Illuminati-R-Us

Split from: Standard Model in trouble and beginning as a reply to:

teri tait wrote:Sounds like a correlation with dark matter and maybe even string universe.
At least to me but I'm no scientist, not by a long shot. I just believe in ethereal energy and alternate planes of existence.
Science only reinforces my belief in God.
I have always thought that scientific theory like the "big bang" is just another way of saying "let there be light".

-Lance
===============================================

teri tait wrote:I'm no scientist

teri tait wrote:I just believe in ethereal energy and alternate planes of existence.

Thats redundant.

azazul wrote:

teri tait wrote:I'm no scientist

teri tait wrote:I just believe in ethereal energy and alternate planes of existence.

Thats redundant.

Roger that, person-I'll-never-call-baby-again! I have no scientific training whatsoever.
I'm just a typical woo depending on my own perceptions to develop my opinions. :)

teri tait wrote:I'm just a typical woo depending on my own perceptions to develop my opinions.

And when did you perceive "ethereal energy" and/or "alternate planes of existence"?

azazul wrote:

teri tait wrote:I'm just a typical woo depending on my own perceptions to develop my opinions.

And when did you perceive "ethereal energy" and/or "alternate planes of existence"?

All the time, through meditation. I am studying with the Rosicrucians, they are very adept and knowledgeable on the subject.
I've seen stuff and felt weird electrical impulses all my life. Its not a big deal, its just focusing to allow energy to flow through you conciously.
Make fun of it if you like, it doesn't bother me at all. :)

teri tait wrote:

azazul wrote:

teri tait wrote:I'm just a typical woo depending on my own perceptions to develop my opinions.

And when did you perceive "ethereal energy" and/or "alternate planes of existence"?

All the time, through meditation. I am studying with the Rosicrucians, they are very adept and knowledgeable on the subject.
I've seen stuff and felt weird electrical impulses all my life. Its not a big deal, its just focusing to allow energy to flow through you conciously.

So nothing that you can actually prove to anyone? I guess I am forced to just take your word for it. If the Rosicrucians converted a hardcore skeptic like yourself then it must be true.

teri tait wrote:Make fun of it if you like, it doesn't bother me at all.

Sure, no problem. Could you please turn around, I prefer making fun of people behind their backs.

The Rosicrucians didn't convert me. Their literature offered me an explanation for less than ordinary experiences. They are highly intelligent men and women from all walks of life. They are quiet and non-descript people that don't generally make spectacles of themselves. Their organization has some internal problems and some of their members are insufferable, snobby eliteists but then all groups have those.
For the most part they are friendly and helpful.

Science deals with something that faith does not and vice versa. The two are exclusive of each other - science is "I know" and faith is "I hope". The prolbme is that too many people replace the "know" with "hope" and don't allow knowledge to supercede emotional attachment.

Feeling something may be a reaction to external forces, in which case it's something physical and science can investigate. Feeling something can also be the person's emotional responce creating the perception of a physical feeling, in which case it's subjective.

This is not to say emotions are not real! They motivate people to great (and horrible) things! Becoming aware of what is fact vs faith is one of my primary drives in life.

Hope has nothing to do with faith. Faith is steadfast belief that remains long after hope has fled.
Science is much closer to hope and wonder. It brings out hypothesis and speculation, hope and wonder are just about the same things.
Faith doesn't need proof or require anything but strength of the soul. That's why its called the mystery of faith.

Science promotes Reason, Thought, and Experiment. It promotes Truth, and does everything it can to get rid of "hope", "faith", and personal prejudice.

Truth is not found through hope and faith. It is found through experimentation, deduction, testing, and objective views.

While it has a sense of wonder about it, Science itself does not have anything to do with "hope" and "wonder"; some people who use science hope and wonder, but Science, at it's ideal, has no such inclinations -- it is used to promote Truth, not just the Truths we want to hear and believe in.

Lonewulf wrote:Science promotes Reason, Thought, and Experiment. It promotes Truth, and does everything it can to get rid of "hope", "faith", and personal prejudice.

Truth is not found through hope and faith. It is found through experimentation, deduction, testing, and objective views.

While it has a sense of wonder about it, Science itself does not have anything to do with "hope" and "wonder"; some people who use science hope and wonder, but Science, at it's ideal, has no such inclinations -- it is used to promote Truth, not just the Truths we want to hear and believe in.

Truth? Science looks for answers and often contradicts itself or new discoveries cause old standards to be reevaluated. There is no cut and dry truth in science because science is a work in progress, always.
Truth goes more readily with faith than hope ever did. Hope is expectation, faith is knowing without expectation.

Faith is "knowing" without evidence, i.e. wishful thinking.

Science on the other hand, gets closer and closer to the truth,
never further.

teri tait wrote:Truth? Science looks for answers and often contradicts itself or new discoveries cause old standards to be reevaluated. There is no cut and dry truth in science because science is a work in progress, always.
Truth goes more readily with faith than hope ever did. Hope is expectation, faith is knowing without expectation.

You don't seem to understand.

The point of finding contradictions and new discoveries and revamping old ways of looking at things is a part of Truth. It's discarding the un-truths and finding the Truth buried deep within. The whole point of Science is "find the flaw, fix it, and keep doing it again and again and again..."

The whole point of science -- and finding the truth -- has to do with reevaluation and being a work in progress. To proclaim something is "right", forget about it, and never reevaluate it leads to Falsehood.

That is progress, and that finds Truth far better than proclaiming something is true, having Faith in it, and never changing your belief, even when new information comes to light.

