Originally posted by Blue nocturne
😆 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.
Not to sound dismissive - but there is a reason they call it pseudoscience. While you might think there is something to it, generally it is fringe at best, and receives little respect from the proper scientific community - and I can't argue with that. And anyway, I must merely have had a better text book. When I did physics back in high school one of our books had an impressive section on pivotal thinkers - and our good fried Tesla was in there - for his proper, workable theories.
Another load, Thomas Edison get's more recognition than Tesla and Telsa Discovered the AC current while Edison used the inferior DC.
My response? Tough cookies. The world isn't fair. If it was more deserving people would be famous instead of Paris Hilton. If the world was fair there would be other Renaissance masters up there with De Vinci. Just because Tesla doesn't get as much kudos as Edison does not = him being unfairly trodden on. And he might have been more famous if he hadn't been seen to have gone of the boil towards the end of his life.
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.
And what is so strange about this? For everything we do today there are many alternatives that will never materialise, with everything from power to cooling meat. Why? Because of practical matters or business matter. Some things aren't cost effective or practical, or would not have a tangible benefit in changing, or are tied up with business - coil/oil vs. clean energy being an example.
And like I said, the abrahamic religions do not represent the entire religous community.
Of course, how foolish of me. I should have had this disclaimer "I am sorry I only mentioned Christianity and Islam, as despite the fact they are the worlds largest and most influential religions and prove the point I was making overall my opinion is invalid as I didn't include Buddhists and crystal worshippers." Because let us face it, you are making out that the Abrahamic religions are not a big part of the religious community, when the opposite is true. They possess a massive part of the pie, and have for a long time.
Despite the fact, civilisation's like Sumerian's,mayans, and egyptians were the fourfathers in astronomy and the mayan calendar is the most accurate calendar in the world.OKAY 🙄
And this is meant to prove what? I never said they didn't have science, so don't presume I implied that. The fact remains that the gods were more often then not standing in for actual scientific theories. The Egyptians also had a complex irrigation system - it didn't mean they didn't pray to Osiris for the inundation or believe that the source of the Nile was a God with a tap. And since you feel happy quoting the Mayan colander and Egyptian astronomy I guess you do realise there was a religious belief tied up in them as well?
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?
Shame on me again for thinking I didn't have to quote a 100 religions to make a point. I will remember in future to list even the minor ones. But anyway, do you remember how this started? A quote by Bertrand Russel (which makes up our debate about science being less prone to irrational violence then religion (excluding Buddhism and crystal religions as they are equally as powerful and influential as Christianity/Islam but they don't convert by force.) The second was me agreeing with Alliance thus
"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."
You disputed that. Notice the "early" there. This refers to non-modern religions prior to the reformation. Thus dead religions are relative. Oh, and I did make reference to mystical cults/religions - they were my group A. and they proved attractive when pagan belief started to slide. Not saying they weren't about before then, but it was at that point they came into their own.
- the Sumerian's believed their Gods orginate from another realm
And? The Greeks believe Aphrodite was created when the Phallus of Uranus was cast into the sea. The creation of the gods is less relevant to what they represented - and the fact is many of the Sumerian Gods represented aspects of the natural world - the sky, water, the sun, fertility and so on. Standing in for science. I imagine though you will damn me for not posting all 60+ of their gods. An example of religion trying to explain the natural world in absence of a valid, alternate scientific theory.
-Greeks beleived in an afterlife
And? I never said they didn't. In fact from the Sumerian's/Egyptians on I implied that after life's were an important consideration, something science was no where near ready to tackle - especially as tackling it would involve saying "there is unlikely to be such a thing." I could deviate here and talk about how religion/after life was apolitical tool, but we are talking science so I wont.
-Most ancient african religions were animism, the belief in animal spirits, they also did ansector worship.
Correct, the epistemology of this is complex, but one thing that seems popular is that the Tribes attribute animals they knew to the the unknown world, animals having power as for hunter gatherers animal life was a major symbol. Animal spirits in charge of weather. Later we have Anasi the spider and his stories about how animals got to look like they were (once again, religion/mythology filling in for evolutionary science) Similar for ancestor worship - when someone is no longer there (as in dead) they logically are somewhere else - ascension to some other place, some other power. Attributing human characteristics to blind process and natural cycles.
