Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Science Lesson For The Atheists

In occidental culture, in general, the believers promulgate the apparent illusion of their possession of a superior morality. Why? Because it perpetuates their ideology. Their world view. "You don't believe what I believe so you're going to hell." How myopic and obtuse. Because religion, in that culture specifically, either as a result of the ideology or to support it, took upon itself political adversity with the emerging intelligentsia. Since that adversary arose from the illusion and the obvious logical flaws it had incorporated historically - hypocrisy, ignorance, xenophobia, oppression, repression, and violence through military, legislative and social dominance - by support of the masses, there are some important lessons to be learned from it.

The teachings of the believers was full of holes. They weren't harmonious with the source. In order for, or as a result of the implementation of their sociopolitical illusion it was necessarily so. Their ideology wasn't compatible with their teachings. That doesn't matter. It's a small sacrifice because their ideology is what became important.

So, there's this reality created from that transmogrification of the source and mythology. If I had to define religion that's pretty much how I would put it. That's also how I would describe the world around me. Reality. The sacred and profane. Secular and religious. Quixotic and mundane.

So there is this logical excursion that should be derived from this turn of events. Critically examine, explore, educate, illuminate. Or, instead, just repeat it. Argue, judge, sentence and eliminate. Become your enemy. Just another side of the ideological coin of reality. The world view.

[Laughs] My theory is that the latter is what is happening to science. That's what I mean when I say "the end" is near and that science will destroy the world. Science isn't a religion, it's a byproduct of religion. Created by religion: the student becomes the master. Science is not only eliminating religion it is surpassing it.

The lesson for atheists, or just the unbeliever, is that it doesn't matter if religion and the Bible is wrong and nonsense, because it is the formed "reality" and instead of arguing what is right and wrong, perhaps you should look at it like that.

From my perspective, from my Biblically founded perception of reality, it's done. So, stopping it isn't anywhere near my priority. My priority is simply observation.

That's why I want an exchange of ideas here. I want to learn, not from the books of science, but from adversity. Both sides. Without the propaganda.

It astounds me that those who wear scientific methodology on their sleeves are painfully unaware or unwilling to do that. Not for the historical preservation of the vanquished. To educate so as not to repeat history. But rather, for the ideological replacement.

Right and wrong. Us and them. A far more compelling process than science. As it had been with the adversary. So the illusion propagated by the unbelievers is of intellectual superiority.

Yeah, I know, I know. It is funny. So is the illusion of the religious of moral superiority.

So . . . if I'm right in my Biblically founded perspective then you will attempt to destroy all that I believe in but God will intervene. Science will be taken from your cold dead hands and placed into mine. Not by me. Not by my argument or my violence. By God. So, if I'm wrong nothing happens through my will.

If you're right you will destroy first science and then the world.

If I'm right everyone who follows ideological science will be destroyed. If you're right everyone will be destroyed.
DocSavage · M
That one is worth three.
Your concept of what science is , is complete nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about, or what you’re saying.
It’s not about, science, religion, god , or history for that matter. In each of your post, you have arguments regarding the science which you use in just about everything without giving it a second thought. You seem to have the idea, that science is a weapon that we use against religion, rather than a tool for uncovering the truth. Granted science can be used to make weapons, and destruction. But that isn’t the science itself, that is how it is applied. Understanding it, is what makes the good and bad of it possible. But god and religion, belief and morality that’s part of the human element.
Earlier, I brought up the subject of physics. A subject creationist hate.
They like to think their bible is a solid foundation to support their beliefs.
If it’s true, then so is their faith. But faith, can not change facts. And when it comes down to a choice , then it’s the individual that has to decide how much the truth matters. Your biblical perspective is meaningless. You still live in the real world.
DocSavage · M
The preponderance of evidence points to the existence of Yahweh. That completely aside the facts are that atheists don't want Yahweh to exist so they make all kinds of silly claims in an attempt to explain away the evidence. Of course they claim it is science. It is not science. It is their religion.

You have no idea what Atheist believe.
As an Atheist myself, I can testify to my own beliefs. And I can tell you it’s not about disproving god. It’s about accepting truth, in the face of unjustified authority.
Your attempted defense of the flood fable is a perfect example. Like most ( if not all ) you believe in it, without taking into account the physics involved. The ark could not possibly fit all the animals. There is not enough water to cover all the mountains. Other civilizations never encountered it. Etc. Etc. It simply could not happen the way the bible says it did. The same with creation in Genesis, the Tower of Babel, Exodus. It’s not just science, it recorded history. You can not expect other people to deny their own reality to cater to your beliefs. Nor is it reasonable to think they do so to spite your beliefs.
What possible reason could I have for not “wanting” Jehovah to exist ?
If god does in fact exist, and you have the evidence for it, what practical reason could I have for refusing it ? I know about Hell, if it’s real, why risk it ?
Answer is, after considering what you call evidence, I don’t find it compelling, for reasons already stated. It’s not part of any plot. It’s not a rebellion against Jehovah personally. Just those who think they speak for him. I believe in freedom of choice. It’s no sin to disagree, even with god.
this is a most refreshing perspective
be sure i am not adversarial, but willing to debate, logically
I struggle with the misuse of the word, and the idea of science
"I don't think that word means what you think it means" is what I often say to those with misunderstanding
and for too many? science has is too close to faith
TBH best classify me as an Unbeliever
shall we start here?
"faith is belief without evidence or belief in the face of contrary evidence"
and
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"


