O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
> Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 8:21 pm, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote: > > > > Regardless of the fact that a god (or God) may possibily exist, which is > > > > just a personal belief and doesn't add nothing to the fact that the only > > > > thing we really know is that we know nothing
> > > Unfortunately, this presumption (that human beings are clueless idiots > > > incapable of governing their own existence) is a prerequisite of all > > > monotheistic religious thought.
> > Well, what's the difference between a situation as it is, and a > > prerequisite for a response to that situation? And are you saying we > > aren't clueless idiots incapable of governing our own existence? We've > > only been here a while and look what we've done to the planet!
....
> As that great philosopher and religious thinker, George Carlin, has > said, the earth will be just fine, it's humans that are going to be > ******.
On Nov 6, 2:25 pm, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote: ...
> > That we *know nothing* is matter-of-fact, case closed.
> Then there was never any reason for the existence of Galileo, Copernicus, > Newton, Kepler, et al.
Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius better. The greatest scientific mind was on quest for God.
>Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius >better.
In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
In modern times, where scientists no longer have to fear persecution by the religious authorities (in this country at least), 93% of the membership of the National Academies of Science self-identify as atheist or agnostic.
> >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > >better.
> In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
> In modern times, where scientists no longer have to fear persecution by the > religious authorities (in this country at least), 93% of the membership of > the National Academies of Science self-identify as atheist or agnostic.
> So draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion is that the more things change the more they stay the same. Substitute career suicide for 'arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.'
On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > >better.
> In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
The big split between art and science, which some say happened around 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > > >better.
> > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
> But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think > Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote > loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and > for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> The big split between art and science, which some say happened around > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and > religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to > improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
I think that is absolutely true.
Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve TOGETHER.
On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> Religious people who try to block science without > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant
On Nov 7, 5:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > > >better.
> > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
....
> But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think > Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote > loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and > for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> The big split between art and science, which some say happened around > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and > religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to > improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
Of course. You also have the birth of an ideology centered on science, a nightmare from which I'm still trying to awake. The irony, of course, is that these cats were protesting the ideology of religion, not religion per se. What a bleedin' mess.
> On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > > > >better.
> > > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > > > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > > > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
> > But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think > > Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote > > loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and > > for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> > The big split between art and science, which some say happened around > > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and > > religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to > > improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without > > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> I think that is absolutely true.
> Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > TOGETHER.
> Mr Jinx
You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge. Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims. But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
> On Nov 7, 5:07 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > > > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's > > > > >genius better.
> > > > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who > > > > didn't outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was > > > > subject to arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and quite > > > > possibly execution.
> > > But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I > > > think Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton > > > wrote loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" > > > ones, and for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> > > The big split between art and science, which some say happened > > > around 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. > > > Science and religion are part of the same thing: human beings > > > using their minds to improve their lives. Religious people who > > > try to block science without good reasons are ignorant zealots, > > > and secular people who rudely tell anyone talking about spiritual > > > stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> > I think that is absolutely true.
> > Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > > TOGETHER.
> > Mr Jinx
> You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge. > Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
> Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims. > But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of > human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
Since this is a ng about an artist, it's apropos how you feel art fits into your world view? Is the great artist using his mind when making his art? Is he closer to a scientist, in your opinion, or a priest?
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:47:04 -0800 (PST) > "Just Walkin'" <kensh...@comcast.net> was heard to say:
> > On Nov 7, 5:07 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > > > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's > > > > > >genius better.
> > > > > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who > > > > > didn't outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was > > > > > subject to arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, and quite > > > > > possibly execution.
> > > > But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I > > > > think Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton > > > > wrote loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" > > > > ones, and for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> > > > The big split between art and science, which some say happened > > > > around 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. > > > > Science and religion are part of the same thing: human beings > > > > using their minds to improve their lives. Religious people who > > > > try to block science without good reasons are ignorant zealots, > > > > and secular people who rudely tell anyone talking about spiritual > > > > stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> > > I think that is absolutely true.
> > > Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > > > TOGETHER.
> > > Mr Jinx
> > You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge. > > Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
> > Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims. > > But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of > > human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
> Since this is a ng about an artist, it's apropos how you feel art fits > into your world view? Is the great artist using his mind when making > his art? Is he closer to a scientist, in your opinion, or a priest?
> -- > Hug your sweetie today.