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.
My point still stands that early religion was born out of a need to explain the world, and since science was not up to the task at that point humans attributed natural powers and phenomenon to humanoid deities, animal deities or a blend of the two. Religion has, ultimately be proven wrong in most of it. Mars was not a god, nor a bringer of war. It is a blasted planet. Seasons have nothing to do with gods, nor does child birth, storms, the sea etc. Religion traded on answers to things people wondered about and that there was no other answers to - and that remains the same today. Science is a thing of facts and processes. Religion is a thing of faith - God did this or that. Whatever is unknown can be attributed to a deity.
I don't dispute that modern religion concentrates far more on after life and spirituality. But I do dispute the claim that is because they are what they have always dealt with. Things have changed, religion no longer is able to claim to be the answer to to the workings of the universe from what I see. God/gods do not make the sun go up or down. the sun is not God/gods. Relgion now is still doing the same thing it has always done - standing in with a belief when there was no other theory.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You should know what I'm talking about and how conscious effects reality. I believe the one true reality can only be perceived in the highest level of consciousness
By what you said earlier, I got the impression that you thought there was two; material & spiritual.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
😕 Tesla has an SI unit named after him...
Yes. I don't know where BN is coming from with her Tesla argument. He might not be the most famous scientist, but I have always found him pretty well recognised for his achievements.
If the world was fair more people would know who Rosalind Franklin was.
Yes.
Re: Religon VS Science
Originally posted by mattrab
Is there any conflict between Religon and Science?I don't believe there is, due to the idea that Science looks at things within time and space, and comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Where as Religon attempts to speculate about what lies beyond the edge of time and space, so do they really conflict?
Einstein described the motivation for his passionate search for the truth as "a cosmic religious feeling" It was, he said, "to experience the universe as a single significant whole." He perceived "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought." He also wrote that "Buddhism . . . contains a much stronger element of it [this cosmic religious feeling]."
Einstein emphasized that science and religion are not in opposition. Not only was religious feeling a motivation for scientific pursuit, but the results of scientific investigation made humankind humble in the face of the wondrous natural laws that govern all existence. He writes:
.." This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life..."
The main source of conflict between science and religion, according to Einstein, was the "concept of a personal God." The "dross of anthropomorphism" in the passage I quoted above refers to this concept. The humble search for the law of life, which is the way of Buddhism, was, according to Einstein, simultaneously scientific and religious. From the Buddhist perspective, we could say that Buddhism is an all-encompassing body of wisdom focused on the totality of life, while science is focused on temporary aspects of existence. In that sense, science is a part of Buddhism. That is why there can be no conflict between the two. All of the truths of the world are, without exception, the Buddhist Law(truh).
The more science advanced, the more it would demonstrate the validity and truth of the Buddhist teachings. Of course, science and Buddhism belong to two separate dimensions, and their approaches are different as well. I am not saying that Buddhist teachings are correct by virtue of their validation by science. Scientific knowledge changes and evolves on a daily basis, but the absolute truths of Buddhism are in no way affected by the relative truths of science.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not to sound dismissive - but there is a reason they call it pseudoscience. While you might think there is something to it, generally it is fringe at best, and receives little respect from the proper scientific community - and I can't argue with that. And anyway, I must merely have had a better text book. When I did physics back in high school one of our books had an impressive section on pivotal thinkers - and our good fried Tesla was in there - for his proper, workable theories.
The Scientific Community dimisses anything that doesn't fit their materialist P.O.V., this was the point I was trying to make. One such example is when they label certain research psudeoscience and than turn around promoting some illegitamate shallow finding just because they agree with it.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
My response? Tough cookies. The world isn't fair. If it was more deserving people would be famous instead of Paris Hilton. If the world was fair there would be other Renaissance masters up there with De Vinci. Just because Tesla doesn't get as much kudos as Edison does not = him being unfairly trodden on. And he might have been more famous if he hadn't been seen to have gone of the boil towards the end of his life.
Because he proposed things like wireless electricity or free energy, I already gave you a link showing you research based off of tesla's work.
With all these findings you would think thatt we would replace our fuel sources that are 50 years obselete, especially since the biggest issue is alternative fuel.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And what is so strange about this? For everything we do today there are many alternatives that will never materialise, with everything from power to cooling meat. Why? Because of practical matters or business matter. Some things aren't cost effective or practical, or would not have a tangible benefit in changing, or are tied up with business - coil/oil vs. clean energy being an example.
The fact that you accept indoctrine's of a group of people that tell you a claim backed up by what "Empirical science and word of mouth is Disturbing is , Real science isn't found by someone telling you a fact. it's found by research and hardwork, Let me ask you a question why do you trust the findings of the scientific community? is it because you trust them 😆 The way you post seems to imply you belive in technical and scientific age right enough, but who created it? The white-coated guardians of science, protecting the guttering flame of hard-won knowledge from the gathering demons of new-age irrationality,or radicals like Alan Turing and the first computers, or even Watson and Crick who had been told to drop their study of DNA but continued it as 'bootleg' research.Of course, one can also compile a long and distinguished list of discoveries in institutional science, especially from the great universities like Oxford and Cambridge, Harvard and Princeton, and especially in important basic fields like atomic physics and astronomy. But, somehow, it is difficult to draw up a list that carries quite the same diversity, the same romantic air of excitement and innovation and one that has so obviously influenced every single aspect of twentieth century life so fundamentally.
Anyone who switches on the electric light, switches on the television, makes a phone call, watches a film, plays a record, takes a photograph, uses a personal computer, drives a car, or boards an aircraft has the lone eccentric to thank, not institutional science.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Of course, how foolish of me. I should have had this disclaimer "I am sorry I only mentioned Christianity and Islam, as despite the fact they are the worlds largest and most influential religions and prove the point I was making overall my opinion is invalid as I didn't include Buddhists and crystal worshippers." Because let us face it, you are making out that the Abrahamic religions are not a big part of the religious community, when the opposite is true. They possess a massive part of the pie, and have for a long time.
I'm not saying they don't represent a majority of the world, But they don't represent Religion as whole which was what you were trying to imply.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And this is meant to prove what? I never said they didn't have science, so don't presume I implied that. The fact remains that the gods were more often then not standing in for actual scientific theories. The Egyptians also had a complex irrigation system - it didn't mean they didn't pray to Osiris for the inundation or believe that the source of the Nile was a God with a tap. And since you feel happy quoting the Mayan colander and Egyptian astronomy I guess you do realise there was a religious belief tied up in them as well?
The Gods were part of the scientific theory, they represented a concept.Gods were what they called forces of nature, celestial body's, and concepts such as love or war. The story of the GODs playing a role in soeciety can be translated as how the natural and unatural parts of the world effect humans. Many establish science's originate from psuedoscience's, like astronomy descended from astrology or Chemistry from alchemy. The fundementals are still their, Astrologist belive that celestial body's effect human affairs. Now is that wrong, Not really the sun has a great effect on this planet and our perspective on time(Our calendars, which is the greatest achievement of the Astrology) same with the moon. now the greeks would call the Sun and the moon Apollo and Artemis and would be right to claim they have an effect on their lives. were no different in this era we still name celestial bodies after dieties. Mars is the Greco-Roman God of war, Mercury is The messenger GOD. Hell you can find ancient symbolism in mordern medicine.
Look at the similarities
http://www.maama.org/MedCorp%20Blk-Wht%20logo.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aesculap-serpentine.jpg
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Shame on me again for thinking I didn't have to quote a 100 religions to make a point. I will remember in future to list even the minor ones. But anyway, do you remember how this started? A quote by Bertrand Russel (which makes up our debate about science being less prone to irrational violence then religion (excluding Buddhism and crystal religions as they are equally as powerful and influential as Christianity/Islam but they don't convert by force.) The second was me agreeing with Alliance thus
I don't see what makes you think science is so super rationale, when people go aroung making claims like ape can become a man. yet if some religion said that I bet you would start throwing stones.
