Post Reply
Page 21 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Religious extremists at it again.....
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 12:08PM #201
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Apr 10, 2012 -- 11:54AM, christine3 wrote:


Christine: There are two things that must be looked at:  Where and when did the religious claim come from.


MM:  That's irrelevant.


Christine:  No, for the reason I stated.  There are things in this world that today's science can't explain.  Past cultures showed a higher science than we have today in some specific areas that are being uncovered by today's archeologists.   


Christine:  What you call reality is perception.  What you call reality is perception here and now, but can change tomorrow as the viewer grows in perception.  There are some things that science can't touch because the scientific practitioners don't have the complete clarity or the necessary tools to unequivocally corner the transparent truth of a phenomenon as it actually presents itself.   Other people in other times and cultures had their perceptions too, and they weren't all wrong.  You have to bend a little and accommodate others' realities, not just your own, or be plastic and fragile.  You can say "it ain't true, it ain't true" until you are red in the face, and someday you will be proven wrong.  I'm just saying.




Christine, kindly give any reference to archeologists finding any ancient civilization with any specific higher science of technical ability than the current Western civilization.


Your multiple realities is an interesting concept does that mean if my reality says I can fly, that if I jump off my house I can circle above my neighborhood?  Or i that nasty real reality gonna pull me into the ground then the ER?

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 12:49PM #202
mountain_man
Posts: 39,685

Apr 10, 2012 -- 11:54AM, christine3 wrote:

Christine:  No, for the reason I stated...


The reasons you gave were irrelevant. The claims were not based on anything that had to do with any kind of scientific process.


The rest, not worth the bother. You've proven to me that you cannot listen or learn.


I'm sorry to have interrupted the thread by trying to get through to you. I'll not try any more.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 1:10PM #203
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Christine, kindly give any reference to archeologists finding any ancient civilization with any specific higher science of technical ability than the current Western civilization.


Your multiple realities is an interesting concept does that mean if my reality says I can fly, that if I jump off my house I can circle above my neighborhood?  Or i that nasty real reality gonna pull me into the ground then the ER?



The ancient scientists had a more integrated approach to life  than  today's scientists.  They worked on developping  their souls at the same time than their knoweledge of the  outside world, because they knew they are intimately related. Science and religion were the same.


Today's scientists are soulless.  They see no difference between working on the development of new foods to feed the world or working on atomic weapons. They are not guided by moral understandings  and they are proud of this "objectivity",  which simply means being irresponsible with their knoweledge. An imbalanced development. It is accepted that a scientist can be a genius about the laws of the universe and a total jerk in his private life. 


That is why modern discoveries bring about as much good as they bring evil and certainly do not translate into a happy world.


The ancients came up with the the knoweledge of atoms, for instance, without any of the modern tools.  Just intuition based on their knowelege of how the mind functions.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 1:20PM #204
mountain_man
Posts: 39,685

Apr 10, 2012 -- 1:10PM, arielg wrote:

The ancient scientists had a more integrated approach to life  than  today's scientists....


And those "ancients" got most of it wrong. Those "ancients" could not in any way be called a scientist since they did not use the scientific method. They were more like today's creationists that believe religious claims have priority over the truth. Since their beliefs were, and are, dogmatic they cannot, no matter how many facts are presented simply cannot change.


Today's scientists are soulless...


An asinine blanket statement that shows contempt for knowledge and progress.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 2:11PM #205
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

Apr 10, 2012 -- 1:10PM, arielg wrote:




The ancient scientists had a more integrated approach to life  than  today's scientists.  They worked on developping  their souls at the same time than their knoweledge of the  outside world, because they knew they are intimately related. Science and religion were the same.


Today's scientists are soulless.  They see no difference between working on the development of new foods to feed the world or working on atomic weapons. They are not guided by moral understandings  and they are proud of this "objectivity",  which simply means being irresponsible with their knoweledge. An imbalanced development. It is accepted that a scientist can be a genius about the laws of the universe and a total jerk in his private life. 


That is why modern discoveries bring about as much good as they bring evil and certainly do not translate into a happy world.


The ancients came up with the the knoweledge of atoms, for instance, without any of the modern tools.  Just intuition based on their knowelege of how the mind functions.





Science has nothing to do with bringing happiness or evil. And although obliviously not obvious to you. A Scientist can be religious as well. The desire to be ignorant is an abuse of the god you hold so precious. If we can learn and we do not learn then why have a brain and the capability to learn? Rhetorical.


Science and religion are not and could never be the same. This need to be intentionally ignorant is unbelievable. With out science we would not so many healthy babies born every year. Without the knowledge of evolution we would not have the cure and prevention of so many diseases.


