My experience at RaptureReady

[Iacchus]

Huh? Does that actually make sense to you?

Religion is an outgrowth of human fear. It has nothing to do with science.

You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.

Science is a method of looking at the world to determine the truth of how things work. It has nothing to do with religion.

But what about the mystery of the soul? Do you think science should neglect this?

They are not separate parts of one whole. Religious folk would like you to believe they are so they can glom off some of the respectability of science. But nothing in your paragraph above is true.

No, we have that which is external, versus that which is internal.

The only ones under a delusional state are those who choose religion.

Or, perhaps those who can't reconcile themselves to the fact that God might exist.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.

Oh puh-leeze. When and where was this golden age that featured life-embracing Matriarchal religions. You need to be a bit more specific about time and place than "thousands of years ago". 2,000 years ago? 3,000? 10,000?

While you can undoubtedly find a handful of examples of societies that were matriarchal and/or whose religions were headed by female dieties, you would be hard pressed to prove that these societies were any more peaceful (which I take is wht youmean by "life embracing") than contemporary patriarchal societies. You also would be hard pressed to find a time when matriarchal societies were the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Iacchus]

You are assuming that religion and science or opposites on the same coin. It's really not. Religion and atheism are more likely to be opposites, I would wager.

Except that Atheists back up their beliefs with science. Are you saying science has no followers?

And the whole man vs woman argument reminds me of that little phrase that raised my hackles in one of Randi's commentary, that some woo-woo crap was called "Woman's Science". It was such an insult to women, especially female critical thinkers.

You mean women which have become men?

And what does science and religion have to do with men being jealous of women's ability to give birth? The analogy does not hold.

Why? Because as hard as we try to be the "cat's meow," women are better suited for this. Why? Because they "are" the cat's meow. The origin of love -- and sex -- begins with women.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh puh-leeze. When and where was this golden age that featured life-embracing Matriarchal religions. You need to be a bit more specific about time and place than "thousands of years ago". 2,000 years ago? 3,000? 10,000?

How about early Crete for an example?

While you can undoubtedly find a handful of examples of societies that were matriarchal and/or whose religions were headed by female dieties, you would be hard pressed to prove that these societies were any more peaceful (which I take is wht youmean by "life embracing") than contemporary patriarchal societies. You also would be hard pressed to find a time when matriarchal societies were the rule rather than the exception.

Damn, where the hell is Joseph Campbell when you need him? I remember him posing a pretty plausible argument somewhere?

What about the American Indian then? Their religion is based upon worshipping Mother Earth, and it was pretty wide spread.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

How about early Crete for an example?

Ironically, I was someone just mentioned Crete being Matriarchal on another thread about another subject. And I don't doubt Crete was matriarchal, however as I said, matriarchal societies have historically been the exception rather than the rule

Damn, where the hell is Joseph Campbell when you need him? I remember him posing a pretty plausible argument somewhere?

What about the American Indian then?

American Indians never were a homogeneous group. Some had all manner of societies, some matriarchal, some didn't. Neither were American Indians particularly peaceful. If they had competition for resources, they'd fight, matriarchy or no.

For a good example look at the Iroquois. One could argue that they were Matriarchal but they were as warlike as any other tribe. They sided with the French during the French-Indian war because they wanted allies to wipe out the Algonquins.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Since you (Iachus) made an edit since I made my response, I should also point out that American Indians no more had a common religion than they had a common anything else. They did not necessarily worship "Mother Earth".

 

[Iacchus]

Since you (Iachus) made an edit since I made my response, I should also point out that American Indians no more had a common religion than they had a common anything else. They did not necessarily worship "Mother Earth".

I don't claim to be an expert on the American Indian here, however I do base what I know upon things I've seen and heard.

I did have very a unusual experience about American Indians though. It concerns Chief Joseph, chief of the Nez Perce Indians ... if you would care to take a read?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't claim to be an expert on the American Indian here, however I do base what I know upon things I've seen and heard.

I did have very a unusual experience about American Indians though. It concerns Chief Joseph, chief of the Nez Perce Indians ... if you would care to take a read?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

I am not an expert on American Indians either (yet), I am working on it though. I am, however, familiar enough with the beliefs and societies of different tribes to be able to say that any sort of blanket statement like "American Indians were matriarchal" is probably not true. I am also familiar enough with history to be pretty certain that the myth of some Matriarchal golden age when peace was the norm is also bunk.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: My experience at RaptureReady

Nice!

And now that the tables have turned and this idea has clearly "come of age," perhaps we should begin to question science just as boldly? Especially since it seems, it's become a means by which to "rule out" God.

Its an integral process of science to have all of its findings questioned/verified. Everything in science is already questioned boldly, its through this questioning that sceince advances

 

[RussDill]

And what about this thing called "ethics," which is derived from religion? Are you saying science has no need for ethics?

ethics? derived from religion? Since when? Ethics is derived from humanity, I can point out many non-ethical things that derive from religion that religion claims is ethics, such as treating women as non-humans. I'm certainly not willing to accept the ethics coming out of religion.

 

[RussDill]

The difference between Science and Religion is like the difference between thoughts and emotions (or, left brain versus right brain). And it's totally ludicrous to say that both can't exist at the same time. Indeed you can't have one without the other. Much as you can't have men without women.

Actually, relgion most likely existed before science, and many scientists do not participate in any religion, so you can have one without the other just fine. Also, many branches of science deal with human emotion and expression.

In fact if we don't acknowledge that the "integration" of Science and Religion will make our society whole, then we will continue on in our delusional state, down this neurotic schizoid path, and "the left" will constantly be at odds with "the right."

Relgion is the opiate of the masses, sure its easier to control a population with the right religion, but its still a lie, and people still die needlessly because of religion (holy wars, honor killing, "faith healing", etc).

So you've presented this whole stupid argument because you don't want to accept what it means to be whole. This "is" the problem with Science, in its attempt to "distance" itself from its emotions. Too bad, it's only a one-sided (neurotic) view.

Science does not distance itself from emotions, it attempts to study them along with human expression in great detail. Also, love, human expression, art, human emotion, none of these things require religion to exist. In fact, if anything, religion quashes their creativity to draw the same thing for 1500 years. Some religions even prohibited the drawing of human or animal figures.

Actually when you get right down to it, this whole thing is a man against woman thing. Do you know why? Because women were once considered the origin of life (contrary to what Science may wish to believe) and indeed, the very center of existence. And, I think men may be just a tad jealous when women give birth. I mean men can build all the monuments to themselves that they like, but how does that compare to giving birth, the most precious commodity of all?

Women participate in science with just as much dedication as men do. Does that mean that they are jealous of men, maybe other women? Its silly, you'll have to provide some evidence.

So is anyone aware that Science is the prodigal son of Religion?

Nope, sorry.

 

[RussDill]

You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.

Are you saying that there have been no Matriarchal religions with an element of fear? Or no Partriarchal religions that embrace life? Are you aware that there are religions that are neither matriarchal or patriachal?

But what about the mystery of the soul? Do you think science should neglect this?

There is no mystery of the soul. There is the mystery of conciousness and the human brain, which science far from neglects, but actually does study in great detail.

Or, perhaps those who can't reconcile themselves to the fact that God might exist.

Religous folk love to believe that atheists are just afraid of god. I think I, along with anyone else on the board, can assure you that that is simply not true.

 

[RussDill]

Except that Atheists back up their beliefs with science. Are you saying science has no followers?

beliefs do not need to be backed up with science, they can be experimentally verified with science.

You mean women which have become men?

I know quite a few women who are engineers that would take *great* offense to that sexist comment. Do you really believe that women have no place in science and engineering?

Why? Because as hard as we try to be the "cat's meow," women are better suited for this. Why? Because they "are" the cat's meow. The origin of love -- and sex -- begins with women.

What is the "cat's meow", why do I want to be the "cat's meow" and why is every woman better suited to being the "cat's meow"?

I know a few men personally that do not require women for love or sex. I however, do not swing this way, but I'm perfectly happy to initiate love or sex (consentual of course) with a woman without her having to supply all the love or all the sex, its 50/50.

 

[RussDill]

How about early Crete for an example?

Really, I'm sure its out of the love of their own hearts that they had the most formitable navy of the time. I'm sure it was also out of love that they engaged in bull jumping (jumping over a bull while it is charging at you).

Damn, where the hell is Joseph Campbell when you need him? I remember him posing a pretty plausible argument somewhere?

An argument refered to by a believer as "pretty plausible". Sounds like something that could get ripped to shreds in seconds to me.

What about the American Indian then? Their religion is based upon worshipping Mother Earth, and it was pretty wide spread.

Another group of people amoung who I know many members and such a comment would be insulting to them. There is not a "their religion", they all have their own seperate, unique, and colorfull religions, some worship "mother earth", some do not. War between tribes was not uncommon though.

 

[RussDill]

I don't claim to be an expert on the American Indian here, however I do base what I know upon things I've seen and heard.

The native americans are a very diverse, socially complex group of people. You can't watch a few movies, hear a few things, and then make sweeping generalizations.

I did have very a unusual experience about American Indians though. It concerns Chief Joseph, chief of the Nez Perce Indians ... if you would care to take a read?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

I can't believe I actually wasted a few minutes of my life reading that. What the hell is the points of your ramblings, did you actually write all that meaningless crap?

 

[Iacchus]

The native americans are a very diverse, socially complex group of people. You can't watch a few movies, hear a few things, and then make sweeping generalizations.

Really?

I can't believe I actually wasted a few minutes of my life reading that. What the hell is the points of your ramblings, did you actually write all that meaningless crap?

Now that's the dumbest thing you've said so far. You don't know the first thing about me pal ...

 

[RussDill]

Really?

Yes, really, the native american people are a very diverse and socially complex people and you CANNOT make sweeping generalizations about them.

Now that's the dumbest thing you've said so far. You don't know the first thing about me pal.

No, I don't know much about you, but you pointed me to a page that would supposively explain your view point, but instead, it was a page full of useless ramblings. If you have a point to your ramblings, please state them here. It just looks like to me that you a proving that yes, you are human, and yes, your brain does attempt to make connections all the time.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, really, the native american people are a very diverse and socially complex people and you CANNOT make sweeping generalizations about them.

This is like saying I can't refer to the United States without referring to each of the 50 states in the same breath. Nonsense!

No, I don't know much about you, but you pointed me to a page that would supposively explain your view point, but instead, it was a page full of useless ramblings. If you have a point to your ramblings, please state them here. It just looks like to me that you a proving that yes, you are human, and yes, your brain does attempt to make connections all the time.

Like I say, you don't know the first thing about me.

 

[RussDill]

This is like saying I can't refer to the United States without referring to each of the 50 states in the same breath. Nonsense!

Refering to the united states as the 50 states its made up of is not a sweeping generalization. Saying that we all like apple pie is a sweeping generalization.

Like I say, you don't know the first thing about me.

I see you don't bother to refute anything I say. I might add that I do know one concrete thing about you, you are a backwards sexist. (re, thinking that women have no place in science and engineering)

 

[Nyarlathotep]

This is like saying I can't refer to the United States without referring to each of the 50 states in the same breath. Nonsense!

True, but you couldn't look at the states of Nevada and Arizona, notice that they are mostly desert and then conclude that the United States is mostly desert. It would be inaccurate and it is a much closer analogy to your characterization of American Indians.