Faith has nothing to do with truth, nor does it have anything to do with knowledge. Just because you believe in something, doesn't make it true; and if it isn't tested, there is no way of knowing it's veracity as Truth.

Halcyon Dayz wrote:Faith is "knowing" without evidence, i.e. wishful thinking.

Science on the other hand, gets closer and closer to the truth,
never further.

Faith is knowing without the need for evidence. Faith has nothing to do with wishing something would be, wishes are things you want to be.

Science does get closer to the truth in many ways. It always strides to go forward though, nothing wrong with science.

Its really comparing apples to oranges to compare faith to science.

teri tait wrote:Faith is knowing without the need for evidence. Faith has nothing to do with wishing something would be, wishes are things you want to be.

Wrong.

Faith is not "knowing", it's thinkng you know. It's proclaiming something is true, and doing nothing to back it up, for others or for yourself.

That is not "knowledge", since you don't really "know". You just "think you know". There's a very key difference here, and it's what gives science it's power.

Lonewulf wrote:

teri tait wrote:Faith is knowing without the need for evidence. Faith has nothing to do with wishing something would be, wishes are things you want to be.

Wrong.

Faith is not "knowing", it's thinkng you know. It's proclaiming something is true, and doing nothing to back it up, for others or for yourself.

That is not "knowledge", since you don't really "know". You just "think you know". There's a very key difference here, and it's what gives science it's power.

No
Faith is knowing. You are the one who thinks I don't know, not me. I don't need proofs to validate my belief, it is a truth of the heart. It has always been there and always will be, simple as that. Ridiculous to you but I don't mind. I don't even mind if you lose respect for me for having faith, I will still have it all the same. :)

teri tait wrote:No
Faith is knowing. You are the one who thinks I don't know, not me. I don't need proofs to validate my belief, it is a truth of the heart. It has always been there and always will be, simple as that. Ridiculous to you but I don't mind. I don't even mind if you lose respect for me for having faith, I will still have it all the same. :)

So basically, "I know the truth, nothing you could say could persuade me otherwise, I will not change my beliefs no matter what, I know it, and have no chance of being wrong".

Hokee dokee. Won't waste my time here, then.

Lonewulf wrote:

teri tait wrote:No
Faith is knowing. You are the one who thinks I don't know, not me. I don't need proofs to validate my belief, it is a truth of the heart. It has always been there and always will be, simple as that. Ridiculous to you but I don't mind. I don't even mind if you lose respect for me for having faith, I will still have it all the same. :)

So basically, "I know the truth, nothing you could say could persuade me otherwise, I will not change my beliefs no matter what, I know it, and have no chance of being wrong".

Hokee dokee. Won't waste my time here, then.

OK, nice talking with you though. Sorry you wasted your time.

How do you account for people having faith in mutually exclusive things.

If one person with faith is wrong, couldn't they all be?

Halcyon Dayz wrote:How do you account for people having faith in mutually exclusive things.

If one person with faith is wrong, couldn't they all be?

I have faith in God, not religion. I am a gnostic which is not any religion at all. It is an intangible knowledge of God. God is within and each person expresses their belief based in the cultural and religious upbringing. They are all right for the people that gain comfort in religion. That doesn't mean one is better than another, they're just different forms of expression.

teri tait wrote:I have faith in God, not religion. I am a gnostic which is not any religion at all. It is an intangible knowledge of God. God is within and each person expresses their belief based in the cultural and religious upbringing. They are all right for the people that gain comfort in religion. That doesn't mean one is better than another, they're just different forms of expression.

But the problem is, you're claiming knowledge.

So you're basically saying, "I'm right, period". That comes off as arrogant.

Lonewulf wrote:

teri tait wrote:I have faith in God, not religion. I am a gnostic which is not any religion at all. It is an intangible knowledge of God. God is within and each person expresses their belief based in the cultural and religious upbringing. They are all right for the people that gain comfort in religion. That doesn't mean one is better than another, they're just different forms of expression.

But the problem is, you're claiming knowledge.

So you're basically saying, "I'm right, period". That comes off as arrogant.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm simply stating I have faith and I don't need proof to validate my faith. I'm not saying I have faith naner naner you don't. I respect your perspective, I just don't agree with it.

You're claiming you possess knowledge. I can only make the assumption that you are claiming that it is "true" knowledge, considering you don't want it termed another way.

In short, you're saying, "I know, period". Respecting someone's views is easy when you know that they're wrong, and you're right...

Lonewulf wrote:You're claiming you possess knowledge. I can only make the assumption that you are claiming that it is "true" knowledge, considering you don't want it termed another way.

In short, you're saying, "I know, period". Respecting someone's views is easy when you know that they're wrong, and you're right...

In short I'm saying I have faith in God and I always will. I'm not saying you're wrong or right in what you believe. It isn't something I need to consider, that's strictly up to you. If you have faith in God that's fine if you don't that's fine too. Either way it does not affect my faith or my opinion of you as a person.

If we couch everything in terms of us versus them, then it can be contentious. But to someone fo faith, it is about them believing, not them having to rationalize their position to someone else. It is humming to yourself, I know this, not telling everyone else, Hey I know this. it is only arrogant if it is thought in terms of everyone else.

If I consistently act upon an internal moral imperative, I am not arrogant. If I proclaim that I have this moral imperative and you should agree with it, then that is arrogant.

Yeah, but I just don't get why people of faith can't just admit that they don't really know.

Meh, whatever.