Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Brian Cox and the Wonders of Life....in other words more scientific propaganda.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 338 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 06:58:49 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"That's great then I will have a good place to start when I begin comparing mysticism with quantum gravity. It looks like I will be doing it on my own since no one is willing to help me."
First you moan no one is helping you back up your own claims on mysticism.

"I can post some sites about mysticism and quantum gravity but it won't make much sense to you if you don't have any knowledge about the Hebrew language and at least some understanding of the different levels of the bible, and no one is willing to help you."
Then you tell the same people they aren't imformed enough to help you in your task anyway.

You need to get your story straight.

Posted on 8 Feb 2013 09:06:09 GMT
I think I've lost track of what this thread is about, but I once attended a First Aid lecture from a doctor who told the story of a young man who was involved in a terrible car accident and had head injuries. Surgeons saved his life but had to remove half his brain. He made a full recovery though and went on to get a university degree. This shows how the human body has amazing powers to adapt, if the person is lucky! I suppose that the skull cavity filled with fluid as wounds do, congealed and later became similar to normal brain matter.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 10:58:40 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Hi light,

-"That's great then I will have a good place to start when I begin comparing mysticism with quantum gravity. It looks like I will be doing it on my own since no one is willing to help me."

You are the one who claimed this knowledge is already contained within these so-called mystical writings, it will be interesting to see whether you have any success in tying those writings to the ongoing science and whether it actually offers anything concrete. I suspect that what we will get instead is some vague and wooly quote and the insistence that this means something more meaningful.

-"I can post some sites about mysticism and quantum gravity but it won't make much sense to you if you don't have any knowledge about the Hebrew language and at least some understanding of the different levels of the bible, and no one is willing to help you."

I wouldn't want it anyway, i don't believe the ancient mystics had any greater understanding of our world than ourselves and were in actual fact wholly ignorant about entire categories of knowledge that we now take for granted.

-"Considering that 99% of all species are extinct there certainly is a lot of species currently remaining, that is what I call balance. It's a good thing that dinosaurs are extinct, no?"

Firstly, not all dinosaurs are extinct, and secondly under what criteria does the massive level of extinction and multiple levels of predation merit the word 'balanced'? Our ecology is dynamic and ever changing, indeed one such change occured in the early Archean eon was when cyanobacteria developed which produced oxygen as a waste product, this led to a massive die-off of anaerobic organisms, but without such changes we would never have arisen. Even today our planet is on a decaying orbit, the Sun itself has a finite life, this 'balance' is a subjective term that really only applies to a narrow perception of life around us.

-"Well, I follow suit of those who came before me ;o)"

I'm not sure why you would find the idea that shell game is more profund than actual knowledge.

-"I'm like everyone else I would like to see some proof too. But it is going to take me a long time because I have to learn about quantum gravity before I can make exact comparisons and since quantum gravity has many theories it is going to take forever, but I suppose that I will make some interesting discoveries along the way."

But will those discoveries come from the literature on science or ancient writings, that is the question?

-"Can you tell me why stardust would possess an internal urge/blueprint to survive?"

It doesn't. Stardust simply has mass and gravity does the rest. Planets, stars, in fact everything appears to need no 'blueprint' nor 'urge' to react. Gravity brings atoms into contact and physical reactions occur as a result. Simple interactions become more complex as molecules form, and increasing complexity emerges.

-"Yes, there is more to it than meets the eye."

As i said, vacuous deepities and little by the way of concrete knowledge. What you appear to have conceded is that science must uncover the knowledge and then, and only then, can someone perform some post hoc rationalisation of vague writings in an attempt to make the mysticism relevent.

The problem with this method is that it doesn't demonstrate that the knowledge was there all along, far from it, what it demonstrates is the ability to read into vague pronouncements something that was never there to begin with. I doubt anyone could know exactly what the writers actually had in mind when they wrote their stuff, and it is never the case that a study of mysticism leads to knew scientific knowledge which is what we would expect if that knowledge predated the discovery.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 11:10:54 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Hi light,

-"Interestingly enough something as serious and potentially life changing as people who can function with the loss of brain matter has taken a back burner, or so it appears."

