Why doesn't God share His knowledge?

coppersailor28 said:Too much.

If God wiped out evil entirely, life would lose its purpose. Perfection is boring.

Then there’s no point in even discussing "life after death"—the whole concept of ultimate bliss in heaven versus absolute misery in hell becomes completely meaningless.

That’s why you have to fight Satan on your own.

And why on earth would someone want to strip the meaning out of their own existence? You’re claiming that without evil, life loses its purpose. That's a stretch.

Satan drives people to commit evil.

Satan wants life to have purpose. A meaningless existence is evil, isn't it? And that’s why a good God wouldn't want to destroy evil in the first place. Or is that how you see it?

God never sleeps. If you reach out, He’s there. We’re the ones who need to stay awake, not Him.

And why stay awake? Just in case God decides to throw something good our way right when we’ve finally managed to balance out all the evil—you know, the moment we actually figure out how to run our own lives.

So, you’re claiming twenty years? That's a stretch.

Look, maybe start by picking up a few books... just enough to get up to speed. And please, let those who actually have something intelligent to contribute do the talking.

Ronald Nelson2 said:Look, maybe start by picking up a few books... just enough to get up to speed. And please, let those who actually have something intelligent to contribute do the talking.

Listen, if you aren't capable of answering the question, then don't resort to these kinds of responses that are just subtle attacks on your interlocutor. Don't let them rattle you; your logic seems a bit shaky right now, but if you put in the effort, maybe you'll actually write something meaningful. You mention certain books—well, go ahead and name the authors and the titles.

restlesstiger49 said:Listen, if you aren't capable of answering the question, then don't resort to these kinds of responses that are just subtle attacks on your interlocutor. Don't let them rattle you; your logic seems a bit shaky right now, but if you put in the effort, maybe you'll actually write something meaningful. You mention certain books—well, go ahead and name the authors and the titles.

I suppose it would be the Catechism from HBK. It’s about 800 pages long.🙂😁

Here’s the latest instance where my knowledge—or lack thereof—clashed with reality in a religious versus atheist standoff.

So, I’m standing outside the church after Mass. I’m just lingering there, unable to make my move, and right as the last of the riff-raff clears out, two nuns and two priests walk out. They’re all young, probably my age too. Then I spot one of those nuns, and let's just say she caught my eye immediately. (I wasn't planning on eating her, obviously, but she was stunning.) Now, being an atheist who happens to be a massive student of Catholic culture, I start spinning some sophisticated lines about how the service went just to break the ice and get a conversation going with this gorgeous woman. Again, I'll emphasize: she was incredibly attractive. But, wouldn't you know it? The other nun—who was significantly less easy on the eyes—interrupts with this blunt question, asking if I needed a ride since they were heading home. Me? I stood there looking like a deer in headlights, thinking, "Are you kidding me?" I told them I was fine and turned back to continue my "chat," but before I could even blink, they were gone. There I was, left standing there like a drowned rat, staring at two priests.
That’s the long and short of it. Who could have seen it coming? Even though my past experiences have taught me why you usually see one beautiful woman accompanied by some total loser out late at night, I clearly didn't account for the nun factor. You see, a person really has to stay sharp and apply everything they've learned to every single situation. As the saying goes, "God can't always be watching over us."

Benjamin Taylor6 said:So, you think negative thoughts can actually affect the collective unconscious? Personally, I find their power to be pretty weak. Some people—let's call them sages—actually believe humans have the power to purge that negative energy. For instance, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi introduced different levels of meditation specifically so practitioners could "cleanse" the Earth of that negativity. In technical terms, they call it the MAHARISHI EFFECT.
How much truth is actually in that? Well, Mr. Plećka described it perfectly in one of his books: "While a couple thousand meditators were jumping around in a few circus tents, a handful of thieves broke into dozens of cars belonging to those very same jumpers." 😲😂

As for the theory that people are solely responsible for their own illnesses, I am wrote the following:

If you ever find yourself hanging out in heaven with my neighbor and my aunt—just a hypothetical scenario, of course—you aren’t going to have much luck selling them on that theory. You could probably convince my neighbor that he ended up there because of lung cancer caused by smoking two packs a day—he was a heavy smoker, a real habit, you know? But my aunt? There is absolutely no way you're convincing her she’s responsible for her own fate, dying from tuberculosis when she was only twenty-two.😲

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the collective unconscious. If you’re using the Jungian definition, I don't think Jung himself meant exactly that... A country's aura isn't the collective unconscious. There are plenty of things we don't understand, but I doubt either Jung or you were referring to that specifically.

But here's what I do know, and I stand by it—negative thoughts and stress manifest energetically from the brain. Think of the brain as a relay; it emits spherical waves of thought. It's energy, obviously, not matter. However, because of their specific nature, negative thoughts react like a "chemical reaction" with a certain type of energy in the aura, creating a third kind of energy—what I call "energetic jelly." It acts almost like a sticky substance. This structure builds up within the aura, and the more of this "jelly" there is, the more it disrupts or completely blocks the flow of white bioenergy (chi, or ki) through the meridians in the aura. That flow is vital, not just for an individual's health, but for everything else. I won't bore you with the details of how disease develops or how energetic healing sessions work...

