The scary, the strange, the paranormal...

[BorderReiver]

As regards religion that "strict adherence to a set of rules" is the Bible (or in the case of Islam the Quoran) That in itself means that no group (meaning no church or denomination) can interfere with the individuals interpretation of said rules. I grew up in those churches. There is constant flux as members disagree and leave to form a new church on their own. There is no overiding organization that decides who can or cannot be ordained or if any individual or congregation is valid or not. They exist at will. Granted there are denominational organizations (there are at least a dozen different ones that call themselves some permutation of Baptist) but they have no authority over the congregations. Congregations can join them or not; they exist only for mutual support. In affect their is no "organized church" involved.

That's the difference between Religion and Science: Scientists disagree and argue about interpretations of observations UNTIL all the evidence points one way, then the vast majority accept the findings.
Religions make up their minds and schism into a multitude of different sects, there being no FACTS for them to agree on.
One would imagine, that if an omnipotent and omnipresent deity existed, she would be able to get everyone to hear the same message.

 

[santaman2000]

Meanwhile, in the weird and wonderful world of physics, Fermilab in the US has announced findings which strongly suggest a new force ("technicolour") has been discovered, not predicted by the standard model. Confirmation by experiments at the LHC will cause huge shifts in our understanding of the universe. Watch this space!

Sounds interesting.

 

[santaman2000]

That's the difference between Religion and Science: Scientists disagree and argue about interpretations of observations UNTIL all the evidence points one way, then the vast majority accept the findings...

When scientists disagree they are fired from whatever university they teach for and have to find a new job. Universities are the "church" of scientists so they also are in constant flux; albeit not on the same scale. "The vast majority accept the findings?" Not always; rather those that don't accept (agree with) the findings are often ostrisized as quacks (the scientific term for heretic) Witness global warming.

Religion deals very extensively with emotions which by nature is extremely volatile whereas science deals little with emotion (save only the single branch known as psychology which is probably the least understood of the sciences) And in that branch they more often resort to chemical treatment (driven by patient demand) rather than actually deal with the problem.

 

[santaman2000]

...Religions make up their minds and schism into a multitude of different sects, there being no FACTS for them to agree on.
One would imagine, that if an omnipotent and omnipresent deity existed, she would be able to get everyone to hear the same message.

That's one of the strengths of modern religion (the numerous sects) it lessens the "organized church" influence that filled the vacuum after the fall of Rome. Most abuses result from the absolute power from an overly large organization. I said very early on in my posts here that I'm most suspicious of someone who claims to have a perfect understanding (in religion or as to a scientific pursuit) Both pursuits should be considered a continuing effort to learn.

You said "she" would be able to get everyone to hear the same message; It's good to finally hear a Hindu post. Most posts have centered on Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions. I think many forget there are other traditions out there.

 

[BorderReiver]

That's one of the strengths of modern religion (the numerous sects) it lessens the "organized church" influence that filled the vacuum after the fall of Rome. Most abuses result from the absolute power from an overly large organization. I said very early on in my posts here that I'm most suspicious of someone who claims to have a perfect understanding (in religion or as to a scientific pursuit) Both pursuits should be considered a continuing effort to learn.

You said "she" would be able to get everyone to hear the same message; It's good to finally hear a Hindu post. Most posts have centered on Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions. I think many forget there are other traditions out there.

And ALL claiming to worship the "One True God".

That must tell even the hardest of thinking something.

 

[BorderReiver]

When scientists disagree they are fired from whatever university they teach for and have to find a new job. Universities are the "church" of scientists so they also are in constant flux; albeit not on the same scale. "The vast majority accept the findings?" Not always; rather those that don't accept (agree with) the findings are often ostrisized as quacks (the scientific term for heretic) Witness global warming.

Religion deals very extensively with emotions which by nature is extremely volatile whereas science deals little with emotion (save only the single branch known as psychology which is probably the least understood of the sciences) And in that branch they more often resort to chemical treatment (driven by patient demand) rather than actually deal with the problem.

1. The ambition of any aspiring scientist is be able to disprove an established Theory; any university can only dream of that discovery being made by one of it's own.
If one of their number, and it happens, gets some totally off the wall theory which is obviously totally wrong (N.E.C. for instance) it would be wrong of them to continue their tenure.
2. If Religion kept to it's own area and did not try all means to infiltrate the education and political systems, there would not be a problem with it.

What people do in their prayer huts and in their homes is their business.

 

[santaman2000]

1. The ambition of any aspiring scientist is be able to disprove an established Theory; any university can only dream of that discovery being made by one of it's own.
If one of their number, and it happens, gets some totally off the wall theory which is obviously totally wrong (N.E.C. for instance) it would be wrong of them to continue their tenure.
2. If Religion kept to it's own area and did not try all means to infiltrate the education and political systems, there would not be a problem with it.

What people do in their prayer huts and in their homes is their business.

Granted religion (organized religion) should not intrude into governmental processes. It is unrealistic however to expect someone to abandon their beliefs if they enter government service or politics. As far as the education system goes it is interesting to note that some of the more advanced universities are church sponsored (Notre Dame over here comes to mind) and produce successful proffessionals and scientists. Over here we generally object to government intruding into the education system. More propperly I should say "government intruding into the curriculum"; that is normally left to locally elected education boards who answer to the parents of the attending students (who again don't abandon their beliefs when they vote)

Earlier someone posted that we successfully went to the moon using Newtonian Physics. It's worth noting that this is the education system that produced the scientists and engineers who made that possible.

