sinequanon:

OK, I think you have started to go round in circles, viaro. Perhaps you are trying to answer a question with some other title.

Nope, I was not going round in circles; nor am I confused as to what the title of your thread is, was and has been. If you want to change it, that's all fine with me.

I prefer you read back carefully, than I repeat myself.

Otherwise, I am happy to agree to disagree with you at this point.

I didn't have any worries until post #91 where I figured you've been spinning things in cyclical posts and evading issues. I'm not in a hurry to let anyone confuse me on what I know about the meaning of a 'scientific paper' - which was why I had persistently asked you to show me any works of Dawkins scientific study on the supernatural submitted to the scientific community. Since you want to give another meaning that shames the scientific community on the meaning of a 'scientific paper', I thought you'd either have to smart up for what you argue, or I should anticipate PastorAIO in annihilating this thread completely!

As I said, viaro, stop getting excited and go back and read a little more critically. Then you won't waste time barking up the wrong tree.

I suggest you go all the way back to page 1, then you will see what is wrong with this,

Let's trash out once again that mere "mention" of supernatural was the very thing you categorically disavowed

It's almost laughable how twisted you've managed to get things in your haste and dismissive attitude.

If you don't see it, I agree to disagree with you.  

(Please don't waste too much time expanding on your red herrings.)

@viaro

The quotes are from your messiahs so hope you shut the guts now.
[b]
"The Goal of Science is understanding lawful relations among natural phenomena.
Religion is a way of life within a larger framework of meaning."
(Ian Barbour, "Religion and Science," pg. 204)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein) "

Religion is poetry plus, not science minus."(Krister Stendahl)

"Religion is the art of the poetic. Science is the art of the provable. Politics is the art of the possible." (Paul H. Carr) "

Science can purify religion from error and superstition;
religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish, 
We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)

"Culture (science) is the form of religion; Religion is the substance of culture (science)."
(Theologian Paul Tillich)

"Traditional religious creation stories and evolution are complementary.
Science and religion together can weave a rich tapestry of new meaning for our age."
(Theologian Philip Hefner)

"Science is an effort to understand the creation.
Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator.
Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science."
(Paul H. Carr)

"There is more RELIGION in men's SCIENCE than there is SCIENCE in their RELIGION"
(David Henry Thoreau, "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers."

"Science makes major contributions to minor needs.
Religion, however small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most."
(Justice Oliver W. Holmes) [/b]

sinequanon:

As I said, viaro, stop getting excited and go back and read a little more critically. Then you won't waste time barking up the wrong tree.

I suggest you go all the way back to page 1, then you will see what is wrong with this,

It's almost laughable how twisted you've managed to get things in your haste and dismissive attitude.

If you don't see it, I agree to disagree with you.  

(Please don't waste too much time expanding on your red herrings.)

This is not red herring - if it is, it comes from your efforts in trying to gull the public on this forum. Either you know the meaning of "scientific paper" or you simply do not. If you did, please show me Dawkins' scientific paper on the supernatural - go back and check up the meaning of a scientific paper and let's see if you'd still be spinning a million degrees on one spot.

I was trying to be gentle with you - but trying to blow smoke in our faces and ask us to nod approvingly is not going to last long, trust me.

skyone:

@viaro

The quotes are from your messiahs so hope you shut the guts now.
[b]
"The Goal of Science is understanding lawful relations among natural phenomena.
Religion is a way of life within a larger framework of meaning."
(Ian Barbour, "Religion and Science," pg. 204)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein) "

Religion is poetry plus, not science minus."(Krister Stendahl)

"Religion is the art of the poetic. Science is the art of the provable. Politics is the art of the possible." (Paul H. Carr) "

Science can purify religion from error and superstition;
religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish, 
We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)

"Culture (science) is the form of religion; Religion is the substance of culture (science)."
(Theologian Paul Tillich)

"Traditional religious creation stories and evolution are complementary.
Science and religion together can weave a rich tapestry of new meaning for our age."
(Theologian Philip Hefner)

"Science is an effort to understand the creation.
Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator.
Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science."
(Paul H. Carr)

"There is more RELIGION in men's SCIENCE than there is SCIENCE in their RELIGION"
(David Henry Thoreau, "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers."

"Science makes major contributions to minor needs.
Religion, however small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most."
(Justice Oliver W. Holmes) [/b]

@skyone,

Thank you for the harvest of quotes. To reassure you, none of those names are my messiahs - they may suit you, and I won't try to displace you in that hope.

However, if those same 'messiahs' of yours have anything to argue against what I posted on 'scientific paper', please show - or just kindly observe the thread. Cheers.

viaro:

@skyone,

Thank you for the harvest of quotes. To reassure you, none of those names are my messiahs - they may suit you,

I thought a young breeding atheist like you should have a serious mentor hence messiah [/i]since you delibrately disregard Jesus Christ; or are you just a peddler on an imaginary theory that has no fundamental use to humanity.

viaro:

@skyone,

they may suit you, and I won't try to displace you in that hope.

No fella in other words i can start a sermon titled "Jesus Christ is my only saviour" [i]if you are confused

viaro:

@skyone,
However, if those same 'messiahs' of yours have anything to argue against what I posted on 'scientific paper', please show - or just kindly observe the thread. Cheers.

common dont be an unnecessary arrogant mischief; have you forgotten you got your ridiculous idea of atheism from one of them

skyone:

I thought a young breeding atheist like you should have a serious mentor hence messiah [/i]since you delibrately disregard Jesus Christ; or are you just a peddler on an imaginary theory that has no fundamental use to humanity.

I'm sorry, skyone. . . you might have me confused for someone else. I am not an atheist. . viaro is a Christian, and I have said so a couple times in other threads.

No fella in other words i can start a sermon titled "Jesus Christ is my only saviour" [i]if you are confused

I'm not confused, but thanks for the offer.

common dont be an unnecessary arrogant mischief;

My apologies if my tone sounded arrogant or mischievous - it was not intended so.

have you forgotten you got your riduculous idea of atheism from one of them

Which one, please?

This post by theHomer, I found most relevant,

I can think of a few fundamental differences

1. Method of acquisition of knowledge.
In science knowledge is acquired through the scientific method which should have been taught in entry level science classes. (Can expound on it)
In religion, knowledge is gained by revelation in an old text or divine inspiration.

2. Permission of free inquiry.
In science one is allowed to ask questions about whatever one feels is relevant in that field.
In religion, some questions are considered taboo.

3. Accuracy of predictions.
In science, the predictions are usually accurate and exceptionally accurate when enough information is known about the systems involved.
In religion the predictions are usually very vague or totally wrong.

4. Inbuilt updating mechanism.
In science it is allowed for new more accurate knowledge to supersede old knowledge if it is correct.
In religion change or correction is not allowed.

These are the few I could come up with off the top of my head.

My own opinion, here, is that religions do have parallel concepts but often to a lesser extent. So I, personally, would not call these differences fundamental.

Maybe, one day, something would supersede modern scientific methodology that would place it on a par with religion.

viaro:

I'm sorry, skyone. . . you might have me confused for someone else. I am not an atheist. . viaro is a Christian, and I have said so a couple times in other threads.

I'm not confused, but thanks for the offer.

My apologies if my tone sounded arrogant or mischievous - it was not intended so.

Which one, please?

hnmm hope you are not in the same train with banom and ogaga  , if not apologies

sinequanon:

This post by theHomer, I found most relevant,

My own opinion, here, is that religions do have parallel concepts but often to a lesser extent. So I, personally, would not call these differences fundamental.

Maybe, one day, something would supersede modern scientific methodology that would place it on a par with religion.

That's fine with me. Thanks.

skyone:

hnmm hope you are not in the same train with banom and ogaga  , if not apologies

No, I'm not. Perhaps someday I might share a few of my past posts where I've clarified that I'm a Christian and my denomination is Baptist. But there is no need to apologise - we all make mistakes, and mine are many. Cheers.

@ Sinequanon
What are the things you consider supernatural?

sinequanon:

This is essentially observation and interpretation, appraisal, reconciliation and reinterpretation. It is common to both science and religion if you use neutral terminology.

