Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Invisig0th

Science is a religion.

133 posts in this topic

13 hours ago, seanjo said:

AH...pedantics...

No, not really. Claiming humans have some special evolutionary place is demonstrably untrue, and a total misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. You can't just wave your hand and claim I'm being pedantic when you're just plain wrong.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

No, not really. Claiming humans have some special evolutionary place is demonstrably untrue, and a total misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. You can't just wave your hand and claim I'm being pedantic when you're just plain wrong.

Spirits are created simple and ignorant. They evolve intellectually and morally, passing from a lower order to a higher one, until they attain perfection, when they will enjoy unalterable bliss. We preserve our individuality before, during, and after each incarnation. We are always progressing. In our multiple physical existences, many sometimes become stationary but we never actually regress. The speed of our intellectual and moral progress depends on the efforts we make to attain perfection. This is the true law of evolution. Of course there is the theory of evolution as pertain to nature and the physical body, but that is secondary. Evolution is primarily spiritual.

Edited by AlKar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a horrendous play on words to label science, or atheism as a religion, or an act of worship. I can find more appropriate labels (depending on the individual) like profession, hobby, interest, and even passion.

What it boils down to is an association fallacy by theists that cannot wrap their heads around that there's people who do not take their beliefs seriously. 

Saying "Look they have their own religion which they worship" is just a way of coping with those that do not think the same way, and a slap to the party poopers.

Science is rigid for a very good reason. If you treat what could be just a coincidental anomoly as evidence without acquiring more confirming data? Then why do the scientific method when everything is up for grabs? Bedlam in our understanding ensues. 

As for Graham Hancock the last I checked he was just a journalist. I read "Fingerprints of the Gods", though I found it interesting it was just conjecture. When he started writing about alien/spirit communications through hallucinogens, it was the final straw for me. You can have a conversation with the Man in the Moon with your neurochemistry in a blender if you believed you could.

It reminds of this dude one time praising a certain South American juice, and telling people to do it so they can embrace the Jungle Goddess like he had. I said "Why not tell them that they meet the Jaguar King which he fills you with wisdom? Then when they tell you they met the Jaguar King, and they spew a bunch of nonsense? Then you know it's just in their heads like your Jungle Goddess is in yours". Of course he did not like that, but that's how it is when people want to believe. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 7:09 AM, Flog said:

No, offcourse. A scientist would attribute moral to only humans, the supreme being of planet earth. Or maybe even to a deity?
Maybe you're trying to pass off human (=animal) instinct as moral?

From wikipedia:
Morality
(from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

A simple search on "moral + dictionary" :

"of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

So basically "moral" is to be able to make a distinction between good and bad(evil?) and act accordingly. Many, if not all, animals are capable of this. Otherwise we wouldn't see any social structure in any other species beside humans. Is it "instinct". Yes. Indeed it is. It is a trait that many animals, including us Homo sapiens have evolved over time. Where do you think that we, humans (also an animal) have the ability do discern between good and bad from? God? Religion?  How much of our human "moral" can be attributed to instinct?
Yes, people can be taught to disregard morality or to even have different moral values. But discerning between good and bad...that is something we all are capable of. If we look at normal people around the world, not religious fanatics, just regular people....most of them, don't accept killing of other human beings, and regard it as immoral behaviour. Religion or beliefs can teach us that there are groups of people (e.g. from an opposing or different religion) whose life doesn't matter and it is ok to kill them and keep their skulls as a prize. But is that a "moral"? These people don't kill eachother (within their "tribe") so they still must retain some ability to discern between what is good and what is bad. Similar behaviour has been observed in chimpanzees where they look out for eachother within their tribe but can be extremely aggressive towards a competing tribe. They can even go on revenge-trips if a chimp from a neighbouring tribe has killed one of theirs.
If you're unable to tell right from wrong, then you have a psychological disorder and that has nothing to do with moral.

So some "moral" can be taught, yes, but basic "morality", the ability to discern good from bad, is something we all are born with, and thus, according to yourself, is an instict.

I don't know if animals have awareness of their own death but there are several studies that have shown self-awareness in animals. At present we don't even have the means to communicate properly with animals, let alone know what they are aware of.
There is this gorilla, Koko, i think, that was taught sign language. They asked it a question regarding death:

The caregiver showed Koko a skeleton and asked, “Is this alive or dead?” Koko signed, “Dead, draped.” “Draped” means “covered up.” Then the caregiver asked, “Where do animals go when they die?” Koko said, “A comfortable hole.” Then she gave a kiss goodbye. How would Koko know about death? The caregiver: We had gone on walks and seen dead birds and things. So, we asked her about those things. Gorillas have been observed, at least in zoos, to bury dead animals.

Elephants are also known to "mourn" their dead so they too seem to have some awareness of death.

But: Is knowledge of our own death necessary to have morals? Then we come back to the question: do people only have "moral" because they're affraid of death or any retribution in the after-life?

I do believe that many animals know Right from Wrong, but, IMHO, it is all Learned. The parent animal teaches the child. Chimps and Elephants act the way they do, because they are taught by other chimps and elephants. A non taught animal will simply do what it feels it needs to to survive. There is no morality there.

On 9/20/2017 at 7:40 AM, Rlyeh said:

Both have "laws" that are incompatible with free choice. Killing apostates is still practiced in some places, it must be pretty good logic right?

Still doesn't make it science.

I'm not aware of anything that Jesus taught that says go murder an apostate. The base of Jesus's teaching is Love thy Neighbor was yourself.

If you are talking about Islam, or Judaism, then we're not talking the OT and NT then are we?

On 9/21/2017 at 11:50 AM, seanjo said:

Our Brain and our ability to think makes us the most highly evolved animal on this planet.

That's not factually true, I think, but is your opinion. It could be argued that the Flu is highly evolved, as it changes every year to fit into it's environment.

Also evolution means changing to fit into your environment. While humans change the environment to fit their needs. That's intelligence, but not evolution.

Just my opinion however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'm not aware of anything that Jesus taught that says go murder an apostate. The base of Jesus's teaching is Love thy Neighbor was yourself.

If you are talking about Islam, or Judaism, then we're not talking the OT and NT then are we?

I never said he did. I said both OT and NT have teachings that oppose freedom of choice, I then said some places death for apostasy is practiced. Keeping in line with trevorhbj's logic, if death for apostasy is still practiced it must be good logic. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of science find it hard to change when certain ideas are too hard to let go of. Particle theory vs Wave theory for instance. Wave theory has been proven and we know this is the nature of light etc, however they want to make it a particle wave duality when there is no proof that an electric charge is carried by a particle at all, nor has any particle ever been observed (even with electron microscopes, no particle has been seen). They assume the particle MUST exist because they detect electricity or radiation, it is too difficult for them to believe these things can be carried by an oscillating wave without a particle. There is no need for photons or particles of any kind. Sadly most people will say "well disprove the particle theory first then we will accept the wave theory", the issue is that particle theory has never been proven. Even the famous double slit experiment they said proved that particles and waves change based on observation, yet not one shred of proof has ever shown light as anything but a wave, the double slit makes perfect sense when you realize that light is a wave the entire time and never a photon carrying light energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ArcherSage said:

Some parts of science find it hard to change when certain ideas are too hard to let go of. Particle theory vs Wave theory for instance. Wave theory has been proven and we know this is the nature of light etc, however they want to make it a particle wave duality when there is no proof that an electric charge is carried by a particle at all, nor has any particle ever been observed (even with electron microscopes, no particle has been seen). They assume the particle MUST exist because they detect electricity or radiation, it is too difficult for them to believe these things can be carried by an oscillating wave without a particle. There is no need for photons or particles of any kind. Sadly most people will say "well disprove the particle theory first then we will accept the wave theory", the issue is that particle theory has never been proven. Even the famous double slit experiment they said proved that particles and waves change based on observation, yet not one shred of proof has ever shown light as anything but a wave, the double slit makes perfect sense when you realize that light is a wave the entire time and never a photon carrying light energy.

So... Light waves exhibit some property of particles, but photons do not exist, at least not proven?  I read that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Waves do not have properties of particles, waves have property of waves. All things are waves that carry energy in various forms. Do you think a magnetic field is made of particles yet is massless? And yes you read it right, particles/photons have not been proven. The large hadron collider is smashing two fields into each other, magnetic fields carried by waves. They assume they are colliding particles because they are atomists. All things are waves at their core..from DNA, to light, to sound, etc. When you punch something, the energy is transferred from your hand via shock-wave which you can see in slow motion. Earthquakes propagate a wave through the medium of earth.  Energy always transfers through wave form. Your eyes have cones in them that receive wavelengths (not particles) and convert the wave energy into an electrical signal (which is still a wave) into the brain which give you an image. 

Edited by ArcherSage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.