Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#2011 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

I can certainly understand what you mean about the commercialised yoga, and I agree.

However, the subjective concept of "rewarding" and "spiritual" effectively describes even the religious version of yoga. All in one's own head.


Of course it is. But the phrase “all in one’s head” covers more than religion or yoga; it literally describes everything, including this thread, and posters claiming that “science” has somehow disproved religion don’t get an exemption.

As a tool to explain how and why the world works, science comes to a halt where the subatomic world begins. In fact, it has been known for better part of a century that you can’t separate consciousness from the putative external world, so I’m puzzled why some (not you) atheists keep tossing about words like “science” and “objective reality” like they are supposed to mean or prove something in these debates.

I get that the popular narratives behind the world’s great religions lend themselves to ridicule on account archeological, geological, and even (Newtonian) physical shortcomings with respect to some of the “magic” reported. But while that happened, Quantum Mechanics has moved everything closer to the underlying theme of unity or oneness. (Some just have a different word for it, that’s all.)

My issue is minor--the tread title ought to read: “God [and atheism] cannot be proven by world science.” Nothing else can be expected since QM has shown not only that we distill everything via subjective experiences... we create them.

Agnostics rejoice; yours is a valid position. But understand why we are here: Atheists/relativists, lacking a moral pivot (with pershaps biblical bite), make for better citizen consumers and less of a nuisance for the One-world-Judeo-Corporate crowd. Too many here have been sucking at its teats and have known no other nourishment.
  • 0

#2012 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:04 PM

If it's pseudoscientific...I will call it pseudoscientific...what exactly is there that I need to "be careful" of? Is the magical Yoga Yeti going to cut my balls off while I sleep?



I’ve never known karma to discipline by exact reciprocal means so your balls will probably be OK. Yoga and Yeti? Nexus?

Popular (easy, no math) works like “The Tao of Physics,” or “Dancing Wu Li Masters,” or “How Hippies Saved Physics” ought to be enough, if nothing else, to rethink the usage of words like “pseudoscientific”.

If those titles rub you the wrong way and a more rigorous treatment is desired I recommend Bernard d’Espagnat’s “On Physics and Philosophy” on where science stands with respect to the big questions SpecialEd struggles with.

The bottom line is science does not back any side in this debate, and by its own admission never can! Personal subjective experiences is the only way to go.
  • 0

#2013 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:03 PM

I’ve never known karma to discipline by exact reciprocal means so your balls will probably be OK. Yoga and Yeti? Nexus?

Popular (easy, no math) works like “The Tao of Physics,” or “Dancing Wu Li Masters,” or “How Hippies Saved Physics” ought to be enough, if nothing else, to rethink the usage of words like “pseudoscientific”.

If those titles rub you the wrong way and a more rigorous treatment is desired I recommend Bernard d’Espagnat’s “On Physics and Philosophy” on where science stands with respect to the big questions SpecialEd struggles with.

The bottom line is science does not back any side in this debate, and by its own admission never can! Personal subjective experiences is the only way to go.


Correct me if I am wrong...but aren't hallucinations "personal subjective experiences" also? I believe if you do enough acid or anything else containing hallucinogenic properties you can allow your brain to make you think you see or "experience" all kinds of things. Without concrete evidence of the "religiosity" of yoga or the existence of a "higher consciousness" any personal subjective experiences as it pertains to that or any religion belongs in the same category with hallucinations...only in this case, it's a MASS hallucination, affecting the brain functions of millions all over the planet.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#2014 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:05 AM

I did read most of the thread, and I don't remember anyone claiming to have evidence of the nonexistence of a deity. I'm pretty sure it's a mischaracterization by you of counterarguments against theistic claims. I could very well be wrong, though.

You can search by keyword in this thread with the search bar in the top right. That's probably the fastest way.


Thanks for telling me about that searchbar, it works quite well, well most of the time.

Anyway here's an article that was posted:

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning

Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us


Victor J. Stenger

A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this “fine-tuning” of the universe also suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? Some influential scientists, such as National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, think so. Others go even further, asserting that science “has found God.”

In this in-depth, lucid discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, physicist Victor J. Stenger looks at the same evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He states at the outset that as a physicist he will go wherever the data takes him, even if it leads him to God. But after many years of research in particle physics and thinking about its implications, he finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.


There are other posts that make claims like the bolded part. Heck, in one of the posts under yours, someone makes the claim that there's no God.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2015 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:10 AM

Actually, it's things like that, that made me turn away from atheism and search the truth for myself instead.

"This passage (John 1:18) is not meant to deny that men had witnessed "manifestations" of God, as when he appeared to Moses and the prophets (compare Numbers 12:8; Isaiah 6:1-13); but it is meant that no one has seen the essence of God, or has "fully known God.""


Huh, I would have expected the opposite. But I'm glad to know that it made you search for something more. (At least it is to me)
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2016 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:12 AM

It certainly is! :lol: Because that's pretty much what this entire thread is about...? :unsure:


I was referring to you caring so much for me to dig up old posts. But yes, arguing over beliefs is pointless, but arguing over facts and evidence isn't so much.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2017 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

Correct me if I am wrong...but aren't hallucinations "personal subjective experiences" also? I believe if you do enough acid or anything else containing hallucinogenic properties you can allow your brain to make you think you see or "experience" all kinds of things. Without concrete evidence of the "religiosity" of yoga or the existence of a "higher consciousness" any personal subjective experiences as it pertains to that or any religion belongs in the same category with hallucinations...only in this case, it's a MASS hallucination, affecting the brain functions of millions all over the planet.


“A rose by another name…” Yes, hallucination like everything else is a subjective experience. Predictably, everyone uses the more pejorative labels to describe the subjective experience of others that are contrary to one’s own. I can’t give you any “concrete evidence” pro and science can’t give you any against. All I can say is at the quantum level all is conjecture and probability statistics, influenced by mere presence of observers--miracles do occur.

People finding their environments wanting and turning to drugs to enter altered states to fill a void or for inspiration is an old tale. Some artists and scientists had success with it, became wealthy, and left the world something to remember them by. But yogis abstain from their use. Detachment from vices and all forms of addiction is a prerequisite for the discipline. Drug use alters brain chemistry and leads to dependence. Reduced intelligence and well-being are often measured. Subsequent highs demand higher doses. All these are complete opposite to what a yoga practitioner experiences.

There are no quick pill shortcuts to enlightenment. It takes years, decades to attain a level of mind discipline for a person to experience things he would long before call impossible. When those experiences mirror those of other writers, some living eons ago, he’s got himself what science calls replication or validation of an experiment… subjectively speaking, :) of course, since there is no other way.
  • 0

#2018 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,844 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

Thanks for telling me about that searchbar, it works quite well, well most of the time.

Anyway here's an article that was posted:



There are other posts that make claims like the bolded part. Heck, in one of the posts under yours, someone makes the claim that there's no God.


I'll give you partial credit. That's one (idiotic) example of a link posted stating such. I still don't recall any CDC users actually posting themselves that they 100% guaranteed there was no god(s). The sentiment as far as I recall was and continues to be that it's unprovable to a 100% certainty but that science and logic dictate there is no "need" for god(s) for us or our universe to exist and that it's quite unlikely that they exist. Also that some of us (due to the above reasons) lack any belief in god(s) accordingly.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#2019 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,844 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

“A rose by another name…” Yes, hallucination like everything else is a subjective experience. Predictably, everyone uses the more pejorative labels to describe the subjective experience of others that are contrary to one’s own. I can’t give you any “concrete evidence” pro and science can’t give you any against. All I can say is at the quantum level all is conjecture and probability statistics, influenced by mere presence of observers--miracles do occur.

People finding their environments wanting and turning to drugs to enter altered states to fill a void or for inspiration is an old tale. Some artists and scientists had success with it, became wealthy, and left the world something to remember them by. But yogis abstain from their use. Detachment from vices and all forms of addiction is a prerequisite for the discipline. Drug use alters brain chemistry and leads to dependence. Reduced intelligence and well-being are often measured. Subsequent highs demand higher doses. All these are complete opposite to what a yoga practitioner experiences.

There are no quick pill shortcuts to enlightenment. It takes years, decades to attain a level of mind discipline for a person to experience things he would long before call impossible. When those experiences mirror those of other writers, some living eons ago, he’s got himself what science calls replication or validation of an experiment… subjectively speaking, :) of course, since there is no other way.


