Monstrous
Apocalypse Soon => Conspiracies => Topic started by: vampiric_black_demon on June 16, 2012, 12:37:57 PM
-
I do love this subject too, Theology and Science go hand in glove my friend God has left visible evidence Everywhere you just need to find it , and as i recomended before please pick up an English Quran you will understand my meaning and what i have been meaning to say otherwise it really is not my business or position to judge peoples beliefs however what the bible fails to explain Quran does they are in essence mostly the same. im no expert niether can i say much which is why so i dont make the mistake of running my mouth on wrong things just pick up an English Quran , just to study , to read it .
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, theology and science disagree with quite a few things. Would you mind showing me where God has left evidence? If you make a claim, please do back it up with evidence or facts. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the one making the claim.
-
It's funny how people still believe the way people explained our existence and put it in books thousands of years ago rather than how people(scientists) explain it now.
-
maybe cause we learned that scientists are mostly a bunch of egoistical maniacs that can destroy entire population if pushed in the right direction?
(if want explanation of this statement, just check the internet and see where this famous science of ours brought the Planet to)
does it make them better or worse than any other "leading" figure, such as presidents or priests or doctors?
i see a lot of people lately spit on religions and beliefs, only to make a new God out of science, and scientists new priests...
think where it took us in the history
and sure, no one can prove God, but let me play his advocate just for the sake of debate, and ask who was it that proved God is not existing?
dont get me wrong, im not saying science is all wrong and religion is all about candy.... i do have a logical mind beneath all this weird lifetime experience....
but just but, what if everyone is wrong?
or better, what if everyone is right and not all is defined by a few rigid "laws" that are the result of people doubting and searching throughout aeons?
not all is matter in the Universe, and not all can be defined as such....
-
(I've been away visiting friends for a few days, and I see there are quite a few new discussions I want to contribute to but I'm stuck for time right now. Starting with this thread as it is top of the "recent posts" list.)
maybe cause we learned that scientists are mostly a bunch of egoistical maniacs that can destroy entire population if pushed in the right direction?
This is just flawed. You might well ask "What have the Scientists ever done for us?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso)
When and where did "we" learn "that scientists are mostly a bunch of egoistical maniacs that can destroy entire population if pushed in the right direction"? I certainly haven't learned it. I did, however, learn that scientists developed a vaccine for polio, which at its peak was leaving around 20,000 children paralysed in the United States alone. The disease has now been *almost* eradicated worldwide. Scientists also successfully eradicated Smallpox and Rinderpest. Millions of lives have been saved by antibiotics, developed by scientists. The average life expectancy of Neolithic man was 20 years. During the early 17th century, life expectancy in England was 35 and two thirds of all children died before the age of 4. By the mid-18th century only one in four children in London lived past age 5.
Life expectancy in England today is 80 years...
This is the result of science.
does it make them better or worse than any other "leading" figure, such as presidents or priests or doctors?
Well, doctors are "scientists." But to address your argument, science is neutral, and a double-edged sword. And I would go so far as to suggest that science is at its most dangerous when it falls into the hands of people who want to exploit it... for example politicians and religious leaders.
Do you blame Alessandro Volta, Benjamin Franklin, Nikola Tesla and Michael Faraday because political prisoners have been tortured with electric shocks? Does that misuse of their discoveries outweigh electric light, heating, baby incubators etc etc?
Scientists discovered nuclear fission. Scientists built the first atomic bomb.
But it was a Southern Baptist 'man of God' (and US president) - Harry S. Truman - who ordered American airmen to drop it on Hiroshima...
-
maybe cause we learned that scientists are mostly a bunch of egoistical maniacs that can destroy entire population if pushed in the right direction?
This makes about as much sense as saying that police officers are mostly just power corrupted officials. There will always be a few bad eggs that make the whole look bad. You're classifying the majority of a group of people based off of just a few.
(if want explanation of this statement, just check the internet and see where this famous science of ours brought the Planet to)
Science has lead mankind to its greatest achievements and brought the highest quality of life in human history. The same CANNOT be said of religion, with the numerous wars its sparked, and attempts to control it's people, and the killing of innocent "blasphemer's". In my personal experience, which certainly does not represent the whole of religious people, the religious people I have encountered seem to dislike critical thinking and dislike it when I play devil's advocate with them, they take offense to it.
does it make them better or worse than any other "leading" figure, such as presidents or priests or doctors?
i see a lot of people lately spit on religions and beliefs, only to make a new God out of science, and scientists new priests...
think where it took us in the history
and sure, no one can prove God, but let me play his advocate just for the sake of debate, and ask who was it that proved God is not existing?
I do not spit on religions and beliefs, I just don't think I have any reason to believe in any religion. The best reason I have is "because my parents told me to". If God is real, and he made me the way I am, he would know that I would require a higher set of standards than most before I believe in something. To damn me to hell, simply because of the way he made me, I feel like that would make god a hypocrite. Because then it would be his "flaws" (which are impossible for God) that caused me to be damned to Hell. How many inconsistencies is that? You're not playing God's advocate, you're implying that because someone cannot prove that God does not exist, that somehow makes it possible or even likely that he does exist. Religion and God are what is called an Unfalsifiable theory.
dont get me wrong, im not saying science is all wrong and religion is all about candy.... i do have a logical mind beneath all this weird lifetime experience....
but just but, what if everyone is wrong?
or better, what if everyone is right and not all is defined by a few rigid "laws" that are the result of people doubting and searching throughout aeons?
not all is matter in the Universe, and not all can be defined as such....
Based off of the positions you've taken and proposed, I have a difficult time believing how logical your mind really is. And I mean that in no offense, but more of blunt honesty.
-
This is just flawed. You might well ask "What have the Scientists ever done for us?"
Quite, sure they did a lot of good, but lets be honest and say that they did as much bad. Recent studies show that some of the most spread vaccines that were used not so long ago cause mental and physical retardation.
Lets pretend that years of wrong perception of mental illness brought thousands and thousands of people who are ruined forever. Ok, thats nothing to mention.
Then lets hop to mr military scientist, yaaay, what awesome way to use this type of energy, lets use it for killing first, then give it to the humanity after we find a better one? Oh, right, they are military so that doesnt count.
Ok, agreed, Same as the scientists that worked for pappy Adolf, did a lil human testing, yay thats sooo much fun this science, lets all move and work for other fascist government. Ok, never mind that. They were just a few, right?
Then lets pretend that those scientists dont do their big jobs for even bigger corporations, take millions and give humanity lovely things as new diseases, toxic wastes, chemtrails, GMO that kills fertility in both animals and humans.... nothing honorable in that science that u put so high up.
And sure, there were a lot of them that did so much good for the humanity, no one can deny that, but try being a scientist that perceives reality differently than majority of scientific circles. They will be ridiculed and shut off, only cause their ideas are not worth expanding, since some cant make profit of it.
And I would go so far as to suggest that science is at its most dangerous when it falls into the hands of people who want to exploit it... for example politicians and religious leaders.
Exactly. They are just humans, same as any other (ok, maybe not Tesla, he admitted his ideas came from the source outside of himself while sleeping). What makes them acceptable to the matters of flesh, sort of speak.
I understand ur idea, and u are right to a certain point. But all im saying is, lets not make science above everything else, create a farking golden cow and praise it like there is nothing around it. Cause there is. And im pretty positive that ONE DAY in the future, science will be so all knowing as we like to think it is. But its not.
ps: love the Pythons ;)
This makes about as much sense as saying that police officers are mostly just power corrupted officials.
most of them are. i hate to burst ur bubble, but most men dont join the police cause they wanna be a hero, they join to fill their lil egoistical frustrations ;)
You're classifying the majority of a group of people based off of just a few.
Hm, weird, it looked to me that people were doing the same when we talk about Christians for example ;)
Science has lead mankind to its greatest achievements and brought the highest quality of life in human history. The same CANNOT be said of religion
Cmmon, r u serious?
Do a lil research and see how many parts of the world got medical care, water, electricity and schools cause of the Church? Some of the greatest artists were payed by the Church as well. Those of highest quality too ;)
Science maybe led us to this point where we all sitting comfy by our laptops and debate while sipping instant coffee. But take a look around, a very good look, and if u have at least a bit of reason, u will notice its not THAT great.