No it isn't. In religion there is only one hypothesis and one theory/law and that is God did it. There is no controlled experimentation carried out in religion.

sinequanon:

Specifically, it was, until recently, taboo for a surgeon or other scientist to investigate the claims of patients who had had a near-death-experience and had claimed to have witnessed events or seen out-of-view objects while clinically dead. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, unless I can find an article submitted by a group of (Paris-based) scientists, discribing the difficulty they faced in being taken seriously.

Well find this article and I'm sure I can get you articles that are recent. This just confirms my point that there are no taboo subjects in science.

sinequanon:

No -- fundamentally, no better than the 'amazing' natural constructs we see around us, like termite mounds with their accurate temperature and humidity control. In fact, much science lags behind innovation. Aircraft were airborne before vortex shedding (fundamental to the scientific model of wing technology) was understood. Semi-conductors were in use before their quantum description was developed. Modems were operating at higher speeds than predicted from the early scientific models. Civilisations long past have interacted precisely with the environment without what we know as the scientific method.

The point I was making there was that the development of the technology of computing and of space travel involves very accurate predictions that can easily be traced back to the use of knowledge acquired scientifically. And for these things to function properly, scientific predictions are constantly required.

Please feel free to show me the failed scientific predictions.

sinequanon:

Yes, religious interpretations have evolved and practices changed. Women priests are now aloud in the Catholic Church, if I am not mistaken.

I am not religious, so I have never received any 'holy book'. But I know that the Bible has been rewritten and revamped a number of times.

No female priests are no ordained in the catholic church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Orders#Ordination_of_women
And the churches that do ordain women have not rewritten the bible to show that they can do this.

No what happens is that some parts of the religious texts are ignored by practitioners who consider themselves liberal. This happens due to the evolution of human culture with greater respect for human rights in those places.
But the change of practices and of interpretations does no effect any changes in the religious texts from which they get the reasoning from.
What happened with the bible was that it was recopied a number of times with errors. This is why even varying denominations can use the same texts even when they have differences. The differences were not written back into their bibles.

sinequanon:

This post by theHomer, I found most relevant,

My own opinion, here, is that religions do have parallel concepts but often to a lesser extent. So I, personally, would not call these differences fundamental.

Maybe, one day, something would supersede modern scientific methodology that would place it on a par with religion.

The differences are very fundamental.
Science is based on independently verifiable evidence.
Religion is based on this definition of faith (Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.)

So science already works at a level above religion it's up to religion to try to catch up to science.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome

.

AND

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

Case closed.

thehomer:

@ Sinequanon
What are the things you consider supernatural?

I am not a scientist. I don't consider things supernatural.

thehomer:
No it isn't. In religion there is only one hypothesis and one theory/law and that is God did it. There is no controlled experimentation carried out in religion.

I find this view extreme and oversimplified, but we can agree to disagree.

thehomer:
Well find this article and I'm sure I can get you articles that are recent. This just confirms my point that there are no taboo subjects in science.

I'm sure you could find more recent articles. Things move on. It is also the case with religion. Homosexuality and ordination of women is no longer taboo within many churches.

thehomer:
The point I was making there was that the development of the technology of computing and of space travel involves very accurate predictions that can easily be traced back to the use of knowledge acquired scientifically. And for these things to function properly, scientific predictions are constantly required.

The term accurate is loaded with scientific connotations. Would you say that the shape of a birds wing is "accurate"?

Moreover, when you talk of science leading to accurate predictions you are invoking a statistical perspective and you are talking matters of degree. Can one prediction make a religion "accurate"? At what point does it become "accurate"? Who decides? If you invoke science to answer that question, you are building bias into your assessment.

thehomer:
Please feel free to show me the failed scientific predictions.

"Atoms are indivisible." Do you really need a link?

thehomer:
No female priests are no ordained in the catholic church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Orders#Ordination_of_women
And the churches that do ordain women have not rewritten the bible to show that they can do this.

No what happens is that some parts of the religious texts are ignored by practitioners who consider themselves liberal. This happens due to the evolution of human culture with greater respect for human rights in those places.
But the change of practices and of interpretations does no effect any changes in the religious texts from which they get the reasoning from.

You say "ignored," I say "reinterpreted." Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.

thehomer:
What happened with the bible was that it was recopied a number of times with errors. This is why even varying denominations can use the same texts even when they have differences. The differences were not written back into their bibles.

The reason for the differences will be conjecture to some extent.

Science is man's theory of Technology and the creation of earth. . .
Religion is a different fundamental belief of Jesus Christ

thehomer:

The differences are very fundamental.
Science is based on independently verifiable evidence.
Religion is based on this definition of faith (Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.)

So science already works at a level above religion it's up to religion to try to catch up to science.

Independent of what, science?

Verified how, scientifically?

See how that can become a circular argument.

Prove that we live in a universe consistent with logic. What is your acceptance of universal logic based on?

@Viaro: LOL! My guy!! Now you have another label/accusation, you are not only pilgrim.1, you are now an atheist? LOL. I'm in stitches here.

@Skyone: sorry to burst your bubble but my friend Viaro is a Baptist, a Christian! Actually, the tendency is to think that people who make long, rational posts without interjections of religious quotations are atheists O boy , Laffta wan kill me for this end. Chei!!! No offense meant, o, skyone. I'm just laughing in Kiswahili.

sinequanon:

Independent of what, science?

Verified how, scientifically?

See how that can become a circular argument.

Prove that we live in a universe consistent with logic. What is your acceptance of universal logic based on?

Independently verifiable in the sense that you whether as a scientist or non-scientist can verify that the observed phenomenon is correct. e.g the fact that bodies fall at the same rate when acted upon by gravity and that the rate is about 9.8m/s²

How do you wish to verify anything? Religion has no mechanism for this.

Can you consider a universe not based on logic? For one there is a long list of physical constants like the speed of light, the masses of various elements, Planck constant etc. These values do not randomly alter themselves. If the universe were not logical, they should not be correct all the time.

The fact that the tools we use today would not function correctly if these constants were not constant. e.g the reliance of GPS on the interaction between light and gravity.

sinequanon:

I am not a scientist. I don't consider things supernatural.

Let me rephrase it what do you consider to be supernatural phenomena?

sinequanon:

I find this view extreme and oversimplified, but we can agree to disagree.

How is it extreme? What reason is given for the "rising and setting" of the sun?

sinequanon:

I'm sure you could find more recent articles. Things move on. It is also the case with religion. Homosexuality and ordination of women is no longer taboo within many churches.

It is not the case with religion I ask you again which religious text has been rewritten that you know of? This is the basis of the belief system of the religion.

sinequanon:

The term accurate is loaded with scientific connotations. Would you say that the shape of a birds wing is "accurate"?

Considering the large variety of birds how do you wish to draw up a standard? Accuracy requires a standard.

sinequanon:

Moreover, when you talk of science leading to accurate predictions you are invoking a statistical perspective and you are talking matters of degree. Can one prediction make a religion "accurate"? At what point does it become "accurate"? Who decides? If you invoke science to answer that question, you are building bias into your assessment.

Now you seem to wish me to play with words. This distracts one from the issue at hand. I used accurate there due to the low margin of error required for proper functioning.

Considering that religion has no method of independent verification and statistics can be seen to function adequately. So let me ask you what method do you wish to use to verify anything?

sinequanon:

"Atoms are indivisible." Do you really need a link?

That was a statement which has long been updated.
(Physics and chemistry) The smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element.
It was not a prediction.

sinequanon:

You say "ignored," I say "reinterpreted." Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.
The reason for the differences will be conjecture to some extent.

We are not agreeing to disagree you are evading the core problem.
You have still failed to show why despite the adoption of some of these practices in a minority of religions the updates are still not available in the religious texts.

There is no science that can prove God's existence neither there is science that can prove his non-existence. Why? Science is about proving the facts, science is about logical imperilism, its about that which is tangible.

Religion on the other hand is spiritual. That domain does not click with science. Can science prove wether there sujch thing called holly spirit? No. Why? cos it cannot be proven. Let me put it this way, anything spiritual, science cannot prove at all.

Its like going to court and say, i shot him because hne is bewitching me. What the Bleep. There is no jury that can seek to proceed with that case, because it c annot be prove.

How I see the difference between science and religion:

* Science is based on facts and theories that try to push our understanding of the world we live in even further;

* Religion is based on ancient tales (few verified, most mythology-bound) that hold men captive in what I like to call a state of 'mass illusion'.





PS: Religion has NOTHING to do with spirituality. If you don't grasp that already, then there's no point having a pseudo-debate. Religion is institutionalized. Spirituality comes from within.

Bless you ojare! Folks just keep on mixing the two together.Religionists are just trying to fake spirituality when all they really are are just WORSHIPPERS of some unknown entities posturing as the creator.

Iyineda:

PS: Religion has NOTHING to do with spirituality. If you don't grasp that already, then there's no point having a pseudo-debate. Religion is institutionalized. Spirituality comes from within.

Traugott:

@Viaro: LOL! My guy!! Now you have another label/accusation, you are not only pilgrim.1, you are now an atheist? LOL. I'm in stitches here.

Haha . . . it happens, so what can one say?

Iyineda:

How I see the difference between science and religion:

* Science is based on facts and theories that try to push our understanding of the world we live in even further;

* Religion is based on ancient tales (few verified, most mythology-bound) that hold men captive in what I like to call a state of 'mass illusion'.





PS: Religion has NOTHING to do with spirituality. If you don't grasp that already, then there's no point having a pseudo-debate. Religion is institutionalized. Spirituality comes from within.

Kindly educate them brother! I have succintly crept through this whole thread and wondered why people still do not get the difference. Let us be enlightened!

I'm not too fond of this Religion Vs Spirituality distinction. I'll tell you why.

I'm aware that Religion (the word/the concept) has had a bad rap over the last few decades. This has led many to try to distance themselves from it. For example some christians will say that[b] Christianity is not a religion but 'a way of life'[/b] or something or the other, anything just as long as it is not called a religion. I see this merely as nothing but a pr exercise. The use of associations and disassociation. Religion carries negative connotations so distance yourself from it at all costs. The fact of the matter is that it shares a lot in common with much of what else is called religion.

The same with these new agers. They try to dissociate themselves from religion. But think about it. Society is full of so many institutions. In 4th century Rome christianity was made one such institution. Is 'spirituality' to be experienced in a vacuum? Can one's interactions with his fellows, with his society, with his spouse, not involve spiritual experiences too? When two friends meet to pray together do they stop being spiritual and become religious?

Further, amongst the practices called 'spiritual', is there a distinction between the spiritual ideas/ practices and those underpinning other practices considered religious? What is the distinction? I'm not talking about the cynical ostentations of religious piety, but rather the ideas or principles behind the ostensible forms in the first place.

Of course there will always be politics. Religion will have it's political uses, as will ideologies such as freedom of the masses, equalities amongst the races, amongst the sexes, amongst the ages, meritocracy etc etc etc. There is nothing that cynism cannot employ. So if anyone wants to make a distinction of Religion and Spirituality to me then they have to come up with an argument more compelling for my intellect.

thehomer:

Independently verifiable in the sense that you whether as a scientist or non-scientist can verify that the observed phenomenon is correct. e.g the fact that bodies fall at the same rate when acted upon by gravity and that the rate is about 9.8m/s²

Independent of what, thehomer?

I reckon what you are unable to say is, "independent of scientific method."

Your point reduces to "science validates science." It is judge and jury. So what?

thehomer:
How do you wish to verify anything? Religion has no mechanism for this.

Through testing against religious principle, just as science tests against scientific principle. In both cases, the principles are interpreted with respect to the subject under test and some form of peer debate ensues.

I have said the case of ordination of women is a debate over interpretation of the bible. You say it is about ignoring parts of the bible (implicitly trying to impose your own interpretation of the bible). I am happy to disagree with you.

thehomer:
Can you consider a universe not based on logic?

Yes.

thehomer:
For one there is a long list of physical constants like the speed of light, the masses of various elements, Planck constant etc. These values do not randomly alter themselves. If the universe were not logical, they should not be correct all the time.

This goes back to my subtle point about consistency. These constants are not 'correct', they are consistent with the body of science. Anything that starts off inconsistent with them has to be reinterpreted until it is consistent -- alternatively, it may remain an unknown for a long period of time. In practice, the physical constant is not going to be the thing that will be changed to reestablish consistency. There may be many other less costly ways of establishing consistency without tinkering with core facts.

thehomer:
The fact that the tools we use today would not function correctly if these constants were not constant. e.g the reliance of GPS on the interaction between light and gravity.

In addition to my last point, constants can also be a direct artefact of human intuition, reflecting some habit of perception. The fact, that we haven't conceived a way of escaping the constant, may not be a fact about 'the universe' but about how we habitually interact with it.

thehomer:
Let me rephrase it what do you consider to be supernatural phenomena?

I, personally, do not believe in any such a category because I don't see scientific validation as anything particularly special. I do however say that scientists have labelled as supernatural phenomena outside their domain.

thehomer:
How is it extreme? What reason is given for the "rising and setting" of the sun?

It is not the case with religion I ask you again which religious text has been rewritten that you know of? This is the basis of the belief system of the religion.


Considering the large variety of birds how do you wish to draw up a standard? Accuracy requires a standard.

Now you seem to wish me to play with words. This distracts one from the issue at hand. I used accurate there due to the low margin of error required for proper functioning.

Excellent! 'Functioning', not 'accuracy'! That is what I call neutral terminology and was going to suggest 'utility', myself. Note that it also draws into question the notion of purpose.

So, you see, I am not asking you to play with words. I will accept neutral language. If something is fit for purpose (functions), how accurate scientific theory says it is is irrelevant. Even if current understanding in fluid dynamics predicts, to fifty decimal places, that a bee cannot fly because of it's geometry (flexible wing aerodynamics is still in its infancy), the bee can still fly. The term 'accuracy' carries an implicit bias towards science.

thehomer:
Considering that religion has no method of independent verification and statistics can be seen to function adequately. So let me ask you what method do you wish to use to verify anything?

Independent of what? Verification against what?

Science and science, hmm?  

thehomer:
That was a statement which has long been updated.
(Physics and chemistry) The smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element.
It was not a prediction.

The model of an atom is there to predict its behaviour. The predictions of 'the atom as a small bead' failed. The model, which is an interpretation and configuration of fundamental (scientific) principles, then got updated.

Similarly, if a prediction from the bible fails, the statement in the bible gets reinterpreted.

thehomer:
We are not agreeing to disagree you are evading the core problem.
You have still failed to show why despite the adoption of some of these practices in a minority of religions the updates are still not available in the religious texts.

Updates are not available in the fundamental principles of science. The law of conservation of energy has not changed. If it doesn't work, you can devise a new form of energy to make it work and say you are searching for a new type of 'potential' energy. As I said, consistency is all that is required, not truth, and core tenets are rarely the pieces to be updated.

Notwithstanding, I am happy to disagree with you that the changes in the bible were all accidental. If you cannot agree to disagree, maybe you will just have to sit there and stress.  

Pastor has just disapointed me with this post.I expected this kind of post from somebody like davidylan.Oh well . . .

Pastor AIO:

I'm not too fond of this Religion Vs Spirituality distinction. I'll tell you why.

I'm aware that Religion (the word/the concept) has had a bad rap over the last few decades. This has led many to try to distance themselves from it. For example some christians will say that[b] Christianity is not a religion but 'a way of life'[/b] or something or the other, anything just as long as it is not called a religion. I see this merely as nothing but a pr exercise. The use of associations and disassociation. Religion carries negative connotations so distance yourself from it at all costs. The fact of the matter is that it shares a lot in common with much of what else is called religion.

The same with these new agers. They try to dissociate themselves from religion. But think about it. Society is full of so many institutions. In 4th century Rome christianity was made one such institution. Is 'spirituality' to be experienced in a vacuum? Can one's interactions with his fellows, with his society, with his spouse, not involve spiritual experiences too? When two friends meet to pray together do they stop being spiritual and become religious?

Further, amongst the practices called 'spiritual', is there a distinction between the spiritual ideas/ practices and those underpinning other practices considered religious? What is the distinction? I'm not talking about the cynical ostentations of religious piety, but rather the ideas or principles behind the ostensible forms in the first place.

