Religious Discussion

[Nosferatu]

How is time "technically" not a dimension if you can't move backwards in it? What definition are you pointing at?

And is religion waning in power? And is Judaism/Christianity younger than Egyptian and Grecian native religions? And is science a "religion"?

If you can't move back in time, it's not a dimension. We can move to and from in our 3 conventional dimensions. There's the time and space continuum that is often thought of. We have the dimensions of space, but time is still something that isn't something that we have freedom of controlling.

And yes, religion is waning in power. Isn't it obvious?

---

The problem with treating science as a religion is that science is a process, a way of looking at a problem, not a system of beliefs and dogma. And the conclusions reached by science are provable, data-based conclusions about the universe around us, not moral directions and predictions about what happens when we die. We have no data on what happens when we die, and morality is a humanities issue.

So while it's facile to say "science is our modern religion," that only really works if you don't actually know anything about science or how it's done. In that case, it basically seems like a big black box that spits out information, pretty much like religion seems at that level of understanding.

Science doesn't tell you how to live your life, or what to think, or how to feel; it can't, it doesn't work that way. Religion has done all of those things, to certain degrees at certain points in history, because it DOES work that way.

Science replaced the "how" in religion.
And other things have come about to replace the social aspects of religion.

 

[☢☢Zombies Galore☢☢]

As an avowed atheist, no, it's not obvious in my experience that religion is waning in power. At the very least politically in the US, Australia and the Middle East religion is very much waxing in power. This might shock you, but there have been in the past and continue to be very strong ties between politicians and religious leaders.

Here's one example: the Southern Baptist Convention raises millions of dollars (unconstitutionally, openly, and unchallenged) for conservative statesmen.

Another: Omar al-Bashir is the president of the largest country in the Arabic speaking world and tenth largest in the world, Sudan. Why is this significant? Al-Bashir came into power after a military coup in 1989 where he overthrew Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi under the umbrella of one Hassan al-Turabi. Bear with me a for a moment, this is a really big deal; al-Turabi is Osama bin Laden's personal spiritual adviser and teacher. Has been since the whole Soviet-Afghan war where the shit hit the fan and a spoiled rich boy became a hard line fanatic. Until about 2000 the two were hand in hand, al-Bashir being sponsored by al-Turabi, until the former jailed (and subsequently released) him for advocating for a more pragmatic ruler. They have since gotten over their problems.

Another: in Indonesia Sharia has been implemented alongside their modern legal codes.

How is religion waning in power? Explain, please.

 

[Mr Master]

The problem with treating science as a religion is that science is a process, a way of looking at a problem, not a system of beliefs and dogma. And the conclusions reached by science are provable, data-based conclusions about the universe around us, not moral directions and predictions about what happens when we die. We have no data on what happens when we die, and morality is a humanities issue.

So while it's facile to say "science is our modern religion," that only really works if you don't actually know anything about science or how it's done. In that case, it basically seems like a big black box that spits out information, pretty much like religion seems at that level of understanding.

Science doesn't tell you how to live your life, or what to think, or how to feel; it can't, it doesn't work that way. Religion has done all of those things, to certain degrees at certain points in history, because it DOES work that way.

Science replaced the "how" in religion.
And other things have come about to replace the social aspects of religion.

You can't just stop there. You haven't really explained your point at all. What do you mean by the "how" in religion? How did science replace it? And how can science be the new religion if it doesn't do a buttload of the things religion does.

It's easy to just state sweeping claims like that, but this forum is about reasoned debate. You're making theses, but you're not bothering to support them, and if you can't do that, they're baseless. It's making me think you don't actually know what you're talking about.