Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

reply to post by Snoopy1978


the scientific method has been corrupted. it happened and most of us were taught the wrong ay since grade one.

i *think this is what the OP is saying.

reply to post by rwfresh

We can have faith that our desire to know truth and survive and thrive is mutual or we can declare ourselves dominant over each other. I don't believe A=A is meaningless. The fight over it's meaning is.

Establishing the terms up front avoids the issues currently experienced. Without the shared contextual understanding of A, then the result is circular reasoning...

A must equal A or there can be no science.

reply to post by rainbowbear

the scientific method has been corrupted... i *think this is what the OP is saying.

For someone who started out saying this, then turning around and denying the most fundamental precept in science (A=A), I can see why you might "think," this is case...difficult to ascertain...

the discussion of religion is is actually making really hard for people to understand what the OP is saying.

The Scientific method, the 3-4-5 triangle---trivium/quadrivium?

does ANYONE posting here know what this is?

if not--you have all been lied to about what "science" is. AND you NEVER used the Scientific Method in its true form to TEST what modern science is. Shame on you! So to continue to tout it as fact in its current context, is ignorance. Plain and simple.

Mankind = Spirit / Soul and Lives in a Body. Religion is man-made...Has parts of some truth and is very biased!

Human Beings, Can know truth in part...Via their natural realm...The 5 senses And Through The Spiritual Realm...

God / Creator, Is Pure Love / Light, And Can Be Known Only Through HIS / Holy Spirit, As Our Spirit Is Open...

And Able To Receive Knowledge...From God / Creator, In All Area's of Life... = Receiving Idea's and Insight's...

True Science / Knowledge Has To Be Unbiased 100%

As human's we are imperfect being's...Those who seek Knowledge / Answer's...Must seek to be honest and Unbiased...It's a Big Process...And The Test of Time...Has Proved Many Answer's...

Some Examples...Of Knowledge Confirmed...After, It Has Been Recorded in History...

The Bible includes many commonsense principles of good health. The Old Testament contains many injunctions which relate to health. If they had been put into practice, the world's disease toll would have been drastically cut.

Until the close of the 17th century, however, hygienic conditions in cities were generally deplorable. Excrement and filth were often dumped into the streets. Flies, breeding in the filth, spread and carried disease to millions.

The principle of burying excrement and filth was given by the Scriptures over 1400 years before Christ. In Deuteronomy, God told Moses and the children of Israel:

"You shall have a place outside the camp and you shall go out to it; and you shall have a stick with your weapons; and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it, and turn back and cover up your excrement" (23:12-13, RSV)

One medical historian, Arturo Castiglioni, said:

"The regulations in Deuteronomy as to how soldiers should prevent the danger of infection coming from their excrement by covering it with earth constitute a most important document of sanitary legislation".

Castiglioni continued:

"Study of Biblical texts appears to have demonstrated that the ancient Semitic peoples, in agreement with the most modern tenets of epidemiology, attributed more importance to animal transmitters of disease, like the rat and the fly, than to the contagious individual."

Three thousand years later, when the bubonic plague devastated Europe, this knowledge had generally been lost. Some blamed noxious fumes in the air; some thought it was caused by a conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn; yet others blamed the Jews, and many blamed God. The world did not wake up to the importance of hygiene and cleanliness until about the end of the 18th century. Yet vital principles of sanitation and cleanliness were expounded by God to Moses almost 3,500 years ago. The biblical laws of cleanliness, washings and purification were not all merely customs or rituals. They protected the camp of Israel from the dangers of contagious diseases and deadly plagues.

In the Bible greater stress was placed upon PREVENTION of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of laws relative to hygiene and sanitation as the Hebrews.

One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon.

As we read in chapter two, proper diet is important in the prevention of disease. Leviticus 11 enumerates the dietary laws which God gave ancient Israel. Among other things, He forbade them to eat the flesh of pigs (swine), rabbits and shellfish. (Lev. 11:6-12)

Many of these make good sense. The prohibition of hare and swine as sources of food certainly must have diminished the incidence of disease in view of the capacity of these animals to transmit tularemia (an infectious disease) and trichinosis, respectively. The transmission of gastrointestinal infections (including typhoid fever) via polluted shellfish or water also testifies to the apparent wisdom of the Hebrews in warning against such sea food and impure water.

Another interesting Old Testament law forbade the eating of animal fat. This also has proven a valuable health practice. President Eisenhower while he was in the White House, once quoted Leviticus 7:23: "You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat". As we know, animal fats are high in cholesterol, a fatty, waxy material which the body needs in limited amounts. The body's inability to properly metabolize cholesterol in some cases, however, may be a contributing factor in some forms of heart disease."www.broadcaster.org.uk...

Examples Through Men - Galileo Galilei [url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galil

Ran out of space, Wanted To Add "Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 [NS: 4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been "considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived."[7] His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, lays the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution.
The Principia is generally considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written, due, independently, to the specific physical laws the work successfully described, and for the style of the work, which assisted in setting standards for scientific publication down to the present time. Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope[8] and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series. Newton's work on infinite series was inspired by Simon Stevin's decimals." en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by rwfresh

 

You don't have to be a Christian, but it still doesn't mean it is not a tactic used by the Christians.

if science is religion, you better not see a doctor when you get cancer if it is all based on faith.

You want to paint me as a Christian who relies on faith otherwise you have no argument. What is the purpose of using the Christian tactic? What advantage would i have of using the tactic if i have absolutely no Christian agenda? Is wondering what preceded the big bang a Christian thing? Is belief in diversity a Christian thing? Is belief in love of humankind a Christian thing? Is belief in goodness, honesty, sharing something that should be resisted because the religion of science is unable to prove it's value?

If you are a scientist than you should listen to the statistics without emotion or an agenda. They speak for themselves.

I am not accusing you of being a christian, I am accusing you of being completely unoriginal.
I could care less what your beliefs are,that you are using the very same tactics that christians use to try to debunk science and claim that it is faith also.

So much so that you must of used the same websites to extract the same exact questions that christians try to use to debunk it.

Even in a post right above mine:

How did inanimate chemicals turn into proteins? What triggered the big bang? Followers of the religion of science HATE these questions and the people who freely ask them. They actually believe that it is necessary to eliminate the questions through domination to enforce their ideology.

If you read the dozens of other religion challenging evolution threads, these are all the same questions asked, over and over, again. That you must be purusing the same threads the christians do, or you stole from their threads, trying to act original.

You even have the nerve to say that scientists get mad. Scientists get ANNOYED at the same ignorant questions being asked when they pertain to other sciences.

It is like continuing to ask a paleontologist aobut what they think about arrowheads that were excavated in Mexcio.
Both historical seeking sciences, but completely different subjects.

Not hatred, just tiresome. Because not only do anti-scientists try to question it, you have to educate them on the basic sciences and they still don't get it.

For a day later to have these same tired questions come up over and over again.

If i get cancer, no i will likely not go to the doctor because i am a lover of truth and we all know statistically following a doctors advice and treatment during a bout of cancer usually results in unnecessary surgery and death. I would rather just die in peace thanks.

Good, then you can give us all a good demonstration of natural selection.

reply to post by rainbowbear

the discussion of religion is is actually making really hard for people to understand what the OP is saying.

With all due respect, it is the performance of the OP which is actually making things difficult to understand.

You trivium/quadrivium view is fine and dandy...

A=A, right?

Well, the OP is fine with that on the one hand and totally dissatisfied on the other...with ground rules like this, there can be nothing further to be gained...

I.....wait.....what?

I can read the words in the OP, but...they don't make sense.

Science is bad now?

Get the hell off science's internet then.