Its easy to spit on God and faith and all that when one lacks the same. No one has to believe in it. Its a personal choice. But science doesnt give u that. Its firm, rigid and prolly the only ones that are aware of its thin walls are astrophysicist. You know, the guys that are aware of mutlidimensional reality :)
Based off of the positions you've taken and proposed, I have a difficult time believing how logical your mind really is. And I mean that in no offense, but more of blunt honesty.
Oh im not offended, im quite aware that some lack the ability to see outside the box. Being blunt as well :)
-
So, as I said before this is meant to clarify and to prove the existence of demons (I hope).
Hm. The "proof" you offer is - basically - "because religious texts say so"?
-
nope , the texts provide a background a sort of study before engaging in anything to do with actually summoning/ dealing with the creature
-
sure they did a lot of good, but lets be honest and say that they did as much bad.
But that wouldn't be "being honest."
Recent studies show that some of the most spread vaccines that were used not so long ago cause mental and physical retardation.
The study that started all this nonsense was Wakefield et al's Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, published in the Lancet in 1998. In fact, this was a small study with no controls, linking three common conditions, and relying heavily on parental recall and beliefs. Scientists spent the next ten years trying to replicate his findings but consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The paper was retracted in 2010 after it was found to be not only "fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically" but also "an elaborate fraud." Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome and then exploited the ensuing MMR scare for financial gain. He also did not declare his conflict of interest through his involvement with a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. "Not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal."
As the British Medical Journal reported after Wakefield was stripped of his credentials and declared unfit to practice medicine, " the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting... Although vaccination rates in the United Kingdom recovered slightly from their 80% low in 2003-4, they are still below the 95% level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure herd immunity. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales. Hundreds of thousands of children in the UK are currently unprotected as a result of the scare, and the battle to restore parents’ trust in the vaccine is ongoing... [P]erhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion, and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it."
Then lets pretend that those scientists dont do their big jobs for even bigger corporations, take millions and give humanity lovely things as new diseases, toxic wastes, chemtrails, GMO that kills fertility in both animals and humans.... nothing honorable in that science that u put so high up.
Jonas Salk, the virologist who developed the world's first safe and effective polio vaccine, would not let it be patented. He considered it such a boon for humanity that when asked "Who owns this patent?" he replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?"
"...chemtrails" - there is no credible evidence that there is such a thing.
-
But that wouldn't be "being honest."
I beg to differ :)
That wasnt the only study, but im too lazy now to dig others. The truth is, we should be paying attention on who is paying for the study and who published it in the first place. Yeah, im a tinfoil hatter, but world works through money and power, not through well being of its inhabitants. I didnt say all vaccines are bad, i vaccinated my own child with most of them. I skipped the nano particle one, cause i could choose, or better said, i knew i can choose. Left my kiddos doc a bit amazed that i even know of this, so what im asking is, why is it such a surprise that a parent knows whats in the vaccine? Hell no im not gonna let my child be infected with additives that could bring more havoc than rescue. Also, if i may add, my child almost died after being vaccinated with 8 months. Of course, the doctors said its a bacteria, but the second doctor didnt even find it in traces, and confirmed she wasnt the first that had serious problems after being vaccinated. Also, i visited a lot of forums for parents, u can find a large number of testimonies and pictures of results....
Jonas Salk is one.
"...chemtrails" - there is no credible evidence that there is such a thing.
not even the pilots of such planes? ;)
-
most of them are. i hate to burst ur bubble, but most men dont join the police cause they wanna be a hero, they join to fill their lil egoistical frustrations ;)
To clarify, most people join the police because they must satisfy their egotistical frustrations? Most people, as in at least 75% of the police, is that fair to say? Can we off of your reasoning assume that at least 75% of the police are corrupted officials who lust to assert their authority? These conclusions can be drawn off of that one statement you made.
