Sacred and Profane Science? [SPLIT from "Are you a Homosexual"]

[Aemma]

The hard truth of life is that one is thrown into this world, into the existence, where one has to make decisions of one's own in various, often adverse, circumstances and no ancestors, no knowledge of your genepool, no (no matter how elaborate) theory of animal/whatever nature is going to help you.

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with the categoricalness of it all. It's presumptious for any human being to think that he has all of the answers to everything in the world. We know nothing.

[Aemma]

That's what you say, but why do you think so? Religions do not aim primarily at explaining 'material phenomena', but on the other hand nothing in a normal religion prevents the examination of phenomena that may - more or less correctly - be so labelled. Do you by any chance believe in the modern myth saying that pagan beliefs were nothing but (primitive) explanations of natural phenomena?

Ah and so the bias rears its ugly head yet again. "A normal religion"...yikes.

[Poltergeist]

Now I understand you better….but I still disagree.

Greek science itself, whilst acknowledging deity, was the first attempt at the creation of a non-religious explanation of material phenomenon.

Totally different from modern mechanicist materialism which started to develop from 17th century. Not much in common.

As for “desacralized” you seem to be, if I understand you correctly, confusing atheism with science and also assuming that atheists don’t have a concept of the sacred and also that sacred equals profession of belief in God(s).

Sacred comes in different forms, I didn't say sacred was only about belief in God(s).

Nor am I confusing atheism with science. Natural science does no inquiry into the matter of God because it's outside of its scope and of the possibility of its method. A natural scientist can be "theist" or "atheist", it has no bearing on his scientific research as such, it's irrelevant.

However, the important thing is one's attidtude towards the sacred. There is a difference between someone who stands in awe before the sacred and recognizes it as such and someone else who declines the possibility that anything can be sacred. The latter builds idols of sorts as well, maybe inevitably so, but it's his conscious attidtude towards the sacred that makes him different from the former.

[Anthropos]

Ah and so the bias rears its ugly head yet again. "A normal religion"...yikes.

No, dear momma, you are just assuming things instead of reading properly here.

[Poltergeist]

I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with the categoricalness of it all.

Hmmm....I haven't impression I am being especially categorical here.

Much more categorical are those who claim there is some fixed and immutable human/animal nature (I am not saying you are one of those, just referring to a general trend present amonmg such essentialists).

It's presumptious for any human being to think that he has all of the answers to everything in the world.

Indeed. No-one has.

We know nothing.

Or very little, to be precise. The irony is that the more one knows, the more is one aware of their ignorance. As the knowledge advances, new, hitherto unknown questions arise.

[Aemma]

No, dear momma, you are just assuming things instead of reading properly here.

No no dear T-bone, if you used less biased language, I wouldn't be jumping to these conclusions now, would I? The word "religion" itself is value-neutral and you just made it value-laden by utilising a most inappropriate adjective, "normal", in such a discussion.

[Óttar]

Interesting point that you bring up though Loki, since this is very true. In most other species, the male is the more colourful and more 'beautiful' specimen. Interestingly though, it has been a large part of Western culture to admire the female human body and this has been done more so by men than women in the past as well.

In classical Greece the male body was considered the height of aesthetic excellence.

In response to Tabiti's (quite possibly correct) claim that female relationships are closer and more intimate than male friendships, while women are more likely to physically express their friendship for one another, brushing each other's hair and so on, male friendships can be very deep on an intellectual level like the relationship between a philosopher and his students, and then there is the friendship between soldiers and comrades.

I believe there needs to be a restoration of a genuine Maennerkultur, an iniatic system and firm social network for men to support one another. Women definitely have us beat in the social support department, which is one of the main reasons imo that men die sooner.

Gin and tonics

Hey, I enjoy my gin and tonic... It's generally much more reliable than a woman.

[Anthropos]

No no dear T-bone, if you used less biased language, I wouldn't be jumping to these conclusions now, would I? The word "religion" itself is value-neutral and you just made it value-laden by utilising a most inappropriate adjective, "normal", in such a discussion.

Distinguishing between different things has nothing to do with bias. Pagan beliefs and practices were normal, but neopaganism and modern 'heathenry' are not normal. There is no bias in saying that because neopaganism is something completely different from the pagan mindframe that once was. And mind you, before you issued this silly diversion I was talking solely about authentic paganism, treating it as normal and everything, not seeking to deny it any degree or status.

Here is the 'heathenistic' fallacy that against all reason and all facts you bind yourself to as soon as the topic comes up: To assume that paganism of old and modern 'heathenry' are the same or at the very least to ignore the abyss that parts them. That's exactly how you must have understood what I wrote since you come along whining about 'bias'.

All you ever see when someone says what I just said is a 'bias'. There's no wanting to even understand it on your part. Now that's biased to say the least; that's downright ignorant and arrogant too.

[Aemma]

Distinguishing between different things has nothing to do with bias. Pagan beliefs and practices were normal, but neopaganism and modern 'heathenry' are not normal. There is no bias in saying that because neopaganism is something completely different from the pagan mindframe that once was. And mind you, before you issued this silly diversion I was talking solely about authentic paganism, treating it as normal and everything, not seeking to deny it any degree or status.

Here is the 'heathenistic' fallacy that against all reason and all facts you bind yourself to as soon as the topic comes up: To assume that paganism of old and modern 'heathenry' are the same or at the very least to ignore the abyss that parts them. That's exactly how you must have understood what I wrote since you come along whining about 'bias'.

All you ever see when someone says what I just said is a 'bias'. There's no wanting to even understand it on your part. Now that's biased to say the least; that's downright ignorant and arrogant too.

Are you done preaching me?

Good gods Anthropos, get that chip off of your shoulder. All I did was correct you. You can't take it. So be it. Next time, be clearer in your use of language. It will go far in terms of mutual understanding.

Now enough of your personalising each and everything I add to any discussion. I'm getting quite tired of it. Not to mention it is rude.

[Anthropos]

I was clear and I even replied to your provocation in a civil manner. At your age you should at least tolerate some criticism.

Preaching? Personalising? You are being ridiculous.

Do I have to use YOUR manner of speech on all occasions for you to leave me alone and not persecute me with your moralist crap?

You are way out of your mind.

Are you done preaching me?

Good gods Anthropos, get that chip off of your shoulder. All I did was correct you. You can't take it. So be it. Next time, be clearer in your use of language. It will go far in terms of mutual understanding.

Now enough of your personalising each and everything I add to any discussion. I'm getting quite tired of it. Not to mention it is rude.