I'm just..appalled at the hate and vitriol spewed by the OP towards something that has done so much good in the world. It's like the original V series premise "scientists are bad, kill them all!" (which funnily enough was an allegory about nazi germany killing jews).

reply to post by totallackey

kudos to you for pointing this out

reply to post by optimus primal


yep--youve been completely turned around. you never used the scientific method on the scientific method.

none of us did.

we were given it by an authority. We were not asked to verify it with our own reasoning. We never questioned it.

Its a wonderful tool in its complete form, but it hasent been used correctly for a century.

but if you are comfortable trusting what you were taught, than by all means--dont come out of your comfort bubble to try to understand whats being said in this thread.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Well despite my unoriginality and the boredom inducing qualities to one as esteemed as yourself i am happy you are still interested enough to post in this boring thread. We thank you for your time and fact based investigated research. And we all believe it without question because it's wrapped in the flag of science. Thanks for the truly original and thought provoking arguments you've brought to the table. Kudos.

Just kidding. Peace brother! May neither of us get cancer.

Originally posted by optimus primal
I.....wait.....what?

I can read the words in the OP, but...they don't make sense.

Science is bad now?

Get the hell off science's internet then.

I'm just..appalled at the hate and vitriol spewed by the OP towards something that has done so much good in the world. It's like the original V series premise "scientists are bad, kill them all!" (which funnily enough was an allegory about nazi germany killing jews).

Ahh the hate of hatred. How can any of us stand the abuse? But seriously. I use science's internet because it's too stupid to know that i know it doesn't actually own the internet. But don't tell!

A=A, right?

Well, the OP is fine with that on the one hand and totally dissatisfied on the other

MY nomenclature and ideology is Truth! NO MY IDEOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE IS TRUTH!

This IS the war of "religions". Isn't it? The point of the original post is that i recognize a new religion that is indeed dominating our current era. That religion is the religion of science. It is no more science than Christianity is Jesus.

Something is eternal and true. It lies beyond nomenclature and ideology. Why anyone would fight against or attempt to pervert this truth is not understandable. But i imagine it's fear. Fear of interruption of what they made "true". People kill over it like they are fighting for their physical survival.

Now am i suggesting religion of science followers should be eliminated? No. But they believe in domination and so give permission for their own domination. All ideologies ultimately depend on truth to exist. When they stray too far no one ends up believing it or propagating it. Ideologies with a death wish are a bit scarier than those simply wishing to rule the world and it's something mankind has not faced until now. "if i can't be right then NO ONE can"

Peace!

All i can say is that science doesn't have a choice to be a religion to someone like me.
I am horrible at advanced math so if a true scientist releases a hypothesis or a fact, i cant use the mathematics to come to his/her conclusion therefor i can decide to take the theory/fact on faith.

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by optimus primal
I.....wait.....what?

I can read the words in the OP, but...they don't make sense.

Science is bad now?

Get the hell off science's internet then.

I'm just..appalled at the hate and vitriol spewed by the OP towards something that has done so much good in the world. It's like the original V series premise "scientists are bad, kill them all!" (which funnily enough was an allegory about nazi germany killing jews).

Ahh the hate of hatred. How can any of us stand the abuse? But seriously. I use science's internet because it's too stupid to know that i know it doesn't actually own the internet. But don't tell!

ah, so you have no problem being hypocritical, using the benefits of science, then decrying it's existence. i gotcha. well, you could always go live in the woods i suppose. don't worry, that nasty science wont get you.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The above is a quote from Hamlet from around the 1600s. Before religious people were saying that 'science is just another belief', people were also trying to say the philosophy was flawed for various reasons including its scrutiny of reailty. Philosophy was one of the grass roots of science.

Yes, there are people that try to refute everything with science. There are also people that swear blind that there is proof of aliens available within their own conciousness. Both parties are stupid. Science has no interest in investigating things it cannot touch.

