What is your personal religious ideology

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Daggdag, Sep 2, 2020.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your examples are showing that there are cases where established science progressed by having individuals make significant contributions that were counter to what could be termed the established model.

    I think the example I use is FAR more Earth shattering than the ones you point to! I like to point out that that Einstein blew away pretty much all of physics about 120 years ago!! He pretty much trashed the whole field!!

    Your examples don't hold a candle to that, so don't tell me that I don't know these events occur. I point to them. We know the NAMES of some of those who did a real number on science - Einsteing, Darwin, Pasteur, etc.

    But, the fact of these events is NOT the issue here. Those examples have more to do with how science advances.

    The issue is how we should go about being informed by science TODAY. How should WE consume science.

    Science today IS the very best information that we have today.

    Discounting scinece on the grounds that it has changed over time (which is EXACTLY what we need it to do) is a seriously deranged idea.

    And, having those who are NOT experts on the topic being the ones to decide FOR US to ignore what has been learned makes it monumentally worse. This whole direction is a cult of ignorance.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ahh, more of Will Readmore's completely spurious allegations of what I've said, once again WITHOUT any of my quotes to back up his, "deranged," interpretations of my argument. The Semmelweis Reflex is strong in you, Willy. Just remember to always wear your helmet.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In post #68 you propose that personal demeanor of some individual should be considered when deciding whether to accept information from science. You suggest that there are rude scientests, and that that factor must be considered.

    I do not accept that AT ALL. Science is absolutely NOT about an indiviual. If you have a hard time listening to someone or you have your doubts, then consult another expert capable of representing the current understanding of climate.

    And, if your contrarian ideas get repulsed, that is because of what we know TODAY. Whether these contrarian ideas turn out to be correct in the future is irrelevant to decisions we make today, because those ideas have not gone through the testing and verification that is how science proceeds. There are lots of crackpot ideas on climate. It's the job of climatology to decide when they should be accepted as real. Until then, they aren't part of climatology.

    You have a rambling style that leads to convoluted sentence structure. So, it's really hard to tell what you are saying sometimes.

    But, the bottom line of this approach you talk about IS an assault on science. It is the suggestion that factors that may not even have ANYTHING to do with science (like "rudeness") can be used INSTEAD of what science has learned through decades of focused work. You also bring up the fact that SOME of the crackpot ideas we hear about MIGHT turn out to be true. But, that also has NOTHING to do with basing decisions on what we know - on the science. It's the job of science to determine which crackpot ideas may have value.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Post #68? Am I, or anyone else supposed to know what you're referring to? You must have a special screen, 'cause the posts, on my phone, are not numbered. I know, compared to you, I'm rather new around here but, in all the conversations & exchanges I've had, thus far, no one has referred to a post this way. How many times, in the thousands of replies you've rec'd, has the poster used this number system to clarify their reference? (Forgive me if I don't take your word for it; I'd want to see the posts.)

    The point is, the way it's done-- & I've seen that you can do this-- is that the poster, "quotes," the words of the other poster which he wishes to address. Meaning that, especially when it involves your, "challenged," capacity of interpretation-- which I have exerpted specific quotes to show that your re-phrasings of my words are utter nonsense-- unless you quote the actual sentence(s) of mine you are referring to, you might as well not waste your time. In this single conversation you have repeatedly shown yourself , & I have shown you, to be an, "unreliable source," for information about what I have said.

    Your quoting my entire posts has not seemed to make you pay attention to what those posts actually say. I'm through treating your mischaracterizations of my thoughts as innocent mistakes which are amenable to my further explications. Accordingly, I stopped reading your post after its esoteric numerical reference.

    I know you're a fan of the status quo, so do it like the rest of us: let me know ver batim what I've posted that you are replying to. Otherwise, don't expect me to reply to, or even read, your fantasy-world rantings.
     
  5. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Post numbers appear near the bottom right of the screen respectively; you can see them if you look at your screen in landscape instead of portrait setting.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  6. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks so much for the tip, Cosmo. I'd actually asked the Feedback & Questions Forum (Help-Desk) about this but they didn't know what I was talking about. I typically keep my phone on, "portrait," orientation but still, every now & then, I would get a different look (still in portrait mode) that would never last very long but which I noticed had each poster's, "stats," w/ every post. I'd asked if there was a way I could control this feature instead of it just occurring at random moments. Now I know.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't answer for your software.

    This post of yours that I'm responding to is post #79 as seen on my Android tablet with Chrome. Maybe your phone based software is trying to save screen space, but each post is numbered and is available as a standard feature of this forum on devices that choose to display it.
    Suggesting that we be informed by the best information that medical science has today is NOT a proposal to slow the progresss of medical science.

    My primary point here is that if we are going to be informed by science, it has to be the very best science that we have TODAY.

    What science may learn in the future is not something we have today. Basing decisions on a guess as to what might be found in the future is NOT a method of being informed by science. Science DOES provide measures of confidence that can be useful, but that is still within any reasonable definition of what science has learned to date.

    I object to your comments about some individual scientists being rude to you or whatever. That has NOTHING to do with what medical science knows today.

    If you go to a doctor and you believe that doctor is rude, then find another doctor.

    I would strongly suggest that finding a rude doctor is not a justification for rejecing the very best information from medical science.

    Today, this administration IS rejecting the very best information from medical scientists who study infectious disease. And, this administration IS rejecting the very best information from scientists who study climate. In both cases, the assault on the science is being grossly politicized by an administration that does not want to be informed by science.

    So, this IS a real issue.

    I hope you agree with what I'm saying here.
     
  8. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Read your own words, WillReadmore. How can we, "learn," anything, "in the future," if, when presented w/ NEW information- like that H. pylori bacteria causes stomach ulcers; or that unseen, "germs," exist at all; or that medical practitioners washing their hands prevents the spread of illness to their patients; or that the Earth revolves around the sun & not the other way around-- we insist that it's not, "the BEST information we (already) have TODAY?" The only way to determine what IS the BEST information is to EXAMINE it! In the cases listed above-- the idea that a bacterium causes stomach ulcers; that unseen microbial pathogens even EXIST; that sanitary practices by physicians reduce the spreading of these pathogens; that the Earth-centric model, which astronomers had accepted since Aristotle, was WRONG-- & too many more to list, it was the idea from OUT of the mainstream, the NEW idea which WAS the BEST INFORMATION; it just was not accepted as such.

    And the REASON it wasn't accepted was NOT because open-minded scientists said, " Well, O.K. Gallileo, let's take a look at what you've got there so we can put it through stringent scientific testing & see if it'll pass muster." Ditto in the case of Dr. Semmelweis, et al.--- though that SHOULD be the proper, "scientific," response: NOT to just accept something new, "ON FAITH," but to subject any new theory to proper trial. But in practice, it often has not, & does not, work that way.

    My complaint w/ science, as I've explained SEVERAL TIMES to you already, is ONLY when it DOESN'T work the WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO. The reason science often doesn't act scientifically w/ regard to new ideas, I attributed to pompousness (I do NOT include in this the rejection of flimsily-based refutations of AGW, if that mis-assumption is the reason for your mystifying diatribes directed toward me; I stated this clearly in post#74-- thanks again, Cosmo for the 411-- " you continue to talk of outdated scientific beliefs about the world being flat, & about unsupported, contrarian views against well-documented scientific phenomena like global warming...") Now if you wish to postulate OTHER CAUSES, I would welcome your contribution. But if you one more time mis-present my argument, through your words, to be that I'm AGAINST science's, "best information," you will then succeed in being only the 2nd person on this site (& I DON'T stay in a bubble of just like-minded thinkers, here) who I will have found to be so persistently insincere, hypocritical, and insulting that he warrants inclusion on my, "Ignore," list. I hope you will not make that necessary.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science must continue to advance our knowledge. I wish we contributed more to that effort.

    But, at any single point in time, the best truth available is what is known at that time.

    Isn't this obvious?
    I have no idea what you are talking about here. This sounds like an attack on science based on the misbehavior of some individual. But, science is far larger than that. AND, that's why science requires that new ideas get seriously tested and reviewed.

    Science is DESIGNED to eliminate falsehoods as fast as possible.
    This is another one of your convoluted missives.

    Again, science is supported to keep improving our understanding of how this universe works. That involves new ideas (including crazy and contrarian ideas), testing, careful review, communicaion with results of all scientists globally, etc., etc. We got the internet because of the need for communication within the scientific community!

    BUT, when we need to make a decision, what we have to depend on is the best knowledge available by that date.

    I really hope you can see that GUESSING that science is WRONG is not a step in being informed by science.

    When the decision is important, it has to be informed by the best knowledge and understanding available at that time.

    There will ALWAYS be questions. After all, science does not have 100% knowledge - and never will.

    But, that's not an excuse to dodge the best knowledge we have in favor of some new fangled GUESS that has not been determined to be valid. You can do that, of course. But, that is NOT being informed by science. That is being informed by guesses someone made. And if the issue is of ANY importance, that is a profoundly stupid direction. It's far better to be informed by science.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  10. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks like another religion thread that degenerated into a debate about "science."

    Just kind of a random question here. When you hear the phrase, "the kingdom of the heavens," what do you think of? Is it really a kingdom of some sort in the heavens, or is it something else?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  11. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As to your initial observation, if you go back, you'll see that it wasn't so much a devolution as a stubborn bull-headed pushing, but I can't claim impartiality, so I'll leave it to you to decide. And the results, either way, are of course the same. But I promise that won't continue from my side (WillReadmore is henceforth, "Ignored.")

    I'd like to cooperate w/ your impromptu poll but, in all fairness, I think some allowance must be made for the context in which the respondent is likely to be hearing the phrase. What I mean is the results would seem less indicative of anything if you don't account for whether the evocation occurs to the listener in their own place of worship, or if they're most likely to hear that phrase watching a movie or tv show that is engaged in religious lampoonery. Alternately, you could stipulate that the responder is NOT to think of any PAST LOCATION in arriving at their mental imagery (extemporaneous impressions only) though I think that may be difficult for many, if not most, to do.

    Forgive me: reading over my response, it's plain to see that I'm over-compensating for that nitwit's allegations that I'm anti-science. I'll rev it down, so to speak.If you're still w/ me, I'd say that it's not a place, at all, that comes to mind (if I'm considering the words w/o sarcasm or irony) but a state. Just don't ask me if it's Red or Blue.
     
    pol meister and gabmux like this.
  12. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has been said..."The kingdom of heaven is within you." I would try there first....
     
    politicalcenter and DEFinning like this.
  13. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So it's not really a kingdom then. I would agree with that. But if it's not a kingdom, then what is it?
     
  14. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are as yet no words to describe "it"....actually even the word "it" may be presumptive.
    All of the spiritual practices can only point to "it".
    Hence those verses such as...."the kingdom of heaven is like this"...or "the kingdom of heaven is like that".
     
    pol meister likes this.
  15. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The question is... Will the kingdom endure after death or is it an illusion manufactured as a defense mechanism to deal sanely with the life you have? And faith? A person has to have faith or he or she is in a nightmarish he'll. This goes for the Christian or the atheist. I do wonder about hardware and software.
     
  16. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps whatever is "Truth" will endure...everything that is not will be of no consequence.
    "The secret is to die before you die...and then realize that there is no death."
     
  17. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The KJV translators thought in terms of "kings and kingdoms," so that's what we've been stuck with for many centuries now.

    But Instead of the phrase "the kingdom of the heavens," what if instead it was, "the consulship of the heavens?" I say that because I think that's what its meaning is in the Hebrew and Aramaic. Not the "kingdom of the heavens," but the "consulship of the heavens." And of course, that consulship comes from the heavenly Father and his Son; and it resides within us.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  18. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is always a physical death. Like rotting flesh and stuff. This seems like another mechanism to cope. I can't die a physical death without corruption.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  19. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps what you are referring to as death is only a change in form...
     
  20. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe, but it could be it. The end.
     
  21. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or it's just like this....."energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."
     
  22. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree whole-heartedly w / the 1st part of your post. The quote you end with-- is that Deepak Chopra, or from the gospel of John?-- sounds very poetic, but it has reduced what must be a fairly lengthy description to just a short-hand note. That is, kind of like receiving an engine's parts w/ the instructions, "make it run."
    Do you see my point?
    Now if it's been preceded by an entire gospel's worth of lessons, or a 90-minute t.v. presentation, that short-hand might serve you, in the long-haul.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  23. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm an agnostic. It is obviously a matter of semantics and definitions, not 'science' or 'theology' per se. We can note that Aquina's 5 Proofs have never been successfully refuted after centuries of attempts, the latter mostly only amounting to efforts to ignore his definitions of the term 'God' and creating their own 're-definitions', thus lying about their failure to refute his logic. As for myself, I sleep just fine not knowing either way, and I also see the obvious in the strained attempts of assorted deviants and sociopaths to slander and degrade Christianity for what that effort is, pseudo-intellectual rubbish hoping to legitimize mindless self-indulgence and mental illnesses as 'natural'. Why do some think the term 'natural' is a defense of anything? Ah, now I remember: they're mentally ill and probably deviants.
     
  24. Greatest I am

    Greatest I am Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    6,353
    Likes Received:
    695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IOW, you are using my ideology in life. Or quite close.

    Welcome to Gnostic Christianity.

    You have chosen the best of all ideologies. A progressive, universalist, and esoteric ecumenists religion.

    Regards
    DL
     
  25. Greatest I am

    Greatest I am Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    6,353
    Likes Received:
    695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except, get your garbage myths the hell out of our schools.

    Regards
    DL
     

Share This Page