Interestingly the paper you cited shows that hydrocephalics who are fitted with a shunt suffer from the same loss of white brain matter, yet when the fluid pressure is alleviated, their brain matter returns.

-"This is interesting I trust that you've heard of Carl Sagan?"

I seem to recall recommending him to you.

-"According to these quotes I seem to be on the right track."

How so? Spirituality differs from mysticism as mysticism differs from religion, and before singing the praises of Sagan in suport of your mysticism perhaps you should reald The Demon-haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark and gain the context for most of his quotes.

-"I am specifically looking to see if there is a way that human consciousness can connect with nature and learn directly from it."

There is. It's called methodological naturalism.

-"If all of life came from an explosion which formed gasses, stardust, water, solid matter, single celled amoebas, fish, insects, trees, birds, animals, humans....we are one with that from which we came and there is a unified field, then why isn't it possible to.........Carl Sagan's quotes come in handy here ;o) Mysticism says that it's possible to connect now I am looking to see what science has to say on the matter, if anything."

Mysticism doesn't connect it just holds out the promise of a short-cut to understanding, something that it fails to live up to in my opinion.

Posted on 8 Feb 2013 12:25:41 GMT
Anyone that complains about evolution being "just a theory" doesn't understand the meaning of the word theory in scientific context. There has to be evidence, otherwise it's just baseless nonsense like the earth being created in a week.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 18:05:46 GMT
Bellatori says:
"like the earth being created in a week. " and in about 6700BC... You heard it here first...

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 18:10:55 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 18:14:17 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori: I heard that the earth was 4000 years old, based on a calculation of the ages and times mentioned in the bible. I wonder why dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible? Hmmm...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 18:27:11 GMT
Bellatori says:
When God created the earth 6700 years ago he undoubtedly made all the fossils and aged the rocks to give us something to talk about on sad and lonely evenings like tonight. It is all quite plausible IF you accept the premise that God is omnipotent. He clicked his fingers and there was a universe already peopled with his subjects. The Big Bang is merely an ad hoc analysis of the evolving universe as we see it. The 14+ billion years is merely illusory.

If it weren't so obviously pony and trap I think I could make quite a case for creationism.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2013 18:34:39 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2013 02:39:23 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 22:59:13 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2013 02:53:57 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 22:59:19 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2013 03:10:57 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 22:59:25 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2013 03:19:57 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 22:59:31 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2013 09:39:50 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Don't think I am mis-reading you, you're confirming what you wrote in saying people don't know mysticism therefore will be no help to you ergo you'll have to do it yourself. The quantum gravity/science bit you could either learn about through mysticism; if it is what you think it is or you'll have the answer to your thought that sparked this:
"Any new discovery will probably match something in ancient writings. Maybe you can mention something and I'll see if I can find it in ancient writings, what say you?'"

Having a wealth of information on the internet claiming that mysticism is modern scientific knowledge found in ancient writings while a knowledge or openness to all those mystic writings alone being totally unable to let you understand or prepared for a discussion of modern scientific thought is exactly what we'd expect to find if AJ was right.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 11:50:54 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Hi light,

With all sympathies to you friend's son-in-law's problems with diagnosis, this doesn't mean that scans have not been refined. The advances in technology produce scans of much higher resolutions and thus more detail. I suspect the reason that Lorber's work has not been investigated further is because his initial declarations that the brain matter was wholly absent was exaggerated (which he admitted) and that since his time the scans have revealed that the majority is in fact present and functional.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 11:54:44 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Hi light,

-"Yes, I said it because it is what I've read, but now I would like to see it proven. I don't see anything wrong with that. If the quotes weren't vague and wooly it wouldn't be mystical, would it?"

But vague and wooly are not the hallmarks of scientific knowledge, they tend towards precision, so it remains to be seen whether the mystical knowledge is actually present in these writings rather than merely individuals like yoruself who are attempting to ascribe meaning where there is none.

-"Mysticism = "The experience of a union of something having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence of the person. A belief without sound basis postulating possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power".

As a definition that includes the belief without basis, which is exactly what you've demonstrated so far. You appear to think that there is knowledge contained within these writings, but you've not shown the slightest shred of evidence that this is in any way true.

-"Well then how else am I supposed to show you what I am talking about if you don't want to take a look at the material?"

