Leaderboard

@Cynique actually my mind was changed...Not about religion or science but my approach to the discussion. I didn't even think I was subconsciously considering this discussion until I got a message from the universe about it this morning. For me, this has been one of our most important discussions. It has taught me the difference between use, practice and properties. As usual we all come from different angles in the discussion and expect to convince the other we're right but - It appears we are all blindfolded touching an elephant and doing our best to describe what we feel through our biases. So, what's different about this topic? I really don't know but it shed light for me. The message from the universe was this: "When someone tells what something is for or how to do something - your mind begins to shut down on other applications -" Yep that's what the universe told me this morning. The message woke me up and I wrote the following:

There you go repeating the same info... @Delano, surely you understand that video is not the only or definitive source of information on this subject? As far as your last statement the existence of God this is certainly not a question for the adherents of a given religion. What scientist, in their right mind, would try to prove the existence of Zeus, or any other diety, or even think that is a good idea? Is this an idea you got from the video?

@Delano , yes that's what was revealed in this conversation - we've all been indoctrinated one way or another...and some of us were able to shake it off like @Cynique The rest of us are stuck namely you, me and @Pioneer1. If we don't shake it off we will remain stuck.

The days of the week are named after God's in 70% of languages spoken. The rest are ordinal significations If a child grows up in a religious environment this will have an effect. The same could be said for a university a city or a culture. That doesn't mean the recipients of religious indoctrination will be better people. Yet religious exposure will effect them. Some scientists or thinkers had religious beliefs. Some scientist were persecuted for the scientific positions by religion.

I’ve used paper bags to set and curl my hair. That doesn’t mean paper bags are its intended design and incorporated in its daily use. Setting my hair with paper bags is my practice and possibly the practice of other women. However, a paper bag was designed as a disposable container. Yet its properties allow us to find other uses... The days of the week, months were not a religious discovery or creation. If no one ever assigned a label to it or decided its uses; nothing would change because the moon comes up at night and the sun rises in the morning - and its positioning to the earth changes. In our early human existence, pagans observed the moon phases and suns cycles for natural events - irrigation, gestation, birth, harvesting. reaping, sowing, etc. This was even before any mythology was created. Before there was mythology there was observation, some Africans threw in counting based on the moon phases and they came up with a base 7 mathematics. Today we call it science, but the other wiser species and animals simply live within it - all this activity was going on 100s of thousands of years before priests installed political systems and put themselves at the top of the food chain. This was before they tricked people into believing natural occurrences were controlled by a god or gods. So returning to Pioneer’s crude statement about African science vs western science and its relationship to turd and pizza - It's akin to sheldrake's quip about some observers (scientists) building further observations based on the unknown (first cause). Now an interesting dynamic to this conversation for me was the fact that each of us were told to think a certain way and each of us brought this thinking to the discussion and it’s those beliefs that shut down our ability to create a new use from nature's properties. Once again discourse has cast its spell on us. I think it has our entire community spellbound

Do you have knowledge of the video. No you are ignorant. So you are arguing from an ignorant position. You can agree or disagree at this point. https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2016/features/science-not-conflict-religion My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science. Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality. Yet this is not the case. All religions, particularly the “big three” Abrahamic religions, make claims about the natural world that clearly fall under the purview of one or more fields of science

@Del You and Pioneer are standing on shaky ground, depending on your smugness to support you, totally unaware of how transparent you are. LMAO

Very good points Pioneer. The days of the week and even the calendar are a product of keeping religious rituals. John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion into a "British Empire", a term he is generally credited with coining.[6] Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery. In antiquity, Pythagoras was credited with many mathematical and scientific discoveries, including the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagorean tuning, the five regular solids, the Theory of Proportions, the sphericity of the Earth, and the identity of the morning and evening stars as the planet Venus. It was said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher ("lover of wisdom")[Notes 2] and that he was the first to divide the globe into five climatic zones. Classical historians debate whether Pythagoras made these discoveries, and many of the accomplishments credited to him likely originated earlier or were made by his colleagues or successors. Some accounts mention that the philosophy associated with Pythagoras was related to mathematics and that numbers were important, but it is debated to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy. Mystical teachings Another belief attributed to Pythagoras was that of the "harmony of the spheres",[90] which maintained that the planets and stars move according to mathematical equations, which correspond to musical notes and thus produce an inaudible symphony.[90] According to Porphyry, Pythagoras taught that the seven Muses were actually the seven planets singing together.[91] In his philosophical dialogue Protrepticus, Aristotle has his literary double say: When Pythagoras was asked [why humans exist], he said, "to observe the heavens," and he used to claim that he himself was an observer of nature, and it was for the sake of this that he had passed over into life.[92] Isaac Newton's occult studies English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced many works that would now be classified as occult studies. These works explored chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse). Newton's scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the occult wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some[1] believe that any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate. @Pioneer1

...it also works on other groups educated black men

Is your point that polygamy is better for men than women. The reason some choose polygamy is so that they have a choice. Instead of creating a relationship where there is deception,polygamy acknowledges a truth. Some people need more than one (sexual) partner. An open relationship works better if the partners love each other, don't care and or aren't jealous or possessive. If you would have asked 14 years ago if I could handle polygamy. I would have said yes. If we both could have secondary partners. Honesty and truth is more important. I also would make a difference between sexual and emotional pairings. I could accept a partner cheating on me easier than not listening to me. I reckon this is where we diverge. Which is why you see polygamy as diminishing. It can be but need not be. The end of the book 1984 really defines betrayal.

You can reject my statement but you are wrong on addition to being ignorant. You admit not watching it so you have no first hand knowledge of what he said. That's is the definition of ignorance @Troy. Look up the history of the Steady State Scientist and how the Big Bang Theory got its name. @zaji I will read this later. People assume that scientist stop having beliefs and opinions when practising science. Michelle Simmons emigrated to Australian because she felt the scientific community was more open than the United States or England.

Interesting reading. Yet, when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, i've always been rather puzzled by all of their dire warnings in regard to the side effects of taking certain medications. Especially on TV commercials. I'm left thinking "the cure is worst than the disease", after the voice-over has recited a litany of dangerous possibilities when taking the drug being advertised. Consumers are not exactly in the dark about "Big Pharm".

@zaji reading some of these comments about peer review reminds me of my original comment about religion. that it requires obedience. It's like scientists are being shunned for not obeying. Even if they find evidence the alleged constant is in question.

@zajiYes, objectivity is difficult to maintain and it is easier to be objective when you are not acquainted with the people involved in a debate. Once personality permeates the exchanges, then this has an influence on who you side with. I, for instance, could never be objective about anything Donald Trump says because his smug overconfident demeanor prejudices me. People can be forgiven for being sore losers, but bad "winners" prone to gloating, are the pits. We are all flawed individuals, but recognizing our shortcomings is, in itself, a form of enlightenment.