Religious information
in [Repair]
|
Prev: Dr. Ronald Federici: Diagnosis and Treatment of Institutionalized Children
Next: samsung tv s51a chassis - smps problem, advice ?
From: Rich Webb on 19 Jan 2010 11:50 On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:05:16 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500: > > All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology. > >Sadly the same can be said of science as well. Science is implicitly empirical, or "sensory," whereas religions are, by definition, "non-sensory," at least until the Archangel Michael shows up on the Larry King show to argue about the Super Bowl. Thus, nonsense. > Unlike to popular belief, >science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time, >theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles >repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken >promise and is simply a failure. Unless you're living in the bush and scavenging carrion for dinner, you've been depending on science for your livelihood and health, so it's hardly a failure. Nor is science's self-critical, self-correcting nature a weakness. >And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. So, what is it that would be "really science?" > As old beliefs prevents true science from emerging. "True science" being ... gastromancy? ololygmancy? > Also if there is no money >in it, those things are not researched. See "Adam Smith" also "capitalism," or "the worst economic system, except for all of the others." Not a perfect system, by any measure, but burning bushes with better insight are scarce. > That is very poor science as >there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't. I will admit of some curiosity here. What may some of these things be? >Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually. No, not really. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
From: bg on 19 Jan 2010 14:13 BillW50 wrote in message ... >Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500: > > All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology. > >Sadly the same can be said of science as well. Unlike to popular belief, >science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time, >theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles >repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken >promise and is simply a failure. > >And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. As old >beliefs prevents true science from emerging. Also if there is no money >in it, those things are not researched. That is very poor science as >there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't. > >Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually. > >-- >Bill >Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC >Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03) Monkeys and humans also have alot in common, but the differences put us worlds apart. The only thing that religion and science have in common is that, they both try to provide an explanation for the world around us. Science at least tries to explain the natural world with theories to support the reasoning , whereas religion turns everything into a supernatural explanation, and then threatens you with hell if you don't believe it. Science is a threat to religion, and that is why religion has a long history of persecuting anyone that dares to question their viewpoint. Religion has, and always will, be a roadblock to scientific discovery. The two have nearly nothing in common. As far as the Mayans are concerned, it would have been impossible for them to accumulate the amount of knowledge that we have now. The tools didn't exist, and I would be very surprised if the world's space agencies would have bothered to launch space probes if all they needed to do was consult the Mayan science journals.
From: BillW50 on 19 Jan 2010 17:59 Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:50:24 -0500: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:05:16 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >> Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500: >>> All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology. >> Sadly the same can be said of science as well. > > Science is implicitly empirical, or "sensory," whereas religions are, > by > definition, "non-sensory," at least until the Archangel Michael shows > up > on the Larry King show to argue about the Super Bowl. Thus, nonsense. I have no problems what is often said against religion. But I do have a problem when somehow science is supposedly any better. In many ways, I find it much worse. >> Unlike to popular belief, >> science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in >> time, >> theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles >> repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken >> promise and is simply a failure. > > Unless you're living in the bush and scavenging carrion for dinner, > you've been depending on science for your livelihood and health, so > it's > hardly a failure. Nor is science's self-critical, self-correcting > nature a weakness. You mean like increased cancer rates, increased diabetic rates, most of the world is dying from starvation, etc.? And every month, there is a new ad on TV saying if you have taken so and so drug, call our lawyers office for a class action lawsuit. It is becoming more and more clear, taking drugs (chemicals) can be very dangerous to your health. And this is supposed to be helpful? And it seems like the goal of doctors is to put paitents on as many drugs as they can. And strangely enough, the ones who pushes the most gets kickbacks from the drug companies. Also People have been living to 80's and 90's for thousands of years. The claim that science is helping people live longer isn't really true, now is it? Sure, some people maybe living now do to science who would be dead otherwise. But the opposite is also true. Some are dead today do to medical science who would be alive today if nothing was done. And what about this global warming stuff? NASA reports that all of the planets in the solar system is warming up. So how is man made pollution causing the other planets to warm up? And why is most of the planet actually is getting cooler? Science isn't adding up at all. Plain common sense says something is wrong! Yet nobody sees the red flags popping up. Why is that? >> And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. > > So, what is it that would be "really science?" A true peer reviewed science would be a great start. What we have now is nothing but a big joke. People who know better can't challenge any of it. As only a very small group of people control it all. And if you are in that small group, you must play ball or you are out. And if you speak the truth, you lose all of your funding and become an outcase. It is really a sick system if you ask me. >> As old beliefs prevents true science from emerging. > > "True science" being ... gastromancy? ololygmancy? > >> Also if there is no money >> in it, those things are not researched. > > See "Adam Smith" also "capitalism," or "the worst economic system, > except for all of the others." Not a perfect system, by any measure, but > burning bushes with better insight are scarce. The whole world economic system is headed for a total collapse. It is a terrible system. Those that has worked hard all of their lives are headed to lose everything they worked hard for. And this is a good thing? >> That is very poor science as >> there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't. > > I will admit of some curiosity here. What may some of these things be? Here is how science (or the truth in time) works. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860) Now history shows this is indeed correct. Now wouldn't it make more sense to checkout anything that is ridiculed or violently opposed, instead of automatically discounting it? Thus we wouldn't have to go for decades or hundreds of years in ignorance? Now doesn't that make a lot more sense? >> Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually. > > No, not really. Both systems are based on beliefs. Neither proves anything. Worse, science pretends it doesn't do so. Which means that science is the great pretender and religion doesn't pretend what it is about. But it doesn't mean I agree with religion either. And I see science as just another religion that pretends to be not one. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: BillW50 on 19 Jan 2010 18:45 bg wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:13:19 -0700: > BillW50 wrote in message ... >> Rich Webb wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500: >>> All religion is superstitious nonsense. It's a tautology. >> Sadly the same can be said of science as well. Unlike to popular belief, >> science never proves anything. All it provides is theories. And in time, >> theories which is often replaced by other theories. And the cycles >> repeats itself while never ending. And I find science as the broken >> promise and is simply a failure. >> >> And what is claimed as science isn't really science at all. As old >> beliefs prevents true science from emerging. Also if there is no money >> in it, those things are not researched. That is very poor science as >> there are lots of things that could be learned that isn't. >> >> Thus sad to say, science and religion has a lot in common actually. > > Monkeys and humans also have alot in common, but the differences put us > worlds apart. > The only thing that religion and science have in common is that, they both > try to provide an explanation for the world around us. Science at least > tries to explain the natural world with theories to support the reasoning , > whereas religion turns everything into a supernatural explanation, and then > threatens you with hell if you don't believe it. First, not all religions have a hell. And most religions would make perfect sense to true science if other humans or whatever with advanced technology and knowledge was playing the part of a god or gods. > Science is a threat to > religion, and that is why religion has a long history of persecuting anyone > that dares to question their viewpoint. But science has its own horrors in the closet. As the truth takes decades or hundreds of year to surface. And anybody who questions the de facto science has their funding pulled and is an outcast and their life ruined. Thus there is no true science going on at all, sad to say. > Religion has, and always will, be a > roadblock to scientific discovery. The two have nearly nothing in common. There is no true science today. As science is nothing more than another religion which pretends to not be a religion. > As far as the Mayans are concerned, it would have been impossible for them > to accumulate the amount of knowledge that we have now. The tools didn't > exist, and I would be very surprised if the world's space agencies would > have bothered to launch space probes if all they needed to do was consult > the Mayan science journals. First the Mayans knew that the Earth would pass through the plane of the Milky Way in 2012. Science was totally clueless about this fact until about 10 years ago. And science today has no idea what the polarity shift will cause us to go through. But the Mayans knew about this, how? And what about the great pyramids? Sure we have theories how it was done, but in practice none of the theories actually work. Yet there was a nobody in the early 1900's who claimed to know the secret of the pyramids and built Coral Castle (in Florida). He claimed (he weighed less than 100 pounds) to know the secret. And he claimed it was easy to find in libraries and anybody could discover how to do so. Yet today, the secret has never been found. All mysteries from the past would make total sense from two theories. 1) Mankind has had advanced technology in the past and then lost it. 2) Or advanced beings came here from some other place. I can't see any other choices really. Although I admit I really don't like the first two theories. But what else could explain it? -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: Rich Webb on 19 Jan 2010 21:55
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:59:27 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >Here is how science (or the truth in time) works. > >All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, >it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- >Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860) > >Now history shows this is indeed correct. Now wouldn't it make more >sense to checkout anything that is ridiculed or violently opposed, >instead of automatically discounting it? Thus we wouldn't have to go for >decades or hundreds of years in ignorance? Now doesn't that make a lot >more sense? Yes, they laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Columbus. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. By the way, Columbus was wrong. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA |