Science v Religion
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@ David Killens
We agree!
@Jo
OH-FOR-FUCK'S-SAKE, MAN!!! My friggin' eyes are bleeding here! There is NO WAY you can possibly be that dense and obtuse! David has gone waaaay above and beyond in trying to explain things to you in a very clear, concise, simple, and elementary manner. A dog-gone THIRD GRADE KID could understand precisely what he is telling you. Yet it seems you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge anything he says. And it is even more concerning that the questions you keep repeating have already been answered for you multiple times by many other members here over the last several months. Not trying to be an ass, but do you have some type of short-term memory disorder? Sheesh!
@ Tin-Man
"Yet it seems you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge anything he says."
Please refer to my post immediately before yours.
I AGREED with him.
RE: If science started 2000 years ago, do you think religion would be as big as it is?
__________________
Offense is not intended, but the question is semi-ill-posed. One has to acknowledge the former as being a (bi-)product of the latter, which would necessitate the latter to then precede that etc. ad absurdum.
One had might as well ask whether or not religion will be what it is in 2000 years from now, which is addressable: no. Time is embedded in a circle (repeating) wherein a cycle of approx. 25 920 years encloses a rising (ie. golden age) and a falling (ie. dark age) of consciousness; the former being defined by "knowledge"-based enlightenment principles, the latter being defined by "belief"-based idolatry resulting from the patriarchal coveting of women. The last golden age apex was approx. 11 500 BCE and the last dark age approx. 500 CE. Present-day humanity still has an excessive overhang of patriarchy captured by the "mercy upon mankind" idolatrous "belief"-based religions of Christianity and Islam which have their roots in Canaanite idol worship.
Once "belief" is undermined as a viable state upon which to sustain any body (ie. individual, political, national etc.), a new age of knowledge will commence and the pathological "believers" move down the circle as needed, whereas the ones who pursue true knowledge move up the circle as merited. Time is a circle - approx. 1008 moon cycles comprises an average human incarnation commencing some-when in the 25 920-year cycle, each according to their own "being". One incarnation contains the totality of the "circle of life" and to each their own conscience/choices.
My first reaction to that statement? How do you know that value to 4 significant figures?
RE: My first reaction to that statement? How do you know that value to 4 significant figures?
__________________________
It is an acknowledgement of/to the existing Platonic model which approximates it such.
There are technicalities related to calculations of significant figures insofar as it may relate to (conscious) choices made while incarnated. In short; no incarnation cycle can exist more than 21 solar years, the exact "time" becomes incalculable given "time" is relative to the observer, thus if a being is sufficiently bound (ie. repetition) in an ongoing state, this effectively changes the "area" of the circle/cycle in question. It is a frame of reference problem because the measurement is being made while embedded and/or subject to it. Because I am not wholly unbound, I don't know the correct figure thus adopt the Platonic model which may (or may not) be proposed by beings more capable of comprehension than I.
Why does it seem you can't answer simple questions?
I asked why you used 4 significant figures. Seems like a pretty straight forward question.
If Cog or Tin-man told me they had milked 25 920 cows, and I asked them where they got those sig. figs.; I have no doubt they could give me a coherent answer. Why do you seem incapable of this?
Uhhh, 21 solar years is less than 22 "regular" years; which contradicts what you just told us.
**RE: Why does it seem you can't answer simple questions?
I asked why you used 4 significant figures. Seems like a pretty straight forward question.
If Cog or Tin-man told me they had milked 25 920 cows, and I asked them where they got those sig. figs.; I have no doubt they could give me a coherent answer. Why do you seem incapable of this?
___________________
It might be you? Try for clarity in your questions?
I answered you. I used 4 significant figures because it is a property of the common Platonic model. Seems like a pretty straight forward answer.
If Cog or Tin-Man went on google and typed "25 920-year cycle" they would be able to read more about what I am coherently talking about: a 25 920-year cycle as approximated by the Platonic model. Why do you seem incapable of understanding this?
Is this clear enough? How exactly did you get 4 significant figures out of Plato's conjecture?
I think it did, with Archimedes and with Hippocrates, and with Galen (first century ce)
Hiron of Alexandria built a working steam engine in the first century ce.
The Egyptians used science to build their pyramids; eg Geometry, and engineering , to a sophisticated level.
--I haven't touched on the Chinese, S E Asian or Indian civilisations.
Science has been around far longer than 2000 years. It has been suppressed for both religious and political reasons.
Still happening today; although proved by science, mental troglodytes utterly refuse to accept the truth of evolution and climate change, and would suppress them if they could
Pages