Much of the negative view of religion (here in the industrial West) stems from the abuses and corruption within the organized church in the middle ages. I don't deny them. It must be remembered though that the church only rose to that level of power because of the vacuum created by absance of any capable government. Their were many local and regional factions fighting for control and power. Many argue that the church fueled those conflicts and thus advanced itself into a position of power and wealth. I would argue that it was much more symbiotic than that.

 

[santaman2000]

And ALL claiming to worship the "One True God".

That must tell even the hardest of thinking something.

No, all don't claim to worship "One True God" Hinduism and several others are polytheistic (they worship several gods) Budhism recognizes a few gods but generally worships none (preferring instead to seek truth within oneself)

 

[rik_uk3]

UFO's they may have been but assuming anything unidentified and flying is a visitation from an off world life form is frankly preposterous.

IN YOUR OPINION, logically I can't think of a better point of origin than not of this planet. You may believe it preposterous that your opinion, same way as you think your post if fine when I think it rather rude; just my opinion.

 

[zarkwon]

Well I don't think it was particularly rude. There are any number of reasons which back up my statement, some of which I explained at some length. I didn't even go into the fact that there is no evidence anywhere of aliens beyond the odd unconvincing bit of video or faked photos. Not to mention the idea that aliens whizzing around in plain view for the last 50 years or so without making contact makes no sense. If they can use worm holes in spacetime or build ships advanced enough to get here then they can look at our planet through telescopes (even we can do this) rather than expose themselves to view by any random person who looks up at the right time. There are simply too many things against it to take it on insufficient evidence. I maintain my position. It is preposterous. Just my opinion.

P.s. Glad you decided to overturn your decision and participate again. I for one have missed your enlightening contributions.

 

[rik_uk3]

There you go again, rude? maybe, smug for sure. Take into account the damage done to cultures 'we' met over the years I doubt an intelligent life form would make direct or certainly widespread contact as such for fear of doing similar to us; perhaps here to just observe? There are just too many reports from solid, reliable, educated folk (and me) to dismiss UFO/off world craft reports. Senior military, pilots, police, lot of NASA astronauts have all reported them.

I love science, technology, but just because science can't prove at the moment something, does not mean that something does not exist.

 

[zarkwon]

True but until there is a shred of credible evidence for the proposition I shall continue to live as though it is nonsense. Same goes for god. Both are just too unlikely in my view. Call me all the names you like but I maintain the view that incredible claims require extraordinary evidence. So far there is none in either camp which cannot be better explained by another hypothesis.

 

[zarkwon]

Take into account the damage done to cultures 'we' met over the years I doubt an intelligent life form would make direct or certainly widespread contact as such for fear of doing similar to us; perhaps here to just observe?

Exactly. If they didn't want to make contact why fly around in view??? This was my point.

 

[rik_uk3]

Exactly. If they didn't want to make contact why fly around in view??? This was my point.

Ignorance of our level of understanding perhaps, who knows. Do a google on NASA astronauts and UFO's, there are some good interviews out there.

 

[zarkwon]

Who knows indeed? If they have supposedly been watching us (not to mention abducting rednecks) for at least 50 years I would expect any species clever enough to get here to be capable of working out that we can see them if they are zooming about above our heads in glowing spaceships at night. I mean please. Besides which, they must not be ignorant of our technology as they presumably cloak themselves against our radar and other state of the art looking and listening devices. You know, like in Star Trek. Unless they don't know about that but the governments and scientists of the entire world are engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the sightings of them?

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The justice system knows this and considers it to be weak. Any number of influences might affect the witness not least of which might be the want to believe in something (we all have our biased world views) combined with the fragility of human memory and conversations with similarly minded witnesses subsequent to the event. We are easily fooled by ourselves as well as events around us.

 

[santaman2000]

Who knows indeed? If they have supposedly been watching us (not to mention abducting rednecks) for at least 50 years I would expect any species clever enough to get here to be capable of working out that we can see them if they are zooming about above our heads in glowing spaceships at night. I mean please. Besides which, they must not be ignorant of our technology as they presumably cloak themselves against our radar and other state of the art looking and listening devices. You know, like in Star Trek...

You mean like in the Gulf War don't you? We have stealth technology now ourselves as far as radar and sophisticated sensing devises. Srar Track and the other sci-fi shows portrayed invisibility cloaks (cloaking from the human eye). That's not as far off as some think. It only requires manipulating light to curve around an object and such phenomenon already exists in nature in the form of a mirage. The problem is how to control that ducting deliberately. You don't doubt that research is going on to do just that do you?

 

[zarkwon]

By cheating lol. Taking a pic of the other side of the object and displaying it on the front

 

[santaman2000]

...Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The justice system knows this and considers it to be weak...

After 13 years as a cop I've testified in court many times and participated in many more cases. I can assure you that eyewitnes testimony is highly regarded in the justice system, particularly testimony from proffessionals.

 

[santaman2000]

By cheating lol. Taking a pic of the other side of the object and displaying it on the front

Not sure what you're getting at here? Cheating at what?

 

[santaman2000]

...Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The justice system knows this and considers it to be weak. Any number of influences might affect the witness not least of which might be the want to believe in something (we all have our biased world views) combined with the fragility of human memory and conversations with similarly minded witnesses subsequent to the event. We are easily fooled by ourselves as well as events around us...

What about the ones that are confirmed by other means? The Japan Airlines flight coming into Alaska where the pilot, copilot and flight engineer all three sighted a flying object the size of a ship. That sighting was confirmed on the airport radar and on Air Force radar before it disappeared. Granted that doesn't in and of itself make it extra-terrestrial.