<You don't need to solve all the problems of the universe to know the difference between a superstition and a fact.>
"You actually DO need to use the entire history of the universe as context to assert with absolute certainty something is a fact. :)) Cool eh?"
You don’t know facts with Absolute certainty, DAK. They are always qualified by the knowledge base. It is apparently necessary for me to explain this relative context if I am to hope that you will discontinue this habit of putting my generalizations into an Absolute context.
"And hence the great vast expanse of area where 'fact' is really a matter of opinion."
Fact is always a matter of opinion. “Reasonable” opinion surely admits of difference. But the difference between people who use reason as a methodology and people whom base their “knowledge” on religious Absolutism (which amount to superstition)--that difference is a chasm.
If you remember your religious history, then you recall that for centuries the Church believed that there WAS a Garden of Eden on the Earth. They even thought they had found it a couple of times! LOL!!
Here is how Webster’s defines “superstition":
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Do you see now how I intend the word when I describe religions as being superstition-based rather than fact-based?? Do you understand that the mere instance of a misapprehension of fact does not qualify the misapprehension as a superstition? Neither does the inverse hold true. Uranus was once thought to be the farthest planet from the sun in our Milky Way Galaxy. It was not a superstition. Indeed, it was a (qualified or conditional) FACT. It is no longer a fact. On the other hand, it was NEVER a FACT that there was a Garden of Eden on Earth--no more than that Artemis was the daughter of Leto and Zeus and assisted in the birth of her twin. Even though Artemis was worshipped just as Mithra and later Jesus (and thousands of other Gods and "man"-gods)...her worship was based (like the worship of Jesus and thousands of others) on the ideas quoted above under Webster's definition of SUPERSTITION.
"Jesus? Too recent and to much documentation. IMHO Jesus existed."
I found the ABSENCE of documentation on a matter relatively recent where scores of historians fail to note His existence as compelling evidence that He DID NOT exist--certainly not in any way resembling the myths of the "bible". Certainly, the absurdities, inanities, and contradictions which comprise the scribbling of “Matthew”, “Mark”, “Luke”, and “John" decades after these supernatural events (which went unnoticed) were supposed to have occurred...add little to the credibility of His existence.
I will send you one of many articles in a separate post which looks at the historicity of "Jesus". I find the idea that the biblical Jesus existed to be absurd. ...Evil spirits are causing him to be sick. We will put them in a herd of pigs and kill the pigs--LOL!! :-)
"You said all religions... just correcting."
No. You were misreading the context. I was making a generalization that is true for 99.9 percent(a generalization, again--as well as an estimate) of religions. Philosophical paths or worldviews which come to incorporate Gods and supernatural entities into their corpus DO support my statement.
You don’t know facts with Absolute certainty, DAK. They are always qualified by the knowledge base. It is apparently necessary for me to explain this relative context if I am to hope that you will discontinue this habit of putting my generalizations into an Absolute context.
"But if your generalization that Christianity AROUSE OUT OF, or morphed from superstitious thought with no intervening catalist (Jesus) makes no sense IMHO."
It makes sense to me that Christianity was a Judaic sect that formed on the superstitions of Judaism which itself was structured around a Tribal Storm God. Christianity borrowed much of its mythology from Mithraism which it supplanted.
The few good ideas voiced in the “New Testament” were never original and were said better by others. The character of invention and myth comes through so clearly in the scribbling attributed to “M,M,L, and J” that I see absolutely nothing in it to cause me to put it higher than any other of thousands of mythologies (religions)--and a great deal about it is sufficiently inane and cruel to make it unpleasant to read.
"1.) Science is showing that observing or putting your attention on something changes it."
That is not my understanding. Firstly, quantum mechanics addresses the atomic scale. Secondly, indiscreet values do not mean the values are not determinant. The position AND the momentum may not both be MEASURED at the SAME TIME. That does not implicate the same as "observing or putting your attention on something changes it". You might want to rethink that idea...
I believe Tigerpaw might be better able to address this and I would gladly accept his correction.
"Scientists are also wondering what exactly IS thought anyway??"
Yes, thoughtful people like to live life on a rational basis.
"3.) Latest physics speculates the Universe may be a hologram"
What definition are you using for "hologram"? Who is making that claim and what exactly does it suggest? Does it relate to an idea of a Goddess or a God in some way??
4.)Interesting speculation on what 'scaling' means(Feigenbaum)
What is the speculation??
"as I said before... science by definition is an attempt to describe god."
Where do you get that definition of science?
"I don’t' get the whole argument except that some probably deny that god created them from "lower" forms of animal."
I don't have any idea what you are talking about. You don't get some (unexplained) argument. But some probably deny that god created them from an animal? Are you talking about evolution? Don't most religious people believe that God created people out of mud and a rib? How is that myth more mindless than believing that "God" created people out of trilobites? |
