Leaderboard

@Mel That is so deep! I did not realize that a phenomenon i vaguely suspected existed, had a name. Your morphic resonanace explanation enlightened me! You give me more credit than i deserve. i am steady learning from you and others here who supply me with the names of ideas that have been rambling around in my mind over time; i am the pupil who was ready for teachers to appear. And you have. You all have put many of my metaphysical quirks into words. To me, this also has elements of reincarnation. Sometime i shock myself with the things i say off the top of my head, using myself as an authority. This is not to say that these are always proven to be factual, but i think they do have something to do with saved memories from another incarnation of myself because they are "opinions" that i didn't even know i had. And this is what tends to make me stand by some of them.

What is science? "Just as importantly, science is also a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world." https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01

Exactly! Now is there anything inherently wrong with what Osteen does? Does he take advantage of those who he motivates. I'd imagine once he gets you into the door and starts hitting your up for the 10% (off the top) tithe and more these pastors start to morph into the people @harry brown, frequently rails against. Taken as a whole I think most ministers try to benefit their communities and are not any more abusive of their power than anyone else. But religions must expand and convert others in order to survive, so by their very nature they must try to influence others. Increasingly this is attempting through legislation which I'm against.

Religious pastors taper their sermons and make them palpable to the mentalities of their flocks. They put the "universal message" within the context of fables, and personify God as the benevolent all-knowing father. To maintain their control, they embroider this into the fabric of the doctrines of their sects, all of which demand obedience. The unctuous Joel Osteen has claimed, with a grin plastered on his face, that he does not know why he is so successful and wealthy because all he does is preach the word. Actually he has successfully tapped into the meta-physical realm, aligning himself with the channels of prosperity, and captured the ear of those yearning to be reassured. Once this dynamic gains momentum, money and fame just flow to him. This is what all charismatic leaders do.

Perhaps there is a universal resource that we can all tap into to. Often when presented with a problem I can not solve, like some technical aspect dealing with this website. I simply stop wracking my brain over it, and let the answer come to me. The answer will seemingly put itself into my head without consciously thinking about it. Nowadays, I whenever a solution does not come to me right away I just let it go, confident an answer will present itself. I guess this is what people mean when they say, "let me sleep on it." Now scientist may say that my brain unconsciously continues to work on the problem. A Christian may say that God provided the solution. A new age spiritualist might say I tapped into the universal consciousness. I generally equate God with that universal consciousness. Of course religious people would reject this notion. @Delano yes the currently held belief, in the scientific community, is that universe is expanding and that the expansion is increasing. However, no one can explain why. The apparent anti-gravity forcing the universe apart is called "dark energy." But again no one knows what this stuff is. We just have theories. In light of this, it is not clear to me why you are rejecting Mel's statements by writing "...you arguing a point from ignorance and you are wrong" or what the Big Bang has to do with any of this? Side bar: Hey @Mel Hopkins did you know that Arno Penzias (mentioned in one of the articles Del linked to), spoke at our high school graduation? He graduated from Tech :-)

@Cynique now see this is similar to what Sheldrake talks about with his morphic resonance theory. What if I did pick up on your thoughts and it was you who spoke to me while I slept... There's no way to test it. However, the fact that there was an occurrence ( and I don't believe in coincidences) there's more going on in nature than we really know. Maybe we shouldn't put it in the science category because there's no instrument to "test" it. Maybe this is what people speak of when they say keep an "open mind" There are people I shut down and shut out immediately. I believe stupid is contagious, Yet, I have no proof . Doesn't matter to me though, I shut out people who prove to be stupid. I especially don't listen to talk radio because I don't want to tune into that frequency. You are wise, so my mind is open to sharing your perspective and learning from your experiences. So maybe I can actually "hear" you. Maybe I tune into frequency such as yours and others who I believe I can learn from. Maybe I can hear people like you all the time even when you're thinking.

@Delano, for example, I don't know where you get the information to make this statement -- particularly the smugness part. Did you read a survey that collected data on smugness, or is this statement based upon you anecdotal observations? Early in this conversation you accused me of making generalizations. Your statement about scientist is a bigoted generalization, but you can't see it. Usually when you accuse me of something of something are actually guilty of it yourself. The faults you see in other I suspect is a crystal clear reflection of how you view yourself. Your quote really underlies the contempt you seen to have for scientists. The best example of you confusion of science is reflected in your agreement with Pioneer's statement, "Absolutely science has become the new religion in the West!" I replied to pioneer's statement by writing: "Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false." You did supported Pioneers statement by writing: "Do you realise how wrong you are. I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out." Actually now that I reread you reaction I see that it is a smug as you accuse scientist to be. Another example of you reflecting your own faults onto others. I replied to Pioneer with a reason why I disagreed with his statement, but your reply included the smug, passive-aggressive, and condescending; "I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out." If you were interested in my understanding you would simply explain. -------------- From the article Mel referenced: "Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be 'finished.'" Science ≠ Religion

I was listening to Joel Osteen this afternoon driving in my car. This sermon it's actually quite good. The messages, the morals were quite motivating and uplifting. He did not read from scripture he did not quote Bible verses and in fact if you simply removed the word bible or God from his sermon and replaced it with the spirit or the universe or something non specific any given religion I can't see why anyone would have an issue with anything he said. Religions by their very nature are divisive. Generally it's our way or the highway -- everyone else is damned. However, the messages are often quite vauable.

@Mel I think Troy was responding something i directed to you 3 hours ago. Did you see that post? "Mel, that is so deep! I did not realize that a phenomenon i vaguely suspected existed, had a name. Your morphic resonanace explanation enlightened me! You give me more credit than i deserve. i am steady learning from you and others here who supply me with the names of ideas that have been rambling around in my mind over time; i am the pupil who was ready for teachers to appear. And you have. You all have put many of my metaphysical quirks into words. To me, this also has elements of reincarnation. Sometime i shock myself with the things i say off the top of my head, using myself as an authority. This is not to say that these are always proven to be factual, but i think they do have something to do with saved memories from another incarnation of myself because they are "opinions" that i didn't even know i had. And this is what tends to make me stand by some of them. "

@Troy I just reread this on my phone messages and I had to come back to say, I get it now. You seem to acknowledge the metaphysical realm - you just don't mix it with science facts that produce the same results for anyone who test it. Is that correct?

@Delano Ignorance would mean, I don't read or study these concepts. You do realize I was an electrical engineering major in high school, right? When you have an academic foundation like the one I was afforded at Brooklyn Tech - it doesn't all just disappear. The interest remains. I've continued to study physics theories even though I've long since left school. I may not throw around physicists names here - but it doesn't mean I'm not aware of whom you are referring to. I'm just not a fanboy of the physicists. They are people with ideas- nothing more nothing less. So let me also share that biophysics of consciousness is a hobby of mine... this way you won't argue a point about me from ignorance. Now, have you heard of the big bounce theory? It's contrary to the big bang theory. There's more evidence supporting the latter. however even the theoretical physicists who actually study this stuff for a living, agree they are theories. @TroyI could have sworn our Keynote was Alumni Lou Ferrigno I don't remember Arno Penzias but I will look him up in our year book...

@Delano both are theories - not law so I put those two theories in the metaphysical category such as Aether, String, Multi-dimensions etc. ...There is no proof just experiences - which can't be proven. And I'm ok with that. also that's flat out dumb on his part. If something can be proven there's no need for faith.

I watched the video and agree with the statement found on Wikipedia (sources cited) below. @Delano it also explains your confusion about science. "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a] Sheldrake's ideas have found support in the New Age movement from individuals such as Deepak Chopra."

You can't prove an opinion, you have to decide if it is valid or logical. I have to look up espouse. Yes to the remaining questions

@Del Thank you for familiarizing me the religious persuasion of Isaac Newton. An equally brilliant scientific mind in the modern day world in the person of Stephen Hawking is an atheist. Mistake is right. That's a questionable metaphor. What religion do you know of that corrects itself and changes its dogma over a period of time because it is constantly making new discoveries? And what science does religion pay homage to?

@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.

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".

@Pioneer1 I make a distinction between "God" and "gods"; between "religion" and "myth", between "Christianity" and "Paganism". Apparently you can't bring yourself to fine-tune your view on this subject. i was who first used the word "espouse." and this is what i had in mind when i said science never espouses religion. Definition of espouse: adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life): This definition does not describe science's position on religion. BC/AD is a single isolated convenience, not a doctrine. And your giving your blessing to Del's observation about America's universities doesn't negate the extenuating circumstances which were pointed out by Troy and me. Christian is, as Christian does. This is a subject which has many aspects.

Del science and religion have nothing to do with each other -- nothing. Cynique raises some good points to counter the assertion. Scientists and science are open to change indeed dramatic revision when someone proves a previous belief is wrong. Everyone accepts the new information and everyone moves on. Scientists debate all the time were they are discussing somethings for each there is no proof. Religions are not open for debate blind faith is what you must have. Of course you can start your own religion which happens all the time. Mormonism, NOI, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Branch Davidian, etc. Saying science is like a religion is just plain silly. I need to listen the the whole Sheldrake lecture to better understand where you (and perhaps Sheldrake) are coming from.

These hallowed elitist institutions of higher learning were Christians in name only. Founded during slavery, they were not examples of people who practiced what Christianity preached when it came to the golden rule. They were hypocrites.

@DelContrary to what you say, you're doing a very thorough job of arguing points here. If facts dispute a person's opinion, then "i don't agree" that people are wrong in disputing a person's opinion. They are doing him a favor by educating him. i don't deny anybody an opinion. What i do find off-putting is the self-glorification that accompanies the expression of an opinion or a fact. Your boy, pioneer, is good at one thing. And that's gloating and patting himself on the back when he "thinks" he's gotten over on somebody. In your effort to make yourself over and become super-tolerant, you have lost all of your flavor. Under the cloak of blandness, you now use the intolerant pioneer as an instrument through which you play out your repressed resentments against others - IMO. LOL Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.

Pioneer you know Black people invented science. Why do you insist on making it a western presumably European thing? Also don't confuse science with it practitioners. Science is a monolith, but there are practitioners who are liars and would pervert science to their own purposes. People do the same thing with religion. Voodoo and science can coexist it does not have to be science. Why make it an either/or proposition? Del, your question, "Does that mean Christians can't be mathematicians? Since reliqion and science are incompatible" is almost bizarre. Who said religion and science are incompatible? Of course a Christian can be a mathematician, but who was talking about Christians and Mathematicians?! Again that was a very odd question...

What?! Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false. Indeed, it is often religion that holds science back, even killing people for speaking the truth because it conflicts with religious doctrine. This practice continues to this day. I'd even argue that religion holds back spirituality.