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."
How was it an attempt , I already mentioned the achievements of the mayans,Egyptians and sumerians. Hell the Dogans found Sirius B before anyone else And that was said to be impossible without a Microscope. the sumerians knew the planets revolved around the sun and then there's this:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chaptera/
So agin how is it an attempt?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Correct, the epistemology of this is complex, but one thing that seems popular is that the Tribes attribute animals they knew to the the unknown world, animals having power as for hunter gatherers animal life was a major symbol. Animal spirits in charge of weather. Later we have Anasi the spider and his stories about how animals got to look like they were (once again, religion/mythology filling in for evolutionary science) Similar for ancestor worship - when someone is no longer there (as in dead) they logically are somewhere else - ascension to some other place, some other power. Attributing human characteristics to blind process and natural cycles.
And like I said, just because they use symbolism.( which we use today.) doesn't change the function, We still use symbolism today.
My point still stands that early religion was born out of a need to explain the world, and since science was not up to the task at that point humans attributed natural powers and phenomenon to humanoid deities, animal deities or a blend of the two. Religion has, ultimately be proven wrong in most of it. Mars was not a god, nor a bringer of war. It is a blasted planet. Seasons have nothing to do with gods, nor does child birth, storms, the sea etc. Religion traded on answers to things people wondered about and that there was no other answers to - and that remains the same today. Science is a thing of facts and processes. Religion is a thing of faith - God did this or that. Whatever is unknown can be attributed to a deity.
I don't dispute that modern religion concentrates far more on after life and spirituality. But I do dispute the claim that is because they are what they have always dealt with. Things have changed, religion no longer is able to claim to be the answer to to the workings of the universe from what I see. God/gods do not make the sun go up or down. the sun is not God/gods. Relgion now is still doing the same thing it has always done - standing in with a belief when there was no other theory. [/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Scientific Community dimisses anything that doesn't fit their materialist P.O.V., this was the point I was trying to make. One such example is when they label certain research psudeoscience and than turn around promoting some illegitimate shallow finding just because they agree with it.
I suspect you are referring in part to evolution as a "illegitimate shallow finding". I don't follow a religion as I demand proof and reason and logic and have rational problems with certain of them. It is the way I approach many things - I would believe, if there was proof belief was justified. This goes to science as well - I have looked at some theories and found them wanting and reserve judgement or found a more accurate sounding one. Others, I accept. I can think of very, very few pseudoscience that have stood up to my, or the scientific community as a whole, scrutiny.
Because he proposed things like wireless electricity or free energy, I already gave you a link showing you research based off of tesla's work.
With all these findings you would think thatt we would replace our fuel sources that are 50 years obselete, especially since the biggest issue is alternative fuel.
And as I said this is not so much the responsibility of science. It is not the scientists who are keeping clean energy and potential alternate fuels down - it is big business and dirty industry where so much of the western economy is tied up that puts the brakes on the development of things that might threaten it.
Anyone who switches on the electric light, switches on the television, makes a phone call, watches a film, plays a record, takes a photograph, uses a personal computer, drives a car, or boards an aircraft has the lone eccentric to thank, not institutional science.
Science has changed, I will say that. There are both pros and cons to this. But from what I have seen of science, in the fields that I will have to deal with, we are reaching a point where money and big setups are needed to keep driving forward. Not for everything of course. But while you can marvel at the work of the eccentrics in there little self run labs (and I respect them much for what they did) science is advancing beyond that. Without a well stocked lab, finances, test subjects and so on work in fields such as major biology, biochemistry and so on aren't going to be done. What do you think would happen if you dropped Tesla or Edison in todays world? Could they make discoveries equal to the things they came up with in their own time without the aid of "big science"? I am not talking about them inventing the TV, I am talking about them being able to do the same things labs and research parks are doing.
I'm not saying they don't represent a majority of the world, But they don't represent Religion as whole which was what you were trying to imply.
It still works for me. Christianity/Islam - not the only religions. Tell me what happened to pagans and Jews and Buddhist in contact with them? Even including religions not powerful and who didn't convert by force my point it made: might = right. I was only listing the two main victors before, but now if you like I could list all the religions who have suffered as they weren't strong enough to resist.
The Gods were part of the scientific theory, they represented a concept.Gods were what they called forces of nature, celestial body's, and concepts such as love or war. The story of the GODs playing a role in soeciety can be translated as how the natural and unatural parts of the world effect humans. Many establish science's originate from psuedoscience's, like astronomy descended from astrology or Chemistry from alchemy. The fundementals are still their, Astrologist belive that celestial body's effect human affairs. Now is that wrong, Not really the sun has a great effect on this planet and our perspective on time(Our calendars, which is the greatest achievement of the Astrology) same with the moon. now the greeks would call the Sun and the moon Apollo and Artemis and would be right to claim they have an effect on their lives. were no different in this era we still name celestial bodies after dieties. Mars is the Greco-Roman God of war, Mercury is The messenger GOD. Hell you can find ancient symbolism in mordern medicine.
Symbolism is different from belief. Just because we left the planets with their Roman monkiers doesn't really mean anything. Culture today is full of left over aspects of the cultures that fell behind. Rome, Greece, Egypt and so on (note, there are many names I am leaving out.)
Now I don't no why you are so adversarial to what I am saying, especially as our disagreement comes down to technicalities. I am arguing from a common historical perspective that ancient religions had a strong origin in the need for humanity to understand the world - they made gods they could understand. Look at them, usually they are humans, or animals. They attributed humanity to the blind processes of life and death as a way to explain the world. Yes, the sun is important. Yes, the moon is important, but there is nothing divine about them. Yet for certain ancient people they could not comprehend or begin to suspect what they really were. That they were important sure, but not why or how. Gods were the answer. That some of our hard sciences today grew from religious belief seems to empathise the fact religion was, when it came understanding the natural world, merely a stand in until sciences could actually provide the reason.
You are arguing from a more spiritual perspective. I wont say you are wrong, but neither will I say you are right. I stand by the historical stance on the subject. I don't have a problem with the ancient religions. I like them better then most modern religions. That they served so adequately for scientific fact for so long is admirable. But I will not claim them to be something they are not.
I don't see what makes you think science is so super rationale, when people go aroung making claims like ape can become a man. yet if some religion said that I bet you would start throwing stones.
No. Some religion just says man was made from dirt and a divine gush of air. Or made from clay and baked in an oven. Or created by a great sky serpent. And so on. To be fair I find science, which makes a habit of grounding itself in facts and the scientific process more rational then certain religions (note, not ALL religions) which claim something and advocate acceptance of the claim on *faith*
How was it an attempt , I already mentioned the achievements of the mayans,Egyptians and sumerians. Hell the Dogans found Sirius B before anyone else And that was said to be impossible without a Microscope. the sumerians knew the planets revolved around the sun and then there's this:http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chaptera/
So agin how is it an attempt?
Some cultures do not = all cultures. Some understanding does not = all understanding. The light bulb theory has little in the way of factual proof. It is a popular "what if" theory but historians (not to mention scientists) have found nothing that warrants the rewriting of history books. Just like certain tomb arts do not prove aliens built the pyramids, or that the Egyptians were predicting the future. Or that the Romans had a form of primitive atomic energy. Or that Genghis Khan or the Vandal chief had access to some ancient book that led them to attack China/Rome. Likewise I know there is debate about the Dogan star finding.
As I said above, based upon my studies, I am going with the historical stance that "much of ancient religion was an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science." And nothing you have said seems to really challenge that - we still use symbols today, some cultures knew some science, the moon and sun do influence the earth.
And like I said, just because they use symbolism.( which we use today.) doesn't change the function, We still use symbolism today.
Not sure the point you are making here.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Scientific Community dimisses anything that doesn't fit their materialist P.O.V., this was the point I was trying to make. One such example is when they label certain research psudeoscience and than turn around promoting some illegitamate shallow finding just because they agree with it.
This is totally incorrect. YOu obviously dont understand science.
No, I'm sorry to jump in in the middle of a massive post fest, but I cant resist now.
Scientists spend their lives trying to find whats right to the best of their ability. If what you said was correct...scientific ideas would never change. Thats simply not the case.
Originally posted by Alliance
This is totally incorrect. YOu obviously dont understand science.No, I'm sorry to jump in in the middle of a massive post fest, but I cant resist now.
Scientists spend their lives trying to find whats right to the best of their ability. If what you said was correct...scientific ideas would never change. Thats simply not the case.
And When did I say science as a whole? I said the "Established Scientific Community"
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I suspect you are referring in part to evolution as a "illegitimate shallow finding". I don't follow a religion as I demand proof and reason and logic and have rational problems with certain of them. It is the way I approach many things - I would believe, if there was proof belief was justified. This goes to science as well - I have looked at some theories and found them wanting and reserve judgement or found a more accurate sounding one. Others, I accept. I can think of very, very few pseudoscience that have stood up to my, or the scientific community as a whole, scrutiny.
Based on what, No offense but I seriously doubt you sat down and refuted every piece of evidence that support a PsuedoScience. Like everyone else you most likely heard what a scientist had to say and accepted it as fact. I can make this assumption about many people on this forum since I debated them before.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And as I said this is not so much the responsibility of science. It is not the scientists who are keeping clean energy and potential alternate fuels down - it is big business and dirty industry where so much of the western economy is tied up that puts the brakes on the development of things that might threaten it.
That wasn't my point, Most free Energy research originates from tesla's late work and theories. The same theories the Scientific community Shuned. The point I'm trying to make is that "The Scientific Community" has shuned and Critisized theories they call "PsuedoScience and turned out to be successful The story of Cold Fusion is an example and countless others.
http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htm
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Science has changed, I will say that. There are both pros and cons to this. But from what I have seen of science, in the fields that I will have to deal with, we are reaching a point where money and big setups are needed to keep driving forward. Not for everything of course. But while you can marvel at the work of the eccentrics in there little self run labs (and I respect them much for what they did) science is advancing beyond that. Without a well stocked lab, finances, test subjects and so on work in fields such as major biology, biochemistry and so on aren't going to be done. What do you think would happen if you dropped Tesla or Edison in todays world? Could they make discoveries equal to the things they came up with in their own time without the aid of "big science"? I am not talking about them inventing the TV, I am talking about them being able to do the same things labs and research parks are doing.
Tesla shaped the 20th century and was a hundred years ahead of his time, so my answer is hell yes he can!
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It still works for me. Christianity/Islam - not the only religions. Tell me what happened to pagans and Jews and Buddhist in contact with them? Even including religions not powerful and who didn't convert by force my point it made: might = right. I was only listing the two main victors before, but now if you like I could list all the religions who have suffered as they weren't strong enough to resist.
And you act like this is not the case in science, Try showing work that deals in psychokensis,Flame Proof,BioEnergy,Ether Drift,Ghost and see how serious your work is taken. Science has a shameful record itself
Slash,Burn,Poison Cancer treatment andTuskagee Tragedy are just a few.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Symbolism is different from belief. Just because we left the planets with their Roman monkiers doesn't really mean anything. Culture today is full of left over aspects of the cultures that fell behind. Rome, Greece, Egypt and so on (note, there are many names I am leaving out.)
So despite the fact we still use ancient symbolism, it doesn't mean anything 🙄
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now I don't no why you are so adversarial to what I am saying, especially as our disagreement comes down to technicalities. I am arguing from a common historical perspective that ancient religions had a strong origin in the need for humanity to understand the world - they made gods they could understand. Look at them, usually they are humans, or animals. They attributed humanity to the blind processes of life and death as a way to explain the world. Yes, the sun is important. Yes, the moon is important, but there is nothing divine about them. Yet for certain ancient people they could not comprehend or begin to suspect what they really were. That they were important sure, but not why or how. Gods were the answer. That some of our hard sciences today grew from religious belief seems to empathise the fact religion was, when it came understanding the natural world, merely a stand in until sciences could actually provide the reason.
