Scalar waves on other ways to control the weather???

[shaman_]

me:: h jeeez. another one's come outta the woodwork. they proliferate.

So do believers. It tends to make the forum more interesting.

so you j'accuse me do you mr shaman. well it is just YOUR judgement from the bac of your eyes. obviously not much insight there

Well by saying 'not much insight there' you are not really proving me wrong...

me:::itis easy to just criticise. showexamples, and explanations. make some effort. at least i put myself on the line

Fine. You made the following comments;

"science would go on to carry ON the power of the church!"

"science--its whole etos is really a carry on of christian dogma"
Science has nothing to do with the church. To suggest otherwise is to show ignorance.

"arrogant scientists who believe that they can impose their sciencism on all areas of life because"
Complete rubbish. Scientists are not imposing views on anyone.

You clearly have a distorted view of science and scientists. You have been through this with phlogistician but hey, you asked.

me:::ME. oh you wanna ME runnin round providing evidence for YOU, like some sefr? no dude YOU provide the evidence for what you challenge

No no no. You are making the claim. Re-read your previous quoted comment.

If you are going to make wild claims then you need to back them up with evidence. You know, like you ask other people to do.

why, does it worry you it might be tru? are you anti-chuRch? why. provide documented evidence why......ok. or i will have the gestapo AFTER YOU. HEIL SCIENCE!

Again you are changing the subject when you have been asked for evidence. Prove to me that science is an extension of the church.

 

[phlogistician]

thaty's your middle name isn' it? only phlo can pick the right sources. how convenient then

You haven't cited a source for your claim. I was asking if the source was credible. I wasn't limiting your choice. You are building straw men again duendy.

So, show a source that backs up your claim, and we'll see if it's credible, or, whether you're making the whole thing up.

you can say it till you ar blue in the face. your interpreatin is just that. science--its whole etos is really a carry on of christian dogma. only acientists made a deal with the church to study 'matter/events' whilst the church would take care of the 'spirtual' needs. i sense a duality there don't you? but they oth didn't fall out a such. to quarrels...of course. but science for the church would suddenly mean the lory of 'God'...ad plenty plaent moneeeeey and power!

Science is far from christian! for you to say so shows exactly how little you know about science! It's farcical, and I only carry on this conversation to show everyone lurking how badly educated you are! The system of numbers we use today, while referred to as arabic numbers, really originated in non christian India. The zero was invented in India. Arabic numbers were declared the work of satan by the Catholic church, who used Roman numerals (of course). Scientists realised that it was far easier to to use arabic numbers for calculations, and adopted them against the doctrine of the Christian church. Also, great scientists, such as Pythagoras, Democritus, Archimedes etc, were certainly not christian!

no i wont cut it out. you cut it out. see what i mean. THAT is fascxism. you wanting to shut_me_up. druggin comes next, then ECT, then lobotomy, then execution

I want you to stop wasting words repeating a falsehood and come up with something relevant! As for the rest, more paranoid ramblings. Such stuff doesn't add to you credibility.

i am not saying it for no reason. the fact it pisses you off so much may mean something deep down

What pisses me off is your of wasting words, and not saying anything worthwhile. You have had many and various opportunities to cite sources, and make stuctured arguments, but instead you post semi literate prattle. You should try and improve how you convey your ideas. Not just spelling and formatting, but content as well.

you obviously do. the absurdity of wht you say, and the irony....quite breathtaking. and here's you--the all rouned suprior knowledged person.
let me repeat. if you want the biggest most evil example of the oppression of SCIENCE then study about the mental illness scam. the central controlling sysstem of the AGE OF SCIENCE. you poo pooers are revealing this adequately in tis pseudoscience forum for those who understand!...keep up the good work

Do you have some experience of being treated for mental illness that has soured you towards doctors and scientists? Is that at the root of all this?

of couurse not, i m just an artist. but you the scientist are neeever wrong. oh no. continue.....

I'm an artist AND a scientist.Your point?

me::ypur reactions are increasingly preedictable. how ypu mock other states of consciousness you.......soberite you

No, there you again stuffing that straw man. I asked you if you did much spliff, it was a question, not a statement. Other states of consciousness, lets see, well, yes, I have changed my state of consciousness before, being into martial arts, through meditative techniques. Not sedative ones!

h a shrink now too. do that in ya spare time do ya? go an diagnose yerself you utter ignoramous

Hey, you started it bub, saying I had fear of seeing a different world view. You opened up the pop psychology angle, I was just going with it. I did have a clinical psychologist as a girlfriend for several years, and did read her textbooks if it's any consolation to you. I'm thinking you have experience of mental health care too, don't you?

never claimed i knew about scalar waves at all sweetie. and it takes 2 2 tango. why you keep replying? a last word freak?

No, but you defended a guy making the claims about them, when you didn't have enough education to call it either way, that's the issue, your arrogance.

let me ask you this. and i awiat with interest and will watch yor every move. so be careful. ....hve you ever had a psychedelic trip?

No, dropping tabs isn't my thing. I have had spiritual experiences, usually achieved through extreme exertion and endorphins (like after climbing a mountain, and looking back down) or through meditation, and QiGong. But a 'trip' (and I presume you mean drug induced) no. My experiences have been hard earned, cerebral and physical, not a £10 LSD tab from some lowlife.

 

[duendy]

tis i for both you, shaman, and all intersted......am reponding in tis instane to your demandi proven somefor ofevidence to back up my claim that science is an extension of christian religion, that also science imposes its dogma on othes who are seen as 'heretics'....etc

well checkout The Great Galileo Myth http:://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

when science is religion is when it is scientism, and imposes its metaphysical presumptions onto all individuals whose experience is seen as a threat to its 'word'....it replaces its 'word' as got through its means of scientific method, which it apples to ALL areas of life, including peoples actual perception, ad integrity, and spychology!

"......Persecutions in the name of science (or better, scientism) have emulated and even outdone those waged in the name of religion. No one disputes this any longer. The only disagreemen that remains is between the optimists who see the scientistic witch-hunts largely behind us, in such things as Nazism and Stalinism; and the pessimists who see the worst possibility still ahead of us, in such things as the progressive dehumanization of man through the unopposed powers of massive central governments.
The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Iquisition and the Mental Health Movement, page 133(notes)

As i state again, though it is revealed in the above. THE central policing for the social control of this Age of Science is the myth of mental illness. this meansthat the scientismic agenda can roll on unhindered. a carry on of power from the church......and the maintenance of the power elite

 

[duendy]

heres link blued
The Great Galileo Myth http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

 

[phlogistician]

heres link blued
The Great Galileo Myth http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

Or here's another version of Galileos life story, detailing his arrest by the inquisition, the prevention of his teaching and the banning of his book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

Follow the links and read about the people the inqisition burned at the stake for heresy, and try and argue the church was _for_ science!!!!!!

 

[Oli]

Yeah, and if you read the Galileo article it states that the opposition was from personal enemies, prominent Jesuits and

the main opponents of the new Copernican position were academicians (my italics) teaching science

People who wanted him out of the way for their own reasons stuck to the religious interpretation, not scientific (although they may have claimed to be scientists).
Kostler's The Sleepwalkers is a good summary of the vents.
But this still says nothing about Scalar waves

 

[duendy]

Or here's another version of Galileos life story, detailing his arrest by the inquisition, the prevention of his teaching and the banning of his book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

Follow the links and read about the people the inqisition burned at the stake for heresy, and try and argue the church was _for_ science!!!!!!

well, this is exactly what i meant.....i go to te trouble of finding you sources for what i asserted, but no...not good enough. you have your sources which of bleedin course, have to be te correct ones. cause phlo is so roundedly educated dont ya know.....we could go ound in circles with this

look at it this way then. what IS ythe Church science rebelled againsyt? what is their myth?
they believe in the 'word' of 'God' as it is supposedly written down in the 'holy book'. but what IS this 'God'? have you taken te time phlo to look at where thi idea originated from?...wht you rebelld against--if thats what you believe?