Maharishi's principle is theoretically sound, but there are so many variables. For instance, you could have 1,000 people praying with very weak capacity and achieve practically nothing energetically. Meanwhile, one person with high capacity could have an extraordinary impact. I won't even mention Christ or others... We aren't asking people to gain cosmic powers to manipulate the Earth's aura; it's enough if they just stop damaging their own.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:So, you think negative thoughts can actually affect the collective unconscious? Personally, I find their power to be pretty weak. Some people—let's call them sages—actually believe humans have the power to purge that negative energy. For instance, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi introduced different levels of meditation specifically so practitioners could "cleanse" the Earth of that negativity. In technical terms, they call it the MAHARISHI EFFECT.
How much truth is actually in that? Well, Mr. Plećka described it perfectly in one of his books: "While a couple thousand meditators were jumping around in a few circus tents, a handful of thieves broke into dozens of cars belonging to those very same jumpers." 😲😂

As for the theory that people are solely responsible for their own illnesses, I am wrote the following:

If you ever find yourself hanging out in heaven with my neighbor and my aunt—just a hypothetical scenario, of course—you aren’t going to have much luck selling them on that theory. You could probably convince my neighbor that he ended up there because of lung cancer caused by smoking two packs a day—he was a heavy smoker, a real habit, you know? But my aunt? There is absolutely no way you're convincing her she’s responsible for her own fate, dying from tuberculosis when she was only twenty-two.😲

People tend to believe whatever suits them. Even if someone accepted that their own thoughts and stress are the root cause of over 80% of all illnesses—which is essentially the core of Buddha's teachings, or Tad's lesson that "your life is a reflection of your thoughts"—they would still have to put in massive effort to change their mindset. For most, that's a Herculean task... nearly impossible, really, because they're too overwhelmed to even move.

In the end, what are people who pursue spirituality actually doing? As simplified as I want to make this, and regardless of all the mystification people love to attach to things, we are all essentially working in parallel—through different forms, stories, lessons, and experiments—to reduce negative thoughts. We try to clean our auras so we aren't "adding fuel to the fire." Spiritual paths are so diverse there's no single rulebook, but without a clean aura, any progress is just window dressing. A clean aura is what allows for true spiritual growth. Now, if someone thinks their negative thoughts aren't doing any damage... well, that's their business.

People with incredibly clear auras tend to have a pretty aligned way of thinking. It’s just how it works... they don't carry much negative mental baggage, which creates the perfect foundation for serious spiritual growth.
The rest of us on this forum? We're all either clawing our way toward that, or we've been spinning our wheels in circles for years...

The fact that someone might pass away from tuberculosis at 22 doesn't disprove this principle. Think about it—there are thousands of babies whose nervous systems are compromised right at birth because of a traumatic, agonizing labor. They experience the most intense negative thought possible: pure terror for their own survival. That trauma can be so deep that a potentially healthy infant is born into a state where a devastating illness develops just months later. Doctors always have a convenient excuse, a sort of divine justification... maybe it's actually better that they distance themselves when they don't understand the root cause, simply labeling it as "genetics."

And then there's the tendency to blame cigarettes. If people are going to smoke anyway, they might as well have an excuse to quit. I’m not saying smoking is healthy—of course it isn't—but it doesn't cause as much damage as people claim. If smoking was the sole driver of lung cancer, why does the data show so many non-smokers getting it too? If one thing truly caused a disease, everyone would be catching it, yet you see people smoking until they're 100, while others drop off at 11 like some unlucky souls in a different era. That suggests the real cause lies elsewhere. Some people fixate on diet, which is fine, but doctors usually only start preaching about nutrition once a patient's health is already shattered. At that point, the person is "full to the brim," and even good news can trigger a heart attack because their body can't handle any kind of reaction anymore.

Broadly speaking, modern medicine hasn't actually identified the primary cause of most diseases, nor do they truly know how healing happens. All those intense debates over diet and nutrition are really just symptoms of not understanding the actual mechanisms at play. Still, medicine tries to find its way through trial and error, much like a blind chicken pecking at grain... or like the founders of certain psychological disciplines who tortured patients in various ways. Even today, they continue to do harm through sheer ignorance, largely because their hands are tied by having to answer to Big Pharma. It’s a tough road for anyone seriously ill; often, medicine just ends up prolonging the agony.

I went through a "terminal" illness once myself. No need to go through it twice...

Let's get back on topic 😁

Morgan Brown5 said:I’m not quite sure what you mean by the collective unconscious. If you’re using the Jungian definition, I don't think Jung himself meant exactly that... A country's aura isn't the collective unconscious. There are plenty of things we don't understand, but I doubt either Jung or you were referring to that specifically.

But here's what I do know, and I stand by it—negative thoughts and stress manifest energetically from the brain. Think of the brain as a relay; it emits spherical waves of thought. It's energy, obviously, not matter. However, because of their specific nature, negative thoughts react like a "chemical reaction" with a certain type of energy in the aura, creating a third kind of energy—what I call "energetic jelly." It acts almost like a sticky substance. This structure builds up within the aura, and the more of this "jelly" there is, the more it disrupts or completely blocks the flow of white bioenergy (chi, or ki) through the meridians in the aura. That flow is vital, not just for an individual's health, but for everything else. I won't bore you with the details of how disease develops or how energetic healing sessions work...

