Tippaporn

Sister Rosetta Thorpe with a live performance of This Train from '64.

Billy Bragg with Sing Their Souls Back Home off of his '08 Mr. Love & Justice release.

Bob Marley & The Wailers with Redemption Song off of their '80 Uprising LP.

Spirituals (also known as Negro spirituals, Black spirituals, or spiritual music) is a genre of Christian music that is "purely and solely the creation" of generations of Black Americans,  which merged African cultural heritage with the experiences of being held in bondage in slavery, at first during the transatlantic slave trade—the largest and one of the most inhumane forced migrations in recorded human history, and for centuries afterwards, through the domestic slave trade. Spirituals include work songs, freedom songs, jubilee songs, sorrow songs, blues, and gospels. A selection . . . The Chambers Brothers with Wade In The Water off of their '70 Love, Peace And Happiness LP.

I was thinking of sources outside of our physical reality.

Typical of so many . . . just a snarky comment that isn't even clever as a retort to someone's post, with zero substance because they can't win a debate and can only petulantly take their bat and ball and go home. That's 1 sentence.

This ain't a political thread. But if it were . . .

I read a comic book when I was about 6 which had a huge impact on me. The story line was about aliens who arrived on earth to help humans with their advance knowledge. The army surrounded the aliens and their spaceship and were given the command to open fire. Of course they couldn't hurt the aliens because of their advanced technology. The aliens just filed back into their spaceship and took off. Another quote I had run across long ago was that if Jesus Christ were to return to earth and spoke the truth he'd be crucified again in a nanosecond. By his own followers, too. The above is quite illustrative, in my opinion, about where we stand presently as a race. Aside from that, I'll throw a few questions out there. Couldn't advanced information come to us from sources other than aliens? And has it already happened?

Misogynist, homophobe, racist, xenophobe, white supremacist, fascist, deplorable, birther, drump, extremist, fringe, nutjob, radical, insurrectionist. Are those divisive labels? I don't know many Christians that throw those around like candy.

Ich bin ein Sauerkraut.

Assessing reality accurately is not being divisive. If you'd like to state a specific objection to something I've said then that is the spirit of debate. To interpret something according to your beliefs and then to insist your interpretation is unarguably true, and furthermore dismissing everything else while refusing to debate is, well, what kids do when they get become petulant and take their bats and go home. Wanting to see "MAGA" a reality? I've stated an observation, and an accurate one, which you're declaring by your sole authority as a desire of mine out of the ether. As far as what bucket you claim I placed you in I did no such thing. I named no names. You placed yourself into the bucket of your choosing. Don't blame me for your self created indignation which your feeling.

I hope you understand that you've just exposed your horse blinders to all.

I was chatting with an American friend of mine today and we were discussing the intense turmoil which has gripped not only the U.S. but many parts of the world. Especially the west. With certainty, an ill wind blows heavily. I gave my friend my overall, general assessment of what's going to be needed to overcome the challenges which we as a species have set forth for ourselves. And I thought my appraisal fit in well with this thread which deals with the two seemingly contradictory subjects of God & Science. So, for what it's worth to anyone, here's my offering. ******************** If you'll notice much of the MAGA movement is comprised of devout Judeo-Christian followers. While they can implant decent values back into society overall conservative religion has been tried and failed. Blind faith will never be enough for too many people. Especially in those instances where faith ignores reality. Science obviously is not the answer either. Science provides zero guiding principles to life. In fact, science promotes a reality which is purely mechanistic and one in which the individual is completely powerless. He may get lucky every once in a while, though. Whereas religion can have a tendency to ignore reality, science completely ignores spirituality. Neither approach works. And neither will be able to solve our current problems. In my mind there's no going back to either of those two alone providing the basis for which life and reality are to be interpreted. For neither is capable of finding true solutions to today's problems or answers to life's questions. A new framework is going to be needed. But I can't see that coming about unopposed for it will necessarily dispose of so many currently held, and even cherished, ideas we accept as truth about the nature of ourselves and the reality we find ourselves in. As Mark Twain so perceptively quipped, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." And therein lies the trouble. Convincing people that what they thought was true is in fact not true is not going to go over well. I believe the only convincing argument will be the one that experience provides which will teach them in no uncertain terms the fallacies of the beliefs they hold. Those enlightening and edifying experiences may very well come with a whole lot of pain. ******************** I, myself, have always argued here that there needs to be a blending of science and spirituality. One or the other is not sufficient in explaining the complexities of who we are, our reality, and why we find ourselves here to begin with. Or where we came from and whence we are going. I side here more with those who have a spiritual bent because it is they who do not deny science and are thus more open to an approach which is a fusion of science and religion. I mostly give the disciples of science hell precisely because it is they who are so dogmatically convinced that their religion is the sole religion to provide all of life's solutions and answers. And it is they who are unwilling to even momentarily peer outside of the framework they've imprisoned themselves in to see if anything else exists out there. And they dig the claws of there stances so firmly in the dirt despite the fact that a quick glance around the world holds overflowing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they alone hold the keys to understanding and knowledge. They truly are the immovable objects here. As I said, I offer this for what it's worth. Perhaps it's possible that there could actually be some real bargaining of ideas here rather than the constant drawing of lines in the sand that cannot be crossed.

Then you should know that the only reason you are having this conversation over the internet using a laptop/smartphone is due to our scientific theories in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. In fact every single electrical device you use, from a washing machine, to a GPS in a car is only possible due to those theories. You should also be aware that the same scientific methods and tools used in developing those theories were used to formulate the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since Darwin's time the evidence (especially the molecular evidence) has become so overwhelming that its about on par with the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. You can take the genes of thousands of species of animals or plants, plot out the differences and it will produce a perfect hierarchy or family tree. Not only does it match all the fossil evidence, but it gave a few surprises such as whales being very closely related to hippopotamuses, and were once land mammals. "Since Darwin's time the evidence (especially the molecular evidence) has become so overwhelming that its about on par with the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun." For one, as far as I know there is no overwhelming consensus to the theory of evolution. In fact, you can say that among some scientists it's a very contentious subject. Even if there were an overwhelming majority consensus I would remind that consensus does not equate to truth. I truly do not follow any of the advances made that would potentially transform the theory into rockbed fact but considering the unfortunate situation we have these days of so many instances of science compromising it's integrity I would never any longer take any proclamation prima facie. Now, I also happen to be in possession of information which shows the theory of evolution to be a scientific fairy tale. That information makes infinite more sense, shows much greater cohesion, is far broader in scope, and gives quite practical reasons why the theory of evolution will only and ever be a theory. I sincerely doubt you'd be receptive to that information for it would indeed challenge many of your current beliefs. But I could be wrong. Aside from that I'll make one other comment. Yes, I am fully aware that science has had quite a measure of success in divining the workings of physical reality. I'm sorry you doubted me. But the fact that the methodology science uses to produce all of these technological wonders is the same methodology science employs in all of it's probings into reality does not mean that those methods guarantee success 100% of the time. It appears that you are alluding to that fallacious logical conclusion as you go from obvious scientific successes and then straight to the theory of evolution. As if to say, "see how well our theories worked with the Internet and laptops and smartphones and washing machines and GPS and, see here, our theories work the same for evolution!" I know you started your post in a somewhat condescending fashion, as if you were pained to have to relate to a dimwit. But, to be sure, this dimwit would never buy the flawed product you're selling.

Even if you can you have to admit that you interpreted what I wrote incorrectly. Your interpretation does not comport with my meaning, which I further clarified in my subsequent post (and which you did not reply to). But rather than simply and honestly admitting that you misinterpreted what I said you - sorry! my bad! - instead you turn the tables and make your mistake mine by claiming I'm not clear in the use of language so that you're the one who ends up right and I'm the one who is at fault.

