Science has replaced religion
in [Physics]
|
From: bigfletch8 on 20 Mar 2010 23:40 On Mar 20, 1:53 pm, Kadaitcha Man <a...(a)no.email> wrote: > "Virgil", thou awful sour annoy. Poisonous bunch backed toad. Ye mooed: > > > "Spiritual science" is not a science in the same sense as, say, > > chemistry is a science. > > Bullshit. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine has proven as a > scientific fact that magic mushrooms cause spiritual experiences. > And, no doubt to your total astonishment, watching a 'scary' movie, increases your pulse rate with all the other associated bio responses. What was the Hopkins premise? That artificially stimulated brain activity = spiritual experience? Perhaps they didnt consider the difference between psychic and spiritual experiences, but why should they? Nobody can prove what another 'knows', and nobody can 'know' from anothers proof. Of course, that doesnt stop them trying, being a part of a group consciousness, from whatever camp. Better they gather together in the name of (---------) to feel strength in numbers, befor the individual develops enough bravery to go on the real quest. BOfL
From: Kadaitcha Man on 21 Mar 2010 03:24 "Virgil", thou bloodsucking periwigpated fellow. Thou art a boil, a plague sore, an embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood. Ye prompted: > Except that every scientifically valid study, and there are many of > them, which compares intelligence with faith in god(s) finds a clearly > negative correlation between them, meaning that those who believe in in > one or more gods are, on average, less intelligent than those who do not > believe in any gods. Lunatic asylums are full of people who assert themselves to be kings. -- I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without variation: God = Metaphysical X Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
From: Ste on 21 Mar 2010 19:51 On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in > religion. By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very honest since probably the 60s.
From: Smiler on 21 Mar 2010 21:33 Kadaitcha Man wrote: > "Virgil", thou bloodsucking periwigpated fellow. Thou art a boil, a > plague sore, an embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood. Ye prompted: > >> Except that every scientifically valid study, and there are many of >> them, which compares intelligence with faith in god(s) finds a >> clearly negative correlation between them, meaning that those who >> believe in in one or more gods are, on average, less intelligent >> than those who do not believe in any gods. > > Lunatic asylums are full of people who assert themselves to be kings. Or gods. -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: HVAC on 22 Mar 2010 07:59
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:84cb1b55-9906-4d06-b3e1-48c00f0a4ef3(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction in >> religion. > > By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very honest > since probably the 60s. They became much more 'honest' when the wmap and cobe satellites were launched. It turns out that some of them weren't 'lying' after all. |