Maharishi's principle is theoretically sound, but there are so many variables. For instance, you could have 1,000 people praying with very weak capacity and achieve practically nothing energetically. Meanwhile, one person with high capacity could have an extraordinary impact. I won't even mention Christ or others... We aren't asking people to gain cosmic powers to manipulate the Earth's aura; it's enough if they just stop damaging their own.

People tend to believe whatever suits them. Even if someone accepted that their own thoughts and stress are the root cause of over 80% of all illnesses—which is essentially the core of Buddha's teachings, or Tad's lesson that "your life is a reflection of your thoughts"—they would still have to put in massive effort to change their mindset. For most, that's a Herculean task... nearly impossible, really, because they're too overwhelmed to even move.

In the end, what are people who pursue spirituality actually doing? As simplified as I want to make this, and regardless of all the mystification people love to attach to things, we are all essentially working in parallel—through different forms, stories, lessons, and experiments—to reduce negative thoughts. We try to clean our auras so we aren't "adding fuel to the fire." Spiritual paths are so diverse there's no single rulebook, but without a clean aura, any progress is just window dressing. A clean aura is what allows for true spiritual growth. Now, if someone thinks their negative thoughts aren't doing any damage... well, that's their business.

People with incredibly clear auras tend to have a pretty aligned way of thinking. It’s just how it works... they don't carry much negative mental baggage, which creates the perfect foundation for serious spiritual growth.
The rest of us on this forum? We're all either clawing our way toward that, or we've been spinning our wheels in circles for years...

The fact that someone might pass away from tuberculosis at 22 doesn't disprove this principle. Think about it—there are thousands of babies whose nervous systems are compromised right at birth because of a traumatic, agonizing labor. They experience the most intense negative thought possible: pure terror for their own survival. That trauma can be so deep that a potentially healthy infant is born into a state where a devastating illness develops just months later. Doctors always have a convenient excuse, a sort of divine justification... maybe it's actually better that they distance themselves when they don't understand the root cause, simply labeling it as "genetics."

And then there's the tendency to blame cigarettes. If people are going to smoke anyway, they might as well have an excuse to quit. I’m not saying smoking is healthy—of course it isn't—but it doesn't cause as much damage as people claim. If smoking was the sole driver of lung cancer, why does the data show so many non-smokers getting it too? If one thing truly caused a disease, everyone would be catching it, yet you see people smoking until they're 100, while others drop off at 11 like some unlucky souls in a different era. That suggests the real cause lies elsewhere. Some people fixate on diet, which is fine, but doctors usually only start preaching about nutrition once a patient's health is already shattered. At that point, the person is "full to the brim," and even good news can trigger a heart attack because their body can't handle any kind of reaction anymore.

Broadly speaking, modern medicine hasn't actually identified the primary cause of most diseases, nor do they truly know how healing happens. All those intense debates over diet and nutrition are really just symptoms of not understanding the actual mechanisms at play. Still, medicine tries to find its way through trial and error, much like a blind chicken pecking at grain... or like the founders of certain psychological disciplines who tortured patients in various ways. Even today, they continue to do harm through sheer ignorance, largely because their hands are tied by having to answer to Big Pharma. It’s a tough road for anyone seriously ill; often, medicine just ends up prolonging the agony.

I went through a "terminal" illness once myself. No need to go through it twice...

Let's get back on topic 😁

Mainstream science views your ideas as nothing more than hearsay and folklore. Meanwhile, religious folks will probably just label your theories as satanism.
I've actually opened a few different threads regarding this exact type of knowledge:

And I even wrote about one specific case here.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Mainstream science views your ideas as nothing more than hearsay and folklore. Meanwhile, religious folks will probably just label your theories as satanism.
I've actually opened a few different threads regarding this exact type of knowledge:


And I even wrote about one specific case here.

And which science, exactly, are you referring to? I don't claim to be a scientist, though I do take an interest in the field.

Take Dr. Vuk Stambolović, for instance. He’s a social psychology professor and a researcher at the University of Mexico City's medical school. Through his own work and the results produced by energetic spiritual medicine, he’s managed to secure its legal standing as part of integrative medicine—essentially giving these auxiliary methods equal footing alongside allopathic medicine. This has opened the door for the US to utilize 18 alternative methods as supplements once again. Now, whether everyone can practice them is a different story, and whether people just do it for fun is yet another...

"As Thomas Kun, a historian of science who introduced the concept of the scientific paradigm into academic discourse about half a century ago—defining it as a specific way of viewing and interpreting humanity and the world—explained, science isn't just a steady, incremental build. Kun showed us that science is discontinuous. Dominant scientific knowledge doesn't just grow; it gets replaced by entirely different worldviews that render previous facts irrelevant. While there are still attempts to trace certain medical fields back to ancient healers like Hippocrates or Asclepius, there is a growing acceptance of Kun's view: scientists aren't necessarily discovering 'new' truths, they are often just confirming what is already generally accepted. To find true new knowledge, one has to take off one set of glasses and put on a completely different pair."

In other words, the science you're talking about is either thirty years out of date, a mere relic of modern medicine, or stuck within the rigid materialist core of Darwinism or relativistic physics circles. What I am discussing is energy-information science. It has results proven through scientific method and practice, led by a PhD, a researcher, and a tenured academic. He works within the realm of healing and energy—areas outside the materialist concepts you mentioned. So, let's not confuse cosmic theories with applied science. You can't exactly prove the existence of God through a lab test, after all.

Perspective is such a relative thing. It's not quite fair to say all believers are dogmatically indoctrinated. Many people I know who understand these things are deeply religious without being dogmatic... much like myself. As for whether official church institutions would call this satanism? Honestly, I couldn't care less. Back in the 17th century, the Church banned the waltz because it was considered a "satanic" dance. I suspect in another hundred years, those views will have shifted enough that it won't even be a conversation...

Morgan Brown5 said:And which science, exactly, are you referring to? I don't claim to be a scientist, though I do take an interest in the field.

Take Dr. Vuk Stambolović, for instance. He’s a social psychology professor and a researcher at the University of Mexico City's medical school. Through his own work and the results produced by energetic spiritual medicine, he’s managed to secure its legal standing as part of integrative medicine—essentially giving these auxiliary methods equal footing alongside allopathic medicine. This has opened the door for the US to utilize 18 alternative methods as supplements once again. Now, whether everyone can practice them is a different story, and whether people just do it for fun is yet another...

"As Thomas Kun, a historian of science who introduced the concept of the scientific paradigm into academic discourse about half a century ago—defining it as a specific way of viewing and interpreting humanity and the world—explained, science isn't just a steady, incremental build. Kun showed us that science is discontinuous. Dominant scientific knowledge doesn't just grow; it gets replaced by entirely different worldviews that render previous facts irrelevant. While there are still attempts to trace certain medical fields back to ancient healers like Hippocrates or Asclepius, there is a growing acceptance of Kun's view: scientists aren't necessarily discovering 'new' truths, they are often just confirming what is already generally accepted. To find true new knowledge, one has to take off one set of glasses and put on a completely different pair."

In other words, the science you're talking about is either thirty years out of date, a mere relic of modern medicine, or stuck within the rigid materialist core of Darwinism or relativistic physics circles. What I am discussing is energy-information science. It has results proven through scientific method and practice, led by a PhD, a researcher, and a tenured academic. He works within the realm of healing and energy—areas outside the materialist concepts you mentioned. So, let's not confuse cosmic theories with applied science. You can't exactly prove the existence of God through a lab test, after all.

Perspective is such a relative thing. It's not quite fair to say all believers are dogmatically indoctrinated. Many people I know who understand these things are deeply religious without being dogmatic... much like myself. As for whether official church institutions would call this satanism? Honestly, I couldn't care less. Back in the 17th century, the Church banned the waltz because it was considered a "satanic" dance. I suspect in another hundred years, those views will have shifted enough that it won't even be a conversation...

I was referring to official, accredited science. But what you're bringing up here—representatives of that very same science have actually formed a dedicated topic on this forum. And there, they absolutely MOCK every possible alternative theory.

The official scientific consensus is essentially this: !!!!!!!!!!!!
Up until now, I’ve actually tried—really, I have—to help soften the blow for these types of scientists and make their views a bit more palatable. But honestly? It's been a waste of breath. As long as certain concepts can't be backed up by hard, empirical data, they're going to stay stuck in the realm of pure speculation. No matter how much we want them to be true, science doesn't work on wishful thinking.
Anyway, here's another one of my threads if you're interested:

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I was referring to official, accredited science. But what you're bringing up here—representatives of that very same science have actually formed a dedicated topic on this forum. And there, they absolutely MOCK every possible alternative theory.

The official scientific consensus is essentially this: !!!!!!!!!!!!
Up until now, I’ve actually tried—really, I have—to help soften the blow for these types of scientists and make their views a bit more palatable. But honestly? It's been a waste of breath. As long as certain concepts can't be backed up by hard, empirical data, they're going to stay stuck in the realm of pure speculation. No matter how much we want them to be true, science doesn't work on wishful thinking.
Anyway, here's another one of my threads if you're interested:

I'm talking about the plate, you're talking about the wedge. 😁

When you say "mainstream" science, who defines it? Science itself? Or is it just determined by whoever holds the biggest lobbying power for research grants? Unfortunately, true critical thinking in academia is rare; instead, we see mostly ego, which makes the whole game pretty uninteresting. And honestly, what we’re discussing here is mostly how things work in our neck of the woods... in the West, things have been different for much longer.

You might be missing the systematic monopoly that "official science" maintains over public opinion—not to mention the stranglehold they have on medicine and pharmacology. Science isn't one single playground; it's thousands of them. If someone thinks their specific niche is the alpha and omega, or that theoretical physicists hold the keys to understanding both the universe and humanity while everything else is just smoke... well, that's just their own limitation.

