The Church of Progress

[Immortal4life]

The Church of Progress

 

John Anthony West-

 

 

Preview of John Anthony West's magical Egypt-

 

So, many people today are followers of what can be called "The Church of Progress" Dogma and Religion. It is an ideology and belief system that is propagated by many today in the world, people in high positions in the academic institutions, and they influence what people learn and what their worldviews are. A materialistic, nihilistic, atheistic belief. The Church of Progress Dogma tells people that our civilization today, and the people of today, are the most advanced and most developed that have ever existed. The Church of Progress's ideology is a linear one, that history goes from stupid unsophisticated cavemen using sticks and stones, to smart sophisticated us with Hydrogen bombs and Striped Toothpaste. Progress is the answer to everything, and eventually, Progress will solve all of Humanity's problems.

 

So don't be fooled, most of what you have learned and been told is all lies, what is taught in academic institutions is ideological materialist dogma and some people don't realize it.

 

John Anthony West, who in 1991 defeated the best Egyptologists, and proved to the world and the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) that the Sphinx bore Rain Erosion, pushing the date of the Sphinx far before the old conventional date of 2,500 BC, to as old possibly as 10,500 BC or more, explains here-

 

Article about the "Church of Progress"-

SEKHMET SPEAKS - Part II

The Fundamentalist Christian right commonly accuses its atheistic opposition (under its various aliases: Rationalism, Secular Humanism, Materialism) of being a religion in its own right, and it is tempting to discount any accusation made by the fundamentalist right (to turn the old joke inside out: with fundamentalists for enemies, Rationalists hardly need friends). Predictably, the accusation is both ridiculed and denied by the targeted Rationalists, Materialists and Secular Humanists. They point to the lack of any official, written dogma and of any central authority vested with the power to enforce dogma; they emphasize the absence of a belief in any sort of transcendent reality (the essence of all other religions), they disavow both faith and personal experience as valid means for accessing truth, and they insist upon empirical proof as the sole criterion for the establishment of truth.

 

So: Is the Church of Progress really a Church? Even as I ask this rhetorical question, the New York Times serendipitously provides definitive (if decorously covert) proof that it is.

 

THE REAL STAR WARS: BETWEEN ORDER AND CHAOS:

 

Astronomers now know that not even the constellations represent any meaningful order. But every so often some maverick astronomers come up with tantalizing clues of a hidden universal order... In a report published in the Jan. 9 issue of Nature, an international team of astronomers say they have found reason to believe that superclusters --giant globs of galaxies-- are arranged in a gargantuan ëthree dimensional chessboard expending throughout the heavens...

 

If true, this would be stunning news. There is little reason to believe that the big bang, the explosion that began the universe, scattered its debts with more care than any other blast. A universe so fastidiously and geometrically arrayed would require... new laws of physics. Not many astronomers will be easily persuaded that we dwell in the cells of a celestial lattice ...

 

Maybe back in the beginning the dice were loaded. As the universe was unfolding, some unknown ordering principle might have been at work.. One of the hard- earned lessons of modern science is how effortlessly structure can bubble up from below, without the need of a great designer. Random genetic mutations, sifted by natural selection, give rise to biological order. And from the unpredictable quantum fluctuations of subatomic particles emerge the crystalline scaffolding of atoms and molecules. Gravity creates its own order .. (George Johnson, New York Times, 19/ 1 /97)

 

Sounds legit, doesn't it? 'Rational', unemotional, factual, above all scientific. But read carefully. It's simultaneously subterfuge and propaganda. The dogma may be unofficial and unwritten, but it is demonstrably Church of Progress dogma nonetheless. The church Credo goes something like this: the universe is an accident; matter precedes mind; consciousness is a kind of spin-off of matter; human life, indeed, all life, serves no higher purpose. Spiritual and sacred are no more than euphemisms for superstition. There is no consciousness higher than our own (at least not on this planet) and no possible transformation of the material into the spiritual. There is only Progress, hope defrayed into the future. Jacob's ladder no longer bridges the gulf between heaven and earth. It has been laid flat along the ground. Given enough time, science and technology will establish their version of heaven right here on earth. All we have to do is continue implementing those proven rational values that have brought our planet to its present state. At a certain point, Progress will automatically take over and everyone will live happily ever after. The geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane, with characteristic bluntness, set out the premises upon which his materialism was founded: 1) That there was material before there was mind 2) That there were events before there were any minds to perceive those events. These perfectly undemonstrable and metaphysical notions are set out in a book drolly entitled: SCIENCE AND LIFE: Essays of a Rationalist. To this day Haldane enjoys a high reputation among fellow metaphysicians calling themselves Rationalists.

 

Haldane and George Johnson decades later in the New York Times seem to be talking science but are actually expressing a system of beliefs, a Credo. Call it the atheology of the Church of Progress. Only it is not acknowledged as a Credo. It is called reason and it is said to follow from the facts of science. But it has little to do with science. Its several chief elements are in no sense necessary corollaries of the actual scientifically validated facts of the physical world --as its faithful pretend.

 

It is the religious, or quasi-religious nature of these beliefs that provide half the evidence to substantiate the accusation-- that Rationalism/Materialism/ Secular Humanism is a religion in its own right. And this accusation has been leveled by sources far more reputable and better informed than the fundamentalist, creationist right. The Church likes to pretend to the public that all who oppose its dogma are Creationists by definition and therefore unworthy of serious attention. But the philosopher of Science Paul Feyerabend has spelled out the similarities between the acknowledged and the unacknowledged churches in detail (Science in a Free Society, 1978) and much earlier in the century the eminent mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead wrote: The certainties of science are a delusion. They are hedged round with unexplored limitations. Our handling of scientific doctrines is controlled by the diffused metaphysical concepts of our epoch (italics mine) Even so, we are continually led into errors of expectation. Also, whenever some new mode of observational experience is obtained the doctrines crumble into a fog of inaccuracies. (Adventure In Ideas, Cambridge University Press, 1933).

 

Yet sixty five years after Whitehead wrote those words, George Johnson in The New York Times is still talking hidden metaphysics all the while firmly believing he is talking scientific fact or basing his conclusions upon established fact. He is not. The big bang is hypothesis, currently the most fashionable cosmological hypothesis but hypothesis nonetheless, and sharply opposed by cosmologists and mathematicians no less qualified than those who support it. Random mutation giving rise to biological order is speculation. No scientist has ever witnessed or produced a random mutation that gave rise to biological order. Natural selection isn't even speculation. It is a label applied to a mystery, and by definition devoid of scientific explicative power. It is a tautology -- since what has survived automatically has survival value and thus science is obliged to ascribe alleged mechanisms ensuring survival by hindsight; which often takes deliciously fanciful form -- when, for example, trying to account for the survival value of the peacock's tail, or the bower birds architectural feats, or the entire duck-billed platypus. Natural selection proves nothing and is not itself in any sense proved. (Actually, I would hazard that if a true civilization somehow springs from the ashes of Progress somewhere over the course of the next century, Neo-Darwinism will eventually be regarded as perhaps the most deluded superstition ever to have infected the human mind. It will be seen as a kind of intellectual Cargo Cult of the Western World and currently fashionable proponents such as Richard Dawkins in England and Stephen Jay Gould in America will be remembered -- if, indeed they are remembered at all-- as laughing stocks; figure of fun to set up and knock down in slapstick student skits.)

 

The assertion that structure bubbles up from below on its own, independent of any guiding principle, design, or intelligence is speculation by definition, since a guiding principle, design (in the sense of plan) or intelligence is by definition invisible, unmeasurable, unreplicable and therefore unscientific. A visitor from outer space confronted by this article and unaware of the necessity of an author, might well conclude that it (and Mr. Johnson's article, too) is also bubbling up from below independent of any guiding principle, design, or intelligence.í How would he/she prove otherwise ... scientifically. The principal if not sole attraction of each of these hypotheses is simply that each is founded upon Coincidence as its causal metaphysical principle.

 

Mr. Johnson has woven hypothesis, speculation, fantasy and imagination together into a tapestry that he labels science and that is readily printed as science by the staid and respectable New York Times, staunch guardian of the status quo. But it is not science. It is an exercise in what Whitehead rightly terms the diffused metaphysical concepts of our epoch. Any reader of this column has read a thousand versions of that same article: it is the utterly predictable reaction to any new finding that in any way challenges the central doctrine. Johnson's obvious aim is to minimize or slough off the possible revolution in cosmology that might ensue if it were proven that superclusters are arranged in a gigantic three dimensional pattern -- since this would challenge the supremacy of that great Ungod: Coincidence. But because the challenge in this case comes from astronomers working within the Church itself, and that challenge is abstruse and arcane, it poses no immediate threat to the hegemony of the Church and so is handled with some civility. If the challenge comes from outside the establishment, and if it concerns matters either more accessible or more exciting to the lay public (e.g.: UFO'S, astrology, alien abductions, homeopathy, psi phenomena, crop circles, monuments on Mars, Atlantis -- Sekhmet will be reporting on some of these controversies in future issues) the tone changes dramatically. All pretense to civility is dropped, and the offending material is if possible ignored, but if impossible to ignore then attacked, derided or misrepresented.

 

It is the rightful job of science to determine the facts of the physical world but it is no longer science when unwarranted metaphysical conclusions are drawn upon those facts. Once these metaphysical conclusions are accepted as axiomatic and institutions grow up around them dedicated to proselytizing them and preserving them from attack, the similarities to institutionalized religion (as we know it in the West, especially) become obvious. This makes up the other half of the accusation: the Church of Progress as a repressive, autocratic institution intent upon ferreting out, exposing and persecuting its heretics.

 

In an upcoming essay Sekhmet will direct her attention to the the guardians of the Unfaith, the Jesuits of the Church of Progress: Science, Education and the Press ...

 

 

SEKHMET SPEAKS - Part III

We left Sekhmet, in Sekhmet Speaks 2, looking into the question: Is the Church of Progress really a church? She had concluded that the Church qualified as a Church on the philosophical level.

 

To recapitulate: If, as a starting point, we concentrate on religion's primary metaphysical function and call it, 'a system of undemonstrable beliefs held without reference to physical evidence,' theologians might not like it very much but we think it unlikely that Rationalists would object. Yet they subscribe to just such a system of undemonstrable beliefs --the Credo of meaningless described earlier (There is a vast literature, much of it written by eminent, if marginally heretical, scientists and philosophers proving this point from many different angles.)

 

This Credo has dispensed with the usual reliance upon a Divine, transcendent, indivisible, undemonstrable god and substituted no less undemonstrable, indivisible but untranscendent Coincidence as creator -- the whole doctrine patched together with the Krazy Glue of Neo-Darwinian evolution. But there is nothing rational or scientific about that either.

 

Rationalists claim that the inability to prove Divine intention proves the lack of intention; that the inability to prove purpose, proves purposelessness. This is obvious sophistry. If you cannot prove you have been faithful to your wife, does this mean you have been unfaithful?

 

We cannot physically prove intention or purpose on the human level, much less the Divine, yet we would have precious little science without it.

 

Moreover, to qualify as science, following the Rationalists' own precepts, that very lack of intention and purposelessness must itself be demonstrable, measurable, predictable and replicable. Of course it is not, nor can it be, for the simple reason that these criteria are value judgments, by definition beyond the pale of both experimental and theoretical science. So the insistence upon accident and purposelessness, and upon reason in turn is metaphysics in its own right, a set of unprovable assumptions, no more and no less metaphysical than the acknowledged metaphysical systems of other religions, differing from them only in that the assumption are wholly nihilistic.

 

Demonstrability, replicability, etc. represent decisions; decisions made by the priesthood to distinguish between what deserves inclusion in the 'real world' and what does not. But following definitions laid down by Church atheologians themselves, a decision, any decision, cannot help but be a value judgment. Since values are purely subjective, (according to the Church of Progress but not according to most other religions) they have no objective reality, and therefore play no part in the 'real world'. Thus, ironically, according to its own standards, this Church is as subjectively based as those it disavows. And therefore it, like the others, is rooted irrevocably in physical unreality. The Credo is neither science not reason; it is merely what most scientists happen to believe.

 

So, seen as a system of undemonstrable belief Rationalism stands exposed as a religion. However, when Rationalism is commonly criticized as a religion, its critics are often referring to a corrupt and tyrannical institution set up to preserve those beliefs from heresy or other forms of attack rather than a metaphysical doctrine. In other words, these critics are drawing parallels to the political rather than the philosophical aspects of the church. This accusation is equally valid, and it has been leveled often, even from within its own priesthood. The parallels between this modern day Church of Progress and the organized Church of Rome at its worst are legion but both diffused and concealed. The relatively clear-cut roles played by the Pope and College of Cardinals in deciding upon what is dogma and in enforcing those decisions no longer exist. There is no formal hierarchical structure to lay down the law. The Church of Progress (usually but not always) eschews bulls, edicts and encyclicals and its unspoken agenda -to enforce belief- is never acknowledged. Though no less pervasive and invasive to society as a whole, the C. of P. extends its influence on a tacit, consensual basis through its three separate but complementary orders of Jesuits: Science, Education and the Press.

 

For two centuries, these have been the forces or institutions that have shaped Western society, and consequently the rest of the world. While their power is universally recognized, they are seldom examined within their rightful religious context: as guardians and proselytizers of the Church of Progress. In a nutshell: Science calls the tune, Education plays it, the Press gives it rave reviews. For over two centuries the three have worked closely hand in hand. But that spirit of cooperation is not quite what it used to be.

 

THE JESUIT ORDER OF SCIENCE

 

Though the Church of Progress insists its dogma is based upon science, this is not true, and has not been true for almost a century. The energetic rather than material nature of matter contravenes the Church's simple-minded materialism while its fundamental premise of a mechanical, accidental universe has been challenged from within its own ranks by at least a few of its own most eminent physicists and biologists. As bookstores add metaphysical sections to cater to the exponentially growing interest, there is often a separate shelf devoted to titles exploring the relationships between metaphysics and the expanding frontiers of science.

 

The important point to make here is that the latest findings of science not only fail to support the basic materialist dogma of the Church of Progress, but in many instances, particularly in physics and biology, they appear to contravene it. Most of these ideas have not yet made significant inroads into education or the press. They are too complex, too remote and too philosophically abstruse to unsettle the rank and file of Church unfaithful. On the other hand, the hero worship science enjoyed through all of the 19th and most of the 20th Century is no longer unconditional. Over the past several decades, a number of heavily funded glossy magazines intended to make the wonders of science intelligible to the educated lay reader have foundered. Editorials in those that survive repeatedly stress the difficulty of attracting high level students to science. The authors imagine it is the science programs that are to blame, but actually it is science itself, this secular, earth-bound science that even on its highest and purest level, concerns itself with practically nothing that matters to human life.

 

Science still commands considerable popular respect, but some of the glamor has gone, and much of the trust. As the dire ecological and environmental consequences of two hundred years of unrestrained science-based technology come home to roost, science is saddled with a measure of the blame. Its authority is on the wane. So even though the general public has been hoodwinked into thinking that science still backs up Church of Progress dogma, that support does not mean what it once did. As far as the Church is concerned, Science today is almost as much figurehead as formulator. It therefore falls largely upon Education and the Press to inculcate, foster and maintain the unfaith among the general public.

 

THE JESUIT ORDER OF EDUCATION

 

What is called Education is not education in any meaningful sense of the word (derived from educere, to lead forth.) In reality it is no more than a vast seminary program, designed to select and develop candidates for the Church of Progress priesthood, while producing a docile, unquestioning laity. The original Jesuits used to boast, 'Give us the child until he's seven years old and he'll be ours for life,' (or words to that effect). In principle, the Jesuits of today's Church of Progress educational programs would seem to wield even more decisive influence. They have us in their power for at least twelve years, often for sixteen or more, and during the first twelve we have the various elements of the church Credo drummed into our heads without respite. Neo- Darwinian evolution (evolution as a chance process) is taught as though it were fact. Progress is taught as though it were manifest destiny. All past civilizations are presented as though they were but misconceived dry runs for the technological age that superceded them. All that is not science is presented as superstition, with the possible exception of Western secular art and literature --which enjoy a certain status as harmless diversions from the ongoing serious business of science/technology. (In The New York Times the section devoted to the arts is called Arts and Leisure. Imagine the ruckus if the section devoted to science were called Science and Tinkering.) No hint is ever given that other points of view exist, and may be held even within the Church itself.

 

While Progress is supposed to be furthered through the free interchange of ideas, our extended introduction to Progress, through education, is as thorough a form of brainwashing as anything devised by those earlier Jesuits, or for that matter anything existing under oppressive ideological political systems that make no pretense of open- mindedness. Even so, the advantage enjoyed by modern educators over these others is more apparent than real.

 

Like all religious institutions, this Church is viable only insofar as its truths appear immutable, and the philosophy based upon its truths coincides with real or perceived human needs. To survive and prosper the Church (any church) must inspire allegiance, devotion, faith --coercion will take it only so far. But there are psychological as well as logical problems confronting a Church forced by its own atheology to demand a fervent belief in disbelief (in everything save Reason of course, and the various elements of the Credo).

 

As is so often the case with this religion that calls itself 'Rationalism', a deceptive nomenclature confuses what would otherwise be much clearer. A belief in something is called 'credulity'. Credulity retains its hold through 'faith' which must play no part in the life of the rational human being. On the other hand, the no less passionate and equally undemonstrable belief in nothing is called Reason. Reason is sustained through the diligent exercise of skepticism But the role skepticism plays in a society dominated by the Church of Progress is rarely recognized for what it is: a euphemism for negative credulity, or cynicism, which manifests invariably in shrill debunkery -- as anyone who has looked into the evidence for such diverse topics as astrology, the paranormal, UFO'S, crop circles, lost civilizations and alternative medicine knows full well. (Later, Sekhmet will take a skeptical look at skepticism itself)

 

This attitude has nothing whatever to do with a keen critical sense --perhaps the last quality the Jesuits of Education care to inculcate. For a keen critical sense along with knowledge of the metaphysical and historical alternatives to the Church of Progress Credo would lead swiftly to mass defections. As it stands, cynicism and the need to debunk what cannot be incorporated into the Credo is certainly a frequent corollary of a modern upbringing.

 

But it is far from universal. That renaissance of interest in spiritual matters gathers strength in direct defiance to Church indoctrination. This amounts to heresy, and is treated accordingly. But meanwhile, even the ongoing campaign carried out by Education, designed to inculcate negative credulity produces wide-scale unexpected effects, effects that are not specifically heretical but nevertheless counterproductive to Church goals.

 

The intellectually incurious respond to the Church in any case only on its bread-and- circuses level: the cheap thrill of technology. For this majority, church allegiance is maintained only through perpetually re-stimulated enthusiasm (the space program, for example, is the psychological equivalent of selling indulgences and the easy remission of sins that the corrupt Church of Rome resorted to when it was losing its grip -- though the discovery of what appear to be artificial structures on Mars puts a whole different spin on what would otherwise be bread and circuses and of course is treated accordingly: with abuse and/or calculated neglect, a form of consensus censorship). Yet widespread public enthusiasm and interest in space exploration is accompanied by little passionate unfaith. Indeed, many at this level of comprehension accept material C. of P. benefits and, ingrates that they are, violently reject its metaphysics and embrace the mindless evangelical religion that is the other side of the same counterfeit coin.

 

Most of the intellectually better-equipped also resist deep educational indoctrination. Some vestige of good sense, or perhaps merely an instinct for self preservation combined with insensitivity, allows them to direct their energies toward ambition or success. They live out their lives, perhaps aware that something is awry but yet not sufficiently disturbed to track it to its spiritual source. It is perhaps this that Thoreau had in mind when he said 'most men lead lives of quiet desperation'. By more contemporary thinkers, and especially by politicians, a life lived according to such values is often called 'the pursuit of the American Dream.'

 

The chief victims of an education that deifies skepticism are, of course, the sensitive. For the only legitimate emotional response to the negative metaphysics of Rationalism is despair (the Existentialists were quite right on this point, wrong chiefly in the direction they took to find a solution). Despair takes many forms among the young, not all of them commonly recognized as despair. The rapid increase in teenage suicide is the most dramatic; drugs are the most obvious; with apathy, rebellion, violence, and an aimless, frenetic hedonism close behind. All happen because of, not in spite of, modern education.

 

If proof of this sweeping assertion is required, you need only look at what happens when the Church of Progress converts a tribal, or so-called 'primitive' society to its values, or even when it supersedes a highly sophisticated and intellectual but non- technological society. The results are invariable: suicide, drugs, apathy, violence, rebellion and an aimless, frenetic hedonism. (See the telling indictment in anthropologist John H. Bodley's VICTIMS OF PROGRESS, Benjamin Cummings, 1982)

 

Modern education is to the mind what AIDS is to the immune system. Prolonged, repeated exposure enhances the danger. And all of us, without exception, are called to skepticism (who can avoid going to school?). Yet, miraculously, not that many are chosen. Susceptibility varies widely, and seems mainly restricted to a certain psychological type. Happily for the future of humanity, skeptics cannot be produced at will through education; not in the kind of numbers that ensure the continued hegemony of the Church. While none escape unscathed, many escape. The creative, the courageous and the lucky do not cave in under the strain. They zero in, more or less swiftly, more or less accurately on the problem, locate its source and look elsewhere --often into the past-- for those true, spiritual values that alone can produce and sustain normal functioning human beings. The restoration and restatement of those values in acceptable contemporary form is the real challenge facing humanity. The various catastrophes threatening our planet are all, without exception, results, not causes. All follow naturally, inescapably from adherence to the debased, joyless, negative metaphysics espoused by the Church of Progress in the name of Reason. When and if different values prevail, different results will follow from them... whoops! Sekhmet sees she is running out of room. She will deal with the Jesuits of the Press, with skepticism and self-styled skeptics and with the C. of P.'s Unholy Office, or Chamber of the Inquisition in upcoming essays.

 

 

National Pornographic

Secret Chambes Revealed: The Foxification of the National Pornographic Society

Edited July 10, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Is this another anti-science anti-evolutionary rant in disguise? :lol:

[Immortal4life]

Not at all. John Anthony West is an independent Egyptologist and scientist. Here he explains some fundamental problems currently affecting science and academic institutions. It is in fact pro-science.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Not at all. John Anthony West is an independant Egyptologist and scientist. Here he explains some fundamental problems currently affecting science and academic institutions. It is in fact pro-science.

 

I Googled and found no evidence that West is a scientist. How do you know he is? Even his site fails to confirm that.

 

You narrative here is very much like the Michelle Bachmann's of the world that claim ID i.e, a code word for creationism, should be taught in public schools in science classes.

Edited July 10, 2011 by ralis

[Marblehead]

So why this need for a church? Everyone wants to start their own church. Why is this?

 

Can't we think for ourselves? Can't we collect information, determine its validity, and make our own choices? Do we need someone else telling us what we should believe and what we should not believe?

 

Yes, I have heard of the claim that West makes concerning the Sphinx. Regretfully he has added about 6,000 years on to what has been considered by others.

[Seth Ananda]

The Church of Progress

 

So don't be fooled, most of what you have learned and been told is all lies, what is taught in academic institutions is ideological materialist dogma and some people don't realize it.

 

Why do you continue to nearly have good posts, then fall short of the mark?

 

Analyzing the 'Church of progress' and any inherent assumptions it has made is a good thing, especially in our world which is quickly drying up its resources.

 

But then you chuck out a bunch of absolutist statements like the above. You often claim to be just challenging scientific fundamentalism, but you come off sounding like you are probably [really underneath it all] a lurking religious Fundamentalist.

 

Why don't you come clean about what you are, what you practice, what religious Inclinations you have or not? At least when I have asked, or the others that I have seen who asked, you never give an honest direct answer.

 

It makes people uneasy and gets in the way of you having better dialogues with others. People do not trust you because of your shifty dodging of these questions.

 

I myself tend to think he's a Jehovas witness, no a Falun head, no just a Christian Fundie, no he talks about cultivation... and these thoughts and Impressions continue to circle around. Then I Think no he may not be any of these, but is just someone who enjoys thinking about scientific possibilities that have not been thought of, or are ignored by main stream science.

 

So which is it? What are you? Where do you stand religious or spiritual wise? who are we talking too?

When you pump ID, what is your motivation for that?

[ralis]

Why do you continue to nearly have good posts, then fall short of the mark?

 

Analyzing the 'Church of progress' and any inherent assumptions it has made is a good thing, especially in our world which is quickly drying up its resources.

 

But then you chuck out a bunch of absolutist statements like the above. You often claim to be just challenging scientific fundamentalism, but you come off sounding like you are probably [really underneath it all] a lurking religious Fundamentalist.

 

Why don't you come clean about what you are, what you practice, what religious Inclinations you have or not? At least when I have asked, or the others that I have seen who asked, you never give an honest direct answer.

 

It makes people uneasy and gets in the way of you having better dialogues with others. People do not trust you because of your shifty dodging of these questions.

 

I myself tend to think he's a Jehovas witness, no a Falun head, no just a Christian Fundie, no he talks about cultivation... and these thoughts and Impressions continue to circle around. Then I Think no he may not be any of these, but is just someone who enjoys thinking about scientific possibilities that have not been thought of, or are ignored by main stream science.

 

So which is it? What are you? Where do you stand religious or spiritual wise? who are we talking too?

When you pump ID, what is your motivation for that?

 

 

Good point! I have challenged his narrative on many occasions and he ignores it.

[Apech]

So why this need for a church? Everyone wants to start their own church. Why is this?

 

Can't we think for ourselves? Can't we collect information, determine its validity, and make our own choices? Do we need someone else telling us what we should believe and what we should not believe?

 

Yes, I have heard of the claim that West makes concerning the Sphinx. Regretfully he has added about 6,000 years on to what has been considered by others.

 

The sphinx is constructed on what is probably a natural mound or outcrop of rock - one which was probably sacred fro a long time before dynastic Egypt - the rain erosion is not so strange.

[Immortal4life]

I Googled and found no evidence that West is a scientist. How do you know he is? Even his site fails to confirm that.

 

That is because he is an Independent Egyptologist. He does not have all the official titles one might normally have and this is why he enlisted the help of Dr. Robert Schoch of Boston University and others to assist in any formal challenges against conventional scientists. He still rocked the world of Egyptology.

[Immortal4life]

Yes, I have heard of the claim that West makes concerning the Sphinx. Regretfully he has added about 6,000 years on to what has been considered by others.

 

This is not exactly an accurate statement.

 

Here is what these "others" you refer to say in their own words-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jctu9rf7Ncs

 

Dr. Robert Schoch conservatively dates the Sphinx, at the very latest possible, to about 7,000 BC, but in his words "some have pushed it back farther than that, and in all honesty, it is possible according to the geological dating". The real point is that the old conventional Egyptological dating, of 2,500 BC, is impossible, and ruled out by Geology. If the Sphinx bears rain erosion, it had to have been carved before the rain fell, it could not have been carved after.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

Why do you continue to nearly have good posts, then fall short of the mark?

 

Analyzing the 'Church of progress' and any inherent assumptions it has made is a good thing, especially in our world which is quickly drying up its resources.

 

Analyzing the Church of Progress is good, however, upon analysis, it seems the Church of Progress is a false promise. Progres is not going to solve Humanity's problems. Science can not weed out selfishness and greed. Technology can not make people kind. There are no religious, scientific, governmental, institutional, educational, or political answers for the world and it's situation at this current time. There are only Soul-utions. There is only true spirituality. There is kindness, compassion, tolerance, freedom, and the golden rule.

 

Beyond that, I don't see much need to post a bio of myself, or give out personal information, like a social network site.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Analyzing the Church of Progress is good, however, upon analysis, it seems the Church of Progress is a false promise. Progres is not going to solve Humanity's problems. Science can not weed out selfishness and greed. Technology can not make people kind. There are no religious, scientific, governmental, institutional, educational, or political answers for the world and it's situation at this current time. There are only Soul-utions. There is only true spirituality. There is kindness, compassion, tolerance, freedom, and the golden rule.

 

Beyond that, I don't see much need to post a bio of myself, or give out personal information, like a social network site.

 

Your narrative contains many absolute statements. That in and of itself is a problem. Further, to put technology and progress in an adversarial position to moral attributes is a disjointed solution. Mutual exclusivity is not the answer. Civilization needs both.

Edited July 10, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Your narrative contains many absolute statements. That in and of itself is a problem. Further, to put technology and progress in an adversarial position to moral attributes is a disjointed solution. Mutual exclusivity is not the answer. Civilization needs both.

 

I can be as absolute or mild as I like, whether you believe it is "a problem" isn't all that consequential.

 

Progress and technology can in fact be, and often are, in an adversarial position in relation to morality. Technology often brings "moral dilemmas" to the table.

 

Of course civilization needs both morality and technology. The beliefs, morality, and mental development of a civilization will determine the nature of it's technolgy. Will it have destructive, un-harmonious technolgy that is harmful to the Earth? Or natural technology and abilities that are harmonious with the Universe and Earth's nature? As John Anthony west points out, advanced civlizations have existed in the past....and they are gone now. As we know in the current times today, history has a tendency to repeat itself.

 

Science and Tehcnology is simply a tool, and should not be an answer in and of itself, a dogma, or worldview. Does morality guide the progress, or does progress control the morality?

Edited July 11, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

Dr. Robert Schoch conservatively dates the Sphinx, at the very earliest possible, to about 7,000 BC, but in his words "some have pushed it back farther than that, and in all honesty, it is possible according to the geological dating". The real point is that the old conventional Egyptological dating, of 2,500 BC, is impossible, and ruled out by Geology. If the Sphinx bears rain erosion, it had to have been carved before the rain fell, it could not have been carved after.

 

Yeah, I meant to say 5,000 years but just left the 6,000 for the heck of it. (I don't always have to be right. Hehehe.)

 

But I will agree that it was likely carved before any of the pyramids were built.

 

What Apech said is most probable.

[Immortal4life]

Apech's statement is very vague. Who built the Sphinx? to construct the Sphinx is no easy task, it required some sort of civilized coordination. Who?

[Immortal4life]

Here is a video with John Anthony West which explains the difference between genuine culture and progress.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Jetsun]

Apech's statement is very vague. Who built the Sphinx? to construct the Sphinx is no easy task, it required some sort of civilized coordination. Who?

 

You might be interested in what G.I Gurdjieff says about ancient civilisations as he says that there have been many advanced civilisations in the past many of which had higher level of spiritual development than our current civilisation. He talks in his book 'Meetings with Remarkable Men' how he discovered a map of pre sand Egypt which had the Sphynx on the map indicating that is is much older than previously thought, this is something he said many years before those scientists started to talk about water erosion on it. The Sphynx is talked about as a form of 'objective art' ( http://www.octavearts.org.uk/objective_art2.htm http://www.octavearts.org.uk/objective_art.htm) which a form of art which is precisely built to have a definite teaching or esoteric understanding within it designed to submit information to people of later generations after all the oral and written wisdom of the builder civilisation is lost.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Jetsun

[Immortal4life]

That's very interesting. While people argue over which religion today is the superior one, imagine what spiritual systems from previous advanced civilizations were like.

 

Even the buildings could have been in harmony with nature, and their shape and sturcture could have had spiritual purposes.

 

Imagine what the "Feng Shui" was like in advanced pre-hisotric civilizations.

[Immortal4life]

The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Manly P. Hall-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/

[strawdog65]

As to the "church"... they are the antithesis of anything

that could ever be described as a religion of love.

 

As to the talk of the great pyramid and Egypt...

 

Check this out:

 

http://www.ancient-world-mysteries.com/tesla.html

[Immortal4life]

Nice, I'm definitely going to look into that further