Proclaim! that we are not 'electron flow along neuronal pathways', but more! That there is no sentience within the atoms that make up an atom - but this - that it is indeed 'sentience' that makes up the tiniest atom that makes up the atoms that make up an atom (that some of us have 'broken').
So * atheists and tell them to spend a night in a house (with many many years of memories on its walls that make the house a living entity) experimenting if they can finish reading books of neo-quantun mechanics and appear for a test the next morning!
That's quite of an equal importance as asking that question.
An enigmatic statement from that wonderous mind of yours again, Anders. Looks like this thread was essentially completed in two posts.
We understand how electrons and atoms work, even though we can not see them well, like spirits.
Spirits is just the unknowns until known by experience manifested into our ego self. A spirit world can't be known unless experienced. How do we know if Jesus is telling the truth unless we can test it. We can not test it, if we do not know anything about the spirit world. Plus can not test on JC because he has pass on.
I didn't ask how important it is, I asked whether it is important to you. Those are two different questions. Also, the title of this thread is 'how to win a "life after death" thread quickly'. What does it mean, to "win" a thread?
Anders has declared victory, Don, and rather quickly at that. I certainly see your point and demand a rematch!
I knew a person who was so desperate to be seen as funny, wise and interesting that she went around telling everyone how funny, wise and interesting she was. She even resorted to getting a friend to help promote her as such. Unfortunately she didn't realize that the 'witty banter' she and her friend engaged in to make themselves seem more interesting, actually came across as forced, passive-aggressive, pseudo-intellectual, and slightly bitter. Instead of funny, wise or interesting, it made them seem vacuous, false, and ever so slightly sad. They wouldn't listen when people told them as much. I guess people have to make these types of mistakes for themselves. #justsaying #painfultowatch
You've done some digging, that first thread is 5 years old and brings back memories of people. Lord, I don't know about the other one, it's too intense for this early in the morn.
Discussion with people who don't share our views can be messy, annoying, time-consuming, and frustrating, but I don't think the answer is to adopt the same tone as your critics. The ridiculing approach some anti-theists adopt is counter-productive in my view. The passive-aggressive, sarcastic approach you have apparently adopted is equally counter-productive. They are the result of reasonable discussion breaking down, and people getting defensive. It is a failure of discourse. Threads like this serve to perpetuate that failure, in my opinion. The threads you linked to are a sincere attempt to explore the failure of discourse between non-theists and theists, with a view to understanding how and why it's happening. For the most part, the responses were sincere, and the discussion was interesting. I hold both those threads up as evidence that sincere, open discussion threads are more useful than defensive, points scoring threads. I think this thread is a perfect example of the latter.
Hard to disagree with that, God Shet. You did so good explaining your altruistic art hopes. How will you answer this comment by DW, if you do?
Both Atheist and Religious I have a hard time understanding their core exterme veiws. Because Religion stands as the most populated people on earth, I must keep trying. Yet, it's time to hangout more
with the open minded and moreso open spiritual sided people, before I loose myself.
Yes, I've known those types as well. We should learn from our mistakes, how else can we make progress. Anders? any reply from you to Don's post?
I would first like you to theorize a scientific hypothesis of this situation. Then test and examine the people and things that you have found to be 'disagreeable', based on that hypothesis. Then, I would like you to formulate a scientific solution.
Then, we shall talk over it.
I wouldn't ask you to saw a piece of wood with a hammer, so why are you asking me to theorize a scientific hypothesis in relation to an online forum discussion? While it's true that such discussions can be influenced by principles of psychology, biology, biological evolution, chemistry etc. empathy and emotional intelligence tend to be most helpful when navigating through everyday social interactions. So in the same way a hammer is not the most appropriate tool for sawing a piece of wood, strict scientific method is not the most appropriate tool for learning how to talk meaningfully with people who don't share our views. Your response seems to be an attempt to prove a point, rather than a sincere comment expressed in the spirit of open discussion, which is a shame. But I hope you are able to find some way of removing barriers to discussion that works for you. Remaining open and sincere within an environment we perceive as hostile is not easy I grant you, but I think it's a better approach. Others have expressed this view in ways more eloquently than I can though. . . http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/175772
Wonder if the dame is a beautiful smart scientist. I will take a longer to scr_w her brains out.
