Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I can't remember sciences equivalent of the Crusades. Or Inquisition. Or extremist terrorist campaign.I have no doubt there are scientists who have hated each other - but no matter how they feel emotionally they can't prove or disprove a theory based on their feelings. They wait, and apply evidence. Science is littered with failed theorem, but not theorem that have failed due to one persons hate for the others theory, but theorem that could not stand up to the standards of evidence.
Nikola tesla work was virtually wiped out, hell you barely hear about him. you can think edison and the scientific community for that. then the slash,burn, and poison cancer treatment, Hell certain theory's are considered taboo to mention or neglected. "Either drift is one of them.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Religion, meanwhile, has long had a "might = right" mentality. Just ask the pagans. Oops. I forgot, when Christianity declared itself the only true religion the pagans got squashed. Not based on evidence, but upon the strength of the Christian then Islamic nations.Ultimatly Bertrand Russell was dead on the money there based upon the historical trends both science and religion have shown.
And you just generalized, you just named abrahamic religions and applied it to critique religion very smart 🙄
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Very true. That is really much of what early religion was - an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science.
Religion is centered around the supernatural world and tries to explain who it effects the natural world.
Religion and Science don't have to be mutually exclusive, but for some reason they seem to want to be. If you look at evolution and say "I think God put that in motion" thats great. Good for you. But its when the Church and other religions activally try to fight scientific progress that we get trouble.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Nikola tesla work was virtually wiped out, hell you barely hear about him. you can think edison and the scientific community for that. then the slash,burn, and poison cancer treatment, Hell certain theory's are considered taboo to mention or neglected. "Either drift is one of them.
What are you talking about? Tesla is very famous in the relevant scientific fields, and his inventions and theories were very important in the continued works of physicists and electrical engineers. It is, in issuance, a proof point: The reason so few of his discoveries are still front page news is because they have been surpassed. It is what happens in science - you make a discovery, it is all good. It is quite possible, and often happens, that with time somebody will be able to build upon it, or radically change your discovery based upon new evidence. Then you fade to scientific history while the new chap gets his time in the sun, until a time when he/she is passed. We know people like Einstein and Newton, because what they came up with was *big*. But many of their actual theories have changed over the years. As I said - scientific history is littered with success stories that have led to new interpretations.
Though he has become something of a poster boy as a person whose later life theories (tesla guns, cosmic rays etc) were seen to have been unfairly passed over. Why? Because the science behind them is dodgy - either these theories were proven as unworkable/tosh, or there was no reason to persue them as there were better things available. And why did he die poor? Because he didn't manage his finances while alive - there was no anti-Tesla conspiracy at work.
As for Either Drift, I have no idea what that is, unless you are talking about it in agriculture, but that is just farmer slang, so I would guess not.
And you just generalized, you just named abrahamic religions and applied it to critique religion very smart 🙄
So you are telling me that I am wrong about how the religious scene changed with Christianity? Historically proven fact: Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam led to the belief there was "one God, one correct religion" - now tell me, what happened to all those people who didn't believe this? Or believed it wrong? Tell me how this disproves what Russel was saying. It doesn't. Unlike science when push came to shove over theories in religion, might equalled right. They called it "conversion" and then they called it "Holy War."
Religion is centered around the supernatural world and tries to explain who it effects the natural world.
Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.
Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.
Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.
The correct thing was "Religion was centered around the natural world and tried to explain why things happened.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What are you talking about? Tesla is very famous in the relevant scientific fields, and his inventions and theories were very important in the continued works of physicists and electrical engineers. It is, in issuance, a proof point: The reason so few of his discoveries are still front page news is because they have been surpassed. It is what happens in science - you make a discovery, it is all good. It is quite possible, and often happens, that with time somebody will be able to build upon it, or radically change your discovery based upon new evidence. Then you fade to scientific history while the new chap gets his time in the sun, until a time when he/she is passed. We know people like Einstein and Newton, because what they came up with was *big*. But many of their actual theories have changed over the years. As I said - scientific history is littered with success stories that have led to new interpretations.Though he has become something of a poster boy as a person whose later life theories (tesla guns, cosmic rays etc) were seen to have been unfairly passed over. Why? Because the science behind them is dodgy - either these theories were proven as unworkable/tosh, or there was no reason to persue them as there were better things available. And why did he die poor? Because he didn't manage his finances while alive - there was no anti-Tesla conspiracy at work.
So you are telling me that I am wrong about how the religious scene changed with Christianity? Historically proven fact: Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam led to the belief there was "one God, one correct religion" - now tell me, what happened to all those people who didn't believe this? Or believed it wrong? Tell me how this disproves what Russel was saying. It doesn't. Unlike science when push came to shove over theories in religion, might equalled right. They called it "conversion" and then they called it "Holy War."
Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.
Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.
Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.
science is just another religion. only science is the belief system that let's people do what they want and be free. religions like christianity only make people want to not be free. they want people to live by rules and stuff, and thats why i decided to be a bisexual atheist. so i can do what i want.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Religion is centered around the supernatural world and tries to explain who it effects the natural world.
This is the problem with your view.
Religion is centered around phenomena that science as of yet has not explained. This post is a good example:
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.
Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.
The correct thing was "Religion was centered around the natural world and tried to explain why things happened.
Although I believe in God and religion, I agree with the general thought here. Supernatural, spiritual, vitalist, etc. is only the description given to a phenomena that science as of yet has not explained. There is ample evidence suggesting that the religious experience can, at some point in the future, be studied by science. Science has already studied many phenomena that were considered supernatural or spiritual. Examples include the physical workings of body and brain, the seasons, the sun, moon, stars, light, heat, feelings, etc.
Originally posted by Regret
This is the problem with your view.Religion is centered around phenomena that science as of yet has not explained.
<Sigh> Like I said several times before, Established Science revolves around a materialism and scientism. Now tell me with that kind of logic how can they explain things that don't revolve around the natural world?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
<Sigh> Like I said several times before, Established Science revolves around a materialism and scientism. Now tell me with that kind of logic how can they explain things that don't revolve around the natural world?
You are assuming that there is something that is not material or natural. This is where you are in error. If something can exert influence in the existence we can perceive then it can be studied. To exert influence in this existence that we perceive then in some way it has come into contact with and altered this existence. If it has come into contact and altered something it is material of some type. This can be studied scientifically, perhaps not as of today, but sometime in the future it will be possible.
You are ignoring my statement. There is no such thing as anything not natural.
There is nothing that is not material or energy. There is nothing supernatural. Given this, if there is a God he is some form of energy/material. If there is spirit it is some form of energy/material. It is a fallacy to believe otherwise, it is not possible.
And Trancendentalism....
And Dragonfist, I must disagree with you. Science is in NO way a religion. You seem to be defining religion as belief. That is simply wrong. You must believe things to exist. You believe that breathing will keep you alive. Is that a religion? You believe you actually exist, is that a religion? Beliefs are compromises and accpetances we have to make to function in everyday life.
>Blue Nocture, name one thing that doesn't revolve around the natural world that actually exists and effects us.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What are you talking about? Tesla is very famous in the relevant scientific fields, and his inventions and theories were very important in the continued works of physicists and electrical engineers.
😆 It's funny, Tesla himself supported UFO' theories, PsuedoScience's and New Age Occultism. And Telsa is not that famous, I barely heard mention of him until my late teens.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is, in issuance, a proof point: The reason so few of his discoveries are still front page news is because they have been surpassed. It is what happens in science - you make a discovery, it is all good. It is quite possible, and often happens, that with time somebody will be able to build upon it, or radically change your discovery based upon new evidence. Then you fade to scientific history while the new chap gets his time in the sun, until a time when he/she is passed. We know people like Einstein and Newton, because what they came up with was *big*. But many of their actual theories have changed over the years. As I said - scientific history is littered with success stories that have led to new interpretations.
Another load, Thomas Edison get's more recognition than Tesla and Telsa Discovered the AC current while Edison used the inferior DC.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Though he has become something of a poster boy as a person whose later life theories (tesla guns, cosmic rays etc) were seen to have been unfairly passed over. Why? Because the science behind them is dodgy - either these theories were proven as unworkable/tosh, or there was no reason to persue them as there were better things available. And why did he die poor? Because he didn't manage his finances while alive - there was no anti-Tesla conspiracy at work.
Unworkable, his theories were workable. but your not gonna believe me so I'll give proof:http://jnaudin.free.fr/
One of telsa's main theory's revolved around free energy, When he worked in GM he was working on huge stations that coud transmitt elctrcity wirelessly. GM canceled the project because the parts were so expensive. most of his patents were bought by big business.Free energy has been an issue in scientific feilds for years yet how many actually get recognition.
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As for Either Drift, I have no idea what that is, unless you are talking about it in agriculture, but that is just farmer slang, so I would guess not.
Ether drift was a theory that supported the idea of us being emersed in a sea of energy which is a medium that light uses to travel through space. US physicist Albert Michelson and Edward Morley did the research on it. In 1880 Albert Michelson invented the "Michelson Light Inferometer" an instrument that can measure the velocity of a beam of light with great accuracy by splitting it through a half-silvered mirror and then re-combining the beams. If the recombined beams interfere with reach other, causing visible fringes on a screen, then one of them must have been delayed. then in 1887 , Michelson and fellow American scientist Edward Morley build an interferometer with greater accuracy than ever before and use their instrument in a crucial experiment to determine whether light travels through the ether, or merely through the vacuum of empty space. The two physicists set up their instrument to measure the speed of a beam of light travelling in the same direction as the earth through space, and also a beam that travels at right angles to the earth’s direction of travel. If the ether exists there should be a minute – but measurable – drag effect on a beam of light that will delay it and show up as ‘interference fringes’ in the interferometer. The experiment shows a 'null result' -- no matter how the interferometer is orientated with respect to the earth's movement, there is no measurable ether drag.This experimental finding throws physics into a quandary for a decade or more until Albert Einstein comes to the rescue with his Theory of Relativity. The ether does not exist, says Einstein, and light travels at constant velocity regardless of the speed of its source. These findings and the ideas of relativity become the foundation stones of physics in the twentieth century and are universally accepted.
These are the notes taken by generations of students. But, as Michelson and Morley’s experiment affected theoretical physics more than perhaps any experiments since Galileo and Newton, then one might expect its results to have been analysed with the utmost care and the experiment itself to have been replicated many times, establishing the 'null' result.
Strangely, the real facts of the Michelson Morley experiment are the very opposite of this oft-told seminal tale. Michelson and Morley did not in fact obtain a null result in their original experiment. They found a small, anomalous deviation from the expected value, but this finding was simply forgotten about. Few attempts have been made to replicate the experiment itself but several of them have also found experimental evidence for an ether. Most extraordinary of all is the series of experiments carried out over a 30 year period by Dayton Miller, from 1906 to the mid 1930s, using far more accurate apparatus than Michelson and Morley and which clearly and consistently showed an ether drift effect. But these results contradicted Einstein and Relativity, so they were first ignored and later, after Miller’s death, made the subject of a campaign of denigration.
The experiments of Michelson and Morley and of Dayton Miller, have been repeated and analysed in modern times by French engineer Maurice Allais, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economic Science in 1988. It is primarily due to the work of Allais that Miller's discoveries have been brought to a modern audience. Here's a link millers work:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So you are telling me that I am wrong about how the religious scene changed with Christianity? Historically proven fact: Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam led to the belief there was "one God, one correct religion" - now tell me, what happened to all those people who didn't believe this? Or believed it wrong? Tell me how this disproves what Russel was saying. It doesn't. Unlike science when push came to shove over theories in religion, might equalled right. They called it "conversion" and then they called it "Holy War."
And like I said, the abrahamic religions do not represent the entire religous community.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.
Despite the fact, civilisation's like sumerians,mayans, and egyptians were the fourfathers in astronomy and the mayan calendar is the most accurate calendar in the world.OKAY 🙄
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.
The correct thing was "Religion was centered around the natural world and tried to explain why things happened.
You're wrong on all accounts religon and science were the exact same thing and still are. many ancient dieties were celestial bodies and concepts. the reason why their seperate is that during the "Age of Enlightment" They were made seperate and science was established as a materialistic view to explain the natural world.
Originally posted by Regret
You are assuming that there is something that is not material or natural. This is where you are in error. If something can exert influence in the existence we can perceive then it can be studied. To exert influence in this existence that we perceive then in some way it has come into contact with and altered this existence. If it has come into contact and altered something it is material of some type. This can be studied scientifically, perhaps not as of today, but sometime in the future it will be possible.You are ignoring my statement. There is no such thing as anything not natural.
There is nothing that is not material or energy. There is nothing supernatural. Given this, if there is a God he is some form of energy/material. If there is spirit it is some form of energy/material. It is a fallacy to believe otherwise, it is not possible.
You summed up what I said right when you said there is nothing past the naural world, that's scientism right their and this is exactly what the scientific community does.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
<Sigh> Like I said several times before, Established Science revolves around a materialism and scientism. Now tell me with that kind of logic how can they explain things that don't revolve around the natural world?
Not 100% sure of your definitions... But I'll have a shot anyway.
In the beginning you have the African tribes, just beginning to spread out (the beginning of humanity.) For them there was nothing that was not the natural world, and they understood none of it. Things shone in the sky, food came and went, it rained with thunder and lightening.
Thus the first gods were born. Primal, tribal things they represented the most basic aspects of the hunter gather society. They stood for the dark, uncertain things that the tribes faced and feared, or for the good things they needed. Fertility/food/fire against, famine, winter and so on. Worshiping such let them feel an understanding of the world, and an extent of control as they could call out for food or rain, and believe they might get it.
On to Sumeria, Egypt etc. Things have advanced here, civilisation is grounded, safe. As such the mind could turn to other things. They wondered why the sun went down and why the Nile flooded and what happened after death. The gods fit the bill here, they represented the world and things in it. The sky was a God, Ra, the sun, went down every night to fight a chaotic being. Religion explained the world in absence of science.
Now we get top Greece and Rome, and they really upped the scientific states. It is believed that as science grew, the pagan religions declined, as people realises a difference between natural phenomena caused by natural cycles, and something caused by a god. But science was new, and many things unproven, religion persisted. It was then enter Christianity. Picking up, some would say, on a need to presented itself. It still had all those basic questions in it not answered by science - origins of life and the universe, as well as a bigger focus on something science was no where near approaching - the soul, life after death. Now with the popularity of Christianity it was realised people were starting to look for something new, and two sets of options presented themselves.
A: Religions/cults that offered a person access to secrets, understanding of the cosmos - Gnostic's, the Cult of Isis, Dionysiac mysteries. etc
B: Religions that offered a person the hope of a better life, even if it comes after dealt - Christianity, Manichism. etc.
Now, they still traded on the basis human curiosity, those questions that science at the time wasn't answering - origins, life after death, even though science might very well have answered them by now.
Alliance was essentially right with his claim - Christianity only became truly angsty with science when science started to really enter into it's domain and started answering those questions Christianity had a monopoly on. It was at that point that the difference of oppinion became so profound. Science is not religion in todays world, and religion is not science.
Originally posted by Regret
You are ignoring my statement. There is no such thing as anything not natural.There is nothing that is not material or energy. There is nothing supernatural. Given this, if there is a God he is some form of energy/material. If there is spirit it is some form of energy/material. It is a fallacy to believe otherwise, it is not possible.
Pretty much. BN you are basing your objections on the belief that there is something not of the natural world - where as early religions (and todays by evolution) believed the natural world and the gods were not so separate. After all, Hades and Olympia were reachable from the earth, Ra was just up there in the sky. The religions were based upon natural phenomena as explanations for them.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You summed up what I said right when you said there is nothing past the naural world, that's scientism right their and this is exactly what the scientific community does.
And so, the things you consider supernatural or spiritual, if they are there at all, are within the scope of that statement by my statements.
And I do believe in God, religion, the whole shibang.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not 100% sure of your definitions... But I'll have a shot anyway.In the beginning you have the African tribes, just beginning to spread out (the beginning of humanity.) For them there was nothing that was not the natural world, and they understood none of it. Things shone in the sky, food came and went, it rained with thunder and lightening.
Thus the first gods were born. Primal, tribal things they represented the most basic aspects of the hunter gather society. They stood for the dark, uncertain things that the tribes faced and feared, or for the good things they needed. Fertility/food/fire against, famine, winter and so on. Worshiping such let them feel an understanding of the world, and an extent of control as they could call out for food or rain, and believe they might get it.
On to Sumeria, Egypt etc. Things have advanced here, civilisation is grounded, safe. As such the mind could turn to other things. They wondered why the sun went down and why the Nile flooded and what happened after death. The gods fit the bill here, they represented the world and things in it. The sky was a God, Ra, the sun, went down every night to fight a chaotic being. Religion explained the world in absence of science.
Now we get top Greece and Rome, and they really upped the scientific states. It is believed that as science grew, the pagan religions declined, as people realises a difference between natural phenomena caused by natural cycles, and something caused by a god. But science was new, and many things unproven, religion persisted. It was then enter Christianity. Picking up, some would say, on a need to presented itself. It still had all those basic questions in it not answered by science - origins of life and the universe, as well as a bigger focus on something science was no where near approaching - the soul, life after death. Now with the popularity of Christianity it was realised people were starting to look for something new, and two sets of options presented themselves.
A: Religions/cults that offered a person access to secrets, understanding of the cosmos - Gnostic's, the Cult of Isis, Dionysiac mysteries. etc
B: Religions that offered a person the hope of a better life, even if it comes after dealt - Christianity, Manichism. etc.
Now, they still traded on the basis human curiosity, those questions that science at the time wasn't answering - origins, life after death, even though science might very well have answered them by now.
Alliance was essentially right with his claim - Christianity only became truly angsty with science when science started to really enter into it's domain and started answering those questions Christianity had a monopoly on. It was at that point that the difference of oppinion became so profound. Science is not religion in todays world, and religion is not science.
Pretty much. BN you are basing your objections on the belief that there is something not of the natural world - where as early religions (and todays by evolution) believed the natural world and the gods were not so separate. After all, Hades and Olympia were reachable from the earth, Ra was just up there in the sky. The religions were based upon natural phenomena as explanations for them.
I like how you forget to name religions that deal in mysticism and your avoiding what I'm saying I'm comparing mordern religion to mordern science, so why are you naming Dead religions from the helenistic culture?
- the sumerians believed their Gods orginate from another realm
-Greeks beleived in an afterlife
-Most ancient african religions were animism, the belief in animal spirits, they also did ansector worship.
My point still stands the established scientific community revolves around scientism and materialism (I'm not speaking about science as a general) while Relgion now a day's is centrered around viatlism and idealism. The 2 were once one but now have been seperated by the powers that be and therefore are in conflict.