Christians (Not all Christians the anti science Christians) would have us back into the dark ages where the black death runs rampant. And there is not hope.


Science is fascinating and amazing. To pretend to honour a god and deny science (Real science not the non sense YEC or those who want to teach ID in public school like to push) is to deny the god, you pretend to honour.


Not all Theists are anti knowledge. But an awful lot in the USA seem to be. Keep your religion in your Church and home,(or private religious school) and stop trying to force it on everyone else. You don't want to learn real factual science don't. But stop trying to stop other people from knowing the facts.


This behaviour show's how unhealthy religion can be for society

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 2:27PM #206
christine3
Posts: 7,356

Apr 10, 2012 -- 12:08PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Christine:  No, for the reason I stated.  There are things in this world that today's science can't explain.  Past cultures showed a higher science than we have today in some specific areas that are being uncovered by today's archeologists.   




Christine, kindly give any reference to archeologists finding any ancient civilization with any specific higher science of technical ability than the current Western civilization.


Your multiple realities is an interesting concept does that mean if my reality says I can fly, that if I jump off my house I can circle above my neighborhood?  Or i that nasty real reality gonna pull me into the ground then the ER?




www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/constructiontec...


Scientists for many years have been "thinking" with their preconceived thoughts.  I am showing you an instance (and there are many) where scientists are humans and make mistakes.  The "facts" they believe can lead them down the wrong path and therefore to wrong conclusions.  Now lets take a look at this and how scientists can be wrong.  


There are 100+ ton blocks which archeologists claimed were moved up until just recently.  It was just "taken for granted" that these blocks were moved.  This is what they told the public.  They stated this in their journals and articles.  Many thousands if not accumulated millions of dollars have been spent on trying to figure out how these blocks were moved; experiments set up; many people involved, etc.  Why were they so slow to figure it out?  Because they have preconceived concepts clouding their understanding.  Until recently.  


Finally it dawns on them that these huge boulders weren't moved at all, but were synthetic.  This is something I've suspected for at least 10 years now, while they were still talking about ancients moving blocks.  Look down at the bottom of the link I left.  That's one example.  


You'd like to think science is infallible and ancient people were mostly wrong.  Such blanket statements will come back to bite you.  Try and keep a more open mind.  


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 2:36PM #207
christine3
Posts: 7,356

Apr 10, 2012 -- 12:49PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 10, 2012 -- 11:54AM, christine3 wrote:

Christine:  No, for the reason I stated...


The reasons you gave were irrelevant. The claims were not based on anything that had to do with any kind of scientific process.


The rest, not worth the bother. You've proven to me that you cannot listen or learn.


I'm sorry to have interrupted the thread by trying to get through to you. I'll not try any more.




Correction, I cannot listen or learn from you. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 2:53PM #208
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 10, 2012 -- 2:27PM, christine3 wrote:

There are 100+ ton blocks which archeologists claimed were moved up until just recently.  It was just "taken for granted" that these blocks were moved.  This is what they told the public.  They stated this in their journals and articles.  Many thousands if not accumulated millions of dollars have been spent on trying to figure out how these blocks were moved; experiments set up; many people involved, etc.  Why were they so slow to figure it out?  Because they have preconceived concepts clouding their understanding.  Until recently.  


Finally it dawns on them that these huge boulders weren't moved at all, but were synthetic.  This is something I've suspected for at least 10 years now, while they were still talking about ancients moving blocks.  Look down at the bottom of the link I left.  That's one example.  


You'd like to think science is infallible and ancient people were mostly wrong.  Such blanket statements will come back to bite you.  Try and keep a more open mind.  



The concrete pyramid hypothesis received its deathblow in 2007.


www.cmc-concrete.com/CMC%20Publications/...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 3:44PM #209
mountain_man
Posts: 39,685

Apr 10, 2012 -- 2:36PM, christine3 wrote:

Correction, I cannot listen or learn from you.


Which is your problem and not one I should be taking up time with. It's not me you have the problem with, but the facts. I only present the facts.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 3:48PM #210
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Science has nothing to do with bringing happiness or evil. And although obliviously not obvious to you. A Scientist can be religious as well. The desire to be ignorant is an abuse of the god you hold so precious. If we can learn and we do not learn then why have a brain and the capability to learn? Rhetorical.


I was going to answer, but your post is so full of BS, cliches and twisted views that I wouldn't know where to start.  You are not referring  to what I said at all.  You are just blurting out  your own preconceived negative views about certain subjects and reacting with preconceived negative answers, whether it applies or not.  Take a shower.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 21 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook