Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Science and Religion

Channel

Science and Religion

@ReligionandScience2021

On this record: Topic · Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

3,175subscribers

+110 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001164596133
TypeChannel
Username@ReligionandScience2021
CreatedBetween 1 March 2018 and 31 July 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live17 September 2026
Measurements held15
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 17 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/ReligionandScience2021

Topic

Religion — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 14 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 82% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Also posting the same content

This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.

Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.

Growth

3,0653,1753,1206 August 2026 — 3,065 subscribers6 August 2026 — 3,065 subscribers7 August 2026 — 3,067 subscribers10 August 2026 — 3,070 subscribers13 August 2026 — 3,067 subscribers16 August 2026 — 3,081 subscribers19 August 2026 — 3,095 subscribers22 August 2026 — 3,104 subscribers25 August 2026 — 3,129 subscribers28 August 2026 — 3,125 subscribers31 August 2026 — 3,120 subscribers4 September 2026 — 3,130 subscribers9 September 2026 — 3,170 subscribers13 September 2026 — 3,167 subscribers17 September 2026 — 3,175 subscribers6 August 202617 September 2026
15 measurements spanning 42 days, net +110. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 3,049–3,192 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
17 Sept 2026, 13:163,175+8
13 Sept 2026, 09:013,167-3
9 Sept 2026, 18:383,170+40
4 Sept 2026, 05:183,130+10
31 Aug 2026, 09:133,120-5
28 Aug 2026, 12:143,125-4
25 Aug 2026, 04:583,129+25
22 Aug 2026, 09:483,104+9
19 Aug 2026, 09:243,095+14
16 Aug 2026, 20:053,081+14
13 Aug 2026, 02:543,067-3
10 Aug 2026, 02:273,070+3
7 Aug 2026, 01:353,067+2
6 Aug 2026, 04:523,065no change
6 Aug 2026, 04:073,065first reading

Engagement

26 posts held, back to 2 August 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 26 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

78 reactions across 14 posts, in 8 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 53.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
4253.8%
👍1417.9%
🙏1114.1%
👌45.13%
👎33.85%
🤔22.56%
👏11.28%
🔥11.28%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 17 of the 26 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 79 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 26 most recent posts we hold, published 2 August 2026 to 7 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

7 Aug 2026, 20:50 UTC113 views5 reactionsread 7 August 2026

#پیام_موقت کانال شخصی دکتر سلطان زاده، مجری کانال یوتیوب سرشت که مصاحبه‌ی آن را در اینجا گذاشتیم: https://t.me/PhilosophyCafe

👍5

Signed M.M

7 Aug 2026, 16:02 UTC137 viewsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @The_Science_and_Theology_CenterFile

ضرورت الهیات طبیعی در تقاطع علوم پایه و فلسفه تحلیلی: واکاوی چشم‌انداز معرفت‌شناختی در سال ٢٠٢۶ مرکز علم و الهیات؛ پژوهشکدهٔ مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی 🆔 @The_Science_and_Theology_Center

Signed M.M

7 Aug 2026, 16:02 UTC157 views3 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @The_Science_and_Theology_Center

ضرورت الهيات طبیعی در تقاطع علوم پایه و فلسفه تحلیلی؛ واکاوی چشم انداز معرفت شناختی در سال ۲۰۲۶ مسئله‌ی ضرورت الهیات طبیعی (Natural Theology) در عصر حاضر، شاهد یک دگردیسی بنیادین از رویکردهای تقلیل‌گرایانه (Reductionism) و اثبات‌گرایانه به سمت یک جهان‌بینی یکپارچه است. در این چرخش معرفت‌شناختی، متفکرانی چون پیتر هریسون و جان پولکینگ‌هورن استدلال می‌کنند که تلقی کلاسیک برای اثبات قطعی خدا، جای خود را به الهیات طبیعت

👌3

Signed M.M

6 Aug 2026, 16:58 UTC226 views3 reactionsread 7 August 2026
File

File, posted without a caption

🙏3

Signed Arash Abtahi

6 Aug 2026, 16:58 UTC225 views7 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Photo

#کتابچه #فلسفه_ذهن #آگاهی تأیید تجربی تجارب خروج از بدن توسط دانشمند دانشگاه MIT آمریکا پروفسور چارلز تی. تارت نویسنده: کاربر MMJ ویراستار: آرش ابطحی ویراست اول / زمستان ١۴٠٣ مقدمه ترجمه بخش های مهم مقاله چکیده علم و علم ‌زدگی (علم ‌گرایی افراطی) در جهان مدرن ناکافی بودن علم ‌زدگی (علم ‌گرایی افراطی) در برخورد با تجربه ‌های نزدیک به مرگ تجربه خروج از بدن: تعریف تجربه‌ های خروج از بدن: مطالعه دوم نتیجه گیری ....