Absolute free will is an inherent aspect of reality and integral for the functioning of all realities. It's certainly understandable that people would be under the impression that the facts are otherwise but before we conclude absolutely we must take into consideration the known fact that appearances can be very convincing and we are often fooled by them. A rather rudimentary gauge to use to test the validity of any idea is to apply practicality to the idea. In other words, it must work, and it must work consistently. For existence is, if nothing else, supremely practical in nature. So in considering the idea of limited freedom, which is what you are suggesting, then you must at least attempt to show how the idea works in as minute detail you can manage. In doing so you can easily uncover intrinsic problems or gaps which cannot be bridged which would suggest that the idea is flawed. Limited freedom implies freedom at times and decisions, or reality, being forced at other times. So to think of how this idea would work then one of the obvious questions that arises is who or what intercedes to create your reality when you are not the one doing so? And when is reality decided for you, perhaps even against your consent or desire? Now I'm not going to work this idea through as the process would be much too lengthy for this post. But it should convey the general idea. If one would like to use the process on other, perhaps simpler ideas, such as the current idea being rapidly spread around the globe that ones sex is determined by the mind and not by one's biology. Attempting to practically apply that idea to the real world should quickly show it's flaws and hence invalidate the idea as one that is reflective of the true nature of reality. To show how free will operates in all of it's practical detail would also require a very lengthy explanation. It would also require the introduction of other concepts, such as probabilities for one. Free will requires the existence of choice. Without choice free will cannot exist. For choice to exist that would require probabilities. Probabilities provide for alternate actions. This is about as simplistic an explanation that I'll attempt for now. But it should help to begin to make some sense as to the question of free will.

Now come up with a list of all of the fallacies science would convince you of. It works both ways.

Ideally, I'd like to conclude this discussion with mutual understanding. So, after a bit of thought on how else I might convey clarity I had the thought of elaborating on my the intended meaning when I used 'zero credibility.' When I say that science attaches zero credibility to subjective reality my intended meaning is that science gives zero validity to subjective reality. In other words, Science accepts subjective reality but considers it's products to be strictly in the realm of the imagination. And that which is imaginary is not real. FYI, valid is a synonym of credible. Would you accept that?

Here's the definition for credible: adjective capable of being believed; believable:a credible statement. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy:a credible witness. Per the definition above 'zero credibility' would translate to 'not to be believed at all,' 'lacking all belief and confidence', and 'not at all trustworthy.' You can insist all you like about making a rational or sensible argument that would allow you to substitute the word 'non-existent' for 'zero credibility' but honestly you can't. Ring up Merriam-Webster and have them add 'non-existent' to the definition of 'credible.' They've recently edited the definitions of a few other words to accommodate certain pressure groups to help them continue to deceive. They might oblige you. Your entire argument is fallacious. You're insisting that you have the license to change the meaning of words because, well, it supports your argument. And sans that support you have to admit to "user error." And you can't bring yourself to admitting you erred. Perhaps because any admission of error on any point would bring into question whether any of your other points made throughout this thread were in error, too. Why, you'd lose credibility! Can't have that!

Just to give you a helping hand, keep this famous quote handy to insert when appropriate: "You can never debate with a dishonest man." - Tippers

No it's not. You've fallen into the 'either/or' trap. That is, something is either good or bad, hot or cold, credible or not credible at all. You seem to dismiss the obvious fact that there is a range of varying qualities and quantities. 'Zero credibility' is at the bottom of the range of degrees of credibility, which is why I interpreted your statement that 'science considers subjective reality to have zero credibility', as equivalent to 'science considers subjective reality as non-existent'. How can anything that is accepted as existing have 'zero credibility? Science is an ongoing process and nothing is fully settled, although many issues are sufficiently settled to be of practical use in developing successful technology. "Since you express incredulity at the preposterous idea that science would dare not bestow credibility on whatever interpretation of reality you receive via your five senses then what credibility would science bestow on the following? One hears God's voice using the physical sense of hearing. One sees God with their physical eyes. One feels God's embrace. Not sure if there have been any reports in our history of anyone claiming to smell or taste God." There are many examples of people hearing or seeing things which exist only in the mind. An example would be the fairly common condition of Tinnitus, which is a ringing, or buzzing, or clicking in the ears and which is not based on any external source of sound. I can imagine that someone who is totally unaware of such a condition, might believe he is being surrounded and followed by swarms of Crickets or Cicadas. Every experience has to interpreted in some way, whether automatically, unconsciously, instinctively, or through some processing by the intellect. It's the interpretation that can sometimes be given 'zero credibility', as in the example of a person interpreting his Tinnitus as the sound of crickets or cicadas, or a person interpreting a voice in his head as a communication with an 'Almighty Creator of the Universe'. Got it? Got it! Except . . . Words may be synonymous but not identical in meaning. Here are some synonyms for 'credible.' Non-existent is not listed because the meaning is not close. So no equivalency. (You can, alternately, look up the definition for each to see the difference in meaning.) By the evidence of your own admission that you made that erroneous equivalency it stands to reason that my assessment of "user error" is indeed correct. I did not say 'non-existent' and my use of the word 'credible' does not infer 'non-existent.' Do you agree? https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/credible I gotta skip the rest of your post. Outta time.

Let's focus on the part of your post I've highlighted. I think the problem here is that you've lumped all types of sujective reality into one category. For me, subjective reality is what I interpret through my senses of sight, hearing, feeling, taste, smell and intellect. Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to all these interpretations? Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to my claim that I enjoy or dislike the taste of a particular food, or the sight of a particular painting, or the sound of a particular piece of music? I understand if I express an opinion, that there is a Creator God for example, that is not supported by a shred of evidence that meets the requirements of the 'methodology of science', then a qualified scientist might claim that my opinion has zero credibility, but that my opinion still exists in my mind, and/or in written text. Is this what you mean? If it can't be proven by science then it's not accepted as real. That is science's general stance, is it not? It's certainly the stance taken here by every disciple of science, including yourself. Since you express incredulity at the preposterous idea that science would dare not bestow credibility on whatever interpretation of reality you receive via your five senses then what credibility would science bestow on the following? One hears God's voice using the physical sense of hearing. One sees God with their physical eyes. One feels God's embrace. Not sure if there have been any reports in our history of anyone claiming to smell or taste God. I've never known that the intellect is one of the five senses. Or is that the sixth sense? Just having some fun. Hopefully you can laugh at yourself as well. As the old adage goes, "If you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at?" Or as Groucho Marx would say, “If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you.”

Good catch. The math symbols commonly used in calculus prevent copying and pasting so I chose any old math equation that appeared complex enough to provide the intended illustrative contrast to the simplest of addition equations. It was artistic license on my part. I never expected or intended for anyone to try and recognise or perhaps solve the problem. And yes, the equation I chose did not paste it's formatting well at all. It's an unsolvable mess.

You guess that Tippaporn is not referring to 'real' science?? Why are you guessing?? I'll give you a hint. You're guessing because Tippaporn is not clear in his use of language, which causes confusion. A fundamental requirement of all science is precision of terminology and the meaning of words. If one is referring in one's post to 'scientific propaganda', or 'fake science' that is not based on data and experimental evidence, then one should make that clear and not just use the general word 'science'. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the other party for your own "user error." It's not so difficult to divine the meaning of the words I use given the context. Scientific fairy tales completely went over the head of your understanding. By your own words: "The concept of a 'scientific fairy tale' is no more than a false interpretation of the 'real' science by the scientifically illiterate." When some refers to someone else's truth as a fairy tale the meaning is perfectly clear. At least to most others. Here's another recent example of your "user error." "Another excellent example of great confusion. Well done! ???? "Of course science accepts the existence of subjective reality." <snip> I've never stated that science denies subjective reality it's existence as I'm only too well aware that science does recognise it. Also, I corrected you on your mistake in a reply to which you never acknowledged your error. Here you are making another. mauGR1, on the other hand, feels no shame to admit to erring.

Another excellent example of great confusion. Well done! ???? Of course science accepts the existence of subjective reality. <snip> I've never said that science denies the existence of subjective reality. Science recognises it's existence but does not treat it as real in the same way it considers a physical object to be real. What comes from subjective reality carries no weight with science. Science not only grants subjective reality zero credibility but it has a great distrust of subjective reality as well. I believe the confusion is on your end has has to do with reading comprehension.