Professional Map Painter Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 with the scientific reality: science cannot definitely tell us yes or no. Neither can religion, Science just provides us with a more logical interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjon123 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Neither can religion, Science just provides us with a more logical interpretation. Except you are wrong. All science does is explain the physical universe that we can perceive. It cannot explain anything beyond that. Science does not provide any kind of interpretation. Interpretation comes from the human mind. Humans interpret. And to do that we must establish a frame of mind to interpret from. That frame of mind is called a worldview. Materialism is the belief that everything we perceive around us consists or can be attributed to physical matter. Taken to the extreme this belief spawns another called Scientism. Scientism goes further by saying that anything that cannot be governed or explained by science or scientific laws does not exist. Scientism is, in reality, the belief that many atheists hold to today. So when you say that "Science just provides us with a more logical interpretation." you should be saying "[i believe] Scientism just provides us with a more logical interpretation." But scientism has one huge flaw. It relies on our current perception of reality and our ability to believe and accept the existence of anything outside of our perception. There is no way we will ever be able to perceive the 4th dimention but we can believe and accept the existence of the 4th dimension. You will be amazed once you come to understand this: our ability to believe and accept the existence of things does not have ANYTHING to do with if they exist or not. This idea permeates theoretical physics today and flies in the face of scientism and atheism. There are theories today that we have the ability to believe and accept the existence of that 20 years ago, no one would have ever been able to comprehend the possibility of. Wait let us read that again... Mathematically calculated theories that scientist of today are able to accept the possibility that they exist. If you showed it to a scientist 20 or 50 years ago, he would not be able to comprehend it. Are you starting to understand how futile scientism is? Once you realize this you have one of two options: Continue being and atheist and tell yourself that anything that you cannot possibility believe could exist absolutely does not exist or.. Become an agnostic when you realize that there are things out there that you do not have the ability to comprehend the existence of but they still exist. Including the possibilty of a god even if you cannot understand how one could exist. That is why I have more respect for agnostics than atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Except you are wrong. All science does is explain the physical universe that we can perceive. It cannot explain anything beyond that. I'll say this again: As opposed to a magic book that gives all the answers? On what authority do you claim that the bible is more accurate than science's predictions/theories/hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjon123 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I'll say this again: As opposed to a magic book that gives all the answers? On what authority do you claim that the bible is more accurate than science's predictions/theories/hypothesis. Wow, you really do not know what is going on here. Does this thread ask anything about the Bible? Did I ever mention anything about the Bible? I am logically pointing out the flaws of Scientism (what most athiests hold to) using just logic in favor of agnosticism and you continue to try and make this about the Bible. What point are you trying to make. Please, elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adflgdafjl Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Follow-up question to put this thread back on topic: If you do believe in a life after death, how do you believe it'd work? You're reincarnated as an animal? You still have memories? Wat do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Wow, you really do not know what is going on here. Does this thread ask anything about the Bible? Did I ever mention anything about the Bible? I am logically pointing out the flaws of Scientism (what most athiests hold to) using just logic in favor of agnosticism and you continue to try and make this about the Bible. What point are you trying to make. Please, elaborate. Maybe I went a bit off topic, but what I was trying to say is that any argument you base around the Bible, is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. Like I said, looking back on my comments, they were off topic, so just ignore me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Maybe I went a bit off topic, but what I was trying to say is that any argument you base around the Bible, is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. Like I said, looking back on my comments, they were off topic, so just ignore me. There are other types of fundies besides Christians. Besides, jjjon is trying to point out that arguments based around "science" or whatever they call it now are flawed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 "scientism" and "evolutionism". definitely regurgitated terms from fundamentalist forums. trying to poke holes of logic in the scientific method is just going to end bad mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Scientism goes further by saying that anything that cannot be governed or explained by science or scientific laws does not exist. Scientism is, in reality, the belief that many atheists hold to today. There is no proof that a God exists, whereas Scientific theories are based upon research and evidence. Isn't it strange that the first religions appear with the dawn of Civilization, that there are no artifacts that date before this? I would think it highly likely that if a God did exist. it would find a way to prove its existence to those who dispute it. Scientists are constantly discovering new things, but not the existence of a God. You will be amazed once you come to understand this: our ability to believe and accept the existence of things does not have ANYTHING to do with if they exist or not. This idea permeates theoretical physics today and flies in the face of scientism and atheism. There are theories today that we have the ability to believe and accept the existence of that 20 years ago, no one would have ever been able to comprehend the possibility of. Except Science is continually advancing, Religion was simply used to explain the unknown, that "evil spirits" caused disease, for example. If there were a God, after 2,000 + years of research, I'm sure some actual evidence would have been found, not just ridiculous fakes relics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Greek_and_Hellenistic_world - proposed ~ 1,700 years before its existence was "believed" in, now I wonder whose fault that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria#Inventions pre·dict (prÄ-dÄkt′) v. pre·dict·ed, pre·dict·ing, pre·dicts v.tr.To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjon123 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 "scientism" and "evolutionism". definitely regurgitated terms from fundamentalist forums. trying to poke holes of logic in the scientific method is just going to end bad mate. I don't know what you are talking about mate, I completely believe in the scientific method as a way to explain the physical universe around us. But I understand that there are limits. For instance, the scientific method cannot definitively tell us how the universe began or if we live on after we die or not. There is no proof that a God exists, whereas Scientific theories are based upon research and evidence. Isn't it strange that the first religions appear with the dawn of Civilization, that there are no artifacts that date before this? I would think it highly likely that if a God did exist. it would find a way to prove its existence to those who dispute it. Scientists are constantly discovering new things, but not the existence of a God. Except Science is continually advancing, Religion was simply used to explain the unknown, that "evil spirits" caused disease, for example. If there were a God, after 2,000 + years of research, I'm sure some actual evidence would have been found, not just ridiculous fakes relics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Greek_and_Hellenistic_world - proposed ~ 1,700 years before its existence was "believed" in, now I wonder whose fault that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria#Inventions pre·dict[/size] [/size] [/size](prÄ-dÄkt′)[/size] v. pre·dict·ed, pre·dict·ing, pre·dicts v.tr. To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge. A. All you have said does not change the fact that science fails to predict or explain anything beyond what we can perceive to exist. If you cannot possibly believe that a god exists or that an after-life exists because it falls outside the ability of science to definitively prove then that that is your decision to limit yourself. B. Great! Science is advancing, it is predicting new things. Science is explaining the physical universe all around us! I don't doubt the abilities of science but I do understand its limitations. I am glad that we have overthrown the corrupt power-hungry politco-religious organization that was the catholic church. (which is closer to being pagan than it is to being biblical Christianity, btw. And if you study history, you come to find out that the fall of the catholic church was due in part to a return to biblical Christianity during the reformation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 A. All you have said does not change the fact that science fails to predict or explain anything beyond what we can perceive to exist. If you cannot possibly believe that a god exists or that an after-life exists because it falls outside the ability of science to definitively prove then that that is your decision to limit yourself. I see, so therefore it's better if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster god than no god at all. Because even though there is no proof that it exists, why not believe in it for the sake of it! (which is closer to being pagan than it is to being biblical Christianity, btw. And if you study history, you come to find out that the fall of the catholic church was due in part to a return to biblical Christianity during the reformation). Of course, Henry VIII didn't really set up a new Protestant church just so he could be legally divorced. It's a lie, that's why he executed some of his later wives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjon123 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I see, so therefore it's better if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster god than no god at all. Because even though there is no proof that it exists, why not believe in it for the sake of it! That is why I have more respect for agnostics than atheists. Of course, Henry VIII didn't really set up a new Protestant church just so he could be legally divorced. It's a lie, that's why he executed some of his later wives. ...was due in part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 -snip-For instance, the scientific method cannot definitively tell us how the universe began or if we live on after we die or not.-snip- Sorry Jon, when you're dead, you're dead. Oh but hang on, a book written 2000 years ago which is constantly contradicted and disproved says there is an afterlife? I guess I'll believe in that then since i'm terrified of dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I see, so therefore it's better if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster god than no god at all. Because even though there is no proof that it exists, why not believe in it for the sake of it! Of course, Henry VIII didn't really set up a new Protestant church just so he could be legally divorced. It's a lie, that's why he executed some of his later wives. Let's fight history!!! Henry VIII Tudor really did divorce Catharine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. Since the pope didn't let him get the marriage annulled he decided to refuse the authority of the Pope, and call himself head of the church of England (which wasn't yet seperated from Catholicism). When he grew tired of Anne Boleyn he had her beheaded with some rather ridiculous accusations and married Jane Seymour, a catholic. It is quite probable that Henry VIII actually was a catholic in heart, and his protestantism was only political. The Church of England had bisshops, something the real protestants of mainland Europe all despised and removed. The Church of England didn't quite get organised as a protestant church until Edward VI, Henry VIII's son. Then to get back to catholicism under Mary and Philip, and then protestantism again under Elisabeth. Henry VIII's divorce of Catharine of Aragon and the subsequent break with the papacy was purely political, not religiously minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjon123 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Sorry Jon, when you're dead, you're dead. Oh but hang on, a book written 2000 years ago which is constantly contradicted and disproved says there is an afterlife? I guess I'll believe in that then since i'm terrified of dying. Dangit! I try so hard to leave the Bible out of this discussion but you keep insisting I use it! Oh well, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not going to stoop down to your level and argue the Bible. For one, I know a whole lot more about it than you would ever care to learn, and trying to argue bible with you is like arguing philosophy with a preschooler. So once and for all, stop bringing up the Bible, you are only making a fool of yourself constantly trying to bait me into becoming a laughing stock for your lame uneducated regurgitated anti-religious rants against the Bible. This is the last time I am going to say this. And before I go let me remind you of my previous statement: ...Native American traditions speak of the after life and that has nothing to do with any "magic book". I am trying to say that the atheists faith that "there is nothing beyond life" is the same as those whose believe that there is one. Neither can be proven or disprove by science and it is insulting when athiests try to call it "fact" and insult those who disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Dangit! I try so hard to leave the Bible out of this discussion but you keep insisting I use it! Oh well, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not going to stoop down to your level and argue the Bible. For one, I know a whole lot more about it than you would ever care to learn, and trying to argue bible with you is like arguing philosophy with a preschooler. So once and for all, stop bringing up the Bible, you are only making a fool of yourself constantly trying to bait me into becoming a laughing stock for your lame uneducated regurgitated anti-religious rants against the Bible. This is the last time I am going to say this. And before I go let me remind you of my previous statement: I wonder why you try so hard to keep it out of the conversation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjon123 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I wonder why you try so hard to keep it out of the conversation... Hint: It is called sarcasm, I really don't find it hard because I dont really need it to support any of my arguments. But let me finalize my statements before this goes anymore off-topic. Atheists have their reasons for not believing in an after-life. Non-atheists have their reasons for believing in/believing the the possibility of an after-life. But when either side tries involve science as "proof" that their view is superior to all others, it falls short because science is limited to our physical world and what we can understand. The same can be said of those who use religious belief as "scientific proof" that their view is correct and others are wrong. Science deals with the physical world so arguments dealing with spirituality and philosophy are incompatible with science and the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Rawer Beryl Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Jon, my man, you're a smart guy. Nearly everything you post is well thought out and intelligent. However, you should really stop trying to argue with people over the internet. No one's mind is ever changed via a website forum post. Your words are wasted here. I know you've been trying to leave the Bible out of this discussion for the sake of debate, but I'm going to quote it, if only for your benefit. "Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words." -Proverbs 23:9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I know you've been trying to leave the Bible out of this discussion for the sake of debate, but I'm going to quote it, if only for your benefit. "Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words." -Proverbs 23:9 "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ...Stephen F Roberts "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karam Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 There is no proof that a God exists "God is not there" I know that is a totally different argument, but still, how did we come here ? How were we born ? How was the first human ever born ? How were the animals created ? The plants ? The seas ? The planets ? The Sun ? The Moon ? The Stars ? The universe ? Did you know that if the earth was just moved a tiny little bit away the sun there would have been no life on earth and if it was moved towards the sun a tiny little bit we would have burnt ? How perfect are we created, from the bones to the tissues and organs and all the parts of your body, your emotions, for sight/hearing and the list goes on and on, and the thousands of species present, can they possibly be created from none ? No one created them ? They just came from Big Bang or evolution that are theories a wise mind can't accept ? Please. There is plenty of evidence, but it seems that your ego or something is standing in the way of the obvious conclusions that God exists, just like science researches, why don't you research about God ? So please. We weren't "sent" here. We're not "machines." We were made through evolution. I would rather believe that we came from nothing than monkeys transforming into men, we are not pokemons to transform or something. Well it's true, a city full of people turned to monkeys as a punishment from God (written in Quran 2:65-66), but the human specie was still there in other cities, let's say you are a Christian (i don't know, but just assuming), you say the son of God is Jesus, so you are telling me his mother was a monkey ? or that her grand grand grand grand grand dad (who started the family) was a monkey ? Please. Adam was in heaven after God created him, then came Eve, they disobeyed God, then he sent him to earth (<-- moral of the story) So yes, i will stand by my believes that after life exists, God can be proven to be there, i can't prove myself that after life exists but as well as there is a God, there is an afterlife, we weren't born for nothing in the end, we came to worship first then enjoy life, life is basically a test, who passes is guaranteed heaven, and who fails, oh well, too bad for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 "God is not there" I know that is a totally different argument, but still, how did we come here ? How were we born ? How was the first human ever born ? How were the animals created ? The plants ? The seas ? The planets ? The Sun ? The Moon ? The Stars ? The universe ? Did you know that if the earth was just moved a tiny little bit away the sun there would have been no life on earth and if it was moved towards the sun a tiny little bit we would have burnt ? How perfect are we created, from the bones to the tissues and organs and all the parts of your body, your emotions, for sight/hearing and the list goes on and on, and the thousands of species present, can they possibly be created from none ? No one created them ? They just came from Big Bang or evolution that are theories a wise mind can't accept ? Please. There is plenty of evidence, but it seems that your ego or something is standing in the way of the obvious conclusions that God exists, just like science researches, why don't you research about God ? So please. Science can explain most if not all of your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klappar Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 why do a stupid question are taking 3 pages of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karam Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Science can explain most if not all of your questions. And a book 1400 years ago explains it better, and your science can't prove everything, and if it does, it is already proven 1400 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#NewWizard Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 And a book 1400 years ago explains it better, and your science can't prove everything, and if it does, it is already proven 1400 years ago You don't believe science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triforce of Charmanders Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 And a book 1400 years ago explains it better, and your science can't prove everything, and if it does, it is already proven 1400 years ago It only explains it better to those who want a quick and simple answer, and do not put any scientific research into it. "How was stuff created?" religious book: " God" "k." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.