It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Invalid tests such as looking for the moon from inside a room with no windows and conlcuding that it doesn't exist because you can't see it. I already explained this didn't I? If you could levitate only under ther circumstances you mention then the scientific method of testing levitation you preach, would be another example of an invalid test, wouldn't it? Destined to lead to the wrong conlcusion that you couldn't levitate, when in fact you could under certain circumstances.
You keep harping on the not wanting to learn angle. Let me clarify this for you one more time. I mentioned how my research in quantum physics had raised the idea of higher dimensions. From this you jumped to the conclusion that I was using the teachings of quantum physics to explain what these higher dimensions entailed, when all quantum physics did was provide a catalyst for me to find out more about these higher dimensions. The role of quantum physics had expired at this point in my quest. You then went on to encourage me to learn more about quantum physics in order to learn more about these other dimensions, to which I replied that quantum physics doesn't know anything about these higher dimensions other than the possibility that they exist, thus I had no desire to learn any more about it. What could it possible teach about something it knows so little about? Since that time you persist in making broad assumptions that I don't wish to learn about anything.
In regards to science being a religion, I provided a definition of what a religion entails, and proceded to demonstrate how science satisfies the prerequisties of this definition.
If you have no idea of what you are talking about when you say proof, then stop trying to explain the concept to me. I don't claim to know what you are thinking, I merely make assessments based on what you post, and my assessment on this matter is that you were incorrectly using the word proof. As a result I provided a more suitable alternative in scientif proof.
Why should I retype a few predictions for you? If you have so little time to look them up, how do I know you will have enough time to read what I retype? You seem to have enough time to continually examine and re-examine every word of every post I write, so I doubt the integrity of this claim of yours.
If mising the point were an olympic sport, you would surely win the gold medal. You disputed promising that you would not be posting any more on this thread, saying that you simply stated you would not be posting on this thread any more. This is what I was referring to. If you made this statement, and now you are posting on this thread, you were lying weren't you? For all I know you may not even be as big a fan of mine as you profess, and there may not even be any website that you have created to honour me. I just cannot trust anything you say.
What have I lied about, and more to the point, what does it have to do with any of this any way?
Comments in this thread are getting dangerously close to personal attacks.
Whether an idiot would perform such a test is beside the point. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate how an invalid test can lead one to draw an incorrect conclusion.
How many times do I have to point out, that I have no interest in learning about enlightenment through the teachings of Quantum Physics. What don't you understand about this? I'm sure Quantum Physics raises some interesting ideas, but it will offer me no assistance in attaining a more enlightened state. Feel free to point out where Quantum Mechanics teaches about enlightenment and I will be happy to learn.
You are correct, this is my opinion and I don't claim it to be a fact. If you believe my definition of religion is incorrect, then why don't you attack that? If you agree with it, then why don't you attack how science doesn't fit this definition? If you believe that science does, we are agree that science is a religion. Pretty simple.
In regards to scientif proof you asked why should I doubt anyone who claims to be God but is unwilling to provide proof. I queried the form of proof you meant and you gave some examples such as making an animal out of thin air or reading ones mind. To this I replied that God may have already proven himself in ways that don't adhere to your accepted scientific criteria (scientific proof), and you agreed. Pretty obvious.
Amazing that you are able to reply with specific reference to the example I provided in regards to proof of God in an earlier post, yet you now have no recollection of it. Surely you could use a brain and memory to recall your own posts?
You didn't specifically state you were a big fan of mine, but I can read between the lines. I know what you mean when you refer to me as the "Great" mytym. I'm flattered really.
I'm drawing the conclusion that you are lying based on the untruthful statements that you have made. Your claims about my honesty have no basis, or at least none that you are able to demonstrate. I can't see that it has anything to do with what has been discussed. If you can, please show me?
Originally posted by mytym
My analogy serves it's purpose, however you are entitled to feel it is flawed if you wish. Enlightenment in true reality is what I'm interested in. Which view of enlightenment I consider to be true, if any, has little to do with what I'm talking about as it can primarily only be enhanced through my own experiences.
In relation to this thread, the question that you need to ask yourself is not "what is science", but "what is religion". This is what I have done and science fits into my definition of a religion, thus I categorise as such.
There is one thing I don't understand. You indicate that a couple of points I made in my last post were obvious, yet you still require me to produce these explanations. Why would you need me to do this if I'm simply stating the obvoious?
In regards to the itty bitty sentence you raise, as I have mentioned 3 or 4 times in the last few posts, it attempts to define what constitutes science rather than what constitutes a religion, thus cannot aid an argument for or against science being a religion.
The definition of a religion given by this poster basically says that it requires faith in it's principles. This is the only relevant part to base an argument on. There is no mention of the method in which religion deals with it's principles, thus it makes no difference if science uses different methods to deal with it's principles.
The only point of contention is whether or not science requires faith in it's principles, and as I have already pointed out, in the absence of absolutes, faith to some degree, must be called upon. If you disagree, demonstrate how faith is not required when not dealing with absolutes, don't produce lists of differences between sciences and other religions, as there is often great variation between one religion and the next.
I don't care if people conform to my views or not, but judging by you constant insistance that I am unwilling to learn anything, it seems that you want me to conform to your views.
I simply stated my thoughts on the subject and have defended my point of view when others have attacked the validity of such a stance. That's what these types of threads are all about aren't they?