It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lucid Lunacy
I gave no definition. In fact I wasn't suggesting anything other than using theirs!!
Who's to say what their definition of the divine is? Ummm…they say.
I am talking about how they describe their god(s) and how they describe their religion. I am not attempting to do it for them. Am I making up religious scripture and stating they believe its contents? No. They have their own they believe in. And that is all we need in order to understand the point I was making.
Which is again: if they all have a relationship with the divine entities of their religious faith it presupposes the truthfulness of their scripture/holy books and thus creates a plethora of logical contradictions amongst the faiths.
They can't all be true based on their (not mine!) understanding of the divine. It can't be more obvious than isolating their accounts of creation, that's why I am using them as examples. God 1 claims it's the one and only creator god and it made the oceans before the stars. God 2 claims it's the one and only creator god and it made the stars before the oceans. They can't both be true accounts of reality.
Religions postulate truth claims about reality. And religions conflict on fundamental levels with each other. It's completely illogical that they would all be true.
Thus your statement they all have a relationship with the divine doesn't work. Unless we say, for example, Egyptian religion is the only true one, and Mormons and Muslims are actually paying homage to Ma'at or Osiris with their relationship with the divine. That being the case, that's quite a deceitful relationship hehehe.
Lucid Lunacy
Pot calling the kettle black.
Okay here is my response to that. Using your own words:
What's funny is I didn't actually give any definition of my own or make an attempt at describing it. Yet, here you did. You literally just described how they should believe.
You essentially just said a true believer is a religious pluralist. I assure you not all religions agree with that. Like not at all. Calling those believers that differ from what you just described as not 'true believers' very much makes you guilty of what you just accused me of. Which is, defining it for them.
And now you're defining what non-believing means for the non-believers. I hope you see how hypocritical you're being.
Also. I have no idea what all that meant. Brings destruction to anything good in the Universe?? O_o
It absolutely doesn't offend me, and thank you for noticing.
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
I'd take it that your answer to my earlier question that can man/woman be separated from science? You're answer seems like a big "Yes" from all that lengthy post.
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
I'll go back to my initial question, can man/woman be separated from science? Does science still exist if it was devoid of the interactions of man/woman? The answer seems like an obvious "Yes" because the sun will still shine and the earth revolve around it even if humankind became extinct off the face of the earth. All these scientific processes still continue to happen without the influence of humankind. True, in this manner, science is separate from man, if you would call all that "science". But science is just a label we put on all these things we have discovered under the scientific process/movement, they already operated before without any label.
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
And so with this distinction, science is but another pair of glasses that we look upon the world around us. It is in the same manner when we use religion. The methods may be different, science has a more rigorous style of vindicating its findings thru a series of experiments and physical evidences, but religion back in the days does that too, although not strictly relying on physical evidence and more on some wild superstitions. People gather together and rejoice in their common understanding of the nature around them and attribute it to a divine entity for lack of better words.
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
Ghost147
Yet again, you are over simplifying a word, in this case Preaching. You're using it in the correct way, as in saying that they are delivering a speech, but you're also implying that it has some religious context to it. Which it doesn't. They are not delivering a sermon, they are simply giving a speech about some facts. Once again, does this make Mathematics religious? or any other form of speech religious because it could, from an obscure distance, be compared to religious preaching? Not at all.
Actually, yes it does. It is in the same manner that when a preacher starts talking; To the preacher, what he preaches he claims as facts, hoping that the listener will believe in it. He is offering his own perspective, how he formulated it, how he has come about it, it may not be as evident and rigorous as a scientific thesis, but the aim is still to convey to the listener: this is what I've seen and done, this is how I have described what these things are.
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
The listener doesn't actually believe in it at first until he can verify for himself under similar experiences of what has been described. And when he goes through that experience, I'm 100% sure you've just won yourself a believer. Or in the case of science, you've just convinced someone else the validity of your hypotheses or findings. And then you belong to that "religion", an inclusive one at that, but nonetheless still another form of religion. The god is invisible, almost non-existent, but its still there working the mechanics of its universe. But you can also say that a universe can exist without a god having to create or operate it. It's really up to you how you relate with the universe around you or the divine from within...
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
From the very core to its peripherals, it's all a matter of time for you to notice when similar structures or activities happen with that in science as it did in religion.
tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147
If I may add, in the same manner, it is like that too in Mathematics. God is the number. Everything, the whole universe is viewed through numbers, the devotion through such perspective is astounding, so astounding that some mathematicians have gone insane when they have encountered the infinite.
Somehow, I feel that you have negative sentiments towards the word "religion" or its conventional meaning.
tomoe723
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
But isn't everything a human does his own religion?
tomoe723
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
I am aware that I am downplaying the distinctions you have pointed out and the reason is because they are just not important.