i will come back I relish this conversation
so very nice to encounter you
@hippyjoe1955 really abiogenesis

peals of laughter

so you are still in the 1700?
Flat Earth Too i suspect
phrenolgy? Alluminum Nazi hell robots from the hollow ear

and are Dark skinned persons a lower life form?
you cannot argue,, yo are not equipd
you do not discuss you gibber
no more time for you bud
go cook more. playdough
notification off!
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@SatyrService Well look at that. You have all your religion's blind faith statement down pat. BTW the lower life form comes from evolution not Christianity. We Christians hold that All men and women are made in the image of God. Evolutionists believe that there is no God therefore there must be some lower life forms than others. The reason blacks were considered a lower life form is because to the evolutionist sophisticated Europeans the blacks looked closer to gorillas than the whites. Therefore according to evolution..... Do try harder.
@SatyrService
shall we start here?
"faith is belief without evidence or belief in the face of contrary evidence"
and
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"

The problems I have with those sentiments are many, but I think they all come down to the point of my post which is that science and religion are similar in more ways than the argument typically allows. It's almost subjective in it's flaws. A proponent of either science or religion can be overly critical of one over the other while being oblivious to their own ideology. And therein lies the problem. It's an ideological dispute. Much like you can see in politics, nationality, art, music, sports, wine, fashion - anything really.

I'm going to post a thread on the subject of science and faith so don't want to get too involved here, but suffice it to say that science without faith is impossible, faith without evidence is impossible, and the record shows that faith is less susceptible to the denial of observation than science. But then, science and religion are always being misrepresented by their own proponents due ironically to ideology.

I'll edit this post to leave a link to my upcoming thread for future reference.
DocSavage · M
[quote] [SemmelweisReflex · 51-55, M
@BlueSkyKing First of all, smart asses who think that the Bible is mythology and fiction are a dime a dozen. I've seen that with my own eyes. What they need to do before they tell me about mythology and fiction is quite simple. They need to learn more about mythology and fiction.

I've debated college professors from Jerusalem who didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground because they were dumb enough to think that being a scholar on the subject would make them knowledgeable. All it did was fill their head with tradition. Dawkins is an idiot. All you have to do is listen to him talk about the Bible and religion to see that. People like you listen to him. What does that tell you?

Even Hitchens, who at least was sensible and intelligent and possessed a modicum of integrity did a book tour with Al Sharpton. What does that tell you about the state of affairs? People like Hitchens and Dawkins make money off God. Like Jim and Tammy Baker did. You can't find truth in books or in schools. You can't find it very often in people. Scholars or lay people. You can't find truth in truth. You have to look through a thing to see it.

If you want to learn about fish in the Amazon you go to the people who live on the Amazon. If there is a sensible ichthyologist that's what he does. I can get more from Wikipedia than I can from someone like Dawkins. And in at least some sense, I can get more from lay people than there. I wanted you to teach me evolution because I wanted to know why you believe in evolution. Not evolution itself.

I got what I came for. I didn't really have that answer coming into this. I didn't expect it. There was more to it than I suspected, at least. It's disappointing, as truth often is.

I've always wanted to say this . . . ahem . . . /quote]


Just so people know what to expect from you.

And it’s still just a snake.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Science has become a god and the worship of said god is called scientism. The adherents to scientism thinks that their god disproves Yahweh even as more and more serious scientists are finding more and more evidence for the existence of Yahweh.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@AkioTsukino You didn't know a fact from the Bible not an interpretation of it. The words of Jesus didn't ring a bell with you. I was not looking for an interpretation. I was looking for a response to the words.
This message was deleted by its author.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@AkioTsukino Google is your friend. Seek and you shall find. Jesus did speak of John the Baptist.
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
Everything you just said proves that you are being willfully ignorant.
Have you ever actually considered the physical limits of many of the claims made in the bible ? I’ve already point out a few. If you you go to Kentucky, and check out Ken Ham’s ark . You can see for yourself, that even with modern methods and equipment, he can’t make it work.
As for the supernatural, the reason science cannot deal with it, is simple. It isn’t there. There have been many paranormal investigations, none have ever been show to be credible. Are we to simply accept your belief, on word when fact has show it to be superstitious ?
As for my knowledge of the bible, that is irrelevant. You yourself said it is unreliable, we’ve argued on how much so. So it isn’t a really a conclusive source of for reference. I consider it of no value as far as the The existence of Jehovah or gods are concerned. ( you still don’t understand “Atheist” ) to me, the Bible is nothing more than another book of mythology.
As for the nature of science, it’s accurately, is based on the evidence available. The more information, the better the results. How does your understanding of the bible, or your belief in Jehovah stand up to that ?
“Unreliable” remember. Science is self correcting, it changes when proved wrong , you do not. Willful ignorance.
As for my comments on free will. That’s the whole point of intelligence. To learn , to grow, to pick you own path. If you prefer to devote your life to god, go become a monk. Or choose not too. It up to you.
nedkelly · 61-69, M
Women can have babies only - Scientific fact

Anyone can have a baby - Activist

male can have abortions - Activist
@BohemianBabe
Yes, biological sex categories are purely genetic. So male, female, and intersex.

No, just male and female. I'm not familiar with intersex as a concept, so I don't feel comfortable forming an opinion on the subject. I've glossed over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex but that seems ambiguous. You can elaborate on that if you like, but it seems to me, just at a glance, now, that sexual characteristics can be physical or behavioral. The wiki page says that "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%." (With a source)

That would seem to indicate to me that the majority by a substantial margin are behavioral. To me that doesn't invalidate intersexuality (term ?) but it does nevertheless mean there isn't male, female and intersex categories. The intersex category would remain either male of female, correct?

This is why sex can't be changed, but gender can be. A male can be a woman if she identifies as a woman.

Perhaps that is the case, but it seems that you are conflating the two. Sex and gender. Sex is male or female. Intersex is gender. Am I wrong?

Sexual orientation is distinct from gender. A person's sexual orientation is mostly biological. There may be some environmental causes too, but according to everything we know, it seems most likely that it's biological.

That seems ambiguous to me as well. Sex. Male or female. Biological. For almost everyone. Orientation is distinct from gender, as far as I can tell, but has nothing to do with that. Again, it seems you are conflating sex with orientation. If a person is born a male or a female their orientation isn't dependent upon that. You may identify as the opposite sex you were born as, and that's fine, but that doesn't make you the sex you identify with.

My perspective is anecdotal, but it seems to me you are distorting. You say "everything we know . . ." what studies? What sources? Who is we? What is everything?

It's only a low blow when used as an insult, but that's not what I'm doing. Right now we have lots of fascist groups in the West who are using the fear of trans people to gain power. This is especially happening in America, Russia, Poland, Hungary, and France.

I'm sure that is true but you can easily flip that around.

Fascists always do this. They find a minority group that people aren't knowledgeable about, they stoke fear, and then they claim only a "strong man with traditional values" can save us. Much like the Trumpian Republicans and their lies about LGBT people being a danger to children.

Well, that doesn't tell me anything. I do know that the LGBT are idiots. The louder they get the more apparent that becomes to everyone. And it also tells me that you are speaking from a sociopolitical perspective, which would likely warp the shit out of that perspective. Best not do that.

The thread is, at least in part, about how destructive ideology is. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it remains destructive. But, I mean, you know. I think people who are afflicted by this should do what they think is right, without "fascists" on either side. That, unfortunately, is unlikely if it all becomes politicized. Which it has.
nedkelly · 61-69, M
@AkioTsukino Did you know he is a democrat, and believes in Santa and The Easter Bunny
@AkioTsukino
No, just male and female. I'm not familiar with intersex as a concept, so I don't feel comfortable forming an opinion on the subject

Intersex are people who can't really be considered male or female on a biological level. This is a pretty small minority, though. Hermaphrodites are considered intersex.

Perhaps that is the case, but it seems that you are conflating the two. Sex and gender. Sex is male or female. Intersex is gender. Am I wrong?

No, intersex is a sex category because it's genetically determined.
Non-binary is gender because it's determined by identity and culture. Anyone can be non-binary, but only people born intersex can be intersex.

Again, it seems you are conflating sex with orientation. If a person is born a male or a female their orientation isn't dependent upon that.

Yes, that's what I said. Orientation is distinct from sex and gender.

The thread is, at least in part, about how destructive ideology is. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it remains destructive. But, I mean, you know. I think people who are afflicted by this should do what they think is right, without "fascists" on either side. That, unfortunately, is unlikely if it all becomes politicized. Which it has.

