MJ's religious beliefs.

[Bo G]

...it seems that you are looking at the word 'worship' (and a religious believer) in a lesser way than you are looking at 'what you see as true('and science.)

I think I've been careful not to say that worship is lesser than science, so as not to offend. If you press me to rank them, I will. (Though I suspect it's not necessary).

this should not be about seeing a person with religious beliefs as someone lesser than someone who sees science as you do. as you said you didn't want someone to see a non theist as less smart than a theist.

...on the subject of facetious..you said you can tell when someone is, but you had a hard time explaining it...

I KNOW I haven't said, or implied, or thought this. I might not value a BELIEF, but that does not necessarily correlate with how I value the PERSON. Please debate my ideas instead of repeatedly trying to make me out personally as a jerk.

I actually thought I did a glorious job of explaining facetious. Since this word is still a problem for you, here's dictionary.com. Your use of it to describe bad MJ reports doesn't match up:
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

To be honest, it feels that you're just throwing stone after stone, and each time I respond, it just provides more ammunition... so I think I'll stop here.

 

[*~Tink~*]

editing post... nice time for a photo, maybe?

 

[144000]

I think I've been careful not to say that worship is lesser than science, so as not to offend. If you press me to rank them, I will. (Though I suspect it's not necessary).



I KNOW I haven't said, or implied, or thought this. I might not value a BELIEF, but that does not necessarily correlate with how I value the PERSON. Please debate my ideas instead of repeatedly trying to make me out personally as a jerk.

I actually thought I did a glorious job of explaining facetious. Since this word is still a problem for you, here's dictionary.com. Your use of it to describe bad MJ reports doesn't match up:
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

To be honest, it feels that you're just throwing stone after stone, and each time I respond, it just provides more ammunition... so I think I'll stop here.

you just did.

you just did. again. and apparently you offended more than one person on here. so, i'm not seeing things.

you don't see that you are looking down your nose at others who don't agree with you. usually it takes two witnesses to see it. and there are at least two.

and you also claimed that people are trying to determine religious beliefs to claim dead celebrities as their own. that is also offensive.

may i add that when you attack the beliefs of a person, you ARE attacking that person. and a lot of non essential stuff was said in bad MJ reports, in order to paint him as a monster. so facetious does add up, there. it started with the word 'weird' and somehow, that translated to, and traveled all the way to 'child molester.'

 

[Bo G]

Tink just PMed me, for which I'm grateful, and we had a really nice exchange.

Tink and I have very different cultural backgrounds and personalities, and I think Tink understands now that from my perspective there was no disrespectful or demeaning aspect to my post. But so as not to be jarring or distracting, I'm going to keep my humor G-rated in this thread. I've got another more PG-rated thread that's a little more edgy, but tasteful and constructive, and I'll keep the two separate. So we're both deleting our comments about this. With L.O.V.E.

 

[Bo G]

vncwilliam, your posts have become simple bullying. But even worse, they're uninformative and boring.

 

[Bo G]

Combined posts.

 

[Bo G]

editing post... nice time for a photo, maybe?

Yep, this one puts the smile right back on my face. Thanks!

Anyone have links to new, objective, information on MJ's religious beliefs?
Or checked out his quotes in the Shmuley tape and is willing to post them here? The link to a "Shmuley-free" edit to the transcript is earlier in this thread.

 

[*~Tink~*]

Yep, this one puts the smile right back on my face. Thanks!

You're welcome! We should have more random MJ pics throughout every thread!

Here is an except from Moonwalk~

"My mother knew her polio was not a curse but a test that God gave her to triumph over, and she instilled in me a love of Him I always have. She taught me that my talent for singing and dancing was as much God's work as a beautiful sunset or a storm that left snow for children to play in."

:wub:

 

[ginvid]

Deleted.

 

[ginvid]

I challenge you to find a single person on Earth who regards evolution or science as his or her religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion: From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. So using this definition you can very well say that there are many people on Earth who regard science (I wouldn’t say evolution) as their set of religious beliefs. They think science is the ultimate good and the salvation for mankind. Isn’t that similar (correct me if I am wrong because I have not actually spoken to one of them) to what Scientologists believe?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

religion is based on faith science is based on fact is what most scientists etc tell u. so very different scientology is based off the teachings of a sci fi writer

 

[*~Tink~*]

religion is based on faith science is based on fact is what most scientists etc tell u. so very different scientology is based off the teachings of a sci fi writer

Sometimes religion is more experiential, though, as in mystical traditions. If religion is experiential, it may not really require faith. But it can be nearly impossible to explain this to someone who simply has not had the experiences, like explaining rock and roll to Beethoven. It's not that Beethoven was unintelligent, just his set of life experiences could not begin to contextualize rock and roll. So some scientists can just think spiritual folks are nutty. But it's untrue.

 

[Bo G]

Religion: From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.

So using this definition you can very well say that there are many people on Earth who regard science (I wouldn’t say evolution) as their set of religious beliefs.

No.

See the words I bolded in your definition.
Science is not based on "faith." It's based on evidence.
Science is not a "cause" or a "system of beliefs." (A principle...yeah).

It makes no sense to consider religion and science as two kinds of the same thing. They try to do different things. Science doesn't claim to be able to do everything that religion claims it can do:

--Tries to provide meaning in life. Religion: Yes. Science: No. (That's philosophy).
--Tries to advise people how to live. Religion: Yes. Science: No. (Again, that's philosophy)
--Tries to provide a method of acquiring knowledge: Religion: Yes. (Thru revelation & faith). Science: Yes. (Thru observation, experiment & logic).

Science is just tools. To worship science is like worshipping your toolbox. This is why scientists laugh when we're asked (as we are ALL the time) if science is our religion.

Here's how it works in practice for a person using philosophy and science, instead of religion:

--My meaning in life might come, for example, from my connectedness with people. Or from nature. These fill me with love and happiness.
--Because of this, I might believe in ethics that say I should take care of people and nature. So I become a healthcare worker or a parent, or volunteer on a river cleanup.
--If I want to these things well, I need knowledge. I need hard cold truth, not wishful thinking, not faith, not someone's revelation. I need the knowledge gained by scientists.

Here's one example of the difference: you've cherry-picked your data, as we would say in science. You've listed only the fourth definition from that dictionary, because the first three major ones disprove your point even more than the one you used. This is standard practice in making religious arguments from religious texts. In making a scientific arguments, this ruins your reputation.

. Isn’t that similar (correct me if I am wrong because I have not actually spoken to one of them) to what Scientologists believe?

Are you genuinely serious that you understand the difference between science and Scientology? If so, are you willing to flip a coin next time you have a heart attack? Heads, you send a carrier pigeon to a Scientologist. Tails, you dial science-based 911, to reach science-based providers and their science-based-equipment.

 

[ginvid]

Scientists at one time believed many things (often influenced by superstition or religion) but nevertheless it was still called science. At one time in history science and religion were almost interchangeable. I have spoken to some people who consider science to be their religion. it is the set of beliefs that they hold to. I cannot believe that you in your whole life have never met anyone who thought that science was the highest good a person could achieve. (I am not saying all scientists view it as a religion that would be ridiculous) But I know for sure there was a school of thought that in effect worshipped science. I had to study them in school for two hours a day 5 days a week for months.

We switched between science (which took the majority of the time) and philosophy and the Bible. Many scientists still hold to a "traditional" religion like Christianity and view science as simply a means to better the life of man and to gain understanding of the world around us. This is the best way to take science in my opinion. To strike a balance between what is reality and what is tradition. What is faith and what is tangible.

But there are some who do hold to it as set of almost religious beliefs. To deny it would wrong. I will try to find the name of the group and let you know.

Side point, Just because you have a religion that is based on faith, it does not mean that it is blind faith. That is a mistake of many scientists. I have had these discussions many times from a teacher who thought he knew best. But high school was so long ago.