> *R* *H*
Once upon a time, religion patronized art and music and commissioned creative works as paens to its dieties. Science has never been so organized as to commission its own art. Hence there is no comparison between science and religion, either for purposes of this discussion or for categorizing any given creative type or endeavor.
Furthermore, a musician is a technician not a scientist; he or she plays notes as written (or improvised) in accordance with a framework of some sort imposed on the performance. On the other hand, a songwriter or composer is a true artistic creator. But neither are or could ever be "priestly" in these duties, no matter how much our culture exalts them.
Hence the distinction we are grasping for/at here is whether someone like Bob is more a scientist or an artist, not whether or not he is "priestly."
Even when he propagated a religious message, there was never anything priestly about Bob. A scourge he was, maybe, but priestlike? Priests aren't to supposed to steal!
> On Nov 7, 5:07 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > > > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > > > > >better.
> > > > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > > > > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > > > > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
> > > But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think > > > Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote > > > loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and > > > for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> > > The big split between art and science, which some say happened around > > > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and > > > religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to > > > improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without > > > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > > > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> > I think that is absolutely true.
> > Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > > TOGETHER.
> > Mr Jinx
> You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge. > Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
> Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims. > But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of > human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
Some of the greatest scientific discoveries required a huge leap of faith.
> On Nov 9, 2:47 am, "Just Walkin'" <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 5:07 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > > > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > > > > > >better.
> > > > > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > > > > > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > > > > > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
> > > > But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think > > > > Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote > > > > loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and > > > > for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> > > > The big split between art and science, which some say happened around > > > > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and > > > > religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to > > > > improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without > > > > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > > > > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> > > I think that is absolutely true.
> > > Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > > > TOGETHER.
> > > Mr Jinx
> > You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge. > > Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
> > Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims. > > But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of > > human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
> Some of the greatest scientific discoveries required a huge leap of > faith.
On Nov 9, 3:49 pm, "Just Walkin'" <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, religion patronized art and music and commissioned > creative works as paens to its deities.
I'm having a hard time working out how this applies to the Medici patronage of Ficino re: translation of the works of Plato and the Pseudo-Hermetic (Pagan) writings. The aim was humanistic, of course, but certainly in the service of religion, i.e. increasing our knowledge of nature in order to increase our knowledge of God.
Also, it seems strange to argue this religiously-inspired activity has no connection to mental activity
> On Nov 9, 10:16 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2:47 am, "Just Walkin'" <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 5:07 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:15 am, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 3:10 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >Newton's mathematical and scientific search was the search to > > > > > > >understand God better and to understand the mechanics of God's genius > > > > > > >better.
> > > > > > In the days of Newton, any person, scientist or otherwise, who didn't > > > > > > outwardly toe the line of Christian orthodoxy was subject to arrest, > > > > > > prosecution, imprisonment, and quite possibly execution.
> > > > > But you're showing your poor knowledge of Newton here. Yes, I think > > > > > Galileo fits what you say about toeing the line, but Newton wrote > > > > > loads more on spiritual matters than he did on "physical" ones, and > > > > > for his *own* private spiritual purposes.
> > > > > The big split between art and science, which some say happened around > > > > > 1600, is the reason why we keep having these arguments. Science and > > > > > religion are part of the same thing: human beings using their minds to > > > > > improve their lives. Religious people who try to block science without > > > > > good reasons are ignorant zealots, and secular people who rudely tell > > > > > anyone talking about spiritual stuff to shut up are no less ignorant.
> > > > I think that is absolutely true.
> > > > Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > > > > TOGETHER.
> > > > Mr Jinx
> > > You can't reconcile superstitious beliefs with scientific knowledge. > > > Religion is based on faith; faith does not require use of the mind.
> > > Perhaps science can investigate the legitimacy of supernatural claims. > > > But for religion to moderate the investigation of the frontiers of > > > human knowledge? Tell it to Galileo.
....
> > Some of the greatest scientific discoveries required a huge leap of > > faith.
> > Mr Jinx
> "Leap of faith" as in "departure."
Actually, no, not as in "departure." As in a faith in a Grand Designer.
On Nov 7, 6:07 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just imagine what the theologians and scientists could achieve > TOGETHER.
Fritjof Capra did a wonderful job of it in his "Tao of Physics."
"A page from the journal of modern experimental physics will be as mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records of inquiries into the nature of the universe."
|
