|
Author
|
Topic: Raising Standards
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: More nonsense
What you are writing makes no more sense to me than a late '60s dope dream. Please take the first, most basic, premise -- just one -- and present it, along with the supporting evidence. Maybe we can approach the subject easier that way.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Truth
Religion means "to tie" as some have told us based on the root "lig" or perhaps to re-tie would be more accurate. When we use religion, we are very likely tying our human selves to the girasas kingdom, a higher kingdom of nature involved in our evolution. When we join together in one with them, we assume a learning state whereby we receive many of their greater notions and practices. They advance us beyond our own abilities and with a promise to separate from us, make us work harder in securing our futures with what they offer temporarily. However it is also difficult to conceive that after we learn so much about higher things, we have to re-descend through a lower kingdom and offer the same experience to them.
You lost me with girasas kingdom. Never heard of it.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Get your definition of the word here.
Girasas is a word used first by me in this way. Girasas was designed to help institute a concept that is largely left untouched by scholars: a new kingdom, a higher kingdom was heralded by Jesus Christ. Now, perhaps we can use this word when we refer to this kingdom, however no dictionary that I know is currently taking it up, although I have tried.
If we need new words in order to communicate, we'll just have to make them up as we go.
Well, that all fine and good. What the heck does it mean and is there any evidence for its existence? It seems like you are making up both the concept and the word and, to me at least, neither has any basis in reality. Start with the basics and see if you can explain it, and support it with some kind of evidence.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Back to nonsense again
Have you read Jesus Christ's words on the kingdom of heaven? That is likely to be our best source of information on the subject because in His life He showed us what he could do as a 6th Race Humane. If you can't define and explain the most basic concept of your hypothesis without resorting to nonsense, what good is it? I asked you to define a term and you drifted off into new-age religious drivel. Please focus one one thing and try to define that initial concept I asked about.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: You might be willing to learn from one who knows
Jesus is the one who found this kingdom and told us about it. I am merely interpreting the work of a more modern "inquirer" and telling you about the word - AS I USE IT.
He didn't design a new word to refer to "them." I did. But he did everything else we need like give us a reference point.
I keep asking you to define your terms, starting with "girasas kingdom" but all I am getting back is a bunch of religious nonsense. Can you define this term or not? And is it purely religious, or does it have some relation to the real world? What is the evidence for whatever it refers to?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
False (again)
I think you might need to recognize that this theory of evolution PROVIDES validation for religion and that religion is so included in the way that we do things when this theory is practiced.
This is not true. The theory of evolution I studied in grad school (about half time for six years) says nothing about religion. What you have come up with in your wild imaginings I have no idea. And again, you were unable to provide any clues to the meaning of the single term I have now asked you to explain several times. I don't think this discussion needs to go any farther. It is clear you have nothing worthwhile to say.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
You want an idea? Here's an idea
If only we could get scientists working on the prospect of engineering a descent for the girasas, holding "discussion sessions" where the words from this kingdom are pondered and new commitments to future successful undertakings can be solidified. I gave you several chances to explain your ideas and define terms like "girasas" and you couldn't do it. And you expect scientists to drop what they are doing and "engineer a descent for the girasas" or some such???????? Here's an idea: give up this nonsense and find something real on which to spend your time.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Supreme Court issues
What should we do about this? What's the best way to spread the word? You have to figure it out sufficiently to explain it to others. So far you have posted an amazing amount of unconnected nonsense. When I asked you to define some of the the terms you were unable to do so. You need to start connecting your ideas to reality in some way. Definitions are a good start, as is evidence that what you are describing actually exists. Until you can connect to reality you aren't doing anything approaching science.
I sure don't want to go to the Supreme Court and introduce the theory there. I should think not. That's a good way to get arrested.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Try to understand what evidence is
Please understand: religion doesn't like or accept my work any more than science and neither do the organizations I belonged to. I am asking science to be first because perhaps I love and respect you in a way that I cannot the others I have encountered or associated with. Science is the fulfillment of the dream of mental comprehension. Science deals with evidence. So far I have seen no evidence for any of your statements. You can't define your terms in relation to the real world. For example, the terms 5th and 6th races are meaningless unless you can actually show those entities exist somehow! And your definitions must then associate with the evidence for those entities. To show how this works, I can define a new species of butterfly by bringing back a specimen and showing how its characteristics or genome differ from existing species. Find a 5th or 6th race and pin it down so that it can be examined and verified. That's evidence. And that's what science requires.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Evidence follows thought
This new Seven Race Theory of Evolution can be easily understood and practiced by religious and scientific alike. We need evidence, but science is the branch which enjoys this adventure. The scientists state by their degrees and methods that they intend to collect data for us, but are they really serving the population if they intend to exclude those who do not collect evidence from joining the investigation? You have not provided one bit of evidence sufficient to make scientists want to drop what they are doing and follow your ideas. There are tens of thousands of productive lines of research out there; what makes you thing yours is one of them?
