When the wind blows I swear its a song and the trees dance for me!

*** Certainly, religious dogmatizm cannot compare to flexability of Science. But what I was really trying to get accross was the point that our notions of "nature" are so incomplete, that our current beliefs aren't relatively far from the religious ones!!! (i.e. compared to the Complete/Total knowledge)

Besides, the power of religion -- as with any philosophycal doctrine -- is in Interpretattion! Thus, I suspect, the farther we advance our scientific knowledge, the less difference there would be between Science and religion! (after all, science has sprung out from religion)

Erm, no. Science sprung from a desire to learn and understand how and why things work and not settle for the explanations of uninformed, unmotivated people. Religion is about belief, without question, in the stories and "knowledge" of how and why things are as told by those who wrote the particular book(s) associated with that religion.

I think there is usually an emotional attachment to anything we believe, don't chu?

I didn't even know that you think! (j/p )

I think there is a huge spectrum of 'degree' of emotional attachment. This morning, at first I believed it was around 6:45, and when I saw a clock that said 6:15, it did not require very much emotional adjustment for me to abandon my emotional attachment to my belief that it was 6:45.

Some rare people have a similar level of (mostly) non-attachment to their current position on the Big Important Questions.

Regardless, I think its always a good think to check in with ourselves, honestly evaluate our attachment, and consider the influence this has on our thought process.

I'm sorry, but this pseudo-logical answer indicates that it's author doesn't know much, especially History!!!
One of the main pre-occupations of religion has always been maintaining and enlarging the flock of faithfuls (i.e their donations). And that could be accomplished only through reinforcing the faith with the help of various "Mirracles"! Creating those mirracles necessitated Employing Expensive Learned people who could perform experiments and create "MIRRACLES".
A desire to learn and understand is a side effect which religion has underestimated: those same "Learned people" continued the research on their own (at the expense of religion) -- satisfying their "desire to learn and understand how and why things work". And, sometimes, some of the "Learned people" had to be panished for disclosing the "secrets" to the general public -- the heretics have been burned at the stake (like Jordano Bruno, who dared suggesting the Earth isn't the center of the universe!)

Eventually, the "desease of learning and understanding" the Physical world has acquired the mass appeal, and religion has been displaced into the realm of Spiritual world!

No? While your claims of these "Learned People" being employed and then continuing work after employment with the church is no doubt true, its only LOGICAL that just because churches funded specific "scientific" research to fool their flock does NOT mean that the desire to learn and discover new things and how things work did not exist before--or outside of--organized religion (the need to explain these things simply is what birthed religion, in fact). If you doubt that, take a look at numerous atheist and non-affiliated scientists throughout history who have made large impacts on science as we know it. Gallileo, Albert Einstein, Pierre Simon de Laplace, Charles Darwin and modern scientists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. All of these people were not influenced by religion in their desire to learn how the world (or things in or outside of it) works.

Well ... maybe Richard Dawkins was in a spiteful kind of way.

Yes.

But of course, none of the modern day scientists have been influenced by religion! Nevertheless, the ones you mentioned -- Albert Einstein, Pierre Simon de Laplace, Charles Darwin -- all were synagogue/church going individuals (for spiritual needs)!

I never argued the fact of "the desire to learn and discover new things and how things work did not exist before--or outside of--organized religion"!!! BUT in the Middle Ahes, religion was the major facility for conducting expensive research!!!

However, your DEAD WRONG about "what birthed religion" (i.e. the need to explain the How/Why of things) !!!
* * * Religion is DOGMA passed down from the times immemorial. The only interest it might have vested was reinforcing the faith in a supreme being! Every contradictiion had to be masterfully comouflaged (i.e. iterpretted) to fit the doctrine !

P.S. Once again, your knowledge of the famous scientists' Names (and, possibly, their works) doesn't mean you know anything about those Individuals!!!

No. Energy =/= life. It sounds very poetic, but unfortunately it's just not true.

Both ice and water are H20.

Matter is energy stored. Matter is a standing wave.

Depends on how you want to identify self.

Body, mind, or consciousness?

I'll give it a go...


1.) Technically, to be or stay "alive" you have to possess consciousness and be able to breathe.

Define breathe: for us it is done mostly by the lungs. Other life forms my have other methods. Breathing is a movement that transports life giving components to all other living parts that participate in our universe/body. Our bodies are made up of mostly living bacteria. We are a universe of bacteria working together. We are a group consciousness manifesting and growing.

2.) To be me, is to realize that I exist and that I am unique.

3. To confirm your own existence to others, (and perhaps to yourself) if being aware is not enough, it would require some sort acknowledgment from "others."

But to exist one must ultimately manifest forms, preferably life forms.

All of the above scientists you quoted from my post were atheists. Einstein's definition of God was just the immensity of the universe and its many mysteries as yet unfolded by man. As for Charles Darwin, he scripted his ideas on God in Voyage of the Beagle. Don't know much about de Laplace, admittedly.



Oh, but you did.



And you do realize time began far before the middle ages, right?



Ok, let me rephrase that ... religion has been ACCEPTED over the millenia due to a need to explain existence simply and was then used to control those very people.



How many of those scientists have you met and gotten to know personally? I only know what history and biographies have told me. So here's an idea, you build a time machine (and earn eternal fame as scientist, yourself--bonus!), then we'll get to know them personally, together. After that, we can argue about scientific motivations. Until then, I'm done. Bye, bye now.

Some things (especially nonsense) don't deserve rebutals!!!

There has been a lot of nonsense on this thread, you will have to be more specific.

JB.....lovely pix of u. agree lots on nonsense on this thread. so go fish.

Heloo MT...good answer to my post. how u b?