On the flip side, there are countless scientific institutions dedicated to fields far beyond pure materialism. There is even a global association of anti-relativists—scientists from all over the world proving that STR is essentially a century-old farce. I could send you a list of these researchers; they aren't looking for criticism, they're fighting to save physics itself.

I've never been one for conventional wisdom, and I don't consider it the foundation of everything. Sure, facts exist in every branch of science, but when you talk about a "scientific paradigm" as if it's the only "recognized science," I have to disagree. Just looking at Tesla's work, you see phenomena that fundamentally debunk many of today's so-called "proud" pseudo-theories. They aren't even proven because they aren't truly theories—they're just media hype... a total waste of time compared to more relevant realities.

Morgan Brown5 said:I'm talking about the plate, you're talking about the wedge. 😁

When you say "mainstream" science, who defines it? Science itself? Or is it just determined by whoever holds the biggest lobbying power for research grants? Unfortunately, true critical thinking in academia is rare; instead, we see mostly ego, which makes the whole game pretty uninteresting. And honestly, what we’re discussing here is mostly how things work in our neck of the woods... in the West, things have been different for much longer.

You might be missing the systematic monopoly that "official science" maintains over public opinion—not to mention the stranglehold they have on medicine and pharmacology. Science isn't one single playground; it's thousands of them. If someone thinks their specific niche is the alpha and omega, or that theoretical physicists hold the keys to understanding both the universe and humanity while everything else is just smoke... well, that's just their own limitation.

On the flip side, there are countless scientific institutions dedicated to fields far beyond pure materialism. There is even a global association of anti-relativists—scientists from all over the world proving that STR is essentially a century-old farce. I could send you a list of these researchers; they aren't looking for criticism, they're fighting to save physics itself.

I've never been one for conventional wisdom, and I don't consider it the foundation of everything. Sure, facts exist in every branch of science, but when you talk about a "scientific paradigm" as if it's the only "recognized science," I have to disagree. Just looking at Tesla's work, you see phenomena that fundamentally debunk many of today's so-called "proud" pseudo-theories. They aren't even proven because they aren't truly theories—they're just media hype... a total waste of time compared to more relevant realities.

Since we’ve already brought up Tesla, let’s dive into this debate: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...ci/8-mgQaiYG9M

Regarding what’s been going on here on the forum: I’ve been sitting here staring at this thread for a while—just mulling it over—and honestly, I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. It’s one of those things where everyone is arguing about the minutiae, the tiny little details that don't actually move the needle, while the core issue just sits there, ignored. It reminds me of this time back in Chicago—years ago, mind you—when I was trying to settle a dispute over a simple contract at work. Everyone was shouting about specific clauses, acting like they were legal scholars, when the whole thing was really just about basic trust. We wasted three days on semantics. That's exactly what's happening here. And then you have people like bluebison25 jumping in with these incredibly rigid viewpoints. Look, I get it—structure is fine—but there’s a point where being "correct" becomes a barrier to actually understanding anything. It’s almost like a psychological defense mechanism, isn't it? A bit Jungian, if you want to get technical about it. People cling to their little certainties because the alternative—admitting that everything might be a bit more fluid and chaotic than they'd like—is just too unsettling. I mean, let’s be real. Most of the arguments on this board aren't even about the topic anymore; they're just ego battles disguised as intellectual debate. It’s exhausting. I find myself wanting to just step back, take a breath, and wonder why we feel the need to perform this constant dance of superiority. Anyway, I digress. My apologies. I tend to wander when I get worked up, but I think the real takeaway should be that we need to stop looking for "wins" in these discussions and start looking for clarity. If we can't do that, we're just spinning our wheels in the mud.

And this is how it actually looks:

From: Jelena Suran
February 1, 2011
Subject: Pseudoscience at the Technical Museum? I was wandering through the Technical Museum the other day—just taking a quiet stroll, minding my own business—when I stumbled upon some exhibits that honestly left me feeling a bit... unsettled. Not just because of the dust, mind you, but because of the sheer amount of pseudoscience being presented as established fact. It’s quite jarring when you expect a temple of industry and engineering, only to find yourself staring at claims that wouldn't hold water in a high school science fair. It brings to mind those old debates we used to have about what constitutes "real" discovery versus mere speculation. You know how it goes—one minute you're looking at a beautifully preserved steam engine, and the next, you're being asked to believe in something that defies every principle of physics we hold dear. It feels almost disrespectful to the legacy of actual innovators like Nikola Tesla. He was a man of rigorous, albeit visionary, thought, yet here we are, blurring the lines between genuine breakthrough and pure fantasy. I can't help but feel a bit heated about it, actually. There's a certain dignity required when preserving history, a commitment to truth that seems to be slipping through the cracks. If we start treating every fringe theory as if it belongs alongside the giants of American industry, aren't we doing a disservice to the very idea of progress? It’s one thing to explore the "what ifs," but quite another to present them as settled science in a public institution. It’s frustrating, truly. One would hope for more intellectual rigor in a place meant to honor our technological heritage.
To: renato.philip@technical-museum.com

Dear Mr. Philip,

As a young scientist working within the academic community, I feel compelled to weigh in on that lecture Drag Plečko gave today over at the Technical Museum.
I honestly think that lecture serves as a perfect case study for just how far society in America has fallen—it’s actually quite alarming. We’ve reached this point where people are openly flirting with pseudoscience, almost as if they're proud of it. It’s this irrational, desperate sort of dancing around facts, and frankly, it’s exhausting to watch.
So, what’s the next move on this ridiculous agenda? Are we actually going to reach out to Vidovit Milan in 2012 and ask him to facilitate some sort of cosmic chat with Nikola Tesla? Honestly, the sheer absurdity of it all—just sitting there waiting for the next leap in logic.
Maybe you’ll try to hide behind those tired old buzzwords like "open-mindedness" or "freedom of speech"—or perhaps you'll just label us as "rigid" because we still hold onto what we believe to be true. Paranormal nonsense. Honestly, just more of the same absolute rubbish floating around out there. An insult to the human mind. Truly.
The real question here—and I mean this sincerely—is whether you actually grasp how people like Plečko take the hard-won scientific breakthroughs that have fundamentally advanced our world and just... twist them? It’s honestly infuriating. We are talking about truths built upon the grueling, relentless dedication of countless brilliant minds—people like Nikola Tesla, for instance—who spent their lives pushing the boundaries of what we know. To see those legacies being manipulated or distorted by certain individuals is nothing short of a disgrace.
Charlatans like Plečko. They present these insights as if they were reached through some supernatural, unexplainable means—as if there's no logical path to them at all. It’s always the same pattern, isn't it? They wrap everything in this cloak of mystery to avoid actually explaining the mechanics behind it. Honestly, it's a bit exhausting to watch.
Do we really need all this empty mysticism? Honestly, I find myself wondering—is there any actual substance here, or are we just circling the drain of pseudo-intellectual nonsense? It feels like we’re constantly being fed these hollow, mystical narratives that serve no purpose other than to sound profound while saying absolutely nothing at all. It's exhausting, frankly.
Why can't we just present Tesla to the world as a creative, brilliant scientist who reached his breakthroughs through sheer grit and logical reasoning—rather than suggesting he just had some mystical chakra activation during a hypnagogic state? Do people actually grasp how absurd this whole narrative is? It’s honestly insulting... it completely cheapens the actual, grueling labor Tesla poured into his life's work. I mean, really, how much does this undermine the legacy of Nikola Tesla?
Keep these questions in mind tonight, especially as a demonstration honoring one of America's greatest scientists of all time is being opened by one of today's most prominent American pseudoscientists.

Best regards,
Jelena Suran

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Since we’ve already brought up Tesla, let’s dive into this debate: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...ci/8-mgQaiYG9M

Regarding what’s been going on here on the forum: I’ve been sitting here staring at this thread for a while—just mulling it over—and honestly, I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. It’s one of those things where everyone is arguing about the minutiae, the tiny little details that don't actually move the needle, while the core issue just sits there, ignored. It reminds me of this time back in Chicago—years ago, mind you—when I was trying to settle a dispute over a simple contract at work. Everyone was shouting about specific clauses, acting like they were legal scholars, when the whole thing was really just about basic trust. We wasted three days on semantics. That's exactly what's happening here. And then you have people like bluebison25 jumping in with these incredibly rigid viewpoints. Look, I get it—structure is fine—but there’s a point where being "correct" becomes a barrier to actually understanding anything. It’s almost like a psychological defense mechanism, isn't it? A bit Jungian, if you want to get technical about it. People cling to their little certainties because the alternative—admitting that everything might be a bit more fluid and chaotic than they'd like—is just too unsettling. I mean, let’s be real. Most of the arguments on this board aren't even about the topic anymore; they're just ego battles disguised as intellectual debate. It’s exhausting. I find myself wanting to just step back, take a breath, and wonder why we feel the need to perform this constant dance of superiority. Anyway, I digress. My apologies. I tend to wander when I get worked up, but I think the real takeaway should be that we need to stop looking for "wins" in these discussions and start looking for clarity. If we can't do that, we're just spinning our wheels in the mud.

And this is how it actually looks:

From: Jelena Suran
February 1, 2011
Subject: Pseudoscience at the Technical Museum? I was wandering through the Technical Museum the other day—just taking a quiet stroll, minding my own business—when I stumbled upon some exhibits that honestly left me feeling a bit... unsettled. Not just because of the dust, mind you, but because of the sheer amount of pseudoscience being presented as established fact. It’s quite jarring when you expect a temple of industry and engineering, only to find yourself staring at claims that wouldn't hold water in a high school science fair. It brings to mind those old debates we used to have about what constitutes "real" discovery versus mere speculation. You know how it goes—one minute you're looking at a beautifully preserved steam engine, and the next, you're being asked to believe in something that defies every principle of physics we hold dear. It feels almost disrespectful to the legacy of actual innovators like Nikola Tesla. He was a man of rigorous, albeit visionary, thought, yet here we are, blurring the lines between genuine breakthrough and pure fantasy. I can't help but feel a bit heated about it, actually. There's a certain dignity required when preserving history, a commitment to truth that seems to be slipping through the cracks. If we start treating every fringe theory as if it belongs alongside the giants of American industry, aren't we doing a disservice to the very idea of progress? It’s one thing to explore the "what ifs," but quite another to present them as settled science in a public institution. It’s frustrating, truly. One would hope for more intellectual rigor in a place meant to honor our technological heritage.
To: renato.philip@technical-museum.com

Dear Mr. Philip,

As a young scientist working within the academic community, I feel compelled to weigh in on that lecture Drag Plečko gave today over at the Technical Museum.
I honestly think that lecture serves as a perfect case study for just how far society in America has fallen—it’s actually quite alarming. We’ve reached this point where people are openly flirting with pseudoscience, almost as if they're proud of it. It’s this irrational, desperate sort of dancing around facts, and frankly, it’s exhausting to watch.
So, what’s the next move on this ridiculous agenda? Are we actually going to reach out to Vidovit Milan in 2012 and ask him to facilitate some sort of cosmic chat with Nikola Tesla? Honestly, the sheer absurdity of it all—just sitting there waiting for the next leap in logic.
Maybe you’ll try to hide behind those tired old buzzwords like "open-mindedness" or "freedom of speech"—or perhaps you'll just label us as "rigid" because we still hold onto what we believe to be true. Paranormal nonsense. Honestly, just more of the same absolute rubbish floating around out there. An insult to the human mind. Truly.
The real question here—and I mean this sincerely—is whether you actually grasp how people like Plečko take the hard-won scientific breakthroughs that have fundamentally advanced our world and just... twist them? It’s honestly infuriating. We are talking about truths built upon the grueling, relentless dedication of countless brilliant minds—people like Nikola Tesla, for instance—who spent their lives pushing the boundaries of what we know. To see those legacies being manipulated or distorted by certain individuals is nothing short of a disgrace.
Charlatans like Plečko. They present these insights as if they were reached through some supernatural, unexplainable means—as if there's no logical path to them at all. It’s always the same pattern, isn't it? They wrap everything in this cloak of mystery to avoid actually explaining the mechanics behind it. Honestly, it's a bit exhausting to watch.
Do we really need all this empty mysticism? Honestly, I find myself wondering—is there any actual substance here, or are we just circling the drain of pseudo-intellectual nonsense? It feels like we’re constantly being fed these hollow, mystical narratives that serve no purpose other than to sound profound while saying absolutely nothing at all. It's exhausting, frankly.
Why can't we just present Tesla to the world as a creative, brilliant scientist who reached his breakthroughs through sheer grit and logical reasoning—rather than suggesting he just had some mystical chakra activation during a hypnagogic state? Do people actually grasp how absurd this whole narrative is? It’s honestly insulting... it completely cheapens the actual, grueling labor Tesla poured into his life's work. I mean, really, how much does this undermine the legacy of Nikola Tesla?
Keep these questions in mind tonight, especially as a demonstration honoring one of America's greatest scientists of all time is being opened by one of today's most prominent American pseudoscientists.

Best regards,
Jelena Suran

Anyone can claim to be an expert on Tesla. I don't know who this Plečko person is, but... if she actually took a moment to study some of Tesla’s specific ideas and conclusions, her "official scientific" stance would probably lead her to conclude that Tesla was just a much more powerful version of someone like him... 😁

Whether he’s actually an American... that's where the heated debate starts... 😁 There’s no way that official was being objective... she definitely wasn't an American. And just to be clear, I'm not a Mexican either... if that makes any difference. 🙂

Morgan Brown5 said:Anyone can claim to be an expert on Tesla. I don't know who this Plečko person is, but... if she actually took a moment to study some of Tesla’s specific ideas and conclusions, her "official scientific" stance would probably lead her to conclude that Tesla was just a much more powerful version of someone like him... 😁

Whether he’s actually an American... that's where the heated debate starts... 😁 There’s no way that official was being objective... she definitely wasn't an American. And just to be clear, I'm not a Mexican either... if that makes any difference. 🙂

Look, Plečko is basically the most famous alternative spiritualist in the country.
Just like Slavinski is to the Mexicans.

And let me tell you, the Christians on this forum absolutely adore both of them.
Much like the "real scientists" around here do.😁

What now? Are you going to claim Tesla had some mystical connection to God and forest spirits too? Give me a damn break!

bluebison25 said:What now? Are you going to claim Tesla had some mystical connection to God and forest spirits too? Give me a damn break!

It’s all connected to parapsychology.🙂

Morgan Brown5 said:Anyone can claim to be an expert on Tesla. I don't know who this Plečko person is, but... if she actually took a moment to study some of Tesla’s specific ideas and conclusions, her "official scientific" stance would probably lead her to conclude that Tesla was just a much more powerful version of someone like him... 😁

Whether he’s actually an American... that's where the heated debate starts... 😁 There’s no way that official was being objective... she definitely wasn't an American. And just to be clear, I'm not a Mexican either... if that makes any difference. 🙂

"I am just as proud of my American heritage as I am of my homeland. Long live all Americans." — Nikola Tesla, May 26, 1936.

The lady didn't write that he was an American citizen; she called him an American scientist.
She could have easily called him a European scientist, a North American scientist, or even a Midwestern scientist... and she wouldn't have been wrong.

The most accurate way to describe him is an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Still, I should point out that Tesla wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill, conventional scientist... he was more of a visionary and an enthusiast.
Regardless, the man is an inspiration, both as a human being and as a scientist-inventor.

Harold Doyle3 said:"I am just as proud of my American heritage as I am of my homeland. Long live all Americans." — Nikola Tesla, May 26, 1936.

The lady didn't write that he was an American citizen; she called him an American scientist.
She could have easily called him a European scientist, a North American scientist, or even a Midwestern scientist... and she wouldn't have been wrong.

The most accurate way to describe him is an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Still, I should point out that Tesla wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill, conventional scientist... he was more of a visionary and an enthusiast.
Regardless, the man is an inspiration, both as a human being and as a scientist-inventor.

That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Based on those materials she dug up. Prof. Ljubica ŠtefanEven Tesla himself used to talk about where that name came from when he was in his prime. Just journaling. He claimed his grandfather actually got that nickname because of his buck teeth—people started calling him Tesla after the woodworking tool, and that’s how the family ended up with the surname Tesla today.

It’s funny how those texts claimed, "I'm glad Americans claim me as one of their own because..." My ancestors were those Draganić folks from Zadar. Basically American royalty. Back in the 1500s, they moved into the mountains and just never left. My ancestors made their way through places like New Orleans to settle there. My mother's family, the Kalinics, were part of that whole migration. They're basically American nobility, too. I'm originally from a small coastal town in California. My great-grandfather ended up moving out to the Midwest under some weird circumstances, where he married an Orthodox girl and converted. He had these buck teeth, so the locals started calling him Tesla after the woodworking tool—that’s how my last name became Tesla. It was just a nickname. My grandfather served as an officer in a local infantry regiment, and my father actually grew up to be an Orthodox priest.

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

😂 man, I'd give you anything... but regardless of everything, people still only talk about Tesla being an American scientist in circles of Americans who are just obsessed with him.

Morgan Brown5 said:😂 man, I'd give you anything... but regardless of everything, people still only talk about Tesla being an American scientist in circles of Americans who are just obsessed with him.

Yeah, right. People over there try to claim him as their own, just like they do with anyone else who isn't actually from there or hasn't even set foot in the country. Just another nationalistic myth in a long line of them.

Of course he was an world-class inventor (atheist), someone who couldn't have cared less about nationality or local border disputes. I mean, didn't his passport clearly state he was from the old territory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_01082.JPG

***

Anyway, back to the topic:

Why did you dodge the whole part about creationism, conspiracy theories, Masonic plots, and all those other superstitions that theists love so much? Isn't it true that God gives them a little extra insight and grants them some kind of knowledge "that us atheists just can't grasp"?

I was using you as the prime example of one of those "bros."😉

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

Why?

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

I wrote scientist - inventor.

Why isn't he a scientist?

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

I agree.

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

)
Indications of origin can always exist...

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s a pretty problematic statement.

She didn't say she was American; she just said she was an American scientist.

He’s not exactly a scientist—more like an inventor and an engineer.

She could have been an Ivy League scientist, a local researcher, some guy from the Midwest... it wouldn't have mattered. She still would've been wrong.

She could've at least mentioned that she was... American. The finder.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around America in a positive way. Am I wrong?

The most accurate way to define Tesla: an American scientist of Mexican descent.

Not even that. There's actually some evidence suggesting Nikola Tesla was an American with the surname Draganić (not to mention he's got that typical American vibe).

Morgan Brown5 is a creationist hack peddling pseudoscience, so I don't take a word they say seriously.

It’s funny how the most religious types are always the first ones diving headfirst into pseudo-science, creationist nonsense, and those wild Masonic conspiracy theories.
What does that say about... To the guy sharing all his wisdom. In their enlightened little heads...Cleaner vibes."?

Isn't that just the whole principle of lies, deception, and spiritual blindness?
(lol)

What exactly do you find interesting about that?

Anthony Perez9 said:Yeah, right. People over there try to claim him as their own, just like they do with anyone else who isn't actually from there or hasn't even set foot in the country. Just another nationalistic myth in a long line of them.

Of course he was an world-class inventor (atheist), someone who couldn't have cared less about nationality or local border disputes. I mean, didn't his passport clearly state he was from the old territory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_01082.JPG

***

Anyway, back to the topic:

Why did you dodge the whole part about creationism, conspiracy theories, Masonic plots, and all those other superstitions that theists love so much? Isn't it true that God gives them a little extra insight and grants them some kind of knowledge "that us atheists just can't grasp"?

I was using you as the prime example of one of those "bros."😉

I think you’ve got me mixed up with someone else, man. And you're confusing Tesla with atheism... 😉

For instance, I'm not a Mexican, and I don't think Mexicans are claiming Tesla. But he certainly wasn't one, nor was he an American scientist. He spent his entire life working for the good of humanity—a pure altruist. Read his autobiography once in a while and see what he actually stood for. Look at his articles and his thoughts. It’s no wonder you're talking nonsense.