Jump to content

The New Religion


Recommended Posts

 

@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:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Delano said:

Yet religious exposure will effect them.

 

@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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins that's eerie that you would cite an example similar to one i had just been thinking about myself last night, in regard to the 3 blind men touching an elephant, which one described as having rough skin and the other described as having a tail, while the last one insisted it had tusks; all 3 were telling a truth that was influenced by their sense of feel.  Everybody does have their own truth when it comes to a body of truth.  In this discussion,  the goal seems to be prove whether science encompasses religion.

 

I say that If a religious person makes a discovery and is credited with this, then his religion is besides the point.  Pioneer claimed  the Hippocratic  oath was an example of science adopting religion. But Hippocrates was as an ancient Greek physician, not  a religious figure. Serindipity was what inspired scientist and Isaac Newston's  theory about gravity, not his religion.    Science is about proven fact, religion about blind  faith.  Mythology is about fictional gods and gave rise to Paganism , whereas the Bible purports to be true accounts  about real people.  The Pantheism which believes all things in nature  are connected is a spiritual philosophy, not a religion.  This is my mind-set,  and actually we are, in deed, all affected by our mindsets.   

 

Mel, i absolutely love your anecdote of using brown paper bags to roll your hair up as an ingenious example of "making do",-  with using what's available because -  you do not have another choice at hand. 

 

12 minutes ago, Delano said:
On 2/27/2018 at 4:29 PM, Cynique said:

   What god does science worship?  What  science does religion preach?

Statistics and proof

Religion preaches statics and proof ?  Science has blind faith? i disagree.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake.  Statistics is the God science worships. And proof is the religion of science.

9 hours ago, Troy said:

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. 

 

 

 

You said to Pioneer that you wouldn't discuss a topic because he didn't read the source material. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founder of the scientific method was not only religious. He sought to use science to increase faith in God. 

 

You can say the are mutually exclusive and religion/spiritual belief doesn't enforce science. There are scientists that disagree. 

Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)[1] was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his contemporaries.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tractsdealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5]

 

During 1667 Newton was a Fellow at Cambridge,[12] making necessary the commitment to taking Holy Orderswithin seven years of completion of his studies. Prior to commencing studies he was required to take a vow of celibacy and recognize the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[

matter.[14] Of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica he stated:[15]

When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it useful for that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

 

1 hour ago, Delano said:

My mistake.  Statistics is the God science worships. And proof is the religion of science.

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?    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2018 at 7:48 PM, Delano said:

Look up the history of the Steady State Scientist and how the Big Bang Theory got its name.

@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.

On 3/1/2018 at 8:51 PM, Delano said:

He sought to use science to increase faith in God

also that's flat out dumb on his part.  If something can be proven there's no need for faith. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 6:39 PM, Cynique said:

 that's eerie that you would cite an example similar to one i had just been thinking about myself last night, in regard to the 3 blind men touching an elephant, which one described as having rough skin and the other described as having a tail, while the last one insisted it had tusks; all 3 were telling a truth that was influenced by their sense of feel

 

@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. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@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. 

@Mel Hopkins that's not the point I am arguing. I am a bit surprised because you haven't understood my statement. Look up how the Big Bang got its name. @Troy

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:
On 02/03/2018 at 12:51 PM, Delano said:

He sought to use science to increase faith in God

also that's flat out dumb on his part.  If something can be proven there's no need for faith. 

@Mel Hopkins a lot of scientist would agree with you. They also felt his studies of alchemy were a waste of time. He had a religious motivation and he was using occult techniques which informed his work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.  

 

 

5a9af4eb06bbb_universevibe.jpg.cf2488351167e448a649187711ff503b.jpg  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@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.

@Mel Hopkins you are arguing a point from ignorance  and you are wrong. Instead of trying to inform you or rather asking you to inform yourself, I will post the reasoning why. @Cynique @Troy @Pioneer1 @zaji

 

 When Einstein created his theory of general relativity, early analysis showed that it created a universe that was unstable — expanding or contracting — rather than the static universe that had always been assumed. Einstein also held this assumption about a static universe, so he introduded a term into his general relativity field equations called the cosmological constant, which served the purpose of holding the universe in a static state. However, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that distant galaxies were, in fact, expanding away from the Earth in all directions, scientists (including Einstein) realized that the universe didn't seem to be static and the term was removed.

 

(There is an apocryphal story that they came up with the theory after watching the film Dead of Night, which ends exactly as it began.) Hoyle particularly became a major proponent of the theory, especially in opposition to the big bang theory. In fact, in a British radio broadcast, Hoyle coined the term "big bang" somewhat derisively to explain the opposing theory.

 

So it is not a theory that any reasonable person would hold since it runs counter to the known facts. The other bit is the Steady State Theorist called the opposition the Big Bang in order  to ridicule the opposition. The irony is that the Steady State theorist were wrong. So they were name calling and wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :-)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Troy said:

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.

That is a very tasty morsel.

11 minutes ago, Troy said:

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?

The reason I do that is to make certain we are starting from the same page. So while you may find it annoying I am tryin to ascertain your position. I didn't think it required any explanation. Steady State Theory is not a position being held because of Background Microwave Radiation. So to say that the Steady State and The Big Bang Theory are two theories is not correct. 

 

So I am not certain why you are asking why I am saying Mel is wrong. Since to me it is obvious. And I thought you knew that Steady State is no longer a credible theory. This is also why I post definitions. It is not about saying that is the only defintion, it demonstrates explicitly what I am trying to communicate. So that the conversant can see the fundamental difference in our position. Which is also why I argue usage and seemingly minor points. I want to understand precisely what someone is saying. Or close enough to feel that we can have a discussion. However I think I will jettison that approach. Based on the failure of said technique.

 

I will be parsimonius going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delano said:

So it is not a theory that any reasonable person would hold since it runs counter to the known facts.

 

@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.    

1 hour ago, Troy said:

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 :-)

 

@TroyI could have sworn our Keynote was Alumni Lou Ferrigno :D   I don't remember Arno Penzias but I will look him up in our year book... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troy said:

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. 

 

@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?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 @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. " 

 

 

5a9af4eb06bbb_universevibe.jpg.cf2488351167e448a649187711ff503b.jpg  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Troy said:

So where do you (anyone) think is the source of the answers to my questions?

 

@Troy, not a clue.  But I know I pull information out of my butt, so to speak.   and I know where to use words that I've never heard of before until I need to use them.  But I just don't know. Maybe, I'll sleep on it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they are different manifestations of the same phenomena.

8 hours ago, Troy said:

 

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. :)

 

@Troy may be I am  wrong. @Mel Hopkins studied physics and I have not. So she had an expert opinion.

She mentioned the Big Bump can either of you explain how that is related to the Steady State Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a lot in this thread I need to read through but..............
 


Someone or ones mentioned something about REAL Christians versus hypocrites or something not really being about Jesus and Christianity and used to claim that science not being influenced by religion or that the early academic and science scholars weren't really religious.....


I have to say this is a REAL REACH, and a slippery slope.

If we're going to start picking and choosing who's a REAL Christian or what they REALLY believed in their hearts-
Or who represents the REAL teachings of Jesus or what is TRUE Christianity-

Everyone has their own opinion about this and nothing is going to get resolved.

Some of you believe the religion of Christianity is about love and forgiveness.
I believe it was a political movement designed to unite Europe and had little to do with Jesus.




Cynique

The bottome line is, you said that science NEVER espouses religion.

Both Del and me provided a wealth of information to prove that it DOES from time to time.

So you were proven wrong....in more ways than just one.

So if your issue with me isn't the fact that I'm right but HOW I present my truth....well here Del is presenting those truths to you in another way and you're STILL arguing with him and refusing to accept it.

 

 

 

Troy

You are arguing individual points that me and Del are making, but where exactly do you stand on the point Cynique has made that science NEVER espouses religion?

Do you agree or disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, look whose back ready to inject a lot of disposed of points into the conversation, eager as ever to take on the role of never being wrong. 

 

3 hours ago, Troy said:

I thought I was pretty clear @Pioneer1, science itself does not espouse religion, but individual scientists may in their own personal lives. 

And the definition of espouse was given,  along with Mel's relating how she used hair curlers made out of brown paper bags,  illustrating how people use items for purposes other than their intended use when something else is not available, as an example of science taking what was available in the case of BC/AD delineation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/03/2018 at 7:59 AM, Mel Hopkins said:

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. 

@Mel is that a redirect. Or a cover for you trying to define theory that has been discredited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Delano said:

@Mel is that a redirect. Or a cover for you trying to define theory that has been discredited. 

 

@Delano  of course not. It's an explanation of the nature of theories.  Gone tomorrow, here today.  Get better instrumentation and back again.  That's what a theory is - it's not a force of nature,  it's a hypothesis that may have facts surrounding it but it is still a theory.  

LIKE I WROTE... 

Quote

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.

Now shall I define theory for you - so we'll be on the same page? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

@Delano  of course not. It's an explanation of the nature of theories.  Gone tomorrow, here today.  Get better instrumentation and back again.  That's what a theory is - it's not a force of nature,  it's a hypothesis that may have facts surrounding it but it is still a theory.  

LIKE I WROTE... 

Now shall I define theory for you - so we'll be on the same page? 

We aren't even in the same book. Steady State is no longer a credible theory.  Perhaps @Troycan explain that to you. 

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

@Delano  of course not. It's an explanation of the nature of theories.  Gone tomorrow, here today.  Get better instrumentation and back again.  That's what a theory is - it's not a force of nature,  it's a hypothesis that may have facts surrounding it but it is still a theory.  

LIKE I WROTE... 

Now shall I define theory for you - so we'll be on the same page? 

We aren't even in the same book. Steady State is no longer a credible theory.  Perhaps @Troycan explain that to you. Or one of the voices in your head☺

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

 

science itself does not espouse religion, but individual scientists may in their own personal lives.


OK, thanks for making your position on this matter clear ENOUGH FOR ME....lol.


 

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


Well, her use of the term NEVER is exactly why I pressed the issue with her.
We can argue back and for over the EXTENT religion influences science but when you say it NEVER is espoused to science....that's a pretty bold statement.

You said you try not to use the term NEVER...which is wise.....but you still AGREE with her that science never espouses religion.




 

 


Cynique
 

illustrating how people use items for purposes other than their intended use when something else is not available, as an example of science taking what was available in the case of BC/AD delineation.


So you believe that scientists used and still use the religious terms BEFORE CHRIST and YEAR OF OUR LORD simply because they couldn't think of any other terms to use?????

Lol......what a reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

So you believe that scientists used and still use the religious terms BEFORE CHRIST and YEAR OF OUR LORD simply because they couldn't think of any other terms to use?????

Yes.  This is what's known as being practical.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Cynique
 

Yes. This is what's known as being practical.


So these scientists ESPOUSED religious terms to their scientific work for pratical purposes.

The argument isn't whether they needed to or not, or whether it was practical or not....the argument was whether they ever DID IT or not.

And they clearly did....which means your statement was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement/opinion was a generalization which is far more right than wrong.  i really don't have to defend what i said because science uses  BC/AD as a convenience not a tenet.  If believing that i am wrong turns you on, then knock yourself out.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cynique said:

My statement/opinion was a generalization which is far more right than wrong.  i really don't have to defend what i said because science uses  BC/AD as a convenience not a tenet.  If believing that i am wrong turns you on, then knock yourself out.  


Ohhhh NOOOWWWW you're admitting that atleast an itsy bitsy tiny piece of your statement may contain some wrong in it...lol.

OK, now we're starting to get somewhere.

;) We're on our way yall !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cynique, that was twice in one day -- thanks again LOL!

 

@Pioneer1, yes I still agree with the what Cynique wrote.  Lets say that someone overheard me use the word Black or white to describe people.  They might fall under the false assumption that I believe in Black and white races because I usedd the term in casual conversations.

 

Scientists do this too. There are technical terms that they use to communicate with each other where greater precision is required for clarity.  However if they are communicating with lay people they may use colloquial terms that people understand as not to talk over their heads. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

yes I still agree with the what Cynique wrote. Lets say that someone overheard me use the word Black or white to describe people. They might fall under the false assumption that I believe in Black and white races because I usedd the term in casual conversations


Yes, I understand totally what you just said.

However that is NOT the argument.

A statement was made that science NEVER espouses religion.

Despite the wealth of information that Del presented and me pointing out how scientists use terms like "Before Christ" as well as named planets and days of the week after deities of ancient GREEK RELIGION (mythology).......

You apparently still agree with Cynique that it NEVER does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it up, Troy.  Pioneer can't wrap his brain around the explanation you offered because the word "NEVER" has become his security blanket. He needs to prove my opinion to be at least "partially" wrong, because this is the glue that holds him together.  Your siding with me, shatters the little world he inhabits wherein he is ALWAYS right, and where he imagines himself to be a magnanimous font of wisdom who lectures to others about the error of their ways, while he embodies his "don't do as i do, do as i say do" credo.  

 

11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

  I believe in congradulating  progress, even if it's not complete....as a way of encouraging more.

He incorrectly spells "congratulating" as "congradulating".   You'd think somebody as precise as he considers himself would know how to spell common words.  

 

And his "wealth of information" hyperbole consists of him trying to fit round pegs into square holes.  Since when did the names of the days of the week represent anything scientific? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you @Cynique, even a broken clock is "NEVER" wrong, for it is correct 2 seconds every 24 hours.  Of course only unreasonable people will argue that the clock is valid for that reason.  So @Pioneer1 this is why I agree with Cynique.

 

Also keep in mind the terms BC AD are relatively new.  There are thousands of years by scientists, in multiple cultures, where these terms were not used (for obvious reasons).  Why hang your hat on such a specious and weak point?  Is it really just to "win" this argument?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 5:50 PM, Troy said:

So where do you (anyone) think is the source of the answers to my questions?

 

@Troy  I found a plausible explanation while I was watching a skeptics video.   The explanation offered relates to the news article you shared regarding knowledge.  The professor mentioned that the more you know about a subject, the more information you have to draw from. You may not be able to access it right away but once you quiet your mind or do something else the information surfaces.  The odd thing is no one really knows where this information is stored. There are some theories that it resides in the brain,  but not everyone believes that.  Anyway, life-long learning is the key.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it is nice to consider the possibility that all I've learned is tucked away somewhere in my brain, 'cause I'm sure I have no conscious recollection of 95% of the stuff I learned in school :-)

 

The possibility of being able to tap into our collective knowledge is exciting to consider isn't it?  The scenario you describe @Mel Hopkins seems far more plausible. But it is fun to dream about a collective consciousness that we could potentially access :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Troy said:

But it is fun to dream about a collective consciousness that we could potentially access :-)

 

@Troy I don't rule it out. What if Jung was correct and the stuff we learn goes into the collective unconscious and that's why it takes time to retrieve it?  No one can say with certainty where  information is stored.   Aren't scientist still trying to figure out how Einstein's brain worked?:P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

I don't rule it out. What if Jung was correct and the stuff we learn goes into the collective unconscious and that's why it takes time to retrieve it?  No one can say with certainty where  information is stored.   Aren't scientist still trying to figure out how Einstein's brain worked?:P

 

The Akashic Records. I've always loved the idea of this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...