Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: DazDaKing


The point I think he's trying to make is that you can affect senses with artificial wireless signals. You should have really pointed out which part of what he said you didn't agree with straight away - but who am I to say that?

Yup, that's pretty much my point. You can mess with people's perception with wireless signals.

Not wirelessly. And certainly not to the degree that you can fake a religious experience. Unless dizziness counts.

Dude, if you can make voices appear inside someone's head wirelessly (and you can, read my link) then you can fake a religious experience.

Only if they are gullible. Its a simple matter to test any strange and unexplained voice. Confirmation bias leads people to skip that step.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: DazDaKing


The point I think he's trying to make is that you can affect senses with artificial wireless signals. You should have really pointed out which part of what he said you didn't agree with straight away - but who am I to say that?

Yup, that's pretty much my point. You can mess with people's perception with wireless signals.

Not wirelessly. And certainly not to the degree that you can fake a religious experience. Unless dizziness counts.

Dude, if you can make voices appear inside someone's head wirelessly (and you can, read my link) then you can fake a religious experience.

Only if they are gullible. Its a simple matter to test any strange and unexplained voice. Confirmation bias leads people to skip that step.

1. Lots of people are gullible.
2. How would you test a strange an unexplained voice?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Ever heard of a Turing test?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Ever heard of a Turing test?

Is that the robot-testing test? What would that prove?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Ever heard of a Turing test?

Is that the robot-testing test? What would that prove?

Prove? Maybe nothing. But it would certainly inform you. You would learn more than if you simply took it for granted. Better than just assuming it has supernatural origins.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Ever heard of a Turing test?

Is that the robot-testing test? What would that prove?

Prove? Maybe nothing. But it would certainly inform you. You would learn more than if you simply took it for granted. Better than just assuming it has supernatural origins.

You might learn it had supernatural origins

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Any supernatural claim require supernatural evidence.

Let's stay on topic, witch is simple by definition difference between science and religion.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Any supernatural claim require supernatural evidence.

Let's stay on topic, witch is simple by definition difference between science and religion.

Science is based upon the physical machinations of the body politic. That which animates the body is something science has failed to explain. Where does the mind reside/where does the soul reside? Heart/brain. What animates the human ultimately (SPARK). Science and religion are both wrong and right. Why cannot, they work together to resolve this? Why does it have to be Either OR; one or the other; you realize how childish this is. Why are both NOT correct in assumption? It is like arguing this: the Ostrich is a bird dinosaur specie, no! it is a large overgrown chicken (ITS BOTH ACTUALLY). Darwinism and Creationism needs to get on the same page (STOP ARGUEING) and start listening to one another. What are assumed 'going' extinct specie may be 'emerging' instead.

a reply to: SuperFrog
If you believe that science is infallible, then I would say you are very religious.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: SuperFrog

galadof: If you believe that science is infallible, then I would say you are very religious.

Neither discipline Science or Religion seems to work (so far) as explaining why we are here [most likely because they refuse to combine resources] to solve that age old question.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

You got to be kidding... creationism is belief in bronze age book that has been found wrong on many issues, things, and don't be surprised that in future does not get "R" or "MA" rating. It is collection of folklore and fairy tales, and only reason it's not with rest of mythology is because still some grown ups believe in fairy tales.

Reason they will never get along is because one actually nullifies other. Wonder once we (as it's not question if, latest research are pointing that we might be soon able to prove it) prove abiogenesis hypothesis, there really is NO ground for any creations story. Also, if abiogenesis is proven, and all material required for life we now know is everywhere in cosmos, there is large possibility for life to be everywhere. Look here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: SuperFrog
If you believe that science is infallible, then I would say you are very religious.

If you knew anything about science, you would not even post this... Just search Vulcan planet in Sun system, you will figure it out... We learn, we found hard way that Newton's law for example don't work correctly if object is very close to large source of gravity....

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Neither discipline Science or Religion seems to work (so far) as explaining why we are here [most likely because they refuse to combine resources] to solve that age old question.

Why there has to be reason 'why we are here'?? It's not like that anything in life has to have a reason to be there. That is just false assumption and religions are falsely pretending to know the answer...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: vethumanbeing

SuperFrog:You got to be kidding... creationism is belief in bronze age book that has been found wrong on many issues, things, and don't be surprised that in future does not get "R" or "MA" rating. It is collection of folklore and fairy tales, and only reason it's not with rest of mythology is because still some grown ups believe in fairy tales.

I am not kidding. Creationism is a faith based belief system that for some is as 'concrete' as scientific notation. Neither one gets a triple A rating as neither is proved as FACT. There is no fairy tail or folklore YET exposed AS TRUE. I will not be surprised at what the future holds (NO FEAR).

SuperFrog: Reason they will never get along is because one actually nullifies other. Wonder once we (as it's not question if, latest research are pointing that we might be soon able to prove it) prove abiogenesis hypothesis, there really is NO ground for any creations story. Also, if abiogenesis is proven, and all material required for life we now know is everywhere in cosmos, there is large possibility for life to be everywhere.

You are speaking of the naturalness of the concept of 'polarity'. It has to exist to be a causal for potentials: 'change' in the matrix (good/bad/love/hate) affects everything STATIC/or in stasis; it has to that is the nature of CHANGE. Life as we know it physically (all specie) does not exist anywhere else than HERE on Earth.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: SuperFrog

galadof: If you believe that science is infallible, then I would say you are very religious.

If you knew anything about science, you would not even post this... Just search Vulcan planet in Sun system, you will figure it out... We learn, we found hard way that Newton's law for example don't work correctly if object is very close to large source of gravity.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Neither discipline Science or Religion seems to work (so far) as explaining why we are here [most likely because they refuse to combine resources] to solve that age old question.

SuperFrog: Why there has to be reason 'why we are here'?? It's not like that anything in life has to have a reason to be there. That is just false assumption and religions are falsely pretending to know the answer...

Why NOT? have you never asked yourself that question, are you an accidental birth by a specie that just wants to replicate/reproduce ONLY? Life as a conscious being is valuable; that meaning you are aware/cognizant of your situation and should be able to question ones own existence and the diabolical machinations of CREATOR God that needs YOU to express Itself. Nothing is based upon FALSE assumption as to the reason you exist: as a thinking human being (you have the right to question your own existence)[to whom do you ask ultimately] your parents? You have no free will BTW.

a reply to: swanne

Magic is simply science which more primitive minds cannot understand.

No, that's completely wrong. Clarke's Third Law is not direction-independent.

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' does not mean the same as 'All magic is advanced technology.'

Here's a better definition:

Magic is technology that doesn't work.

edit on 17/5/15 by Astyanax because: of format troubles.

a reply to: SuperFrog

If you knew anything about science, you would not even post this... Just search Vulcan planet in Sun system, you will figure it out... We learn, we found hard way that Newton's law for example don't work correctly if object is very close to large source of gravity....

wow now that is some faith you have there. Now if only Christians had the same faith they to could move goal posts with it. Must be why there getting into the sciences, to finally learn to move goal posts on that hypothesis they like to call God. That's so cool, its one story in the making which will be peer previewed some hundred years from now.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
wow now that is some faith you have there. Now if only Christians had the same faith they to could move goal posts with it. Must be why there getting into the sciences, to finally learn to move goal posts on that hypothesis they like to call God. That's so cool, its one story in the making which will be peer previewed some hundred years from now.

Sorry my friend, no faith required here...

We are well aware that we can make mistake, or for example that law that perfectly fine works here, for example does not work close to Sun. But if you have read first post in this topic, you would see that that was actually main point of this topic. Here are 2 sentences from first post:

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

And BTW, it's Peer review and does not work like that... they already have hypothesis, and they are denying all signs that is man made, that does not exist... just to preserve their belief.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let's start again:

I call it nonsense because it isn't the case. The idea that "decoding patterns" in the brain allow us to experience objective reality is unintelligible. Quite obviously one also needs eyes, ears, skin, bones, heart, lungs...everything of the body, including reality itself, to experience reality.

There's an objective, real and physical reality made completely of atoms within the medium of 'space', that started with the 'big bang' and has existed prior to us and continues to exist up until this very moment. Ok?

Within this objective reality, under the natural rules that govern the atomic interactions, our bodies have arisen, including all the things you have mentioned, which also now form part of this objective atomic reality.

I am not questioning that. Are we back on the same page?

I'm not sure you know what sense is.

As a product of these two objective things - the universe and our body - we experience something we define as consciousness, which is the awareness of the atomic reality through the senses of the body. I'm sure we can agree on this.

Whether consciousness is ultimately experienced internally or externally (i.e your brain in a vat point) to the universe is NOT relevant to this discussion.

What is sense then? It's our interaction with this objective atomic world through the atomic body.

Every atom, and hence matter, through the dynamics of existing under the governing rules, is constantly in motion and hence producing either electromagnetic waves or mechanical waves as it continues to interact with the rest of the objective atomic world - in the dance of energy transfer.

I focused on electromagnetic waves (and specifically sight) since the example at hand was making people see an image.

Matter is held together by electromagnetism (on the atomic level/gravity on the macroscopic/strong + weak nuclear on the sub-atomic) so mechanical waves are ultimately a product of this phenomenon anyway - but that's just a side note.

When an electromagnetic wave hits the eye, depending on the frequency (or wavelength if you will) of the wave, the lens focuses it in a different way (a system of blue/red/green wavelength perceiving 'cones') which creates a specific electro-chemical reaction behind the eye, which in turn becomes an electrical signal in the brain.

The brain's decoding of that electrical signal becomes the final product you see (i.e the colour red if you were absolutely blasted with a 650nm wave). The 'decoding pattern' is the fact that a 650nm wavelength electromagnetic wave appears 'red' to us in our conscious vision.

The study of this is called neural decoding and the actual electrical signals are called neural action potentials - since you seem to need scientific wording to either understand or wish to understand something presented to you.

The idea that "decoding patterns" in the brain allow us to experience objective reality is unintelligible.

Are you arguing that the electrical signals are actually the image seen - as in - those signals inside our brain physically create an internal lightshow of the exact image? This obviously isn't the case. What then actually controls how these signals are perceived as an image?

