I wrote:
snip...
>>This forum is about science not religion.
You wrote:
snip...
> yes, that is what I had thought initially, which is why I was surprised to see
> what seemed to be to be religious ideas of wicca or witchcraft being
> talked about as 'science'. Gerald Berry, how many actual 'scientitsts'
> would see the pyramid device as scientific?
Please use the correct names of those who you are addressing. I'm sure
that Mr. Berry does not deserve to be the subject of your raving. With
regard to scientists, the correct scientific approach to this issue
would be to examine the evidence before making a judgement. First one
would make observations. If an anomalous event were observed one would
attempt to devise an experiment that could cause the anomaly to be
repeated for further observation. If the phenomenon can be repeated then
it may be studied to determine if the underlying principles can be
discovered. It often happens that, after significant study, the causes
still are not discovered. Such is the case with many things that science
has categorized as 'psychic' phenomena. Scientists have mostly given up
on researching this field not because they believe it to be false but
rather that they have found it to be un-profitable in terms of getting
answers. Jerry Decker has explained that he has conducted experiments to
demonstrate the repeatability of his method. That he still does not
fully understand the mechanism of its functioning does not make it
un-"scientific". That he uses a natural phenomenon for constructive
purposes does not make him a practitioner of witchcraft. That is YOUR
label. We still do not understand the invisible force of gravity but we
certainly make good use of it. Virtually every advance in science to
this date was at one time, or would have been, considered witchcraft or
sorcery by the ignorant and those fearful of the unknown.
> How many wiccans would see this
> description as being one to which they would gleefully and intimately relate?
Irrelevant. Some groups worship nature but that does not make the study
of nature the exclusive domain of that group.
> So if your right to expression stands
> and mine is not allowed, where is the freedom? It sounds to me like intolerance
> and clever manipulation of ideologies to meet the agenda of those who wish to
> propogate same and not an open forum of simply 'science and discovery' at all.
....
> Yes I know, you've stated we may only discuss appropriate religious views,
> yours. Anything else just won't do.
So, you think you are rather clever in that if you declare Science to be
'my' religion then therefore, and conversely, anything goes as far as
YOU using this forum for your religious soapbox.
> Interesting, and yet here you are preaching to me. You say I should not object
> to the study of certain things, I should shut up and go away.
You don't have to go away but it wouldn't bother me if you do shut up.
> but I should be removed entirely. Perhaps if we lived in Rome you could avoid
> annoyances such as me by simply tossing me to the lions, that would be so
> much more convenient for you I imagine.
Now that is a tempting thought, but it is my understanding that this
practice is no longer conducted in Rome.
> All that seemed to occur was for Jerry to confirm that sure it could be construed as
> witch craft, but thats ok because labels don't mean anything. Gerald, do you think
> labels mean anything? Such as "superstitious dogma propounded by certain ignorant
> misguided religions of the dark ages."
Yes, I think that accurately sums up your expressed attitude.
You wrote:
> I fail to see how exactly you have determined that my fears are those
> of an enslaved and superstitious mind.
and...
> I did not simply wake up one
> day and blindly let some old and out of touch priest ram regurtitated
> orthodoxy down my throat and then say to him, 'thank you suh, may I have another?'
and...
> Not that any one is likely to care, but the Bible states quite clearly that
> 'divining' and spiritualism is wrong, case closed for me.
I too rest my case.
Cheers!