There have actually been yogis who have used drugs, sex etc as experimental means of assisting them in attaining that goal FWIW.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#2020 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,378 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:25 PM

Correct me if I am wrong...but aren't hallucinations "personal subjective experiences" also? I believe if you do enough acid or anything else containing hallucinogenic properties you can allow your brain to make you think you see or "experience" all kinds of things. Without concrete evidence of the "religiosity" of yoga or the existence of a "higher consciousness" any personal subjective experiences as it pertains to that or any religion belongs in the same category with hallucinations...only in this case, it's a MASS hallucination, affecting the brain functions of millions all over the planet.

You can chalk UFO sightings with that, given the populace that believes when they see something they normally do not, it must be an alien visiting us.
  • 0

#2021 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:56 PM

I'll give you partial credit. That's one (idiotic) example of a link posted stating such. I still don't recall any CDC users actually posting themselves that they 100% guaranteed there was no god(s). The sentiment as far as I recall was and continues to be that it's unprovable to a 100% certainty but that science and logic dictate there is no "need" for god(s) for us or our universe to exist and that it's quite unlikely that they exist. Also that some of us (due to the above reasons) lack any belief in god(s) accordingly.


Well, I pointed out about a post under VICanucksfan5551's post making a claim that there's no God. And I'm certain that SS made the claim, otherwise he wouldn't be posting countless articles to support it. Unless he was just trolling me the whole time

Both sides cannot make their claim with 100% certainty. We also can't claim a need or no need for God either because of the missing pieces to both sides. Science and logic can make a guess at filling in those holes and therefore not "needing" God, but without complete evidence, you might need God to fill in those gaps so to speak. Same for both sides. We need science to fill in the gaps to the side that believes in a creator.

How is it unlikely for a creator to exist? Even if we didn't "need" a creator, that doesn't mean there isn't one. There's lots of things that we don't "need" that exist, like CDC for example ;)
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2022 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,378 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:28 PM

Well, I pointed out about a post under VICanucksfan5551's post making a claim that there's no God. And I'm certain that SS made the claim, otherwise he wouldn't be posting countless articles to support it. Unless he was just trolling me the whole time

Both sides cannot make their claim with 100% certainty. We also can't claim a need or no need for God either because of the missing pieces to both sides. Science and logic can make a guess at filling in those holes and therefore not "needing" God, but without complete evidence, you might need God to fill in those gaps so to speak. Same for both sides. We need science to fill in the gaps to the side that believes in a creator.

How is it unlikely for a creator to exist? Even if we didn't "need" a creator, that doesn't mean there isn't one. There's lots of things that we don't "need" that exist, like CDC for example ;)

If we took as truth every belief system that has a deity, there's an army of deities ready to punish us for not subjectively believing in them without proof.

In order for what you say to be true, you must ignore that other religions exist, and you must completely ignore the type of critical thinking that has resulted in human intelligence evolving.

Yeah.. no thanks.
  • 0

#2023 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

If we took as truth every belief system that has a deity, there's an army of deities ready to punish us for not subjectively believing in them without proof.

In order for what you say to be true, you must ignore that other religions exist, and you must completely ignore the type of critical thinking that has resulted in human intelligence evolving.

Yeah.. no thanks.


I'm not talking about religions here, just about a creator.

Care to explain the bolded part there?
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2024 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,378 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:57 PM

I'm not talking about religions here, just about a creator.

Care to explain the bolded part there?

The discussion made of needing the existence of a deity to fill gaps = religion. That one is simple.

And while no side can make their case with 100% certainty, already one side has been debunked as 0% correct, which is the religious side. Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a deity, however, they've got a far better case than religion has for any of the number of deities existing.

There is no sense in giving credence to the superstitious side because the tangible attributes they give to their deity has been proven highly flawed, and flat out wrong.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 02:59 PM.

  • 0

#2025 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

The discussion made of needing the existence of a deity to fill gaps = religion. That one is simple.

And while no side can make their case with 100% certainty, already one side has been debunked as 0% correct, which is the religious side. Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a deity, however, they've got a far better case than religion has for any of the number of deities existing.

There is no sense in giving credence to the superstitious side because the tangible attributes they give to their deity has been proven highly flawed, and flat out wrong.


Religion =/= creator.

You admit that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a deity. But then how can one who believes in a creator have been debunked as 0% correct if there' s no way to prove it? The fact that a creator is possible already debunks your 0% claim.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2026 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,378 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

Religion =/= creator.

You admit that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a deity. But then how can one who believes in a creator have been debunked as 0% correct if there' s no way to prove it? The fact that a creator is possible already debunks your 0% claim.

Re-read the last sentence. Attributes religion gives to a deity are not intangible like the mere concept of a creator outside religion. Why I don't argue against the concept of a creator in general is that it isn't possible either way -- it's pointless, and that's why I'm an agnostic -- I just shrug my shoulders as there's no way to know. However, as far as religion is concerned, they flat out give tangible attributes to their deity's existence and characteristics, therefore it can and certainly has been debunked.. thus 0% true.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 03:16 PM.

  • 0

#2027 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

“A rose by another name…” Yes, hallucination like everything else is a subjective experience. Predictably, everyone uses the more pejorative labels to describe the subjective experience of others that are contrary to one’s own. I can’t give you any “concrete evidence” pro and science can’t give you any against. All I can say is at the quantum level all is conjecture and probability statistics, influenced by mere presence of observers--miracles do occur.

People finding their environments wanting and turning to drugs to enter altered states to fill a void or for inspiration is an old tale. Some artists and scientists had success with it, became wealthy, and left the world something to remember them by. But yogis abstain from their use. Detachment from vices and all forms of addiction is a prerequisite for the discipline. Drug use alters brain chemistry and leads to dependence. Reduced intelligence and well-being are often measured. Subsequent highs demand higher doses. All these are complete opposite to what a yoga practitioner experiences.

There are no quick pill shortcuts to enlightenment. It takes years, decades to attain a level of mind discipline for a person to experience things he would long before call impossible. When those experiences mirror those of other writers, some living eons ago, he’s got himself what science calls replication or validation of an experiment… subjectively speaking, :) of course, since there is no other way.


Thanks for the well-thought out, intelligent reply. I would just like to say that I was playing Devil's Advocate, as I myself am an agnostic apatheist. I don't know whether or not there's a god, but I honestly don't care anymore. People are totally entitled to believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't get intrusive. Like in the US...people are way too caught up in what EVERYONE ELSE believes, as it pertains to faith or spirituality or anything approaching it...when it is actually none of anyone else's business, as the choice is a personal one. I believe somewhat in karma and a natural balance, but I cannot stretch my imagination enough to wrap my brain around any claims made in any religious text that has ever been written. As I have stated before...all religions or faiths claim to be the "one true faith/religion"...and if all of them are making this claim, that means that at least one of them is wrong...and I find it far more likely that ALL of them are wrong.

Edited by Munchie Marauder, 21 December 2012 - 03:19 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#2028 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,378 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

Thanks for the well-thought out, intelligent reply. I would just like to say that I was playing Devil's Advocate, as I myself am an agnostic apatheist. I don't know whether or not there's a god, but I honestly don't care anymore. People are totally entitled to believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't get intrusive. Like in the US...people are way too caught up in what EVERYONE ELSE believes, as it pertains to faith or spirituality or anything approaching it...when it is actually none of anyone else's business, as the choice is a personal one. I believe somewhat in karma and a natural balance, but I cannot stretch my imagination enough to wrap my brain around any claims made in any religious text that has ever been written. As I have stated before...all religions or faiths claim to be the "one true faith/religion"...and if all of them are making this claim, that means that at least one of them is wrong...and I find it far more likely that ALL of them are wrong.

Bingo.
  • 0

#2029 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

Re-read the last sentence. Attributes religion gives to a deity are not intangible like the mere concept of a creator outside religion. Why I don't argue against the concept of a creator in general is that it isn't possible either way -- it's pointless, and that's why I'm an agnostic -- I just shrug my shoulders as there's no way to know. However, as far as religion is concerned, they flat out give tangible attributes to their deity's existence and characteristics, therefore it can and certainly has been debunked.. thus 0% true.


Well, I haven't been talking about religion, so I'm not sure why you brought up religion anyway. But of course, religions make claims like that that they cannot prove, which is why I tend to stay away from religions. (That and all the rules I disagree with).

At least we agree that a creator cannot be proven/disproven.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2030 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:43 PM

...all religions or faiths claim to be the "one true faith/religion"...and if all of them are making this claim, that means that at least one of them is wrong...and I find it far more likely that ALL of them are wrong.


