Genjitsushugi Yuusha no Oukoku Saikenki - Ch. 59.1 - The Arrival of the Saint (1)

[Coldlight]

Proposal to instate a national religion? A very bold, if not outright audacious attempt to meddle in Friedonia's internal affairs. I've never heard of one country's emissary telling the leader of another country to adopt their religion, let alone an instance where such a thing succeeded. I like that Souma has been very active at questioning their visitor, probing for information and asking for explanation. Very fitting for a king.

So I see this new lady Mary doesn't rule out joining his harem if her religion demanded it or it was necessary to further her goals. Unfortunately for her she's not exactly proven they can trust her or the ones backing her. Furthermore, she's doing exactly the thing that Roroa warned him about, and allowing them what they want is just playing into their hands.

I like that Souma shut it down (for now, maybe). His harem is already big enough, IMO. At this point, any further "applications to join" should have unanimous agreement and consent of all the other soon-to-be wives. Have the four women who loves him form a council with the power to propose or veto any further harem membership. Call it the United Haremettes (UH) Security Council, or maybe HATO - the Harem Agreement Treaty Organization. Yes, I suck at making up names.

 

[isoycrazy]

I dont give a fuck about religion what not. What i see is a possibility for getting a saintussy and a mother dragussy. And maybe a popussy as well if the pope is a bitch with a holy gown.

You read this for religion trap bait, while im reading this for the bussy. We are not the same.

Well... if you want to know who Souma gets next

Spoiler: Spouse Spoiler

He doesn'tget the dragon goddess, but he doestake a dragonas a wife, and she gets a human form as a result.

In terms of saints

Spoiler: Big spoiler

Souma maries Saint Maria of the Empire after she abdicates and Jeanne takes over

 

[phil777]

i hate charity organizations as well! there is no room for debate here indeed, i hate organizations that give meaning to peoples lives so much!!!

Charity that only serves to further their influence. They're not doing this out of good will. Let me assure you. There's always a hidden goal. Control is all they care about. Controlling your thoughts and acts.

 

[Aricitic]

My two cents.

Science is not a religion. A religion is a basis of arguments and beliefs founded on one core premise. "God is real." Science lacks that belief and looks to explain all actions in the universe to the final logical end. There are some base assumptions made, yes, look at Euclid's five axioms for geometry, but those don't define the moral or ethical way of life like religion. Science could one day prove god exists, but that wouldn't make it a religion. Religion is about faith without evidence to support the claim.

So, to me, anyone who claims that they can prove the Christain God exists is basically an idolator. Their evidence is required for God to exist in an argument. So their evidence must come before God.

And to all, thank you for having four pages of religious discussion without it becoming vitriol. An earnest congratulations is deserved.

My initial response is going to be basic, as I want to form a well thought out and researched response. Unfortunately that is nearly impossible to do on my phone.
What I will say now is the following: "being a religion" is not defined with the one core premise of "God is real." That would deny any polytheistic religion as they don't rely on a (single) "God". Also Atheists are considered a "religion" on the basis of a belief system that specifically does not believe in God. Humanists is considered a "religion" as an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters; again, specifically not requiring God.

Anyway, I will elaborate more later, with citations.

 

[Aricitic]

Yes, this exactly. If you have faith, why do you still seek evidence? Isn't your seeking indicative of a lack of faith?


Are you sure you're not conflating science as a discipline and science as a branch of academia populated by people who all bring their own beliefs and worldviews, some (many?) of which are in direct conflict with scientific principles? I know a guy with a PhD in physics who despite his training and education remains quite superstitious -- he knows these beliefs are probably untrue, but it comforts him to act as though they are true, and he still does a good job in his research despite these admittedly unscientific beliefs.

As Ludvagn and isoycrazy point out, science as a discipline makes no statement about any higher power, absolute truths, or morals. Scientists, on the other hand, can and do ascribe to all sorts of combinations of these -- but I think this speaks more about the humans studying the discipline than the discipline itself.

This distinction is important and must be made, otherwise pretty much any endeavor involving humans (who all have their own belief systems) can be broadly categorized as religion, at which point the label becomes rather useless. If everyone is rich, then nobody is rich.

No. I'm going purely off of the definitions of religion, both legal and practical. As I said in my post above I will elaborate when I can research and format on a computer.

 

[Grevados]

point being religions develop a method for this, not so much that a religion monopolizes this. phil was stating religions are bad (no debate) made me laugh so i posted a quick counterexample

Sorry, but I still have to disagree with you. I can only speak from my own experience, but the religious people around me and the texts I've read lead me to believe that religion didn't methodize those drives, but co-opted them and many modern religious groups do in fact claim a monopoly.

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine

~Penn Jillette.

 

[cash5891]

What I will say now is the following: "being a religion" is not defined with the one core premise of "God is real." That would deny any polytheistic religion as they don't rely on a (single) "God". Also Atheists are considered a "religion" on the basis of a belief system that specifically does not believe in God. Humanists is considered a "religion" as an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters; again, specifically not requiring God.

That is not the definition most people think about when they hear the word "religion". Here are some definitions of the word from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods
2. a particular system of faith and worship
3. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

The first is by far the most common interpretation, and something akin to the definition you are using is a distant third. I have no problem if someone wishes to identify science with "religion" as defined by the third definition, but I do feel that this definition is so broad that it ceases to be useful or meaningful. In this sense science is a "religion" insofar as it is studied by humans and is therefore, in practice, a human endeavor subject to human whims, biases and the like. But so are all sorts of fandom, hobbies, occupations and practically anything that can be a source of fulfillment to a person. By the third definition the Swifties phenomenon can be considered a religion, for example. The word "religion" then ceases to be of much use in discussion, especially in one about societal effects of religion as defined in (1) above.
EDIT: apologies for the double post, my keyboard mapper software hiccuped and my browser interpreted shift+enter(=new line) as just enter(=submit).

 

[miniongodking]

Charity that only serves to further their influence. They're not doing this out of good will. Let me assure you. There's always a hidden goal. Control is all they care about. Controlling your thoughts and acts.

your original point is invalid since malicious kindness is still kindness, meaning religion being “bad” in of itself cannot be true. you said it cannot be debated, yet i proved it could be.

 

[miniongodking]

Sorry, but I still have to disagree with you. I can only speak from my own experience, but the religious people around me and the texts I've read lead me to believe that religion didn't methodize those drives, but co-opted them and many modern religious groups do in fact claim a monopoly.

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine

~Penn Jillette.

there are literally secular charities dude like religion physically doesn’t hold a monopoly over almsgiving when i can send the red cross 100 bucks, all i care about in that post is disproving religion is bad and that you can’t debate that. i can use another example if you’d like

 

[Astra_Starwalker]

She's been brainwashed, and even that aside, this is exactly why religion should never be in control of a country.
Sure, like anyone in a country, religions should be allowed to voice their opinions and offer suggestions, but that should be the extent of their power, it should ultimately be up to an unbiased ruler or group of elected officials to decide what should or should not be done, based on what would be the best for the country and its people, not for a religion, the rich, the powerful, or anything corrupt.

 

[Aricitic]

@isoycrazy
"A religion is a basis of arguments and beliefs founded on one core premise. "God is real.""
As I stated in my initial response, that is not required of religion. The following also assists with my response to @cash5891.

Spoiler: Definition(s) of Religion:

Definition of religion: as per the Wikipedia page, it starts with the Oxford Dictionary's definition and then moves into a set of two alternative definitions - not defining the "WORD" religion, but the "CONCEPT" religion. The first being from Emile Durkheim: "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them." and the second from Max Lynn Stackhouse: "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted." Further, under "Competing definitions: classical" it states that Friedrich Schleiermacher defined religion as: "the feeling of absolute dependence." I could go on, but it would be beyond a "wall of text" so I will only reference new ones when necessary.
It also states that: "Scholars have failed to agree on a definition of religion" so, ultimately, it is unlikely that we will come to an agreement on this. Finally the IRS defines Religion/Church, in layman's terms, (From LegalZoom, because I'm not parsing through the IRS's "legalese") as: "A distinct legal existence and religious history," "A recognized creed and form of worship," "Established places of worship," "A regular congregation and regular religious services," and "An organization of ordained ministers."

Spoiler: Expanding, Science upon these definitions:

1. "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them."
   "A 'unified system' of 'beliefs and practices' relative to sacred things," Science cannot be anything if it is not a "unified system", its principal of being exactly that, a "unified system" or a "system to unify [findings, hypotheses, theories, etc]". Further its "beliefs" that those theories, or "verified hypotheses," are accurate and true (or verifiable in the first place), and its practices of forming hypotheses to be tested, verified, and ultimately turned into theories, rules and laws. (If desired I can list [some] common "practices" of Science, but I think these should be well-known and predictable).
2. "Sacred things" is ambiguous, while "sacred" itself originates from religious practices revolving around God and gods, it is often used outside of that context but along the same lines: "something that 'embodies the laws or doctrines' or is 'regarded with great respect [and reverence]'" (religion need not apply, the "Scientific Method" is very much 'sacred' to all fields of Science). Mathematics, the Scientific Method, and various others fall under this category for science. (I'm going to skip over "that is to say things set apart and forbidden" for now)
3. "Beliefs and practices which unite into one single [moral] community called a church, and all those who adhere to them." A hypothesis is irrefutably a belief, a belief that is to be shown as true or disproven and recreated; additionally anything in science that cannot immediately be human tested/experienced and therefore verified is a belief (our understanding of quantum mechanics revolves around beliefs as it is believed that the machines that, I remind you, humans created, configured, programmed, tested, etc are irrefutably relied upon to witness and calculate anything done on a quantum scale. The belief is that these machines are calibrated correctly, are reading and displaying correctly, and that our biases did not influence them. That is "belief," pure and simple, because we fundamentally cannot verify the results without falling into that very trap. More examples exist, but this is already getting long.) I already covered 'practices.'
4. "unite into one single [moral] community called a church, all those who adhere to them," this precisely defines the Scientific Community. If I must, I would attribute the "moral" aspect to the Scientific Method. And regarding "Church," this was previously defined above: (I'm going to assume I cannot "spoiler" within a "spoiler" so I won't attempt that, sadly it makes the formatting 'worse' than it could be...)
   So:

• "A distinct legal existence and religious history,": while we are, effectively, arguing the definition of "religious" here, it would be difficult to argue that the "Fields of Science" don't have "A distinct legal existence [or] history."
• "A recognized creed and form of worship," The creed starts with the Scientific Method and extends into many others. The "Form of Worship" starts with research and experimentation, and arguably extends into utilization of scientific advancements/discoveries and even into teaching.
• "Established places of worship." This would be literally anywhere that 'science' is actively done: research institutes, college campuses (specifically the building where Science classes are taught, especially if research is done), etc.
• "A regular congregation and regular religious services." "Congregation:" scientists and those they present to; "Religious services:" the study and presentation of findings.
• "An organization of ordained ministers." Undergraduate, Graduate, Masters, Doctorate (in [insert field of science here]), and the various levels of research, etc.

Further: "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted."

1. Temporarily ignoring: "metaphysical moral vision," "a comprehensive worldview" is what Science is literally for.
2. "[...] that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true" is, again, effectively what Science is, with the obvious exception that Science effectively overrides the "is held to be in itself 'basically' true" precisely because it seeks to prove/disprove itself via the Scientific Method.
3. "[...] even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted." As a reminder, science (or real science) does not "dismiss" things, it "shelves" things. My High School teacher (in one science class) basically explained this best (paraphrasing here, it's been over a decade): "Imagine someone tried to explain that 'Puff the Magic Dragon' was real. As scientists, we would try to test this through observation. If the person refuted, 'He is invisible.' we would test using something other than [visible] light. If the person further refuted, 'He is invisible to radar, echolocation, light rays above visible light,' we would test using something other than light. If the person continued to refute, 'You cannot touch him,' we would test using something other than touch... If the person continued to refute any known method of testing - and effectively stated that only they could observe 'Puff,' we would [either] shelf the notion of this 'Puff the Magic Dragon' until we had some new method of observation [or we would test via observation of the person who claimed to be able to observe the dragon].
   There exist, within Science, plenty of things that are claimed to exist that we have absolutely NO way of testing or even observing. Dark Matter is believed to exist because of observation of the movement of stars within a galaxy - and that cannot be explained by the assumed quantity of 'visible' matter. Dark Energy is believed to exist because of the continued, rapid, and increasing expansion of the universe. Both of these are literally described/defined as "unobservable" [with current technology] which would, under any other circumstances, disqualify them from science. I previously mentioned Quantum Mechanics, which applies but for the machines that we have created to observe these phenomena, and I mentioned the issues with that. Any and all 'so-called' "Soft Sciences" apply as well because patterned observations do not always apply across all circumstances, which is why they are called "Soft Science." More examples exist... but, again, "Wall of Text = bad."

Finally: "the feeling of absolute dependence." How can we not describe Science in this way? We have nothing better. We have no way to show the absolute truth of Science itself beyond repeated observation, testing, proving/disproving [etc] that is science. When anything that is "shown" (and therefore assumed) to be "true" can later be "shown" (and, again, therefore assumed) to be false, how can we have anything other than absolute dependence on the very method we have set out for the very process by which we do this?

"Science lacks that belief and looks to explain all actions in the universe to the final logical end. There are some base assumptions made, yes, look at Euclid's five axioms for geometry, but those don't define the moral or ethical way of life like religion."
Formatting... Sorry... Above I counter and further the first part of your second sentence, and the basis of your first. With regards to the latter half of the second sentence, you are ignoring the Scientific Fields of Study called: Ethics, Psychology, Philosophy, and Sociology among others. Ethics in particular exists specifically and exactly to define morality, and it IS considered science (as are the others).

"[...] Religion is about faith without evidence to support the claim."

Spoiler: Response

You have no basis for this. Sure, many people would define religion as that, but they also have no basis for this. Have you forgotten that many religions actually furthered scientific principles? Most research done prior to the Renaissance (and plenty done during) was done by monks in Christianity and Judaism. Likewise east of Europe in their religion's equivalent of monasteries and the like.
I won't even attempt to claim evidence for "all" religions, that would be irresponsible and effectively impossible, but at least various parts/versions of Christianity attempted to find evidence to support various aspects of their faith. Evidence. Judaism is very much the same - but finding evidence for that was more difficult. Again, finding evidence of this for all religions would be nearly impossible, so I'll leave it to what I have.
So, claiming that "Religion is about faith without evidence to support the claim," is a logical fallacy and simply untrue. Yes, many of those "of faith" don't bother to seek evidence for their faith. Many "of faith" even do the opposite, but that doesn't discredit those of faith who do seek evidence. Sadly these people are mostly overshadowed by those "religious zealots" who use pseudoscience and abuse 'real' science in an attempt to further their fanatical beliefs. While it may be true that the percentage of people doing this as opposed to seeking evidence is (likely dramatically) rising, that, again, doesn't discount all of the people who did the opposite.

More below.

 

[Aricitic]

Had to break this up into two:

@cash5891
"Are you sure you're not conflating science as a discipline and science as a branch of academia populated by people who all bring their own beliefs and worldviews, some (many?) of which are in direct conflict with scientific principles? I know a guy with a PhD in physics who despite his training and education remains quite superstitious -- he knows these beliefs are probably untrue, but it comforts him to act as though they are true, and he still does a good job in his research despite these admittedly unscientific beliefs."

Spoiler: Response

No, I'm not. As explained above, and using definitions for science beyond the standard Oxford Dictionary's "word" definition, I break down how [some of] the various definitions apply to Science as a practice and as a discipline. Yes, some of it requires the "human" aspect of humans utilizing science... but, let us be honest here, without an all-knowing "God" or an Akashic Records there is absolutely no "true" and "absolute" in the universe.
The Scientific Method itself was created by humans... sure, if we meet an intelligent species that also has the Scientific Method that would provide further evidence but not proof... and it can change and evolve along with human understanding. Even Mathematics, what is asserted to be the absolute basis of the universe changes over time and with understanding.
It is only through repetitive observation and recording of phenomena that things can truly be understood... The problem with this is that humans do not have any infallible methods of observation and recording. We have absolutely no way to, beyond the shadow of a doubt, observe phenomena, nor record the observations.
Technology, and understanding, are always advancing, and frequently what we once thought of as "absolute" is proven wrong. That, alone, should suggest that anything we believe is true today (and, yes, I mean believe) can be shown to be very incorrect some time in the future.
This is precisely the Scientific Method, and, honestly, it irritates me to no end how people who are well-respected scientists can and will claim that they have made observational theories about things they have literally no way to observe or verify. Simulation and mathematics can only take us so far before human assumption compromises them. For example: the universe is "13.7 billion years old." This is an assumption. All visible light within the visible universe if it is expanding in all directions away from all points in space, would culminate into a single point at about 13.7 billion years ago. Problem: we can only observe the universe from Earth, or (at most) the Sol solar system. We cannot know if the observable universe from Earth is the same observable universe from, say anywhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. If nothing new appears from the direction we would move to get to Andromeda, then the assumed age of the universe is correct. If anything new appears from that direction, then the "assumed" age of the universe is just that... assumed.
Additional example: the assumption of what an "exoplanet" looks like or consists of. We can only observe the dimming of light coming from other solar systems, and the "wobble" of the star that is affected by another gravitational source. There is absolutely no way we can observe the exoplanets themselves in any way other than those listed above. Therefore claiming that "There is a planet with burning ice" is fantasy, not science.

"As Ludvagn and isoycrazy point out, science as a discipline makes no statement about any higher power, absolute truths, or morals. Scientists, on the other hand, can and do ascribe to all sorts of combinations of these -- but I think this speaks more about the humans studying the discipline than the discipline itself."

Spoiler: Response

"Absolute Truths:" Mathematics, a field of Science, does just that. "Morals:" Ethics, Psychology, Philosophy, and Sociology (among others), do just that.
Unless you are stating that fields of Science are not related to "science as a discipline." If that's the case then I'm wrong, and I would appreciate it if you would define "Science as a discipline."

"This distinction is important and must be made, otherwise pretty much any endeavor involving humans (who all have their own belief systems) can be broadly categorized as religion, at which point the label becomes rather useless. If everyone is rich, then nobody is rich."

Spoiler: Response

I mean... that isn't exactly far off the mark. Art, and therefore its subcategories, can be classified as Religious. Capitalism and Communism can as well. While Religion is "clearly defined" by the Oxford Dictionary, that is solely the "word" religion. The actual meaning of religion is nebulous, meaning "(of a concept or idea) unclear, vague, or ill-defined."
You are correct that when "religion" is expanded to encompass any categorical thing humans can do or have done it becomes, as a practical identification, virtually meaningless. This is precisely why it is so hard to actually define in any meaningful way. But that is irrelevant. I'm not using some all-encompassing, nebulous understanding of Religion. I'm using the pieces of accepted meanings for religion -- outside of the specific "word" definition -- and providing specific and practical ways that Science can easily be considered another religion.

Yes, the practice of Science and nearly any classically cited religion are very different in a great many respects. But they are not mutually exclusive. They are not "water and oil."

Ok. I absolutely have to stop here. I'm starting to lose focus to the point of being incoherent and rambling. I am deeply sorry if any of the above comes across as that. I attempted to enter and continue. this with a clear mind and focused thoughts. I have attempted to cite anything and everything that I can find citations for... and I did not include some things that I could not find examples of. I also attempted to format it in such a way that makes my "walls of text" more readable... with the limited tools I have here I may have failed that, for which I am sorry.

Finally, if either of you chooses not to respond to this, I am fine with that. What you say, and whether you decide to actually say it or not, is entirely up to you.

 

[miniongodking]

Had to break this up into two:

@cash5891
"Are you sure you're not conflating science as a discipline and science as a branch of academia populated by people who all bring their own beliefs and worldviews, some (many?) of which are in direct conflict with scientific principles? I know a guy with a PhD in physics who despite his training and education remains quite superstitious -- he knows these beliefs are probably untrue, but it comforts him to act as though they are true, and he still does a good job in his research despite these admittedly unscientific beliefs."

Spoiler: Response

No, I'm not. As explained above, and using definitions for science beyond the standard Oxford Dictionary's "word" definition, I break down how [some of] the various definitions apply to Science as a practice and as a discipline. Yes, some of it requires the "human" aspect of humans utilizing science... but, let us be honest here, without an all-knowing "God" or an Akashic Records there is absolutely no "true" and "absolute" in the universe.
The Scientific Method itself was created by humans... sure, if we meet an intelligent species that also has the Scientific Method that would provide further evidence but not proof... and it can change and evolve along with human understanding. Even Mathematics, what is asserted to be the absolute basis of the universe changes over time and with understanding.
It is only through repetitive observation and recording of phenomena that things can truly be understood... The problem with this is that humans do not have any infallible methods of observation and recording. We have absolutely no way to, beyond the shadow of a doubt, observe phenomena, nor record the observations.
Technology, and understanding, are always advancing, and frequently what we once thought of as "absolute" is proven wrong. That, alone, should suggest that anything we believe is true today (and, yes, I mean believe) can be shown to be very incorrect some time in the future.
This is precisely the Scientific Method, and, honestly, it irritates me to no end how people who are well-respected scientists can and will claim that they have made observational theories about things they have literally no way to observe or verify. Simulation and mathematics can only take us so far before human assumption compromises them. For example: the universe is "13.7 billion years old." This is an assumption. All visible light within the visible universe if it is expanding in all directions away from all points in space, would culminate into a single point at about 13.7 billion years ago. Problem: we can only observe the universe from Earth, or (at most) the Sol solar system. We cannot know if the observable universe from Earth is the same observable universe from, say anywhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. If nothing new appears from the direction we would move to get to Andromeda, then the assumed age of the universe is correct. If anything new appears from that direction, then the "assumed" age of the universe is just that... assumed.
Additional example: the assumption of what an "exoplanet" looks like or consists of. We can only observe the dimming of light coming from other solar systems, and the "wobble" of the star that is affected by another gravitational source. There is absolutely no way we can observe the exoplanets themselves in any way other than those listed above. Therefore claiming that "There is a planet with burning ice" is fantasy, not science.

"As Ludvagn and isoycrazy point out, science as a discipline makes no statement about any higher power, absolute truths, or morals. Scientists, on the other hand, can and do ascribe to all sorts of combinations of these -- but I think this speaks more about the humans studying the discipline than the discipline itself."

Spoiler: Response

"Absolute Truths:" Mathematics, a field of Science, does just that. "Morals:" Ethics, Psychology, Philosophy, and Sociology (among others), do just that.
Unless you are stating that fields of Science are not related to "science as a discipline." If that's the case then I'm wrong, and I would appreciate it if you would define "Science as a discipline."

"This distinction is important and must be made, otherwise pretty much any endeavor involving humans (who all have their own belief systems) can be broadly categorized as religion, at which point the label becomes rather useless. If everyone is rich, then nobody is rich."

Spoiler: Response

I mean... that isn't exactly far off the mark. Art, and therefore its subcategories, can be classified as Religious. Capitalism and Communism can as well. While Religion is "clearly defined" by the Oxford Dictionary, that is solely the "word" religion. The actual meaning of religion is nebulous, meaning "(of a concept or idea) unclear, vague, or ill-defined."
You are correct that when "religion" is expanded to encompass any categorical thing humans can do or have done it becomes, as a practical identification, virtually meaningless. This is precisely why it is so hard to actually define in any meaningful way. But that is irrelevant. I'm not using some all-encompassing, nebulous understanding of Religion. I'm using the pieces of accepted meanings for religion -- outside of the specific "word" definition -- and providing specific and practical ways that Science can easily be considered another religion.

Yes, the practice of Science and nearly any classically cited religion are very different in a great many respects. But they are not mutually exclusive. They are not "water and oil."

Ok. I absolutely have to stop here. I'm starting to lose focus to the point of being incoherent and rambling. I am deeply sorry if any of the above comes across as that. I attempted to enter and continue. this with a clear mind and focused thoughts. I have attempted to cite anything and everything that I can find citations for... and I did not include some things that I could not find examples of. I also attempted to format it in such a way that makes my "walls of text" more readable... with the limited tools I have here I may have failed that, for which I am sorry.

Finally, if either of you chooses not to respond to this, I am fine with that. What you say, and whether you decide to actually say it or not, is entirely up to you.

uhhh bro… 😎 sorry to burst your bubble but we have SCIENTOLOGY!!! we already have a science religion no need to use actually insightful rational to prove scientific method acts as a belief system…

all jokes aside well developed post op

 

[phil777]

uhhh bro… 😎 sorry to burst your bubble but we have SCIENTOLOGY!!! we already have a science religion no need to use actually insightful rational to prove scientific method acts as a belief system…

all jokes aside well developed post op

Scientology is a fraud, a scam that tries to be a religion. You get nothing out of it.

 

[sichka]

if God exists, and He's all knowing, all powerful and all that, who also has given guidance to the people then why not?
the only thing that they should do is to study all of them and find out which one is the right one

Spoiler: LN Spoiler

which iirc in the LN both has some truth...? i forgot it's been a long time since i read the ln lmao

 

[miniongodking]

Scientology is a fraud, a scam that tries to be a religion. You get nothing out of it.

have i been baited from the fucking start

 

[D1003Briner]

She's not really doing a good job of selling this offer to Souma. The only benefit she's stated so far is a fancy title.

I mean fancy title did work with the HRE(Holy roman empire) but well the whole holy part of the title and the big influence the pope had over the emperor is indeed creditted to the loss of cohesion and centralization of the later empire where the empire functioned more like a semi-confederation that fought each other more than defended their own land, so you know maybe its better for souma not get his reichkrone although its quite cool but if its for him to use those crappy bishop clothes that the manga portrayed even if he got himself an offer to make the holy friendonian empire i wouldnt take it.

 

[Shortstos]

One counter point.

Spoiler

The religion in Ascendance of Bookworm.

The practice have verifiable result (better crop yield) and the gods do exist (some even make appearance)

It's ironically the people who weren't religious and tried to NOT follow the og doctrine that became the source of the slow decline.

This series is actually the reason i specified "religious organization" from the top down so many in the organization were corrupt. heck you could almost say Myne is corrupt to for using child labor from the pre-baptized children.

 

[WhimsiCat]

This series is actually the reason i specified "religious organization" from the top down so many in the organization were corrupt. heck you could almost say Myne is corrupt to for using child labor from the pre-baptized children.

I guess to you leaving them the way she first found them was better then?

Spoiler: btw

By your 'top down' logic, you're saying the Zent/Aubs are corrupted? They're still part of the religion if you haven't noticed.
You wouldn't ironically be joining the corrupted doctrine by saying those don't count, right?

Also how else do you think the children will learn the skill to work later in their lives? Do you think all the children just derp around for 7 years then magically get a job like some isekai stories?

Heck Myne has been doing works pre-baptism too.

 

[Shortstos]

I guess to you leaving them the way she first found them was better then?

Spoiler: btw

By your 'top down' logic, you're saying the Zent/Aubs are corrupted? They're still part of the religion if you haven't noticed.
You wouldn't ironically be joining the corrupted doctrine by saying those don't count, right?

Also how else do you think the children will learn the skill to work later in their lives? Do you think all the children just derp around for 7 years then magically get a job like some isekai stories?

Heck Myne has been doing works pre-baptism too.

Oh no shes by and far helped them out, and the work they do goes back into the orphanage so its not a bad thing, but its definitely something funny you can say for the religious organization that shes having kids do labor, also they dont need those skills, at least until myne got there and even going back in time to before the civil war the only thing the kids needed to know was how to clean they didnt get jobs or need skills later in life their life was taken care of for them in exchange for cleaning the temple. (ignore the fact that most lower city kids go to the forest anyways) And as for the other part im strictly speaking the religious organization not the religion in itself, aubs and zent as of the current pre-pub chapters dont partake or oversee any part of the religion outside of getting baptized, from the top down im referring from the sovereign high bishop all the way to the blue priest and even some grey priest in the duchy temples theres large amounts of corruption. hence the organization being corrupt overall even if theres some good people in it.