Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
Science Without Bounds - the new religion?
May 27, 2006
9:28 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

I would also like to express the condolences! lol.

See this is the only thread about religon right now and lots of people had pent up stuff from long and now they're gonna release it.

Hey Seeker, what do you think about this? I dont think this is scientific:

"The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. 1:1-2:3"

hundereds more from:
link

May 27, 2006
9:39 am
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not so passive aggression

May 27, 2006
9:42 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Ok I'm gonna be a little brave here then. This is the Lib Brew too. If people can get away with talking FOR religion/Bible, I can talk AGAINST it with the same courtesy ofcourse. Lib Brew then.. fasten your seatbelts. here we go.. yay

Or should we make another thread? What say you, Seeker? Science vs Christianity. All I'll be doing is copy pasting stuff from that website though.. Its your call.

May 27, 2006
9:45 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

hi bevdee, you mean I'm being passively aggressive? Show me how I can avoid doing that (asking for honest feedback).

May 27, 2006
9:51 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Ok then I'm gonna stop. WTF, you know. We cant speak our minds here. It makes people mad, so its ok. I'll retreat to my own threads. This is really sad, heh. Gosh.

It makes ME mad that people can get away talking FOR religion but if anyone talks AGAINST it, its considered offensive. Alright then, I'm outta here, you guys do whaver you wanna do.

And LOTS of stuff on that site seeker. I'm an athiest and proud, happy and contented to be one.

May 27, 2006
10:02 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,
i can see your point.

for me it is personal, because my religion isn't being talked about, that isn't what bothers me personally, religion is an outward thing. i get miffed when someone talks about who i love, and that is Jesus Christ...it is an inward thing. thus the differnce between relgion...outward....relationship inward. outward does not change someone, religion does not change someone, but it comes from the inside.

science is the outside of it all. one can learn alot of neat things...but will it change your behavior...no. will it change your relationships? no. will it make a difference in how you live? no. will it help you make the right choices? no. it is JUST INFORMATION...it is JUST KNOWLEDGE.

May 27, 2006
11:07 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

If someone is free to express their love/approval for something, I should be free express my disaproval for it.

May 27, 2006
11:18 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

yep, true..why do you think you can't? there are many diverse approaches to belief systems here, not only with religion. i'm the one with the problem...i don't handle it very well here on aac as a subject of contention. :0)

May 27, 2006
11:29 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Good then, if it makes you upset, please just dont click on these threads. Its the Lib Brew. Its going to be rough.

There's not a good arrangement on this site for free expression of debate on religion, but then this site is not for that.

May 27, 2006
11:35 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,
i just gave you a compliment, took the blame, and expressed my opinion.

my thought was that i don't want to screw it up for you all with my emotions not being able to be objective. that's all.

omw

May 27, 2006
12:04 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

i'm objective right now. I want to see the "science" seeker is talking of. I know I wont get any, thats why I said to him, I was just curious if he could tell me what science.

i know we're vulnerable on this board cause we talk about our problems so to see an attack on our beliefs sometimes shakes us up. Anyway its all good. I've asked seeker before something like this and he wasnt able to give it, so the same will happen now too. I'll just be reading.

May 27, 2006
12:06 pm
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My perception of this thread wa Tez asking for thoughtful discussion after the material had been read. He reiterated that in his second post on this thread.

The thread where the SC expressed condolences got turned on Tez. Remember that?

May 27, 2006
3:41 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,

I vote for giving Tez back his thread. Let's take this to a new thread. I'll call it "Religion and Science". I'll answer your questions there.

omw, please feel free to join us if you want. You'd be a blessing to us.

Seeker

May 27, 2006
3:52 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,

By the way, one last thing on this thread for me. I think you missed what omw was trying to say. She was saying that SHE had a problem with seeing people get contentious about religion and with staying objective.

She was admitting to having a problem, and you brushed her off, rather flippantly telling her she should stay off Lib Brews. I think you owe her an apology. She deserves better treatment than that.

May 27, 2006
5:53 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Dont worry about her, she's OK. I got her point.

May 27, 2006
5:58 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You may have gotten her point, but you didn't do her right, and you shouldn't just assume she's OK with it.

May 27, 2006
6:02 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

She can take care of herself. Please dont worry too much about other people. You're not responsible for them.

May 27, 2006
8:11 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

bevdee

On the 27-May-06 you said:

"Tez,

I wanted to extend my sympathy over the loss of your thread. It's happening more and more, isn't it?"

Thank you - that is so sweet of you to post those sentiments.

And later on you said:

"My perception of this thread wa Tez asking for thoughtful discussion after the material had been read. He reiterated that in his second post on this thread."

You are very accurate in your observations - very thoughtful to boot.

I am not too put out by all the 'shinnanikens' anyway. It is only 'noise' - I'm looking for the 'signal'. In electronics there is a figure of merit called the 'signal to noise ratio'. Electronic filters are used to eliminate the noise whilst still passing the signal. I do the same thing in my mind. I 'pass' the intelligent writings and 'reject' the rest. I haven't enough hours in the day to try to make sense out of non-sense; that is, emotionally driven berations.

However I was hoping that WD or someone like him would respond. I have a tremendous admiration and regard for his intellectual prowess, his commitment to science and his ability to think rationally.

This book is a brilliant attempt by a scientist/engineer/mathematicion called Arthur D'Adamo to show how sciences boundaries can be extended beyond its present borders into that domain the ownership of which is normally claimed by spirituality/religion/mysticism.

The book aim is NOT about science either backing up or tearing down the anthropomorphic concepts of any god whether it be Yehweh, Allah, Vishnu, Bramha, Shiva, Durga, Ganesh, etc, etc.

Starting with a simple illustration of a table, D'Adamo seeks to find out what is REAL and what is not. He showe that a table is made of component parts, legs, top etc. Rearrange these components drasticallt and you no longer have a 'table' but something else. He shows that a table is a mental construct in our minds designated by the purpose of its use.

Going one level lower, D'Adamo shows that the table's component parts are made of wood.

Wood's component parts are made of molecules whose component parts are atoms whose component parts are subatomic particles, electrons, protons, neutrons whose component parts are .... all the way down to energy the SAME energy common to all atomic particles.

D'Adamo then posits the BELIEF tentatively held by science at this moment that energy is eternal, indestructable and cannot be divided further into any component parts whatsoever. All this is within the realm of the scientific domain.

In his book, D'Adamo discusses "Ways of Knowing". He discusses at length science's, religion's and mysticism's way of knowing.

D'Adamo also discusses the Ultimate Reality, the Eternal Essence, the Godhead, the God who is a Person, the God who is NOT a Person and draws together how scientific methodologies - as opposed to Seeker's methodologies which are misrepresented as being scientific - may be applied to enhancing science's knowledge of the Ultimate Reality.

D'Adamo very humbly declares that the world view proposed by his book is not scientific at this stage because it has not been reified by extensive hypothethizing, experimentation, replication, theorizing, undergone scientific publication and subjected to the peer reviews so necessary to be accepted as a 'scientific fact'.

D'Adamo wants his book to be accepted as nothing more than a starting point in the long journey of science into the domain of religion.

D'Adamo is giving his book away for free. How much more generous can he be than that?

May 27, 2006
11:57 pm
Avatar
Matteo
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

You've said: "The book aim is NOT about science either backing up or tearing down the anthropomorphic concepts of any god whether it be Yehweh, Allah, Vishnu, Bramha, Shiva, Durga, Ganesh, etc, etc." I wonder from what source did you (or author of the book you are talking about) learn about anthropomorphic concept of God - Allah in Islam?? As far as I am concerned Islam is a religion which absolutely rejects anthropomorphism, if ever anyone bothered to read Qur-an. Is that some kind of free interpretation? Based on what? Western world’s perception? I truly wonder.

May 28, 2006
2:10 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest_guest,

{She can take care of herself. Please dont worry too much about other people. You're not responsible for them.}

When will you learn that women often suffer in silence and don't speak up for themselves? Many find it hard to defend themselves, even when they ought to.

May 28, 2006
3:07 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez-thank u for summing the book up for me. i appreciate it.

sincerely,
guppy

May 28, 2006
9:45 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

seeker, I responded in the other thread to that.

May 28, 2006
11:16 am
Avatar
bevdee
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 259
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

Hi, I do know what SNR is, and I think that is a very good analogy. I don't post here very often because I don't have a pc at home. I have found, though, that I learn more about myself when I sit quietly and watch others. I learn alot more when I am not trying to figure out the next thing I wnat to say, the next point I want to make.

I don't know if I would be a good person to discuss this with. WD would be alot better, or Kathygy.

Here is my problem. I really had trouble with physics in college, because atomic theory is not tangible. And the fact that is theory!!

I like the way you said "D'Adamo then posits the BELIEF tentatively held by science at this moment that energy is eternal, indestructable and cannot be divided further into any component parts whatsoever. All this is within the realm of the scientific domain. "

The belief tentatively held by science?? So does this put science in the faith-loop?

Love, Bevdee

May 28, 2006
11:44 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

I read the first chapter of that book last night, which discusses religion's method of revelational knowledge and alleged problems with it.

The author makes a major error -- he does not distinguish between revelation itself and the written-down records of revelation. He assumes that God would keep the written records error-free, which the Bible itself never claims. I don't know what other sacred writings might claim for themselves.

I'll be the first to admit that the Bible has a few errors in it. I've compiled a list of about 15 discrepancies in the Bible that I've found from my own readings of it. I'm a technical editor and I tend to notice such things.

The truly humbling thing about all this is that God has trusted us with the task of keeping the written record. He knew we would make a few mistakes in spite of our best and most careful efforts, he knew there would be a few scribal errors, he knew we would have translation issues, and he knew that not all of the books of scripture he gave would appear in the Bible as we know it.

But, he also knew that, in spite of everything, he could inspire us as individuals, as we read the Bible, to understand what we need to know for our own lives, and he could also inspire prophets today to correct any errors that might need to be corrected. For his purposes, God doesn't need for the Bible to be perfect.

The author makes other erroneous assumptions -- for example, that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam must all be consistent with each other. He also bases all of his arguments about Christianity on comments from only a limited number of sects (primarily Catholic and Seventh-Day Adventist), he quotes fundamental Christian sources as if they represent the entire movement, etc. However, these are relatively minor compared to what I discussed above.

Seeker

May 28, 2006
6:56 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Matteo

On the 27-May-06 you said:

"... As far as I am concerned Islam is a religion which absolutely rejects anthropomorphism,"

If you are talking about the Sufis' views of the Godhead I would 100% agree with your above statement.

However, like the percentage of Christian mystics - and that subset most probably includes Christ himself - in the total set of Christians who ever lived, the mystical Sufis are the minority subset of the complete set of Muslims - the in my opinion. But I cannot and have no interest in backing that up with statistical evidence.

Further I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else over the percentage of adherents of any religion who hold an anthropomorphic view of their respective God.

I made a simple statement about what D'Adamo was NOT doing!

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 247
Currently Online:
32
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110914
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38536
Posts: 714200
Newest Members:
Striker1s, marcusz, Keara, Venn, Jolebio, loni89
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer