BREEAKING- London Bridge sealed off after reports of gunfire

a reply to: LABTECH767

Just scroll down to the section Evidence given.
abdullahsameer.com...

The Difference is one is the truth the other is not, I am talking about religions here not the city's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Thanks for the explanation, but I have to say that I do not watch videos unless they are very short.

As for religion, I'm an atheist, to me religion is only interesting from a psychological and sociological point of view.

a reply to: ArMaP

I respect your choice but would urge you to at least change that to agnostic as Atheism is a religion all of it's own if a personal one, the belief in NO God is actually identical to the belief in A god at its core, it is a belief as both have about as much empirical proof as one another - with the notable exception that we exist and while Atheism has not reached a conclusion as to how and why religion offers an open door into an endless well of reason's all leading back to a conscious decision.
Mind you if you boil it down that far they are both just circular argument's I guess.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I see myself as an atheist because I think gods are not needed for things to exist as they do. I don't see myself as an agnostic because I associate agnosticism to the point of view that says that we do not know if gods exist but also that we cannot know if they exist or not.

But, as I do not really know if gods exist or not I suppose I may be considered an agnostic atheist.

And no, I don't see atheism as a religion, as it doesn't have any organisation behind it, it's just a belief. Now, those people that say they are atheists but try to convince (or force) other people to follow their opinion and act as a kind of "militant atheists", to me, are not atheists but anti-theists. Me, I just don't care about it, each one as their own beliefs.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Don't know about atheism reaching any conclusion as to why we exist but science leans towards evolution and the fact that our Earth is well equipped as a planet, ideally placed in our solar system and galaxy with plenty of water, being the reason that life is so widespread and diverse in our world.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with, just a thought.

a reply to: andy06shake

OK then science or should that be some Scientists, the majority which is not actually the same thing as Science by the way.

So you believe whole heartedly in a system that goes against scientific principles such as the conservation of energy because evolution, especially the idea of a protoplasmic soup starting to self replicate complex molecular form's and macro molecular form's and then deciding one day it's need's to put on a cellular membrane so that it can hop out of the pool and go for a stroll - and of course learn to self replicate not only itself (nucleus) but also all those friends it brought along with it the cytoblasts including the mitochondria, it goes against that principle of conservation so entirely that it is like water flowing up a waterfall.

Now while that may not convince you that some element of design is probably at work there are a great many physicists whom have changed there opinion on the whole is the universe the product of intelligence perspective.

Now I am not saying that religion is correct, I have my own religion and that is a personal believe in Christ but there are many religions right so not all can be correct just as there are many theory's about the nature of the universe and not all of those can be correct.

But quantum science and theory - theory - does suggest a formative link between reality and consciousness, think about it like this your reality is a product of your consciousness, without you your reality no longer exists.

We see the universe through an extremely limited set of senses, we can not see what we can not see, not hear what we can not hear and not feel or touch what we can not feel or touch and yet ALL of us are so certain that we know our reality that we will argue different perspectives from our limited set of data and claim those must be right when in fact for all you and I really know we could be simply sim characters in some super intelligent aliens equivalent of a game boy that he is just playing absent minded on his way to school.

So my argument is not that I know better, I have my belief and for me that is a fundamental part of my reality and my reality is not superior nor inferior to your reality in this respect but it is one reason why I have more respect for agnostics because to be frank they are the only really scientific one's out there, they may try to understand but regard there lack of data as not proof against but lack of proof for either position so take the admittedly flawed middle of the road approach but while flawed with such a limited set of data if taken from an empirical approach then there view is actually the most scientific of the views.

As for evolution, it does happen but as for how it all got started there is the point to figure out that evolution does not have an answer for.

For all we know life could have been here from the very start of the universe itself, perhaps though I can not figure out a way to fit this into my own theorem's about the big bang, pocket continuum and the nature of our time space and gravity but just perhaps life is older than the universe we know and began in a former time space continuum though how it could have managed to transit from that to here is another argument that is frankly beyond the scope of my own conjecture though I do believe that life exists in other and higher dimensions of reality, it may be all around us in form's we simply do no recognize.

But I still can not see a way or agree with the argument that life began randomly from some primordial soup on an electrically charged early earth, if it could do that then why did it not begin before that when the universe was young, warm and the thick with primordial gas that such life could have swam in between the early stars feeding on the nutrient's created by the early super novae, space whales.

That is not my belief by the way space whales is just to make a point.
That said I personally do believe in the spirit or soul or both.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I believe science before religion put it that way.

One requiring experimentation and repeatable results and the other a leap of blind faith.

My argument would be, what we really know about the universe, to date, could fit on the head of a pin.

Science will attempt to further that knowledge all the same, whereas organized religious practice, not so much.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LABTECH767

I believe science before religion put it that way.

One requiring experimentation and repeatable results and the other a leap of blind faith.

My argument would be, what we really know about the universe, to date, could fit on the head of a pin.

Science will attempt to further that knowledge all the same, whereas organized religious practice, not so much.

..........wish Einstein was still alive
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LABTECH767

Don't know about atheism reaching any conclusion as to why we exist but science leans towards evolution and the fact that our Earth is well equipped as a planet, ideally placed in our solar system and galaxy with plenty of water, being the reason that life is so widespread and diverse in our world.

I don't think "why" is the right question, as it implies a reason for our existence.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
We see the universe through an extremely limited set of senses, we can not see what we can not see, not hear what we can not hear and not feel or touch what we can not feel or touch and yet ALL of us are so certain that we know our reality that we will argue different perspectives from our limited set of data and claim those must be right when in fact for all you and I really know we could be simply sim characters in some super intelligent aliens equivalent of a game boy that he is just playing absent minded on his way to school.

Unless we are sceptics.

a reply to: ArMaP

Or prison guards.

a reply to: ArMaP

Life may just turn out to be a symptom of the universe condition.

Observation and perspective are the real ticket.

And ours so far is so very, very, limited.

In the grand scheme of things, humanity in its present condition has not been around long enough to learn much really.

a reply to: Slichter

The only thing we are guarding is each other.

Take for instance where we point our weapons of mass destruction.