beyond science, beyond religion

"beyond your concepts of right and wrong, there is a field. meet me there" - Rumi


The dichotomy of science vs. religion comes in many disguises in the world and on this ATS board. Some of these are:

christianity vs. atheism
creationism vs. evolution
right wing vs. left wing

I feel strongly about this, because a lot of energy is wasted though these endless right-wrong struggles. I would like to point out that:

* both sides are belief-systems
* none of the sides are necessarily exclusive of each other
* Focussing on one of them or only on two of them, filters out a lot of possibilities that go beyond scientific-materialism on one side and religion on the other side.

The integral, holistic and spiritual new age viewpoint, excludes neither of the two and at the same time goes beyond the two. The spiritual viewpoint accepts the existence of a supreme being and also the concept of evolution. It has theories such as "ancient astronaut theory" or the "soul incarnation theory" to attempt to de-polarize the issue of "God existed" vs. "God doesnt exist".

It could be a kind of conspiracy to keep people fixed on the two options "science vs. religion" in order to blind them to more expansive possibilities.

I open this thread to invite dicussion beyond right-wrong concepts and into realms where both religion and science are valid and can exist and make sense side by side and also to look at the disadvantages of only seeing two sides at the expense of a hundred other sides.

interestingly, both the hardcore christian and the hardcore atheist will deny integral spirituality. the atheist will say "nothing exists up there" and the christian will say "nothing other than heaven and hell exists up there". but in going beyond these limits we acknowledge that the universe is what science and religion says, AND so much more.

strange how no one will answer this thread but continue to post on several other threads that either propose a "pro or con" to the false dichotomy.

atheism and christianity are two sides of the same coin, and the name of this coin is "limited view of reality".

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"beyond your concepts of right and wrong, there is a field. meet me there" - Rumi


The dichotomy of science vs. religion comes in many disguises in the world and on this ATS board. Some of these are:

christianity vs. atheism
creationism vs. evolution
right wing vs. left wing

I feel strongly about this, because a lot of energy is wasted though these endless right-wrong struggles. I would like to point out that:

* both sides are belief-systems

INCORRRECT!. well, right wing vs left wing there is a philosophical structure...
atheism isn't a belief system, it's merely a single statement that says someone doesn't believe in the supernatural.
evolution isn't a belief system, it's a proven scientific theory.

* none of the sides are necessarily exclusive of each other

christianity and atheism are...
as are creationism and evolution...

* Focussing on one of them or only on two of them, filters out a lot of possibilities that go beyond scientific-materialism on one side and religion on the other side.

no explaination goes beyond the scientific or reasoned in terms of how things work

The integral, holistic and spiritual new age viewpoint, excludes neither of the two and at the same time goes beyond the two. The spiritual viewpoint accepts the existence of a supreme being and also the concept of evolution. It has theories such as "ancient astronaut theory" or the "soul incarnation theory" to attempt to de-polarize the issue of "God existed" vs. "God doesnt exist".

they aren't 'theories' those are what we call a hypothesis.
the holistic and spiritual new age viewpoint doesn't contain anything scientific, only a boatload of pseudoscience.

It could be a kind of conspiracy to keep people fixed on the two options "science vs. religion" in order to blind them to more expansive possibilities.

there is nothing more expansive than science, science covers the realm of everything that exists.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

there is nothing more expansive than science, science covers the realm of everything that exists.

Disagreed. Atheism and Evolution-Theory ARE belief-systems because they are based on a set of beliefs and are used to invalidate other beliefs.

If science were so expansive, then you could tell me who you are, where you are from, where you were before, what happened before the big bang. But you cannot...at least not in a way that is conslusive or makes sense to me. Saying "it all originates with the big bang and then a chain of reactions and coincidences" doesnt answer anything for me but only re-locates the questions to another place, space and time.

Furthermore, the way science is being practiced today it is mainly the study of what can be measured and seen with the eyes, rather than the study of everything. That is in no way expansive.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Skyfloating]

while I prefer atheists to christians, I find still find atheists pretty narrow-minded in discounting a supreme being altogether. spilling the baby with the bathwater.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Disagreed. Atheism and Evolution-Theory ARE belief-systems because they are based on a set of beliefs and are used to invalidate other beliefs.

no, atheism is merely the lack of belief in anything supernatural. evolution is a scientific theory based on a set of FACTS, not beliefs.

If science were so expansive, then you could tell me who you are, where you are from, where you were before, what happened before the big bang.

i'm a person, i'm from malta, before that i was in america (and before i was in america i was back in malta), before i existed i was nowhere, and what happened before the big bang is yet to be determined as we do not have enough data to figure it out.

But you cannot...at least not in a way that is conslusive or makes sense to me.

that doesn't mean science isn't expansive, it just means that science has yet to find the answer.
and making sense to you isn't a prerequisite for something to be a good answer.

Saying "it all originates with the big bang and then a chain of reactions and coincidences" doesnt answer anything for me but only re-locates the questions to another place, space and time.

i don't understand how it would

Furthermore, the way science is being practiced today it is mainly the study of what can be measured and seen with the eyes, rather than the study of everything. That is in no way expansive.

everything that exists can be measured or observed in some way shape or form...

