Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thats right. As the "object", or life, increases in size some physical changes have to take place to move the resources around to "just live".
Why cant a cell be forty feet wide? What happens to DNA when the strand is way to long? Maybe the strand is broken up and encapsulated to perform "Life only lives".
Is it because they are at higher risk to cause injury any health-care worker's back?
Funny, but there is physical limitations that have to be over come. There are physical reason a cell wont be forty feet wide. There must be physical changes so that "life will live". Then there are size limits to an organism. But its just a collection of pieces "living to live".
One simple step bigger. The organisms break up so that life can just live. Its not a stretch. Its not assertion. Its so simple that I can only see one reason to fight it with every last breath. Because its not about logic and beliefs that are consistent with observation. Its about telling the people what to believe even though it counters observation.
"awareness". well, I mean, we are is a sea of awareness. Again, a simple notion, not a stretch by any means. In fact, its so simple "lack belief" is really an indication that learning needs to take place. And I am told to shut up and sit down because we are fighting religion.
you have shared that your lady companion does Reiki. let's say someone gets a Reiki session and states that they feel better. is what they are saying "true" ? is it "correct"? Do you consider Reiki to be "true" or "correct" ? What do you base that on? Is someone who practices Reiki a charlatan, dishonest, and deceiving others?
That's a very interesting point you raise.
I don't know what to make of it. I'm hearing reports of significant results. I do not think Reiki practitioners or charlatans, no. The lady who told me my son was there and what he was saying, was not being dishonest. It was what she was sensing. But was she really sensing it or simply imagining it? I don't know. All I know is that what she said my son was saying didn't make sense. I believe he would have said something else so I was not convinced.
I don't know what to make of it. I'm hearing reports of significant results. I do not think Reiki practitioners or charlatans, no. The lady who told me my son was there and what he was saying, was not being dishonest. It was what she was sensing. But was she really sensing it or simply imagining it? I don't know. All I know is that what she said my son was saying didn't make sense. I believe he would have said something else so I was not convinced.
In addition to Reiki practitioners, there are also people who receive Reiki and state they receive positive beneficial results from Reiki. Are practitioners "making it up" that Reiki does anything? Are recipients of Reiki "imagining" the benefits? The point is, there can be beneficial results (with Reiki for instance, that is an example) regardless of whether a person or science can explain or understand how something works.
when you use words like "correct" and "true" to evaluate something, how do those apply when the results vary from person to person as they do with, for instance, different healing modalities. Do you discount or discard something as "not true" "not correct" "imaginary" when it is effective?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 03-02-2021 at 06:41 PM..
You are talking about the framework here, not the claims. Again, What claim, right or wrong has science made where religion has come up with a better answer?
For example, science claimed that half the universe’s ordinary matter was missing — and may have been found. Does religion have a better answer?
You are defining science in the best possible light and defining religion in a not so good light.
Science is merely defined as: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Not only has science made innocent mistakes, science, the activity of the study of the natural world has purposefully pushed evils like seen by the Nazis, which was used to promote the industrialization of murder, sterilization, rape, etc. I would argue that religions that promote equality and non-aggression have a better answer to that sort of science.
Science and religion are both pursuits that need a proper moral framework and ethic guidelines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Not to mention that science is continually trying to find out if it HAS made wrong claims so as to correct them, while religion refuses to search and see if it is possibly making false claims . The very nature of the difference between scientific and religious claims. Religion has no desire to find out if what it claims stands up to reason . Science tries to disprove even its legendary heroes, like Einstein
I don't think you and I understand religion the same way I do. To me, religion is the seeking of truth.
I could say this for many different "types" or "denominations" of religion.
However, I will do what I am most familiar with... the Society of Friends started specifically to pursue truths. It sought to leave the Church of England, which dictated the beliefs to the people. Expectant waiting and looking to one's inner light is a process of seeking the truth.
In the Quaker church/meeting house there is no hierarchy. All can speak and all have value with their words. There can be disagreements...that is okay...people may change minds...that is okay...this is seeking truth.
Having core values like inalienable rights, equality, pacifism, etc....comes from our seeking of truth.
I believe you are wrong to say that religion refuses to see if it is possibly making false claims.
Not to mention that science is continually trying to find out if it HAS made wrong claims so as to correct them, while religion refuses to search and see if it is possibly making false claims . The very nature of the difference between scientific and religious claims. Religion has no desire to find out if what it claims stands up to reason . Science tries to disprove even its legendary heroes, like Einstein
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker
No.
Science gets things wrong often.
You are defining science in the best possible light and defining religion in a not so good light.
Science is merely defined as: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Not only has science made innocent mistakes, science, the activity of the study of the natural world has purposefully pushed evils like seen by the Nazis, which was used to promote the industrialization of murder, sterilization, rape, etc. I would argue that religions that promote equality and non-aggression have a better answer to that sort of science.
Science and religion are both pursuits that need a proper moral framework and ethic guidelines.
I don't think you and I understand religion the same way I do. To me, religion is the seeking of truth.
I could say this for many different "types" or "denominations" of religion.
