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.

 

beyond science, beyond religion

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
At war with Fundamentalist, at war with ignorance, at war with corruption. That si what these book yield. Yes some part are beautiful, Vedas especially. Hoever tell me th Qu'ran is beautiful in its majority. Sure it has lesson, but now imagine it as a way to live and it become grotesque, brutal and inhumane as does the bible.

Sure I love culture , but in my opninion we need to make these modern religions more like we view Thor, Bohan, Isis, and other respectable views on the way to human enlightenment. It is time to move on. TAht is my view.

And yes I think most new prevailent science is just as ridiculous as some of these religions. Thye are grasping at straws too.




posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
There are very Different aspects to an Athiests belief and other theistics beliefs.


If you cannot see those like you should see white and black would you like me to point it out to you?

An athiest belief is like the belief you are alive. You believe it, and others can attest and give forth many manifestations in testable, concrete ,and plausible manners that justify it towards truth. I.E I believe there is no god or gods based on these evidences because of logic, lack of evidence, hypocrisy, i.e

A thiest bases belief on paranormal,un-manifest, abstract arrangments, dogmas, and doctrines that have no basis in testable, logical terms and are void of evidence besides the doctrines from whish they are derived.

Belief as you are defining it is too abstract to even be applied to anyconclusive idea because the manner you are using it applies to everything, to me living, the earth actually existing, to anything that manifests, which, is just a form of malignant and desperate chicanery.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]


Dogma: Affirms a belief that is claimed to be an absolute truth,

Science: Affirms a statement of truth.

When you look at the two there is very little difference. Science has absolute truths until they are disproven. The earth was factually flat before it was round and the stars orbited around the earth or so science once said. These were absolute truths at one time. The difference is science is faster to change than dogma, but in just about every area of science we reach a point that we must stop for we do not understand yet the next jump in knowledge. Dogma is the same, we do not understand yet the next step so what we have at this point is truth as we know it.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Did I meantion science... so by your system..... Thor is just as likely to be as fact as me taking a sip out of this coffee sitting here?


Absurd. And actually, science's ability to be changed and altered based on evidence is beautiful and is it's main function that gives it the power to revolutionize and improves our live's as much as it has.


You can point out to the past all u wnat... but as OUR knowledge grew so science changed. Religion doesn't. If you were living back in the time when the world was flat... you might be worshipping Wotan and beieving it was flat. Now you know better so you choose to say "Wow, they were wrong" As if science is trying to hide it... but that is it's beauty.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
And Dogma doesn't... Afiirm anything. lol

Dogma is a belief of superstition or of morbidity. I.E. You should not speak about reliion or politics at the dinner table. Do not discuss sex in front of an elder or with educating young ones. Dogma.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Science has absolute truths until they are disproven. The earth was factually flat before it was round and the stars orbited around the earth or so science once said. These were absolute truths at one time.


But the claim the earth was flat wasn't absolute truth, and neither is that the earth is an almost spherical object.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. It never has, and very few scientists would claim it does. It aims to provide the best model of nature.

Religion does undoubtably attempt to deal in absolute truth. I never see the bible say 'the earth appears to have been made in six days' or 'the evidence suggests that Eve ate from the forbidden fruit', heh.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Any system of belief that cannot be proven constitutes a religion


Period.

As to who proves what, that is another issue.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Evolution is a theory and a fact.

That life has changed over time is a fact. Common descent via the process of natural selection is a theory. So, the observations are fact (e.g., that species existing today never existed in the past), the mechanisms of evolution are theory (e.g., non-random selection acting on random mutation etc).

[edit on 13-8-2007 by melatonin]


I say evolution is a theory base on observable facts. We take these observable facts (like a bunch of sculls) and we base theory on how they got here. The only fact is the sculls themselves, and just because I have a fact doesn’t mean my theory is correct.

I could just as easily see 10 sculls that range from the present to the distant pass and design a theory that ET in an experiment created man and over the course of 10 million years planted humans on the planet only to kill them all off and plant a better made specimen over and over.

I could say until 10,000 years ago man did not exist and god created man and gave him a soul. All the other sculls were from other manlike sub-species with no souls. Not very plausible until we discovered that there were different humans living in the same time periods and some died off.

I could also say we started as a one cell animal and through natural selection, environment, and radiation we evolved over the last four billion years into modern man.

All three of these are based on the same fact of a group of sculls, and so which one if any is correct?

Evolution and Creationism are still only theories


[edit on 13-8-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
At war with Fundamentalist, at war with ignorance, at war with corruption. That si what these book yield. Yes some part are beautiful, Vedas especially. Hoever tell me th Qu'ran is beautiful in its majority. Sure it has lesson, but now imagine it as a way to live and it become grotesque, brutal and inhumane as does the bible.

Sure I love culture , but in my opninion we need to make these modern religions more like we view Thor, Bohan, Isis, and other respectable views on the way to human enlightenment. It is time to move on. TAht is my view.

And yes I think most new prevailent science is just as ridiculous as some of these religions. Thye are grasping at straws too.



Well, your view is not that much different from mine. The only objection I have to atheists and to your views is as follows:

disagreeing with and attacking christians doesnt make them go away. it justs makes them more fanatic. I opened this thread to point out all the other threads based on the religion vs. atheism/science thing.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Any system of belief that cannot be proven constitutes a religion


Period.




Yes, period. and once that period is established we go to places beyond belief...literally.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Evolution and Creationism are still only theories




Theories fighting each other when they could be helping each other.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Science has absolute truths until they are disproven. The earth was factually flat before it was round and the stars orbited around the earth or so science once said. These were absolute truths at one time.


But the claim the earth was flat wasn't absolute truth, and neither is that the earth is an almost spherical object.



It was an absolute truth to where you would be jailed or killed to say otherwise.


Not everything is absolute in religion, but yes there are absolutes just like the flat earth once was and until there is more enlightenment those absolutes/dogma will not change.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by IamBoon


disagreeing with and attacking christians doesnt make them go away. it justs makes them more fanatic. I opened this thread to point out all the other threads based on the religion vs. atheism/science thing.


I actually find many atheists to be very fanatic (in your face) in the way they argue their points. I for one am not what you would call some super religious person, so I guess their faith is greater than mine…



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
Did I meantion science... so by your system..... Thor is just as likely to be as fact as me taking a sip out of this coffee sitting here?


Absurd. And actually, science's ability to be changed and altered based on evidence is beautiful and is it's main function that gives it the power to revolutionize and improves our live's as much as it has.


You can point out to the past all u wnat... but as OUR knowledge grew so science changed. Religion doesn't. If you were living back in the time when the world was flat... you might be worshipping Wotan and beieving it was flat. Now you know better so you choose to say "Wow, they were wrong" As if science is trying to hide it... but that is it's beauty.



Actually, the current dali llama is very open to the evolution of religion, and adjusts it to take scientific findings into consideration.

It really sounds as if you are not thinking about this, just reacting out of prejudice against religion in general.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I say evolution is a theory base on observable facts. We take these observable facts (like a bunch of sculls) and we base theory on how they got here. The only fact is the sculls themselves, and just because I have a fact doesn’t mean my theory is correct.


Sounds good.


I could just as easily see 10 sculls that range from the present to the distant pass and design a theory that ET in an experiment created man and over the course of 10 million years by planting humans on the planet only to kill them all off and plant a better made specimen over and over.

I could say until 10,000 years ago man did not exist and god created man and gave him a soul. All the other sculls were from other manlike sub-species with no souls. Not very plausible until we discovered that there were different humans living in the same time periods and some died off.


We can say lots of things. I could say that the whole universe was created last tuesday by magic elves. I could say that gravity is actually little eenie-weenie pixies pushing objects about.


I could also say we started as a one cell animal and through natural selection, environment, and radiation we evolved over the last four billion years into modern man.