👍7

Signed Arash Abtahi

6 Aug 2026, 13:13 UTC160 views3 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @The_Science_and_Theology_CenterFile

مرکز علم و الهیات؛ پژوهشکدهٔ مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی 🆔 @The_Science_and_Theology_Center

3

Signed M.M

6 Aug 2026, 13:13 UTC182 views5 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @The_Science_and_Theology_Center

🔺تحلیل جامع، بی‌طرف و چندوجهی تطور باورهای مذهبی چارلز داروین (کاشف نظریه تکامل): از خداباوری دین‌محور تا خداباوری غیر‌دینی (دئیسم-تئیسم) و لاادری‌گری🔺 بررسی دقیق اسناد تاریخی و دست‌نوشته‌های چارلز داروین نشان می‌دهد که برخلاف تصورات رایج، او هرگز نماد و پرچم‌دار خداناباوری (Atheism) نبوده است. ذهن او و باورهای هستی‌شناختی‌اش، درست مانند نظریه علمی‌ای که ارائه داد، در یک روند کاملاً تدریجی و تطوری حرکت کرد. در ادامه

5

Signed M.M

5 Aug 2026, 21:13 UTC239 views7 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @Near_Death

«جیمز رندی»؛ شعبده‌بازی غیرقابل‌اعتماد (2) ✍️ احمد بهزادی ➕ مطلب قبلی رویکرد غیرعلمی رندی روش و منش جیمز رندی هیچ ربطی به «علم»، «تحقیق» و حتی «شکاک‌بودن» نداشت. کار یک «محقق» بررسی «خنثی» و «بی‌طرفانۀ» یک پدیده‌س، اما جیمز رندی به‌دنبال بررسی و تحقیق نبود؛ اون فقط می‌خواست نظر خودش رو اثبات و ادعاهای خلاف نظرش رو رد کنه. یک محقق واقعی به‌دنبال «حقیقت»ه، نه اثبات عقاید و پیش‌فرض‌های خودش! یک محقق واقعی دنبال جنج

5👍1👏1

Signed M.M

4 Aug 2026, 22:14 UTC252 views4 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @The_Science_and_Theology_Center

در این فایل، به جهت پاسخگویی به کامنت‌ها و سؤالات بعدی دوستان (خصوصا دوستان طبیعت‌گرا)، به بررسی بیشتر چالش‌های فیزیک مدرن و کیهان‌شناسی معاصر، به‌ویژه نظریه نسبیت و مدل جهان بلوکی (زمان B)، برای برهان کیهان‌شناختی کلام پرداخته‌ایم. صورت‌بندی کلاسیک این برهان توسط ویلیام لین کریگ، به نظریه زمان A (حال‌گرایی) وابسته است که در آن «آغاز» به معنای پدیدار شدن پویا از عدم در گذر زمان است. با این حال، جریان اصلی فیزیک با تأ

2🤔2

Signed M.M

4 Aug 2026, 22:14 UTC232 viewsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @The_Science_and_Theology_CenterFile

تحلیل جامع چالش‌های فیزیکی و متافیزیکی برهان کیهان‌شناختی کلام: از جهان بلوکی و نسبیت تا استنتاج بهترین تبیین (پارت دوم) مرکز علم و الهیات؛ پژوهشکدهٔ مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی 🆔 @The_Science_and_Theology_Center

Signed M.M

4 Aug 2026, 15:16 UTC316 views6 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Photo

#کتاب #فلسفه_علم #مکانیک_کوانتومی آن سوی قطعیت: نقض علیت کلاسیک در مکانیک کوانتومی نویسنده: آرش ابطحی ویراست اول / تابستان ١۴٠۵ مقدمه 1) مفهوم تصادف در فیزیک 2) تقابل واقع گرایی اینشتین و مکانیک کوانتومی 3) آشنایی با تفسیر کپنهاگن 3.1. تفاسیر سه گانه مکانیک کوانتومی 3.2. دوگانه موج-ذره 3.3. اصل مکملیت 4) نامساوی بل 4.1. اثبات 4.2. نقض تجربی 5) مصادیق تجربی نقض علیت در مکانیک کوانتومی 5.1. جهت اسپین 5.1.1. تکست بو

5👍1

Signed Arash Abtahi

Showing the 12 most recent of 26 posts we hold for @ReligionandScience2021. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Posts edited after publishing

@ReligionandScience2021 edited 1 post after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.

An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.

First edit seen
7 August 2026
Most recent edit
7 August 2026

Forward network

Republished by

Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

Named by 2 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.

روش تحقیق و مقاله نویسی
@Raveshtahghighh · 39,084
Telegram ranks this channel #75 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 31 August 2026

This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 17 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Science and Religion” (@ReligionandScience2021), 3,175 subscribers as measured 17 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ReligionandScience2021.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.