This theory accounts for what we find in religion and The Bible. So what? It is seldom a goal of science to acount either for the claims and beliefs of religion, or the 3,000 year old stories in the bible. Why should they when there are many thousands of more productive lines of research to follow?
Yours doesn't have agreement and this one does!!!!!! Did you think it possible in your wildest dreams? I'm sure you would have eventually arranged the data in such a way as the true picture would have resulted, but how long would we have to wait for it? Your writing doesn't provide evidence. That is all that counts in science. So far you have presented enough disjointed material, apparently going nowhere, to make scientists avoid it like the plague! If you want scientists to follow this line of research you have to demonstrate that it is a productive line of research, not a late '60s dope dream that has festered for decades--as that's what it sounds like.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: A parable
How are we to decide between these two possibilities? What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts! Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 5:02 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: TEACHING, just teaching
People don't know this work. Our schools don't mention its existence. Perhaps it is being accorded the attention it deserves. From your disjointed posts I am certainly not moved to examine that book.
Come clean and admit that a female investigator wrote a theory of evolution that is not even given one syllable of classroom time. Being female does not make one immune to purveying nonsense.
Even if the teacher elects to avoid lengthy discussion, students can learn by rote the ins and outs of what is in the book. Why should they bother?
Then they can go about their business, but at least they have heard about this woman's efforts to present what data she had - in length, excerpts from ancient world literature. They go about their business just fine now, without exposure to this particular nonsense.
Did you know that was where she found evidence? What evidence? I asked you from the beginning of this thread for evidence and so far I have not seen any. Why should we take anything such as this seriously? You need to present some evidence that would encourage us to read the book or follow up on what you are preaching. So far you have not done so. If you actually have any evidence, please just save all of us time and present it. Leave out the persecution and all the rest and just present the evidence.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Facts are where?
7. Along comes theosophy: hence, the three objects of the Society, wherein it is stated that (short forms) 1. We form a nucleus of universal brotherhood, 2. We encourage comparative study of religion, science, and philosophy, 3. We investigate the hidden laws of nature and the powers latent in man. FACT I got as far as #7. Not necessarily FACT. My responses: 1. OK, whatever. I'll remember to sing Kumbaya. 2. OK. That's pretty generic. I would leave out philosophy personally, as 2,500 years of study has produced reams of paper but essentially nothing else. As far as philosophy's sister discipline, theology, is concerned, I think Heinlein's description says it best:
quote:
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
As for religion, there are some 4,300 extant world religions. Few are logical, many are internally inconsistent, and most hold mutually exclusive beliefs. Not surprisingly, Heinlein has something to say about this as well:
quote:
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
3. You have to demonstrate that there are "hidden laws of nature" and that your method of investigation is the proper, or even an adequate, method of dealing with them. As far as "powers latent in man" you also have to demonstrate that there are such, and, if so, that your methods are appropriate to deal with them. It may be a FACT that theosophy deals with these three subjects, but that does not make them FACTS. Until you can deal with these issues the rest of your numbered list will have to be held in abeyance.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: You are calling this my theory
I don't care which evidence or texts you use to tell others about it. So far you have presented no worthwhile evidence, nor are the texts you keep referring us to of any apparent value. Have you thought about another hobby? Fly tying would be nice and soothing. Or stamp collecting.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: New things
Imagine, scientists presenting the world with data that supports religion rather than drives it out.
This thread is up to 162 posts, many of those made by you. You have had ample opportunity to present us with some evidence -- any evidence -- that would both support your position and make others willing to take a closer look at what you are saying. You have done nothing to encourage me to look any closer. As far as I can tell what you are advocating is complete nonsense. You wanted your concepts heard; you have presented them here and we have looked at what you have posted. Because you continue to make unsupported claims, and have failed to present any credible evidence, you have not had a very positive reception. I asked you early for a definition of one term (girasas). You could not provide it, nor any evidence that it represented anything real. Don't you think if you are going to pursue this that you should start by nailing down something a little firmly, and then working from that? Get some evidence that these concepts are more substantial than one of Coleridge's dope dreams and you'll do a lot better. Edited by Coyote, : added term
|
™ Version 4.2