"I dont believe in the supernatural" is not a belief?

"Humans are a result of a chain of chemical coincidences" is not a belief?

"There is no supreme being" is not a belief?

Booooooooooooy do we differ in our definition of what a belief is.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


before i existed i was nowhere, and what happened before the big bang is yet to be determined as we do not have enough data to figure it out.

before you existed you were nowhere? and thats not a belief, thats a "fact"?

yes...you dont have enough data yet. exactly. and that makes the entire area of science a BELIEF and not a fact. I would say there are no such things as "facts" because the word itself implies unchangeable and solid. But if not all data has been gathered yet, as you admit, then it is changeable and not solid.

The mere circumstance that science cannot answer many things for sure, makes them BELIEFS, not facts. I am not saying that science is not on the right path, I am saying that they are so very slow. And what makes them slow is the narrow-mindedness called materialism and atheism.

the beliefs of atheists/scientists vs. christians/religions have been well discussed on other threads. I wonder if any of those narrow minded atheists and christians will ever come here and acknowledge "yeah...you are right...maybe I would do better to expand my mind a bit".

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"beyond your concepts of right and wrong, there is a field. meet me there" - Rumi


The dichotomy of science vs. religion comes in many disguises in the world and on this ATS board. Some of these are:

christianity vs. atheism
creationism vs. evolution
right wing vs. left wing

I feel strongly about this, because a lot of energy is wasted though these endless right-wrong struggles. I would like to point out that:

* both sides are belief-systems
* none of the sides are necessarily exclusive of each other
* Focussing on one of them or only on two of them, filters out a lot of possibilities that go beyond scientific-materialism on one side and religion on the other side.

The integral, holistic and spiritual new age viewpoint, excludes neither of the two and at the same time goes beyond the two. The spiritual viewpoint accepts the existence of a supreme being and also the concept of evolution. It has theories such as "ancient astronaut theory" or the "soul incarnation theory" to attempt to de-polarize the issue of "God existed" vs. "God doesnt exist".

It could be a kind of conspiracy to keep people fixed on the two options "science vs. religion" in order to blind them to more expansive possibilities.

I open this thread to invite dicussion beyond right-wrong concepts and into realms where both religion and science are valid and can exist and make sense side by side and also to look at the disadvantages of only seeing two sides at the expense of a hundred other sides.

I agree with your assertion. And not just because I'm a fan of Rumi

I wil however continue to fight both sides of the issue in an attempt to inform others who wish to engage in the debates.

Except of course, those who know the field beyond duality. Those, as you, I call friend and do not waste their time with debate.

The reason i think athiesm isnt a belief system is because we say i "dont" believe in god. How could it be a belief system if we are doing the opposite of believing

Originally posted by tankthinker
The reason i think athiesm isnt a belief system is because we say i "dont" believe in god. How could it be a belief system if we are doing the opposite of believing

well, not believing in god equals believing in no-god, right? believing in evolution or big-bang-ism or whatever. very simply actually.

Originally posted by Quazga



I agree with your assertion. And not just because I'm a fan of Rumi

I wil however continue to fight both sides of the issue in an attempt to inform others who wish to engage in the debates.

Except of course, those who know the field beyond duality. Those, as you, I call friend and do not waste their time with debate.

One reason threads like these dont get any debate is because they dont hold any agressive pro/con stance I guess. Ive noticed how sensationalist titles and extreme bias get the most attention.

Originally posted by tankthinker
The reason i think athiesm isnt a belief system is because we say i "dont" believe in god. How could it be a belief system if we are doing the opposite of believing

Typically if you say "I don't know if a God exists or not" then you are called agnostic.

If you say "I believe there is no God" than that is a statement of belief.

I go further to say Atheism is belief system because when you ask an Atheist why religions exist, you will get different answers from different people.

Check out my thread on "Why do Religions Exist? An Atheist Perspective"

Most Atheists who do not believe in God, do however believe in Self, which is just as erroneous and understandable a conclusion as that of a religious person.

Personally I think there should be another term altogether. Atheism implies an a prioi of Theism. So it's tainted from the get-go. And it's understandable, because all the posts from Atheists have said "I was once a Christian..." So it's more a repulsion against Theism, than an actual statement of "God? What is this God you mention?"

There should be a term for those, like myself, who constantly question their own beliefs in anything, and who leverage whatever mental perspective suits the situation.

For example, did you ever see that Tom Hanks film Castaway? In the absence of any other humans, his mental desire for social interaction drove him to personify a Volleyball as his friend. He painted a face on it, and talked with it daily, and even risked his life to save it once. Not because he was a fool, but because he was human and had a need for interaction. Once back to society, he didn't do it anymore, because there was no need to.

The fact that we see natural events as the outcome from an Anthropomorphic God works in this same way. It's ok though, because it is the human tendancy.

Personally, there are times when I look at the universe and see myself, or a father figure, looking back at me and it's filled with destiny and purpose. Other times I look at the universe and see complete Impersonalism and Determinism, where purpose exists only where one looks for it. In both of these situations, I am happy, for what thats worth.

So how do I describe myself? Maybe something like a humanist, because I enjoy every tradition, including atheism. I find that if a human believes it, then it fits a season of life, and I want to experience it from that perspective.

Some call this wishy-washy, I just call it who I am.




[edit on 13-8-2007 by Quazga]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
while I prefer atheists to christians, I find still find atheists pretty narrow-minded in discounting a supreme being altogether. spilling the baby with the bathwater.

we don't discount a supreme being altogether. if we had evidence for it, we'd gladly accept it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"I dont believe in the supernatural" is not a belief?

no, it's a LACK of belief.
if not believing in something is a belief, bald is a haircolor.

"Humans are a result of a chain of chemical coincidences" is not a belief?

it's a conclusion based on all available evidence.

"There is no supreme being" is not a belief?

who said that?
and if anything it would be a conclusion based on all available evidence. there is absolutely nothing pointing towards the existence of a supreme being, therefore it doesn't exist in terms of reality.

Booooooooooooy do we differ in our definition of what a belief is.

considering your definition would conclude that bald is a haircolor, i think mine is a bit more accurate.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
before you existed you were nowhere? and thats not a belief, thats a "fact"?

before i existed i didn't exist. if i didn't exist i wasn't anywhere. if i am not anywhere, i am nowhere. it's logic, fact.

yes...you dont have enough data yet. exactly. and that makes the entire area of science a BELIEF and not a fact. I would say there are no such things as "facts" because the word itself implies unchangeable and solid. But if not all data has been gathered yet, as you admit, then it is changeable and not solid.

we can gather enough data to reasonably conclude many things are facts. if facts do not exist, why does your computer work? why don't the ats servers melt down right now?

science isn't a belief, it's a series of conclusions, many of which will never change.

example: fact, dihydrogen monoxide is a tasteless, odorless substance found in living things that expands when it reaches freezing point.
fact, the human body is comprised of cells

these aren't beliefs, they are scientific conclusions

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The mere circumstance that science cannot answer many things for sure, makes them BELIEFS, not facts.

no, it makes them THEORIES. things that are subject to change but seem to be factual based on all available evidence which enter the realm of fact once enough evidence is compiled (such as germ theory, cell theory, or the theory of evolution)

I am not saying that science is not on the right path, I am saying that they are so very slow. And what makes them slow is the narrow-mindedness called materialism and atheism.

atheism is quite the opposite of open-minded. atheists would readily accept a god were it proven to exist.

Originally posted by Quazga
Typically if you say "I don't know if a God exists or not" then you are called agnostic.

If you say "I believe there is no God" than that is a statement of belief.


[edit on 13-8-2007 by Quazga]

thanks for supporting this thread and especially for the distinction agnostic-atheist. I hope some atheists get to read your post.

Originally posted by Quazga
Typically if you say "I don't know if a God exists or not" then you are called agnostic.

If you say "I believe there is no God" than that is a statement of belief.

but 99% of atheists don't say that. the vast majority of atheists say "i don't believe in a god"
not believing in something is different than believing something doesn't exist.

i do not believe in god
i believe there is no god

there is quite the difference.
agnostics would say "i do not believe in a god" because they truely don't believe in a god, but they also do not believe a god doesn't exist.

agnostics are in fact atheists, for they have no theism. they are just agnostic atheists, like almost all atheists.

replies in bold. just throwing in 2 cents

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Skyfloating
while I prefer atheists to christians, I find still find atheists pretty narrow-minded in discounting a supreme being altogether. spilling the baby with the bathwater.

we don't discount a supreme being altogether. if we had evidence for it, we'd gladly accept it.

There is none.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"I dont believe in the supernatural" is not a belief?

no, it's a LACK of belief.
if not believing in something is a belief, bald is a haircolor.

Bald is a Hair Style!

"Humans are a result of a chain of chemical coincidences" is not a belief?

it's a conclusion based on all available evidence.

It is a belief that your evidence is valid. Maybe you think that it is the ONLY evidence?

"There is no supreme being" is not a belief?

who said that?
and if anything it would be a conclusion based on all available evidence. there is absolutely nothing pointing towards the existence of a supreme being, therefore it doesn't exist in terms of reality.

Booooooooooooy do we differ in our definition of what a belief is.

considering your definition would conclude that bald is a haircolor, i think mine is a bit more accurate.


sorry, no.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
before you existed you were nowhere? and thats not a belief, thats a "fact"?

before i existed i didn't exist. if i didn't exist i wasn't anywhere. if i am not anywhere, i am nowhere. it's logic, fact.

yes...you dont have enough data yet. exactly. and that makes the entire area of science a BELIEF and not a fact. I would say there are no such things as "facts" because the word itself implies unchangeable and solid. But if not all data has been gathered yet, as you admit, then it is changeable and not solid.

*signed*