Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[firedragon]

A lot of religions proved serious as smallpox for

the uneducated zealot maybe.

 

[Secret Chief]

That is fascinating!
But it’s probably rather due to some genetic process or trigger, which enables them to detect their closer kin.
Still very informative & fascinating.

One of the Green Planet episodes (David Attenborough) concerned trees and fungi communicating and carrying out preferential behaviour. It is, as you say, fascinating.

 

[Secret Chief]

It does lend attention to an inate awareness of every living and non living forms of matter. Like the concept of Gaia for instance. An awareness that spans far beyond the human experience.

It's why I talk to the universe and yell at inanimate objects at times. *grin*

My partner regularly swears at her computer.

 

[wellwisher]

In terms of point #1, the 13.6 billion year estimate of the universe is based on our earth reference and on earth years. However, the earth year is not a universal standard of time, unless the earth is the center of the universe and was given a special place as the universal reference. This is ancient thinking connected to religion.

How do we know if God's reference was the same as the earth reference, especially when the earth is much younger than the universe, and the earth reference did not exist when the universe was first created or formed?

Einstein showed that reference was relative to the observer. If God was at the speed of light; he is the light of the world, 13.6 billions years in earth years would only take an instant of time in a speed of light reference; time dilation. God is not part of this material realm but is spirit, with spirit closer to energy than to matter. Speed of light is more likely, the God reference.

If you believe in the BB theory, where the universe was all bunched up into a singularity, the only reference in the universe, at the time of the BB, would have been extremely time dilated; based on General Relativity.

The Earth reference does not even appear in the universe for another 7 billions years, when things were more spread out and universal time dilation due to mass density was much less in the universe. If we only are allowed to use references that existed, at each milestone, the universe is younger. Science is ignoring its own understanding of time and references.

Many years ago I developed a model called the relativistic slow down model to better define the age of the universe. It assumes the universe starts at the speed of light reference; energy and/or extreme mass density. As the universe expands, time speeds up an heads toward something more like the earth reference. This was based on time dilation using both General and Special Relativity. The first day in Genesis could mean 6 billion years if the God reference stays close to the speed of light. Science is trying to game Relativity. I need to correct that error.

 

[Heyo]

I'll let these three answer for themselves, but...
We have not defined consciousness for the purpose of this discussion. Eastern and western views of what consciousness is have some disparity between them.

I addressed this here.

Lack of objective evidence is not the same as "no evidence." There are those that have experiential evidence of "disembodied consciousness," therefore, these testimonies can be considered evidence. It certainly is in a court of law when there is no objective evidence.

I don't think they have evidence for disembodied consciousness. At most there is evidence for something. Let's say children really report true events from the past. Hypothesis: Brainwaves are electromagnetic waves. Sometimes waves can be reflected. Maybe children can pick up such ancient waves. Ergo, we have evidence that memories can be preserved and picked up.
No disembodied consciousness necessary.

It's foolish to say that just because there is a lack of evidence for something means it it cannot be, especially in light of individual testimony.

That's why neither OP nor I did.

 

[stanberger]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. There no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

 

[stanberger]

In terms of point #1, the 13.6 billion year estimate of the universe is based on our earth reference and on earth years. However, the earth year is not a universal standard of time, unless the earth is the center of the universe and was given a special place as the universal reference. This is ancient thinking connected to religion.

How do we know if God's reference was the same as the earth reference, especially when the earth is much younger than the universe, and the earth reference did not exist when the universe was first created or formed?

Einstein showed that reference was relative to the observer. If God was at the speed of light; he is the light of the world, 13.6 billions years in earth years would only take an instant of time in a speed of light reference; time dilation. God is not part of this material realm but is spirit, with spirit closer to energy than to matter. Speed of light is more likely, the God reference.

If you believe in the BB theory, where the universe was all bunched up into a singularity, the only reference in the universe, at the time of the BB, would have been extremely time dilated; based on General Relativity.

The Earth reference does not even appear in the universe for another 7 billions years, when things were more spread out and universal time dilation due to mass density was much less in the universe. If we only are allowed to use references that existed, at each milestone, the universe is younger. Science is ignoring its own understanding of time and references.

Many years ago I developed a model called the relativistic slow down model to better define the age of the universe. It assumes the universe starts at the speed of light reference; energy and/or extreme mass density. As the universe expands, time speeds up an heads toward something more like the earth reference. This was based on time dilation using both General and Special Relativity. The first day in Genesis could mean 6 billion years if the God reference stays close to the speed of light. Science is trying to game Relativity. I need to correct that error.

thanx you have reinforced my belief in islam and quran. which teaches evolution. big bag of creation. universe expansion. blastocyst hangs from uterine wall thanx

 

[stanberger]

Please, most religious types have already moved past the literalist reading of Genesis, sheesh.

And I believe miraculous healings have occurred.

so bible no longer considered the inerrant word of god ?

 

[stanberger]

You are free to have your views and opinions
Just as religious people are free to believe what they do.

