jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (81 posts)

Scientist describing how science (reprehensibly) suppressed Religion

  1. W Vidal profile image56
    W Vidalposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7253528_f248.jpg
    How did science get so focused on the material, and why is materialism on shaky ground? Here is Bruce H. Lipton (Curriculum Vitae - http://www.brucelipton.com/curriculum-vitae/) , talking on the felonious suppression of religion, by science.

    "Science originated to challenge the faith-based dogma of the church, by describing and measuring phenomena in the physical world, and then making conclusions based on those observations. In a “détente” between two ideological superpowers, science was given domain over the physical and visible world, religion got custody of the metaphysical and invisible.

    When Newton was able to predict the movement of clockwork universe without God or spirit, it was assumed that eventually science would be able to explain the entirety of existence merely by observing the physical world in finer and finer detail.

    However, a funny thing happened on the way to absolute faith in matter. Quantum physics ultimately revealed that the material world itself is a matrix of entangled energy that science calls “the field,” that is oddly similar to the “invisible moving force” that religion refers to as spirit.
    By ignoring nonmaterial reality, science has omitted at least half of reality – and the portion that Einstein believed was the most important."

    http://www.brucelipton.com/spontaneous- … l-answers/

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      When morons are replacing scientists, what more one should expect?

      1. W Vidal profile image56
        W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exemplify your argument by naming a living scientist, that you consider 'sane' or 'intelligent'.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It would be difficult to get even a dead scientist!
          Science started as a rational explanation of nature instead of the magical, illogical and even idiotic and contradictory explanation religion offered.
          Physics stopped being physics when a mathematician who had no hypothesis, who merely offered a mathematical description for gravity, was hailed as one of the greatest scientist.

          1. W Vidal profile image56
            W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "was hailed as one of the greatest scientist." -It should be, "one of the greatest scientists."

            Anyway, I found no example in your post.

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Try typing from a touch screen mobile!!

              This has nothing to do with the OP nor the point I made.

              1. W Vidal profile image56
                W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I requested an example of a scientist that you consider 'sane' or 'intelligent'. You couldn't provide one. If you consider Lipton to be a 'moron', then one can expect you to make it clear as what you consider to be the opposite of that.

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It is not 'who!, it is "what is considered rational". One who says nonsense as a scientist is a moron.

                  Why not Darwin?

                  1. W Vidal profile image56
                    W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What makes you think that what Lipton says is irrational, and what Darwin says is rational? On what basis did you make that differentiation?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is one of most ridiculous and misinformed conclusions I've ever read from a doctor.

    3. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you actually suggesting the science should not study anything they cannot see. Like gravity for example. Should science leave gravity for the religious to figure out? Science has no interest in religion. Religion is not part of the equation. I wish Religion had no interest in science, but there they go teaching ID in science class.

    4. pennyofheaven profile image79
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dogma in science can suppress much just as dogma in religion can.

      He is one extraordinary genetic scientist!

      I like his discovery about cells and the genes. Where scientists once thought the nucleus was the brain of the cell, experiments have shown that it is not true. I was watching him the other day and a lot of what he says makes huge sense to my non scientific mind.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Dumbed down and mysticised so it makes sense to some one who doesn't understand science.

        That about sums it up. wink

        http://thaumaturgical.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/too-stupid.png

        1. pennyofheaven profile image79
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So it makes no sense to you then?  Only scientist that agree with the dogma that you subscribe to do?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No - it makes no sense.

            What you said makes a lot of sense. You like it because you don't understand science. This is what this charlatan is banking on.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image79
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps you are right in that I like it for that reason. We might never know what it is he is banking on?  Only time will tell whether or not his experiments and theories are proven or disproved. Scientist in the same field have the ability to speak up and prove otherwise.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That has already been done. Sorry.

                Reprehensible suppression of religion?
                Felonious suppression of religion?

                What experiments are these that show the invisible "spirit" realm?

                Clue - invisible. lol lol

                1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                  pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps you are on a different tangent?

                  Because...What experiments to show the invisible spirit realms are you talking about?

