Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well, keep in mind the original point of this topic was religion. And we can certainly live without religion. The fact that atheists exist demonstrates that.I'm saying that we're incapable of not using philosophy. Your position that it's invalid may or may not be correct, but it's moot. It's like insisting that we should have thumbs on our feet. Maybe we should, but we don't, so why complain?
Yes, the op was about religion. Our conversation, however, has drifted a bit.Well, keep in mind the original point of this topic was religion. And we can certainly live without religion. The fact that atheists exist demonstrates that.
The questions, please answer which you can:
Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?
Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?
Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?
Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?
What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?
And just one point for some consideration if you haven't thought on it yet: The vocabulary of science and r/s are different, and I have seen too often one side or the other pegged as ignorant or treated without patience when they don't understand or grasp the concept or idea, so please practice patience with one another in the rise of counter opinions. Science and r/s can get along beautifully, just as the mind and heart can.
They also have gods that are all human and other ancient cultures like the Sumerians, Babylonians, Minoans and on and on... all had fully human deities.Egyptians, Celts, Hindus have gods with animal-like physical characteristics.
so the siberian use is incorrect?
I am well aware of what "shamanic people were and are"....
my argument is that you were stating that animals or the thigns that animals represented...
certain fishies beign wise amongst the celts for example... were the first types of shamanic worship
how do we know this? I would propose the land and the sky itself came first.....
I grew up in and around Glastonbury England, given that your "path" is of celtic reconstruction.....you may have heard of it...and may understand, that, well, I've sipped the cup..from the well..so to speak...
once again, there is a reason why modern science is labelled modern science...
you can dance around it all you like
ancient science was not as divorced from "religion" as it is now...
Modern science as such is only a few centuries old.
I am well aware of ancient science....
You are seeing what you want to see...Cave paintings in Levaux, France and Australia quite clearly show what was worshipped, not to mention the discovery of a 70 thousand year old statue..
You are seeing what you want to see...
Lascaux shows more signs of sympathetic magic than 'animal worship'.
The paintings of Australia illustrate stories and rights of passage.
and sometimes a statue is just a statue.... unless they also worshiped pregnant women? Which again disproves your point.
wa:do
I think you can easily see where you claim that animists worship animal spirits and had animal gods. We do not. Your argument rests solely on cherry picked and unsupportable guess work, that demonstrates profound conformation bias.
wa:do
Please feel more than free to show where I claimed people worshipped animals.
And I would suggest you read up on the Austraian paintings some more.
And sometimes a statue represents a god.