Science-Religion separation

[rational experiences]

I perfectly agree with you.
The Bible is a collection of books which use allegories. To be comprehended by the simple people.
Joshua 10:12 speaks of a sun that stops.

Because of this passage the Vatican forced Galilei to abjure and take back all his claims about heliocentrism.
Galilei yielded to those madmen because he knew that future generations would empathize with him.

The Vatican knew earths owned factors in origin first womb space law. Was a frozen planet mass the centre of its owned being. In space law.

Not involved with being a sun.

A crystalline Atlantis facure with a cold clear gas meant no burning so no movement or travel. Stationery in a fixed centre of its own planetary being in space womb.

Atlantis became sAtanlit.

Galileo lie gaol was a coded man's owned objective Inherited choice...man of design. His visions proved to men in the past he was a dangerous visionary.

By what he saw and then drew.

Codes are subjective to human man's living presence. His theorising as a man human. Who used design sun machine metal themes to destroy life on earth.

Vatican in history was the first legal position man took against rich men satanic technology of the past.

 

[DNB]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

I believe there is the "law of a second extraordinary talent." Great talents are so rare statistically that a single human cannot hold two excellent skills. This explains why people are becoming significant but narrow specialists.

In my understanding, I am both. I am Scientist in Religion and Religious in Science.
The roots of modern Science are in monasteries. The monk was trying to use logic during the study of Religion.
Monks discovered scientific methods.

Because that is the fundamental dichotomy that exists between secularism and theology - one denies the spiritual, resorting solely on the physical realm for information and truth. While the other's source of facts and reality lay in reading between the lines. Both have faith that God either exists or doesn't, based on their perception of the evidence.
I say this in general, for there are many religious scientists - which, I imagine that these art the ones that you are referring to.

Either way, the point remains the same - science is nothing but a precursor to discovering God. It will only divulge His power, and not necessarily His nature - there's only so much that science can reveal about God. Therefore, those who indulge in this methodology of discovering God will find themselves becoming misguidedly caught up in the creation, and not the Creator.

 

[rational experiences]

Theory...is a man's explanation.

Proven by abstract man's reasoning. His God him God or he God. Abstract meanings him his he denotes I know I'm theorising.

So he poses the answer first. There is a God. Then he says and I'll explain it. By my human man being.

So no man is God. Is relevant advice. As he's not seeking himself.

Yet he quotes he's seeking the power that changed his mind.

As he's not seeking himself.

Hence the man theist said no man is God as he wasn't seeking himself.

He understood a power changed me.

Therefore the explanation involved grounds mass. Heavens body where inheritance of bio life support existed. And out of space.

No man is God.

If he sought self human explanation why I exist.... it's still no man is God. As he's one single species of two bodies he already stated. No man is God.

God is one he explained created. All things its owned unique one of body. That owns no theory.

You might say I've discovered another new one of some type yet it's only one of something else.

Now if you ask men. Brother to Brother. Did you seek why your brother was life mind changed?

Yes they did.

Correlating earths ground mass changed...heavens and from out of space.

Origin what's not a God in human life the sun. Men taught the sun isn't a God as it's not its highest greatest position anymore...it blasted.

Men had claimed a sun god falsely.

 

[questfortruth]

God neither is nor isn't, it's becoming.

God is invariant, it means unchangeable. But your understanding of God is developing.

 

[wellwisher]

Education

In the USA. educational test scores have gone down over the past many decades due to the influence of liberal based education and its disinformation. This dumb down is based on the science objectivity of test scores, may have something to do with it; repeatable testing. Ironically, religious based schools have maintained higher level test scores which is not what you would expect based on the liberal propaganda that caused the decline.

 

[ChristineM]

In the USA. educational test scores have gone down over the past many decades due to the influence of liberal based education and its disinformation. This dumb down is based on the science objectivity of test scores, may have something to do with it; repeatable testing. Ironically, religious based schools have maintained higher level test scores which is not what you would expect based on the liberal propaganda that caused the decline.

And yet scientist are educated. They need to be to earn their qualifications. And are overwhelmingly not religious

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you not understand that your materialism is what makes religion able to better function its own purpose? The utility of technology has allowed people to hold virtual meetings with each other, and many people meet online for the first time because of this ability.

Do I not understand that? I just finished listing the benefits of science to mankind when contrasting them with what religions have done for man.

it might be a 'guess' that humans are meant to be generous for each other, but that's my guess and the reason why i live.

You've moved the goalpost from THE purpose for which you exist to YOUR goals. Was this meant to be a rebuttal of my claim? It doesn't address it, which was that what you call materialism and I call empiricism and critical thinking " generates useful ideas that improve the human condition by making life longer, safer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, and more interesting" and that "Religion just provides psychological comfort at best and inquisitions at its worst." You seem to agree, but it's difficult to tell without you addressing either of those claims directly. You either agree or disagree that science and technology have gifted man the things I named or you don't and can explain why. You either agree that religion at best only provides psychological comfort or you are prepared to falsify that claim.

that is the fundamental dichotomy that exists between secularism and theology - one denies the spiritual, resorting solely on the physical realm for information and truth.

That is incorrect. Humanist philosophy finds the spiritual in the physical. The Abrahamic religions have surgically removed it from our cosmos and relocated it to imagined denizens in imagined realms thought to be separate from nature. They worship gods. They thank gods. Mother nature is right here, and appears to need no gods. Divinity resides in matter (man) experiencing matter (the cosmos). The sin of the Abrahamic religions was substituting gods for the cosmos as the object of our attention and gratitude.

Both have faith that God either exists or doesn't, based on their perception of the evidence.

This is also incorrect. The commonest type of atheist is the agnostic atheist, who takes neither of those positions.

science is nothing but a precursor to discovering God.

Science discovers nature, but has discovered no gods. In fact, it's discovered that nature assembled itself and runs itself day-to-day without intelligent oversight.

those who indulge in this methodology of discovering God will find themselves becoming misguidedly caught up in the creation, and not the Creator.

That's correct, except that it not a mistake. It's the remedy of a mistake the Abrahamic religions made. The divine is right here, in what you call the creation and what I call nature, which appears to need no creator. Removing the divine from nature was the mistake. Look at what has resulted - a contempt for nature. James Watt, a former Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, entrusted to protect America's natural resources, said "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." Is there a less spiritual position one could take? If so, I can't imagine what it is. It's ironic that that is the group of people calling themselves spiritual and empiricists who actually study nature empty. Isn't that what materialist in this context is meant to imply? And scientism? That looking to nature for answers is a spiritually empty pastime while thinking about spirits separate from nature is spirituality.

That comment debunked any credibility of critical thinking.

And yet another substance-free utterance from you. Your opinions by themselves are only of interest to you. I would be interested in your arguments if you had any, but you don't - just hand waiving like that. It's ironic that you claim a loss of credibility for another in a manner that undermines your own.

 

[metis]

In the USA. educational test scores have gone down over the past many decades due to the influence of liberal based education and its disinformation.

As so many studies have shown, the exact opposite is true. For example, the "liberal" northeast U.S. scores much higher than the "conservative" southeast U.S. "Red states" score lower than "blue states" overall.

All you are doing is making stuff up to fit stereotypes you blindly believe in.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

God is invariant, it means unchangeable. But your understanding of God is developing.

Something that can't change cannot be God, at least in my opinion.

You've moved the goalpost from THE purpose for which you exist to YOUR goals.

These two things are synonymous with each other.

You either agree or disagree that science and technology have gifted man the things I named or you don't and can explain why.

I think I already implied with many of my posts that I do agree with this assertion. I am not anti-science.

You either agree that religion at best only provides psychological comfort or you are prepared to falsify that claim.

Myself and a lot of other people here have made claims as to why religion is important, you just keep dismissing it because you don't want to bear the truth that religion has done a lot of good in the world. Religions will build churches and schools, feed the poor, aid the sick and there's actually a lot of things that many religions get right - you just deny any evidence of it because it doesn't fit in your overall world view.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

These two things are synonymous with each other.

OK. I thought you were discussing the purpose for which you were made. You had written, "That is the reason why humans exist; to lessen the pain of other people." I don't believe that that is why I exist. That I would have such a purpose implies an intelligence behind my existence. My parents had reasons for being parents, and my mother always wanted me to be a physician, but lessening the pain of others was only one reason for that, and probably not the most important one, or she wouldn't have specified physician over healer.

Most of the time people speak of the purpose or which they were made, they're thinking of creator gods and their purposes. Perhaps you have no such beliefs. I don't.

I think I already implied with many of my posts that I do agree with this assertion. I am not anti-science.

OK again. I don't think I implied otherwise. You had also written, "Science cannot explain that through pure logic, theory or even through wisdom and sagacity." I was comparing the accomplishments of empiric systems of inquiry to faith-based ones, and noticed that you hadn't explicitly agreed or disagreed with either comment. Now you have explicitly agreed with the first half.

I also wrote, "Religions explain nothing. If science (empiricism) can't explain something, it can't be explained. Such lofty claims made for the religious "magisterium," but where's the beef? I can show you what the empiricists have come up with. It includes the technology to have this discussion globally and almost for messages to be sent and received almost instantaneously." When I don't see a rebuttal, I assume that that is because the other poster cannot show it to be incorrect (falsify it with rebuttal).

Myself and a lot of other people here have made claims as to why religion is important, you just keep dismissing it because you don't want to bear the truth that religion has done a lot of good in the world.

I agreed that it gives some people comfort.

Myself and a lot of other people here have made claims as to why religion is important, you just keep dismissing it because you don't want to bear the truth that religion has done a lot of good in the world. Religions will build churches and schools, feed the poor, aid the sick and there's actually a lot of things that many religions get right

That's not religion to me. That's people in religions doing what others do as well without religion. Religion is a faith-based worldview, and faith is sterile. No correct ideas are known through faith including religious faith, correct meaning demonstrably correct as opposed to unjustified belief.

Religion isn't necessary for any of that. Humanism addresses it all without gods or faith, just reason and compassion. Secular governments build schools, feed the poor, aid the sick, and do much more, and do it better and on a much larger scale than the religions. What did we see during the pandemic? Who created the vaccines? Who got them into arms? Who came to the aid of a nation in economic distress. Not the church. A few soup kitchens don't rate. I live in a Catholic country. The Catholic church did nothing here during the pandemic. It didn't lift a finger or spend a nickel. The local government provided the vaccines, and we took care of one another where there was need. Yet they want to be known as caring and charitable, but all they do is what I said - provide comforting words and tell those in need to pray. Then, when people step up, they claim God provided.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Religion is a faith-based worldview, and faith is sterile. No correct ideas are known through faith including religious faith, correct meaning demonstrably correct as opposed to unjustified belief.

All that I have learned from this interaction with you is that you have a very narrow view of religion. One view that most people would disagree with. Religion does, can and will change, however. Most people who are religious just tend to be traditional within their belief system; I am not. Earthseed was developed in the early 1990's and the term 'Syntheism' wasn't developed until the 21st century. Most people's religion changes in minor ways throughout their life, and I have grown and understood myself considerably since I had my epiphany at age 14, which ultimately caused me to believe in God. I reject atheism and agnosticism. But you seem to embrace both. We can openly agree to disagree, and well as agree to disagree on what role religion has on society. I have no use to debate or argue like this. I am just telling you how I personally see things.

 

[DNB]

That is incorrect. Humanist philosophy finds the spiritual in the physical. The Abrahamic religions have surgically removed it from our cosmos and relocated it to imagined denizens in imagined realms thought to be separate from nature. They worship gods. They thank gods. Mother nature is right here, and appears to need no gods. Divinity resides in matter (man) experiencing matter (the cosmos). The sin of the Abrahamic religions was substituting gods for the cosmos as the object of our attention and gratitude.

Since when is a humanist philosopher a scientist?

 

[rational experiences]

Men said space is a womb.

First advice an evil symbolism of the woman human..her womb human is holy. As men baby said my mother is holy. A human.

In comparison space womb is evil only.

Significant advice of unholy minds thinking.

He also said science holiness on earth depends on mother of God. God he said rock and heavens mass.

Infinity. Womb.

Reason a gas is a gas spirit because cooling allows it to be a gas. Hence honour spaces evolution.

As space can be hot or cold depending on the mass body. What that mass type is now.

Humans live within the cooled heavens. Past it was burning hot says men.

So past for a gas where we live is unholy.

Men say past is the presence mass is in rock. Owning an immense time of cooling. Yet it's not timed it evolved.

Therefore men of science said the God of science terms evolved to be god support of life now. Holy science. To compare why we exist now. First thoughts of theism.

Other science theism is Satanism as we live now the present the gift of life is exact present.

Holy science never used theisms they taught reality is to accept all one of anything is self evolved in its fixed body owning no comparison to any other one.

Meaning a human is not God.

Egotism of human behaviour is not science yet you express egotism by behaviours.

Is how life gets destroyed. As natural human owned no need for science no matter what you science opinion is today.

It's only based on civilisation which is not reality it's choices.

 

[osgart]

I like to think that religion has a totally different and better future than it's history has offered. There's so many things that religion doesn't know but claims to be the truth. Religion should take lessons from science and become a process of discovery. Religion should be able to test their conclusions and adapt.

Religion has no place in science. Science is about discovering unknowns. Religion is about finding reliable faith that enhances the quality of well being for as many as possible. Religion involves spirituality and the qualities of character that produce peace, love, and joy. Religion needs to allow for more individual and personal expression.

People have made religions of the past far better than they deserve with the inspiration, love and compassion they bring to them. There are small elements of truth in many religions but much of religion is showered in falsehoods. Religion is an uphill battle to make well of it, but there are valuable gems within it.

Science and religion are polar opposites as they should be.

 

[rational experiences]

Religious medical teachers. The healers first.

Brain entrainment.

Earths heavenly mass science said had changed. Biology chemical conscious behaviours proven changed. Men thought self woman woman thought self a man.

Nature said sexual being is precise in biology.

Knowing heavens fed back reflected self image and voice you were not allowed to mimic the other human. Was advice of medical.

Healer tried to re establish our holy life.

As self image voice now was heavenly recorded. Psychic proven exact truth.

Self development rituals bathing cleansing with clean water. Herbal oils. Smells. Music chants singing meditating three day ritual. Cleansing the spirit.

Changed human behaviour.

What it developed into as religion depended on the changing governing body of rich men.

 

[rational experiences]

Religious medical teachers. The healers first.

Brain entrainment.

Earths heavenly mass science said had changed. Biology chemical conscious behaviours proven changed. Men thought self woman woman thought self a man.

Nature said sexual being is precise in biology.

Knowing heavens fed back reflected self image and voice you were not allowed to mimic the other human. Was advice of medical.

Healer tried to re establish our holy life.

As self image voice now was heavenly recorded. Psychic proven exact truth.

Self development rituals bathing cleansing with clean water. Herbal oils. Smells. Music chants singing meditating three day ritual. Cleansing the spirit.

Changed human behaviour.

What it developed into as religion depended on the changing governing body of rich men.

In the past healing was considered as a non sexual choice to assist spiritual regain of owned mind body.

Why the ceremonies were away from public influence.

 

[rational experiences]

I like to think that religion has a totally different and better future than it's history has offered. There's so many things that religion doesn't know but claims to be the truth. Religion should take lessons from science and become a process of discovery. Religion should be able to test their conclusions and adapt.

Religion has no place in science. Science is about discovering unknowns. Religion is about finding reliable faith that enhances the quality of well being for as many as possible. Religion involves spirituality and the qualities of character that produce peace, love, and joy. Religion needs to allow for more individual and personal expression.

People have made religions of the past far better than they deserve with the inspiration, love and compassion they bring to them. There are small elements of truth in many religions but much of religion is showered in falsehoods. Religion is an uphill battle to make well of it, but there are valuable gems within it.

Science and religion are polar opposites as they should be.

Science is looking for the one...in fact any new one of energy type not yet discovered.

What a one of type means in science as all of any one thing substances are already known by men of science.

 

[rational experiences]

Discovery.

Science.

My Roman brother said I'll update the pyramid temple model by built henges. Temple science builder memory Judas Egyptian Jews. I won't let fallout heated pressure changed circles hit the ground. Falling gas.

Lost from clouds cooling gods angels.

He didn't theory new science to get hurt or life sacrificed. He believes he learnt so updated the model.

Men today new man's life..invented their new updated pyramid technology. Nuclear power plant.

Old fallout caused by ancient star fall earth hit was still active. They knew that no machine no science practiced still owned past recaused Reinherited stars fallout.

Yet sun star historic did it first. Changed earths gases.

Paintings proved life as sacrificed in past was still starving... plagues droughts floods famine still were caused. Because falling star returned.

Balances holy Cross + four sea of son as gods above heavens son Inheritance not met.

Knew. Rebuilt it anyway owning mind belief as the theist when I activated it we could all die. He did realise the danger to biology.

Is moderns man you don't own in life any man's Holy theist science mind anymore as a liar.

You never learn new. You ignore all old attacked life advices.

As he unsealed earths past himself he began destroying life.

Men know they can change the past of earths natural body and remove Infinities saving of frozen mass themselves.

They aren't searching for anything other than one greater space power greater than any one type they already know. In thesis it means the only power to destroy all other powers as lesser gods by powermongering themes.

The amount of mass a man on earth theories to gain over a long time period but he writes the theory as instant advice now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have no use to debate or argue like this. I am just telling you how I personally see things.

That's fine. I prefer debate. I prefer identifying differences in opinion and attempting to resolve them critically, but it takes two to do so.

You say that you learned from our dialog that I have a narrow view of religion. That's not surprising given that I think you credit too much to religion, and would have enjoyed knowing WHY you disagree with the opinions you reject rather than just THAT you disagree. But that's not going to happen, so I'll make my best guess why you disagree, which is that your religious beliefs meet some psychological need for you, and that you have generalized that to believing that religion is a good and helpful enterprise of man. Thanks for your participation as far as it went.

Since when is a humanist philosopher a scientist?

Did you mean an empiricist? Humanism's epistemology is rational and empirical, just like a professional scientist's, but done in daily life rather than in a laboratory or observatory. But that's not the mode of consciousness from whence the spiritual intuition arises. That's the mode for deciding what is demonstrably true about the world, which is focused thinking. The humanist's spiritual experience derives from a direct appreciation of nature not involving literal spirits, and it is a different mode of consciousness than the critical thought of empiricism. It's what I call soft thinking - when one's sharp focus (concentration) softens, as when appreciating anything as beautiful (immersion).

 

[rational experiences]

Men taught science of spiritual humans wisdom.

The earth was a O alight. It moved. It travelled as a God ark through space as a vehicle. Named it an ark.

Man said earths heavens was the light of his life was just fixed a clock O.
Wisdom.

Man said men owned dark thoughts about the blasted sun mass. Now it's mass stopped burning and is in deep space....coldest.

Beware the black man's thoughts... Theist.

He proved he misquoted his word ideals then hated mistreated the black skinned human man. Blamed him as evil man.

Hasn't listened to his WORD warning.

The amount of cold cooling that supports the black body allows supports any other body including body removal of a suns mass to exist.

Is the spiritual human science warning to theists. Who don't listen to human conscious spiritual words advice. Always correct first. The word use.

The exact teaching.