from my learnings te origins of te sese of god was from nonordinary experince inspired with varius psychedelic plants and fungi. for te individual one experinces a prfoun sens of expansion and interelation with reality. so for example te clasical DIonysians actualy believed their psychedelic sacrament WAS god, nd that tey beCAME god after drinking it

later this was reformed by philosophical Orphism which went on to create te idea that 'god' was actually 'God' and that we were a part of him and a part of Titanic nature--ie., bad, and that we as'divine sparks' were trapped in Nature and needed to return to 'God/Donysos'....this myth remind you of te Christian myth? i know...it INFLUENCED it!

so what i am saying is this.....If you feel you have rebelled against 'religion'--ie, te Chrurch, ten you have rebelled aganst an already phony religion!....one that demanded 'God' is apart from Nature. do you understand?

so....as science eventually even does away with te need for te belief in 'God' and goes positivist, then cant you see that you have't even acknowledged the real MEAANING of what that means. tat the original sense is nt a 'he-God', but an ecstatic snse of interfusion with Nature

That your attitude is anti this, is very much relected in your reply to me afte m asking you if you were familiar wit LSD experience. you cae back with a snidey put-down reply that you would not go and buy a tabof LSD from some "low life"......
low life? why did you choose to say that? obviously i am guessing you feel that people tat sell psychedelics are lower than you, and probs tis goes for those that take them..........really that atitude was shared by the torturers of heretics, and still is completely prevalent in this age on the war on drugs, which includes, very much so, war on psychedelic exsperience

tis is why you are a scientismist, who is as religios as the next Christian

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, could you repost that in English when you come down?

 

[duendy]

Duendy, could you repost that in English when you come down?

yeahh, an amazing phenomena...no, not a UFO or ALien in this case---The fact that you SUDDENLY cant read me when what i say is beyond your ken!

 

[phlogistician]

yeahh, an amazing phenomena...no, not a UFO or ALien in this case---The fact that you SUDDENLY cant read me when what i say is beyond your ken!

It was just badly written garbage duendy. Not enlightenment.

And it was nothing about scalar waves, either!

 

[duendy]

It was just badly written garbage duendy. Not enlightenment.

And it was nothing about scalar waves, either!

sweet shit. for the last few posts we know we haven't been talking about scalar waves. so that is besides the point. you hae chosen to try and get te last word in to prove how very much well roundedly educated you are. well to me i am NOT impressed whatsOEVer!

badly typed i can take-ish. but t call what i said garbage.......i am not hurt at al, but it tells me more about you. you narrow minded self aggrandized flibidigibbet. it tells me that as soon as the going gets tough you cop out moaning on about bad spelling, and calling names

you are a charalatan no nuthin scientismic
cultist

can you understand that?

 

[shaman_]

tis i for both you, shaman, and all intersted......am reponding in tis instane to your demandi proven somefor ofevidence to back up my claim that science is an extension of christian religion, that also science imposes its dogma on othes who are seen as 'heretics'....etc
....

I am prepared to discuss that document as I did ask for it. The writer jumps to some highly unlikely or totally incorrect conclusions.

He is basically saying that the church supported Galileo and only put him on trial for heresy due to the pressure from the scientific community.

While it is probably true that there were some academics at the time that disagreed with Galileo it is an enormous jump to then say that these academics would be able to influence the church. It is much more likely that the church was influencing them as to be a respected member of society back then was to agree with the church.

According to the writer these academics were jealous of Galileo and that was enough reason to see him put on trial. This is unlikely as these academics had little to lose compared to the church. Also the church had burned people at the stake for similar heresy before. See Giodiano Bruno.

It is true that Galileo had the support of members in the church. However that all changed after the Dialogue of the Two Chief World Systems was published.

It actually says at one stage that he wasn't put on trial for heresy but for not keeping up an agreement. Even if that were true it does not change that he recanted his beliefs to avoid being torture and being burned at the stake. Also the inquisition made it very clear a few years earlier that to suggest that the sun is the centre of the universe was "formally heretical".

There are other errors but I will leave it at that for the moment.

You chould also check out http://galileo.rice.edu/ for a more accurate history of Galileo.

This document, in no way, proves that science is like a religion.

 

[duendy]

shaman_:this documentin no way proves that science is lik a religion

me::k. listen we could go round in circles with tis. donthave a prob with that. spirals have quite potential. but as is the way with most academic discussion it can escalate into sos and so syas one thing and so and so says yhe other....how the FUK do we gewt to the root of it then?

so i will offer you another way of looking at the situaton. trid with phlo, but he went all word blind on me

you admit that science eventally rebelleed against established religion--ie., the Church, right?

This became most apparent in post Galilean
science where te idea of 'God' was judged 'scientifically' to be superflous. then later we get the idea of a mechanical universe, and 'spirit' is also dismissed from te equation, yeah?

This situation is so throughout the institutions wich all have to be seen in abeyance to 'SCIENCE'----any view contradciting what science states is evidenced is sad to be non-scientific and thus inauthentic until 'proven' not to be so--byyyy science people

so they -like the preists of the church--stand in between theindividual and reality. with me?

IF the scence people claim my unhappiness is 'clinical depression' or 'manic depression' or bi-polar disorder'....IF i QUESTION/challenge that judgement which is not not based on the bible and the 'word' of 'God', but te 'word' of 'science', then i can be attacked, and ridiculed, and coerced, etc, whyyy? because i have defied scientific authority is why. i am particularly addressing 'mental health' because--along with Thomas Szasz and others. i feel it isCENTRALto te continuation of the myth of scientism. te myth tat only scientism can speak for the individual and community whar reality 'IS' and 'should be'. just like religion did/does

look at phlo's attitudewith me here. this is notme gossiping, and trying to get you on my side. i can deal wit old phlo on my own. what i mean is....LOOK at the livin illustration of what i mean in action. can you see it or do i have to point it out in analytical steps?

 

[Hipparchia]

Hope you don’t mind. Tidied up your post Duendy. Helped me sort out what you were saying. Maybe Phlogistician will read it now. Interesting stuff.
Well, this is exactly what I meant. I go to the trouble of finding you sources for what I asserted, but no, that is not good enough. You have your sources, which of bleeding course have to be the correct ones, because phlo is so roundly educated, don’t you know. We could go round in circles with this.

Look at it this way then. What IS the essence of the Church that science rebelled against? What is their myth?
They believe in the 'word' of 'God', as it is supposedly written down in the 'holy book'. But what IS this 'God'? Have you taken the time phlo to look at where this idea originated? What you, or rather science, rebelled against--if that’s what you believe?

From my studies the origins of the sense of god was from extraordinary experience, inspired with various psychedelic plants and fungi. The individual experienced a profound sense of expansion and interrelation with reality. So, for example the classical Dionysians actually believed their psychedelic sacrament WAS god, and that they became god after drinking it.

Later this was reformed by philosophical Orphism which went on to create the idea that 'god' was actually 'God' and that while we were a part of him we were also a part of Titanic nature--ie. We were corrupt, evil, bad. As 'divine sparks' trapped in Nature we needed to return to 'God/Dionysus'. Does this myth remind you of the Christian myth? I know it certainly influenced it!

So, what I am saying is this, if you feel you have rebelled against 'religion' (i.e. the Church), then you have rebelled against an already phoney religion! One that demanded 'God' is apart from Nature. Do you understand?

So, as science eventually even does away with the need for the belief in 'God' and goes positivist, then can’t you see that you haven't even acknowledged the real MEANING of what that step. That the original sense is not a 'he-God', but an ecstatic sense of interfusion with Nature.

That your attitude is anti this is very much reflected in your reply to me after asking you if you were familiar with LSD experience. You came back with a snide put-down reply that you would not go and buy a tab of LSD from some "low life".
Lowlife? Why did you choose to say that? Obviously I am guessing you feel that people that sell psychedelics are lower than you, and probably this goes for those that take them. Really that attitude was shared by the torturers of heretics, and still is completely prevalent in this age of the war on drugs, which includes, (very much so) a war on psychedelic experience.

This is why you are a scientismist, who is as religious as the next Christian.

Anyways, hope you didn’t mind the editing. I threw in a couple of things that may have been wrong. Sure you’ll correct me if needed.
No doubt that the early mages were high as kite much of the time. Plogistian seems to have overlooked how those early shamans and such were the forerunners of his scientists. I don’t think there was much separation of the two in those early days. The spiritual leader of the tribe would also have been the medicine man, or more likely woman, and the one who knew when the seasons would change. Science and religion were the same thing then, and I guess you’re saying they are the same thing now.
I suspect that the split may have begun when we switched from a matriarchal to a patriarchal set-up. But that’s just speculation.

 

[phlogistician]

look at phlo's attitudewith me here. this is notme gossiping, and trying to get you on my side. i can deal wit old phlo on my own. what i mean is....LOOK at the livin illustration of what i mean in action. can you see it or do i have to point it out in analytical steps?

Yeah, please do, I could do with a laugh! Let's see if you can make one post, which actually contains some facts, is spelled and formatted correctly, and which displays some thought.

One web page by a guy who's views are by no means proven does not make your argument. Quite the opposite in fact, that look for information that reinforces your view, do not verify those sources, and then close your mind to any criticosm of those sources.

Well, here's a criticism of Jerry Bergman's paper on Galileo;

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1982/JASA6-82Krause2.html

Even if the paper were without criticism, it would not prove that science is a religion. Tell you what, while you've got you analytical hat on, do a point by point sidelong comparison for us. I'd like half a dozen points of comparison at least, please.

 

[Hipparchia]

Hi Phlogistician. I think I spelled it right this time. Did you read my edited version of Duendy’s post yet? I think he has some good points. I’m not sure I can list five ways that religion and science are similar, but I’ll give it a shot.

They both grew out of a desire to understand the world.
They both focused, initially, on birth, life and death.
They both had dominant positions in society – first religion then science.
They both require belief – religion asks for an untested belief, faith; science asks for a testable belief.

Sorry, I only got four. I think they, science and religion, are just different aspects of what makes us human. When I've heard scientists talking about some discovery they sound just the same as a preacher talking about god. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[duendy]

Hipparchia....a delightfuo surpise to see my post all tidied and posh....thanks. you flatter me, and it is good to have support against an old cracked brickwall

i will sit back for abit and ANALYZE---phlo only thinks he can do that, causehes the great scienceismo--his relationship with you...ahhhhhhhhhh

will return to it soon tho

 

[duendy]

Yeah, please do, I could do with a laugh! Let's see if you can make one post, which actually contains some facts, is spelled and formatted correctly, and which displays some thought.

me:::what do you think is the origin of the idea of 'God'?....mr facts_man

One web page by a guy who's views are by no means proven does not make your argument.

me:::and you assume the one you picked IS proven do you? how do you KNOW that?

Quite the opposite in fact, that look for information that reinforces your view, do not verify those sources, and then close your mind to any criticosm of those sources.

me:::ditto

Well, here's a criticism of Jerry Bergman's paper on Galileo;

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1982/JASA6-82Krause2.html

Even if the paper were without criticism, it would not prove that science is a religion. Tell you what, while you've got you analytical hat on, do a point by point sidelong comparison for us. I'd like half a dozen points of comparison at least, please.

this is about scientism not science. i believe you display scientism rather than real science:

*chruch believes in the word of 'God'
you believe in the word of scientism--ie., te grid through which you judgeALL non ordinary phenomena and behaviours

*church has p-reists that act as middle men between individual and 'God'
Scientism has middle men--scientismists--who stand between the individual and 'Truth'

*Chruch demands you filter all experience in conformity with Scripture
scientism demands you filter all experience trough conformity to accepted consensual reality as dicxtated by te metaphysical assumptions of scientism

*Church denies and forbids/taboos the exploration ofreality with the aid of psychedelic plants and fungi etc
Scientism dismisses and forbids psychedelic experience, and doesn't respect such experience--reducing it to mere chemical activity,and the activity of 'low lifes'

*Church punishes those who do not conform to reality as they dogmatize it should be
Scientim punishes tose whose behaviour does not conform t how one should experience reality

*Church wa entwined with State forming a formidable fascistic power hiearchy, ad opression Scientiam entwines wit State to create a formidable hierachal structure of power and oppression

*Church emphasises 'spirit'
Scientism emphasizes 'matter'

 

[shaman_]

IF the scence people claim my unhappiness is 'clinical depression' or 'manic depression' or bi-polar disorder'....IF i QUESTION/challenge that judgement which is not not based on the bible and the 'word' of 'God', but te 'word' of 'science', then i can be attacked, and ridiculed, and coerced, etc, whyyy? because i have defied scientific authority is why. i am particularly addressing 'mental health' because--along with Thomas Szasz and others. i feel it isCENTRALto te continuation of the myth of scientism. te myth tat only scientism can speak for the individual and community whar reality 'IS' and 'should be'. just like religion did/does

What is the scientific authority? Who is upholding this authority? Science progresses from being challenged, unlike religion. You may roll your eyes at that sentence but how else has science been able to progress?

look at phlo's attitudewith me here. this is notme gossiping, and trying to get you on my side. i can deal wit old phlo on my own. what i mean is....LOOK at the livin illustration of what i mean in action. can you see it or do i have to point it out in analytical steps?

The discussions you have had with phlogistician are not unlike those had most internet forums where people are disagreeing. You have been quite condescending as well. Does everyone who disagrees with you get accused of scientism?

 

[shaman_]

this is about scientism not science. i believe you display scientism rather than real science:

*chruch believes in the word of 'God'
you believe in the word of scientism--ie., te grid through which you judgeALL non ordinary phenomena and behaviours

*church has p-reists that act as middle men between individual and 'God'
Scientism has middle men--scientismists--who stand between the individual and 'Truth'

*Chruch demands you filter all experience in conformity with Scripture
scientism demands you filter all experience trough conformity to accepted consensual reality as dicxtated by te metaphysical assumptions of scientism

*Church denies and forbids/taboos the exploration ofreality with the aid of psychedelic plants and fungi etc
Scientism dismisses and forbids psychedelic experience, and doesn't respect such experience--reducing it to mere chemical activity,and the activity of 'low lifes'

Actually it is the law not to take psychedelic drugs. Science (or scientism) has nothing to do with the laws. You seem to blame science for a lot of things.

I assume that because, through science, we are able to explain the effects of mind altering drugs on the brain you accuse science of not having any respect for the experience. That is absurd. Science is able to explain that the sun is not the god Ra but that doesn't mean it has any less respect for the sun. No, you are angry that the 'magic' has been taken away from the experience.

Society will label drug users 'low lifes' not science.

By the way duendy I have taken lsd many times.

*Church punishes those who do not conform to reality as they dogmatize it should be
Scientim punishes tose whose behaviour does not conform t how one should experience reality

How is science (scientism whatever) punishing people? Do not mention Galileo.

*Church wa entwined with State forming a formidable fascistic power hiearchy, ad opression Scientiam entwines wit State to create a formidable hierachal structure of power and oppression

*Church emphasises 'spirit'
Scientism emphasizes 'matter'

Again you say science is oppressing people. The people in power often use religion to keep the masses more under control. How do they use your scientism?