All three of these are based on the same fact of a group of sculls, and so which one if any is correct?


We would test and attempt to find out. Thus far, evolutionary theory is one of the most fervently attacked theories in science. It is still standing over 100 years later.

I might look at the genome and see the remnants of viruses, chromosome 2, and lots of other stuff that shows we are closely related to other apes. I might then decide that because I had a pre-existing idea that humans are the creatures that are so special in this vast universe, that this means a god think 'n poofed a soul into a homonid. I might also think that such a claim is not science, and do an Ockham



Evolution and Creationism are still only theories


You were doing well till here. It depends what you mean by creationism. Much of what you said earlier is untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientific. I could stick a god in anywhere, anytime, anyplace, it essentially can answer everything, and therefore nothing.

Thus, we can't test to see whether 10,000 years ago some omnipotent magic man from dimension 11 planted a soul in a group Homo Sapiens. What sort of novel predictions would such a hypothesis make?

So, yeah, most things are possible, some are more probable than others.

In the creationism area, if we are talking strict genesis-style creation, that is, as far as science is concerned, a falsified hypothesis that is inconsistent with the evidence.

Whereas, evolutionary theory makes predictions that are consistent with the evidence.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Not everything is absolute in religion, but yes there are absolutes just like the flat earth once was and until there is more enlightenment those absolutes/dogma will not change.


I don't think you can blame science for religious persecution of the likes of Bruno and Galileo.

Science is skeptical, and we do grill almost all young scientists, but we call it viva



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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]


Romans 1:20 (Darby Translation)
Darby Translation (DARBY)
Public Domain

Romans 1:20
20-- for from [the] world's creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, -- so as to render them inexcusable.

In peace, SkyFloating can you apprehend by your mind, because of creation, of what you see (heaven, earth etc), God who created it all?



[edit on 8/13/2007 by Jesus-Is-Real]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jesus-Is-Real
In peace, SkyFloating can you apprehend by your mind, because of creation, of what you see (heaven, earth etc), God who created it all?



[edit on 8/13/2007 by Jesus-Is-Real]



No, I cannot apprehend everything with my mind. What I can see as that this universe is pretty amazing and beautiful, something all sides of any debate will probably agree with.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by IamBoon
Did I meantion science... so by your system..... Thor is just as likely to be as fact as me taking a sip out of this coffee sitting here?


Absurd. And actually, science's ability to be changed and altered based on evidence is beautiful and is it's main function that gives it the power to revolutionize and improves our live's as much as it has.


You can point out to the past all u wnat... but as OUR knowledge grew so science changed. Religion doesn't. If you were living back in the time when the world was flat... you might be worshipping Wotan and beieving it was flat. Now you know better so you choose to say "Wow, they were wrong" As if science is trying to hide it... but that is it's beauty.



Actually, the current dali llama is very open to the evolution of religion, and adjusts it to take scientific findings into consideration.

It really sounds as if you are not thinking about this, just reacting out of prejudice against religion in general.



I am prejudice... I admit it. Crazy as that may sound. However I do not see how evolution enters this. I am not one for evolution, although it has many upsides . It doesn't explain how everything appeared however. And I do think alot about these things.

I am prejudice against ignaorance, fanticism , and corruption. This has no bearing on science, it has to deal with that it is my understanding that most beliefs in the major religions today (barring Buddhism) are woefully inadequate and downright absurd. Not that the belief of a god is absurd... but those particular relgions outlooks on it and the doctrines they suggest.

Everyone loves to stereotype, I am not an exception. It is in my eyes the only way to keep humanity from killing itself and the Earth we inhabit. It is a cage, literally built of myth and illusion, that will eventually kill everyone physically or kill our freedom hence, our spirit.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
double post sorry


[edit on 13-8-2007 by IamBoon]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Any system of belief that cannot be proven constitutes a religion


Period.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, period. and once that period is established we go to places beyond belief...literally.


I'll go along with that.


Clever.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join