Of course there will always be politics. Religion will have it's political uses, as will ideologies such as freedom of the masses, equalities amongst the races, amongst the sexes, amongst the ages, meritocracy etc etc etc. There is nothing that cynism cannot employ. So if anyone wants to make a distinction of Religion and Spirituality to me then they have to come up with an argument more compelling for my intellect.

1. This morning, i was visited by Beyonce and Alicia Keys in the privacy of my room in Nigeria here. We had food, beer and got engaged in a wonderful party.

Ignore the porn and focus on the issue.


I guess you guys dont believe me. Why? EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE friends. Yet some can believe some guy in the middle east came to rescue the world, some guy built a zoo an ark that took all species(polar bears included o, even though the middle east is not particularly cold), and so on sha _{let me not overderail}

Earlier, someone(m_nwakwo i think) said science defines reality or evidence as things that can only be perceived with the five senses. How else are we as ordinary humans to accept or perceive?
This evidence thing to me is still the major difference. To make it worse, religious folks now see the debate as US vs THEM: who has more answers?. That is not really the point, gravity for example is existent everywhere on earth, ACCEPTED! But if i tell you that there are some parts in my village where stuffs dont fall and i agree to take you there: after several testing and experiments blah blah blah, if it happens to be true, science will not be ashamed(to restructure the claim that gravity is everywhere) and would not have failed either. On the other hand, religion is so concerned about so many things most notable the criticism of their leaders and dogmas. Science is not a position or an end rather its a process. Religion is an end that desperately searches for means to add up.
Do i want life after death? Yes, i want to see my grand parents and other dead friends and relatives again. My love for that should not make me postulate some theories that are absolutely baseless.

ilosiwaju:

1. This morning, i was visited by Beyonce and Alicia Keys in the privacy of my room in Nigeria here. We had food, beer and got engaged in a wonderful triple sin.

KAI!I believe by faith!My kind of trinity.
Where u come dey now?In the middle of the sandwish?

jagunlabi:

Pastor has just disapointed me with this post.I expected this kind of post from somebody like davidylan.Oh well . . .

Disappointment is a regular part of life. I still say that rejecting 'religion' is nothing but a pr exercise. Can you actually say anything in defense of this?

ilosiwaju:
But if i tell you that there are some parts in my village where stuffs dont fall and i agree to take you there: after several testing and experiments blah blah blah, if it happens to be true, science will not be ashamed(to restructure the claim that gravity is everywhere) and would not have failed either.

I think what would happen is that scientists would say that gravity exists in your village but that there is some new force counteracting it. Then they can dream up their new force.

You know, they have been searching for a gravity particle to bring the 'force' of gravity in line with other forces all of which are associated with particles, but to no avail. Does that stop gravity from being a force or break Newton III? Nope. Just an odd force called gravity.

PR exercise like how?Who needs the exposure?What people reject in religion is not only what it has become, but also what it represents.This has been pointed out so often on this forum that i am not going to even mention them anymore.

In the ancient times, what we now know as the institutionalized religion was just the exoteric part of a much more esoteric mystery schools meant to draw in the mainstream crowd through superficial ritualistic worship to enable the priests to monitor and select part of that populace that were ready for the real thing(esoteric teachings) which was initiation to knowledge of the  transcendental and metaphysical wisdom that were, otherwise, only open to the very few in the ancient times.Was jesus christ's teaching spiritual(esoteric) or religious(exoteric)?
Problem started when the exoteric part was hijacked and institutionalized by political leaders of that time to control and manipulate the populace, and called it "religion".The end result was that the esoteric part(the real thing) was cut off and demonized as sorcery or witchcraft, or demon worshipping,etc., while the exoteric part became the tool for mass population control through fear of the unknown.

To be spiritual means much more than just worshipping, praising,being of blind faith, and fellowshipping all over the place.The differences are so vast that one could write volumes of books just on those differences alone.

Another good difference is this one;

-To be spiritual, one needs a teacher
-To be religious, one needs a preacher

I am very sure you can identify the difference between the two.And Jesus was a teacher, was he not?

Pastor AIO:

Disappointment is a regular part of life. I still say that rejecting 'religion' is nothing but a pr exercise. Can you actually say anything in defense of this?