Jump to content
  • Sign Up
zaji

The New Religion

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cynique said:

l I think Troy was responding something i directed to you 3 hours ago.  Did you see that post?

 

@Cynique  I don't think I did... I think my browser has a glitch. I'm going to sign in again

Share this post


Link to post
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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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☺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Delano said:

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☺

 

@Delano Ok

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There ought to be an easier way for you to get your jollies;  maybe you should be a little more "hands-on".  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for admitting your statement was atleast PARTIALLY wrong.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be more encouraging if you'd stop jackin-off long enough to admit that you are wrong about science being the new religion.  See ya!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zaji I  found a long article about the Akashic records stored away on my computer, - a saved document I didn't even know i had. :o

 

Maybe we come here knowing everything because we are each microcosms of a Supreme Intelligence, and during the course of our lives,  events and incidents nudge our memory causing info to "come to us".  Also, hasn't it been claimed that we are only using a small portion of our brain? So who knows what's stored in its unused lobes?  :blink:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think the link is unconscious. It doesn't reside in space and is also outside of time. Like the creator/creators.

So underneath I believe we are linked with everything in this universe. The sum of which is the ultimate.

Since this link is not physical yes

we are dreaming.

It could be that Numbers are considered a universal in a way language is not. Although I don't think this has to be true. It could just be another symbolic subset of our type of thinking.
 

The mind doesn't reside in space and is also outside of time. Like the creator/creators.

So underneath I believe we are linked with everything in this universe. The sum of which is the ultimate.

Since this link is not physical, our existence is akin to dreaming.

 Numbers are considered a universal in a way language is not. Although I don't think this has to be true. It could just be another symbolic subset of our type of thinking.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an popular indie press bases in New York City called Akashic Books.  Researching the meaning of their name was how I learned of the Akashic records.  Now seems like a good time for me to revisit the subject ;-)  Thanks everyone!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

I admit I was wrong for spelling "congratulating" as "congradulating".

But will YOU admit that YOU were wrong for saying that science NEVER espouses religion after several of us have shown you otherwise?

Will YOU accept some responsibility for a change?




Troy

 

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


I don't understand your analogy.

A broken clock may be right SOME of the time but wrong MOST of the time.
How does "never" even factor into this example?


 

 

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?


Lol....come on bro, my motives are irrelevant.

Whether the point is weak or strong is also irrelevant.

Nor does it matter when BC or AD started being used by science.  The fact that these terms are used at any time CANCELS OUT the statement that religion is NEVER espoused to science.

 

 

Like Del said, if we take the emotions out of it.........

 

Either what I'm saying is correct or it isn't.

Either what Cynique said was correct or it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

admit I was wrong for spelling "congratulating" as "congradulating".

But will YOU admit that YOU were wrong for saying that science NEVER espouses religion after several of us have shown you otherwise?

Will YOU accept some responsibility for a change?

 

Misspelling a word is the least of your shortcomings.  Belaboring this point is just another thread in your security blanket.  I have no intention of humoring you.  Get over yourself and move on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

lso 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?

That's a good example because all of the other ways of counting the years are also based on religion. 

 

I mentioned this earlier. 

@Troy @Pioneer. 

 

If you got rid of the church and religion would it change science? I would say so. Science and Religion attempt to answer large questions. The validity of those answers appears to be personal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer if you don't understand my analogy, you may not understand the word "never."

 

Del it is not clear to me why you insist the science could not exist without religion.  I'd argue that science -- especially in the last several hundred years -- exists despite religion.

 

The BC/AD strikes me as weak way to draw a relationship between the two, indeed some use BCE.  In any case, the names are irrelevant to how science is practiced. This is like arguing that since the planets are named after Roman gods, that science is would not exist without  to Roman mythology.  Would you also make that argument too?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×