| Author |
Message |
    
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 04:57 am: | 
|
No battle with many religions. Unless you really want one lol. But 'lets make love not war' [i cant claim that as my own heh]
Michael william James
|
Chaitanya
Starlite Member
Username: Chaitanya
| | Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Well, I believe in Hinduism. And My religion is not away from Science. Actually, it is based on Science and intellectual studies. The customs and traditions in Hinduism are mostly related with the climatic changes. We believe that God lives everywhere and in everything. We find God in Wind, Trees, Rivers and in Galaxies. These things in Holy Hinduism made it a science-sopporting intellectual and flexible in rules and regulations. We welcome the scientific inventions and try our best to be with our traditions and customs along with the science! The science is a part of Hinduism. so these is no battle between religion and science if you study Hinduism
Chaitanya Deshpande
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 10:00 pm: |
|
If you feel conscious is the soul then scientificaly speaking its not fully understood. The brain is really interesting to study, we're still amazed at new findings of the brain. Were you referring to the conscious like jimbo said or the soul?
Michael william James
|
Njaeok
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Either consciousness survives death or it dosen't.
When we experience death we will find that it does or we won't be concerned one way or another.
Born with the gift of laughter, aware that the world is mad. -- Jimbo
|
Whiteowl
Starlite Member
Username: Whiteowl
| | Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 - 05:43 pm: |
|
heres my thing. my opinion. im native american, most of us believe that we are sent back to mother earth. i believe something has to happen. i mean, i dont think its possible to just be..nothing. my brother told me once that you just see dark and nothing else happens you just sit there and see darkness for all eternity . which that i think isnt reallly possible because if you die and your dead, nothing in your body is funtional. so how can you even see something. my opinion is that, your soul isnt an organ(obviously)so is there a way that it can not funtion? so i think that your concious is always funtional and so thats how a spirit comes to be or so called ghost. but my opinion is that a spirit can not be seen or heard. it can guide otherwise. im just thinking alot about this whole thing. |
Potpher C. Mbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 02:40 am: |
|
We All Believe In Something
I know that every atheist believes in God but outwardly portrays a different picture. Someone said all atheist appear to luck nothing yet deep inside are miserable lonely and hopeless without a sense or reason for living.
A god does not have to be a living being. Anything that one assumes to know yet does not know it and but live by what one thinks is demanded to be true is in perspective a god. It thus follows that an awful truth is that we all believe in a god.
But what we believe should not be used to subdue fellow human beings. It is equally wrong to false one’s ideas and beliefs on others.
Have you ever wondered at the fact that not all that there is, is what is known. Not just what is seen or perceived is what exists. It is thus not correct to assume there is only one world or one universe. Some leading scientists talk of parallel universes.
An experiment was conducted in which two beams of photons was projected in some vacuum and interference of the two beams was observed and a logical explanation naturally is that the photos were the sole cause of the interference. Later on the intensity of two beams were reduced so that only one photon at a long enough time was projected yet interference was still vividly reported. A stupid old belief is that the phenomenon was due to a photon behaving partly as a wave and partly as a particle. But objective thinking – the logic of those who pursue truth does not permit a photon to be in two places at a time. It follows thus that a photon was interfering with some photon-like particles in the parallel universe that our instrument have not yet detected. I have said it before, what there is, is not just the spoons, knives and pots in the kitchen. There is a whole world out there outside the kitchen. It’s not scientific to say there is only one universe. This is not to say I’m trying to push a spiritual world into your conception. All I’m saying is that that simple experiment shows all of us that there is at least another universe. I humbly accept that I believe in a spiritual world. I say I believe because I cannot prove it to you. However I have encountered the beings and laws of the spiritual world and I will not give you my story for fear of being prejudiced as a disillusion person. I swear I’m telling the truth. Whether you believe me or not is you own affair. I’m grateful that at least I can fathom more than just what is naturally observed. I’m glad I can see beyond my eyelids of which only a few humans are able.
So Ladies and gentlemen we all believe in something. Hard as it is to accept, still more, we all believe in a god
Some years back I tuned to BBC. I attentively listened to a discussion on TV concerning whether one can transmit a signal faster than the speed of light. Well one claimed he did transimit a signal at Faster Than Light (FTL). Guess what? He is a Germany scientist. He played a song (signal), which he did transmit and received at a speed greater than speed of light. Mockingling he said, “This is not signal for our American friends but for us and our British colleagues this is signal enough” (referring to the song). He must have been working on this experiment with some British scientists friends of his but the American think-tanks still think it was not possible since the tunneling effect as far as they are concerned can only yield a random process of projecting signals faster than the speed of light. Now we know that in a signal there is some intelligence. In short, in their view, randomness does not produce intelligence. It’s just impossible as far as they were concerned to send a song and receive it at the other end with the speed FTL. The discussion was more than just tunneling effect of the signal. What I know is that through tunneling effect you can at least randomly project some photons at FTL. The popular dumb wheelchair guy and the rest of the scientist who participated in this discussion agreed that it is possible and an experiment was conducted to prove it. It was clear that it was a random process however some Germany scientist claimed to have managed to transmit a signal at FTL.
Quantum Tunnelling is the quantum mechanical effect which permits a particle to escape through a barrier when it does not have enough energy to do so classically. You can do a calculation of the time it takes a particle to tunnel through. The answer you get can come out less than the time it takes light to cover the distance at speed c. Does this provide a means of FTL communication?
ref:T. E. Hartman, J. Appl. Phys. 33, 3427 (1962).
The answer must surely be "No!" otherwise our understanding of QED is very suspect. Yet a group of physicists have performed experiments which seem to suggest that FTL communication by quantum tunneling is possible. They claim to have transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony through a barrier 11.4cm wide at a speed of 4.7c. Their interpretation is, of course, very controversial. Most physicists say this is a quantum effect where no information can actually be passed at FTL speeds because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the effect is real it is difficult to see why it should not be possible to transmit signals into the past by placing the apparatus in a fast moving frame of reference. ref:
W. Heitmann and G. Nimtz, Phys Lett A196, 154 (1994);
A. Enders and G. Nimtz, Phys Rev E48, 632 (1993).
The likely conclusion is that though there might be no real FTL communication taking place and that the effect could be another manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, discarding the German’s assertions is purely done so based on belief.
Another issue which popped up was the possibility of going back in time. There was a mention of time machines and that these would blow up on arrival from being sent to the past according to mathematical calculations. They talked about time being a curvature thus permitting a shortcut back to the past. It’s a pity I would have taped the TV program had I been home but I was in Germany in a hotel.
There is more to life and things than what we limit. It is unscientific to assume that there is no God. So ladies and gentlemen, we all believe in something. In other words we are all religious zealots.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving
Potpher
|
Michael .P
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 01:02 am: |
|
I completely agree ..truth will be embraced by both science and religion as they each seek the same "truth". But they will keep the window open for the "proposition" or "faith" because we're human and must always allow for error..but this is not to say that we can go off on a tangent and say we will never find an absolute and thus start mass revolutions of anarchy including people driving on which ever side of the road they like..a mass sum of non-conformists quickly conform with each other anyway..might as well face it we have alot of things in common with each other so unity is a plus. Speaking of going off tangents i just have in my own boredom..cheers
MiCk.
Michael william James
|
Jim Armstrong
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 02:29 pm: |
|
Well said Ken! BRAVO!
Jimbo
|
Ken
Starlite Member
Username: Lovemepoetry
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 02:15 pm: |
|
BOTH science and religion search for truth-----truth/fact is the true goal of each--------in the lab we call faith a proposition-------that has yet to become fact-----once it is an absolute fact religion must face it and accept it------just as a scientest who discovers a flaw in a LAW that was thought to be without error-----we adjust our understanding of nature to agree with our best thouht------where scientists flub up ----they do not see the laws they accept as articles of faith---yet that is what they are-----every new discovery in science was once considered impossible for we the scientific community had faith in our laws---EINSTEIN made us rethink NEWTON-----Now we have begun to rethink EINSTEIN a theory is a scientests current statement of faith----and any theologian worth his salt will embrace truth from whatever source it is derived
Currently I am working on a 1500 acre tract in Tenn and need CALTALPA seeds to replant and create the needed bio-diversity also I need TURKS HEAD oak acorns ----any help will be appeciated by mother nature------currently the deer and wild turkey are in large numbers and the project is 80 % complete
|
Billie Alvinia Pauley
Starlite Member
Username: Demongirl
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 01:34 pm: |
|
I don't get why people have to choose either religion or science. I mean, if you study both, then you'll see that there are similarities. |
