- Last post
- 869 Responses
So If I understood correctly, the science problem with religious folks is only about the Big Bang, the THEORY of the creation of our / the universe (note that it is said theory, not absolute truth, see the difference?). So because it's just a theory, hence all science is stupid, because it doesn't have a definitive answer to the beginning of the universe. Awesome.
What about all the other scientific results in medicine and everything on the earth for that matter? I don't get it... Do you think your cell phone is real? How do you think it was invented? Was it perhaps science? Do you understand that in order for them to make your cell phone work they had to theorize on it first, then make experiments, fail a lot, refine improvements, until a functional result is reached. Before it worked, it was only a theory. Same with the Big Bang. It's a fuckin theory, and it's not even remotely the only one, it's just the most accepted. You only contradict the science that contradicts the beliefs of your religion, but accept everything else. That makes perfect sense.
- < thismonospaced
- also because religious people take literature as universal fact, when it is usually hyperbole, allegory, or metaphor.doesnotexist
- engineering is v.different to theoretical physics.fadein11
- it's only different because it's been proved and approved.ESKEMA
i like carl sagan. just wanted to throw that out there.
does anyone else enjoy this fellow?
For what it's worth i'm not religious at all and do not subscribe to any particular spiritual belief system. What i do subscribe to is questioning authority and trying to think for myself. You want to project some kind of religiocity on to me, well then go ahead if it makes you feel better.
The everyday science and engineering you use as example is mundane and perfectly explainable with high-school physics and engineering. As for the medical / drug science, there's a whole can of worms we should keep closed for now.
The Big Bang theory is one example of where science/scientists seems to reject the occams razor approach. It is a big mess with theories that contravene the laws of the universal contants. How is that possible?
Consciousness is another area where science is so focused on a materialistic approach it rejects out of hand any theory with evidence that doesn't reflect it's dogma. I can go on.
This argument is about science not religion. Don't mistake my questioning of science as a rejection of it.
I think what we are saying Morning_star is that the theoretical science you have a problem with is really just an extension of regular everyday science. It's all just trial and error and putting forward theories.
When you get far enough out to questions like how was the universe created, of course there is going to be some guesswork involved. No one is claiming the big bang theory is bulletproof...but it is a lot more likely than creationism which has nothing backing it up except religion.
As far as materialistic vs non materialistic goes, I never understand why people need these two different categories. Everything exists in the material world....there's no second, non-material reality that you can switch over to. The idea that there is material vs non-material is a trick your mind plays on you.
I don't want to live in a future dominated by the belief system that as long as it isn't scientifically proven it's just junk and should not be even taken seriously, I want to be able discuss what I think openly.
there was a time not too long ago when scientist all around the world agreed that other races except the white race were animals,
some here happily blame religious people for faith crime, but put it under the banner of science (eugenics, mic, smallpox blankets, baby formula, weapon of mass destruction, etc) it can be excused, because, you know, they were only searching for the truth or trying to make society better,
here's my questions, because no of us here are scientist after all..
will any of you be satisfied once the scientific theocracy has taken over the entire world?
do you think you'll be living in utopia once nobody disagrees with you? did you ever look at the origin of the fields you seem to adore ?
when I research a subject, I like to see both side of it, I'll read the most outrageous papers just to have some kinda of balance, what I see here are people whose belief system in science doesn't allow them to see the negative side of it.
yeah I love my cellphone, but I'm kinda weary of the drones
There's some kind of misconception going on here, at least for me..
There is a common view that some folks here have (Georges and Morning_star, etc) that if I say I believe in science, then everything else not accepted by the majority of the scientific community is false, incontestable or undebatable. That is not the case, at least for me.
I'm completely open to any theory (that makes any sense) that crushes all the facts and theories of the present (if they are better proved and tested). I'm open to aliens (but won't actually believe until real evidence is shown), I'm open to vortex math (because it just makes a lot of sense, needs to get more development in, and other dudes speaking because Rodin and Powell talk like idiots, and this discovery is well above themselves).
To me, alternative stuff like vortex math IS science. it is the very definition of science.
What I think people are condoning is the "Church" of science, the institution, the powers that pseudo "control" it. In the end it's just Humans.
But science is not just that, it's the exploration of the imagination, the search for the undiscovered and the unexplained.
Institutions will always be more conservatives, they have to maintain some kind of balance, but ultimately, they are controlled by humans, who comes in all sorts of stupidity levels.
Science doesn't ban xy project research, humans with power do.
- YEah it's really ideology not science that people are criticizing...ukit2
- I'll agree with that. :)Morning_star
- yeah, totally I couldn't care less about religions,GeorgesIV
- btw on rodin and powel, you confirm my point that you will not accept any other pov until some science guy comes and say so, how is that not a belief systemGeorgesIV
- how is that not a belief systemGeorgesIV
I believe a lot of religious people feel that scientific findings are an affront to their belief systems because they offer alternative, rational answers that threaten the very core foundation of what they believe. This explains their resistance and defensiveness to it, but it is not an excuse for saying that science isn't valid truth-finding.
When Galileo proclaimed that the earth orbits the sun, the Pope put him under house arrest for spreading an idea contrary to Catholic dogma. A later Pope tried to heal this rift between science and theology by directing the construction of an observatory within the Vatican.
Today, the Vatican Observatory is staffed by Jesuit astronomers. One of their missions is to search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.
@ Eskema, I agree with what you say, but how is that not a belief system, I'll quote you
"...vortex math (because it just makes a lot of sense, needs to get more development in, and other dudes speaking because Rodin and Powell talk like idiots, and this discovery is well above themselves). ..."
then you say this
"What I think people are condoning is the "Church" of science, the institution, the powers that pseudo "control" it. In the end it's just Humans.
But science is not just that, it's the exploration of the imagination, the search for the undiscovered and the unexplained. "
but how can we discover anything if everytime someone comes out with an alternative theory he's shot down?
have you ever heard of the electric universe, it makes a lot more sense then our current universe theories, but because an expert hasn't come out and said it should be taken serioulsy, it is still fringe, this is what I've been trying to say about the belief system,
WE SHOULD ALREADY BE ON ALPHA CENTAURI FFS!!
Regarding the vortex math thing, I said that I don't like the dudes because they bring all this religion stuff to their discovery, the name of God and whatnot, and I don't get along with those ideals. But I really think their system is on to something, and I would love that someone else would develop on that, without the god shenanigans.
You say how can we discover new things if the alternatives are shut down, we'll Rodin discovered that, so, I say we can discover things if we want to. It's more difficult without monetary support but nobody is stopping you. The scientific community is not on board with vortex math but some people are, and they are expanding on it right now. They aren't being shut down, they are just being mocked by other people, and ignored by others. But if true amazing findings based on top of their work is eventually used, then they will be accepted, because there will be evidence.
I agree that alternatives theories should get more credit, but when you are investing money, you want it to have return, and if you just give money to every alternative idea, you'll go bankrupt in no time.
- but why can't we have both?
why can't enlighten like gurdjeff should be disrespectedGeorgesIV
- btw do you know how many billions of your money is spent on finding ways to kill people? last time I check was 53c to a $GeorgesIV
- you can, but if something doesn't look right to the most people, then you can't blame them for not following. ThatESKEMA
- doesn't mean he's wrong. Just that others think he's wrong. Galileo was the only one believing in the round earth..ESKEMA
- who are most people? this is where I usually start with the C.T and social engineering but I'll give up, the subject is too bigGeorgesIV
- Eskema this is actually not true, most educated people at that time knew the earth was round,GeorgesIV
- But just believing in borderline stuff like that, without proofs is the same as religion. It's faith.ESKEMA
- nope, I didn't believe a joule thief could work, so I ordered the pieces and made one for myself, why should I wait for others to confirm what I'm bringing forth, after all I don't care what anyone thinksGeorgesIV
- confirm what I'm bringing forth, after all I don't care what anyone thinksGeorgesIV
- well OK, but you get point.ESKEMA
- do you know the history of most science fields that are accepted now, but where borderline e.g: washing your handsGeorgesIV
- if there's no one to dispute and disprove those ideas, it's just the same as saying you'll go to hell if you're badGeorgesIV
- but that's just normal evolution...ESKEMA
- It has to make sense for someone to get on board of something, I wouldn't want to work on something I didn't believe in (well I kinda do, andESKEMA
- I don't like it). People will only work on those borderline projects if they are passionate about them. Passioante toESKEMA
- make them work or passionate to discredit them. And I see npthing wrong with that.ESKEMA
- *INSERT NOTE 15.5
... like, well I kinda do and...ESKEMA
- no, I think that's where we differ, people will work on borderline ideas if there's a budget, you should look up a little bit more the scientific dogmas, often just coming out with a different theory will get you black listed,GeorgesIV
- more the scientific dogmas, often just coming out with a different theory will get you black listed,GeorgesIV
- I meant that when there is no budget, because of it being borderline, you need passion to work on it..ESKEMA
- Borderline will never have budget most of the time.ESKEMA
- except if it has military purpose, then the budget is there... sigh.GeorgesIV
- but why can't we have both?
^ btw, synchronicity there,
was watching this with my son and the last bit had this quote,
We all know this empirically: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
So in the case of modern science (particularly the theoretical), when all you have is mathematics, every problem becomes mathematical.
Maybe we're missing the bigger picture as a result of the limitations of our tools?
^ this also goes back to platonic aesthetics. Everything should be simple once distilled to it's fullest. e=mc^2, d=v*t, etc.
Maybe that's just an opinion and that guiding principle causes us to discount solutions that are more complex only because they are complex.
The subconscious mind is the frontier for undiscovered abilities and knowledge. For instance:
Human perception isn't as limited as many believe. The subconscious can perceive frequencies from the subsonic, to as high as 400,000 hertz.
Hypnotized subjects call recall events in stunning clarity, down to the most minute detail.
What is commonly known is that a person on the verge of death sees their entire life displayed before them in what seems to be an instant.
Discover the purpose for these phenomena and you might have a clearer understanding of what our function truly is.
We may already hold answers to which our current versions of reality aren't prepared to explain, unless our societies can accept fundamental and permanent change.
- i've been on the verge of death multiple times and i didn't see shitscarabin
- I guess the question would be just how close to the verge one really is, and their awareness of such.ZOOP
- Dreams work like this. You can experience what seems like an eternity in what is actually just a fleeting moment.monospaced
- There are dreams, yes, and also real world perceptions held in the subconscious. The rabbit hole is deeeepZOOP
- There is a surprising amount of physiological evidence that explains it though.monospaced
- Chemical releases, neuron firings, etcmonospaced
- you're on a tangent, but here's what I have found; most humans aren't entirely honest with themselvesZOOP
- thus the disconnectZOOP
- I include myself in the latter statement.ZOOP