Hm, weird, it looked to me that people were doing the same when we talk about Christians for example ;)
I didn't realize that the mistakes of others became my burden to bear. I do believe I said something like this though "In my personal experience, which certainly does not represent the whole of religious people". Feel free to criticize me for my actions, not the actions of others.
Science has lead mankind to its greatest achievements and brought the highest quality of life in human history. The same CANNOT be said of religion
Cmmon, r u serious?
Do a lil research and see how many parts of the world got medical care, water, electricity and schools cause of the Church? Some of the greatest artists were payed by the Church as well. Those of highest quality too ;)
Science maybe led us to this point where we all sitting comfy by our laptops and debate while sipping instant coffee. But take a look around, a very good look, and if u have at least a bit of reason, u will notice its not THAT great.
Its easy to spit on God and faith and all that when one lacks the same. No one has to believe in it. Its a personal choice. But science doesnt give u that. Its firm, rigid and prolly the only ones that are aware of its thin walls are astrophysicist. You know, the guys that are aware of mutlidimensional reality :)
Yes, I am serious. Medical care, water, electricity, and education. Modern medical care....that's science. Irrigation, water treatment facilities, water desalinization, among numerous others, are all products of science. The way electricity is harnessed and used is a product of science. The church is merely a user of technology, the same way the United states is a user of technology that dropped the bombs to wipe out nagasaki and hiroshima. It all comes down to individual people and their intent. Go back and look at what I said, do you really think the word religion would better replace the word science in that phrase?
I believe you would change your mind if you were sitting in a hut in 450 A.D. south africa, hunting for your own food, with a life expectancy of 30 or so years. If you're willing to say that the time we live in "it's not THAT great", it's my opinion that you simply don't appreciate the contributions many people have made for the benefit of mankind.
So...science is firm, rigid, and by thin walls I assume you mean it has weak legs to stand on. Science is very flexible, and skeptics are often highly rewarded when a well established belief is proven wrong. Newton's laws were once thought to be universal, but einstein proved that under certain conditions, Newton's laws did not apply. Science is not firm nor rigid, it is the very opposite. It's highly flexible, and it's always seeking for the correct answer. As for your comment on multidimensional realities, you seem to laugh it off as crazy talk. What you propose about God and demons and spirits, from an empirical point of view, is more worthy of being laughed at than multidimensional realities. Multidimensional realities has mathematics and theories to back itself up, just look at String Theory. What does religion have in terms of evidence to back up it's claims?
Based off of the positions you've taken and proposed, I have a difficult time believing how logical your mind really is. And I mean that in no offense, but more of blunt honesty.
Oh im not offended, im quite aware that some lack the ability to see outside the box. Being blunt as well :)
Seeing outside the box = throwing a logic, evidence based, scientific approach out the window?
-
I read what u wrote, and in all seriousness, i dont find it worthy replying. You make assumptions and take it to a personal level, when all we do here is DEBATE.
Actually, I am working on my life in such direction that i will soon (i hope) leave this system and go live in a hut and hunt my own food. :)
do you really think the word religion would better replace the word science in that phrase?
no, i dont, i took the current of the debate to that area to show u a point. which u missed (need glasses by any chance?)
As for your comment on multidimensional realities, you seem to laugh it off as crazy talk
dude, u really do have a hard time catching the "spirit of a convo". It wasnt laughed off at all, it actually in short said what u elaborated in ur answer... lmao
What does religion have in terms of evidence to back up it's claims?
you must have confused me with a religious person :D
Seeing outside the box = throwing a logic, evidence based, scientific approach out the window?
"Thinking outside the box" and "thinking beyond the box" (also called "thinking out of the box" or "thinking outside the square" ) is to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective
says Wiki :)
-
Hands up and a tip of my hat to nina i agree completely
-
I will do the same and disregard your entire post, but on different grounds. You're too easily offended, when all I am doing is debating. I'm not attacking you. I think it would benefit you if you were to improve your critical thinking skills. Be more of a skeptic.
If you make a claim, and I ask for evidence, you don't have to present me or anyone any evidence whatsoever. Just don't expect anyone who possesses a sufficient understanding of science to believe you.
-
I am not offended.
And the only thing i expect of members is decency.