Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Athiesm as an escape from reality?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#76    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:44 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 03 October 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:




There is no such thing as different types of proof. Using the scientific method, we can explain the universe pretty well as it is. A lot of the stuff we know know the answer for yet (the origin of life for example), is not an excuse to start envoking any god. And as for subjective experience (ghosts, new age energy etc), there is nothing to explain.




See folks, science explains, or in principle can explain, everything. Now, how can we test this notion scientifically.....


#77    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,630 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:58 AM

View PostHabitat, on 03 October 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Good question. It can be interpreted many ways, but it implies to some degree at least, a fortuitous concurrence of circumstances that readies, or predisposes you to be receptive to the divinity. I suppose it is a bit like luck, you can make your own luck to some extent, but beyond that is a large measure of happenstance, whether that is random or guided by an unseen hand we cannot tell.

I don't know about your own beliefs, but if you're a Christian then I find this explanation completely unsatisfactory. If God loves us all and wants us all to be saved, then I don't think there should be any room for luck to be playing a part.

Of course, if you're more of a deist then God can be anything you want, free of all doctrine - which always made more sense to me anyway.

In short, your answer is a bit of a cop out. I mean that with all due respect. But it's the easy answer to an awkward question. Whilst the answer 'empiricism is limited in it's scope' cannot be refuted, surely the God that most people believe in (whatever their religion) should be accessible to this form of enquiry. Most of the world believes in a personal God that takes special interest in everyone and also intervenes in this world. These interventions should be measurable.


#78    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:10 AM

View PostHabitat, on 03 October 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

See folks, science explains, or in principle can explain, everything. Now, how can we test this notion scientifically.....

Well, that's what science is - the exploration and explanation of the universe around us. You don't need to test this notion, it is being tested and used very day by millions of people.

You're asking where the manual for the car manual is. You don't need one. The car manual does the job, that's what its there for, by definition.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#79    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:27 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 03 October 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:



I don't know about your own beliefs, but if you're a Christian then I find this explanation completely unsatisfactory. If God loves us all and wants us all to be saved, then I don't think there should be any room for luck to be playing a part.

Of course, if you're more of a deist then God can be anything you want, free of all doctrine - which always made more sense to me anyway.

In short, your answer is a bit of a cop out. I mean that with all due respect. But it's the easy answer to an awkward question. Whilst the answer 'empiricism is limited in it's scope' cannot be refuted, surely the God that most people believe in (whatever their religion) should be accessible to this form of enquiry. Most of the world believes in a personal God that takes special interest in everyone and also intervenes in this world. These interventions should be measurable.
Clearly you have thought deeply about these matters, but I'm afraid to say I don't think it helps. But I fully understand people's impatience with vague notions like 'grace', that to me is the normal reaction of the mind that is conditioned to prefer more de-limited concepts. Where there is ambiguity and paradox, there is little to hang your hat on. But that doesn't stand as an argument against it.


#80    failturner25

failturner25

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:19 Jan 2012

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:52 AM

How do you know what you believe is reality? