Page 2 of 2

Re: Battle of the Anunnaki/Pleiadian gods !!!

PostPosted: 27 Apr 2018
by ex-l
Mattheus wrote:The Rothschild, the royal family, the Rockefeller and other disgusting reptilians

OK ... that's enough with recycling 'David Icke' style conspiracy theories (what have all these people got against reptiles? Freud would have a field day on their fixations).

We have the credibility of this website to think of.

Please tell us about your BK and exiting experience, Mattheus.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 28 Apr 2018
by Pink Panther
ex-l wrote:How does science decide what is in the "orbit" of theoretical science, and what is way out in space?

By peer review and consensus. I did do a quick search for arguments against Velikovsky’s ideas. There’s lots of discussions from non-scientists.

The only science source I found started with (from memory) something like ”When Velikovsky formulated his ideas we knew very little about the solar system and its history. Since then our knowledge has grown almost exponentially. Some facts which Velikovsky based his ideas on are still intact, unchanged, but most of the rest are now quite different, leaving his propositions untenable”.

I remember reading 'Worlds in Collision' when I was a BK and even then thought - that’s a long bow to draw! - of his different propositions.

He also wrote 'Ages in Chaos' - a more academically sound book, about 600 year time discrepancies in events found in by Jewish records and Egyptology. However, modern research shows practically zero Egyptian records of the jews being present as slaves in Egypt on any scale, let alone on the nationwide wholesale scale depicted in the story of Moses and the Exodus.

Modern scholars believe that it was written at the time when Egypt had become the dominant empire and the Pharaoh was ”the man” so Egypt and Pharaoh are substitute ’archetypes’ for the real events which were actually the conquests and enslavement of the Jews and that part of the world by Babylon, that happened at least twice, and for which there are consistent records.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 28 Apr 2018
by GuptaRati 6666
A good former BK friend of mine, a military doctor, was very much into Velikovsky's books. I am interested in the history and other sociological aspects of the sciences. I was never too fascinated by Velikovsky's ideas and, even in my BK days, have always been the lab rat who formulate hypotheses and tested them at the bench.

With BKism a seeker, including a scientist, can be easily intellectually seduced by BK generated theories, that lack any formidable hypotheses. My role models have been individuals such as Herbert Benson, Elmer Green, Lewis Thomas, Edgar Mitchell, Joan Borysenko, and Gary Null.

The listed scientists have written books for the lay public. However, their science have as cores, research conducted under laboratory conditions.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 28 Apr 2018
by ex-l
The most important thing I learned about the science method, was to know with surety that I really knew nothing about science ... and to admit it to both myself and others. To stop spouting nonsense I knew nothing about.

In a sense, the question I was asking was even more primary than "peer review" ... as in what is the processes by which an idea/a theory even gets to the point of being considered sound enough to be proposable.

The BKs use scientific words and ideas like a sort of seductive poetry as best - "The Law of Karma" being a perfect example (karma is not a law); and, at worse, to bolster up their delusions.

I admit that I did so too during my BK days. I was guilty of using words and ideas - "talking with authority" - that I really did not understand, and had not done the hard work to 'own' or 'earn' the right to do so, in order to sell BKism.

In short, all I really learned from the so called "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" was to "baffle with bullsh*t".

Post-BK I continue to educate myself informally and at least I know enough now about the scientific/academic process to be able to say "I don't know" and not to make or support unsupportable claims. To know the difference between 'knowledge' and 'beliefs'.

There's an old saying that, "An expert is someone who has written a book and traveled 5,000 miles". Velikovsky went to America to become famous, and to a part of America with a lot of Jews, where Jews had a lot of influence in the media and education, and to where the Zionist Jews (not all Jews support the Israel project) were attempting gaining power and influence.

In my opinion, when you study such examples that fringe BKs often use - generally Western BKs attempting to bolster up the desparately leaking ship of the BKs' misappropriation of Hindu beliefs - you see certain patterns to the, (excuse me being so blunt), confidence trick, e.g.
    a foreign sounding name that knowing makes 'the knower' sound more intelligent by using,
    an unchecked qualification (just because someone has a PhDs does not mean they have not gone crazy, nor are lending it to some other cause; just because they have a PhD in one subject, does not actually mean they can tie their own shoes laces in another)),
    a published book,
    some celebrity value.
It's not a unique strategy. In fact, it's commonplace amongst petite bourgeoisie social climbers ... and con artists.

Both of which I would accuse the Brahma Kumaris leadership of being.

BKism actively encourages such ungrounded fallacious thinking. The ungrounded fallacious thinking that any serious "scholar" would have intellectually beaten out of them in their first few weeks of study, I suspect. The BKs do so by using a sort of uncritical accommodating response to any absolute nonsense an adherent might come up with ... partly, I suspect, because they require their adherents to uncritical accommodating their own absolute nonsense.

And in that, perhaps, lies part of the core relationship between adherents and the cult?

They have no interest in checking the veracity of the claims, nor in doing any primary or experimental research at all. All that interests them is the ideas' marketing value, for re-selling their own cult. In short, intellectual in asset stripping.

The BKs just don't any primary or experimental research because,
    a) they cost real money and anything that costs them cuts into their profits that are only invested into property and PR, and
    b) such research are likely to debunk, rather than bolster their own beliefs.
Remember, this is a cult whose Number 2 soul's highest cultural achievement (Om Radhe) was to be able to sing, "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" in a second language (English).

As Rajneesh, who we were discussing recently once said of the Brahma Kumaris ...
I know these fools because I have been visiting Mount Abu for almost twenty years.

India has given birth to two of the most stupid religious movements. One is Hare Krishna - that has become worldwide. The other is these Brahma Kumaris, it has not reached the whole world, it has remained confined to India.

They talk utter nonsense, and they talk with authority. And they go on saying everything.

It's worth re-reading what his complete response regarding them.

Just as an aside, the most recent archeological work being carried out in Israel turns out not to support the Biblical version of history either.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 29 Apr 2018
by GuptaRati 6666
Hello Ex-I,

Your points are well taken.

One of the attributes of science is the rejection of authority. Paradigm shifts occur because of the rejection of the authority of prevailing models. When the data from Rutherford's Gold Foil Experiment could not be explained by the J.J. Thompson Plum and Pudding model of the atom, there was a paradigm shift; the scientific community accepted the replacement of the Plum and Pudding Model by the Nuclear Model of the atom or the Rutherford Model of the atom. I do recall in the early 1980's when Ader and Cohen proposed their theories on psychoneuroimmunology, demonstration the ways the mind affects the immune system, there was not immediate and whole sale acceptance by the scientific community.

It may require more than 100 years before a hypothesis advances or is upgraded to a theory and many more tens of decades before a theory becomes a law. Forty years ago, Avogadro's major conclusions on quantification of gases was still a hypothesis. Now it is Avogadro's Law. Though Dr. Pruisner won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, in 1998, for his work on prions as the pathological agents in neuro-degenerative disorders including Crutzfield-Jakob disease, there are still many neuroscientists challenging his prion hypotheses (Norkin, 2016).

Norkin, L.C. (2016, December). Stanley Pruisner and the discovery of prions: Infectious agents comprised entirely of protein. In Virology. Molecular biology and pathologies. Retrieved from Norkin virology.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 29 Apr 2018
by GuptaRati 6666
The peer-review process as part of the scientific method is activated when a scientist or scientists submits their research for publication or proposal of a research project for funding. Experts in the subject area will examine the submitted document for its scientific validity before it is approved for publishing in a peer-reviewed journal; for example Nature or a grant application is approved for funding.

Many scholars can write books and have them published. However, books do become obsolete and can by-pass the peer-review gate. Peer-reviewed articles have greater influence as sources of knowledge than published books. Most scientists know that the published article has more scholastic weight than the published book. I have observed the multiple books written by Indian and Western BKs. However, in the Ivory Tower, it is the published papers, which matter the most.

Before hypothesis, there is a teleological view, a hunch or belief arising from the examination of a practical or theoretical problem. The scientist then formulates a hypothesis or series of hypotheses for testing. Proposal for experimentation is prepared after a thorough literature review, followed by submission of the proposal for funding by a granting agency.

In early modern science, wealthy patrons financed research projects. For example, in England, the Nuffield Foundation and the Wellcome Trust still fund many research projects.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 29 Apr 2018
by Pink Panther
ex-l wrote: the question I was asking was even more primary than "peer review" ... as in what is the processes by which an idea/a theory even gets to the point of being considered sound enough to be proposable.

Any idea is fine but it needs to be testable and verifiable. If the idea or theory cannot be tested or verified practically, it can be tested logically.

Do its constituent premises each make sense and have validity, or do they need to be tested first?

The theory of evolution is based on observations and the theory is presented as an explanation of the evidence observed, both living and in the geological and fossil records. It cannot evolve (ironically!) beyond Theory as we cannot go into the past. Therefore if we do observe the evolution of new species through natural selection now and in the future, it may be said to be proven for this time, but what happened in the past is only a presumption. A creationist could (and would) argue that God set things up as per Genesis and now his plan is that evolution as a process would begin now.

However, if a theory cannot be tested practically or logically, it won’t be considered. eg. ”Theory - there are unicorns that exist in another dimension who can appear and disappear at will but only appear in this universe to deaf mute children under the age of two”.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 30 Apr 2018
by ex-l
Some of Velikovsky's theories are just plain nuts and should stand out as warning signals, eg, he proposed that the Biblical plagues that befell Egypt came from Venus which itself had sprung from Jupiter about 3,500 years ago ... itself problematic because it requires accepting that the Bible is a source of truth rather than just a muddle of many times edited folk history and mythology.

Therefore, applying to BKism - either for or against - is also problematic. It's merely mythology being to support or counter another mythology.

As a psychologist/psychotherapist he would surely be aware of the power of mythology and archetypes ... story telling in short ... how it would resonate with his audience and, hence, I would have to argue that that was what he was doing.

Strangely, Velikovsky placed his faith in all ancient myths, legends, and folk tales having roots in reality rather than just psychology ... but where it seems he really failed was in cherry picking those that fitted his theory or agenda and ignoring or excluding those that contradicted it.

I don't know if individual BKs ever used Velikovsky to support their theories but I have seen them use the Biblical 6,000 years timetable for existence as support to their 5,000 year timetable in a sort of, "look they believe that, so we can believe this" mentality. I don't suppose the institution did officially.

Did Julian Boles ever publish his "scientific" magnum opus in support of the BKs' world views?

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 30 Apr 2018
by ex-l
I think my bottomline is ... there's nothing wrong with mythology and (fairy) stories - and, yes, they very well may contain moral values and psychological truths ... but that post-BK we should guard against indulging in them too much, and using them as the basis of our reality, as they appeal to the unrealistic child-like part of our minds. Child-like thinking the BKs - with their persistent infantilisation - encourage.

It's a case of jumping out of the frying pan of BKWSU and into the fires that created it.

Re: Astronomical dating disproves BK God's view of history

PostPosted: 01 May 2018
by Pink Panther
As a psychologist/psychotherapist [Velikovsky] would surely be aware of the power of mythology and archetypes

Well, I have a found many psychologists don't really get it, and many don’t care to. I think when Jung split with Freud, even though Freud was into mytholigisms in his own way, Freud-ians decided this was an area they could attack and detract from Jung-ians being ”less scientific” and they seemed to withdraw from that area. They are partly right, Jung himself said it was hard to fit psychology completely into the field of Science. (Bhagat) Freudians always pretend they are completely scientific.

The behaviourist schools, dominant in the USA, Australia and partly UK - which has more continental influences - are not interested in myth and archetypes either. (They are into data sets and quantification. That provides funding!) I have seen a Queensland University textbook and out of its 1000+ pages there are barely a page or two on Jung and only a few on Freud.

And even among Jungians, I used to regularly attend lectures etc at the Jung Society, a lot of them seem romantically attached to the ideas but don’t really get them (as pragmatic tools). That is, they try to apply anything in life, subjugate reality, to those ideas rather then using the ideas as tools for life. A bit like what BKs do, they join with a goal of self-development using the tools of the BKs, but in the end its the development of the BKs using them as tools!

People like Velikovsky also become their own product, they attain ‘celebrity’ and sales with their theory so they continue to ‘work it”. Von Daniken did the same. You know the style -here’s a ‘find”, an artefact, whatever - rather than look at it for what it is they superimpose their kind of possibilities, i.e. their product, and use the old ”Could it mean....?” schtick to tantalise the less informed.

I think your best point on this ex-l was his motivation coming from his jewish identity and wanting (in light of what went down mid-20th century) to bolster the authority of ”his people” by taking the scriptural records as ”gospel” (haha), that is, as a given.