Dear athiests and "scientists" [Spirituality & Religion]

You guys are really annoying, Not only do you guys just bash on everything that your peers haven't written, you are so quick to say "oh that doesn't exist it can't happen" as opposed to what a real scientist would do, and inquire. NOTHING shall be said no to, even if current stuff doesn't show, as no one knows this world 100% to say such a thing. Quite foolish to keep spouting the "oh that's not real" crap when you're not even going to take a look at it, instead rely on the stuff people in the past wrote.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

I'm not sure... but this post makes really little sense? After scientific inquiry happened, specially in correct sciences (like physics)... doesn't that give you the basis for further exploration? Can you imagine that peer revieuwed scientific studies that produce a basis for theory that produces a lot of data that apperently is "correct" and can't be "disproven" needs to be reviewed over and over and over again ... That George Stephenson before he build his steam engine had to prove how steam works before he could apply it? That kwantum physicists had to re-evaluate the entire field of physics that it was based on? When people say that we are standing on the shoulders of giants, it means that our previous generations did a lot of the fieldwork, so we as a new generation can use it. And even in science, old ideas can be disproven or found to have certain exceptions, and then the theory changes. Scientific toppics that are not fleshed out enough are in constant flow, there is constant debate about these things because scientists want to find the "truth".

And this part: [b]Quite foolish to keep spouting the "oh that's not real" crap when you're not even going to take a look at it, instead rely on the stuff people in the past wrote.[/b]

Isn't the basis of most religious dogmatic believe some idea someone in the past wrote down? Non factual stories and folklore, glorified by some human pschological believe mechanism and sold as absolute truth without annyone willing to actually investigate these things in a scientific way because old texts already show you how things are?

And altough I take an agnostic position and say that you can't have 100% certaintity if something is happening that we today would call "supernatural". What we can look at, is all the claims of people that say "this is supernatural". Once this claim is made, people with old scientific texts can look at the phenomena that is deemed "supernatural", use modern technology and find out if the claim is "true" or "not". And till today (for as far as I'm aware) non-supernatural believes have been proven to be the truth. It's only wishfull people that seem to keep faith even tough rationality, logic and facts have proven the believes wrong.

And this idea about religions that you harbor: "[b]Even if it doesn't exist, so long as they're peaceful unlike islam...it should be fine"[/b]

Shows' not only an extreme bias towards one religion... it also shows a total lack of looking into what "believes" do with people. What outcomes they produce if they happen in larger groups. These can be ideas of a supernatural nature but also political believes. A believe that is shared by a large amount of people, does have outcomes that can be negative. Even outside of the world of Islam. Just look at christianity and how they regard people that have feelings for the same sex, and what outcomes that has produced over the years? Or dogmatic believes about the human body that was made by god? Outcasting and setting back scientists that were trying to figure out how it all works as some sort of "witchcraft".

It's better to stay to the facts as much as possible, but believe is kinda unavoidable at some point when you create your worldvieuw, but it creates a lot of irrational outcomes which are only visible for those that don't belong to the group that you share your believes with. And these outcomes are arguably not "positive" for everyone that lives near this believe system. So thank science for giving an objective dataset on which you can actually have a discussion on, instead of making stuff up along the way?

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Kwek00 your point is well taken when science is compared to religion and religious customs. But once we remove religion from the equation and just talk about God as a Creator or Higher Power than often science can't explain the full scope of things. And the evidence for their being a Creator is quite strong

Miram · 31-35, F

@Axeroberts Absence of evidence is not evidence from absence. There is no science that I am aware of proving the existence of a[b] C[/b]reator, with or without considering religion.
The very use of the word would suggest bias prior to investigation and that has no place anywhere in the field.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Miram remember evidence is not the same as proof. And to think that humans have the capability to show proof is a whole other subject. Heck we don't even know exactly how a seed turns into a tree. So to think we can show proof of The Creator is a huge huge stretch.

Miram · 31-35, F

@Axeroberts We know enough about the process to stage it, control it and change it.
If we can't find evidence, that means "we don't know". It doesn't mean conclusively something supernatural is needed in the equation.

@Kwek00

This has always been a huge pet peeve of mine as an ex-Muslim. Islam can't be currently compared to any of the other Abrahamic religions. I am sure he doesn't know enough about it but I do.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Miram no it doesn't mean it is needed but it might just be there. And knowing the process is just an observation.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Axeroberts

"[i]your point is well taken when science is compared to religion and religious customs. But once we remove [b]believes[/b] from the equation and just talk about [b]Darth Vader as a Dark Sith Lord that uses a Higher Power[/b] than often science can't explain the full scope of things. And the evidence for their being a [b]Higher Power[/b] is quite strong[/i]"

"[i]your point is well taken when science is compared to religion and religious customs. But once we remove [b]believes[/b] from the equation and just talk about [b]Sauron, a magician that uses a Higher Power[/b] than often science can't explain the full scope of things. And the evidence for their being a [b]Higher Power[/b] is quite strong[/i]"

"[i]your point is well taken when science is compared to religion and religious customs. But once we remove [b]believes[/b] from the equation and just talk about [b]Unicorns with magic powers[/b] than often science can't explain the full scope of things. And the evidence for their being a [b]a magic power[/b] is quite strong[/i]"

Don't you see how strange that argument is?
What you are basically saying is:

"If we take out rational argumentations and a dataset that is factually true (can't be denied) then your argument makes sense. But if I take a "believe" out of that conversation. The conversation that is trying to prove this believe makes "sense" or "not". Once I remove my believe from that conversation and let it sit on an island where we can only question the believe with more believes and no rational, logic, factual, scientific method. Once we do that... You'll see how real it really is.". Ladies and gentlemen: CAN YOU FEEL IT !!!

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Kwek00 now you are just mocking. Nothing real to say? As science has shown things in this world run very deep to where there are things going on we don't understand or even know. Just how atoms make up the visible world I would say it is a safe bet that our life runs much deeper than we can ever know.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Axeroberts

What I was trying to show you, is that your argument can be changed by to anny other "fantastic" toppic. And it still holds up. If an argument can be changed by pretty much every random fantasy out there, the argument is "so broad" that it doesnt hold much validity. If it comes over as "mocking" that means you take offense because of how I illustrated it. But my illustration still stands. These broad general ideas are not arguments, they don't prove annything.

And you are correct. There are manny things we don't know. But the sollution should be to research it further, to gain understanding. Creating a "creator" and saying that it's all by some "cosmic design" doesnt give you answers it just gives you comfort.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Kwek00 we have to keep researching. But we also should stay on topic with a subject like this and forget about the flying spaghetti monster. We know he isn't there for sure.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Axeroberts

But he really is just as valid as all the other claims about a creator out there.
That is the joke. The FSM-cult pult it out of their ass, asked for priveleges in society because they are a "religion"... that's the entire joke.

Why is one persons joke more valid then the others? That's the question the FSM raises.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Kwek00 but is our existence real?

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Axeroberts

Great question! Start researching and find it out. Don't create a new concept that answers the question for you.