The people you generally describe as 'nazis' etc ... are probably 'New Athiests'. IE ... people who believe there is sufficient data to dismiss the existence of a any God. Yes, they happen to be scientists. No, they do not represent that vast majority of science. I would also disagree with the assertion that New Athiests are anything like facists or nazis really.

Honestly, I think if you're going to call people out like this you have to give proper examples because as a broad generalisation you're going to be wrong.

Originally posted by rwfresh

There is a huge difference between a yogi who meditates for 40 years and a christain in the pews of an evangelical church. The same difference can be noted between an Einstein and your average atheist/Scientific America subscriber. Can you freely acknowledge the differences?

Peace!

But using Einstein as an example is not fair since he is on both the scientist side and the spiritual side. He is a seeker of all thruth whatever he finds and that is a reason why he understood so much in my view. Look at his quotes on god and you realise he knew/understood to much just like he was supposed to. I wonder what the humanity as a whole will do when it has a million Einsteins working with each other seeking more information bringing scientific to the thruth about reality/gnosis. To a true seeker science and spirituality is not counter each other and knowledge is questioned wherever it comes from. I do not know if Quantum Mechanics is correct but it is interesting:



Nils Bohr And Albert Einstein. The funny thing is that both are probably right.

That is the problem of observing and trying to understand a N-dimenstional reality based on a 3d-projection. You get strange things like quantam leap that are hard to explain in the 3d-projection using only 3d-perception/measurement and not seeing what happens on other dimmensions.

I loved entanglement. Even if the spinning wheel are separated on 3d-space it does not mean it is separated on another projection of reality. And distance does not really anyway disprove things being connected to each other.

Two people being exactly next to each other in 3d-space projection might be very far from each other on higher dimension. Just because they are projected to be near each other and interact as they are near each other does not mean they are. And when you push in the obeservation synchronicity then it becomes really funny.

Nils Bohr is probably right if you only obeserve 3-projection but it is obeserving part of reality.
Einstein is probably right if you observe N-dimensional space where n>3.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by totallackey

 

Of course it would occur to me you are a Buddhist making a worthwhile attempt to explain things to me...It would also occur your explanation is lacking. Buddhism is indeed a religion.

If you cannot understand my explanation, it is not my fault.

You want to point to revisions in a Wiki page as proof it is not a religion? Would the Dalai Lama agree with you? Would millions of adherents agree with your position? Come now...let us not quibble over such an obvious fact...

You are the one who seems to think that a single sentence from Wikipedia makes Buddhism a religion. Yes, the Dalai Lama would very much agree with me, as would most practitioners and religious scholars. There are sects of Buddhism that qualify as a religion, but the core of Buddhism is based on meditative practice. If the definition of a religion is that it is about an individual's relationship with God, Buddhism is definitely not a religion. For one thing, most branches don't have a God, and even those which do do not consider gods to be particularly important to the individual. They have their own karma to deal with.

Just because they do not define the whole that is god does not mean that they do not belive in it. Buddhism is a religon where they try to answer only the thruths/knowledge that they think have gotten right and try to not make a misstake and be sure that they are correct in their way of viewing reality. It is a very humble way of approching god from my point of view letting him show the practitioner how their relationsship between them should be. Because limiting the practitioner and god in their way of experiancing each other is not a good thing to do and only causes pain and missunderstanding between god and the practitioner that is seeking god/wisdom.

Originally posted by poopadoopoulis
All i can say is that science doesn't have a choice to be a religion to someone like me.
I am horrible at advanced math so if a true scientist releases a hypothesis or a fact, i cant use the mathematics to come to his/her conclusion therefor i can decide to take the theory/fact on faith.

this is untrue, but we have been told this by our authorities. After a while the whole of society believes this. Its a lie.

We NEED to be able to know HOW we come to these conclusions. Otherwise--we are acting on faith.

You have the same ability as everyone else, but the tools you were given are broken. Weve been mis educated.

Look into the Trivium/Quadrivium online--check it out its awesome.