The people I'm talking about are objectively Fascists. As in they want to eliminate Democracy and justify it by claiming we need to go back to tradition. And as is typical, they're blaming it on a minority group.
I don't like Democrats either, but at least they believe in Democracy and human rights. The Republicans are literal Fascists. And they want you to be afraid of LGBT people so you think what they're doing is ok.
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
It is true that science as we know it was first undertaken by the religious seeking to get closer to God through the understanding of his works.

However, to call it a byproduct or a replacement requires significantly more support for the position.

Science is not a set of beliefs but a process to arrive at, refine, and correct beliefs as new information comes in. To dogmatically select a belief and defend it counter to all provided evidence is not science. It is a failure of the human to be open to new information.

However, there is a difference between being open to new information and being open to misinformation.

I do not understand what end you believe science is leading us towards. You have made no explanation of how science destroys us.
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
Question. The Big Bang Theory was present by a priest. Was it based on a religious belief, or based on the repeatedly observed fact of expansion ?
Are the galaxies moving or not ?
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
That’s will cost you two more.
Fast forward to what brings the end. Satan's people attack God's people. God ends Satan and his people. God's people live forever.
Until you can prove your god, people are free to disagree and question it.
God is not an established fact for the rest of us. We are not Satan’s people.
Stop making false claims.
@DocSavage
Until you can prove your god, people are free to disagree and question it.

Nonsense. People are free to disagree and question it regardless.

God is not an established fact for the rest of us. We are not Satan’s people.

Irrelevant.

Stop making false claims.

Claims? I offer interpretation of the Bible. You, for your part, can refute those. Specifically those.
@DocSavage I don't care about evolution. I never have and I never will. Nothing you say means anything to me.
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
Likewise with the bible and Jehovah. You insist that gods can be anyone and anything. Yet you get very defensive about them, when it suits you.
So to make clear ( something you refuse to do ) I’ll take the time to express my contempt for both.
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
Should also be noted : SCIENCE DOESN’T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. evolution is here to stay, and it still works regardless .
DocSavage · M
The Bible is what I base my belief on but it is not always reliable. The only thing I truly believe in is Jehovah God. I don't believe in myself. I don't believe in mankind. I don't believe in science. I don't believe in the Christians and I don't believe in the Jews. Or any other. Only Jehovah.

But you still live in this world don’t you ? Like it or not, you still have to play by it’s rules while you’re in it. You might find it easier if you stopped looking at everything as for or against Jehovah..
DocSavage · M
That's why I want an exchange of ideas here. I want to learn, not from the books of science, but from adversity. Both sides. Without the propaganda.

Not true. So far, you have not stated any basis for your ideas. We explained evolution, provided definitions, and evidence. You just say it’s stupid. You admit you don’t accept science, simply because you do not choose to. Facts mean nothing .
Right and wrong. Us and them. A far more compelling process than science
How is this a process ? When has god ever intervened to prevent science from reveling truth ? Religion has tried to suppress it. A human agenda. But god has no power. If we need it, it will come.
DocSavage · M
The Bible is what I base my belief on but it is not always reliable.

The Bible is what you use a a foundation to your beliefs. If what it says is not reliable, then it validates science when it points out it’s flaws. Why do you find that unreasonable. How much unrealistic evidence should we be expected to overlook ?
The whole point of free will, is to follow your true calling. Not blindly obey. That would defeat the purpose.
@DocSavage
The Bible is what you use a a foundation to your beliefs. If what it says is not reliable, then it validates science when it points out it’s flaws. Why do you find that unreasonable.

First of all, science doesn't point out flaws in the Bible. At least not accurately. I've addressed that several times here. And I'm not going to argue it back and forth because it's pointless. Because you don't know the Bible and I don't know science. Arguing about it from ignorance is just ideology.

Also, science doesn't test the supernatural so where it counts science has no place, even if it weren't ignorant of the Bible, to say either way. For or against.

Thirdly, even if the Bible is false that doesn't make science true. I shouldn't have to point that out, but I guess I do.

The whole point of free will, is to follow your true calling. Not blindly obey. That would defeat the purpose.

I don't follow anything blindly.
DocSavage · M
Here’s the question you should ask.
Are you really willing to give it up. Sciences still make life that much easier.more convenient and comfortable.
Why would you stop using something that works so well, when you don’t have to ?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
You try so hard to be an edgy college philosophy major. lol You aint special. And you don't have special knowledge from God. Get over yourself. The only thing destroyed here is your mind.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
redredred · M
TS/DR

As in too stupid, didn’t read
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
TheWildEcho · 56-60, M
@AkioTsukino sounds like the trim levels on a car!!
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino I knew it was stupid because you posted it. You haven’t got the brains of an ice cube but for some reason you feel compelled to demonstrate that daily.

No one takes you seriously.

 
Post Comment