If you have any evidence i would like to see it, but i am not going to waste my time poring over so-called mystical writings because i have far better things to occupy my time with. You're the one making the claims for these writings, so it is you that assumes the burden of proof.

-"I guess it was presumptuous of me to think that you would know what I meant by extinct dinosaurs, let me clarify, extinct dinosaurs in the sense that little children play with little plastic figures of the most popular ones that we know of today."

What you said was 'It's a good thing that dinosaurs are extinct, no?' to which the obvious rejoinder is that not all of the dinosaurs were made extinct, the descendants of the survivors are still with us today, the crocodilians for example.

Me>"I'm not sure why you would find the idea that shell game is more profound than actual knowledge."

-"I don't."

From my perspective there seems to be zero knowledge being put forth by you from the writings, what appears to be the case is that knowledge is being acquired by other means and the retrospectively applied to the writings in order to make them seem more profound than they actually are. A shell game. Since you also appear to advocating that these writings are significant, i fail to see how my assessment is incorrect.

-"I'm hoping that it will come from both. I don't see a problem with that."

Science doesn't doesn't require mysticism in order to gain knowledge, it can operate just fine without it. How would mysticism gain useful knowledge in the absence of science?

-"If mysticism weren't vague it wouldn't be mysticism, would it? Not everyone is meant to have this knowledge, we've seen what knowledge in the wrong hands look like."

Again with dark portents. Mysticism doesn't seem to be at all dangerous since it doesn't represent any real knowledge, just a claim to knowledge hidden in a guise of inscrutability.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 12:02:37 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Hi light,

-"Yes I know there is a difference between religion, mysticism and spirituality, I like Sagan's quotes they ring a bell with me so I am on the right track."

So anythuing that 'resonates' is now truth? Have you heard of confirmation bias?

-"I'm curious and willing to learn and use my imagination which is included in Sagan's quotes. I am excited to get started reading his book."

As i said, his book gives context to his quotes and i don't think you will find an ally with Sagan.

-"I'll look into that and see if it's what I'm looking for, although I may take it a step further, if possible, thanks."

As a method for investigating the world around us it is unparalleled.

-"Mysticism is not a short cut to understanding, it takes years, a life time."

And what are the results of this? I note no mystics ever gain Nobel prizes, that seems to count against it. It is also a trivial truth that mystics have never made any discoveries.

-"Learning about nature is very interesting and that is part of what I mentioned but I am also looking to connect with it which will more than likely require meditation and other mystical practices."

Why? Why is it that you seek ornaments to understanding? Isn't it enough that you can connect directly with nature and gain understanding, are you not gilding the lily?

-"Kabbalah teaches about string theory multiple dimensions and universes, unity with nature, metaphysical cause and effect, quantum gravity, meditation......."

Those claims originate from you and i am very sceptical that you can provide the least shred of evidence that Kabbalah teaches anything about string theory or dimensions and especially quantum gravity.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 12:16:32 GMT
Ian says:
"It's a good thing that dinosaurs are extinct, no?' to which the obvious rejoinder is that not all of the dinosaurs were made extinct"

I thought the obvious rejoinder was "Not if you're a dinosaur".

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 12:43:55 GMT
AJ Murray says:
I guess that the obviousness of obvious rejoinders is itself subjective. Obviously!

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 14:24:48 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"To what end do you consider species to be "evolving" towards? "

Species do not evolve towards an end there is no goal or direction associated with evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 14:35:37 GMT
Spin says:
G: I agree. But I object to he term "Evolution". A video game can be said to "Evolve" from an idea to an existential reality. An argument can "Evolve", etc. The term implies an end-state, a movement towards something attainable or unattainable. The term "Evolution" gives a false impression of Natural Selection. In the consideration of the phrase "The Theory of Evolution of the species by natural selection" too many folk place the emphasis on "Evolution" than on Natural selection". The word"Evolution" in terms of natural selection, simply means "development" not "progression". It was Darwins mistake to use this term.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 14:42:51 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

Evolution in the biological sense has a well defined meaning. If people miss use language that it their problem.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 14:51:49 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 04:48:59 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 22:59:44 GMT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  338
Initial post:  20 Jan 2013
Latest post:  1 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions