Science and religion has led to mass social order and material advancements. Arguably, these were necessary developments in our human evolution. However, in either case, they have set rules to the understanding of our existence based on human decisions that have dictated these two path’s as those to which we should conform. Our clear lack of understanding of how to interact with our natural surroundings, appreciation of the effects of planetary movements in our skies and how to survive on our own two feet in the event of natural disaster are some of the things that I regard as unnerving to say the least.
We are completely reliant on and indoctrinated by the aforementioned beliefs and controlled by a relatively small group of individuals that manipulate our every thought through media, education and law enforcement. Religion acts as our morality and science as our fact but our true connection to reality has been beaten out of us alongside our freedom to observe it with an open mind.
It seems to me that Humanity is approaching a ‘dead end’ in our modern virtual existence and the time approaches to re-engage with our true reality. As we battle over the last dwindling oil reserves, struggle to feed an over populated Globe and look on helplessly at the power of Mother Nature’s retaliation, I sense that science and religion offer neither the answers nor the solutions to our continued survival. Only in the return to the reality of our natural existence can we progress from this point onward which is a steep learning curve for many of us on this planet.
Science and truthful Religion are both needed for advancement of the human life. The religion broadens our vision of life.
If I could shake your hand I would.
Very few have I met that even come close to this conclusion.
The husband & wife ( science/religion aka The Ism ©™ ) have done quite enough and forced their wares upon mankind far too long. But, there time is up. Humanism is nearly done and the time for true humanity is on the horizon.
The end of demigods and doctrines self, the end of experiments and techno-"logical" advances, teary-eyed mumblings beneath statues of painted clay...
Science Fiction is the only true religion.;)Praise Assimov!
You think that a non-scientific 'appreciation of the effects of planetary movements in our skies' is the answer? It's been tried. It's called astrology and is as useless today as it has been since its earliest beginnings.
Religion does not 'act as our morality'. Ethics and morality should not be rooted in the supernatural.
Straight off the blocks you express a typically blinkered scientific view. Anything unexplainable through science is supernatural or mystical...
Seems to me you are the one with the blinkered view. Look at any population in nature. They exhibit typical boom and bust patterns - even to the point of extinction and replacement with new species.
This is perfectly normal, natural behavior. All animals will eat and thrive until such times as they have reduced their food supply, then food becomes scarce and the population is culled through starvation.
The crazy thing is - we are in a position to understand this and actually do something about it before nature culls us.
Science could actually save us if we choose to use it wisely, but we need to step out of the "natural order." of things.
Not really interested in any explanations you have for things unseen that involve esoteric knowledge - this always become religion.
Stop looking at it from a personal perspective and your obvious alarm that you perceive yourself incapable of survival in the event of a natural disaster and see it from a "natural" perspective. We are animals and headed the way all animals go - adapt or die. We can choose to anticipate this though - if we can stop being selfish for a while.
No harm in taking benefit from science and technology to improve our life.They have come out very naturally as set by the Creator-God for our benefit.
Of course you are not interested in any explanation because you know all already. Your wish is fulfilled, good luck!
No - I am not interested in your explanation of things unseen - because that always produces religion - even if you cannot understand that and think otherwise. But - Like all good religionists who think they have an answer - you completely ignored everything I said except for that.
Why let a few factual observations get in the way of a good piece of revealed knowledge?
Stop looking at it from a personal perspective? Why must I look at it from your personal perspective? Religionist? I am a complete non-believer. Boom and bust in nature? What are you talking about? You are a delusional science head who cannot think outside of your indoctrination.
I have not dismissed science in my statement, I simply point out my view that I think it and religion have detached us from our original natural connections with the planet and that is where need to return...
Not anything unexplainable. There are many things that science hasn't (yet) explained.
What science doesn't attempt to explain is the wholly unobservable. After all, why should it? If something is unobservable, then it is supernatural by definition, or, more probably, simply does not exist.
Supernatural is a word not a definition and we made it up. What has science actually achieved? Really, think about it...
Certainly it enables us to talk over long distances on a PC, enables us to live longer for what its worth but not necessarily healthier, advised us on how to exploit and destroy the planet, helped create sophisticated weaponry to kill each other en mass etc, etc...
It certainly has not answered any questions on how/why we are here or where we shall end up because it has not got a clue. I do not claim to know the answer and do not see any reason to either. Science blinkers the mind into believing what cannot be repeated through experiment should be ignored and dismissed. It is that failing which has taken us down a destructive path because some of the necessary answers it seeks are not mathematical or creatable in a laboratory . What is clear is that we have become detached from our natural existence which is the only tangible purpose to our lives.
How YOU are here? Do you not know how YOU got here?
Why YOU are here? Have you not enough knowledge about yourself to create your purpose or meaning of life?
Where will end up? You'll end up dead. To think you would end up anywhere else is mysticism gone awry.
And, to your final statement with regards to YOU being detached from YOUR natural existence? If you feel unattached to nature, then I suggest you seek psychiatric help.
Other than that- all science has to do is continue to explore reality and add new knowledge to the collective existence of the human species.
So tell me about your obvious natural connection then? No, no, actually, let me guess? You buy only organically grown products? sort your trash thoughtfully into the appropriate recycling bins? Use lead free petrol? Go to the park occasionally or even take walks in the countryside?
First off, you didn't bother answering my questions, then again you have no need to answer.
I don't answer to you nor do I answer to nature either. Therefore it's irrelevant.
Your questions reinforce my point. You see the World from a blinkered view. All I know is that we exist and physically we are born and we die. I cannot say if consciously that is also the case but that's another debate which will probably explode your one dimensional mind.
Scientists suggest we came from a big bang? That is pure speculation from looking through a telescope and making an assumption. Religion reckons the creator created us? What created the creator? Man, that's who.
Explode my one dimensional mind? Ironically, the mind can never be one dimensional, therefore I guess it shows your own limited blinkered view.
I make no assumption and don't care what science has to say on the subject, considering it has no impact on my life. But, it is nice to see you lack faith in the human species. Good to know for future communications.
Those who seek out religion for answers are irresponsible and selfish.
I'm not interested, nor do I need to know. Just those who fail to be responsible with themselves and those in their surroundings are the people who play that game.
So, I guess, I could say, thank you for nothing.
I am not sure how you have deduced that I lack faith in humanity? I simply point out my own observations of the human journey to date and its consequences. I don't know if you have noticed the diminishing natural resources on this planet, mass starvations, expanding deserts etc... while those in the developed World get fatter by the day? I am not not pushing the green button or moral doom, just mentioning the obvious things to which we close our eyes as long as we're OK. Well, why wait until it's not OK? You have drawn your own conclusion on me and that's fine with me. I cannot dictate peoples opinions. The mind works within the limitations of its user...
You start this thread touting about science and religion, then you go on to say about other things, like the usage of particular things. You degrade science for certain things, as though it is bad. You degrade religion? Which I really don't have a problem with because it's selfish based to begin with.
However, the mind is a wonderful tool we each have to use and if people fail in their responsibility to themselves, then why on Earth would they be responsible with other things?
Don't take this the wrong way, but your OP appears to be suggesting something completely different that the average person who read it wouldn't understand it to begin with.
Try teaching to people's level, instead of assuming that they automatically know and understand what you are driving at.
Last time I checked, it was better to teach a man to fish, so he would be able to feed himself, than it is to give a man fish to feed himself for a meal.
It's all about education, which the top 1% of the wealthiest on the planet rather not do or aid in doing.
overpopulation etc would still be a problem if no science. People would still be coming up with superstitious reasons why people died/got sick (just like many do now).
prior to science, people didn't take issue with using any resource they found without care to the future
doubt you would be enjoying modern comforts
I don't agree. Prior to science, if we did not take care of our resources we simply starved and died. Science has taught us how to exploit our resources beyond the limitations of what we actually need to survive. Just look at the volume of food and wastage in our Western societies and problems with obesity. The knock on effect in our money oriented World where large conglomerates control our food supply and resources is that even those in less developed countries can no longer access fertile, arable land to comfortably survive by natural means.
Again, with religion we stopped idolising the land, animals, sun, moon, rain etc... These were the important things in our lives that enabled our survival. Instead our worship became directed towards Jesus, Mohamed, Jehovah and the invisible god that is commonly portrayed in the image of man. We have become detached from the reality of our natural existence.
Modern comforts are exclusive to the rich developed nations and not the majority of the planet. It would be difficult not to have these comforts while we have become used to them but you would not miss something you never had.
it is because survival instinct has gone too far to greed.
It's not the fault of science. It's because humans want beyond their needs. Before people even met their needs, they hardly met their needs - were uncomfortable and lacked food etc. Another reason to beg the gods to bless them.
Nowadays, people find it hard to meet their electricity bill
Cagsil - I truly appreciate your contribution to this debate and respect yours and every one's opinions. I hope you are not offended by my slightly antagonistic style.
Peace & Love
I am responding to this comment, because you responded to the same comment twice, yet to find my previous post or are you planning on neglecting that one?
I was not offended by your comment.
I responded before your last question. In no way do I see myself as a teacher, that would be arrogant and presumptuous. Everyone has the same right to their own opinions and views of life.
You kind of reinforce my point by saying that 'the average person who read it wouldn't understand it to begin with'. I believe it to be the way our minds are indoctrinated, whether one accepts that or not, that makes my view difficult to comprehend. We have been set clear boundaries to our thinking which causes us to be sceptical or pessimistic towards alternative opinion. If people find that hard to swallow, all I can do is try to elaborate on my views with the hope one can appreciate what I am trying to say.
In saying that 'the mind is a wonderful tool we each have to use and if people fail in their responsibility to themselves, then why on Earth would they be responsible with other things?' slightly contradicts your view that I lack faith in the human species?
Your last two sentences resonate with me completely and I fully agree that education is the key. However, realisation must come first.
Yes, everyone has the same right to their opinions and views of life, but learning is key, and if you cannot see yourself as a teacher as an aspect, then how do you plan to get through to them? It's not arrogance or even presumptuous.
Right but if you say something to someone, then have to explain that something to that person, such as elaborate further, then still cannot get it across, then you have to put more effort into explaining. Thus, you are acting like a teacher. I only asked that you come down to their level, instead of doing it from a height they are unable to comprehend with to begin with.
It doesn't contradict anything with regard to you, because I wasn't talking about YOU. I was talking about the average person, who nowadays is dumber than a rock. If you haven't noticed that, then please open your eyes. I have faith in people to learn, but they have to chose to do so. Just like you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make the horse drink.
Realization? First comes acceptance of self? They need to understand themselves, before that realization can come to pass.
Just because science cannot truck with the unobservable, does not mean it is to blame for any lacking therein.
Don't blame science for the failings of religion.
science has achieved a whole lot more than religion
It is very natural to believe in the Creator-God and the Word He revealed on the Truthful Persons called Messengers and Prophets.
Religion merely stole morality and twisted it into something hugely unrecognizable as such.
Pessimism certainly abounds in these forums. So I don't see any harm in expressing my jaded view. Science and religion have contributed important things in making us who we are. We will need science to find the path out of this mess we've created. We'll need religion to come out of the dark ages.
I see the problem with the world as selfishness. We in the developed nations are unwilling to accept the fact that business as usual is going to kill us all. The developing nations are unwilling to accept that to attempt to attain our lifestyle will also produce the same effect. We all want what is best for us, alone. In the short term of our lives.
We've got to connect with our humanity, and our sense of fairness. It may be too late already, but not to try seems insane to me.
What do you mean by "we'll need religion to come out of the dark ages", may I ask? Do you believe we are currently in a dark age? Why?
In many ways, yes. I do not mean to offend the individual with this statement. I do think that people are basically good and intelligent. But the primary thing I see religion standing in the way of (and this is simply Christianity, I don't know what the other two monotheistic religions' take on the end of all things is) is the ability to fix this mess. Everyone seems to be waiting on an external solution. I have no idea if christianity is right, but if it is not it is inhibiting the ability to face the problem head on. We created this problem and if that mindset is in the way of a solution, it must be forced to change. In my opinion.
It is to clear this mess that the Creator-God has sent Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 as a reformer being awaited by almost all revealed religions with symbolic names like Jesus Second Coming, the Promised Messiah, Imam Mahdi, Krishna or Buddha in Second Coming; it is one reformer for the whole world with different names in differen languages and different cultures.
He is to set right all the humanity on the right path of the Creator-God Allah YHWH with reasaonable and rational arguments, very peacefully.
OK. If that's how it pans out, that will probably take care of the problem alright.
However, I believe we should prepare for a different contingency.
And what is that contingency plan? Please, feel free to express yourself.
How would you like to start to perform your moral duty or to mend our evil ways?
We are good listeners and encourage you.
you're having fun at my expense now, you think. I'm laughing too, but please keep this frame of mind. It sits well on you.
I thought you have ideas to mend our evil world. Don't you?
We've all got ideas on how to make things better paar . If I had the answer to the environmental problems I certainly hope I wouldn't be spinning my wheels here.
The answer is simple, stop destroying the planet, live within our means, reconnect with our natural surroundings, respect mother nature and fulfil our duty to only use the food and resources necessary for our individual survival.
In one of many respects, the "Dark Ages" are referred to as Bronze Age superstitious thinking. It's collapse was led on by the advent of critical thinking, logic and reason.
How then can religion bring us out of the dark ages if it was religions that put us there in the first place?
I disagree with the OP. Science and religion has its good and bad but overall contributed to civilization's evoution. Jefsaid, I think you're just focusing on all the bad things that are happening. Tragic things have happened and will continue to happen for as long as people and the natural world exists. Good things have happened too and will continue to happen, they just don't get a lot of publicity.
Hey Flightkeeper, I don't think you completely understood the OP. No offense intended, but it's not the bad or good that the OP is talking about.
For the sake of argument, read James' post...the post right before yours. See, if you understand that one. Again, no offense intended.
hmm...well man.... is usually the culprit not God. Man runs religions. We are the ones that interpret the message, live it out. We are the ones that breed war and destruction. It is not God! But man that leads other's astray. I will never take the excuse that God created world's problems whether it be religion, or of any other nature. We are to blame for our own actions, behaviors, and responsibility in creating what we have as we have lead religion, we have lead the chruch, we have lead wars, we have lead genocide. Did you see God actually doing it himself. We divide ourselves among the faith, and very few and inbetween actually live out the example, and even those that try their best are still fallible. It is human nature.
It's a matter of doing things our own way, not God's way!
Hattie, Agreed. Self-made morals does not seem to be working well at all. Others constantly say that people can fix their own mess. Doing things God's way is how things get accomplished.
how do you argue that religion AND sciance have led us all to our doom,.... agnosticism,... i'm ok with it if you are,.... to each his own.
Doom! That's a strong word. However, I don't know whether you have noticed the pressures being placed on our planet?
its like saying that a wrench can be used to fix a race car or to club some one over the head,... science is a tool,.... man uses science as it suits him, sometimes with no thought to the long term impacts of his actions,... in the end,... man owns the success as well as the failures,... we did it,... science did not ruin us,.... religion did not ruin us,.... we ruined ourselves,... and i hope at some point humanity learns to take the tools and fix our mess on the large scale.
other wise, we will continue to blame the tool rather than the mechanic for the earthly machine that no longer runs as it should,.... like the fork made me fat.
i had an over whelming desire to use the gun refference here but i resisted,... i'm going to reward myself with a cookie now. ha!
Well, that's a bit of a ramble and like so much of our species, it then comes down the gun...
Your poor indoctrinated thing!
We started from a natural, spiritual existence where we took what we needed, respected nature as our provider and gave back what we did not. Now we just simply take and give nothing back. It cannot go on forever and looking at the spiteful battles between religious denominations and the money oriented ego of scientific development, I do not see either as a solution. Both indoctrinate us with the belief that we are uniquely special and somewhat invulnerable when we are not.
We simply need to go back to the true purpose of our existence and reconnect with our natural surroundings. And yes! The consequences of not doing so could be devastating.
I don't think it was the 'fork' it was most probably the genetically modified beef burgers.
We created science and we created religion. Both have directed us over the last couple of thousand years and dictated the way we think and that is my point!
science and religion do not dictate the way that i think,,.....speak for yourself,.... unless that is, you mean that i carefuly observe my world, and based on those observations and also on experimentation i then come to conclusions as to how i might want to contend with any number of situations in my life,.... ok,... my bad.... i am the victim of the scientific process,.... NOT.
the blame game is the worst deffence of ones own poor actions, and victimhood has become the latest lame trophy in our increasingly self destructive culture,...
people will never own a success untill they own the failures that got them there.
i say again,...." we did it,... science did not ruin us,.... religion did not ruin us,.... we ruined ourselves,... "
Yep its that old theory ,but a sure one called cause and effect ,or accountibilty .
stclairjack - I agree with your view that we are the accountable. However, I think that part of our problem is humanity has evolved to see things from a religious/scientific perspective and drifted away from our original natural and somewhat spiritual roots where we lived within natures balance. We no longer do so and are ravaging the planet at a rate faster than it can recover.
The answer to stopping it seems fairly straightforward, live with and respect mother nature as we originally did. That does need any scientific know how or religious prayer, we just need to get and do it. We are no more special or unique and are as vulnerable as every other living thing on this planet so lets get back to our humble obligation.
i agree with the need to do this, but i would assert that humans need science even on its lowest levels,... the phisics of a lever or fulcrum,... or stones would never be moved to plow a field,.... and the agricultural science required to grow food is needed or removing the stone is useless,.... and i dont think you envisioned man kind as returning to a hunter gatherer way of life.
most importantly, you advocate removing not only science but also prayer from the equation,..... without science you will find society falling back into superstition,.... and that is hardley what you had in mind i am sure.
what i'm trying to say is that while i'm all for enchoraging people to get back to and renew thier respect for nature,.... you cant begin to do that in any positive way untill you aknowledge the nature of man himself.
man kind is a curious questioning creature,.... he seeks answers,... and if he does not have science to provide those answers,... then he will look to superstion to provide them,... the human brain abhors a blank space in knowledge, and it will fill in the blank by any means needed,.... its part of our being human,.... we question and seek,......
and that is what makes humans indeed unique among the carbon based life forms,..... wether we choose to accept the responsability of our uniqeness or not.
Superstition, spiritualism, mysticism... These are all derogatory words created by scientists to explain those things that they cannot measure. Realism I think is the overriding meaning.
I have not dismissed science as part of our evolution nor its ability to contribute to our future. However, the scientific minded have great difficulty in accepting the non-scientific theories on life which I believe are equally if not more important than technological advancement. Until this realisation takes place, we move further towards virtual rather than true reality.
You once again try to quantify something in scientific terms. You will know what true reality is by experiencing it. unfortunately, I do not know the formula and there is nothing in our scientific/religious based language to describe it...
Maybe? Funnily enough I mentioned on another post that the whole spiritual thing just resonates with my natural thought processes. I certainly did not seek to find it. If my views are similar to that of Zen then it only further reinforces my belief that something along spiritual lines exist.
In this you have a lot in common with self proclaimed psychics and many religionists. They too claim personal abilities to see and feel different things than other folks. Special gifts? Superior insight? Specially chosen by some spiritual being? Why are you special? Your thoughts on the reason?
Randy Godwin - Your off on one of your rants again. I certainly do not have any special powers and do not feel superior. Maybe you refer to your own inferiority complex...
Well being special and superior I guess I should take the stance that it is simply not worth addressing your lowly question.
I am not sure what the different abilities and things are that you suggest spiritual thinkers hold. Typically, you chuck all non-scientific things into one convenient bag labelled 'don't understand, don't want to try'.
The reality I see is within everyone's capabilities but beyond the self-inflicted boundaries science-heads set themselves and the suspicion they have of anything to which they unable to write a formula.
You are the one saying there is something invisible and "spiritual" LOLOLOLO I understand why you need to do this just fine. Without this - you are just another human bean. Now u special innit. You seez wot we dint see innit.
Please explain it to us, oh master of the unseen.
See it's statements like these. Sounds cool but really don't say anything.
Y'all may want to consider that it was also science which first voiced the same call you're making. Minus the it's-all-the-fault-of-science-and-religion part.
Then, since you as the individual cannot describe it, then the fault lays in your hands, not humanity's, which ultimate proves your view is incorrect.
Humanity has described Reality and there is no denying it, as it's clearly defined. You want to say it isn't so, then you would need to define it in better terms.
Again, since you are unable to, then (a) you don't understand it completely or (b) it's meaningless. If you cannot seen an end result producing from the thought of "spirituality", then isn't worth discussing.
You cannot describe 'reality' only experience it. I know that Science finds that a hard concept to understand because everything in its view must conform to the boundaries set by it. It is only by the removal of those restrictions that ones thought processes are free to experience the 'reality' for want of a better word.
Unfortunately, for many this state of 'unknowing' is extremely disorientating because of our scientific led belief that it is an unnatural, superstitious, mystical and inappropriate place to be. Science's principal is that only by producing evidence through repeated experiment can we prove anything but you cannot 'prove' reality as we are integral to it and it to us. You cannot predetermine your consciousness nor stand isolated from it to make scientific observation.
Correct, but this is why scientific research is peer reviewed by numerous men of knowledge. Finding the same results using different methods helps dispel any predetermination scientists may have had about a particular theory.
Any new scientific theory or claim will be thoroughly tested before it is backed by the scientific community. Spiritualists cannot check each others thoughts and feelings with any precision at all. No peer review, in other words. Accepting a spiritualist's word on private feelings they claim as enlightenment is not a dependable nor sound basis for establishing anything concrete as far as reality is concerned. No consensus, in other words.
Randy - No spiritualist expects you to accept their word. Just live your life and enjoy it, if you are happy with what you believe in.
You truly cannot see beyond yourself can you? What you are speaking of is in fact dishonesty in the making and it's done so, through mysticism. Because, as you describe- experience, the spirituality derived from it is specific to ONE side of the brain and negating the secondary section of the brain. And, that my friend is wrong. The essence of understanding self is to incorporate both sides of the brain and to get them to operate on a balanced level. One side cannot rule. If only one side rules, then objectivity cannot be obtained. Having the ability to step back from the world, view it, encompassing all that life brings to the table, is not found in the subjective nature of the human species, but in the ability to be objective and balanced. Therefore, we use the tools we have, to create that balance. You are negating tools that are useful.
Science isn't dismissing it. It has accepted that they exist and knows that specific spirituality isn't necessary for existing life.
Reality is an integral part of our consciousness, because it explains the individual perceived world. So don't sit there and say that it doesn't.
Why would I want to do that, because there is no reason to do so. Absolute none, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Our individual consciousness is a part of the universal conscious energy of the universe. We are all connected to that singular conscious energy. We are just simply too disconnected from each other to feel it, either on a "love" or "psychic" level.
The ultimate end for the human species would be able to transform/transfigure our existence into pure energy that is conscious like the universe itself. Reality exists regardless of thoughts, desires, will or wishes. That means, to be objective about understanding it, then it has nothing to do with your individual perception or what runs through your mind.
The power of the mind presently isn't being harnessed, because it is being suppressed, by those who presently have a more systematic way of using their minds.
Cagshil - You are getting yourself into a spin and continually contradicting yourself. 'Don't sit there and say that it doesn't' Wow! am I supposed to sit there and simply accept your opinion? You seem hell-bent on me seeing things from your own perspective and become hot-under-the-collar because I fail to categorically agree with you. Reality from my perspective is not a part of our conscious, we are part of it as is all existence. I think the limitations of language mean that we probably hold a different interpretation of 'reality'.
I suggest we just beg to differ, which I have no problem with. I express my belief and you yours. Every debate provides learning on both sides and I do not see my beliefs being better or worse than yours. We are just different...
Hey Jefsaid, "reality from my perspective" is subjective. Try being objective? "We are part of it as is all existence", if we are a part of it, then it is part of us, and it's a conscious decision to accept it. How is it that it is not how I said it is? Do I need to draw you picture?
No, there is only ONE interpretation to reality, the reality defined by the collective of humankind. Reality exists free from thoughts, desires, will or wishes. GOT IT? That is 'how' it IS defined. Are you trying to say that YOU are going to go in the opposite direction of the rest of us and YOU want us to follow along?
Your ego needs to be checked dude. It's NOT about you- it is however about the survival of the human species.
Of course you have no problem with it, you cannot see past yourself long enough to see anything.
You are no different than many people I run into and I'm not surprise. Subjective views are bad and objective views are better.
Secondly, where did you get that I was giving my beliefs. My beliefs are not your business. I don't form too many beliefs, because it leads to doubt. When I am sharing a belief, I will tell you that it is a belief. You want to call what I say as an opinion, fine, do so. But, don't think it's a belief.
Beliefs are not being discussed. You are discussing your beliefs and I am informing of what actually matters. Two different things entirely.
Mark, Randy and Cagshil, I am fascinated by how wound up you are by me expressing an opinion and a point of view.
Get over yourselves. I don't have any problem understanding scientific and religious points of view because I grew up with them. You are not telling me anything new. You obviously refuse to think beyond those limitations and that is your personal choice. Great!
Cagshil - Now you are picking at words like 'belief'. Woh! Calm down. Randy - You talk about 'men of knowledge'. I am sure that will exclude me but who exactly are these people with 'knowledge' superior to everyone else? Mark - I guess you are trying to be 'hip' with 'Now u special innit. You seez wot we dint see innit.' WTF does that mean! Have you been watching Ali Gee? You are obviously just a joker along for the ride because you have not actually said anything worthwhile.
It's getting boring now. Not because you refuse to believe my views but because you have simply run out of anything worth saying and just play on words. I could also keep going around in circles with you but I have actually got a life to get on with. Have fun!...
Aww - all those words and nothing of any substance or worth - you should take up religion. Oh wait - yo0u already did.
Get over ourselves? We're not the one getting upset because our own personal views of reality aren't being accepted as fact when there is nothing whatsoever to show it is.
And all of we three mentioned by you have no problem thinking outside of the box. You have your own neat little idea of how things are and I've no problem with that at all. I'm not required to put any stock in it though. It's as simple as that!
I don't get wound up by such simple things as you have posted here. So no big deal!
Jefsaid. What you're reviling there isn't science. It's capitalism.
I could tell you you're a dreamer, but then again, you're not the only one.
You are however hugely outnumbered by the extremely powerful and in charge powers that be. They'll never let you take down capitalism.
I understand what you're saying mostly, but you and twentyone with your mystical BS don't seem to realize that all either of you ever seem to advocate is in fact the making of a new religion. Only for some reason you guys seem to think it's okay, because it's your religion you have in mind, your own unfounded theories of the unknowable.
To heck with that. All this spiritualism without religion everyone wants to claim these days is just as false and decidedly pointless as the old religions, and made in the same way. I should now lay down the opinions of long dead sheepherders and take up the opinions of jefsaid!
Not gonna happen.
What I think you mean, once you let go of your spiritualism chase, is that we need to bring ethics back to the forefront and philosophy, but not that old muddled up speculation half-based on ancient religions anyway, but a new philosophy, a clear philosophy that is based on the observable.
We don't need to claim to know things we don't, or to feel things we don't, in order to embrace a new/very old morality.
We just need to defeat the capitalists.
And gosh, really? We all just don't understand? I despise that kind of thinking that refuses to look at itself. When everyone (except 21) disagrees with you, it's time to reconsider your conclusions. Not change them, reconsider them. Cause guess what? Sometimes you're wrong.
Science makes no attempt to change peoples' thinking, to impose any ideology. It has rules, which deal only with science, not with life in general. Science has long maintained that it holds no place in that realm of life.
Your gripes against it all seem misdirected to me. Eliminate science instead of unfettered capitalism, and you still have the same problems, with no hope of discovering solutions.
Everyone except 21 are precisely the blinkered thinkers to which I refer. The ratio is probably representative across the planet. You only reinforce my point with your reference to 'spiritual BS' which emphasises your indoctrinated narrow mindedness. The mind operates within the limitations of its user.
Like defending some religious cult, you science heads get all hot under the collar when your views are challenged or when faced with observing anything beyond the boundaries of your embedded indoctrination. Those who have a greater breadth of thinking are not burdened with the same issues of seeing your scientific or religious point of view.
Eliminate science? Your getting a bit carried away aren't you? Where did I say that? Capitalism is a social ideology derived from Christianity...
The point I make is that neither prayer nor sophisticated scientific tools are required for us to slow down our ravaging of our planet. We simply need to get back to our original more humble existence. It's not rocket science...
Oh jeepers, tit for tat, here we go. Cuz like, I have nothing better to do than waste time trying to reason with people whose ears are closed and whose minds are all tightly wrapped around their own little opinion.
Your spiritualism kick is cute, and I have nothing against it, it's a free world. It is my hope that when all you people claim to possess some deep nonreligious spiritualism you're really just referring to a common introspective ability, perhaps an interest in death philosophy, I'll even leave you alone with your reincarnation and flying immaterial final incarnation spiritual revelations, whatever.
The rest of us don't need spiritualism to access or stimulate our thought processes. I understand that some of you do, as well as a healthy load of feel-good. Go for it, man, if it gets you through.
You've challenged nobody's view. Sorry, I know you wish to think you have, but your position is totally insupportable, unfounded and just plain old dumb.
You've misidentified the causes of your problem. You've misunderstood science, come to the wrong conclusions and besides everything that everyone else has been trying to tell you, you're just not dealing with reality.
We need to move forward, hon. I know, it's scary out there. But that's no reason to go running back to the cave. Look it up.
You make a lot of assumptions and have your World upside down. Ones knowledge is within as is ones connection to everything around us. Quantum Physics is even starting to recognise it. You seem to have a problem, I am totally satisfied with my views on life. I am not challenging anyone's view particularly, just expressing mine.
I think your views on 'spiritualism' for want of a better word is pure ignorance. To me, it is simply the connection with the real World as opposed to the man-made one. It has nothing to do with religion and cannot be explored in a laboratory which would be like trying to perceive ones own perception. It is integral to our existence and our being so alas, it relies purely on experience and not experiment.
I guess the closest thing I can describe it to for the uninitiated is probably like a moment when you feel your death is imminent. At that point, materialism and ego go out the window and only your true purpose to life becomes important.
Huh. Hmmmm. Naw, still not making any rational sense to me.
I know I'm just the uninitiated and all, but I don't see that status ever changing. Cause I don't get any of this stuff so many of you claim, or much of buddhism either.
But wait! I also don't get the perfectly obvious! Swear I don't. Miss it all the time. And yet I have the chutzpah to consider myself discerning.
I have been on the verge of death a couple of times, as it happens, once physically with you know, actual bodily injury and once with just a very dang strong threat of imminent bodily injury and basically decimation. Neither time did my life nor my secret mystical purpose appear before my eyes or flash across my mind. The only thing I was thinking was something that I reckon could best be expressed as hell no.
"Hell no" is the experience. Glad to know that you survived.
Actually you're right. That could have been the purpose of my life flashing across my mind. Cause I've been arguing with people ever since.
Actually not true. Took me a few years more to develop this level of charm.
So okay, my above attempt at humor aside, why the heck would that be a state to which I would want to return?
"Absolute Truth"<~Here it is James! Damn PB, the truth is so easy, isn't it? No mystical BS, just what it is!
We can measure which side of the brain reacts, why we sweat, what we think etc.. But we cannot measure the experience. That is what spirituality explores. It is integral to our consciousness and yes, in scientific terms it is invisible. But it exists and just because it cannot be physically captured does not mean it does not exist.
tangible v intangible
optic v non-optic
physical v spiritual
But actually they are all the same, from two perspectives/expressions.
enjoyment of an 'experience', a 'feeling' of a 'high' is why a lot of people take drugs and/or seek the supernatural
Supernatural? You love that word. It's like saying 'no scientific evidence'. Not everything comes with a formula or is tangible in scientific terms. Unfortunately, you will just have to live with that notion no matter how difficult that is for you to perceive.
Really trying to understand. I hope you are too.
It's not that you can't prove it scientifically, it is that you can't even say what you mean in any truly comprehensible way. If you can't explain it in a way that makes any sense, then why are we to credit it?
We understand science and religion have both been used to commit wrongs and even to hold us back, control us, enslave us.
But both (yes, both, and you won't hear me say it often) have also been used to do good. I ain't perfect either, little good, little bad, I keep learning and expect the rest of us will too.
If I could see what you see, I'd say so. I have no need to lie. Science doesn't make or break my day. If you got a better way, I'd want to know, I swear I would.
I just can't understand what the heck you're talking about. So it's that whole one of us must be crazy thing. It's me or you, dude.
Hey you know what, spirituality is just not explainable in any scientific language. that is pretty much the disconnect between these philosophies. One relies on evidence that can be shared generally and the other on an wholly personal experience. I suspect It is when these two lines of knowledge become one that we all move on to a new level of understanding.
Just because we cannot measure the experience now, doesn't mean we will never be able to. Spirituality is a form of self hypnosis, just like every other religion/mysticism belief.
It makes one feel good to think they get it while others don't. A common thing here on these forums. Psychics, ghost fans, fortune tellers, philosopher wannabes, witches, and the list goes on. The rest are mostly people who are honest with themselves and happy with it.
Spirituality has nothing to do with religion except for those who can only see in black and white...
Sez you! Anything concrete to offer as to the proof of your statement? I mean, other than I am unenlightened?
Plus those who chat with god. Used to do it, and for some time I did believe it was real.
Then one day god told me the truth. My own personal revelation. He'd been building up to it anyways all along. When I was ready he told me the truth. I was sitting on the bed in my room talking to myself. No I mean that's what God said to me. He said "The truth is you're sitting here talking to yourself."
I instantly knew he was right. (Praise God, Hallelujah!) It was a mystical experience. I still get chills up and down my spine just thinking about it.
It's all a matter of who/what you've been feeding on. So now all I eat is chocolate.
Randy - You have a great imagination. You talk with such authority about things you actually know nothing about and just jump to ludicrous conclusions. You have confessed you do not believe in spiritual/mystical stuff, so surely you should just stick with what you believe in and stop trying to kid yourself that you know anything about it. You seem to have a lot to say about 'simple things' as you put it.
The only spirituality the human species needs to understand is love. Our consciousness isn't spiritual in nature. Our consciousness is level higher than nature, but still limited due to other factors.
We, as a species understand love on an individual level, every single person knows it on some level. The issues are derived from communication/language and choice. In other words, politicking between people.
It's absurd. The foundation is compromise and will not be reached until superstition such as spirituality of the mystic sense is made to go away. What created human species was energy. Where did that energy come from? or did something put the energy in to play?
The mystics route is to say something put the energy into it's specific form to purposely create the human species. The human species is a by-product of the consciousness energy of the Universe and special in aspect yes, but not divinity.
There is no specific need for a creator/god, except for fear. Those who "defined" creator/god are the theologians, so as to control the masses, advocate a higher authority who should control the masses through a morality scaled directive.
It's unfortunate for the world today is those who practice it are no moral than the average person, it's a self-absorbed position of higher morals, which cannot ever be, in a civilization of humans(who are flawed). The problem is rights.
It's ironic that religion preaches rights are a Creator/god given, yet doesn't actually want those rights equaled and will not compromise. Dictatorship the only option if it comes from religion.
Experiences exist. Relish them, sure. Seek out more, I'm with ya. But that's about as far as I can go.
Don't listen to the nay sayers. This is a good plan. You should forge ahead. We can work the kinks out along the way.
What if you had to give up all of the religious advances of the last 2000 years vs. the scientific advances of the last 2000 years? What would you choose?
Wow! The cancer op that was invented by medical scientists who saved my life in 1996 with a new highly scientific process?
Or a belief in an entity that is invisible and a no show?
Let me think for a micro second!
Exactly, although my work schedule would be a lot lighter
Mine too come to think of it. All the new vehicles run computers, Lawrence Krauss keeps finding new ways to explain the universe that I still don't understand, the sea keeps giving up life secrets as we use science to go deeper longer, it never ends. I want another 100 years to fit some of it in.
Maybe I'll try religion.
Would it be possible to give your view, without putting down anothe point of view I wonder?
Then again, the styles beginning to rub off on me ,I might try it
It is the selfish view of us humans that we merit prolonging our lives over and above the time nature intended. That is why the planet becomes more crowded with us and less with everything else as we eliminate anything that hinders our precious ever-expanding space. It cannot go on forever and science or praying to some invisible god aint gonna help. It is simply common sense that we need to return to being humble and living within life's natural cycle.
what is the 'time nature intended'? Did nature have any intentions?
Let's do away with modern medicine but keep religion.
Can wipe out all the diabetics, those with allergies, cancer survivors and the majority of those with a depressive disorder. Have at least a quarter of children die in childhood from preventable diseases. Also, all the women who would have died in during/after childbirth.
The religious will say that those that people died young because of sin. Many religious sects also promote having large families
Let's do away with both sides of the Ism.
Too long, this couple has destroyed humanity by saying it was helping humanity. The hunter --the masculine-- provides the kill (titled science) the other --the feminine-- cooks it up for the masses to eat (titled religion).
doesn't anyone get that "science" by definition and action IS the founder and fodder of all theology ? End science and you will definitely end religion --I guarantee it.
since when did science precede religion?
Before science, the religious believed the sun went around the earth & sickness was from curses
Actually, she didn't. He thought the earth was flat, earth revolved around the sun and many other things.
It was science who hunted for metal and 'discovered' what clay was, what fire was, how to put them together and make bricks.
Science taught how to slaughter animals and shave stones, minerals, etc to make shiny things, altars, temples.
Science dug up the dead and dissected both the dead AND the living, to form other sciences plus hung those parts on walls or in temperature controlled rooms for viewing pleasure or further dissection.
All these he gave to her as gifts to keep her happy, like any husband would. She would cook up the kill he brought her, the offering.
Science fashioned the tools of everything man made and each time his wife rejoiced in his discoveries.
His work helped build her Gardens of Babylon, the Pantheon and even the Eiffel Tower, The (now renamed) Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge.
Science fashioned every known weapon on earth and taught his wife how to fight. and when their power grew great, they --together-- made war against the other couples who had different tools, weapons and wares.
Science is the father --and also the fodder-- of all sensationalism.
Remove science and you have no weapons or war --at least not to any major degree but rocks and sticks.
Remove science and you have no temples inlaid with gold and precious stones.
Remove science and not one "preacher would exist or gather a crowd bigger than 20 pp in a parking lot.
Remove science and no churches would exist or banks to house refined gold and paper currency.
Remove science and you'd have no paper or ink for religion to scribble texts in fancy ways and call it the absolute words of truth.
Remove science and you have no astrology, warlock-witchcraft, juju, magic potions that go bang and make pretty colors or make you see ten foot tall spotted rabbits and things.
Remove science, and you have no religion. Sciences release from monotony IS religion. Remove science and the many sects of that monotony (titled religions/theism) could not and would not last a day.
-I rolled out of chair when I read your reply!
That is EXACTLY what every and all religions say. They are the Truth.
If you are --they aren't; if they are, you aren't.
I think neither of you are in any form the Truth.
That is wisdom (philos).
Science and Sensation are definitely not philosophies, else they wouldn't be doing what they do so well and claiming absolute power.
So living without any advancement is what you consider moving forward?
-headache cure 1 point; adverse side effects -46 points
-radiation to cure cancer +1000 point; countless adverse side effects -5000 points
--microwaves, computers, etc causing brain cancer.
--Chernobyl, Ukraine, Fukushima Japan, 3 Mile Island, New York.
a. 50 million dollar (made by science)
b. mega 25,000 square foot church (made by science)
c. private jet (made by science --and the fuel also)
d. Multiple Rolls Royce (made by science )
e. Penthouse NYC Apartment (made by science and bloomberg)
e. Television (made by science)
ministry --of JUST one minister of religion ( made by science!);
Plus all the electronic items like microphones, lights, cameras, etc and all the machines in between.
However, there is one good advancement:
-indoor plumbing +50000 POINTS; adverse effects 0 !!!!
Apparently you missed my point, but not a problem. I didn't expect you to get it to begin with. Enjoy.
Actually, you missed by original point entirely. But in kind, i didn't expect you to get it either. En Garde! Touché!
But I shall enjoy the indoor plumbing, for now. Pretty soon with all these "advancements", we won't even have to do that, science will do the plumbing for us..
Science au Akbar! (flush...)
and still some people don't forget to use products of science or even make money off it, everyday. Woo hoo
What you claim as science clearly isn't, and never was.
Science does not claim absolute power.
Science does not represent itself as The Truth.
Sure it does --at least on HP.
But it wasn't me who said science is the founder of truth, Randy Goldwin did, I was just responding in kind.
BTW, what I said science is, IT IS. How else can you define all the things I mentioned, as coming from science, from fish hooks to Museums? All of it is Science.
Technology is science; Bibles are science and contain scientific methods, experiments, recipes, stories, and more. Architecture is science. Weapons are science; Engineering is science; Red-Pill, Blue-Pill, little Purple Pill is science...
..its all science, dear.
Just because religionists use science to further their ability to get followers doesn't mean science is responsible for superstitious beliefs. Truth can be used for both good and evil, but it is still truth.
I hope you didn't hurt yourself by falling out of the chair. Gravity is caused by one of the gods, you know!
Science founded all sensationalism (religions and ideologies of gods), else not one religion would exist. That was my point. See the bigger picture, my friend. End both ends of the science --equation and sensation-- and see how fast the "gods" of either/both come to an end...
How did science found sensationalism? Science isn't just a desire for knowledge, you cannot blame every bad idea anyone ever had on science.
Aw thanks for that. My BS detector made me skip past it the first time.
If you replace the word science with the word 'people' then that would all make sense. You will never be able to stop people from observing things.
We need to move forward. Going back to the cave is not the answer.
BOTH equation & sensation are products of 'people', not people themselves. Stopping observation is not the issue. Stopping what is done to GET that observation, or how it is used post observation is the issue.
As for free market, if science didn't create the wares there would be no market to sell them in. Who made the first bullet? A guy in a yoga toga waiting for enlightenment by observing the stars and his breathing pattern or the Christian who can't even understand their own scientifically produced "bible" pages & ink.
Here's the bit to chew: for 244 of 250,000 years humanity has been observing and battling for survival from [insert uncertain element] - like he crawled out of the ooze (or was put here intently) as a man and creation left him to fend for himself, all by himself? Makes no sense. Nor does it make sense why he designed countless deities of rocks, clay, stone and stars to have someone to look up to as a parental figure...
Something doesn't fit.
So, yes, titled:science, titled:religion are of the same root stock, same source --people. People observing and/or engaging the world according to their necessity or desire to [insert adjective here].
What if...just if, okay... man let the universe and creation show them by the universes viewpoint & methods, instead of the other way around. The beauty, honor, unity, power and universal understanding of the "ultimate truth" in a single leaf, the echo from a sphere of burning hydrogen( light ), a drop of water, an ultra subatomic frequency of neutral mueon to negative hedron is greater than the entire human collective effort since its inception. I would wager if humans listened and allowed the universe to show them, without intervention by humans, they would understand completely. No mechanics. No temples. No voo-doo woo-doo...
Until then, its either caves of dampness or caves of penthouse 5th avenue. Either way, they are still caves, still people, still slaves to the ideologies they have designed themselves, no matter the Market result, volume of bullets and guns that allowed wars or the volumes of books that equally cause wars (of words and wit).
Hey James, sounds like Plato's mysticism. But, that's just me.
The Meno Paradox (-humored: "Me Know or Me No!").
A lot of Platonic arguments fit the mold for today's problems, they really do...but so do some Hume...
Thanks, I am off for the day.
Enjoy the weekend Hub-sters!
PS, Ray, this is all apart of my work Quantus Philo, how great free will. I strongly believe, as a few others spoken to, that man knew the things he is using mechanics to understand and knew where he is from, why he is here. All the titled:theologies suggest it and titled:science by its work suggest it. Man had stasis where he did know and something caused a loss of that "90%", reducing him to a ball of choices...
I didn't say science was THE truth, James. I said it was the founder of truth. Sure, you can blame the bullet on science if you like, but one may also blame religion on science if it is used to promote ridiculous imaginary deities.
But those things are invented by people, not science. Many ancient priests used science to predict the summer solstice causing awe among the converts. But it was scientific knowledge used by the priests to enslave the people, not science itself.
Searching for truth has nothing to do with religion, unless you can prove a god exists by using science. I am open to your proof of any god existing if you wish to put any forth.
...invented by people, not science...
Err, who invented science. People.
Pandora and I had this dialogue.
Searching for truth --by equation or sensation-- is pointless, because it is tainted by human intervention.
Why not take the "time" to allow Absolute or Ultimate Truth to reveal itself how it desires and not how man thinks it should or attempts to define it, yes?
That would be critical thinking at its best.
That would be perfect science, perfect religion.
no mechanics, no juju, no man made yada yada.
Let the Universe do the talking and see what the results are.
Even with my limited work in the field of QP, I can assure you, that itty bitty frequency titled gluon, hedron, etc understands it and wants to re-mind humans of it; humans once knew it and have spend the last x-thousand years trying to get it back, the wrong way...
PS, you know my position regarding the term of G/god. That is a man made term of sensationalism. Creator is not "a god". Creator is the universe and everything in it. Oddly Judeo-Christian beliefs actually say this without understanding what it means, as do the Vedic Archives and yes, even the masculine (applied science).
What do you have to show there is an Absolute or Ultimate Truth? And we both know "time" is relative. Who's to say when your Ultimate Truth should be revealed? Or when it is too early or too late? You?
Randy, that is odd coming from you.
The "Absolute Truth" or "Ultimate Truth" is everywhere --it is the universe, revealed (optic/physic/tangible ) or not revealed (non-optic/intangible/"spiritual"); --understood or not.
Either way the truth is evident.
(Sorry, the universe was the smallest thing I could find to "show" you my proof. hope it suffices.)
Now, by experience, as explained to M Knowles very briefly, I have what "religion" has been crowing about for years and science has been "in search of" --to, by my own admission, a grossly small measure --but a measure of experience nonetheless.
We're not seeking Ultimate Truth. We just want to know how things work. Here on earth.
James, you ask why we do not let the universe show us. I will tell you that we did, and it came down to one man's interpretation over another's. That was the start of religion, everywhere. It led to lots of errors and lots of wars.
I agree that in many ways we're still living in the cave, and I agree that it would be good if we changed how we utilized our knowledge -- oh man how I agree with that.
But I think that looking to the universe -- and beyond -- for answers is what science is all about! Don't you notice how nature created us as curious beings? Why would you suggest we go against what nature has instilled in us?
Methods, all debatable, ethics, also up for question, but keep in mind that nature herself sacrifices plenty of life when it suits her needs.
Are you sure you've thought this through? Cause right there you have a perfect example of how it would never work.
It is seriously a very small expression of years of work and some 450 double-sided loose leaf pages + text editor/wordpad notes, bar napkins, memory, etc.
The missing "link" of this "Odd Couple" which I have coined The Ism ™ ©. (equation/sensation) is just that, they won't stop to just listen and be given the result of the question they are asking. I have said this many times, to my own argumentative demise, humans knew and still know the answers to these questions, the solutions were born in them. They are not so detached from the universe as they believe. I am certain man along the way "forgot" that information and by many varieties of expression --positive or negative-- are doing whatever it takes to (try to) get back to that place again. I think they are going about it incorrectly on both ends.
Whole other subject. Whenever you choose to broach it in a readable manner, please be as non-mystical about it as you possibly can.
But I do not believe science is the culprit for our problems. I believe unfettered capitalism is the problem. I also egotistically believe that you should change YOUR thesis to reflect MY opinions.
I have a mystical bullshit theory too. But I know it's a mystical bullshit theory, so I don't try and sell it as truth, just to learn what I can from it.
That said, go for it. Maybe you'll get lucky and it will take off like The Secret did or The Prayer of Jabez.
I almost wish I could do the same, it'd be so easy.
It is that easy, despite Capitalistic juju "Secret" crap and equally Scientific America/ New England Journel of Medicine crap.
Seems we agree on that.
But, again it, isn't "mystic" or irrational to consider "we already know". Much evidence supports it. Especially via communication. I express a thought, others understand that thought and either oppose or agree. It is not so far-fetched. I have sat with a sushi loathing senior geneticist professor at Columbia U and equally, a lobster loving professor with a double PhD in History from Berkeley, who both despise my Villanova roots (its a basketball thing), but agree that humans DO know. My information becomes learning tools or "knowledge", and that knowledge is not exclusive !!! you can "learn from me and I from you" is mystic "voo-doo woo-doo". Which means we both contain that information! Therefore it is considerable that both you and I already understand, but by application of some deduced necessity, continue to loop ourselves in a consciousness of limitation.
That limitation is the foundry of the sciences of equation AND sensation aka Humanism.
Honestly I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
Please don't be the least bit mystic, I don't speak it.
Is this in your book 21 days? I thought that was about habits and farming and stuff.
I'd like to hear what you suggest. I haven't written you off as a total loon yet, , and I appreciate that you don't take offense when I tell you you're crazy.
Cuz it sounds like you're suggesting we go back to being gatherer cavemen. I'm confused. Not even possible until the apocalypse. So the total fantasy-land aspect of it is I admit a barrier for me.
Show me how to forget that what you speak of is demolishing the system and help me inherit my birthright to the knowledge of how to accomplish this. That I'd really like to know. Only way I know is an asteroid or a world-wide nuclear 'incident.'
No, Pandora, not in the 21 Days book. My depth of work is in "Quantus Philo". A writing in progress. The 21 days series is just the foundation of getting folk out of their present estranged notions into the culmination of who they are.
I have accumulated some very interesting things including what appears to be a genetic map of energy based on a mathematical sequence --which has literally taken up 1 1/2 hard drives to compile. it presents not only sequence, but also symbols --a language-- very inclusive to "caveman" and "modern" expressions of human thought.
good thing I am not crazy --or am I, one wonders. Morse and Benjamin often think I am ( they are the gentleman whom I entrusted with the theory from both Universities ).
I am far from suggesting "Unga-Bunga" caveman ( if you are supporting evolution) . And equally not suggesting a doom-gloom apocalypse of the mystic meteor from heaven --shivers--. I am merely presenting you with probability and consideration, that's all. You, me and others have assimilated ourselves into a "system" of either equation or sensation to compensate for a lesser present/available and known understanding --of which we are fully and consciously aware! Which is the irony.
It is not about "forgetting". But accepting that evidence of the information in you already. information all of humanity shares --in spite of their oppressive offenses. your birthright, my birthright --even Brenda and Knowles birthright is the same --a complete dominion and understanding of the physic realm --without requiring application.
The method seems to be simple and the result quite different, that's for sure, from anything I encountered so far in this life.
Am I deluded? Am I pretending? Is it mathematics or sensation overloaded with anthology, no. Is it supercilious practicality coupled with a dismissive common sense, no. Am I simply being dissentious for the sake of argument? Certainly not..
By just the "dot" of experience I have had, can "testify" to its validity..
That, actually scared the C Dickens out of me for a long time but didn't dismiss the fact that --yes--it is possible.
Okay so if it ever happens, we'll bust into the rest of our brains and discover all the knowledge of the world? It's all hidden in there, in the unused parts of our brains?
I think I'll have to wait for the book. And maybe a tinfoil hat, a swinging marble and a ouija board.
You're alright, 21, and I appreciate your patience. There's much we agree on, (if not in this thread).
But the truth is that most of the time I just never really understand you. I guess everybody's searching for the truth, and it's always been my position that everybody seems to have little parts of it, even members of certain religions and political parties. I'm sure you do, too.
Hey James, just curious- the path you describe through your posts, leads one to the end place? overwrite our physical form to conscious energy? Which happens to be what the Universe is made up of. The path leads through the mind?
Is that correct?
Hey James, just curious- the path you describe through your posts, leads one to the end place? overwrite our physical form to conscious energy? Which happens to be what the Universe is made up of. The path leads through the mind?
The conscious limitation, we impose upon ourselves, allows for the manipulation. The mind being the manipulator --not because it wants to but because of the lacking of the addition 90%. Our physic form is but a speck reflect of the totality we were designed to be. If my work is correct, the patterns of frequency that make up the human being, suggest the mind --as a tool-- has removed us from a total stasis of what humans were designed to be -- the evidence of massive fragments of information suggest the mind has been altered to provide some form of consciousness that "makes sense" versus a consciousness that acts as a processor of information/understanding of what is known. But the patterns of energy --a very interesting collection of "chromatic" sequences suggest otherwise.
The present physic form of man is merely an revolting optic presentation (expression of itself).
The true nature of humans far exceeds mediocre woop-woop or testable theories. It is the minds limited 10% that seems to be playing tricks on them...
The path of illumination (for lack of a better word) requires humans to loose themselves from all ideologies and simply be as they were designed to be -- fully understanding the universe --tangible and intangible.
Isn't everything in existence conscious on some level?
Of course, everything is sentient.
I had this dialogue with PCInux before.
A rock is sentient to a degree as expressed by creation (what Judeo-Christian's assume as E/elohim (Hebrew translation; nature revealed/optic sentient). The difference is in the degree (in the case of humans, the "desire") of that experience.
The human beings level of sentient is astounding!!!
Yet, by various applications, have reduced themselves to ideologies of limitation --physic/optic or otherwise (the sciences of equation/sensation).
I know what the human species has come to. I understand that, but I'm talking about the end path, of your train of thought?
So far, since I've asked this question, you've yet to answer it.
Life is a cycle/circle be that as it may, it's never ending based on consciousness, the power of that consciousness, which is what has been untapped. The energy derived from it. The capacity of the mind is limited to begin with, all it can do is shift the information, discarding old or new, knowledge. The brain itself does have a capacity problem itself. The mind is merely the capacity we use of the brain. How one manipulates the energy of the brain? Considering the brain has electronic impulses. To harness that energy would be the next step?
Please do indulge..
Science gives us knowledge. Products are brought to you by the free market.
actually the bible is not science, nor is technology or engineering. One can examine the science behind making the paper or ink of the bible etc but the paper & the ink are not science. You have confused concepts
Actually, no I haven't.
Apothecary, Alchemy, Anthropology, Architecture, Botany, Computation, Chemistry & Chemical Engineering, Psychology, Physics, etc. are all sciences, by definition and practice- including anything forged from wood (paper, tissue, lumber), metals (gold, silver, bronze, iron, etc) or mineral (glass, crystals, etc).
The "bible" contains quite a lot of science!
Just one example is Moses --who was an engineer/architect and master craftsman in the Art of Apothecary, taught to him by the Egyptians and Ethiopians. Another would be Ezekiel and his visions --likened to that of Da Vinci -- in his earlier days regarding flight and floating ships. Plus astronomers, and more... Speaking of Ships, the Ark of Noah (and the Arc of the Covenant) all fall into the science realm.
Mysticism began with Observed AND applied sciences, scientific methods. When the practices did not bring results as expected, it became sensationalism, to satisfy the moment, the necessity of the condition --the human condition, that is.
Now, if you are claiming pure science is merely to "observe & report":
a) why do they use mechanics to do so, why not just observe non-intrusively?
b) what's with all the dead bodies of the not-yet-born up to the deceased and countless animal/insect carcasses hanging on display in the Smith and on ice in thousands of labs across the planet?
c) what is with all the nukes and all the pills?
d) why destroy acres of land via radiation poisoning, magnetic displacement, for building to accelerate a single "sub-atomic particle"?
So much for observe/report only...
Nonetheless, I do admire your defense of your religion, same as the theistic religions, but as I explained to Pandora & Ray, neither has any valuable truth, if any truth at all, in them.
alchemy is not science, although it was an influence in developing the field of chemistry.
As for dissections, people used to take body parts out for religious purposes eg eg in eygptian burial preparations - they though the heart was the most important organ.
Science is about observing, reporting, understanding.
Whether scientific knowledge should be utlised to make pills or nukes is an ethical matter. Science itself is neutral & can be used for ethical & unethical purposes. I don't defend harmful applications of science.
I don't have a religion. Science is not my religion - I don't worship it nor lie to defend it. Science is merely a field of study that I happen to find interesting.
Do you defend harmful applications of your religion? (what is your religion ,anyway).
Bailey, that was a clever question.
I have no religion.
Religion is useless by definition and application --as also is the applied sciences, regarding the "ultimate truth" of human purpose and worth.
But, I do agree that pure science is observe-report.
It is unfortunate that the application of said item, has now engulfed the world in mechanics and mysticism (chemically or digitally induced) --the result of its findings.
It was the application of sciences and its methods that created --not to mention-- enabled every single sensational application and practice, else they would never had how to use those bodies in mummification, anatomy, etc.
James - won't let me reply below.
Those that did mummification etc didn't know they're were scientific principles involved. Nor were there aware there were scientific principles that can be used to explain all matter.
the alchemists were sorcerer (but in trying to turn things into gold, they discovered some things happened, which they attributed to the supernatural, not to chemistry).
Those doing mummification were carrying out religious rites . Preserving techniques can be explained well by science, but they didn't do them for the science (they didn't even know about the science).
Trial & error, people found what worked and what didn't. Eat from a poison bush and someone dies.
Science is more useful than religion. It's not so arrogant to claim it has 'absolute truth' like religion does. Understanding science & applying it has been used to help us & also to harm us. Religion likes to think it has never done wrong
You are a philosopher though, which is probably more closely related to religion than science
Not really. As a Philosopher, I tend to look at things neutrally, question everything, literally to ends most people find exhausting.
I do believe the application of the sciences is "more" genuine in its approach, today, than organized religion. but I am probably convinced, by history, the end result of the applied sciences is the root cause of all sensational quests.
If science wants to disseminate itself as a pure, immutable force, than it must --by all measures-- return to its origin of only observe/report, without mechanics, without intervention; driven and/or sustained by economics. Else, it sits at the head of the table, the man of the house as his wife (titled:religion) serves up the feasts and woos the masses.
James, I'm inclined to think that it's more about politics than science. Science is just quoted as justification for political ventures.
I think science has debunked old superstitions eg ie those with epilepsy are not demon-possessed. Unfortunately, the masses are still superstitious and superstition is the basis for religion.
science is not discovering fire; it's understanding fire. Science is about understanding how things work, not finding things to use. Astrology is not science
Religion isn't science and never was. It's philosophy at best.
No. Superstition is the founder of all religions. Science is the founder of all truth. Don't you get that?
Baileybear - My suggestion is that both science and religion (I am not religious) have positioned humans as uniquely important when life is the true reality, not people.
Life is certainly an amazing concept. Humans do seem to rate themselves above other life - religion more than science, I think, as religionists get upset when they are told they are animals. I don't find it upsetting at all to consider humans as animals - I like animals - they haven't learnt to be as manipulating or devious as humans.
Humans just have a bigger brain and have learnt to think - started off with superstition and then developed into science/rational thinking. But if humans are smart, they would take care of Earth better and treat animals better.
Totally with you on that and suggest re-visiting our connection to nature is a step towards that achievement.
Gosh we cant even follow 10 Commandments ,how on earth how we ever gonna get to another planet
I think personal opinions is more harmful than religion.Everyone is trying to get to the same place at the same time.Integrity.
Those that believe or disbelieve both seek a good end result in life.
Randy said science brings us truths, not The Truth. That was just your twist on it.
Randy Goldwin said: Sorry, no twist by me.
But, it proves my point more --all religions need defending meaning all the sects of the science need defending else they defect to another sect that fits their quo. Jumping from one equation to another sensation in search of. vis-à-vis, c`est la vie, tete-a-tete, a twoseater motor cycle. Just depends on which is driving and who is in the side seat at the moment.
Sad really, just plain sad.
Science brings us all truths is a lot different than science is The Truth. I think anyone would have thought he meant all factual knowledge, not THE ULTIMATE TRUTH WE'VE ALL BEEN FIGHTING ABOUT FOR THE LAST 4000 YEARS which are really just opinions.
Big diff. That was your words, your interpretation. Why you don't want to admit what anyone can see and is besides a minor point is beyond me.
Precisely, Pandora, "fighting".
6,000 years of a lovers quarrel, an estranged couple.
The "ultimate truth" equation and sensation are searching for, cannot and will not be found by human methods. This is why "titled:science" and "titled:religion" have no truth in them. None.
And top it off with no real value of life, no honor, no morals. Else neither would fight or war or dissect innocent animals, plants and other humans just to "discover" that "ultimate truth", be it in labs of shiny steel and glass or roasting them on altars of polished marble beneath painted desert moons.
I clearly know my intent, made it plain and have no reason to sit here and accept either sides view, by their presentation. The "sidecar sally show" over the last x-thousand years has proven it over and over and over. Neither has a clue and the things they call clues aren't clues or facts or anything valuable to humanity. Those things are only valuable to the "opinions" themselves. What a waste of fighting, "time" and enjoyable creations...
I grant you the ethical question regarding animal experimentation. But can hardly bemoan the zebra fish (of which I am very fond and actually keep myself) when I conduct regular genocide on flies and spiders all summer long.
Science itself doesn't seek to discover the Ultimate Truth. Am I missing something somewhere? Does science somewhere proclaim such a mission statement? The only people who seek ultimate truth are spiritualists. Science itself isn't interested in their world, it's interested in our's.
Science doesn't start wars either. Nobody ever went to war over conflicting lab results.
Your missing the point. Science is a human creation. Science absolutely seeks to find the mathematical formula to life and proclaim to know the facts. It has been responsible for our material advancement and understanding of the components of our World but in reality, are we any better off? I would suggest not.
I think we are at a stage so far from our true reality that we have almost forgotten that we are simply part of the existence around us. Spiritualists do not seek the truth, they simply see it...
yes, science is a human creation. So is religion.
Yes, we are more comfortable these days - more access to food, less superstitious. Also more pollution etc. But one could say that is driven by consumerism rather than science.
Science used to be about curiosity & discovery. Now it seems more about technology & less about science - making sure everyone has their appetite for the latest and best of everything is attended to.
What is 'the truth'? Escape from reality? Trying to find more meaning in our lives? One can only escape from reality for so long, whether by religion or drugs. I don't look for 'the truth', as I doubt it exists. Instead, I welcome truths.
Again you seek a scientific answer to a non-scientific question. I am forced to use a scientific word 'Truth' as there is no language to describe the experience of something that is, because it is not measurable.
I think it is the not measurable bit that you cannot get your head around.
Anyway, I will need to pick up on any further comments tomorrow as the birds are singing outside. I have enjoyed the debate.
truth is a scientific word? News to me (and I have a science degree). 'The Truth' is a religious term
Truth, fact, reality are all derived from the scientific principal that something is correct/incorrect, real/not real, true/untrue...
Hey Jefsaid- living in a world of duality, actually puts those things you mentioned into "cause" and "effect" and makes them part of the human psyche. Good/bad, stuff like that. Things are either subjective or objective. Subjective is an individual's perspective and the objective is non-biased.
Truth is not science and nor is it religion. Truth is truth.
Religion is mystical manipulation and Science is about truth of reality(or should be). The problem with today is that religion continues to a be a problem and science has gone off in the wrong direction.
Yeh okay. I swear I'm trying. I read it over and over again and it still doesn't make any sense. To me. I cannot see it.
Of course there are some half-truths in what you speak, or minor points of common knowledge that don't necessarily seem to lend any support to the statements surrounding them, but that's pretty standard.
See it's like you're speaking another language. Even worse than members of certain religions or political parties. But I've studied them, and gave up easily on mysticism.
If you can convince me, so be it. So far I don't even begin to comprehend.
It may be hopeless.
I agree we are a part of the existence around us. I think that's common knowledge.
I could not resist one last comment. I seek not to convince you because only you can have the experience. I think science serves a purpose and is certainly more useful and honest than religion which I find completely spurious. I just feel there is another element in our lives that is so integral to our consciousness that we take it completely for granted.
There is a book by Fritjof Kapra called the 'Tao of Physics' that you might like to read because it touches on a connection between science (Quantum Physics) and Eastern Mysticism. I don't suggest it will change your life but it is fascinating reading nonetheless...
I'm sure the religionists on here will be ready to convert you. You are obviously seeking 'meaning' in your life other than your tangible existence
No chance of converting me to any man-made religious BS and it seems that other people like yourself are searching for your purpose or running away from your previous religious indoctrination. I have never been there thankfully.
no, I've already run away from indoctrination & I'm just curious at how people tick
I come from a background where my mother is a Christian and my now deceased father was a complete non-believer so I was never indoctrinated. In fact, I have always been able to watch in fascination from the sidelines particularly in the heavily Christianized Caribbean community from which I come.
What was intriguing as I grew up was my father's immensely superior knowledge of the bible which was part of my parents British colonial education to that of people who declared themselves as servants of God/Jesus. He would simply tear his adversaries to shreds verbally in any debate by exposing how little they understood the BS they were spewing out.
Religious indoctrination didn't work well on me. Nothing to run away from, in my case.
I did it to myself. Damn am I dumb, now I think about it.
I enjoy fascinating reading. Though I tend to take it all with a grain or two (or more as needed) of salt, and honestly I'm not fascinated by mysticism anymore.
But maybe I'll look it up. I keep encountering you guys, it may be good to better my understanding so as to help some with the language barrier.
If nothing else, it'll help me more quickly tell you why I think you're wrong.
But maybe not. I have bigger fish to fry, and money to make, science products to buy.... important stuff like that.
You know, I have never really chased any sort of belief in my life which is something I find inflicts people of religious indoctrination. What I believe in has kind of found me as the more I became aware of spiritual thinking, the more it resonated with my own.
That does not mean I sport tangled locks, go around hugging trees, live in a squat and sponge from the evil state. I think that kind of thing is just idle BS. I live, work, pay my mortgage, bills and use the appliance of science like everyone else. I just naturally err towards our natural connections and conscious existence which by its very nature requires this kind of debate as it cannot be scientifically evidenced.
I also find people who have grown up with religion and turned their back on it, often take their sense of deceit out on anything that is non-scientific for ever after.
By the way, the book I refer to is written by a physicist and is pitched from a scientific view point and not mystical.
Oh great, cuz aside from mysticism, nothing eludes me more than physics!
I don't know, I'm not very 'spiritual' because I can't shut my brain off. Tried meditating and all that stuff, waste of time for me.
My 'spirituality' is happily limited to simply knowing a few simple truths which I believe are easily accessible to anyone and everyone. It's good enough for me.
I don't even want secret knowledge, I think it's stupid. Here's a fine example. This entire thread about it all and yet you've essentially told us nothing more than get back to nature.
Well, okay. LOL I have no argument there. I kinda see it this way. If you can't explain it, you didn't learn it. But you seem like a fairly intelligent person. So, maybe there just wasn't anything there to really learn.
I've read books like that, lots of fascinating mumbo jumbo that really doesn't add up to anything much.
As it happens, I need to learn some about physics so I can better understand what people are talking about. But I think it'd be a mistake to start looking at it from a mystical viewpoint.
However, I've added your title with appropriate notes to my long list of books I might want to read someday.
I love that you and 21 and many other people are all learning things, and investigating theories and bringing forth knowledge and all that good stuff. I just wish you'd stop selling it off as ultimate truths. Harmless today, a pain in the ass to get rid of tomorrow. If Joseph Smith can found a religion, anyone can.
Can't shut it off, ay? The fact is, is that your few simple truths, the ones available to anyone...some people just don't get it. That's the weird thing. No matter how you explain your truths, if that is what they are, there are some who just can't see. It isn't like you might not be able to explainit. It's more like they won't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth. WEIRD.
Yeh you have a point. A very valid point. Maybe there are dozens of parallel universes right here on earth, but running together, not separately.
I don't get the mystics, they don't get me, muslims don't get christians, conservatives don't get liberals don't get moderates don't get greenies don't get libertarians and back at ya back up the list, and so many more.
I guess we all have our own few simple truths. I could express mine in clear, unambiguous words, but no doubt there would be people who disagreed. That's why it's all each to his own, and nobody else's business really.
Good to talk about it all though. Might help keep most of us from getting too far out there.
No can't shut it off. No nirvana for me.
I had the same problem with christianity. If only I could have turned off my brain...
You know I have really enjoyed your comments and totally appreciate your view on life. We all see it the way we see it. What has been interesting is the the amount of 'interest' generated from my opening statement and how it turned into a debate about spirituality v science when really that was not my overriding point. I certainly have no intention of stimulating some cult, what I see is very much about us and our personal responsibility.
What I was trying to say was that by design, science and religion have taken away our personal responsibility to respect and connect with our natural surroundings. In science's case, the advancements in our lifestyles mean our lives are so dictated by money that we are reliant on being fed, cared for and kept safe by technology. Very few of us in the so called developed World could stand on our own two feet if our tap water stopped flowing, electricity supply ceased and carbon fuel ran out tomorrow. Religion has focussed people's minds away from Earth and Mother Nature towards a creator beyond our planet and in the image of man.
Both have had their purpose historically to create and manage people en mass with the ambition of moral rules and ultimately survival by ensuring we all live comfortably and safely. However, for the majority on this planet it has had no such impact and many of those in that circumstance are actually trying to live an honest living off the land. Unfortunately, for many of these people, the fertile land in their vicinity is controlled and governed by conglomerates feeding the excesses of the developed World. They are then forced to enter into a modern existence where money talks and they simply do not have the means to earn the required sums to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle e.g. they are often forced to buy the food they once grew themselves at inflated prices after it has been around the World and back.
The insatiable appetite of the developed World and desire for more and more of our natural resources I see as being the result of our complete detachment from how it naturally exists and the real impact of how it ends up conveniently in our stores, at our petrol pumps, through the turn of a tap or flick of a switch. We are only concerned by whether it works and how much it is costing us.
While we live in this virtual existence where we see ourselves as special and unique from everything around us, deserts are growing, forests are shrinking, oil is drying up and our population continues to expand. It just seems to me that we have forgotten that we are not independent from the World around us but completely integral and connected to it. We need to consciously reconnect with Mother Nature and how we once loved, respected and adored her.
What I found intriguing about the book I suggested you might like to read is that it emphasises from a completely scientific perspective how at a Quantum physics level that instead of discovering the finite indestructible material that they presumed everything is made of, they have discovered an ever flowing, interconnected energy that suggests we are completely integral to everything around us. What we perceive to be real are manifestations of this energy. Time and space are simply part of the whole energy flow. This particular physicist author happened to have a discussion with a 'mystic' and became fascinated by synergies between what mystics experience and what science had just discovered. In this sub-atomic World they faced two dilemmas similar to mystics. Firstly, it was difficult to analyse the energy with their existing tools and because it is integral to the observer and one's perception of it is based on one's relationship with it. Secondly, describing it in lay terms was also difficult because it was beyond the limitations of our language and perception. For me, it just reinforced my own perception of life.
Please do not feel that I am trying to convert you to some kind of mysterious cult belief. My thoughts are completely rational and I only wish to share them with others who might be interested.
I think perhaps you chose a poor title, and perhaps OP to explain yourself. Perhaps if you could cede that the term "Learning ceased" was a poor choice of words. Even religion did not stop learning.
Again, it isn't science which caused the problems you suggest, it's unfettered trade. That is a problem for politics, a disease of greed.
I am sure that in our natural state we did know all we needed to know to survive, right up to the point where we died from our ignorance and inexperience. Those who learned (and any type of learning whatsoever seems to qualify as science to y'all) survived longer. Nowadays, it's true, science and modern living have created an environment where even the stupid can easily survive, in our 'civilized' lands anyway.
I am sure we need to change our priorities, our politics and policies, and the way we use science, but science isn't a bad thing, and did not create the problems you describe. Unfettered trade did.
So you just gotta concede the point in order to be considered rational.
The Advancement of Unfettered Trade Has Cost Us Our Connection to the Earth
or some such, would be a truer statement of what you seem to be describing, I think.
Honestly that is something I think is worth talking about, on an individual level and on a policy level. Like I said in I believe it was my first post to you, you're dreaming. But I think that's a good thing.
What believers fail to understand is that science is merely a process of understanding the world around us.
Sure, Einstein discovered the relationship between energy and matter, a discovery that has been used to create many worthwhile things.
On the flip side, it has also been used to create nuclear devices to drop on cities.
In other words, believers should be addressing the issues of dropping nuclear devices on cities rather than demeaning a process of understanding.
Or, they can go back to living in caves.
I agree they're both caves. Can't play no more today. Have good weekend.
I think the smart people got smarter, and the dumb people just got dumber
Ray, I am signing off for tonight --eyes are tired. I will respond to your post though.
Your belief is your belief, nobody can take that. But, if you believed in God, nothing will lose with you, except that there's an additional feelings that could formed into your heart. We are living here on earth with purpose.
Back in the 70s my western civilization professor refused to except a paper I authored surmising that religious power helped to precipitate the fall of the Egyptian Empire. I still don't understand why except maybe it offended her.
Today parents who don't become involved and The No Child Left Behind bureaucracy have hindered learning as much as the teachers union. Because of union policies school principles are unable to fire BAD TEACHERS!
Our schools are turning into drop out factories.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being guided by metaphysical thinking. The...
by paarsurrey 8 years ago
Learning facts from Science as well as from Word of RevelationHi friendsPlease excuse me.I rephrase the contents of a post by our friend” Q”:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43956?page=2“The true believers of Word of Revelation from the Creator- God Allah YHWH use all forms of education...
by marinealways24 8 years ago
Do they create a perfect balance? If there was no science with religion, what would hold religion in check to make up whatever they wanted? The same with science, if there was no religion, who would keep science from making up whatever they wanted?
by Lee Skittrall 23 months ago
Now that times are moving on, do you think Science and Religion will ever be able to fully coinside?I'm really interested to know other people's opinions and discuss ideas on the matter.It's always something that has interested me and has sparked many in-depth debates and discussions in my...
by ragnaworks 8 years ago
Why is the existence/non-existence of a higher power dependent on the validity of any particular religion? Are we as humans really so arrogant, that we think if none of our gods are real, that must mean there is no such thing as a higher power at all anywhere in the universe? Isn't it possible that...
by paarsurrey 8 years ago
~There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion: philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued.~ Religion if correctly understood is based on the Word revealed from the Creator-God Allah YHWH through the truthful Messengers Prophets in different parts of the World. Religion...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|