Demonology

A

Arete

Guest
I was just wondering if anyone had any good information on demonology. Im doing a report on it. Ive done the obvious things like google and wiki but got poor results.
 
I just find it ironic that someone could be serious about asking for information about fictional beings as if there is some serious "study" of demons called "demonology." But then that same person has the gall to accuse someone else of "spam."

Frickin' religious nutters flock to "science" boards in search of "intellectual discussions" but post dumbass, shit questions like that.
 
SkinWalker said:
I just find it ironic that someone could be serious about asking for information about fictional beings as if there is some serious "study" of demons called "demonology." But then that same person has the gall to accuse someone else of "spam."

Frickin' religious nutters flock to "science" boards in search of "intellectual discussions" but post dumbass, shit questions like that.
Click to expand...

So your saying posting a link that is irrelevant to the subject is not spam? And yes I know there fictional beings I just said I was doing a report on them. How does that imply Im a religious nutter?
 
SkinWalker said:
I just find it ironic that someone could be serious about asking for information about fictional beings as if there is some serious "study" of demons called "demonology." But then that same person has the gall to accuse someone else of "spam."

Frickin' religious nutters flock to "science" boards in search of "intellectual discussions" but post dumbass, shit questions like that.
Click to expand...

my question to you sir is if you hate these topics so much why do you post on them?

Try the book Angels and Demons: What Do We Really Know About Them? by Peter J. Kreeft or The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
 
In a science forum, where we should be expected to pick apart religion with scientific scrutiny and discuss how religion afflicts societies and affects scientific advancement.
 
No, it's a religion forum in a philosophy category under a scienced-themed message board. All the other forums under philosophy contain philosophical discussions in their respective areas of philosophy. It would stand to reason that this religion board is intended for religious discussion in general; otherwise it would go under "subcultures" or perhaps "world."

Most of the members here who feel they are conducting some kind of scientific inquisition upon all theists have been demonstrated not to be scientific in their conduct at all, but to be quite dogmatic to their own belief systems, employing internally incoherent logic to enforce their opinions rather than attempting to explain empirical observations. If your criterion for acceptable discussion in the religion forum is that it must scrutinize religion scientifically, then you should probably move to have it renamed to "Sociology," then have all current threads in the forum moved to the cesspool.
 
Quite often, when one has not spent the time reading many of the posts already presenting such arguments as baumgarten suggests have not, they fail to have read those refutations against that which was already spewed forth countless times before.

So, the question would be, should those arguments be presented again for the benefit of a single member? Or, do we simply direct them to the archives?
 
I have read these refutations and found them unsatisfactory to a scientific line of reason. I have furthermore found science unsatisfactory to explore the topic of religion, as it is too dependent on personal, qualitative experience, outside the scope of science.
 
I'm giving my expectations and perspective and what *I* expect from it. You can have your own expectations. But you're right, religion is sociology. Its also anthropology and psychology. But it certainly isn't a *real* phenomenon any more than remote viewing and ufology. "Real" in the sense that there really are supernatural agents that need to be influenced by man, that is. Religion is real in that there are those that believe what they are doing is to appease or influence supernatural agents and real in its effects on humanity.

So when the bullshit gets passed around like its meant to be consumed in a ceremony of transubstatiation and people claim to be "experts" in theology and in understanding what the "supernatural agents" want, there needs to be the voice of reason -questioning and criticizing these self-proclaimed "experts" and students of religion who take courses with curricula that assume the doctrines to be factual.
 
So when the bullshit gets passed around like its meant to be consumed in a ceremony of transubstatiation and people claim to be "experts" in theology and in understanding what the "supernatural agents" want, there needs to be the voice of reason -questioning and criticizing these self-proclaimed "experts" and students of religion who take courses with curricula that assume the doctrines to be factual.
Click to expand...
Why does there need to be "the voice of reason?" A religion usually lacks a logical basis, but as the scope of religion includes mostly subjective issues, a logical basis is not really necessary. The purpose of a religion is not the same as the purpose of science. Nature is not necessarily required to quantitatively corroborate the theories, as it were, of religion. What matters most about a religion is that it allows its followers to find their personal truths, which are by definition not your truths to refute.
 
baumgarten said:
I have read these refutations and found them unsatisfactory to a scientific line of reason.
Click to expand...

Uh, sure you have, all of them.

I have furthermore found science unsatisfactory to explore the topic of religion, as it is too dependent on personal, qualitative experience, outside the scope of science.
Click to expand...

Then, if you feel science is inadequate, what other form of inquiry do you suggest?

How else does one question the imaginative?
 
baumgarten said:
I have read these refutations and found them unsatisfactory to a scientific line of reason.
Click to expand...

To which "refutations" do you refer?

baumgarten said:
I have furthermore found science unsatisfactory to explore the topic of religion, as it is too dependent on personal, qualitative experience, outside the scope of science.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. Science is very much equipped to examine religion.

Neuroscientists are capable of looking at the states of religious ecstasy, psychological states, and drug-induced hallucinations that accompany religious experiences.

Archaeologists can look at the volumes of physical data exist in the form of artifacts and epigraphy that reveals past religious experiences, rituals, practices, beliefs, texts, institutions, conflicts and so on.

Cathedrals and churches obey the same laws of physics and gravity as do all other buildings and structures.

Historians and anthropologists are able to look at wars and conflicts and separate those that are purely secular from those that are religiously motivated.

Archaologists and anthropologists are uniquely qualified to examine past religions and compare and contrast with current religions, noting evolutionary trends from, say, polytheism to monotheism and what influences that invading cultures have upon indigenous religions and vice versa.

Science can -and should- examine religion. Religion is an affliction that affects most of humanity and the net effect may or may not be positive. One thing is for certain, in todays globalized society, where information is transmitted instantaneously, new religious cults (i.e. Heaven's Gate, Aum Shinrikyo) can emerge quickly and the possibility of a single cult overtaking much of a society is a very real threat.

Science can -and should- examine religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top