 

[ginvid]

Here's one example of the difference: you've cherry-picked your data, as we would say in science. You've listed only the fourth definition from that dictionary, because the first three major ones disprove your point even more than the one you used. This is standard practice in making religious arguments from religious texts. In making a scientific arguments, this ruins your reputation.


You are excused. When you have scientific data it is always about providing a thesis and then picking that which best supports this. The first 3 defintions were not used because they simply did not fit the argument. Not that it disproved mine. It would be one thing if I made up the defintion completely but you cannot deny the fact that the word religion can be used as defintion 4. Is it the most popular way to use that word. No. but it is a fact that exists even if it is not the most common form of the word.

If you were given the option (as many scientists like to do) you would pretend as if defintion 4 did not exist at all because it did not fitin with your thought that science could not be a religion, when according to that definition it cam. So who has a ruined reputation.

All I was doing was saying to make a blanket statement about science and religion does not take in all data. While most scientists may not feel that way ( I agree it is a tool or shoukld be viewed that way IMO) you cannot blindly state that no one has ever felt that way.

 

[Bo G]

Here's one example of the difference: you've cherry-picked your data, as we would say in science. You've listed only the fourth definition from that dictionary, because the first three major ones disprove your point even more than the one you used. This is standard practice in making religious arguments from religious texts. In making a scientific arguments, this ruins your reputation.

Please edit your post to indicate this is a direct quote from me. As it stands right now, it appears you're accusing me of cherrypicking data, instead of the other way around.

You are excused. .

From what? I haven't asked to be excused for anything. ???!!!

When you have scientific data it is always about providing a thesis and then picking that which best supports this.

Oh, dear, oh dear. Is that what they're telling you in this religion class you've taken about the evils of science? Show any scientist this sentence and they'll laugh. What you've given is the definition of scientific fraud, of data cherrypicking. Scientists caught doing this are discredited or worse. Scientists are obligated to report ALL data related to their thesis, whether it supports it or trashes it. Are there some who don't? Sure, a few. But other scientists will quickly point it out if they catch wind of it. New rules go into place always making the requirement stronger that scientists report ALL their data, not just SOME of it, so other scientists can review their work. It's to the credit of the very nature of science that it's self-correcting in this way, which is why it steadily advances human knowledge.

Scientists themselves are only human beings and flawed, so sometimes it's two steps forward, one step back, but the nature of the method drives the process inevitably forward. It's why the speed of scientific innovation has been breathtakingly rapid over the last hundreds of years since it's taken hold.

The first 3 defintions were not used because they simply did not fit the argument.

I'm shocked that you're completely unable to see what's wrong with your statement here. Whatever these classes are you're taking are depriving you of critical thinking skills and it makes me very sad. I understand you completely don't get what I'm saying, but I hope others reading this do.

You're giving the perfect example of this religious argument method has no self-correcting mechanism and can therefore never move us closer to truth. The nature of this method keeps it paralyzed, and is why there has been little significant advancement in religious knowledge in thousands of years.

you cannot blindly state that no one has ever felt that way.

You're right, I can't, which is why I didn't; it's difficult to prove a negative. But it's easy to prove a positive, so I gave the easy challenge to you (or someone) to link to a single quote from a single scientist who states this belief. And I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, you keep making wrong and unsupported statements about what scientists say and do.

 

[ginvid]

i apologize for that. I tried to do that but it is a case of operator error. Also, I really don't know how to dot it (Sorry) Let me know and I will fix it.

I am sorry you do not get what I am saying. The class was not of religion but of science. My teacher was an evolutionist who regarded science as the best ay of life over religion. That is why we had many discussions on the subject. We did not agree. I thought I made that clear. If I did not, I apologize. Sometimes what you are thinking in your head and what you think you are portraying does not come across.

Also, I will state again that this is not a view of all scientists or even most. but that it is simply an alternative line of thought. I stated that most scientist do use science as a tool. And, I agreed that this is the most appropriate way of using it. I am starting to wonder if you even bothered to read my entire post at all.

And again, I stated that there was a school of thought that worshipped science. And said I would have to find out their names and I would. Show patience. I am not making wrong and unsupported statements. I simply said give me a chance to find the information for you. You seem to want to lump ALL scientists together.

