That's it .

Right now, while reading all posts, I'm listening to the best radio around, 'here' (if I may say so, from a thing you find free on the www ; not French at all) :

SWF 3

but an Alka-Seltzer will anyway be needed.

........ tic tac tic tac ...

​

 

So, here I am ( rock you like a hurricane ):

I just loved this book :

I Am That

​

which isn't, at the beginning, a book, but the transliteration of some of S.N.M.'s satsangs by Maurice Frydman. If you didn't read it yet, you can begin to read it now, if you want of course.
In there is no guru, master, religion, prophet, belief, concept, idea, theory, nothing to sell, etc. Nothing of those pollutions of the mind :

'Live', it looked like this:

But it will answer it all. All. It can take 3 days or 20 years.

In fact 'I' ll just stop here as nothing can be added. A fortiori in my bad English.

And I've still a big headache added to the scorching temperature we have since 3 days ' here ' !.

​

 

Stefani Germanotta :

2:00 =>

​

 

You almost got me with the hindus, but you definitely lost me with your last post.

 

I don't want to get into a whole debate because though it may be interesting for some people some people might find it offensive and my intention is not to hurt anyone else's feelings. We are all human and allowed to believe whatever works for us. However I would like to reply to some things that were said.

Pilzy
History is written by the victors but it is also a blanket statement used to discredit any facts that fly in the face of our beliefs. Don't like the facts, hey it must have been because they were swept under the rug. If you read my quotes from that argument between those two guys you will come across:

So anyone that knew the technical details of the tower would understand that many are misunderstanding it's purpose and capabilities. If Tesla really could have built such a machine then surely someone else would have perfected the idea by now. I do open myself up to new information but the belief in a higher power is hardly anything new (and I have considered it at different times in my life), in fact it stretches back for many thousands of years to a time when that was the only recourse we had for explaining why the world is the way it was. It was also the first legal system by which people would cease doing things deemed bad for the common good. In my opinion it has served it's purpose but now that we have other knowledge we should be open to that as well. I've already proven evolution to you: how is it that we suddenly have bacteria that are immune to antibiotics, it's actually become a serious problem and people are dying from common infections these days. It's because the bacteria have adapted over time to become resistant after exposure to antibiotics and anti-bacterial products. What is your answer to that? You say we should be open to new ways of thinking yet you completely close your eyes to transitional fossils which have nothing to do with opinions at this point...they're quite real and they show how life has evolved over time from single celled organisms. You make it seem like scientists just woke up one day and decided that's the story they're going with. Whales used to live on land for example but over millions of years they underwent a process of evolutionary change: How Ancient Whales Lost Their Legs, Got Sleek And Conquered The Oceans

Rotten Az Hell

Have I tried it? Yes I am a human being that has the presence of ego but yet still cares about other people. It's the same way you can love people but still hurt them, they are not mutually exclusive either.

Why do you need a book to understand it? You have the best example: yourself. Are you telling me that you never did something out of ego that ended up helping someone else? Competition drives human behavior. If you take Napolean for example he had a short stature and so he developed a complex, a presence of ego but it drove him to do great things. Does that make his contributions to society any less?

Their discoveries have allowed us to improve in many areas. Like for example I was reading about this agriculturalist that basically genetically engineered food for millions of people around the world that would have died had he not done so, that's a pretty intense thing to have on a resume. Of course life means something without it, I don't live with Jesus and yet my life has meaning. I still have morals, I still help people and work for the common good. If you feel that way it's because you're comparing mythical constructs to real people, of course a mythical construct is going to have more power over your vision. For example if life were like a movie it would be so much easier wouldn't it? You face a challenge and beat a bad guy in 2 hours and everything is wrapped up with a neat little bow while real life our victories take considerably more time and work. We have time to get frustrated, time to be bored and time to lose our way. That is so much more real so of course it's not as compelling as those flashy 2 hours. You have more facts about Einstein because he lived not long ago so he's more human and you can see more fault. I mean just think about it: you are comparing the man that many consider to be the son of God whom we know very little about to a humble scientist that we know a lot about. And again I remind everyone that we didn't know Jesus, we didn't know Einstein so our views of them depend on what we've been told.

 

Well, if you didn't want to get into a whole debate you shouldn't have expressed yourself in the first way, otherwise it seems inevitable, isn't it ?
This is just writing on a web forum, nobody gets hurt and we don't have the power to start the WWIII, so that's fine to me.

Now, that's a bold statement.

Still, most of the "fossils" have been proven to be scams.

Actually tons of them, because I know I got a lot to learn from my fellow human beings. Most of them being dead already, there's not much alternative than the books they wrote.
That doesn't mean I'm not able of introspection, but if you think you can improve all on your own, why having relationships at all ?

Another false pre-conceived idea (most of them being propaganda, IMHO).
Usually, the idea behind is "social darwinism". I'm afraid next, you're going to praise Malthus... or Keynes.
Does the name Pierre Kropotkine rings a bell ? Well according to him, mutual aid is what drives human being.

And don't start me on Napoleon, please... I'm french. That means I know who he were, what he did, and most of all, the lies the school teaches to the youth about him.
Bonaparte consul de France = Yes. Napoleon 1er = No.

Actually, I'm not.

But please, allow me to rephrase => However, I can't compare those men to Jesus, or Buddha.

 

From holy men and thinkers to the filth that is that pop woman?

Some really cool thoughts, quotes and references DAW, I shall definitely follow a few of them up.

Ego is indeed a beast.

For the second time in 24hours I have been told that evolution is now a PROVEN fact and has been promoted from a belief. It was my understanding that Darwinsm is no less a belief system than any other religion.

P.S. God, did it then, does it now..... and ALWAYS will.

Be blessed EVERYONE!

 

I'll take on Pilzy first, Rotten possibly tomorrow if I have time as this is very time-consuming and I'm typing on my phone:
Your comments are a non sequitur. I just gave you a sterling example of evolution that you don't have to witness over thousands of years to which you have no answer except to say that evolution isn't proven and God creates all. That is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalala and then you say that we have to be open to new information. You're simply rejecting any factual information that doesn't fit in with your world view and that is not being open. Bacteria evolve over time to survive in an ever changing environment because that is their genetic imperative. A better example of evolution in a short time frame I'd be hard-pressed to find. You feel that a science based on years of research and experimentation has no merit yet you have absolutely no problem believing something you read in a book that not only hasn't ever been validated but a ton of it has already been discredited. It's just more palatable because it fits into your world view. To me that is the same as being under a spell. Sorry buddy but you lose this argument. *yes*

Pilzy next time you get an infection go to your local church and I'm sure god will fix you right up.

 

If there's one thing I've learned when you're dealing with debates on religion: someone always gets hurt, which should give you a glimpse into the fragile nature of religious beliefs in the first place. Even if I don't say something that will offend at least some religious people here, maybe someone else will and is it really worth it? Just because I've shared an opinion doesn't mean I want to spend my lifetime defending it especially when every single fact I bring up is completely ignored or rationalized away with not a shred of evidence. Besides that I consider these discussions completely useless because we will always arrive at a non sequitur and I will leave with my opinion and you will leave with yours. So what's the point?

I stand by it. Prove that bacteria don't evolve over time to better survive in their environment. It's a known fact so either you don't believe in facts or you do and they start to shake up the foundation of your belief system so you choose which ones to ignore responding to.

That's a blanket statement and I notice your use of the word most. There are in fact plenty of fossils AND they are also supported by DNA evidence. But hey I'm sure that won't matter because there will never be enough proof to those that aren't willing to put aside their beliefs and look at the facts.

I'm not against reading but when it comes to something that is best seen through experience a book will hardly help. I'll give you another example: every day you come to AudioZ and pick up the end result of the work that teams have provided so you can have access to the tools to make music. Now how come they don't just release it with the name Unknown but instead opt for a recognizable tag. It's because of ego and competition (not mutual aid), without which we would have no software cracked. So ego not only doesn't get in their way of providing a valuable service to the community it actually drives it.

Mutual aid? Really? Look around at the world man, can you even say that with a straight face? We banded together through history out of necessity not choice, don't get the two confused because they are hardly the same thing. So who do you like that isn't propaganda? You remind me of a friend I have that if someone says they like an inventor or historical figure he has to come up with 10 reasons the guy is a piece of shit. So in your opinion Napoleon had no worth as a historical figure, Einstein either. I say anyone can write a book with a new angle on a historical event but the question is: is it true? Unfortunately we never knew Napoleon so we can't make that estimation. We can only go by what was written down that is based on fact. It's also the height of absurdity that you think that is propaganda but you would never consider that maybe religion complete with prophets is too. Simply a way to control people and get them to do what the people in power wanted them to do and this is pretty obvious throughout history.

If you're really interested you should watch this debate between famous scientists. It is an amazing experience if you are open to it. There are different sessions and they're each at least an hour long so it will take you a while but time flew when I was going through it because I really enjoyed it:
Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival

Out of all the religious friends that say they're open that I've shared this video with how many do you think watched it in it's entirety?: 0

 

Yeah Patrick it was something like that.

 

Granted my learned friend, bacteria do "change" and become products of their environment, as do we all, no?

That still goes no way to answering the leap that Darwin and evolution make Brother. Kind to kind. NEVER been seen, witnessed, either alive, dead or fossilised.

We have such differing views now Cat me old mukkah, yet, even as recent as 2 years ago I`d be shouting just as loud as you in SUPPORT of you.

I`ll leave off with this one for now.

Well...... almost......

GOD DEFO DID IT ALL!!!

Be blessed, in which ever way you choose!

 

The fossil record is quite extensive, and goes a long way in proving that species not just change over time, but do indeed become separate species. Especially in the animal record, which thanks to sedimentary mountains pretty much all over the planet, we can see the slow, gradual progression of species changing. The oldest rocks nearest the bottom of sedimentary deposits contain the oldest fossils, and they progress through several sedimentary layers.

I suppose the case could be made that the entire fossil record is an illusion, or that the progression from one species to the next itself is an illusion as well, but it's ignoring the evidence that we do have, and creating an excuse for one that we don't have any proof of at all.

The fossil record isn't everything though, we also have plenty of genetic evidence to show that most (possibly all, as far as we know) organisms on the planet are related, or at the very least share similar DNA structures. Genes show physical traits that carry over in one generation to the next, and by comparing DNA in species that are living today, we can infer that certain changes can be attributed to genetic mutations that separate species over time.

I guess I don't understand why some people can believe in micro evolution (that which can be proven in laboratory conditions) but completely discredit the idea of macro evolution only because we haven't witnessed it with our eyes directly. We witness macro evolution in other ways other than seeing it happen right in our face. We collect evidence and make statistical inferences. We compare data among a broad spectrum of scientific practices to see what fits and what doesn't. Whether it be the paleontological record, the genetic traces we see in every living thing we've gathered data on, or the act of breeding other species, we take all this knowledge we've accumulated and come to a conclusion that indeed, life evolves over time. Life adapts to it's environment, or it dies, and traits are carried over through several generations.

What I want to know, is why when faced with the evidence, people choose to deny it over a belief that it was created all at once by a god. What I really don't get is why these beliefs can't coincide together. Why for some reason, God can create the earth and all the life on it, but can't program macro evolution into the equation even though we have plenty of evidence that evolution is not only what got us here, but is still happening every single time a gene mutates somewhere on the planet (every nano-second, of every minute, of every day, of every epoch). Is it willful ignorance? Deep seated tradition that dates back centuries?

Whether the universe (or earth) is billions of years old or only a few thousand, it seems to me that there was painstaking detail made to ensure that there is a comprehensive illusion of evolution throughout billions of years. If the earth was created only a little bit ago with these illusions already set in place, then they are convincing enough that we should take the evidence itself as reality, because whatever put us here 6000 years ago wanted us to see it that way it would seem.

Of course, this is only if we take the texts to be 100% literal, which I feel many fall prey to. Our religious mythology was never meant to be taken literally, it's metaphorical in it's nature. In my opinion, various bibles are (or were) merely collections of coded text, written by people who needed to conceal ideas from those who could not wrap their heads around them. People who lived in times when ideas about how the universe truly worked could get you killed if told in the wrong way. What better way to spread them than by coding them in the very mythology everyone already believed. If we look deep into biblical writing, it makes much more sense - as an astrological calendar, a geometric study guide, a music theory text book, an architecture physics manual and perhaps more importantly as a language barrier to keep those in the know connected, and those outside of it satisfied - than it ever has as verified, unhindered truth in every word.

What is perhaps demoralizing to me, is that we live in a time where it isn't necessary, where a big chunk of the human population is educated from birth and where it is less likely you'll be hung for spreading information, yet people cling to the idea of the bible as completely literal in it's intent, and completely true at that. This allows for people to twist words in an already discombobulated block of text, and infer whatever moral legitimacy might be to their liking, while disregarding the rest. Because if we take it word for word, it doesn't quite add up. Not realistically. Not morally. It is a book full of contradictions on purpose, and it isn't the only book made for this purpose. All the major religions are connected in this way. By controlling the language, you control thoughts themselves, and by accessory you control a population; and these texts (in my opinion) were the old guides to manipulating our environment for those in the know, and belief systems for those that weren't.

Sorry to rant.

 

Patrick made an excellent point and that is why can't they coexist, I personally don't understand it either. To some degree I believe it is ironically the act of ego and this is discussed in detail in the link I put up. It was the same confrontation that happened when Copernicus downgraded the central human role when he revealed that the earth is in fact not the center of the universe. This was hard for many to swallow because we think we're so important. People don't want to hear that we evolved from monkeys because they feel that this downgrades their human experience somehow. Again I HIGHLY recommend watching all of those videos. It brings together elite scientists from many disparate fields with many differing opinions and approaches. Also many of the past scientists that are discussed were actually religious at one time or other such as surprise surprise Darwin...who was a creationist before his trip to the Galapagos Islands.

 

Beautifully worded and thought out "rant" PatrickKn.

I agree 100%! Why can`t we coexist? I am no Luddite. I know it may come across that way sometimes in my mutterings here, but I love science and tech. My problem is the very definite move, over the last century, to completely remove God from the picture, from the classroom, from life completely!

Love your inclusion of 6000 years instead of billions.

Are the texts literal or coded? I would definitely agree there is a LOT more to the Bible than the average reader could ever possibly hope to understand. Look at Sir Isaac Newton. He was obsessed with scripture. One of the worlds greatest scientists saw those complexities and was hooked! Only he was too scared of the "Religious" types of the time so kept his writings secret and even said they were for a time after he had gone, when he could not be persecuted for heresy!

That was my biggest surprise when I decided to make a New Years resolution back in 2012: To read and attempt to understand the Bible. It is a fascinating journey into so many differing disciplines. LOVE IT! A Bible study with the aid of the iNet is an incredible adventure. It still blows me away that I thought it was just a stuffy old book full of Yea`s, Thou`s and Verily`s!

Be blessed.

 

Science doesn't try to remove god from the picture, that's a blanket statement. Just like there are different viewpoints presented by different Christians there are also different views presented by different scientists. The videos I put up actually go into this question in detail, particularly about 20 minutes or so before the end of Session 1. There are three models between science and religion, three takes if you will: the same worlds model, the conflicting worlds model and the separate world's model. Different scientists have differing views and align themselves with one of the aforementioned. If there seems to be more conflict it's because religion isn't just about personal belief, it's also about education and about politics and these are areas where there is a lot of friction and for good reason. We don't have to look beyond the fact that many people are ready to strap on bombs in an effort to kill as many people as possible because they think that this is the right thing to do and they will be rewarded for this heinous act. The issue is that people aren't happy to just have their beliefs, they pressure everyone to think the same. The lobbying efforts of Christians in American is a prime example of this, religion ends up influencing politics to a great degree. For example George Bush stalled stem cell research for years over his beliefs, research that could have saved children's lives and therein lies a big problem...when faith becomes more important than life. Or when people preach against contraception which can be a problem in say Africa where a substantial proportion of the population has AIDS. All this is discussed in those videos.

 

hum hum... maybe you should have a look at that one.