Alternatively, if there were a God, that being would presumably be the same regardless of how the people of this earth understood divinity. People, however, are all different. We understand concepts in a multitude of ways, depending on individual, social, and cultural factors. To say that because different people understand God differently, therefore God must not exist, makes as much sense as saying that because people differ in what sort of cuisine they prefer, there is no such thing as food.
  • 3

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#2031 Tom-The-Great

Tom-The-Great

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

except there is physical verifiable repeatable evidence that food exists.
  • 0

#2032 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:41 PM

Alternatively, if there were a God, that being would presumably be the same regardless of how the people of this earth understood divinity. People, however, are all different. We understand concepts in a multitude of ways, depending on individual, social, and cultural factors. To say that because different people understand God differently, therefore God must not exist, makes as much sense as saying that because people differ in what sort of cuisine they prefer, there is no such thing as food.


This is nowhere close to a sound argument.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#2033 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,705 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 07 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

Unfortunately, without proof of a creator, the 'reason' you have for life is a sham. So what's better?

If the choice is inconvenient truths or reassuring lies, then most people will choose reassuring lies. This is human nature. Most of us don't want to be 'freed of the matrix.'

Theists would have the purpose of life being 'to die and be with God.' Atheists would have the purpose of life being 'to die and rot.' However, if you find the purpose in life is 'to learn', then what exactly is wrong with that?

Learn. Grow. Change. Overcome. These are things that are the basis of what makes us human. Yet, we're willing to toss that aside because we think we know what happens when we die? Arrogance. Yes, you can learn in a spiritual way as well. But that search should come from within, not dictated by some 'fairy tale' (thanks, ss).

We are living in a time of ever-increasing danger due to battles bewteen religions and science. But when the two worlds come together for the collective good, that opens the door to endless possibilities. ie. Learning without prejudice.

Meanwhile, some of the best people in our history were agnostic. Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Hawking, Galileo, Tesla, Franklin, Darwin, Shakespeare: Represent the best of what we have to offer. All agnostic.

Seems to me that when we put aside our petty differences and instead focus on learning, we are capable of true greatness. That is the path that we should take, is it not?


Are you sure about that?

Newton, apparently was not only a scientist but also a believer.

"One reason why Newton's heresy, apocalyptic thought and prediction about the 2060 date became news in February 2003 is because most members of the media and the public had no idea that Newton was anything other than a "scientist". For many, the revelation that Newton was a passionate believer who took biblical prophecy seriously came as something of a shock. It seems that both the media and the general public have a notion of Newton as a "rational" scientist that makes it difficult to absorb the knowledge that Newton was practising both alchemy and prophetic exegesis—studies many see as antithetical to the enterprise of science. The media has perpetuated a myth that science and religion are inherently in conflict (the fact is, sometimes they are; but religion has also often stimulated the development of science). The story about Newton predicting the Apocalypse in 2060 is the sort of thing that one would expect to see on the covers of the tabloids. In this case, however, the story is true. Ironically, the tabloids did not cover the story (perhaps because this story, although counter-intuitive to many people, is authentic)."

From: http://www.isaac-newton.org/update.html
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#2034 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

This is nowhere close to a sound argument.


Aside from the food analogy, it is actually a sound response to the post he quoted.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#2035 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 02:13 PM

Are you sure about that?

Newton, apparently was not only a scientist but also a believer.

"One reason why Newton's heresy, apocalyptic thought and prediction about the 2060 date became news in February 2003 is because most members of the media and the public had no idea that Newton was anything other than a "scientist". For many, the revelation that Newton was a passionate believer who took biblical prophecy seriously came as something of a shock. It seems that both the media and the general public have a notion of Newton as a "rational" scientist that makes it difficult to absorb the knowledge that Newton was practising both alchemy and prophetic exegesis—studies many see as antithetical to the enterprise of science. The media has perpetuated a myth that science and religion are inherently in conflict (the fact is, sometimes they are; but religion has also often stimulated the development of science). The story about Newton predicting the Apocalypse in 2060 is the sort of thing that one would expect to see on the covers of the tabloids. In this case, however, the story is true. Ironically, the tabloids did not cover the story (perhaps because this story, although counter-intuitive to many people, is authentic)."

From: http://www.isaac-new...org/update.html


Thanks for the info. It's a common misconception that no intelligent people believe in a creator, which is always a ridiculous statement.

And if predicts the world will end in 2060, I'm guessing that everyone will be freaking out in about 50 years since everyone seems to buy every doomsday prediction
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.