Without meaning to offend any monotheists, if by chance reincarnation exist maybe you were Einstein or Fermi in a previous life. Laugh or not.
Kinda tongue-in-cheek there. Yep, though a real wake-up bomb the idea is unscientific.
When a christian is in doubt, just ask the the science guy, it's very simple. Science guy knows where the 99% Unknown world comes from.
Good points there, Castle, but science is certainly one way to truth and what today is mysterious or paranormal may be scientific knowledge tomorrow. Wonder if God Shet or Don would explain the idea or theory behind quantum tunneling.
Essentially you are saying that ideas (including religious beliefs) can't, or shouldn't, be dismissed by science on the grounds that they are counter-intuitive, because some scientific ideas (like quantum tunneling) are counter-intuitive too. In other words, how can scientists be so two-faced?
If I've understood you correctly then it's a reasonable argument, but for the fact that science does not dismiss certain religious beliefs because they are counter-intuitive. Such beliefs are outside the scope of scientific inquiry by virtue of the fact that they are not in keeping with the principles of scientific method, i.e. they are not based on empirical findings, non testable and non falsifiable.
As soon you claim something is the product of a supernatural entity (or a 'pinnacle of consciousness' as some may choose to describe it), then you have effectively removed that claim from the domain of scientific inquiry. Because the nature of some religious belief is such that, for the believer, that claim can never be falsified, other than by a change of heart in the believer themselves. That makes such claims unscientific, by definition. As such science cannot address those beliefs one way or another, regardless of how intuitive (or not) they appear to be.
In contrast science can address ideas that can be substantiated or falsified through the application of scientific method, even if they appear to be counter-intuitive. That's why science can comment on quantum tunneling, or quantum entanglement, but not on certain beliefs about the supernatural which may appear quite similar. It's not scientists being two-faced, it's just the rigour of science, i.e. intellectual inquiry within very specific constraints. Those constraints are what make science so successful as a method of acquiring certain kinds of knowledge.
I would not want to keep running to my pastor for many of the big question about the world.
First the pastor would put you on hold with God for a very long time. Often the anwser are "you gotto have faith" or the other anwsers are not good enough.
Our feelings are much more solid 'things' - than what we have been made to think that they are. And there is more to life, and to history, than we know. For example we can not (normally) expect a scientist to remain a bachelor (unmarried) for his whole life. "What is the very reason that one should abstain from marriage?" - the scientist might ask.
Science is about explanation, as far as I know. Though they can not theorize a proper hypothesis why man has this very 'desire' for explanation. Let's begin this analogical story: a veteran scientist is on a quest to (fully) understand what a barbie doll exactly is. He begins by saying that it's made of atoms. Then he examines the plastic and other materials that go with a barbie. He pins down every element and scientifically categorizes them. And then he finishes his paper. But, he can not tell where did the very idea of a barbie doll first come from. Or what its purpose is.
He wins a nobel prize for his contribution to humanity by helping all of us to understand what a barbie doll exactly is. What is more, his paper has established the inescapable fact to the public that having a couple of barbie dolls in the house helps to maintain a high level of dopamine in the brain of most mammals. He is now regarded a pioneer in the field of neurological research, because of this discovery.
Ten years later, while traveling through a remote rural landscape of Honduras - this scientist encounters a little girl playing with a dirty, ragged barbie doll with a hand missing. It's kind of like an electric shock. He now gets what a barbie doll exactly is. It's something to play with.
You may have a perfectly mathematical scientist who chairs an international joint committee of atheists. Now get this scientist a curvy dame full of feminine love overflowing to this lonely, juiceless bag of an evolved bacterium. If you would intensify the game, throw cash bundles of a million dollars on the bed of his rented house while the beautiful dame is standing a before him, awaiting his approval that he would speak before the press exactly what she tells him to speak.
You should have a stopwatch because you might get to see how scientific rationality melts, and evaporates, before the will of the dame. I'm talking from personal experience.
The World heath organzation. Overweight or obestiy. Wiki came from most of the other anwser I gave. The Governments I don't trust, you find out later on those number could two, three time greater.and. For life exspectancy, I would never trust the Govenment.Not long ago they said tabacco was health for you and today they say cannibis has no medical benfits, it's why it still schedule 1
I'm still waiting for the instructions on how to win a "life after death" thread quickly
1. The problem with (most) atheists (and other sciental campaigners) is that they personify 'science'. There is no human being named Mr. Science Harper who lives in an apartment somewhere in Budapest.
2. Science is an origination of consciousness - just as our feelings like 'love', 'anger', 'happiness' etc originate in our consciousness. Science, from a certain viewpoint, seems quite similar to our realization that we had stumbled upon, in our twenties, that the television news channels 'edit' their news materials, and that they do much more. Any veteran tv-watcher, by the time they get to be thirty, has been habituated to the process of filtering out the 'illusions' of a television program and squeezing out facts out of it. Science is nothing more than a sophisticated version of this origination. But the basic principle is same: which is, trying to know the truth, the reality, as it actually is. It wouldn't exist without consciousness and that's something very important to remember. "It is only to the individual that a soul is given".
3. We can not trust Mr. Science Harper, for the very basic fact that he doesn't exist. The persuasion for accepting anything that is a 'scientific' fact, or theory - is quite equal to the intellectual persuasion for accepting any movie wholeheartedly because it was made in Hollywood. The films, made even by the best directors of Hollywood, can not and do not rise above the dominant culture of the Hollywood business. It was a very exceptional luck that Orson Welles had, that he could manage to get a contract where he was given '100%' authority over the making of his film "Citizen Kane". And even a film like that doesn't necessarily rise above and beyond its author.
4. There is a very dominant culture around the activity and business of 'science'. And that culture carries the significance of a prominent viscous-cycle. Science is 'done' inside universities and specific organizations (with a prerequisite for money, resources and administration); it gets published on certain 'certified' journals; and its accuracy and authenticity is attested by a community of veteran content-quality managers/specialists. How good can a setup like that ever get to be, considering that it's substantially dependent upon the ever-fluctuating element of human conscience, and morality?
5. Personally speaking, I've always felt a hidden (and also openly displayed) snobbism around science 'enthusiasts'. These guys have an 'unconscious' (or 'subconscious'?) fantasy that they know more about the universe and their knowledge is unshakable, granitelike - compared to others who have acquired a 'relative', a softer kind of knowledge.
6. There is a world (and a universe) outside of us. But there exists a world (and a universe) inside of us as well. And that world, and that universe, has a science of its own.
7. "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is." ~ the Bhagavad Gita, 7.5
8. I have personally felt that this (internal) science is quite underdeveloped, even today. And it should be seriously updated. It has something to do with the well-being of the world. Something, that we all have searched for, in our own ways.
9. "True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness." - Albert Einstein
I haven't seen anyone on this thread do that. Practical science (as opposed to the philosophy of science) is a way of acquiring knowledge. That's it. The word is also sometimes used to refer to the body of knowledge acquired through the application of scientific method, but I'm not sure how someone would 'personify' science. Any examples?
Science is like a biased TV news channel? You lost me there. A claim is either scientific or it isn't. If it is it will go through the same process all scientific hypotheses go through, and be falsified, or deemed tentatively correct (all scientific knowledge is tentative). If it isn't a scientific claim, then scientific method doesn't apply. There is no room for bias. There are very clear criteria for what constitutes a scientific claim, e.g. reproducibility, falsifiability, testability, parsimony etc. These concepts form the basis of practical science. If you are making a claim that does not meet these criteria, then it isn't science. It might be theology, but it isn't science.
Science is demonstrably the most reliable and successful method of acquiring practical knowledge that we currently know of. Is science as useful for considering matters of ethics? No (despite what Sam Harris thinks) scientific method is a lousy way of considering ethical questions. If you are considering an ethical or theological question (is it right to torture people? Does god exist?) then philosophy and theology can be more useful. Different tools for different jobs. You seem to be implying that everyone who values science as a way of acquiring knowledge, thinks that's the only way for people to consider the world. But that's like me saying that all religious people hate science. Neither of those statements are true.
You only have to look around you to see the achievements that have been brought about through the process you are criticizing. Is it a perfect process? Not at all, but for all the imperfections, science is doing pretty well.
I agree completely. There are people who claim to be advocates of science, who make ridiculous claims in the name of science. Anyone who says science proves god does not exist, for example, knows nothing about science. Even Dawkins (whose attempts at mixing science and philosophy have been disastrous in my opinion) understands that no scientific knowledge is certain, which is why he says "god probably doesn't exist".
You're right, we do all have an internal life, internal dialogue, an internal 'world' as you put it. But we don't really know exactly what that is or how it works. Human beings manage the 'unknown' in a certain way. Our first response (after fear) is to project conceptual patterns based on what something seems to be. In other words, when we don't know what something is, we respond to it, based on what it's like. That way there is a chance of an appropriate response. The result is that any gaps in our knowledge gets filled with something, even if that 'something' is not accurate . So for example, our response as primitive people to volcanic eruptions, was that volcanoes must be gods and their eruptions an expression of anger. We effectively projected familiar conceptual patterns (expressions of emotion; violence; anger) onto a natural phenomenon, to fill the gaps in our understanding. Even more interesting is that this affected our behaviour towards that natural phenomenon. How do you please a volcano god and stop it from getting angry? The same way you please people. By offering gifts, paying respects etc. So a whole new reality was built up around this notion of volcanoes as angry gods. Social customs, traditions and narratives all developed out of this simple act of projection.
So when you talk about the inner world people have using terms like "soul" etc. to me it looks the same as what our ancestors did with volcanoes. We don't understand that inner world (though we are learning more about it all the time) so we project familiar conceptual patterns. Christians for example describe the "soul" as a living thing that desires, makes choices, takes actions etc. If that isn't projectection I don't know what is. So I think we have to fully recognize this tendency, and be aware that we're always in danger of creating new volcano gods, i.e. human constructs that fill the gaps in our understanding. Rather than inventing whole new realities, it's fine for us to say we don't know what something is, or how it works. I think we're getting better at doing that.
"In mathematics we can take our inner distance from the content of our statements. In the final analysis mathematics is a mental game that we can play or not play as we choose. Spirituality, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our actions and thus, at least indirectly, our very existence."
~ Niels Bohr
Bohr is absolutely right in that religions promises are meant to govern (control) our actions.
Is the assumption then that being designed to control means the underlying concept is real and true? Bohr doesn't say anything about that.
Science describes the world as it is, to the limit of our ability to observe. Religion describes the world as we hope it is, to the limit of our ability to hope.
~ Don W
Good description, although I'm not sure all religions do the same. Thinking back to the old Norse beliefs, the gods were NOT kind to humanity (Neither was the god of the OT, though) and the worldview was not pleasant as a result.
Good point. I think the hope is not so much in the specifics of this god or that god though, but in the idea that everything, good and bad, can be attributed to something (anything) other than pure chance. I think the hope that underlies all religions is that existence is not fundamentally a product of chaos.
That seems right, that all religions present an answer, a cause, for everything. "It's God's plan". "God did it, we don't know why". "God loves you and did it for you". "Katrina was God's punishment for gays". Always an answer, reasonable or not.
Niels Henrik David Bohr, Danish physicist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics 1922, for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them".
born: 7 October 1885
died: 18 November 1962
"Seems" is intended to indicate that my opinion is tentative, and that I'm open to the possibility you are about to tell me something that will change my opinion. It doesn't indicate doubt. I wait in anticipation to see if my tentativeness was warranted.
for example, I would like to see a child being raised with "seems"
Don's "Seem's are correct. I'm proud of you agreeing, Anders - toche!
by mythbuster4 years ago
Hello all,I was just checking around in my activities to see where I spent too much time (reading in forum threads I am shocked that people write in) on HP or not enough time lately (minding my own business, I guess)....
by Tina6 years ago
I was just curious. I have not seen a lot of hubbers that have been here at Hubpages for over two years..perhaps they are too busy hubbing away!
by lyricsingray6 years ago
I MEANT RELIGIOUS FORUMS :My research has hard facts indicating these religious forums are getting out of hand and not used for conversation, as a forum should be, but rather to preach, draw attention, or provoke...
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
The common thread that weaves through Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism is the belief that reality can and must only be rationalized purely on the basis of its material or physical form.Atheism posits that anything...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
Anyone else notice the "related discussion" links at the bottom of a forum page yet? Links to years old forum threads, the kind that when you try to post you are asked if you really have something to...
by Randy Godwin4 years ago
Since Vector7 has apparently succeeded in creating a forum thread forbidding anyone who wishes to disagree with the topic to post--some posts have been removed already-- i thought I'd try and do the same here. ...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.