Ok, One More Try

[DayLight]

 

 

 

 

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

 

 

Try jumping off a bridge and seeing if the rules apply to you or not, DayLight.

 

That which you can't opt out of is REAL, even if you don't believe it is.

 

Gravity is REAL and not just some rules describing reality.

.

.

.

But hey!

Don't take that from me by faith... perform an empirical test for yourself!

 

I didn't say it wasn't real.  It's real. The question is: what is it really?

 

When an apple fell from the tree, was it really some invisible force (called gravity) which was pulling on it?  Or is there some law of physics which says that things will go downward rather than upward, unless a force is applied to push them upward?

 

In places where there is no gravity, what made it stop?  Wouldn't that be laws of physics?  They would say something like: in this area, things do not go downward, but do such and such instead...

 

 

Science argues to the best explanation of the known facts about gravity.

 

That which is unknown can be theorized and modeled and predicted.

 

If the predictions are borne out by fresh data, then these new theories become accepted as evidence-supported scientific facts.

 

Everything else remains speculation.

.

.

.

And you are speculating, DayLight.  Speculation isn't science.

 

But can you make a scientific conclusion without speculating about stuff first?  Isn't speculation and prediction, the first step to proving something?

[DayLight]

 

 

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

 

 

Try jumping off a bridge and seeing if the rules apply to you or not, DayLight.

 

That which you can't opt out of is REAL, even if you don't believe it is.

 

Gravity is REAL and not just some rules describing reality.

.

.

.

But hey!

Don't take that from me by faith... perform an empirical test for yourself!

 

Oh, by the way, good news!  I fell off the bed.  So I don't have to jump off the building.   You may be unhappy about this luck, but oh well...

[RogueScholar]

You have not been paying attention. Science is not used to prove anything.

[DayLight]

You have not been paying attention. Science is not used to prove anything.

 I was trying to remember someone saying something like that, but I gave up because I couldn't. (It's like you read my mind and decided to help me out)   So that's the whole point.  It's not about proving, it's about providing plausible explanations.  Which is what I try to do.  What matters is what my intuition tells me and what I learn. That's how everybody is going about it anyways.  I don't think there is another way to do it.  But ok, off this topic, I already said this topic wasn't the one I am interested in.

[seven77]

 

 

 

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

 

 

Try jumping off a bridge and seeing if the rules apply to you or not, DayLight.

 

That which you can't opt out of is REAL, even if you don't believe it is.

 

Gravity is REAL and not just some rules describing reality.

.

.

.

But hey!

Don't take that from me by faith... perform an empirical test for yourself!

 

I didn't say it wasn't real.  It's real. The question is: what is it really?

 

When an apple fell from the tree, was it really some invisible force (called gravity) which was pulling on it?  Or is there some law of physics which says that things will go downward rather than upward, unless a force is applied to push them upward?

 

In places where there is no gravity, what made it stop?  Wouldn't that be laws of physics?  They would say something like: in this area, things do not go downward, but do such and such instead...

 

 

The scientific definition of gravity, as told by El Goog:

 

 

the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. For most purposes Newton's laws of gravity apply, with minor modifications to take the general theory of relativity into account.

• the degree of intensity of this, measured by acceleration.

 

 

Gravity is a force. We cannot see it. Yet we experience it and can measure it. We can verify the existence of gravity. Gravity is a constant feature in all known worlds/planets/environments. Now, there may be worlds where gravity is not a feature, but we don't know this and since we lack this knowledge, it is best not to lend weight to such speculations. Gravity is not magic; it is magnetism, simply put. The laws concerning gravity and all of the math thus far has shown us that objects with mass in non-vacuum environments do indeed adhere to the laws of gravity. That is, the objects in questions are attracted to the center of the earth or towards another physical body having mass (other planets, stars, etc) and this attraction causes them to "fall down". (Quotations are not meant as mockery, simply as clarification.)

 

BAA posted this:

 

Science argues to the best explanation of the known facts about gravity.

 

That which is unknown can be theorized and modeled and predicted.

 

If the predictions are borne out by fresh data, then these new theories become accepted as evidence-supported scientific facts.

 

Everything else remains speculation.

.

.

.

And you are speculating, DayLight.  Speculation isn't science.

 

 

I would add the following, quoted from wiki HERE. The emphasis is mine.

 

"Although the nature of a scientific law is a question in philosophy and although scientific laws describe nature mathematically, scientific laws are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they (scientific laws) are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes.

 

According to the unity of science thesis, all scientific laws follow fundamentally from physics. Laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws."

 

What is an ontological commitment? Well, ontology is  the "philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality". An ontological commitment is an assumption that goes beyond or around scientific parameters via the use of philosophical arguments and the like. Essentially, scientific laws and scientific arguments should not be metaphysical, that is, BEYOND physics (science). While scientific laws are by nature philosophical questions (why does X do Y? Under which circumstances does X NOT do Y? and so on), these questions must have a mathematical aspect to them and they must be conclusions reached via the scientific method. If these conditions are not met, then the question/assumption is not considered a law.

 

I submit that the issues outlined in above in my post, in BAA's post and in Rogue's posts are the reasons why your threads are under attack, so to speak. You are asking questions and making broad assumptions that are of a metaphysical nature. Metaphysics is a science, but it is not the type of science discussed in this subforum. Try spirituality instead. Or maybe start a blog?

[DayLight]

Please describe a place without gravity? What does down and up mean in space?

I don't know many details about a specific technical subject.  I just hear pieces and try to put them into a bigger picture. Regardless of whether it's ok to do that or not, that's the way it gets done in my case.  As a collective, we are an organism, and some of us are hands and some are eyes and some are feet and so on.  And so each of us does its work in the way that works for us.  Overall it can enrich the collective anyways.  People don't have to be clones of one another and all do it the same way (considered "the best way" by some).

 

So the things I said were the few things I heard.  I saw (in movies) people floating in a special area designed to train astronauts and they were just floating.  Space is an unusual place if you try to compare it to Earth.  Earth has something which we do not fall through (the ground and the core).  I am assuming that maybe it's something strong like the wall and we don't pass through the wall.  So we can't pass through the earth.  But in space, we just pass through things, there is nothing in the way... only we don't pass through stuff, we are just floating.  I don't know why or what this is about.  It would be nice to know, but it takes too much time to learn everything.

 

Up and down...hmm, it's a relative term, isn't?   Not a universal "up and down".  So above your head would be up.  Below your feet would be down.  So it's like we are saying: look below your feet.  Look above your head.  But to shorten it, we started to say: look up, look down.

 

So if you're in space, you could still look above your head or below your feet.  So there is up and down in that sense. But of course the direction of up and down changes depending on your position.

[Ravenstar]

'love system' ? That is an unquantifiable definition. It's made up. It describes nothing in reality. Unless there is a clearer analogy? What 'system' are you trying to describe? People build things.. we alter our environment to assist our survival and comfort… people bond with each other because a social species must depend on the group.. some more than others.. and THAT is highly individual and has more than just bio-chemistry involved… sociology is a very complex subject. 

 

It has no meaning that I can grasp here. I know enough about psychology, sociology and biology that I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

I'm all for postulating philosophical concepts… but that's not science. Science must be precise, with clear definitions, repeatable, falsifiable and measurable.

 

I'm missing what you are trying to describe.

[DayLight]

So about gravity... objects in space float, right? (or so I heard).  But objects in our atmosphere would fall down from the sky.  It would be kind of fun to reach just outside of gravity and see the ship floating.  And then a meter later, see it fall.  It's kind of surreal.

 

Ok, so gravity is magnetism?  Maybe it's the metallic core of the Earth (isn't it metallic) that draws all objects onto itself?  But maybe the force is not strong enough to make us fall through the Earth?  Just trying to understand this in layman's terms.   But then why would feathers fall?   We may have metals in our body, but feathers probably don't.  Unless there are molecules or elements or something that are metal and that is enough to cause the magnetism?

[DayLight]

 

 

I'm all for postulating philosophical concepts… but that's not science. Science must be precise, with clear definitions, repeatable, falsifiable and measurable.

 

I'm missing what you are trying to describe.

Well, it can't be precise and have a clear definition when it's not really understood and made clear yet.  I think when you guys say "science" you must mean things that were already discovered and proven to be true or something?  Not things which are in the process of being understood?

[Ravenstar]

 

Please describe a place without gravity? What does down and up mean in space?

I don't know many details about a specific technical subject.  I just hear pieces and try to put them into a bigger picture. Regardless of whether it's ok to do that or not, that's the way it gets done in my case.  As a collective, we are an organism, and some of us are hands and some are eyes and some are feet and so on.  And so each of us does its work in the way that works for us.  Overall it can enrich the collective anyways.  People don't have to be clones of one another and all do it the same way (considered "the best way" by some).

 

So the things I said were the few things I heard.  I saw (in movies) people floating in a special area designed to train astronauts and they were just floating.  Space is an unusual place if you try to compare it to Earth.  Earth has something which we do not fall through (the ground and the core).  I am assuming that maybe it's something strong like the wall and we don't pass through the wall.  So we can't pass through the earth.  But in space, we just pass through things, there is nothing in the way... only we don't pass through stuff, we are just floating.  I don't know why or what this is about.  It would be nice to know, but it takes too much time to learn everything.

 

Up and down...hmm, it's a relative term, isn't?   Not a universal "up and down".  So above your head would be up.  Below your feet would be down.  So it's like we are saying: look below your feet.  Look above your head.  But to shorten it, we started to say: look up, look down.

 

So if you're in space, you could still look above your head or below your feet.  So there is up and down in that sense. But of course the direction of up and down changes depending on your position.

 

Actually… even in space you are constrained by gravity… less so the farther you are away from a mass, but even astronauts are still in a gravitational system.. an orbit of earth (an orbit is akin to centrifugal force) or other body along with the massive gravitation of the sun which holds the solar system together.  Basically they are still falling, but slower. The ISS is in orbit, earth's gravitation and it's momentum keeps it from crashing or floating off into interplanetary space… until it reaches another celestial body and is trapped in it's gravitational well. Gravity warps space… BAA is better with this stuff, but gravity is not exactly a force that pulls on an object - it BENDS space. Difficult for a layman such as myself to describe accurately.

 

In space there is no up and down… that is completely relative to you, you are correct...it can be quite disconcerting.

 

Our entire solar system is not aligned with the galactic disc.. we are kind of 45 degrees off which is why the milky way is a diagonal across the sky.

 

As a collective organism we are more analogous to cells than hand, feet and eyes, I would think.

[Ravenstar]

I think you need to develop an hypothesis.

[DayLight]

 

 but it is not the type of science discussed in this subforum. Try spirituality instead. Or maybe start a blog?

 

I suppose attacking could be better than nothing.  You get no responses from blogging and spirituality people are not looking to "discover" anything, so they don't say anything.  There is little point.  At least arguing can make me think some more.  Although it's not a pleasant way to learn.  But rare things are pleasant on this planet in our days, just have to live through it.

[DayLight]

'love system' ? That is an unquantifiable definition. It's made up. It describes nothing in reality. Unless there is a clearer analogy? What 'system' are you trying to describe? People build things.. we alter our environment to assist our survival and comfort… people bond with each other because a social species must depend on the group.. some more than others.. and THAT is highly individual and has more than just bio-chemistry involved… sociology is a very complex subject. 

 

It has no meaning that I can grasp here. I know enough about psychology, sociology and biology that I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

I'm missing what you are trying to describe.

 

It’s interesting to me to realize that the statement “love builds” is literally true.    (And it's within the context of such and equivalent statements that this stuff made most sense.  All by itself, it's probably missing a point of reference.  So I don't know, I'll give it one more shot, but it probably doesn't mean anything still (to others).  I did spend like 2-3 hours trying to write this in different ways, but I have no idea if this says anything or not (to others).

 

 

What compels the birds to move this way and that way (and thus to cause flocking)? The birds are just acting out internal instructions.  I think that these internal instructions are like lines of programming code.  And each bird has some lines of the code.  And when they all start to act out their individual lines of code, you can “see” the whole program then.  And it’s this program which creates the flocking.   Flocking –is the visual representation of that program. 

 

So people have some of the internal code in them; and the whole program is within the collective.  When people act out this code, out comes a visual representation of this program – a social structure.

 

Birds' collective behavior produces flocking.  People's collective behavior produces social structures.

Some sort of a program is creating flocking and some other program is creating social structures.

 

 

I think that “love” program is the appropriate name for this since the visual representation of it is social structure and since the system builds structures by compelling people to seek fulfillment, which forces them to form emotional connections.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I can't really learn much by reading books.  I learn by writing and discussing.  People's feedback usually triggers my thoughts to go into a certain direction and to learn more.  So thank you for the help (although I could do without attacks).

 

 

FWIW I don't think anyone has attacked you.  People have tried to share information and ask you questions, and if that feels like an attack then maybe ex-c is not the place for you to share your ideas about love, the physical world and so on.

 

I disagree that you can't learn much by reading books.  We learn very little when we write.  At best we are processing information we already have.  If you learn by people's feedback then you have had many opportunities to learn from what people have posted to you.  But reading books, or accessing educational webpages or video clips, would be much more efficient for you.  There are many such webpages that we could refer you to if you want to learn about any topic to do with how the physical world works.

 

I find it quite sad that you don't think you can learn much by reading books.  I love books, they are one of the best ways to discover how the world works.  It makes me wonder what kind of education you have had so far in your life, whether it was public school, private school, or homeschooling, and to what level?

 

What drew you to ex-c?  Are you an ex-Christian?  What is your story?  Would you like some help or support with dealing with a Christian upbringing?  Do you want to discuss whether we think a god exists?  

 

Do you want to learn how to understand and express ideas about how the world works?  

 

Do you want to learn why a subforum like this exists (basically because religious people often don't understand science and are opposed to it)?  

 

Most of us who post in this subforum care very much getting the misinformation spread by religious people to be challenged by those who understand science.  So we have taken the time to understand how science works and we appreciate that science has brought untold benefits to humans and the environment.  Religious people who oppose science are spreading ignorance, especially to children, and are stopping those children from learning how the world works.  This is a form of child neglect, the children are missing out on their right to a quality education.

 

We take this very seriously and if you want to be part of the solution to the problem then we are happy to help.  But if you want to share your speculations about how the world works and not take the time to read/watch some of the available information, then that is going to get frustrating for us.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I don't know many details about a specific technical subject.  I just hear pieces and try to put them into a bigger picture. Regardless of whether it's ok to do that or not, that's the way it gets done in my case.  

 

 

Just noting this as another example of where I think you may not be approaching things in the most effective way.  There is something to be gained from doing things in a different way to what we have always done.  Why settle for just pieces of information when you could learn something about a subject from start to finish, and then you would really know something about it.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

I'm all for postulating philosophical concepts… but that's not science. Science must be precise, with clear definitions, repeatable, falsifiable and measurable.

 

I'm missing what you are trying to describe.

Well, it can't be precise and have a clear definition when it's not really understood and made clear yet.  I think when you guys say "science" you must mean things that were already discovered and proven to be true or something?  Not things which are in the process of being understood?

 

 

When we say "science" we are usually talking about two things: one is the scientific method itself, which is usually taught in school when students are about 13 years old (at least in NZ it is taught then).  The other thing we are talking about is scientific information, the huge amount of information that has been discovered using the scientific method.  

 

People use that information to do good, such as treating illnesses, forecasting the weather, or manufacturing steel.  The value of scientific information is that it describes how things work, so we can be as sure as possible that a certain drug will most likely cure a certain illness.  Without scientific information we would be guessing, and not many illnesses get cured that way.

 

Science doesn't "prove things to be true".  It gathers information, processes it, and describes what we have been able to find out so far.  It is always open to gathering more information and increasing what we know.  "Things which are in the process of being understood" is exactly what science is.

[bornagainathiest]

DayLight,

 

Please try to understand the following points.

 

1.  Science doesn't prove anything -  it simply opts for the best explanation of what is observed. 

 

2.  Scientists don't speculate - they theorize.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Their theories are based squarely upon the available data and they use them to make predictions about what will be observed. 

 

3.  A bona fide scientific theory must make predictions that can be observed and reproduced by anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

 

4.  A bona fide scientific theory must be falsifiable. https://explorable.com/falsifiability

 

5.  Science investigates only the natural universe and never uses the supernatural to explain anything.

 

6.  No scientist should ever bring their personal beliefs into their work.  Instead they should be professional and put aside their personal beliefs, without using them to influence or inform their strictly impartial and neutral work.

.

.

.

I would be happy to explain further about these points if you want.

 

But for now, please realize that your posts fall outside the remit of these six points.  Therefore, the content of your posts is NOT science and really shouldn't be in this sub-forum.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

 

 

 but it is not the type of science discussed in this subforum. Try spirituality instead. Or maybe start a blog?

 

I suppose attacking could be better than nothing.  You get no responses from blogging and spirituality people are not looking to "discover" anything, so they don't say anything.  There is little point.  At least arguing can make me think some more.  Although it's not a pleasant way to learn.  But rare things are pleasant on this planet in our days, just have to live through it.

 

 

 

Do you see yourself as attacking science when you make these claims about science?  

 

 

Do you see it as being attacked when somebody takes the time to try to help you?

[DayLight]

Ok, I get it now.  People react to the emotional wounding they received.  And you are reacting to the fact that someone was able to brainwash you (to believe something like a religion) so you go to another extreme and try to be very scientific to make sure that "it never happens again". 

 

I felt a moment of this since I also came from believing something to not believing and thinking how funny it was that I believed it before.    I know someone who didn't think it was funny, but she was outraged at the fact that it happened and it became a touchy subject. (2 someones) 

 

I felt for a figurative moment that I shouldn't believe anything anymore until it's proven, but I got over it.   Having ideas from both sides have really expanded my thinking.  I've learned that "right and wrong" is actually "what serves you and what doesn't" and "what serves the collective and what doesn't".  I believe that I can be more beneficial to the collective BECAUSE of the way that I am, the fact that I can learn from both sides.

 

Since I am not outraged at religion for victimizing my mind, I came to appreciate the fact that I went through the experience.  Because each experience expands your knowledge and your perspective and your thinking.  Christianity may look creepy from the outside, like what's this about "being washed in the blood",it's like a statement from horror movies.  But it shows you that perspective means everything.  From my Christian point of view, "being washed in the blood" was a very beautiful and powerful thing.  And the only way I could understand this perspective is by experiencing that side.

 

I do learn from writing.  It's not a matter of "is this true or not", it's what works for me.  Learning from books - some people can do it and some can't. It's not a matter of "which way is better", it's a matter of abilities. Some are able, and some are not. 

 

I've learned something new today (from all this back and forth). I think that religious people and spiritual people have their set of ideas that they believe and they do not want to think outside the box, and expand their thinking.  I mean I knew this.  The part that I did not realize until now is that scientific-only people do the same, but from the other side.  They don't like to think outside the box either.  It's only philosophical people that are true thinkers and that come up with new ideas and change things.  That's the ones that I need to find.    (But this forum doesn't have that, so I have to find another).  Now that I get this, I won't bother scientific-only people.

[FarflungWanderer]

Daylight, it isn't an issue of "thinking outside a box".

 

Science doesn't create theories from thin air, and certainly by loosely compiling multiple data points together with almost no bearing on the other to create a theory.

 

Science doesn't prove anything, it doesn't rely on the supernatural, and can only make Theories after observing evidence. We don't make grandiose claims unless we have data points that support that claim, and unfortunately you don't have that.

 

Your idea is cobbled together from your own personal views and a loose knowledge of physics and chemistry. The reason why you're getting flak is that you can't seem to realize that you're not being scientific. Your theory is philosophical, an idea that "love holds it all together" is an interesting idea to discuss in the realm of philosophy, but there's nothing you can bring that would make it scientific unless you had evidence that love was both a physical force and one capable of binding things together, rather than love being a series of chemical and psychological reactions.

 

I'm sorry, Daylight, but it's not that we're thinking wrong: It's that you are.

[mymistake]

Ok, I get it now.  People react to the emotional wounding they received.  And you are reacting to the fact that someone was able to brainwash you (to believe something like a religion) so you go to another extreme and try to be very scientific to make sure that "it never happens again". 

 

Clearly you don't get it now.  That charactercher is such an over-used stereotype.  Science isn't an extreme.

[FarflungWanderer]

That's what I said.

 

I doubt he'll reply, though. It looks like he's taking his ball and going home, given his last post.

[Ravenstar]

Oh goodness…. *sigh*.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Ok, I get it now.  People react to the emotional wounding they received.  And you are reacting to the fact that someone was able to brainwash you (to believe something like a religion) so you go to another extreme and try to be very scientific to make sure that "it never happens again". 

 

I felt a moment of this since I also came from believing something to not believing and thinking how funny it was that I believed it before.    I know someone who didn't think it was funny, but she was outraged at the fact that it happened and it became a touchy subject. (2 someones) 

 

I felt for a figurative moment that I shouldn't believe anything anymore until it's proven, but I got over it.   Having ideas from both sides have really expanded my thinking.  I've learned that "right and wrong" is actually "what serves you and what doesn't" and "what serves the collective and what doesn't".  I believe that I can be more beneficial to the collective BECAUSE of the way that I am, the fact that I can learn from both sides.

 

Since I am not outraged at religion for victimizing my mind, I came to appreciate the fact that I went through the experience.  Because each experience expands your knowledge and your perspective and your thinking.  Christianity may look creepy from the outside, like what's this about "being washed in the blood",it's like a statement from horror movies.  But it shows you that perspective means everything.  From my Christian point of view, "being washed in the blood" was a very beautiful and powerful thing.  And the only way I could understand this perspective is by experiencing that side.

 

I do learn from writing.  It's not a matter of "is this true or not", it's what works for me.  Learning from books - some people can do it and some can't. It's not a matter of "which way is better", it's a matter of abilities. Some are able, and some are not. 

 

I've learned something new today (from all this back and forth). I think that religious people and spiritual people have their set of ideas that they believe and they do not want to think outside the box, and expand their thinking.  I mean I knew this.  The part that I did not realize until now is that scientific-only people do the same, but from the other side.  They don't like to think outside the box either.  It's only philosophical people that are true thinkers and that come up with new ideas and change things.  That's the ones that I need to find.    (But this forum doesn't have that, so I have to find another).  Now that I get this, I won't bother scientific-only people.

No, just no. Way to mischaracterise a (large) group of people by not understanding something very basic.

 

What a waste of time it has been trying to help you.  Enjoy your life in your imaginary world.

[sdelsolray]

Ok, I get it now.  People react to the emotional wounding they received.  And you are reacting to the fact that someone was able to brainwash you (to believe something like a religion) so you go to another extreme and try to be very scientific to make sure that "it never happens again". 

 

I felt a moment of this since I also came from believing something to not believing and thinking how funny it was that I believed it before.    I know someone who didn't think it was funny, but she was outraged at the fact that it happened and it became a touchy subject. (2 someones) 

 

I felt for a figurative moment that I shouldn't believe anything anymore until it's proven, but I got over it.   Having ideas from both sides have really expanded my thinking.  I've learned that "right and wrong" is actually "what serves you and what doesn't" and "what serves the collective and what doesn't".  I believe that I can be more beneficial to the collective BECAUSE of the way that I am, the fact that I can learn from both sides.

 

Since I am not outraged at religion for victimizing my mind, I came to appreciate the fact that I went through the experience.  Because each experience expands your knowledge and your perspective and your thinking.  Christianity may look creepy from the outside, like what's this about "being washed in the blood",it's like a statement from horror movies.  But it shows you that perspective means everything.  From my Christian point of view, "being washed in the blood" was a very beautiful and powerful thing.  And the only way I could understand this perspective is by experiencing that side.

 

I do learn from writing.  It's not a matter of "is this true or not", it's what works for me.  Learning from books - some people can do it and some can't. It's not a matter of "which way is better", it's a matter of abilities. Some are able, and some are not. 

 

I've learned something new today (from all this back and forth). I think that religious people and spiritual people have their set of ideas that they believe and they do not want to think outside the box, and expand their thinking.  I mean I knew this.  The part that I did not realize until now is that scientific-only people do the same, but from the other side.  They don't like to think outside the box either.  It's only philosophical people that are true thinkers and that come up with new ideas and change things.  That's the ones that I need to find.    (But this forum doesn't have that, so I have to find another).  Now that I get this, I won't bother scientific-only people.

Woo woo light.