My initial quote about people worshipping science does not even say I think it is scientist who are doing it. I said people. There are people who are not scientists who still hold science to a religion. Why are you assuming. Show me where I said I was speaking only of scientists. I am including regular joe blow in my acessment.

Lastly, who are you to decide I am lacking in critical thinking skills. When you are showing from your response that you are at the very least lacking in reading comprehension skills.

With that being said, after I find the information you requested, which by the way may or may not be from a scientist, but it will be from a person who thinks that way, we can just agree to disagree. That is fine with me. You may have your opinion and I will have mine. I know from a scientific point of view that may be difficult because you probably like the finite and resolutions (And i don't know you personally, I am just guessing) but I against unnecessary conversations where people are assured of their view and do not listen to what others who disagree with them have to say.

Besides, the forum topic is on MJ's religious beliefs; not the evils of science vs religion.

Thanks!

 

[Bo G]

My initial quote about people worshipping science does not even say I think it is scientist who are doing it. I said people. There are people who are not scientists who still hold science to a religion.

Ah, you're right on this point, I checked... sorry. So, yes, a quote from anyone at all would work. I really disagree with the rest, but will leave it at that.

I have tried several times to steer this thread back to MJ's beliefs and away from persons' private beliefs, but it seemed this is what everyone active in this thread wanted to do, including you. So I gave up and went along for the ride, which was interesting in its own way.

But I'd prefer to see this thread come back to its original focus on identifying MJ's own beliefs.

 

[ginvid]

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1877

Four millennia after Abraham fathered Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and 150,000 years after hominids introduced burial rituals to the Mediterranean, religion has finally been rendered wholly compatible with science. Beginning on September 27, 2008, a two-story downtown Berkeley building dubbed "the Atheon" will provide a spiritual home for rational people in California, and guidance to acolytes worldwide.
Establishment of an Atheon has been a high priority in the scientific community for the past several years, rivaling even enthusiasm for the new Large Hadron Collider. "When you listen to people like Nobel-laureate cosmologist Steven Weinberg, or Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, you hear a lot of talk about how god-based religion is out-of-date," says conceptual artist Jonathon Keats. "The leading minds believe that science can and should provide a spiritually satisfying replacement. But until recently no one bothered to consider what form that alternative might take."



http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/10/science_and_the_worship_of_tru.php

I quoted this, because even though this person disagrees with viewing science as a religion, and in many ways I agree with him, he does quote from someone who does believe that. As I said, I am not saying it is the prevailing view among scientists or people in general. I am simply there are people, wrong or right, who do believe this.

I will have to do more research to find more when I get home. I am at work now.

Also let me be clear before you assume to know what I think. “Do I believe that religion is an opiate to the masses?” Yes. Religion is often times to use as a vehicle of control to assert your domination rather than a means of having a closer relationship with a creator. And that is where I can appreciate a scientific approach. I love the kind of absolutism of science. It has many graces. And any one who denies the power it has given us in the time we live in is delusional. As well as any religionist who denies scientific methods as being a catalyst for arriving at truth is just not being honest with themselves. Science though, no matter how much it tries to be otherwise, does have flaws and where no absolute truth is available, whether because of a lack of information or ability, can be very subjective. It CAN be.

I know about scientific method mainly from my schools where we had to create an idea, find a way of testing the idea. Pool from various subjects in order to see how it applies across a spectrum, and use results to create a thesis ( I know I am simplifying it a lot).

I do think religion as a whole has been such a divisive force and such an amalgam of superstition and ignorance and corruption (no offence to anyone) that as a whole it is very difficult to see merit in it or find a real truth to it. My teacher and I could agree very well on this. Our problem came when he chose to disregard it completely, while I believe it still has some merit. But that is ok. We will not all agree.

Yes it is an interesting subject to discuss. I like to discuss even though it is difficult for me to do on a forum because I am a face to face kind of person. Sorry. But, oh well.

Have a good day.

 

[marialovesmjj]

Welll there's that article from David Pack

"I told him I was a Christian, and he said he was, too. We talked about the first Christian song we’d both heard as children: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong.” With the dinner party loudly going on around us, we both quietly leaned in and sang the song, smiling like choirboys. “Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me.” Then we gave each other a short embrace."

and then a bit later

"I know Michael loved Jesus with all his heart. Quincy had told me about his work sharing his faith with others, often door-to-door, because he’d been raised a devout Jehovah’s Witness. Later in life he told people he was a non-denominational Christian. Still more recently, reports circulated that he’d converted to Islam. But the Michael I knew had seriously contemplated giving up music to spend full-time in Christian ministry."

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79290

and

Unitarians We choose not to make a statement either in favour of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey, you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb. Present it next month at our annual Light Bulb Sunday Service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, 3-way, long-life, and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence​

:lol:

 

[MJJ7777]

Welll there's that article from David Pack

"I told him I was a Christian, and he said he was, too. We talked about the first Christian song we’d both heard as children: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong.” With the dinner party loudly going on around us, we both quietly leaned in and sang the song, smiling like choirboys. “Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me.” Then we gave each other a short embrace."

and then a bit later

"I know Michael loved Jesus with all his heart. Quincy had told me about his work sharing his faith with others, often door-to-door, because he’d been raised a devout Jehovah’s Witness. Later in life he told people he was a non-denominational Christian. Still more recently, reports circulated that he’d converted to Islam. But the Michael I knew had seriously contemplated giving up music to spend full-time in Christian ministry."

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79290

and



:lol:

Hmm. Interesting, looks like Michael was going to go back to preaching as a JW again. I always suspected he would do that. Good for him! I'm happy to hear this!:clapping:

 

[*~Tink~*]

Thanks, Maria! I'd not read that before. So sweet! I didn't know Michael considered Christian ministry in this way.

 

[*~Tink~*]

Watched the TMZ interview with Klein just now. Around minute 79:00 he says, "before he goes onstage Michael does yoga and he does meditation.." Yay! First time I ever heard that Michael did yoga. I always hoped.

 

[MJJ7777]

Watched the TMZ interview with Klein just now. Around minute 79:00 he says, "before he goes onstage Michael does yoga and he does meditation.." Yay! First time I ever heard that Michael did yoga. I always hoped.

I don't believe in Yoga, but I always suspected MJ might have done this. He needed some form of relaxation/stress treatment in his life. I guess it didn't do much for him since he had to turn to powerful sleep meds for rest and sleep.

 

[*~Tink~*]

I don't believe in Yoga, but I always suspected MJ might have done this. He needed some form of relaxation/stress treatment in his life. I guess it didn't do much for him since he had to turn to powerful sleep meds for rest and sleep.

I'm a big yoga fan. I'm just so pleased to hear Michael enjoyed it as well. We can't really say it didn't do much for him. It may have done a great deal, but we don't know how much he utilized it as a tool.

 

[*~Tink~*]

I don't believe in Yoga

Oh, wanted to add.... you know there is Christian yoga which is becoming increasingly popular nowadays. Don't know if that is what you meant, but just wanted to let you know.

 

[PCR]

editing post... nice time for a photo, maybe?

amazing.....

... sorry... I couldn't help it

 

[Brittluvsmusic]

Quick Note; Arnold Klein said that. I don't care if MJ does yoga or not,LMAO But my point is I doubt Arnold Klein would know anything. He's clearly a liar and i don't think he knew Michael as well as he makes out.

 

[*~Tink~*]

amazing.....

... sorry... I couldn't help it

Isn't he amazing... :wub:

 

[*~Tink~*]

Quick Note; Arnold Klein said that. I don't care if MJ does yoga or not,LMAO But my point is I doubt Arnold Klein would know anything. He's clearly a liar and i don't think he knew Michael as well as he makes out.

Well...

I google searched after hearing this, and it is true. Michael began doing yoga around 2003/2004. He did Bikram~ not sure if he tried other styles first or not. Some of Michael's friends did Bikram, too ~ including Quincy Jones and Brooke Shields.