                  If you read my post, it was referring to the stem cell experiments that he did proving the nucleus was not the brain of the cell. For years this was thought to be true by fellow scientist. He proved that the cell is influenced and changed by its environment and not the blueprint of the genes.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What? He proved no such thing - sorry. He expressed a religious opinion - no proving involved. He is a religious Quack.

                    Probably that is why what he says makes sense to you? Because it fits your Majikal Dogma? lol

                    http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress … ffoon-phd/
                    http://bayblab.blogspot.fr/2007/12/quac … nline.html
                    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/ … h-help-fr/

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But, to scientists, Lipton is a quack of the first order. He supports crank theories that have been shown to kill people.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image79
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Do you mean like Einstein was rejected by other scientists too? For several years his theory on relativity was controversial. His quanta theory was rejected for 14 years before it was finally accepted.

          What crank theories might that be that have killed people? Theories do not kill last time I heard.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Einsteins theories were not refuted, Liptons were. A little more info for you non-scientific mind.



            Liptons support for holistic therapies, of course.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image79
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Google Einstein and you might find his theories were not accepted initially. At least not the one's I mentioned.

              I didn't know he supports holistic therapies? I see nothing wrong with holistic healing. What is wrong with that in your mind? How many have been killed by holistic therapies as opposed to misdiagnosis by conventional medicine? Google that too if you like? You might be surprised to find the study that says 40000 ICU deaths were due to misdiagnosis.

              Medical Schools are apparently offering holistic courses to their students, so conventional medicine obviously do not dismiss it's usefulness. Nurses here do aromatherapy courses in the initial stages. Go figure.

              I have always thought they should work together and now it seems they very well could be.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Is that the opinion of a non-scientific mind?



                So, according to your logic, one form of dying is okay, you see nothing wrong with it. Again, is that the opinion of a non-scientific mind?



                Certainly not the ones that are well know bunkum, which is what Lipton supports.

                1. Arox profile image60
                  Aroxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It seems technology is your religion. And science too. Be well dear.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yet, a new sock puppet emerges. Obsessions aren't healthy dude. LOL

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    That's hilarious as satire. Because that's the only way I can read it.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    "Science originated to challenge the faith-based dogma of the church" ?  Sorry, that is simply incorrect.

    Science originated as an effort to understand the world around us.  To find the truth in questions about nature rather than make wild guesses and claims based solely on what a "researcher" wanted to be truth.

    Although it obviously did (and does) challenge many of the tenets of religion, that is not the purpose of science.  Just understanding and knowledge.

    1. pisean282311 profile image52
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @wild exactly.....science never originate to challenge faith based dogma...science and faith based dogma originated parallely....when people in jungle believed some supernatural ate up sun , some group also developed stone tools for practical utility....science is approach to understand things rationally , faith is approach to label things which we dont understand rationally....

  4. profile image0
    jomineposted 4 years ago

    Hypotheses non fingo.

    I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.

  5. W Vidal profile image56
    W Vidalposted 4 years ago

    Well, scientists do make mistakes. You must check the validity of their arguments. The problem is to find the ultimate arbiter who can decide the validity.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Have you ever heard of the 'peer review' process?

      1. W Vidal profile image56
        W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Seemingly, no one ever heard that, except you. The point of my argument was quite different there.

    2. profile image0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The ultimate arbiter is called 'reason' and 'logic', try it.

      1. W Vidal profile image56
        W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They depend on certain conditions. One one them is awareness. Another one, which is very interesting, is access to the latest available knowledge. There is no ultimate reason or ultimate logic.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ultimate logic?
          Logic is a system of inference which
          works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit
          DERIVATION!
          It has nothing to do with absolutes, but only validity.

          1. W Vidal profile image56
            W Vidalposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That validity is relative. That's the point.

        2. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ...and the latest available knowledge is that God, through His son Jesus Christ, is Creator of the universe, and He works in ways so mysterious that man cannot know .
          amen

          1. profile image60
            isaacoolbeansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ...No.

  6. pennyofheaven profile image79
    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago

    No idea if it was an opinion of a non scientific mind, you will have to ask Wikipedia if it came from a non scientific mind or not?

