Troy

Is this in addition to or a replacement for the African-American Family Book Expo? Thanks

So religion and science are similar in that, in the wrong hands both can cause great harm. But, this is true for almost anything. Of course this does not make science a religion or vice-versa.

It has been a minute since I've laughed out loud reading something on these forums -- thanks Cynique.

@Pioneer1 HBO has 50 million subscribers! Most households don't consume TV via broadcast -- I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to that don;t even know you can watch TV with an antenna. The majority of people who watch what you describe as "Broadcast" pay to watch it. Sure the traditional network, NBC, ABC, etc have more viewers, but I would not discount the impact on 50 millions households -- why do you?

I don't know anything about Joel Osteen. This was the first time that I listened to anything he said for more the 30 seconds. Now that you mention it I remember you (or someone here) saying Joel would not turn over his church to those displaced by the Houston floods. That was not my point. I was just saying his message was sound. Christians and their Bible, relatively speaking, have not be around very long. Exploring the Earth did not begin with Europeans. Africans visited the Americas long before Columbus, even before Christ. Belief in a higher power did not stop Africans from traveling the world.

There are Black listeners and broadcasters on right wing AM radio. "White people without college education, especially uneducated White men," as you described them, are not the only ones affected by this form of media. One out of 12 Black voters voted for Trump.

Perhaps. All scientists are flawed humans like the rest of us.

Oh I thought I was pretty clear @Pioneer1, science itself does not espouse religion, but individual scientists may in their own personal lives. I try not to throw around absolute terms like "never." I can tell by your capitalization of the word, that you are placing emphasis on this word. Despite this, I still agree with Cynique on this issue

Was plowing through the website updates and came across our old book club's reading list. I noticed, Guy Johnson’s Standing at the Scratch Line, and what a great book it was. I thought about all the freaking excitement heaped onto this disney flick, based upon some imaginary shit that some white boys dreamt up to make money Meanwhile the lives of actual Black people are eve more compelling. Guy Johnson relates true stories of Black people not just standing up but kicking ass! There is a YouTube video I just found where Guy talks about the book and how our stories are not told. He reminds us that most of us do not even know how many successful slave revolts there were... the stories are simply not told. I say forget the disneyfied “Black Panther” film and read a book about strong Black men describing REAL situations in Guy Johnson’s Standing at the Scratch Line, a 10 Time AALBC.com Bestselling Book! #readingblack for real! Shoot if we are willing to stand up for ourselves maybe some Brothers and Sisters will make this book into a film...

Thanks @Delano, that was much easier to understand and very helpful. I did not fully understand what you were disputing -- which is why I asked. Now it is clear and I'd have to agree with you as the theory the universe is fixed was demonstrated to be false long ago. Sometimes what is obvious to you is not always obvious to others. So where do you (anyone) think is the source of the answers to my questions?

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.

Del you have a long history of responding to my direct questions by ignoring them all together or responding with a question. So while I'm accustomed to this from you it does make it more difficult to understand where you are coming from. Again I ask, for what reason did you reject Mel's statement of about theories?

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 :-)

@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 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."

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.

@Cynique, deep.

Del I astonished that you would yet again repeat what I wrote. If your only contribution to this conversation is continuing to ignore direct questions, parroting what I previously wrote, and telling me watch a video, that TED did not see fit to keep published, then I guess we are at an impasse.

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?

okay @Delano tell me what I'm "wrong" about. Repeating and copying what write entirely unnecessary. For example, I already know I have not seen the video, telling me the definition of ignorant is just condescending, and less than what i'd expect from you.

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

This past Sunday I started rolling out the new website design. There are still hundred of pages that need to be converted some pages will be trivial to convert other will take some time. Many of these pages were created 15 years ago or more using old version of HTML or proprietary code… I’;ll spare you the boring technical details — basically I have more work to do, but a lot has been accomphished. I started AALBC.com in 1997 and have been it only webmaster. Today, dare I say it, AALBC.com is the best website dedicated to Black books ever built Really, AALBC.com is a site dedicated to Black people and joins a list of a many sites, in a variety of niches, doing the work of ensuring black people have a voice, they own and control, on the web. Thank you everyone for your support over the years — without it AALBC.com would be a faint memory, to a few people.

Pioneer, have watched anything on HBO over that last 10 years the sex scenes are pretty graphic -- pretty much everything except the display of a penis being inserted into a vagina.

I'm sorry Del I reject your last statement about my arguing from ignorance. I was expressing what I knew about a subject and was merely informing you that I could not speak to Sheldrake's opinion, because I know nothing about him and have not watched the video. Obviously you have integrated his beliefs into yours, so I figured I need to at least watch the video to better understand where you are coming from. @Pioneer1, the naming of things have nothing to do with how science is practiced. If you look at the names of some of the heavy elements; Americium, Berkelium, or Californium does this mean science worships the western United States? You, like Del, are reaching to to make a flawed argument that science is like a religion, because you two, for different reasons, have an axe to grind against science. I suspect Del dislikes science because it dismisses his strongly held belief in astrology and you because you've somehow associated science with white racism. But, Pioneer if you want to conflate modern science and greek mythology go right ahead I don't want to confuse you with reality.

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.