Starboy

That is my point. Religion as it exists today has made itself irrelevant. IMO people need training wheels for life. There are people that need something to hang on to. Society as a whole needs guidance for each person so that we all can live together in harmony. This was one of the roles that religion was supposed to provide. Look around you. Can there be a more divisive force that exists in the world today than religion.

As bad as religion is, science cannot serve as a replacement. Science can inform you about what you should do but it cannot guide you. There are many in this world that sorely needs that guidance. Too bad religion is not up to the job. The world better come up with a replacement soon, because it needs it bad.

Starboy

Amos

It was known long before Christianity that the world was not flat so the flat earth argument was not about the shape of the planet but about our flat world we create upon it . . . or heaven could not be round. Just look at the difference in flat and round architexture between the Notre Dame and the Madleine (Madgalene) in Paris and that will end the flat world argument forever.

Definition of inspiration is a good question. If we can reason things out by induction from prior knowledge (good point you made) we do not need the test because by induction we can also predict the outcome of the test, unless the hypothesis was an inspiration without sufficient knowledge to induce the outcome of the experiment. This is why "the idea" is an ilumination and not an induction. Of course we can also do science to verify our induction story and this is where science becomes boring.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

Religion is irrelevant or counterproductive. My answer to this is to change the Upper House with the Catholic Church and you'll soon be smiling.

The difference between the Upper house and Lower house is like the subconscious mind and the conscious mind which is what a democratic government is modelled after. From this follows that inspired wisdom must come from the Upper house which is the Catholic Church in my suggestion and that allows for a separation of church and state with no religious slants or opinions in the lower house.

Starboy

Amos, you will have to change more than that.

Amos

I won't, they will!

galiel

Damn Canadians.
BLAME CANADA!!!!

Anti-Creedance Front

Okay, this whole conversation seems to now be about my statement "science kills religion dead", and Amos' response to it. I could have said "science kills god dead", but I didn't, because I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. However, science will strike down the fundamental myths and "mysteries" of faith, and prove them to be falsities. Maybe in the near future. Like I said before, Christianity is on the defense right now. That's because science and logical thinking are starting to smash their theological superstitions. So in summary, I am saying that science kills dogma, not god. It may very well kill the Jesus myth though.

Starboy

Anti-Creedance Front,

I take it that you think that god is not dogma?

Starboy

Amos

I think my message was that science is good but the long, but perhaps sure, way about getting to the discovery of truth for individuals who will discover that with each truth extrapolated many more questions will emerge. The reason for this is that each image that is confirmed by the scentific method is part of the whole which is perceived with the eye of our soul. This now means that while we extract science from omniscience we add to the pool of omniscience from where we extrapolate the next hypothesis.

Dogma must be understood, it is fixed and will never change. Theology may change but only if our opinion was wrong to start with.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Starboy

Amos,

I don't think we are talking about the same science. I am not referring to "knowing", but to "knowing nature" by learning from nature. Do you see that distinction?

Starboy