    I said I see nothing wrong with holistic therapies. There is a huge difference between seeing nothing wrong with a method of healing and what you are implying. Where did I say there is nothing wrong with one form of dying? I also see nothing wrong with conventional medicine.

    People have died in both methods. More according to the statistics n the conventional healing methods. So what might you be getting at that I am not understanding? Do you mean people die needlessly when they choose the holistic therapies? And do you mean that if they use conventional methods they are less likely to die? If that's what you mean the statistics prove that more people die through conventional methods.

    At the end of the day though we are all going to die. Sometimes holistic or conventional methods cannot, or rather do not have the skill to intervene in the dying process. That is just the way it is.

    What are the well known bunkum you are referring to?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously, there are more people who do use conventional medical services than holistic. The point is that conventional medical services work and holistic don't. Those who tried holistic died because they actually needed conventional, not the other way round.

      1. Arox profile image60
        Aroxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What's the point?

      2. pennyofheaven profile image79
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In some cases that is true, in some cases it is not.

        A friend of mines Mum was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The cancer specialist said she was riddled with it and there was nothing that they could do except try to ease the pain via doses of morphine. According to the specialist she only had three months to live.

        His Mum requested that they take her to a healer. My friend and his sisters were against it but their Mum was adamant. They eventually honoured her request even though they felt it was pointless. She died on the healers table.

        Here is the most amazing thing. When they did the autopsy there was no cancer to be found in any part of the body. They could not find a cause for her death.

        So..Either the specialist in conventional medicine was wrong in his diagnosis and the healer played no special role
        or...The specialist in conventional medicine was right and the healer played a special role in healing the cancer.

        The mystery is..She died even though there was no cancer. No one knows why. This reinforces what I said when intervention by conventional or alternative methods may do little in the dying process.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Strange they would do an autopsy on someone who was diagnosed with a terminal cancer?

          1. pennyofheaven profile image79
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know? It might be standard practice here? My Mum had an autopsy done and she had cancer too. My sister's baby had an autopsy done. How do they find the cause of death without an autopsy?

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If she was in the late stage of cancer they know the cause of death.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hmmm both his Mum and my Mum were in late stages of cancer? (At different times) My Mum died of heart failure not cancer, she still had the cancer though? Maybe that is why they do autopsies, because it seems they do not always die of the disease they are supposed to die of.  I don't know?

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My mom didn't have an autopsy.

                  "In fact, most people do not get an autopsy when they die. In cases of suspicious deaths, the medical examiner or coroner can order an autopsy to be performed, even without the consent of the next of kin. In all other cases (not of a medicolegal nature) the next-of-kin must give consent before an autopsy can be performed."

                  taken from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ … ekey=77553

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe autopsy isn't the correct term to use?

                    I just googled the coroners role in New Zealand and apparently they are the ones that determine whether or not an autopsy is done. Their role is to determine cause of death and can direct whether or not an autopsy needs to be done. So I have no idea how they do this and how they find the causes of death when they don't do an autopsy? Maybe they have other ways of determining causes of death?

                    In the case of my friends Mum and my Mum, the coroner must have deemed it necessary to do an autopsy or it wasn't an autopsy at all and was only determined the inquisitional process (apparently that is what the coroner does? What that means, I don't know?) and came to the conclusions that they did.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Or, more accurately, she had a maximum of approximately three months to live based on the diagnosis, which is based on evidence of past cancer patients.



          Then obviously, the healer killed the woman right then and there.



          If the cancer was cured by the healer, the woman should have rose from the table and walked out the door.

          Your ridiculous story is just that, ridiculous. Autopsies don't reveal cancer, they reveal cause of death.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image79
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am just telling you how it was. If it is ridiculous to you I can do little about what you think about it.

            People die for all sorts of reasons. It is obvious she did not die of cancer. Why she did not get up and walk away is anyone's guess.

            If you are buying into the fact that healers can kill, you are buying into the fact that healers have some sort of special magic ability.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I suspect you're probably making it all up, like you've done so much in the past and have been caught red handed in the process.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Haha! Perhaps in your dreams that is true. You are entitled to dream.

 
working