It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

page: 19
16
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I have watched cosmos. Great show! A lot of things to learn from it.

haha I didn't even know they had something to sell...but anyway. The point was just to elaborate, that there are many things which we still don't know and we have a lot assumptions bot no definite answers.

Which brings us to blind belief, exactly like with religion based stuff. Only difference is that by your standards is Ok for science to have them and not for religious guys because they supposedly belief in fantasy.

There are many sources for QT or quotes about different scientist which have explore the field and are of an opinion that there is something going on, not just one guy which you mentioned.

Then there is the science of parapsychology. That area has a LOT of different experiments which prove that we are still blind as a bat about some things.

Humans have twisted the idea of religion, do not mistake human stupidity with the law of the universe. We are just little specks of dirt in the whole picture, specks with a spark of godliness inside us, which few discover. But the ones that did are famous through out the ages (some of them: buddha, jesus, lao tzu, moses, ramana maharshi, rumi). They knew what is the true meaning of religion, others are just playing with the idea and yes - many of others with blind beliefs which causes suffering!

Until you do not get wet you cannot learn how to swim. And any amount of facts will proof to be useless compared to real experience. The same is with meditation and various spiritual experiences. We all can achieve what we want, but we must be prepared to pay the price. So to deny something to be real or not until you have paid your price and tried the stuff, you cannot really know. Everything is a process, full of developments. Faith, beliefs are just part of the package.
edit on 1432463274527May275273115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Give us some examples then. By all means. What parts of science are blind belief yet claimed to be fact? Do you realize that theoretical physics is purely math based? String theory / m-theory isn't a scientific theory. There isn't any tangible evidence behind it.

There are scientific theories, scientific facts (in which theories are based), and hypotheses. Hypotheses are generally works in progress, they don't claim to be proven. They are ideas that have not been rejected or confirmed as of yet. IE Abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory, genetic mutation and natural selection are facts.


Then there is the science of parapsychology. That area has a LOT of different experiments which prove that we are still blind as a bat about some things.


It's not a science, it's pseudoscience. Look it up. That statement doesn't even make sense. Prove we are blind as a bat about some things?

I fail to see what meditation and spiritual experiences have to do with science. I don't think people are really denying that, they are simply showing how one is fact based and one is not. Experience is subjective. If science considered everything that everybody claimed to have experienced as empirical evidence, then it would not be science because it opens to the door up to believe in virtually anything and you can't test any of it yet. Be patient. Science will help humans find the answer eventually. I have faith (as in trust, not blind belief) in that, whether god exists or not. We are still very young as a scientific technological society. 200 years, tops. Just imagine 1000 years at this rate, or even 10,000. Not knowing everything is not a downfall, it is a reason to learn more. Science points us in the right direction.
edit on 24-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

nice replay!

I didn't know about a lot of stuff you are explaining at the beginning of the post. When you define it like that it is certainly clearer what is what.

So I cannot really argue about it, thank you for explaining.

About the bat thing.
What do you think about the following link:
www.facebook.com...

The experiments of that nature are rarely mentioned in any media and are often overlooked, but certainly they are telling us something is going on. Forces (conciseness, chi, energy, vibration, does not matter) are present and measured to some degree even today and even so many people are totally ignorant of such experiments just because they are out of their comfort zone.

And I think that we can all admit that anyone of us, don't really know what is going on.

And because of that I think that it is really not appropriate to generalize like the OP did or any generalization for that matter.

I have faith to, if anything it is clear that with our current technological progress and development, we will know soon enough maybe even in a span of a decade or two, the answers to the god question.
But otherwise if you don't want to wait, you can prove that to yourself and be done with it by various experiences, like meditation, drugs, dreams,...

Because that is really one of the main problems with religion and science, latter is in public domain, visible to all but first is subjective, very rarely there are witnesses or more participants in some wired spiritual event, or anything we can measure OR repeat, they happen spontaneously for the most part. How convenient for us, in the God team, right?


So if we can let it slide, be it religious or not. How would you go about it, if we wanted to bring everyone together. So we could all be scientists and one big happy family, not bound by such petty limits as this? I think this is the way we should be talking about here...looking for solution in unity not in separation, we are all in this together after all.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut


chrOnaut: Keyword being personal. Personal experience is subjective. Science is not personal.
Not compatible. Science does not deal with personal experience.



Phage: Is personal experience invalid somehow?

It is essential to Gods growth as a being (you are it). Dante called it the pursuit of the soul [its growth]. Souls continue to be individualized through countless times here then go back to that source being and spill the beans about their experience. Its all about YOU realizing how SELFISH God is regarding its usership.


edit on 24-5-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
I didn't know about a lot of stuff you are explaining at the beginning of the post. When you define it like that it is certainly clearer what is what.

Most of stuff we talked on this topic is actually contained in lyrics from opening post song. Here is animated version, it includes 2 sentences I mentioned in OP, and it covers majority of things you suggest here.




originally posted by: UniFinity
The experiments of that nature are rarely mentioned in any media and are often overlooked, but certainly they are telling us something is going on. Forces (conciseness, chi, energy, vibration, does not matter) are present and measured to some degree even today and even so many people are totally ignorant of such experiments just because they are out of their comfort zone.

Please point to those experiments. Also, point to where any of those experiments gave any good results. While you at it, let me introduce you to Enemies of Reason - very interesting documentary by Dr. Dawkins, and actually has some experiments, but you will be surprised when you see results.







originally posted by: UniFinity
And I think that we can all admit that anyone of us, don't really know what is going on.

If people long time ago used that reasoning, we would not have religion today, would we?




originally posted by: UniFinity
And because of that I think that it is really not appropriate to generalize like the OP did or any generalization for that matter.

I really would love to see you explain why fundamental difference between the 2 in your opinion is not appropriate.



originally posted by: UniFinity
I have faith to, if anything it is clear that with our current technological progress and development, we will know soon enough maybe even in a span of a decade or two, the answers to the god question.

Really? Most of religious folks are living in hope it will happen in their time... But what if 100 years from now we don't find anything?? What if soon hypothesis of abiogenesis is proven correct and becomes theory?? Will you stop believing in nonsense and start believing to science??


originally posted by: UniFinity
But otherwise if you don't want to wait, you can prove that to yourself and be done with it by various experiences, like meditation, drugs, dreams,...


What that has to do with religion??


originally posted by: UniFinity
Because that is really one of the main problems with religion and science, latter is in public domain, visible to all but first is subjective, very rarely there are witnesses or more participants in some wired spiritual event, or anything we can measure OR repeat, they happen spontaneously for the most part. How convenient for us, in the God team, right?

You said it... not me...
The same goes for paranormal and parascience... never will happen under lab testing...




originally posted by: UniFinity

So if we can let it slide, be it religious or not. How would you go about it, if we wanted to bring everyone together. So we could all be scientists and one big happy family, not bound by such petty limits as this? I think this is the way we should be talking about here...looking for solution in unity not in separation, we are all in this together after all.



Sorry, it just does not work and never will work, and mostly because that difference in my first post. As I said, Catholic church is making changes, trying to adopt new views, but question is how will that work with their followers. For example, over 20 years they already accepted evolution, they accepted age of universe and have their own observatories, but all of this was only possible when they don't try to make connection between spirituality and science. Father George Coyne explained the best why there is no science in scripts... and please note how he calls those trying to prove bible as historical book...




posted on May, 26 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne
Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because scientists of the past held those beliefs doesn't make them correct.

Who is the ultimate authority? God allowing scientists to explore its domain or scientists attempting to describe IT. You are a human; you are of the birthright of a Creator Being. Are you attempting to usurp the Creator/outsmart it by telling it WHAT IT IS, or what you ARE NOT? What is your program here; "I exist therefor God creator does not (as am self created by accidental evolution)". I am *maybe* a Godlike production and cannot prove God exists but think UPON a FAITH basis be a truth I EXIST and cannot adequately explain WHY.


There is no ultimate authority. Everyone is susceptible to lying or holding incorrect beliefs because no one has the complete picture. If such a thing exists, we haven't found it. You can get mad all you want for "usurping the Creator" or whatever, but until you can demonstrate that such a thing exists, there is no reason for me to even worry about it.

Faith isn't good enough for belief. I need actual testable evidence. Faith is a complete guess. Humans are terrible guessers so I doubt anything based on "faith".



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne
Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because scientists of the past held those beliefs doesn't make them correct.

Who is the ultimate authority? God allowing scientists to explore its domain or scientists attempting to describe IT. You are a human; you are of the birthright of a Creator Being. Are you attempting to usurp the Creator/outsmart it by telling it WHAT IT IS, or what you ARE NOT? What is your program here; "I exist therefor God creator does not (as am self created by accidental evolution)". I am *maybe* a Godlike production and cannot prove God exists but think UPON a FAITH basis be a truth I EXIST and cannot adequately explain WHY.


There is no ultimate authority. Everyone is susceptible to lying or holding incorrect beliefs because no one has the complete picture. If such a thing exists, we haven't found it. You can get mad all you want for "usurping the Creator" or whatever, but until you can demonstrate that such a thing exists, there is no reason for me to even worry about it.

Faith isn't good enough for belief. I need actual testable evidence. Faith is a complete guess. Humans are terrible guessers so I doubt anything based on "faith".


If your definition of "demonstration" that God exists is that only repeatable experiments in the test tubes of a laboratory can prove His existence, then you are asking for a kind of proof that you full well know cannot be provided. That may be a good way of preserving your agnostic or atheistic position. But it amounts of course to a self-deception.

On the other hand, if you want rigorous mathematical proof/evidence that a transcendental intelligence exists, then study the research here for six months.

I promise you that you will find the kind of evidence that you demand if you make the effort to analyse it instead of expecting it to land on your lap and to be recognised in five minutes for what it is.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
If your definition of "demonstration" that God exists is that only repeatable experiments in the test tubes of a laboratory can prove His existence, then you are asking for a kind of proof that you full well know cannot be provided. That may be a good way of preserving your agnostic or atheistic position. But it amounts of course to a self-deception.


It's not just that, it's the fact that there is no objective evidence whatsoever. We don't care if you take that on faith, it just gets old when folks keep dishonestly attacking science to preserve the theist position. You can't blame science minded folks for understanding it and being skeptical of extraordinary claims that have nothing to back them up. Science may one day find god, but until it does, I will remain agnostic and most atheists will remain atheist. You can't blame them for not blindly believing something with no evidence. It's the logical default.


On the other hand, if you want rigorous mathematical proof/evidence that a transcendental intelligence exists, then study the research here for six months.


"Sacred" geometry isn't rigorous mathematical proof of anything except coincidence.

edit on 26-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Just to add to what Barc said, sacred geometry really does not show much except that our numeric system works for us as intended. Also just to note, if you think it has an answer within numbers and geometry - and its different then 42, then its wrong.


This also makes me wonder how much time have you spent and why can't you summarize your find in 5 minutes presentation and/or possibly new topic...
edit on 26-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Just to add to what Barc said, sacred geometry really does not show much except that our numeric system works for as as intended. Also just to note, if you think it has an answer within numbers and geometry - and its different then 42, then its wrong.


This also makes me wonder how much time have you spent and why can't you summarize your find in 5 minutes presentation and/or possibly new topic...


well, there is always the possibility that sacred geometry assists us in isolating an equation for the universe and settling the age old question. or maybe its just number poetry.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Hm...generalization is wrong in my mind because it groups people together by certain properties. But people or animals are more than just properties, which in many cases are overvalued and the truth remains at the back and we bring properties to the front and argue about them.

I am sorry, but Your view seems to me a bit shallow. For scientists all that matters should be results. I don't care what his beliefs are and even what kind of person he is or how does he go about his work as long there are testable results and observations that should be enough. All else is besides the point.
-----------
I am interested in peoples views about Walter Russell. He was for me, one of a kind at least in modern times. He joined together religion, spirituality and science in one brilliant package and delivered many books and teaching about science many people. Do you think he was deluded or crazy as he believed in god?

And I would like to point out something about the proof. Anyone who is really searching for proof, the one will get it soon enough. But there must be some effort to bring some results as with anything. Just watching documentaries or reading various literature and thinking about it, won't be enough. Do some meditation, even for a month or two, with honest and serious devotion, it will bring miraculous results.

And if some new science facts or research would completely disprove somehow god or afterlife, I would CHANGE my beliefs after thoroughly inspecting the information.

Can you say the same about you?
If so, then ask yourself. What proof do you expect to get and how? because to wait whole life for science to catch up is a naive notion, it may be to late by then. Death comes unexpectedly and waits for no one. And to think you pushed this basic question onto science for answer, instead on your own being is major mistake. But every one has his own shoes to wear and road to walk...see you at the end, were we all meet!



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
If your definition of "demonstration" that God exists is that only repeatable experiments in the test tubes of a laboratory can prove His existence, then you are asking for a kind of proof that you full well know cannot be provided. That may be a good way of preserving your agnostic or atheistic position. But it amounts of course to a self-deception.


There is no self-deception. If it exists and can interact with the universe in some way, I reason that humans can build a device to detect it. Just because we can't do that yet doesn't mean it can't be done though. That is unless it doesn't exist.


On the other hand, if you want rigorous mathematical proof/evidence that a transcendental intelligence exists, then study the research here for six months.


On the other hand, that isn't math.


I promise you that you will find the kind of evidence that you demand if you make the effort to analyse it instead of expecting it to land on your lap and to be recognised in five minutes for what it is.


Sorry I don't subscribe to coincidental math.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Yes, most atheists / agnostics would change their position if evidence of god was discovered. The problem with your statement is that you can't prove a negative without complete knowledge of the universe. So, in all likelihood, god will never be proven absolutely wrong, just like pink unicorns, invisible gnomes, spaghetti monster, Santa Claus etc. There will just continue to be zero objective evidence of his existence, and this is good enough for the logical mind, since non existence is the logical default until evidence is found. That's just the way it is in science for the existence of anything.

The way I see it, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in any version of god out there. If you can give me a logical reason aside from , "what if it's right", to believe in something with no evidence, I'll consider it, but I've been down that road numerous times with an open mind and never once has god even said hello even when I was seeking him and believed in him.

Meditation is not miraculous. I practice it myself. It leads to peace of mind and better balance and understanding of yourself. It has nothing to do with a god or creator. One can easily be a spiritual person without believing in god.

And yes, science is indeed all about the results. Scientist opinions are not facts.

edit on 26-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
Hm...generalization is wrong in my mind because it groups people together by certain properties. But people or animals are more than just properties, which in many cases are overvalued and the truth remains at the back and we bring properties to the front and argue about them.

Pointing to main difference between science and religion is not the same as generalization - it is just stating characteristics of both and pointing to part were they differ.
Now, what truth you talking second part of the same paragraph??


originally posted by: UniFinity
I am sorry, but Your view seems to me a bit shallow.

10-4


originally posted by: UniFinity
For scientists all that matters should be results. I don't care what his beliefs are and even what kind of person he is or how does he go about his work as long there are testable results and observations that should be enough. All else is besides the point.

Not just result, but process itself is important as well all supporting evidence. Not sure what is your point here.


originally posted by: UniFinity
I am interested in peoples views about Walter Russell. He was for me, one of a kind at least in modern times. He joined together religion, spirituality and science in one brilliant package and delivered many books and teaching about science many people. Do you think he was deluded or crazy as he believed in god?

What do you like to hear about him? That he never succeeded to provide evidence for his hypothesis nor that there is any proof to any of that new age stuff he proposed?! And yes, I do think he is delusional, as he did not use evidence to prove his hypothesis, but his dreams and religion, so no wonder it's not accepted by mainstream science. Yes, he was bit genies, but just lost his mind as soon as he started believing in his dreams. If you like to talk more about him, just open topic about it...


originally posted by: UniFinityAnd I would like to point out something about the proof. Anyone who is really searching for proof, the one will get it soon enough. But there must be some effort to bring some results as with anything. Just watching documentaries or reading various literature and thinking about it, won't be enough. Do some meditation, even for a month or two, with honest and serious devotion, it will bring miraculous results.

