The word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness.

[nash]

can yall give it a rest? this thread has been on page 1 for like a week.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

Fam, you're demanding that God write a book "himself" to prove "his" existence.  That's placing the question of whether or not God exists DIRECTLY within the context of organized religion... and apparently you don't even know it

.

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

Writing something down, get it right, writing something down. That would serve a dual purpose. One, it would prove that this deity actually exists. Secondly, it would prove that the universe was actually created for us to exist in. We would not need religion, if proof of this supreme deity actually existed. That is because the presence would be acknowledged without anyone worrying about how to please, or worship this so called supreme deity.  

Now I am not going to try and insult you as you did me, by suggesting what you have in the bolded type.

In that statement, you've shown how limited you are in your ability to use proper judgement and reason.

Perhaps you are not as enlightened as you think you are.  

So... you don't want a book.  What do you want?  A note on a table napkin signed "God"?  A message in a bottle left on your front step?

If you don't want to acknowledge that asking for a definitive "writing" authored "by God" is a thought clearly within the context of organized religion, I don't know what to tell you.  Even the thought that a potential higher being is one that interferes with daily life on Earth and would thus leave a writing to "prove" its existence is a concept within the context of organized religion.  Who says "God" even wants us to know he exists?  Do you want me to keep going?  You really believe that your thoughts are so "outside the box" and they really aren't.  And that's fine, but recognize it for what it is.

I'm "limited in my ability to use proper judgment and reason?"  Ok

I don't think I'm enlightened, and I know I don't have all the answer... and it's painfully apparent that you don't either.

And, once again (of course):

Originally Posted by red mpls

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

Actually, what is painfully apparent is that you don't have the courage to admit what you believe in.

This "God" supposedly spoke to George Bush, telling him to invade Iraq. You mean to tell me that he cannot drop a note to the rest of us, those who cannot hear "him"? 

My thinking is clear. The burden of proof is upon those of you who want to believe in a "god", then claiming that there is one, then trying to forrce the world into thinking in that fashion. The only proof ever presented is from religious texts, those that have been debunked by many, even during their writing and gathering. Even if one goes the metaphysical route, it still does not make any sense, then still needing even more proof. Jesus was supposedly the "metaphysical one", you mean to tell me that he could not thwart the efforts against him, being the socalled "son of god"? What about all of the other dudes who were making that same claim during that time?
How about Osirus, even Hercules? Well, at least the Greeks admit that it is "mythology".... 

 

So this "god" may not want us to know that he exists??

It is probably all well and good, since the religious among us seem to think that this "god" is in control of all. Why be so misleading? Why have the faithful believe so hard, just to be let down when a tsunami strikes, or when a earthquake hits the poorest nation in the western hemisphere?

So you mean to tell me that nobody has to prove the existence of any so called higher being, when something like this occurs? Nobody should call into question the absurd notion that all things we don't know and know about, are an act of "God"?

Really? 

I want proof. Until then, I ain't believing jack.

Einstein was 100 percent correct.



  

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by Nat Turner

Originally Posted by red mpls

Of course it's your right to believe whatever you want and I have no problem with your beliefs... Actually I respect them more than a lot of other peoples' because it seems you put some critical thinking into them... However, I do think that you often fail to recognize that belief in organized religion and the potential existence of a higher being are not one and the same (although you obviously don't need my "approval" for your beliefs, and I digress)

If you want to use a similar approach to the issues that those you so vehemently disagree with use, then that's your business....

1. Potential is still not proof. I have the potential to have the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't.
2. Your comparison of the approach that I choose to use, only serves to make you seem as if you know something that I do not. Your tone suggests that you are being objective, but it seems that you are really stuck on the term potential, as "if".

So here is how I use the term potential in present tense,

"god has the potential to move mountains, but he cannot write something down himself?"

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

I agree completely that potential is not proof.  I'm not saying that I think you should believe in a higher being.  I'm just saying contemplating the existence of a higher being does NOT always have to take place within the context of organized religious belief, nor should it; however, you and others (including most religious people) often fail to make this distinction and I think this does everyone a disservice.  Not that you would believe in a higher being anyway necessarily, but that subject should be contemplated and debated on its own merits and not lumped in discussions concerning the merits of "religion."

I don't know anything you don't, I simply had an insight as far as your approach to topics about God and religion that I don't think that you (and others) had... I mean, why approach these subjects in essentially the same way that religious fanatics, whom I believe that you completely disagree with on many levels, do?  That has been my point this entire time...

Well in my last post, I've completely omitted any mentioning of religion.

Until this "God" decides to put it down for all to follow, I am siding with self preservation, while using logic and reason.

In many of my posts I've stated "GOD", not religion. The title of this post suggests the word "GOD", not organized religion.

The whole matter of Einstien's thought has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with human frailty.

This places this discussion outside the context of religion, placing it right in the lap of , then questioning the existence of any socalled "GOD".

Perhaps it is only you who'll fail to see that there is a distinct difference in what is being presented by both sides. The reason may be because you are possibly on the side of those, that think that some "God" is plausible.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Shakespeare

Fam, you're demanding that God write a book "himself" to prove "his" existence.  That's placing the question of whether or not God exists DIRECTLY within the context of organized religion... and apparently you don't even know it

.

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

Writing something down, get it right, writing something down. That would serve a dual purpose. One, it would prove that this deity actually exists. Secondly, it would prove that the universe was actually created for us to exist in. We would not need religion, if proof of this supreme deity actually existed. That is because the presence would be acknowledged without anyone worrying about how to please, or worship this so called supreme deity.  

Now I am not going to try and insult you as you did me, by suggesting what you have in the bolded type.

In that statement, you've shown how limited you are in your ability to use proper judgement and reason.

Perhaps you are not as enlightened as you think you are.  

So... you don't want a book.  What do you want?  A note on a table napkin signed "God"?  A message in a bottle left on your front step?

If you don't want to acknowledge that asking for a definitive "writing" authored "by God" is a thought clearly within the context of organized religion, I don't know what to tell you.  Even the thought that a potential higher being is one that interferes with daily life on Earth and would thus leave a writing to "prove" its existence is a concept within the context of organized religion.  Who says "God" even wants us to know he exists?  Do you want me to keep going?  You really believe that your thoughts are so "outside the box" and they really aren't.  And that's fine, but recognize it for what it is.

I'm "limited in my ability to use proper judgment and reason?"  Ok

I don't think I'm enlightened, and I know I don't have all the answer... and it's painfully apparent that you don't either.

And, once again (of course):

Originally Posted by red mpls

And you still haven't even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common criticism of religious people

.

Actually, what is painfully apparent is that you don't have the courage to admit what you believe in.

This "God" supposedly spoke to George Bush, telling him to invade Iraq. You mean to tell me that he cannot drop a note to the rest of us, those who cannot hear "him"? 

My thinking is clear. The burden of proof is upon those of you who want to believe in a "god", then claiming that there is one, then trying to forrce the world into thinking in that fashion. The only proof ever presented is from religious texts, those that have been debunked by many, even during their writing and gathering. Even if one goes the metaphysical route, it still does not make any sense, then still needing even more proof. Jesus was supposedly the "metaphysical one", you mean to tell me that he could not thwart the efforts against him, being the socalled "son of god"? What about all of the other dudes who were making that same claim during that time?
How about Osirus, even Hercules? Well, at least the Greeks admit that it is "mythology".... 

 

So this "god" may not want us to know that he exists??

It is probably all well and good, since the religious among us seem to think that this "god" is in control of all. Why be so misleading? Why have the faithful believe so hard, just to be let down when a tsunami strikes, or when a earthquake hits the poorest nation in the western hemisphere?

So you mean to tell me that nobody has to prove the existence of any so called higher being, when something like this occurs? Nobody should call into question the absurd notion that all things we don't know and know about, are an act of "God"?

Really? 

I want proof. Until then, I ain't believing jack.

Einstein was 100 percent correct.



  

 

[its that dude]

Originally Posted by red mpls


And you still haven't
even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in
this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so
that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points
that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common
criticism of religious people

.

?

I responded to it.

Your response:

Of course the level or degree is different, once again, I never stated or argued otherwise. I'm not really sure why you insist on restating this. However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.



When we say that you're wrong, we're not saying that you're going to hell or die for it like religious people do. When we insult your beliefs, it is because your beliefs are physically imposing on our freedoms and life, or they make no sense at all. We don't constantly push our beliefs on religious people. Don't compare a few posts on NikeTalk to the constant badgering by religious people outside of NikeTalk (which is what you did). You compared our obsession over the existence or non-existence of a higher being to the obsession held by to religious fanatics (by fanatics, I'm assuming you mean abortion doctor killers, Muslim terrorists, homophobes, etc.)

Your original post:

The irony of the constant barrage of threads like this is that those making them seem just as, if not more, obsessed with religion and God than the so-called religious fanatics... and are convinced that your point of view is the correct one just as much as the staunchest of believers... and attempt to force your beliefs on others just as much as those you mock and insult.


I don't see how it's hypocritical. For it to be hypocrisy by atheists, we would have to go out and kill priests, stand on every populated street corner with a loudspeaker saying there is no God and that NOTHING is going to happen to you when you die, have weekly meetings donating 10% of our tithe, etc. You get the idea.

How do posts on NikeTalk belittling religion/god = religious beliefs that impose on my life and freedoms?

I really feel like you and I are just saying the same things in different words over and over again.

Is there something that I'm not understanding correctly? Or could you be more specific when you say that posts like these are hypocritical?

A good place to start is with specifically how the original topic that I made ( what Einstein said and ) is hypocritical. I understand if you're tired cause I am too.

 

[its that dude]

Originally Posted by red mpls


And you still haven't
even address the point that I've been making since I began posting in
this thread.  I even keep restating and rephrasing it for you guys so
that maybe you'll respond but apparently you just ignore valid points
that you don't happen to like... wait, that sounds like another common
criticism of religious people

.

?

I responded to it.

Your response:

Of course the level or degree is different, once again, I never stated or argued otherwise. I'm not really sure why you insist on restating this. However, it is indeed hypocritical because the same things that you blast religious people for are the same things that you all are doing on this board... telling other people that their beliefs are "wrong," insulting others' beliefs, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, obsessing over the existence (or non-existence) of a higher being, etc.



When we say that you're wrong, we're not saying that you're going to hell or die for it like religious people do. When we insult your beliefs, it is because your beliefs are physically imposing on our freedoms and life, or they make no sense at all. We don't constantly push our beliefs on religious people. Don't compare a few posts on NikeTalk to the constant badgering by religious people outside of NikeTalk (which is what you did). You compared our obsession over the existence or non-existence of a higher being to the obsession held by to religious fanatics (by fanatics, I'm assuming you mean abortion doctor killers, Muslim terrorists, homophobes, etc.)

Your original post:

The irony of the constant barrage of threads like this is that those making them seem just as, if not more, obsessed with religion and God than the so-called religious fanatics... and are convinced that your point of view is the correct one just as much as the staunchest of believers... and attempt to force your beliefs on others just as much as those you mock and insult.


I don't see how it's hypocritical. For it to be hypocrisy by atheists, we would have to go out and kill priests, stand on every populated street corner with a loudspeaker saying there is no God and that NOTHING is going to happen to you when you die, have weekly meetings donating 10% of our tithe, etc. You get the idea.

How do posts on NikeTalk belittling religion/god = religious beliefs that impose on my life and freedoms?

I really feel like you and I are just saying the same things in different words over and over again.

Is there something that I'm not understanding correctly? Or could you be more specific when you say that posts like these are hypocritical?

A good place to start is with specifically how the original topic that I made ( what Einstein said and ) is hypocritical. I understand if you're tired cause I am too.

 

[-Red-]

My whole point has been that your (meaning Its That Dude, Nat Turner, Lobotomy Beats, etc.) approach to these topics and discussions in so many ways mirrors that of many of the religious people that you all are so critical of.  I don't think it's helpful for ANYONE to approach these issues in a way that insults people and their beliefs (whatever they may be), thinking that you have all the answers and those that don't agree with you are wrong, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, constantly discussing God and religion, using differences in beliefs to divide as opposed to finding common grounds, etc.

These are "qualities" that bother me about so many religious people, and for which you all criticize religious people, and I'm seeing these same things in you guys on here.  I think that you all make some good points and have many valid questions and criticisms.  However, the "know-it-all, I'm right and you're wrong and I'm out to insult your beliefs" approach is just as annoying and unhelpful when you express your point of view as when religious people do so.  Also, it is likely to turn open-minded people off to the actual substantive stuff that you may have to offer.

In no way am I trying to compare the extent or influence of your posts on here to how the beliefs of the religious are so often played out in the public arena (which I am often quite critical of and always critical of when they impose on people's rights or are used to belittle or marginalize others).  If there were a lot of threads started on here by religious people attacking the beliefs of non-believers and things of that nature, I would be openly critical of those as well... But there aren't (or at least I'm not aware of them); there are posts like this, which I rarely even respond to anyway.

To Nat Turner, it's apparent at this point that you either don't want to discuss the things that I have been posting about (and you would rather use every opportunity to rant about how upset you are about religion and its influence on society and the world)... or you're simply incapable of intelligently discussing these things.  Either way, I'm done.

 

[-Red-]

My whole point has been that your (meaning Its That Dude, Nat Turner, Lobotomy Beats, etc.) approach to these topics and discussions in so many ways mirrors that of many of the religious people that you all are so critical of.  I don't think it's helpful for ANYONE to approach these issues in a way that insults people and their beliefs (whatever they may be), thinking that you have all the answers and those that don't agree with you are wrong, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, constantly discussing God and religion, using differences in beliefs to divide as opposed to finding common grounds, etc.

These are "qualities" that bother me about so many religious people, and for which you all criticize religious people, and I'm seeing these same things in you guys on here.  I think that you all make some good points and have many valid questions and criticisms.  However, the "know-it-all, I'm right and you're wrong and I'm out to insult your beliefs" approach is just as annoying and unhelpful when you express your point of view as when religious people do so.  Also, it is likely to turn open-minded people off to the actual substantive stuff that you may have to offer.

In no way am I trying to compare the extent or influence of your posts on here to how the beliefs of the religious are so often played out in the public arena (which I am often quite critical of and always critical of when they impose on people's rights or are used to belittle or marginalize others).  If there were a lot of threads started on here by religious people attacking the beliefs of non-believers and things of that nature, I would be openly critical of those as well... But there aren't (or at least I'm not aware of them); there are posts like this, which I rarely even respond to anyway.

To Nat Turner, it's apparent at this point that you either don't want to discuss the things that I have been posting about (and you would rather use every opportunity to rant about how upset you are about religion and its influence on society and the world)... or you're simply incapable of intelligently discussing these things.  Either way, I'm done.

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

My whole point has been that your (meaning Its That Dude, Nat Turner, Lobotomy Beats, etc.) approach to these topics and discussions in so many ways mirrors that of many of the religious people that you all are so critical of.  I don't think it's helpful for ANYONE to approach these issues in a way that insults people and their beliefs (whatever they may be), thinking that you have all the answers and those that don't agree with you are wrong, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, constantly discussing God and religion, using differences in beliefs to divide as opposed to finding common grounds, etc.

These are "qualities" that bother me about so many religious people, and for which you all criticize religious people, and I'm seeing these same things in you guys on here.  I think that you all make some good points and have many valid questions and criticisms.  However, the "know-it-all, I'm right and you're wrong and I'm out to insult your beliefs" approach is just as annoying and unhelpful when you express your point of view as when religious people do so.  Also, it is likely to turn open-minded people off to the actual substantive stuff that you may have to offer.

In no way am I trying to compare the extent or influence of your posts on here to how the beliefs of the religious are so often played out in the public arena (which I am often quite critical of and always critical of when they impose on people's rights or are used to belittle or marginalize others).  If there were a lot of threads started on here by religious people attacking the beliefs of non-believers and things of that nature, I would be openly critical of those as well... But there aren't (or at least I'm not aware of them); there are posts like this, which I rarely even respond to anyway.

To Nat Turner, it's apparent at this point that you either don't want to discuss the things that I have been posting about (and you would rather use every opportunity to rant about how upset you are about religion and its influence on society and the world)... or you're simply incapable of intelligently discussing these things.  Either way, I'm done.

So I guess the only way anyone can exhibit any intelligence, is when they agree with your point of view, then responding to your questions as you see fit.

No problem.  

If you have the balls, answer the question about what you believe in. Perhaps then we can address my supposed level of intelligence.

But in actuality, maybe not.



 

 

[nat turner]

Originally Posted by red mpls

My whole point has been that your (meaning Its That Dude, Nat Turner, Lobotomy Beats, etc.) approach to these topics and discussions in so many ways mirrors that of many of the religious people that you all are so critical of.  I don't think it's helpful for ANYONE to approach these issues in a way that insults people and their beliefs (whatever they may be), thinking that you have all the answers and those that don't agree with you are wrong, constantly "pushing" your beliefs on others, constantly discussing God and religion, using differences in beliefs to divide as opposed to finding common grounds, etc.

These are "qualities" that bother me about so many religious people, and for which you all criticize religious people, and I'm seeing these same things in you guys on here.  I think that you all make some good points and have many valid questions and criticisms.  However, the "know-it-all, I'm right and you're wrong and I'm out to insult your beliefs" approach is just as annoying and unhelpful when you express your point of view as when religious people do so.  Also, it is likely to turn open-minded people off to the actual substantive stuff that you may have to offer.

In no way am I trying to compare the extent or influence of your posts on here to how the beliefs of the religious are so often played out in the public arena (which I am often quite critical of and always critical of when they impose on people's rights or are used to belittle or marginalize others).  If there were a lot of threads started on here by religious people attacking the beliefs of non-believers and things of that nature, I would be openly critical of those as well... But there aren't (or at least I'm not aware of them); there are posts like this, which I rarely even respond to anyway.

To Nat Turner, it's apparent at this point that you either don't want to discuss the things that I have been posting about (and you would rather use every opportunity to rant about how upset you are about religion and its influence on society and the world)... or you're simply incapable of intelligently discussing these things.  Either way, I'm done.

So I guess the only way anyone can exhibit any intelligence, is when they agree with your point of view, then responding to your questions as you see fit.

No problem.  

If you have the balls, answer the question about what you believe in. Perhaps then we can address my supposed level of intelligence.

But in actuality, maybe not.



 

 

[tml09]

Originally Posted by DT43

Originally Posted by tml09

Originally Posted by DT43

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

I have read a lot about metaphysics. It still doesn't change the fact that our existence is by accident.

You're right, you know it all already.

What's the point of even opening up discussion, when our society has geniuses like lobotomybeats to break it down for us?

Science is humble, always changing, always advancing. I'd rather side with something that'll find the right answers and prove them logically�than with�something that claims to have ALL the answers and has to be taken on faith.��I'm just saying, all the questions that you currently answer with "God" will have answers eventually. And we're perfectly fine with saying "We don't know yet, but we're trying to find out right now"

So science is your God, then.. true scientists know that there are crucial questions that the field of science can never answer. But for some reason, the devoted acolytes of the Church of Empirical Science seem convinced that science will eventually explain everything (not talking about you in particular, just the particular faction of people who assert with certainty that empirical science is the end all be all.. the Richard Dawkins-types). At a certain point you have to admit that you are putting blind faith in something as well.

"God" in what sense?  

I know that there are certain things that are a mystery to us, but to say wholeheartedly that there are questions that science cannot answer is foolhardy. Maybe not now, but eventually. I cannot predict the future, but there will eventually be a point where we understand this universe because we will have accumulated the knowledge to do so. How soon will that be? Definitely not during this century. Our knowledge of the universe has increased exponentially within the past few thousand years and I think it's safe to say that the mysteries will slowly unravel over time, as long as we're smart enough not to kill everyone on earth.

"Blind faith" - we're all entitled to opinions. I believe that my logic is well thought out and reasonable. So does a religous person. Indifferent third party analysis is required here

  

If you believe science is falsifiable without a doubt, and that science can hold all the answers... it's no different from believing that God is falsifiable without a doubt and that God holds all the answers.

I don't think it is foolhardy to admit there are questions science cannot answer. For example, look at the creation of the universe. For one, there's the obvious problem that none of us were there, nor is there any way to test our theories on what occured. Secondly, there's the lesser recognized problem that since space and time are properties of the universe, so it follows that whatever was here prior to the space-time continuum was not contingent on space and time and therefore can never be quantified or understood scientifically. Something was here (not something in the sense of an object or matter or space, but something in the philosophical sense).. but it's not something that science as we know it can ever understand.

Another question that has baffled science is the problem of consciousness. Consciousness is something that we all accept.. we know each person is aware of themselves, and we know our sensory perception is a result of our body's response to neural stimuli. But how can science ever actually quantify conscious experience? For example, you and I can both look at a blue sheet of paper, but how "blue" does the paper appear to you? How "blue" does it appear to me? How can we put into numbers the "blueness" of what each person experiences?

Look up Thomas Kuhn, he was a scientist who made a lot of contributions to the scientific method. One thing he said was that science does not progress in a linear (not even in an exponential, as you put it) fashion. There's actually nothing continuous about the progression of science. Science is done within a certain accepted paradigm, and once scientists reach a "crisis point" in which they can no longer deal with the anomalies of their paradigm, it undergoes a paradigm shift. When a paradigm shift occurs, scientists begin to adopt things they never would have considered valid before. A good example of this is Newton's theories of motion. When Newton first published his writings, the idea that there was some invisible unseen force pulling things around was absurd when compared to the current accepted paradigm. The paradigm shift occurred when people realized that Newton's theories were effective in explaining a lot of things. When Coulomb later came out with his theory of electromagnetic force, it was a lot easier to accept. Something else that arose from Kuhn's writings is the observation that since paradigm shifts must have social consensus, many scientific paradigms are influenced by socio-political factors and not necessarily their verifiability.

There's no reason to believe that science will ever have the answers.. all history has shown us is that the more things we learn, the more puzzles arise. Einstein's quantum mechanics solved a lot of anomalies, but also opened up a world of complexity that we still don't understand. Furthermore, there are some things that we know exist, but we also know that they can never be quantified by science (consciousness and emotion are just a few examples). A lot of scientists are so obsessed with dominating nature that they forget we are all parts of nature ourselves.  True science is about humility, not the bravado and aggressive certainty of some proponents modern science. I feel like in the humility of science, we have to admit that there are real elements of the human experience outside of the realm of empirical science. Note that I am NOT saying we should just say "since we don't understand, let's just say it's God and call it a day".. I think that through science we should make every effort to quantify that which is quantifiable. But imo, allowing science to lord over your life completely neglects the non-scientific realities of your existence.




Incoming: Wall of text

I agree with most of your points, but there are a few I don't agree with:

"If you believe science is falsifiable without a doubt, and that science can hold all the answers... it's no different from believing that God is falsifiable without a doubt and that God holds all the answers"

*I know the truth. Nothing will change my mind
*My Holy Book tells me the truth. I need not look further
* My priest/imam/rabbi/shaman tells me the truth. I need not look further
* The voice inside my head tells me the absolute truth. I need not look further

I mean, if everyone believes they're right, and their god(s) is (are) the god(s), how do I choose? They can't all be right.

In contrast, when scientists call something a "theory", its out of humility and respect for what they are studying, because any day someone can come along and disprove it. You don't find that in religion. / Richard Dawkins

'falsifiable without a doubt': If we can prove something is correct time and time again with reproducable results, then it is accepted as valid. The goal of science is to answer all meaningful questions throughly and logically. Will there be questions that we can't answer? Maybe. Are we gonna sit there and not try to answer them? I'll throw in a little story at the end that refers to this...

What we have to take into account is that, as long as there is a problem, we're going to try to solve it. For example, take a look through Principia, Cosmotheoros, Almagest, etc. Nowhere is divinity (God, gods, etc) mentioned, as an 'answer', until the authors believe there is no other explanation or solution to the problem at hand. They then give up whatever it is they were trying to solve and bask in the glory of the supernatural (basically saying "the question is unanswerable"). Take for example Newton, on evolution:

All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing."

Building on Newton's statement was Paley , who argued that the sheer complexity and intricate design of "God's creation" was evidence enough for 'His' existence.

Then came Lamarck and, subsequently, Darwin, who (unintentionally) shook the foundation of these assertions to the core.

They did not, however, just give up from the get-go and assume that it was unanswerable.  While, of course, they did not 'discover' evolution to spite religion, and it's not the 'flow-chart' I make it out to be, my point is this: we only stop seeking answers when we place limits (or 'barriers, if you will) on our thinking.

The beauty of perception is that no two of us have the same outlook, views, biases, experiences, etc. Eventually, someone will come along and say "Hey, look at this this way instead of that way" and it'll all make sense. It all takes time and a lot of patience. While I agree, science might not have the answer to everything now, I believe the universe is still understandable enough that we will one day make sense of it. Or... there might just be a limit to our knowledge, but we won't know what (or where) that limit is until we get there. Of course, there's no way to know for sure.

"I feel like in the humility of science, we have to admit that there are real elements of the human experience outside of the realm of empirical science. Note that I am NOT saying we should just say "since we don't understand, let's just say it's God and call it a day".. I think that through science we should make every effort to quantify that which is quantifiable. But imo, allowing science to lord over your life completely neglects the non-scientific realities of your existence."

What Einstein and company knew was simple: how to ask the right questions. Some questions (like conciousness, as you say) cannot be answered by empircal science because it is not empirical science. We cannot observe concsciousness, nor can we pick one test subject, because we each have our own. Philosophers would have a field day with it. Though, it is still capable of being understood. Scientists are working on the problem, even if it can't be empirically studied. Computer programmers, physchologists, and neuroscientists are each having a go at it.

I can't say that science "lords" over my life, it gives me a logical and reasonable explination for why things are the way they are. Just because I happen to have been born on a certain place on earth at a certain time period to a certain family who believes in this certain religion does not mean I have to blindly accept that way of thinking, having religion 'lord' over my life. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Just because someone says something x thousand years ago does not make it a requirement for me to believe the same. I mean, I don't pray to science, I don't breath, eat, and dream science, I don't believe science will give me something in return for 'believing' in it. I can still appreciate a cool breeze, I can still appreciate the birds chirping. I can still appreciate the warmth of the sun on my skin. There doesn't have to be a higher being or a better place to look forward to after death to make life worth living.

I marvel at the beauty of the cosmos, the complexity of our bodies, the cycles of the Earth. 'Spirituality' for me is different. When I learn that the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood and the iron in meteorites that travel through space have the same common origin in the core of a star, when I hear that there are more stars in the Universe than grains of sand on the beaches of the earth, when I look up at night and understand that the atoms in my body were once part of the night sky, my heart races. It excites me. I find this story much more humbling, much more thought provoking than anything found in a religious text.

I'm just as human as anyone else. I believe science and religion can coexist, as long as they stay far away from each other. Still, I can't tell anyone else what to believe, or how to think. That's up to them, not me. And I also think I've spent longer on this than on any English paper I've ever written

"Laplace went in state to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, who had heard that the book contained no mention of God. Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." (I had no need of that hypothesis). Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, "Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses" (Ah! that is a beautiful hypothesis; it explains many things). Laplace then declared: "Cette hypothèse, Sire, explique en effet tout, mais ne permet de prédire rien. En tant que savant, je me dois de vous fournir des travaux permettant des prédictions" ("This hypothesis, Sire, does explain everything, but does not permit to Predict anything. As a scholar, I must provide you with works permitting predictions." - quoted by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen)."




  

 

[tml09]

Originally Posted by DT43

Originally Posted by tml09

Originally Posted by DT43

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

I have read a lot about metaphysics. It still doesn't change the fact that our existence is by accident.

You're right, you know it all already.

What's the point of even opening up discussion, when our society has geniuses like lobotomybeats to break it down for us?

Science is humble, always changing, always advancing. I'd rather side with something that'll find the right answers and prove them logically�than with�something that claims to have ALL the answers and has to be taken on faith.��I'm just saying, all the questions that you currently answer with "God" will have answers eventually. And we're perfectly fine with saying "We don't know yet, but we're trying to find out right now"

So science is your God, then.. true scientists know that there are crucial questions that the field of science can never answer. But for some reason, the devoted acolytes of the Church of Empirical Science seem convinced that science will eventually explain everything (not talking about you in particular, just the particular faction of people who assert with certainty that empirical science is the end all be all.. the Richard Dawkins-types). At a certain point you have to admit that you are putting blind faith in something as well.

"God" in what sense?  

I know that there are certain things that are a mystery to us, but to say wholeheartedly that there are questions that science cannot answer is foolhardy. Maybe not now, but eventually. I cannot predict the future, but there will eventually be a point where we understand this universe because we will have accumulated the knowledge to do so. How soon will that be? Definitely not during this century. Our knowledge of the universe has increased exponentially within the past few thousand years and I think it's safe to say that the mysteries will slowly unravel over time, as long as we're smart enough not to kill everyone on earth.

"Blind faith" - we're all entitled to opinions. I believe that my logic is well thought out and reasonable. So does a religous person. Indifferent third party analysis is required here

  

If you believe science is falsifiable without a doubt, and that science can hold all the answers... it's no different from believing that God is falsifiable without a doubt and that God holds all the answers.

I don't think it is foolhardy to admit there are questions science cannot answer. For example, look at the creation of the universe. For one, there's the obvious problem that none of us were there, nor is there any way to test our theories on what occured. Secondly, there's the lesser recognized problem that since space and time are properties of the universe, so it follows that whatever was here prior to the space-time continuum was not contingent on space and time and therefore can never be quantified or understood scientifically. Something was here (not something in the sense of an object or matter or space, but something in the philosophical sense).. but it's not something that science as we know it can ever understand.

Another question that has baffled science is the problem of consciousness. Consciousness is something that we all accept.. we know each person is aware of themselves, and we know our sensory perception is a result of our body's response to neural stimuli. But how can science ever actually quantify conscious experience? For example, you and I can both look at a blue sheet of paper, but how "blue" does the paper appear to you? How "blue" does it appear to me? How can we put into numbers the "blueness" of what each person experiences?

Look up Thomas Kuhn, he was a scientist who made a lot of contributions to the scientific method. One thing he said was that science does not progress in a linear (not even in an exponential, as you put it) fashion. There's actually nothing continuous about the progression of science. Science is done within a certain accepted paradigm, and once scientists reach a "crisis point" in which they can no longer deal with the anomalies of their paradigm, it undergoes a paradigm shift. When a paradigm shift occurs, scientists begin to adopt things they never would have considered valid before. A good example of this is Newton's theories of motion. When Newton first published his writings, the idea that there was some invisible unseen force pulling things around was absurd when compared to the current accepted paradigm. The paradigm shift occurred when people realized that Newton's theories were effective in explaining a lot of things. When Coulomb later came out with his theory of electromagnetic force, it was a lot easier to accept. Something else that arose from Kuhn's writings is the observation that since paradigm shifts must have social consensus, many scientific paradigms are influenced by socio-political factors and not necessarily their verifiability.

There's no reason to believe that science will ever have the answers.. all history has shown us is that the more things we learn, the more puzzles arise. Einstein's quantum mechanics solved a lot of anomalies, but also opened up a world of complexity that we still don't understand. Furthermore, there are some things that we know exist, but we also know that they can never be quantified by science (consciousness and emotion are just a few examples). A lot of scientists are so obsessed with dominating nature that they forget we are all parts of nature ourselves.  True science is about humility, not the bravado and aggressive certainty of some proponents modern science. I feel like in the humility of science, we have to admit that there are real elements of the human experience outside of the realm of empirical science. Note that I am NOT saying we should just say "since we don't understand, let's just say it's God and call it a day".. I think that through science we should make every effort to quantify that which is quantifiable. But imo, allowing science to lord over your life completely neglects the non-scientific realities of your existence.




Incoming: Wall of text

I agree with most of your points, but there are a few I don't agree with:

"If you believe science is falsifiable without a doubt, and that science can hold all the answers... it's no different from believing that God is falsifiable without a doubt and that God holds all the answers"

*I know the truth. Nothing will change my mind
*My Holy Book tells me the truth. I need not look further
* My priest/imam/rabbi/shaman tells me the truth. I need not look further
* The voice inside my head tells me the absolute truth. I need not look further

I mean, if everyone believes they're right, and their god(s) is (are) the god(s), how do I choose? They can't all be right.

In contrast, when scientists call something a "theory", its out of humility and respect for what they are studying, because any day someone can come along and disprove it. You don't find that in religion. / Richard Dawkins

'falsifiable without a doubt': If we can prove something is correct time and time again with reproducable results, then it is accepted as valid. The goal of science is to answer all meaningful questions throughly and logically. Will there be questions that we can't answer? Maybe. Are we gonna sit there and not try to answer them? I'll throw in a little story at the end that refers to this...

What we have to take into account is that, as long as there is a problem, we're going to try to solve it. For example, take a look through Principia, Cosmotheoros, Almagest, etc. Nowhere is divinity (God, gods, etc) mentioned, as an 'answer', until the authors believe there is no other explanation or solution to the problem at hand. They then give up whatever it is they were trying to solve and bask in the glory of the supernatural (basically saying "the question is unanswerable"). Take for example Newton, on evolution:

All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing."

Building on Newton's statement was Paley , who argued that the sheer complexity and intricate design of "God's creation" was evidence enough for 'His' existence.

Then came Lamarck and, subsequently, Darwin, who (unintentionally) shook the foundation of these assertions to the core.

They did not, however, just give up from the get-go and assume that it was unanswerable.  While, of course, they did not 'discover' evolution to spite religion, and it's not the 'flow-chart' I make it out to be, my point is this: we only stop seeking answers when we place limits (or 'barriers, if you will) on our thinking.

The beauty of perception is that no two of us have the same outlook, views, biases, experiences, etc. Eventually, someone will come along and say "Hey, look at this this way instead of that way" and it'll all make sense. It all takes time and a lot of patience. While I agree, science might not have the answer to everything now, I believe the universe is still understandable enough that we will one day make sense of it. Or... there might just be a limit to our knowledge, but we won't know what (or where) that limit is until we get there. Of course, there's no way to know for sure.

"I feel like in the humility of science, we have to admit that there are real elements of the human experience outside of the realm of empirical science. Note that I am NOT saying we should just say "since we don't understand, let's just say it's God and call it a day".. I think that through science we should make every effort to quantify that which is quantifiable. But imo, allowing science to lord over your life completely neglects the non-scientific realities of your existence."

What Einstein and company knew was simple: how to ask the right questions. Some questions (like conciousness, as you say) cannot be answered by empircal science because it is not empirical science. We cannot observe concsciousness, nor can we pick one test subject, because we each have our own. Philosophers would have a field day with it. Though, it is still capable of being understood. Scientists are working on the problem, even if it can't be empirically studied. Computer programmers, physchologists, and neuroscientists are each having a go at it.

I can't say that science "lords" over my life, it gives me a logical and reasonable explination for why things are the way they are. Just because I happen to have been born on a certain place on earth at a certain time period to a certain family who believes in this certain religion does not mean I have to blindly accept that way of thinking, having religion 'lord' over my life. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Just because someone says something x thousand years ago does not make it a requirement for me to believe the same. I mean, I don't pray to science, I don't breath, eat, and dream science, I don't believe science will give me something in return for 'believing' in it. I can still appreciate a cool breeze, I can still appreciate the birds chirping. I can still appreciate the warmth of the sun on my skin. There doesn't have to be a higher being or a better place to look forward to after death to make life worth living.

I marvel at the beauty of the cosmos, the complexity of our bodies, the cycles of the Earth. 'Spirituality' for me is different. When I learn that the iron in the hemoglobin in my blood and the iron in meteorites that travel through space have the same common origin in the core of a star, when I hear that there are more stars in the Universe than grains of sand on the beaches of the earth, when I look up at night and understand that the atoms in my body were once part of the night sky, my heart races. It excites me. I find this story much more humbling, much more thought provoking than anything found in a religious text.

I'm just as human as anyone else. I believe science and religion can coexist, as long as they stay far away from each other. Still, I can't tell anyone else what to believe, or how to think. That's up to them, not me. And I also think I've spent longer on this than on any English paper I've ever written

"Laplace went in state to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, who had heard that the book contained no mention of God. Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." (I had no need of that hypothesis). Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, "Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses" (Ah! that is a beautiful hypothesis; it explains many things). Laplace then declared: "Cette hypothèse, Sire, explique en effet tout, mais ne permet de prédire rien. En tant que savant, je me dois de vous fournir des travaux permettant des prédictions" ("This hypothesis, Sire, does explain everything, but does not permit to Predict anything. As a scholar, I must provide you with works permitting predictions." - quoted by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen)."