However, I will do what I am most familiar with... the Society of Friends started specifically to pursue truths. It sought to leave the Church of England, which dictated the beliefs to the people. Expectant waiting and looking to one's inner light is a process of seeking the truth.
In the Quaker church/meeting house there is no hierarchy. All can speak and all have value with their words. There can be disagreements...that is okay...people may change minds...that is okay...this is seeking truth.
Having core values like inalienable rights, equality, pacifism, etc....comes from our seeking of truth.
I believe you are wrong to say that religion refuses to see if it is possibly making false claims.
I agree with QB. I posted earlier on the LGBT thread in response to another who says that their church has believed the way it has believed for 2000 years so it is right that no, other churches have done a deep dive into self-examination and have come to understand that the church has made grave errors and has to rectify them.
That in the name of science it was okay to conduct forced/covert medical experiments on humans.
nipped for space ...
Both need a proper moral framework and a code of ethics.
I have stated a number times that the biggest difference I see is how we handle questioning.
Science;
"Did I say anything that asked you to believe in sometime that counters what you know?"
and
"please, if you are not sure, go talk to as many people as you can and learn about what we said.".
And the biggie:
"go prove us wrong, how cool would that be? I was wrong my whole life and you just taught me something new about how "god" works."
Compare that religion.
"release all that you know and ..."
"all you need to know is right here in this ..."
"The strength in your faith is how you are judged."
There are times that we have to say "just trust me". They say it all the time in school. But there is a huge difference. Its "trust the process" not the claim.
I believe you are wrong to say that religion refuses to see if it is possibly making false claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
I agree with QB. I posted earlier on the LGBT thread in response to another who says that their church has believed the way it has believed for 2000 years so it is right that no, other churches have done a deep dive into self-examination and have come to understand that the church has made grave errors and has to rectify them.
OK, interesting topic for discussion. Let's look at this then. I stand by my statement, but let me clarify it more for discussion.
Science at its core is about trying to test and disprove it's ideas and theories. Science doesn't try to prove its ideas right, it tries to prove them wrong, and if repeated attempts at disproving them fail, then the idea begins to be accepted as a possibly correct one. It then is subjected to even more rigorous testing in the peer review process where other scientists who didn't participate in the original testing try and shoot down the idea .If they fail, then the idea begins to move into the area of accepted science, with the caveat that new information may come later that shows this wrong. Science never accepts it is absolutely correct. Einstein overturned Newton. Scientists today try and overturn Einstein, as well as Hawkings. Testing even the iconic legends is an accepted tenet of science .
I don't see this in religion. Religion is about accepting it's tenets on faith. Christianity makes a virtue of believing without evidence. Doubting Thomas was chided for asking for proof, and those who believed without proof were elevated above Thomas . Those who question the faith are often shunned and kicked out. They even have a specific name for them. Heretics. Sometimes heretics are even tortured and killed.
So I believe those claiming that religion examines itself to be sure it's beliefs are true need to show this. The RCC, for example had , and may still have, a department whose job it is to sniff out and deal with heresies . But some guidelines on showing this.
1) I am referring to the institutional churches, not random believers. It is about whether the church itself, in it's official sectarian parts , has ever officially tested it's doctrines for validity. For example, transsubstantiation and the other names it goes by in other sects. Has it ever been officially tested with the idea of chunking it if it failed testing? What about prayer? Has any church ever done tests on prayer to see if prayer worked, or what the success rate of prayer is? Prayer almost certainly has an abysmal success rate on asking for specific things, as relatives of every sick and injured person can attest to.
2) I am not referring to changes in churches that weren't official doctrine. Slavery, for example. Slavery was never an official approved doctrine of any church. It sort of allowed certain types of slavery/servitude , but was never an approved doctrine.
3) I am not talking about churches making changes that have been brought on by societal progress that drug churches along. Homosexuality, for example. Most churches have moved on homosexuality from the bottom up. Society accepted it, then individual members of more liberal churches accepted it, then these members caused a bottom up change in church policy. The Piskies, for example. They are liberal because their members are liberal, not the other way around. Much of the Anglican world is very conservative. Piskies are out of step with Anglicanism as a whole because of a bottom up change by its members, not a top down review process by the Anglican Church.
I can see that the Quakers MIGHT be different, but they are one very small segment of Christianity, and an even tinier segment of religion as a whole. That they might follow a different path doesn't change the whole of Christianity, and certainly not Islam and Hinduism, plus the other smaller religions.
So, what can be offered to show where any religion continually examines it's doctrines of it's own accord in a relentless search for the truth, rather than as a result of change being forced on them by society?
I can see that the Quakers MIGHT be different, but they are one very small segment of Christianity, and an even tinier segment of religion as a whole. That they might follow a different path doesn't change the whole of Christianity, and certainly not Islam and Hinduism, plus the other smaller religions.
So, what can be offered to show where any religion continually examines it's doctrines of it's own accord in a relentless search for the truth, rather than as a result of change being forced on them by society?
The percentage of "Quaker think types" is the same throughout all of humans. Because, Like I tried to show you, its about being human first. atheist and theist think like humans. in general.
20% of the population cares enough to think it through. That number will be consistent through all people. With 20% not capable of it. 60% are just trying to get through this life the best way they can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
