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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
this is a most refreshing perspective
be sure i am not adversarial, but willing to debate, logically
I struggle with the misuse of the [i]word,[/i] and the idea of [i]science[/i]
"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 · 61-69, M
@SatyrService Science is a faith base religion just as any other. If you agree with the current thought you do so without actually thinking. You simply assume that some big brain has the answer. The problem with blind faith religions such as science is the believer is likely to be conned into silly beliefs that run completely contrary to their own stated principles. Nowhere is that more evident than is the theory of evolution.
@hippyjoe1955 oh stop it

[center]to review
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"[/center]

you have no ability to apply critical reason, your words are mostly logical fallacies
[i]and i know you don't even know what that is[/i]

you think we are your opposite, because you cant even imagine a way that does not include
counter faith
like man sure he is a great chef, making playdough models of food and declaring that is cooking
Not EVEN wrong

like a person hearing a conversation in German, and making German- like random sounds as tho you were taking part, and [i]believing that you are[/i]
adding an Oh or an A to an English word does not make it Italian

I suspect you are [i]simple minded[/i], to say, any idea with more than three parts is beyond your ability to grasp and that averything that happens? must be do to somebody doing that
do you even know what a hippy is?
I have not missed your posts
you wretched sad sorry excuse for a man
Go away now,
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@SatyrService So when it is noted that abiogenesis can not happen has science adjusted its theory? NO!!! It has doubled down on it insisting all the more that it is possible.
@hippyjoe1955 really [i]abiogenesis[/i]

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
[quote]you do not discuss you gibber[/quote]
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 [quote]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"[/quote]

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.