Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ceverante · 02-02-2005, 11:43 PM

I personally feel that 'Religion' are the more powerful 'Cults' who has the power to call themselves 'Religion'. A projection of the mob consensus. "I have more supporters than you do, therefore my way is right and yours is wrong! Neh neh ne neh neh *stick out tongue*

"

Sgent29 · 02-03-2005, 03:20 AM

A recent example of the changing dogma of accepted literature, and both good and bad:

About 20 years ago a professor in Australia proposed a new outlook on common stomach ulcers, hypothesizing that they were caused by a bacteria rather than by the current medically accepted cellular failures due to acid buildup. He was laughed at and demeaned.

He then started treating his patients and documenting the research involved, and eventually published the work in a peer reviewed journal. It was again dismissed.

Finally, he, in collaberation with some other physicians, published a second article, and it was reproduced by some other researchers. It is now accepted medicine that ulcers are treated with antibiotics if the patient has H. Pylori.

He is now recongized as a major contributor, and has gotten all the benefits as such, but he faced major obstacles for having a differing view than (then) current science.

NeverByte · 02-03-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharma

as I said if science was so great, today they would have the cure to the common cold, so you believe in science as some theist believes in religion with absolutely no proof of having done anything great, so far applied science is quite weak...

Applied science is weak? So what do you think is responsible for the computer that you're sitting in front of and typing on? What do you think is responsible for the medication that you take when you get sick / injured? What do you think is responsible for the Taj Mahal still standing after so long? In all cases, applied *frickin'* science, already! (Electronics, Biology, Engineering.) And you certainly don't get the same results from meditation...

PoodleLovinPessimist · 02-03-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgent29

He is now recongized as a major contributor, and has gotten all the benefits as such, but he faced major obstacles for having a differing view than (then) current science.

The argument, though, is that anyone should face obstacles for changing the consensus; these obstacles are good things: They bar bad or false science from entering the canon. A theory must have both scientific and pragmatic merit to overcome the political/meta-methodological barriers to its acceptance. And, as we find in this example, theories which do indeed have both scientific and pragmatic merit, do indeed overcome these obstacles. The examples (in no particular order) are legion (and these are just the big guns)

The (pre-QM) Wave Theory of Light (beating even Newton!)
Plate Tectonics (sp?)
Special and General Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
The Germ Theory of Disease

99% of those who suffer bitterly from the political obstacles in science are mystics and those riding Velikovski-like hobbyhorses.

mirage · 02-03-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgent29

A recent example of the changing dogma of accepted literature, and both good and bad:

About 20 years ago a professor in Australia proposed a new outlook on common stomach ulcers, hypothesizing that they were caused by a bacteria rather than by the current medically accepted cellular failures due to acid buildup. He was laughed at and demeaned.

No he wasn't. Please cite the papers where he was literaly demeaned. Please tell us the conferences where laughter broke out. You can't because there wasn't any.

Of course the mainstream was sceptical. Hypotheses have to fight to survive and establish themselves as theories. That is why science works and isn't full of a load of shite. His hypothesis worked and it is now the mainstream.

A perfect example of science working as smooth as clockwork.

Capn_Danger · 02-03-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharma

again, "meditation is subjective" is an incorrect statement...what attainments in meditation have you attained that you can say this.?..that's like someone saying physics ain't so hot after taking high school physics...in other words, by what authority do YOU claim that meditation is subjective?

I claim it on the basis of rational authority (i.e., my opinion has good reasons). Any "information" gleaned from meditation subjective because it focuses solely on personal, internal sensations (thoughts and emotions). It's subjective because it's relative to the practitioner's perception.

Quote:

As for your contention that eastern thought has had no influence on modern western science, I'm now going to make you eat your words...most of the theories of relativity and time and space came from German scientists who pretty much mastered sanskrit and they admitted it, they simply put a formula for brilliant Hindu/buddhist/jain ideas, unllike haughty ignoramus' such as yourself..

Mmmmm, words...tasty

It is quite funny that you ask for documentation for something, that the eastern practitioners have quite clearly defined using mantric formulas and told you to practice...You are telling me that a scientist who can define surfing, but can't surf, but defines it with physics, etc, is superior to the surfer, who can surf and can teach others without needing any book...a surfer would say, well practice...you'll see how to use the force...the surfer and the scientist both know something...the surfer's body knows something that the scientist who doesn't surf still doesn't know...a surfing scientist of course is superior...

[/QUOTE]

It was rash to say that they didn't contribute anything, but I would like to actually see some of those contributions in detail, and how they connect to our modern theories. Some links would be nice. And I didn't say anything about the superiority of explanation to action or skill. I didn't even imply it. That's an apples and oranges sort of comparision, anyways...

Dharma · 02-03-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sourdough

what is this,a fricking joke?

how many people have died lately from a common cold?
simply keeping warm and drinking plenty of fluids will cure your cold anyday!

typical response of someone who doesn't understand the relationship between mind and body...let's just people who know how to "properly practice" religion won't get colds...

Quote:

totaly retarded comparison,imo,
we dont believe.... we TRUST science
as science gives us knowledge of how things work/are as it repeatedly tests and measures everything until theres no doubt about what the TRUTH/reality is.

religion gives us a whole pile of horseshit fantasies.

