Dear athiests and "scientists" [Spirituality & Religion]

@Axeroberts 👍️ It can't define a soul either, nor the value of it.

@Magenta so true. Some things science cannot touch

@Axeroberts Indeed. "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

@Magenta Great quote

@Axeroberts


That is also true.
And it was also one of the biggest criticisms towards the enlightenment.
It also formed a counter culture, which was called "Romanticism". Which was a criticism on over-rationality, modernity and the lack of emotions and feelings. The coldness of science and reason that takes away "joy" and "pleasure".

Now... if we would dictate everything by science, we would end up in a form of a scientific-totalitarian-technocratie. But if we end up by only folowing feelings (romanticism to its core) we have a huge potential to end up with ideas like "Fascism". (which was an extremely romantic movement)

So wouldn't you agree that science has a place? Cause I can honestly agree that "feelings" have a place. I think that if we would only let science dictate our lifes, we would loose a part of what makes us human. But if we only let feelings dictate our lifes, maybe we would end up not being proud of being human. So... If we give science it's place (mainly to factually check if things hold up, find out stuff to improve our lifes, etc) and we give feelings a place to debate if we should adopt science as legeslation every point of the way (totally depraved of what we perceive as morality/ethics). Maybe we can find some balance between the two without having to "create" an even more higher power then a political institution?

@Kwek00 you can rationalize it all you want but people have experienced God's presence in their hearts for thousands of years and that is why the subject is never going away. As they say to find God we need to look inward and not outward as many do

@Axeroberts

You are right again, people "experienced" gods presence.
And I'm not going to deny the "experience" part one bit.
I also actually believe people have "seen" things.

However, once an outsider, an objective source, starts measuring how things work. What people experienced. We find nothing objectivily to proof their claim. That's the point. People experience loads of things, because our brains are just strange. We sometimes see things that arent there (positive hallucinations). Sometimes we don't see things that are right in front of us (negative hallucinations). We can feel and experience incredible bliss and incredible depression just because our brain makes more or less serotonin in a certain periode of time. Humanity does experience emotions and people do act upon them. I'm not denying that. But I'm also not going to make a religion out of it.

Once the haze (phenomena you experienced) is over, its time to come back to earth. Like, if you go really deep in psychedelic trip (you basically increase DMT levels in your brain) you experience the craziest shit. But once you come down you can either create a rational explenation (mainly that your brain chemistry was altered because of highering DMT levels in the brain and this actively does something to your senses) OR by pointing to something you literally pull out of your arse and call it "God" or "a higher being". Humanity has been doing the last thing a lot, while the first thing has been more popularised just during the englightenment and deeper insides in how to do research.

@Kwek00 wow you sure write a lot in your attempt to discredit. Lol.

@Axeroberts

I just believe it's a toppic worth pondering about? The subject is important how we create our entire world vieuw. Irrational, emotional believes materialises in human action. What we consider real has inpact on how we make choices, what we perceive as "good" and "evil". What a high percentage of people believe in your surroundings shapes you and your surroundings. Believes are pretty important and specially in politics can be extremely devestating.

@Kwek00 worry about your own life and leave the world out of it. Your view could be completely wrong

@Axeroberts Yeah, that's the entire point. My view could be completely wrong. But so far evidence, logic, ratio, ... they seem to be all at the side that every positive claim about "God" or "a God" were false. I mean, there is more factual evidence on my side, then on the side of emotional believers. You have one side that has absolutely nothing except their faith and some old text, and the other side that made several really good arguments that believers have been struggling with. The only way these believes can excist is by closing and removing all of the evidence. It's like denieing that the sun shines, and the only way to do that is to shutter everyone in and only allow people to go out at night.

And that's what you are doing right now btw. You bring nothing to the discussion table then emotions and feelings. You question every argument put against your emotions and feelings and you never ever question yourself. The bar for other people is like 10 feet high, while you don't even have a bar annymore just because your faith has to be right for some reason. And because you can't bring annything to the table you go: "leave the world out of it, don't tell me more stuff, nooo don't let me question myself, because how can I be wrong?". That's how cults, religions, faiths, ideologies work... You have to tell the other people to shut up because you don't have annything else then faith and the unwillingness to be wrong.

@Kwek00 but God gave us emotions in addition to rational thinking for a reason so we must use all that we have to make all our decisions. If we take emotion out how could anyone fall in love

@Axeroberts

1. You make the positive claim that "God gave us emotions"... since there is no evidence of "God" there is no evidence that God gave us annything. We can fairly assume that Emotions were part of the fabric. And as I said before, I'm okay with "emotions" having a place in life. That doesnt mean I need to make an entire "belief" system out of them.

2. Love didn't come up with quantum physics, love didn't put a man on the moon, love didn't find the cures for certain diseases. Love has it's place, so does rationality, reasearch and physics. I rather have a doctor threat me on the basis of science then a charlatan that is going to love my problems out of the world.


You keep bringing this same thing to the table: "love", "emotions", ... as if I didn't conceed the point that science has a cold side and that humanity craves for emotions. But building an entire doctrine only on science OR only on emotions is way worst. I at least acknowledge that both concepts excist and they both serve a purpose but you seem to be argeuing that it's better to deny one sides excistence and totally revel in the side you advocate for. And on what basis do you do that? since you take the side of emo, there is no facts no ratio no logic and therefore your entire idea is based on nothing else then something you wish to be true.

@Kwek00 don't make assumptions about what I mean. But the mechanism of physics and quantum mechanics is so precise. This is also very strong evidence, not proof, of God's existence

@Axeroberts No evidence for that all.
It's like looking at the complex figures of clouds, and one person sees a home, another an aeroplane and another one mother marie all in the same cloud shape.

If you really want to, your imagination can trick you to find god in everything. Just like people see jesus on their toast, their lawn, their lollipop and the paper they whiped their ass with. It's all a sign because it means something to them... but there is not much there then particles that make a pattern you familiarised with and shit on paper.

@Kwek00 you must mean proof which itself is a poor argument for something existing or not. Many things exist and have existed without humans knowing about it. But you can rationalize all you like

@Axeroberts Manny things were found out without humans knowing about it... that's true. But that's part of discovery. Like when people were experimenting with microwaves for militairy purposes, and suddenly they found that chocolat around the microwave emitter started to melt. That's like something scientists didn't know about, didn't understand and found out by accident. Almost the same story can be told about the consequences of radioactivity, and what it actually does. Madame Curry that could show you your bone structure by performing X-rays, and later found out that the entire procedure isn't without dangers to her own health... that's something we found out.

Sometimes models that scientists build don't work, so they have to rationalise (not just make up) but really think through what could be missing... and then they have to state an "hypothesis" of something that "might be there" but they see it as a "non-proven theory" and they investigate if it works out... sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt. An example of that is the "Hiks Boson"-particle which was missing in the model scientists were using.

But all these examples are either:

1. We find something by accident, and then we try to define it and research it by reason and logic and evidence based truths

2. We think something is there because our entire theory seems to work but it's missing a crucial part that we just can't seem to figure out, so we ivent a "parameter" that we don't consider to be "correct" but we try to investigate it further.


The side you seem to be defending here works totally diffrently.
They have no clue and in awe of the mighty things they perceive they make up "God" , not a small particle, but an actual all explenatory construct that is the basis of everything. And we don't research anny of it, we don't listen to reason, we don't do assume, we just believe it's there and everyone that says is not is just a rational idiot.

@Kwek00 just prove love exists because it is a good comparison

@Axeroberts Why would it be a good comparison?

@Kwek00 because both are discovered in our heart's

@Axeroberts For annyone that know a little bit about atanomy, we can say that our heart is only there to pump the blood trough our veins. Giving the rest of our body nutritions and oxygen.

Our cognitive part is pretty much located in the brain (unless there is a consencus I don't know about). If the brain is damadged, people can change behavior and cognitive abilities drastically. Pure anekdotal: My sister has braindamadge because of an car crash, and her cognitive capacities changed. Just look up brain-trauma, you would be amazed how much personalities can change by affecting the brain.

Love, hate, other emotions. (AGAIN) I never said they weren't there. They are subjective experiences though. There is an entire scientific field that is intrested in them it's called "Psychology". It uses actual data, ratio, logic, scientific methods to come to conclusions. It doesn't uses a limited dataset (like religions) and it's open for debate and discussion (unlike religion). We can also see the concequences of our emotions all around us, we can see people fall in love, we can see people hate eachother, we can see people become aggressive. It's observable by a 3th party, and by investigation these things are in more or lesser degrees availble to all humans that can experience emotions.

But except for those patterns we really want to be true and see everywhere. In exception to our deepest wishes and deepest desires... no where (absolutely no where) did we find objective observable facts of "God". All positive claims have been debunked and found better rational explenations for.


So no... proving things we can observe and find rational explenations for by applying an open mind and an open dataset is not the same as proven some supernatural being excists where we can't find observable prove for what so ever. An idea btw that is protected and not open for debate by it's believers AND the use of an extremely closed dataset (namely the ancient texts and interpretations that go with it).

@Kwek00 heart refers to how we perceive emotions.

@Axeroberts Does that last part mean that all the rest that I wrote you were okay with? And that you see now how wrong it is to compare a non-observable-being up to explain how the world works? In comparisson to observable things like emotions?

@Kwek00 not saying that

@Axeroberts that was my point.
You didn't say much else.

But that's okay, I hope you reevaluate your position.