Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

[cladking]

You'll have to explain this. What do reason or science have to do with religion?

All people make sense all the time. This is the first corollary to reality exists as it appears.

All ideas are individual and only individuals can think. These are true by definition if consciousness is life.

Therefore those who think about religion reasonably are necessarily influenced the growing body of human knowledge.

Religion lags science by a couple centuries but provides the only possible "big picture".

 

[cladking]

You have to assemble the puzzle pieces to see the big picture.

There is no big picture provided by science because its fragments can't be assembled and none of the fragments are in any way related to what humans need. Science as a way of life is a disaster. Yes, ironically, religion as a way of life has often proven to be a bigger disaster.

What is left is reason as a way of life.

 

[cladking]

Please explain this consciousness claim. Is this some sort of universal, Brahmanic consciousness we all tap into?

God no.

Every living thing is conscious. Consciousness is life and every living thing has one consciousness.

 

[cladking]

How are you defining 'logical," and "parse?"

Reality is logic manifest and life is reality incarnate.

Mathematics is reality quantified but there are countless ways to quantify logic. Just because you can create a mathematical system does not mean reality is beholden to it. Rather both math and reality in tune with one another.

"Parsing" is how we learn to acquire language. More accurately it is learning how to pick a meaning out of a string of words using knowledge of grammar and definitions. This is no mean feat since all our languages are illogical and full of abstractions that don't even exist in the real world. Words are symbolic, analog, and have fluid definitions all of which don't exist in reality.

No two people ever parse any sentence in the exact same way and even if they did their unique differences would still lead to different interpretations. We don't notice communication failures because we don't want to and on the rare occasion we do we tend to blame the other.

-later.

 

[cladking]

"Live my life by....?" Explain.
Hasn't religion stifled medical science for hundreds of years? Hasn't religion generated countless wars and excused all manner of exploitation and injustice? Is this not harm?

You blame religion but it's far more superstition and poor communication that causes war. More people have died since Darwin than in all the wars caused by religion. More people died because of genocide and belief in science and eugenics than in all the other wars in history since "survival of the fittest" and the omniscience of science has arisen. People now believe in science and the killing just gets more brutal and less fair. Many people need a touchstone like religion but the holiest of thous tell them there is no God because it doesn't fit their plans. Peers have proclaimed that there is no longer a need for God or religion. Consensus is infallible.

 

[cladking]

Before man became illogical? Other species are logical?

Yes. Reality itself is logical. It is logic manifest and consciousness is logic incarnate. Other species have no choice but to be logical. How could a rabbit survive by merely being able to run faster or being more alert. It still is pursued by much faster creatures and it must sleep and become distracted. It is consciousness that endows all life with the ability to survive. It is about pure blind luck and logical behavior.

Please give some evidence of this massive conspiracy.

No conspiracy exists save the one that everyone wants to be with the majority. No money goes to research that works to show dogma is wrong so no articles are submitted which would have been turned down anyway. Try publishing something in an Egyptological resource that doesn't accept the five premises that pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by ignorant, superstitious, and changeless bumpkins. Despite the simple fact that each of these five premises is an unsupported assumption no paper will appear that don't specifically accept them all. It simply doesn't matter how erudite, accurate, or predictive it is. It simply can not be published. There used to be a website for Egyptologists yet no posts were allowed that countered these axioms.

It's not a conspiracy. People simply don't care about reality if their beliefs are wrong and everyone's beliefs are all wrong. Only religion even has an outline of what reality may look like because such an outline isn't even within the purview of science. But science and reason are in the blood of many theologians, philosophers, and religious people.

 

[cladking]

Please explain H. omnisciencis.

Everyone in our species is fooled by language and what they learned on their parents' knees into believing they know everything. Everyone since the tower of babel knows everything. Homo omnisciencis

We can't parse ancient language?

Humans used to be animals before the tower of babel. But unlike animals homo sapiens had a complex metaphysical language with which they could pass complex knowledge to new generations. Using this metaphysics and natural science they invented agriculture and cities. When it was lost we began a long dark ages that ended when religion dreamed up the idea of science; experiment. It is this that shows belief from reality and restarted "human" progress.

Fragments of Ancient Language still exists but because it is mathematica;l and metaphysical it loses its meaning when we try to read it. "Read" means "parse" to homo omnisciencis.

 

[Quagmire]

We're not "smarter." We're more informed -- by facts discovered by science; discoveries , vigorously resisted, initially

Really? I had no idea. Where can I find out more about this 'science' stuff.

by the faithful

"The faithful" being who exactly? My guess is that when you say it you mean anybody who doesn't completely discount anything that can't be objectively demonstrated in a lab but I don't want to assume.

Anyway my point is that if you approach ancient writings, folklore, mythology, scriptures, mystical poetry, etc., with something like an open mind you can often find some fascinating correlations between what ancient, supposedly primitive people believed and what science has since born out.

Whether or not there's ever anything relevant about these correlations is always up for grabs, but it's fascinating nonetheless.

Edit: and IMO probably relevant.

 

[exchemist]

The author of this thread seems to have evaporated.

 

[Valjean]

All people make sense all the time. This is the first corollary to reality exists as it appears.

What, exactly, does "make sense" mean?

All ideas are individual and only individuals can think. These are true by definition if consciousness is life.

Huh? Everything is true?! All ideas, even contradictory ones are true?
What is "these," all ideas? How would consciousness being life make all ideas true?
Most life is unlikely to be conscious, so if life can exist without consciousness, then consciousness is not synonymous with life. If consciousness is not life, does that make all things untrue?

I can't make head or tails of this post.

Therefore those who think about religion reasonably are necessarily influenced the growing body of human knowledge.

Religion lags science by a couple centuries but provides the only possible "big picture".

They're not even comparable. They're entirely different things.
Religion doesn't lag, it doesn't even follow. It's not a research modality. It hates research. All it ever does is concede -- after a long time and after an idea has long been accepted by the general public.

 

[Valjean]

There is no big picture provided by science because its fragments can't be assembled and none of the fragments are in any way related to what humans need. Science as a way of life is a disaster. Yes, ironically, religion as a way of life has often proven to be a bigger disaster.

What is left is reason as a way of life.

Fragments are always being connected, and the big picture becomes clear every day. They've yielded an explosion of knowledge and understanding, and the best health, longevity, and prosperity, in all human history.

What has religion brought us? No big picture, no understanding of the world, suppression of material and intellectual progress, and a justification for all manner of exploitation and barbarism.

Science is not a way of life. It's a research method. The very word means "knowledge." How is it a disaster?
How is Reason a way of life? Isn't it a way of thinking, and exactly the way of thinking that underlies science.

 

[Valjean]

God no.

Every living thing is conscious. Consciousness is life and every living thing has one consciousness.

That sounds exactly Brahmanic -- One universal consciousness, with every living thing tapping into it.

 

[Valjean]

Everyone in our species is fooled by language and what they learned on their parents' knees into believing they know everything. Everyone since the tower of babel knows everything. Homo omnisciencis

But everyone doesn't believe they know everything -- especially scientists.

Humans used to be animals before the tower of babel. But unlike animals homo sapiens had a complex metaphysical language with which they could pass complex knowledge to new generations. Using this metaphysics and natural science they invented agriculture and cities. When it was lost we began a long dark ages that ended when religion dreamed up the idea of science; experiment. It is this that shows belief from reality and restarted "human" progress.

Your belief in this tower of babel myth is the sort of nonsense religion promotes. Your religious Big Picture is a fantasy.

Religion didn't dream up the idea of science, reasonable people did. Religion resisted it tooth and nail.

Fragments of Ancient Language still exists but because it is mathematica;l and metaphysical it loses its meaning when we try to read it. "Read" means "parse" to homo omnisciencis.

Huh?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You blame religion but it's far more superstition and poor communication that causes war. More people have died since Darwin than in all the wars caused by religion. More people died because of genocide and belief in science and eugenics than in all the other wars in history since "survival of the fittest" and the omniscience of science has arisen. People now believe in science and the killing just gets more brutal and less fair. Many people need a touchstone like religion but the holiest of thous tell them there is no God because it doesn't fit their plans. Peers have proclaimed that there is no longer a need for God or religion. Consensus is infallible.

I'm sorry but this is pathetic, given that the numbers involved (deaths) more or less is accounted for by advancing technology rather than much else, and hence we should realistically bring such into the picture when we discuss deaths due to whatever.

 

[cladking]

Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hesitate to comment on this but I do believe it contains more reality than almost any other philosophy regarding thought and language. We think in complex language and it is the complexity that drives human progress and the language that leads to our beliefs and thinking we know everything. We compare perception to our beliefs rather than like other consciousness that compares them to experience and knowledge.

You have to assemble the puzzle pieces to see the big picture.

But you can't even see the little pieces like "gravity" since nobody knows what causes it or how it relates. A bishop knows that an acorn hit his head because of gravity. How does knowing that it accelerates at 32 ft/s/s affect this equation? How does one live his life differently by seeing all these little jigsaw pieces unless he imagines that he can determine important things in life with equations? Nothing in life that is important can be quantified because all the important variables and the equations are unknown. The big picture is outside the purview of science.

What, exactly, does "make sense" mean?

What people say and do is consistent with what they believe. This means what they believe can be deduced from their actions.

I can't make head or tails of this post.

It's bad communication. When I said "All ideas are individual " I meant that committees and species don't have any ideas and don't think. They aren't even real but mere abstractions. Life is consciousness and all consciousness is individual. Life is individual. There are no two identical things in all of reality.

-later

 

[shunyadragon]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?


View attachment 81704View attachment 81705

I am not sure where this is going with a picture of a shark and an Ouija board. and odd assertion that science proves religion. Sounds like something rejected by Mad Magazine and The Onion.

Over the top lampoony stuff

 

[shunyadragon]

The author of this thread seems to have evaporated.

He did not unfold the map and fell over the edge.

 

[exchemist]

But everyone doesn't believe they know everything -- especially scientists.

Your belief in this tower of babel myth is the sort of nonsense religion promotes. Your religious Big Picture is a fantasy.

Religion didn't dream up the idea of science, reasonable people did. Religion resisted it tooth and nail.

Huh?

It is a c19th myth that religion resisted science tooth and nail. This discredited myth is largely due to an American called Dickson White: Conflict thesis - Wikipedia

Practically the sole instance of hostility towards science on the part of religion is the Galileo affair.

 

[Valjean]

It is a c19th myth that religion resisted science tooth and nail. This discredited myth is largely due to an American called Dickson White: Conflict thesis - Wikipedia

Practically the sole instance of hostility towards science on the part of religion is the Galileo affair.

The religiously motivated anti-evolution movement seems to be going pretty strong, and a lot of religious folk seem convinced of a 6,000 year old Earth, a world wide flood and a mass exodus from Egypt, despite contrary scientific consensus.

 

[exchemist]

The religiously motivated anti-evolution movement seems to be going pretty strong, and a lot of religious folk seem convinced of a 6,000 year old Earth, a world wide flood and a mass exodus from Egypt, despite contrary scientific consensus.

Undoubtedly, but that is a recent development, again dating only from the late c.19th and found mainly in certain homespun strands of US Protestantism lacking a central body of doctrine or teaching hierarchy. It is not supported by the main Christian denominations.

The myth is that religion has historically "resisted" science "tooth and nail". It has not. Many influential scientists have been men of the cloth, including Copernicus, Mendel and Buckland (one of the founding fathers of geology and palaeontology, who came to be an opponent of "flood geology"). Going further back, William of Ockham and Roger Bacon, who first articulated the core ideas of natural science, were Franciscan friars.