:rolling:
I''ll stick with modern science over your religious delusions any day..

boy so many posts, so little time. There are many people who "trust" religion and what it says...trust is no different than faith..."I "trust" you" is no different than saying "I have faith in you" both implies letting someone possibly take you for a ride... also your measurements and tests lead to how many space shuttle's crashing...inaccurate testing...eh? As I said I am not against observational knowledge, science...let's just say I don't get the usual colds anymore...not because of science

Dharma · 02-03-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirage

None of them credit the Eastern thinkers with a scientific theory of relativity. None of them say that the theory of evolution is "nothing new". The eastern thinkers did not allege common descent. You are wrong. Be grown up and admit you overstated your case.

er, Mirage, can you please tell me where in my posts I've stated that eastern yogis invented the "SCIENTIFIC" theory of relativity?

No, all of my posts contend Eastern thought as contributing to modern notions of relativity and I have shown all the major thinkers (Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr) who clearly state that they well understood eastern thought and there ideas were indeed influenced by it.. and I said precisely that easterners have defined the theory of relativity in both philosophical terms as well as yogic/mantric terms...which you are not capable of understanding.

<Edited>

Dharma · 02-03-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbdy

wow other religions besides christianity also make outragous claims about the supposed supiorority of there knowledge in a sad attempt to bolster the validity of thier beliefe system,while, at the same time of handedly dismissing science for not meeting standerds thier own system couldnt live up to either, suprise suprise.

Question dahrma has Hindueism, or any other system for that matter actually cured the common cold? If the answer is no how could you possibly use such a standered in evaluating the system? wouldnt such a standered make all other systems equally invalid?

the truth of the matter is even if hinduism had the knowledge that science possesed beforehand it still did absolutly nothing usefull with it. While science was deriving all sorts of usefull world improving theories and Mechinisms from its available knowledge, Hinduism was for some reason encodeing them in a series of vague writings.

i am not interested in wich team had the ball the longest. what i want to know is wich team was able to put it in the basket.

i mean no disrespect to you personally dahrma but i find these kinds of arguements silly. Every religion i have ever come across has claimed this exact same thing in some form or another, if you want to assert this extreemly radical idea you better have some very good evidence

oh, really? Religions have made nothing USEFUL? And you are so sure of this...? A real religion can make you believe that a dude on a flying horse for "judgement day", I heard 2 billion people believe this and none of your scientific babble is gonna stop them from believing this...heck, ever since science came along, I heard more people are converting because they believe this...boy, you really don't know what a religion can do and yet you speak as if you know...fools...

And, yes I have cured my colds, most people who practice their "religion" correctly don't get colds...:rolling:

Dharma · 02-03-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capn_Danger

I claim it on the basis of rational authority (i.e., my opinion has good reasons). Any "information" gleaned from meditation subjective because it focuses solely on personal, internal sensations (thoughts and emotions). It's subjective because it's relative to the practitioner's perception.

You claim rationality...yet you are making an observation that I would consider completely lacking in knowledge... :devil1:

you don't understand that the basic tenet of religion is to overcome the instruments of perception...the senses...therefore not allowing this relative, subjective thoughts and emotions to take place.

Again there is a correct way of doing things and an incorrect way of doing things which leads to "visions" hysteria and cults, etc. similar to science...there is a correct way of doing science and an incorrect way which leads to the Atkins craze and Nazi racialist cults...

Quote:

It was rash to say that they didn't contribute anything, but I would like to actually see some of those contributions in detail, and how they connect to our modern theories. Some links would be nice. And I didn't say anything about the superiority of explanation to action or skill. I didn't even imply it. That's an apples and oranges sort of comparision, anyways...

in what way? You mean a yogi who can make you believe your a monkey's uncle.?

..what you don't seem to understand is that the perfected "messiah" or the Yogi is the evidence in itself of religous practices...everyone's waiting for that messiah, avatar dude...you know, like scientists wait and wonder when the next "Einstein" will come, who'll take science to a new level...

the fact that 2 billion people are converting to Christianity because they believe that some dude is gonna come flying on a white horse with a sword and kick ass on Judgement Day like Rambo, means religion works, it can make MOST men believe anything...heck, science cannot understand this...perhaps they never will...
:Cheeky:

02-03-2005, 03:20 AM	#62
Sgent29 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Memphis Posts: 86	Recent Example A recent example of the changing dogma of accepted literature, and both good and bad: About 20 years ago a professor in Australia proposed a new outlook on common stomach ulcers, hypothesizing that they were caused by a bacteria rather than by the current medically accepted cellular failures due to acid buildup. He was laughed at and demeaned. He then started treating his patients and documenting the research involved, and eventually published the work in a peer reviewed journal. It was again dismissed. Finally, he, in collaberation with some other physicians, published a second article, and it was reproduced by some other researchers. It is now accepted medicine that ulcers are treated with antibiotics if the patient has H. Pylori. He is now recongized as a major contributor, and has gotten all the benefits as such, but he faced major obstacles for having a differing view than (then) current science.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2005, 11:43 PM	#61
Ceverante Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Asia Posts: 37	I personally feel that 'Religion' are the more powerful 'Cults' who has the power to call themselves 'Religion'. A projection of the mob consensus. "I have more supporters than you do, therefore my way is right and yours is wrong! Neh neh ne neh neh stick out tongue "

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.