ornamentalmind, Yup, I'm BSing, and I hope I get points because I'm willing to admit it. I do believe my own BS though, until proved otherwise. ;)
On Apr 28, 10:47 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > "...Back when, there was not a thing such as Religion (believe in > things > that can't be proved). There was just stuff people knew in order to > survive, some of which were true, some were untrue, but not worth > testing, just in case. Gods were just an obvious explanation, it was > Occam's razor for the time." - Lon > > Of course, this too is but opinion/belief. No papers 'proving' it > anywhere I can find at least. > > Occam, when turned upon itself melts. > > On Apr 28, 8:34 am, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That's really an odd question. To postulate you'd be able to seperate > > say, the Greek Pantheon from Greek Civilization. When did religion > > really become into being? > > > Today's common definition of Religion automatically makes the concept > > stupid. It basically breaks down into: the belief of things that > > can't be proved or are untrue. It must be about unprovable things, > > elsewise, why would you have to believe, instead of know? I think the > > problem today is that we have ways of proving and disproving things, > > but they have little to say about how we should behave. And it's > > really hard to decide to behave one way or another based on any reason > > science gives us. > > > Back when, there was not a thing such as Religion (believe in things > > that can't be proved). There was just stuff people knew in order to > > survive, some of which were true, some were untrue, but not worth > > testing, just in case. Gods were just an obvious explanation, it was > > Occam's razor for the time. > > > When humans went beyond simple survival, Religion was born. Even the > > most scientific people deal with belief today, though they may not > > include a God. Take global warning... is it real and human caused? > > God knows there are scientists out there to prove just that, even if > > it is not so. Because, they believe certain things: that nature > > should progress with as little human impact as possible. You can't > > scientifically prove that something like that is true. You may say > > that it is better for human survival, but even that is not exactly > > provable, and still requires the belief that our survival is a Good > > thing. > > > I don't think you can disentangle belief from human kind, history or > > future.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