I disagree, considering how little the ancient people had the sun and moon would be divine, since it was responsible for their calendars. Agriculture was very important back then, predicting weather and seasons helped them know when to plant. because lost of crops could mean death so yes it makes since that they give praise because life was alot harder than it is now.The ancients could only answer so much, they didn't know whatthe sun and stars were so they called them gods. but they weren't wrong when they put these dietes at the center of their civilization. You seem to think because they weren't 100% right about dieties you have a point, yes they weren't 100% but neither are we science is about progress and there exsist sao many we don't know.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You are arguing from a more spiritual perspective. I wont say you are wrong, but neither will I say you are right. I stand by the historical stance on the subject. I don't have a problem with the ancient religions. I like them better then most modern religions. That they served so adequately for scientific fact for so long is admirable. But I will not claim them to be something they are not.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No. Some religion just says man was made from dirt and a divine gush of air. Or made from clay and baked in an oven. Or created by a great sky serpent. And so on. To be fair I find science, which makes a habit of grounding itself in facts and the scientific process more rational then certain religions (note, not ALL religions) which claim something and advocate acceptance of the claim on *faith*
Yeah these claims are absurd compared to a theory whcih claims we came from lifeless matter and transformed into intelligent men.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Some cultures do not = all cultures. Some understanding does not = all understanding. The light bulb theory has little in the way of factual proof. It is a popular "what if" theory but historians (not to mention scientists) have found nothing that warrants the rewriting of history books. Just like certain tomb arts do not prove aliens built the pyramids, or that the Egyptians were predicting the future. Or that the Romans had a form of primitive atomic energy. Or that Genghis Khan or the Vandal chief had access to some ancient book that led them to attack China/Rome. Likewise I know there is debate about the Dogan star finding.
I was right, because Prof.Dickery say's it's not true you agree, tell me havve you sat down and looked at the facts and come up with a refuting thesis or did you just read some Scientist opinion on the matter and agreed,I'm guessing the later.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As I said above, based upon my studies, I am going with the historical stance that "much of ancient religion was an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science." And nothing you have said seems to really challenge that - we still use symbols today, some cultures knew some science, the moon and sun do influence the earth.
I just posted a link showing egyptian light bulb and you just disagreed because the establishment does. I bet you if they told you were descendented from a dinosaur you will agree.
Originally posted by Alliance
Not everyone is an expert on everything. Better to actually let people wh oknow what they're talking about do the talking....as opposed to being ignorantly skeptical even though you are completely not qualified to be so.
So someone who critiques evidence (which is what scientist do)is ignorant as opposed to a person who "Takes Someone's word" without actually doing any research or work to see if their correct is logical; Great response 😆
No. A scinetist will never critique evidence on somehting he knows nothing about. A person should do research, but If you dont have time to run to the library of have access to published scholarly journal articles, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with an accepted viewpoint.
It much better than ignorant people who just run around saying "thats wrong" even though I have no credibleity to judge it. Intelligent Design is a product of that type of attitude.
Originally posted by Alliance
No. A scinetist will never critique evidence on somehting he knows nothing about. A person should do research, but If you dont have time to run to the library of have access to published scholarly journal articles, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with an accepted viewpoint.It much better than ignorant people who just run around saying "thats wrong" even though I have no credibleity to judge it. Intelligent Design is a product of that type of attitude.
So theirs nothing wrong with a view point you don't verify for yourself?
And when the HELL does anyone need credibilaty to do research, what a BS comment. that's no different than people who choose to follow a religion and don't do the research to verify the facts himself. it's called blind faith, so don't go around calling people ignorant without any facts of your own to back it up. taking the opininon of someone just because credentials VS doing your own research to verify if it's true. Nice leap of faith, just hope your not wrong.
