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)

Nad R wrote:

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.

Without biblical inerrancy there is no contradiction. There's a story
told by science, subject to revision as the art evolves. There's a
story told by mystics, subject to revision as the poetry and symbolism
evolves. One attempts literal truth but never gets there. One makes no
attempt at all of literal truth but rather poetic meaning.

I looked up yours,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm

Nice write up. Thanks for the pointer!

Creation Story: A poem Voluspa (Prophecy of the Seeress) contains an Ásatrú
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.

It says - The universe came into existance as a part of natural
processes. Life is within the universe as a part of those natural
processes. The world was formed from existing material not something
from nothing creation.

Not that it matters because the story is poetic and symbolic not
literal.

Many
religious may believe that science and religion can coexist, but as an
atheist I reject this view.

I started my career working on the space program with real space
scientists. Most of them understood that science and religion can
coexist just fine. Some managed to do so with Christianity. I never
did get that part. So you can reject that science and religion can
coexist, but plenty of full time professional scientists do not.

It's been nice. Thanks for the discussion!

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:

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.

Without biblical inerrancy there is no contradiction. There's a story
told by science, subject to revision as the art evolves. There's a
story told by mystics, subject to revision as the poetry and symbolism
evolves. One attempts literal truth but never gets there. One makes no
attempt at all of literal truth but rather poetic meaning.

I looked up yours,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm

Nice write up. Thanks for the pointer!

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.

It says - The universe came into existance as a part of natural
processes. Life is within the universe as a part of those natural
processes. The world was formed from existing material not something
from nothing creation.

Not that it matters because the story is poetic and symbolic not
literal.

Many
religious may believe that science and religion can coexist, but as an
atheist I reject this view.

I started my career working on the space program with real space
scientists. Most of them understood that science and religion can
coexist just fine. Some managed to do so with Christianity. I never
did get that part. So you can reject that science and religion can
coexist, but plenty of full time professional scientists do not.

It's been nice. Thanks for the discussion!

I guess, we will just have to agree that we do not agree.

Enjoy life Doug

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

Nad R wrote:

I guess, we will just have to agree that we do not agree.

Freedom of religion must mean any religion. Freedom of religion must
include freedom from religion.

Enjoy life Doug

Peter Sellers as Chance the Gardener in the move "Being There". Enjoy
the gardening to enjoy the garden.