I chose islam over bible islam teaches noah floods regional. and no passover massacre of infants ever happened

 

[pearl]

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

But you're point is flawed as you do not know what religion does or does not accept in relation to science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I chose islam over bible islam teaches noah floods regional. and no passover massacre of infants ever happened

Yes, and if you ask a Christian, they probably answer opposit of you both are good answers from different religious belief.

 

[George-ananda]

so bible no longer considered the inerrant word of god ?

It is only considered that by a minority of Christians labeled 'fundamentalists'. The rest are part of the broader world.

 

[Jagella]

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 are what we've learned through science. As a believer, I have no issue with those.

Those facts really aren't reconcilable with many religious claims. They demonstrate that religion is simply wrong regarding its claims about the world.

3. It is unscientific to say "impossible".

Then you need to tell Einstein that. According to his Theory of Relativity, it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at or above the speed of light.

7. At least is correct: Paleolithic religion - Wikipedia but so what.

My point is that a religion that claims it is from "the beginning" cannot be a Johnny-come-lately in the history of religion. If religions like Judaism and Christianity came on the scene after Hinduism, and they did, then it is very difficult to explain their being true. Were Yahweh and Jesus just sitting around while men created a religion before Yahweh and Jesus got around to it? Different religions cropping up around the world at different times is very strong evidence that people are making up religion.

9. Many, I say most, are indeed frauds. And I've seen no studies trying to separate the placebo effect's contributions. But it depends on what kind of healing we're talking about.

Name one religious healer who is genuine. I have a lot of health and fitness problems that that healer can help me with.

 

[Jagella]

3 you obviously use a different definition of Consciousness than I use. So I disagree

By consciousness I'm referring to the ability to think, remember, or be aware of one's surroundings. Consciousness is made possible by a physical brain whose electro-chemical processes create thoughts, ideas, and memories. With the death of the brain, these processes cease because their is no way else they can continue.

9 I know this to be false

If you know that there are genuine religious healers, then you would have cited some of them. I should point out that people desperate for healing are often scammed out of money by these hucksters and in some cases may die believing what those supposed healers tell them. Religious faith makes it all possible.

 

[Spirit of Light]

By consciousness I'm referring to the ability to think, remember, or be aware of one's surroundings. Consciousness is made possible by a physical brain whose electro-chemical processes create thoughts, ideas, and memories. With the death of the brain, these processes cease because their is no way else they can continue.



If you know that there are genuine religious healers, then you would have cited some of them. I should point out that people desperate for healing are often scammed out of money by these hucksters and in some cases may die believing what those supposed healers tell them. Religious faith makes it all possible.

The real healers are not showing off their ability in public, nor as in a business an other thing is, if you want to be healed because of wanting to end disability, or because of ego, the healing wont work.
A true healer does not heal our of ego, but from unconditional love.

 

[viole]

thanx you have reinforced my belief in islam and quran. which teaches evolution. big bag of creation. universe expansion. blastocyst hangs from uterine wall thanx

So, you agree we and pigs share a common ancestor?

ciao

- viole

 

[SalixIncendium]

By consciousness I'm referring to the ability to think, remember, or be aware of one's surroundings.

Eastern philosophies draw a distinction between think and remember, which are functions of the intellect and inherent to be brain, and awareness, which inherent to consciousness.

So what you are referring to as "consciousness" in the OP mixes two distinct and separate ideologies.

 

[Sheldon]

There no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.

3. It is unscientific to say "impossible". Out-of-body experiences: Neuroscience or the paranormal?

Straw man, since didn't say that?

No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

9. Deep faith beneficial to health | Stanford News

Again you don't seem to be addressing what he said, and you're citing one source by one religious believer, who also happens to be an anthropologist, there might be any number of variables to consider as to why someone might receive health benefits from a belief. It does not of course represent objective evidence for the validity of the belief.

 

[Sheldon]

There no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.

3 you obviously use a different definition of Consciousness than I use. So I disagree

You think there is objective evidence for human consciousness existing without a living physical brain? I think I will need more than just your opinion for that.

No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

9 I know this to be false

Please demonstrate objective evidence that a spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers? I assume you didn't mean to deny that these claims have been shown many times to be pure chicanery?

 

[dybmh]

Regarding Ian Stevenson, 'critics, particularly the philosophers C.T.K. Chari (1909–1993) and Paul Edwards (1923–2004), raised a number of issues, including claims that the children or parents interviewed by Stevenson had deceived him, that he had asked them leading questions, that he had often worked through translators who believed what the interviewees were saying, and that his conclusions were undermined by confirmation bias, where cases not supportive of his hypothesis were not presented as counting against it.[8]'
Source:
Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia

I don't know about the "research" of Steve Taylor, but it would be interesting to see what academic skeptics who review his work have to say. I guess time will tell whether his research is more rigorous than that of Dr Stevenson.

In my opinion.

Did you read the case of Ryan Hammons ( from the previously provided article ) in Psychology today? It was not investigated by Stevenson, there was no translator, the parents didn't know anything about the past life and had no way of prepping the boy to provide details.