Both in both cases they can be viewed as a description of the majority
of the population not as harassing atheists. And in both cases it's
more generic than the majority might have liked. The US Constitution
forbids establishing a state religion but it does not forbid noticing
that the majority of the population is religious. I don't like either
situation but I understand how and where the line gets drawn. That I
would draw the line in a different place is less important than that the
line does get drawn - The government can't fund any specific religion
and can't drive out any specific religion, but the government can
acknowledge that religion is popular with the majority.

No civilization is perfect in any of its stances. These two examples of
how freedom of religion and separation of church and state can be bent
without being broken. The bending is the bad part, the departure from
the 1.00 value. The not breaking part is the good part, adding another
dimension. The US in specific and the west in general lead the world in
separation of church and state and religious freeodm. The US screws it
up on certain points. The logo on the money and the words in the Pledge
are among the screw ups.

Rosemary at the store yesterday. It didn't have as much aroma as I
expected.

Long pepper in my eggs this morning. It's not as hot as round
peppercorns. Not sure how to describe the flavor. Somewhere like
Worchestershire Sauce or cloves. As if those two have enough in common
for such a description to make the slightest sense. So now to try long
pepper flavored spice cookies! Gluten free as usual. I figure the
tee shirt will say "Uncle Dag went on a caravan with the Varangian Guard
and all we got was this recipe for spiced cookies flavored with an
exotic southern spice".

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it.

How do you differentiate being poisoned from awareness of hypocrisy?

Awareness of hypocricy is acknowledging the errors of a specific
religion. Look carefully and any faith will have some problems. To
assume that all suffer from the same problems is to be poisoned. They
do not.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.

I guess what bothers me is your out and out dismissal of Nad's
revelations, not that they are superior or inferior to your's. I'm
inclined to see religions as power structures (and we all know what
power does) that place themselves between the believer and their god.
That the god of love and mercy can be morphed into Jerry Falwell's god
of jealousy and revenge, is beyond my ability to reconcile.
That we are called on to worship this god is offensive to my democratic
principals. Call it hubris, if you will, but I have a much easier time
believing that a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies,
especially if it exhorts its followers to reason.

Many good things have been done in the name of god, the Quakers come to
mind, as well as religiously funded clinics, schools, and water
projects. I can relate to an extent to Nad's situation, in that when I
was a teenager I started to question the church I belonged to, when they
shunned a church member who became pregnant out of wedlock. I briefly
considered converting to Judiasm, but the examination of hypocrisy that
I had started on with Christianity soon overwhelmed any possibility that
I could believe in Judaism. Buddhism (not a religion, but still a
belief) seems the only hypocrisy free belief, until you come to the
philosophical schism between Hinayana, and Mahayana Buddists.

I won't post again on this thread, bbut I will read any response that
you may have.

-----

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An
individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my
comprehension, such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble
souls.
- Albert Einstein

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein

-----

If you like weekends (8 hr./day & 40 hr./week), thank a labor union.

===
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Billy wrote:

I guess what bothers me is your out and out dismissal of Nad's
revelations, not that they are superior or inferior to your's.

He asserts that all religions are in conflict with science. I'm a
member of one that is not. I know of plenty of others that are not.

He asserts that science answers the why. It does not. Science measures
but does not assign moral value. Science describes the mechanisms
without addressing the meaning of life. Science can direct goals but it
can not supply goals except regarding the growth of science.

I'm inclined to see religions as power structures

That's the religious organizations. Some have a lot more than others
but all have some. Religions tell about spirits, about what happens
after death, offer answers to the questions about what life means and
what are the goals of life. The religions also have certain features
included because the market demands they must. They must teach some
form of ethics, though the ethics come from the universe not from the
religion. Religions use allegory to teach ideas indirectly.

Philosophy can assign moral value, address the meaning of life, supply
goals. Religion can be viewed as a branch of philosophy or as a
competitor to philosophy. Philosophy can be viewed as a branch of
religion. I tend to see them with a Venn diagram showing their overlap,
neither being a subset of the other. Various religions have various
overlaps with various philosophies. To the extent your values are
important to you it is usual to inspect how the various religions
overlap, consider the ones with good overlaps, reject the ones with bad
overlaps.

Religions teach a spiritual approach to life. How does this tie in to
gardening? Gardening is one aspect of a spiritual approach to life.
Sometimes the spiritual experience is in the background, sometimes in
the foreground. One time I was digging up a part of the lawn to install
stones to add a walkway next to the driveway. Landscaping that's not
quite gardening.

As I dug and cut through roots and exposed bugs and worms I saw in
my heart how the world is alive. The story of how Odin and his brothers
slew Ymir and crafted the world from his body went from a story to
tell children to something I was experiencing transmitted through the
blade of the shovel into my hands. The ground is alive. That's science.
That's also religion of the sort that I want to be a member of. If a
religion does not teach that that's not a religion that will hold my
interest. If a religion does teach that I'll look further into how it
transmits meaning and value.

That we are called on to worship this god is offensive to my democratic
principals. Call it hubris, if you will, but I have a much easier time

It can fill volumes how it came about that democratic principles can to
be in the various regions of pre-Christian Europe in various forms and
how they interacted with the evolution of Christianity as it overwhelmed
the older religions then proceeded to absorb parts of them.

believing that a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies,
especially if it exhorts its followers to reason.

Telling a bunch of stories is only lies if you claim the stories are not
fiction. Only the JCI family does this.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Billy wrote:

I guess what bothers me is your out and out dismissal of Nad's
revelations, not that they are superior or inferior to your's.

He asserts that all religions are in conflict with science. I'm a
member of one that is not. I know of plenty of others that are not.

Correct. Name your religion.

The basis of all science is that the theory must be "Testable".
God based creation beliefs are not testable. It is a belief that cannot be
testable.

He asserts that science answers the why. It does not. Science measures
but does not assign moral value. Science describes the mechanisms
without addressing the meaning of life. Science can direct goals but it
can not supply goals except regarding the growth of science.

You are mixing up Philosophy with Religion. I see philosophy as a way life.
One can have Philosophical views with out religion. Religion in my book is
a belief in one or more gods

I'm inclined to see religions as power structures

So do I. Power structures that are harmful to a modern society.

That's the religious organizations. Some have a lot more than others
but all have some. Religions tell about spirits, about what happens
after death, offer answers to the questions about what life means and
what are the goals of life. The religions also have certain features
included because the market demands they must. They must teach some
form of ethics, though the ethics come from the universe not from the
religion. Religions use allegory to teach ideas indirectly.

Spirits, ghost... Oh brother, belief in more none existent creatures.
After life... Again a Non testable item that belongs in the world of
religion.
After life's explain nothing. If it is not testable it is not science!

I see the "soul" is biological chemical reaction of the human brain that
evolved over eons of time. When humans die they become compost (testable).

Where does the WHY come in when it comes to ghost, spirits and the non
existent after life. This is the realm of religion, not science or
philosophy.

Philosophy can assign moral value, address the meaning of life, supply
goals. Religion can be viewed as a branch of philosophy or as a
competitor to philosophy. Philosophy can be viewed as a branch of
religion. I tend to see them with a Venn diagram showing their overlap,
neither being a subset of the other. Various religions have various
overlaps with various philosophies. To the extent your values are
important to you it is usual to inspect how the various religions
overlap, consider the ones with good overlaps, reject the ones with bad
overlaps.

Philosophy is not a branch of Religion. Religion is a branch of Philosophy.
It is not a two way street. Religion may need philosophy, but philosophy
does not need religion.

I will agree philosophy can assign moral values to legal maters and a way
of life.

Religions teach a spiritual approach to life. How does this tie in to
gardening? Gardening is one aspect of a spiritual approach to life.
Sometimes the spiritual experience is in the background, sometimes in
the foreground. One time I was digging up a part of the lawn to install
stones to add a walkway next to the driveway. Landscaping that's not
quite gardening.

Again wrong, one can enjoy the aspects of gardening without a religion.
Landscaping is a subset of gardening. Gardening has nothing to with
religion. Atheist and the religious alike can enjoy gardening as way of
life.

As I dug and cut through roots and exposed bugs and worms I saw in
my heart how the world is alive. The story of how Odin and his brothers
slew Ymir and crafted the world from his body went from a story to
tell children to something I was experiencing transmitted through the
blade of the shovel into my hands. The ground is alive. That's science.
That's also religion of the sort that I want to be a member of. If a
religion does not teach that that's not a religion that will hold my
interest. If a religion does teach that I'll look further into how it
transmits meaning and value.

Again one does not need a religion to find moral values. As an atheist I
create my own rules in which I live by. Not from some ancient mythological
book.

Example my personal definition of a good person: a person that benefits the
tribe in which they live within. An evil person is one that harms the tribe
in which they life within.

That we are called on to worship this god is offensive to my democratic
principals. Call it hubris, if you will, but I have a much easier time

It can fill volumes how it came about that democratic principles can to
be in the various regions of pre-Christian Europe in various forms and
how they interacted with the evolution of Christianity as it overwhelmed
the older religions then proceeded to absorb parts of them.

believing that a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies,
especially if it exhorts its followers to reason.

Telling a bunch of stories is only lies if you claim the stories are not
fiction. Only the JCI family does this.

When one removes the presuppositions that a god exist. Then many
philosophical views will change. Religions are institutions that hold back
advancement in societies. Galileo Persecuted by the religious. Slavery was
good because the Holy Bible did not speak out against it. Black and Women's
rights, Gay rights all persecuted by a moral "religious" institutions. I
see religious instructions as being harmful to those that want different
life and even passing laws that protect the environment.

My view on life goes like this: I believe in maximum personal freedom as
long as one does not directly or indirectly physically harm another.

Therefore, slavery is wrong in my book, women and gay rights are fine with
me.
If you want to snort cocaine, fine by me. If your drive drunk and harm
another pay the price in jail.

And also part of that freedom is believing in a god if you wish. However
when a religious belief is against the freedom of others, I will be against
that church.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

He asserts that all religions are in conflict with science. I'm a
member of one that is not. I know of plenty of others that are not.

Correct. Name your religion.

Mine is a tiny one named Asatru. It would be amazing if you'd ever
seen the word. The nearest historically linked faith of any size is
Hindu. There are plenty of signs of ancient Asatru in modern
Anglo-Germanic civilization - Regional Thing evolved into jury and
country fair. National Thing evolved into parliment. The days of the
week got the names of the major deities. Number of members is a very
different story. There are tens of thousands of us in the world.
Extremely tiny.

None of the heathen/pagan polytheist religions of the world have a
conflict with science. They all lack the error of biblical inerrancy or
literal truth in their stories. The largest is Hindu, then Shinto and
so on down into smaller and smaller population faiths. National
Geographic has tended to call them "animist" rather than polythiest.
Generally polytheist faiths don't care whether you believe if the
deities of their pantheon exist. It's not about that.

There's also Buddhism and probably other deity-irrelevant faiths. I
don't know if Taoism or Confucicism fall in this category. It's been
too long since I've read the Analects or the Tao Te Ching.

The basis of all science is that the theory must be "Testable".

And the basis of most religions is that which is not testable. Which
puts them not in conflict.

God based creation beliefs are not testable. It is a belief that cannot be
testable.

Exactly. Whence not in conflict.

You are mixing up Philosophy with Religion.

No. You are trying to define religion as only those two that you
disapprove of. Not a game I'll play. Playing that game doesn't make
your restricted definition either correct or useful. The JCI folks want
to claim to define the space, but they do not define the space.

One can have Philosophical views with out religion.

One can. It's called the agnostic approach.

Religion in my book is a belief in one or more gods

It is irrelevant that you allow the JCI folks to define the space and
then that you reject them. That's a optional element in the list of
features.

Where does the WHY come in when it comes to ghost, spirits and the non
existent after life. This is the realm of religion, not science or
philosophy.

Philosophy is not a branch of Religion. Religion is a branch of Philosophy.

They are overlapping sets. Neither is a subset of the other,

I will agree philosophy can assign moral values to legal maters and a way
of life.

And that's only a part of why they are overlapping sets with neither a
subset of the other.

Gardening has nothing to with religion.

For millennia relgions have taught gardening as a path of life.
Gardening does in fact have much to do with religion. Gardening is
possible without religion. Not the same thing. For that matter
religion is possible without gardening. Who would want such a religion.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Mine is a tiny one named Asatru. It would be amazing if you'd ever
seen the word. The nearest historically linked faith of any size is
Hindu. There are plenty of signs of ancient Asatru in modern
Anglo-Germanic civilization - Regional Thing evolved into jury and
country fair. National Thing evolved into parliment. The days of the
week got the names of the major deities. Number of members is a very
different story. There are tens of thousands of us in the world.
Extremely tiny.

Ok?

None of the heathen/pagan polytheist religions of the world have a
conflict with science. They all lack the error of biblical inerrancy or
literal truth in their stories. The largest is Hindu, then Shinto and
so on down into smaller and smaller population faiths. National
Geographic has tended to call them "animist" rather than polythiest.
Generally polytheist faiths don't care whether you believe if the
deities of their pantheon exist. It's not about that.

I see your point of view. However, I do know that many people live with
contradictions and dilemmas in life. I am not one of them. My mind is more
of a hierarchal index. I refuse to live with contradictions. All religions
have a creation theory that is not testable belief that contradicts that of
science such as Evolution and the big bang theories.

I looked up yours,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm
****
Creation Story: A poem Voluspa (Prophecy of the Seeress) contains an �satrú
story of the creation of the universe. Between Muspelheim (The Land of
Fire) and Niflheim the Land of Ice was an empty space called Ginnungigap.
The fire and ice moved towards each other; when they collided, the universe
came into being. Odin, Vili and Ve later created the world from the body of
a giant that they had slain.
****

To believe that science and religion can coexist is at best a contradiction
in it's self.

Again, All religions have a creation theory not a testable belief that
contradicts that of science: Evolution and the big bang theories

There's also Buddhism and probably other deity-irrelevant faiths. I
don't know if Taoism or Confucicism fall in this category. It's been
too long since I've read the Analects or the Tao Te Ching.

The basis of all science is that the theory must be "Testable".

And the basis of most religions is that which is not testable. Which
puts them not in conflict.

Not correct. All religions have views that contract that of science from
the origins of the human race to the beginnings of the universe. Many
religious may believe that science and religion can coexist, but as an
atheist I reject this view.

God based creation beliefs are not testable. It is a belief that cannot be
testable.

Exactly. Whence not in conflict.

Wrong they are in conflict. I provided example already.

You are mixing up Philosophy with Religion.

No. You are trying to define religion as only those two that you
disapprove of. Not a game I'll play. Playing that game doesn't make
your restricted definition either correct or useful. The JCI folks want
to claim to define the space, but they do not define the space.

I am defining religion, and it has nothing with the TWO I disapprove of. I
disapprove of ALL religions and they are many many more than two religions.
Your are trying to merge two different worlds like oil and water.

One can have Philosophical views with out religion.

One can. It's called the agnostic approach.

Religion in my book is a belief in one or more gods

It is irrelevant that you allow the JCI folks to define the space and
then that you reject them. That's a optional element in the list of
features.

Two way street here, I can also claim your views are irrelevant.

Where does the WHY come in when it comes to ghost, spirits and the non
existent after life. This is the realm of religion, not science or
philosophy.

Philosophy is not a branch of Religion. Religion is a branch of Philosophy.

They are overlapping sets. Neither is a subset of the other,

Not overlapping, everything can be ordered in a top down hierarchal order.
Including set theory. Your world of just using venn diagrams is a non
ordered world. If it cannot be ordered then their is a paradox in the
structure.

For millennia relgions have taught gardening as a path of life.
Gardening does in fact have much to do with religion. Gardening is
possible without religion. Not the same thing. For that matter
religion is possible without gardening. Who would want such a religion.

For millennia religions have taught nonsense because they could not make
sense of their world, therefore a GOD must be the reason.

Enjoy your delusional religious world. It may be better to live in a world
of delusions and be have happy life than know the truth and live in a world
of harsh realities.

I see your point of point of view. It must come from the Noris God... Loki.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)