Sounds like a promise in vain.. Again, what all of this has to do with meditation, unless you think meditation is a form of religion?!


originally posted by: UniFinity
And if some new science facts or research would completely disprove somehow god or afterlife, I would CHANGE my beliefs after thoroughly inspecting the information.

No, you would not. You are going without need for a proof of anything, I don't see that any further evidence will be significant enough for you to stop believing and having faith.

On contrary, if you try to work on critical thinking and review all evidence, you would already changed your belief.


originally posted by: UniFinity
Can you say the same about you?
If so, then ask yourself. What proof do you expect to get and how? because to wait whole life for science to catch up is a naive notion, it may be to late by then. Death comes unexpectedly and waits for no one. And to think you pushed this basic question onto science for answer, instead on your own being is major mistake. But every one has his own shoes to wear and road to walk...see you at the end, were we all meet!

I said that many times over, and have heard many prominent atheist say the same - if there is a proof for God, sure, I would believe it and accept it. I would even, no matter how shameful I would be, say I was wrong. If you listen song from OP, you would hear the same in there.

I forgot to ask you - have you seen Enemies of the Reason??

I would suggest you to see also God Delusion, also documentary made by Dawkins, based on his book.
edit on 26-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


because to wait whole life for science to catch up is a naive notion, it may be to late by then. Death comes unexpectedly and waits for no one.


the same could be said for vampires. please tell me you regularly hang garlic above your doors and windows at nightfall.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
If so, then ask yourself. What proof do you expect to get and how? because to wait whole life for science to catch up is a naive notion, it may be to late by then. Death comes unexpectedly and waits for no one. And to think you pushed this basic question onto science for answer, instead on your own being is major mistake. But every one has his own shoes to wear and road to walk...see you at the end, were we all meet!



I consider that more of a failing with religion than science. Religious beliefs (the ones that require you to worship them) don't give you long enough on this planet to overcome your skepticism whether through science or through your own experiences. If science can't catch up to proving god before I die, then so be it. A real god wouldn't NEED someone's worship anyways. Talk about being shallow... Create something then require them to worship you for no reason what so ever.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I consider that more of a failing with religion than science. Religious beliefs (the ones that require you to worship them) don't give you long enough on this planet to overcome your skepticism whether through science or through your own experiences. If science can't catch up to proving god before I die, then so be it. A real god wouldn't NEED someone's worship anyways. Talk about being shallow... Create something then require them to worship you for no reason what so ever.


You never know. Maybe the Ori (Stargate SG-1) really exist! I loved that story arc in the show because it described how an ascended being could need worship for survival and power. Wishful thinking I know, but still way more logical than any god myth. Is god really an egomaniac? I'd like to hope not. I'd rather not worship somebody with an itchy trigger finger that would create an entire planet full of all kinds of life only to drown it all in a flood because the folks you gave free will to, utilized it to not believe in you or follow your commands blindly.
edit on 26-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Yea I've seen similar accounts in fantasy books where the gods receive power through worship and stuff. It's a cool plot device, but if you are the creator of a universe, why would you make your overall power dependent on some creations that exist within your universe? You've already existed for some length of time longer than the universe has existed, why change the way your anatomy works when creating the universe? It doesn't make sense. Not to say that isn't the case, it just doesn't sound likely or efficient. Though bringing up the idea of efficiency in this mostly inefficient universe, provided a creator exists, may be a moot point.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Ori plot in SG-1 was good addition at the end of series and interesting attempt to explain possible reason for prayers, but when you talk about prayers and religion, I could not get George Carlin's stand up about religion, prayer and worship our of my head.



Good ol' George knew how to say something in simple way and mix it with fun and ludicrousness...



I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to f*** that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and f*** up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the # bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.



edit on 26-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

so religious people can't mingle science and religion without it being an attempt to salvage their religion? for a believer in "science" he sure thinks very narrow minded



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join