There's clearly a set of rules (hence 'decoding patterns') that govern this - such that creating the electrical signals in the brain alone should create the same image as a naturally external source (see 'neural decoding' again).

There's three key transitions of 'data' here:

Electromagnetic signal -> physical body (via the lens of the eye).
Reaction in the eye system (chemical)-> electrical activity (potential voltages) in the brain.
Electrical activity in the brain -> perceived reality.

There's four main logical ways that you would be able to affect this system (specifically talking about sight):

1 - Controlling the electromagnetic signal.
2 - Physically changing the properties of the lens; the brain would still decode the resulting data on it's normal 'rules' - i.e colour-blindness (or as it's suspected).
3 - Physically changing the brain, such that it cannot successfully convey the entirety of the electrical data required to process the correct image.
4 - Fundamentally changing how those electrical signals are perceived to us.

I can't see how you would have a problem with Number 1.

An object naturally emitting 650nm EM waves under the natural conditions of the universe is NOT the only way to produce 650nm EM waves. We can create holograms that appear to be 3-dimensional matter from sight alone. Are you arguing that we CANNOT fool the mind using artifical electromagnetic waves?

I can't see how you would have a problem with Number 2 or Number 3, since these are completely scientific and logical facts.

I can then only imagine, your entire gripe about this, is that you have a conceptual problem with Number 4 - and you also seem to think that the only way for Number 4 to hold is for us to be in some sort of 'brains in a vat' type existence.

So the brain too is produced by the brain? Where do you get this nonsense? It's simply untrue. We're not brains on sticks or in jars.

By now, it should be clear to you that this is not what I was suggesting.

It's not really hard to prove to you that the brain can be the ultimate decider of reality (within the physical bounds of the objective atomic reality - of course) by observable truths such as schizoiphrenia, hallucinations, psychaedellic trips and experiences, divine visions, the seeing of the dead and imaginary friends, and so forth.

You can create voices and images in your head in the complete absense of an external atomic signal - other than the internal system of the neural activity in your brain - which 'you' can control. You can lucid dream and experience a reality that feels (including hearing, touch, pleasure and so forth) as real as this one - without any of your actual bodily senses receiving any external signal to the system.

My original point was that - theoretically - the camera-trick that was mentioned could be possible. I don't think I need to re-explain why that was the case.

No one is doubting that the objective atomic reality needs to exist for that to happen.

It's funny, people blame Religion for wars, murder etc etc.

If we take religion away (which is happening) have wars not been started outside of religious reasons?

It's not religion that's the problem. It's people.

Religion, at it's root, teaches nothing but love and respect. Sure, there's a few horror stories in the (insert holy book of choice). But it's teachings are somewhat solid.

Science and religion are 2 very different ways of explaining what we are and why we are here. I personally believe there is middle ground to be found.

a reply to: DazDaKing

And what exactly is causing electrochemical hallucinations going to do?

a reply to: TzarChasm

The specific point I was making was in relation to the 'camera-trick' mentioned earlier, where people could be made to see an image infront of them that a camera would not pick up - through the use of wireless signals.

I'm not trying to make any other point than the one in that context.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey Krazy - that's pretty much what I'm getting at.

You could attribute the 'Gods' as being astronomical reflections, and the Sons of 'Gods' may have simply been the ones who first explained to us the apparent significance of these things, in their own way.

We know for a fact that there were three other humanoids living amongst us over the last 100,000 years. These were apparently intelligent, tool-making and hunter-gathering social creatures.

Recently, we have began to suspect that the Neanderthals were of a religous nature before us. What about the Denosivans and Cro-Magnons? We know very little about them ultimately.

We know some of these humanoids were significantly taller/larger than ourselves at the time (you're talking 1-2 feet on average - definitely significant) and even having a larger (albeit possibly of a different configuration) cranium.

We know that these humanoids seem to have been spread out across a significant percentage of the Earth and yet we understand so little scientifically about our interactions with them.

We know we bred with them, or at least we're pretty certain we did, yet what does this even mean for the off-spring of these people? We can't deduce answers on these things until we've genome sequenced every single member of the human race.

What is the difference (if there is one) between a person who has interbred with these humanoid species and one of the humans who has remained of the same bloodline as that one, original, anatomically modern human that cropped up approx. 200,000 years ago?

If you pay attention, that simple question alone may have been the one of the most important in our human history - literally deciding who rules and what status different bloodlines had. That's why this story seems to have survived the test of time like no other.

I think that it seems to be apparent that this could be the remnants of the speakings of much earlier human civilization. It would seem to suggest that we have retained stories and traditions from a time when we actively walked with the other humanoids - and surely this would make them of an important nature.

I definitely wouldn't be surprised that such an event as you mentioned could be the source of these stories - or something of that like. In that sense, I really do believe that science doesn't contradict it.

Even the alien hypothesis wouldn't change much - as long as you assume that the 'Gods' now do represent an advanced race, and that interstellar space travel is possible. But that's getting off the point.

Sorry for being abrasive with your earlier but ATS can be damn frustrating lol.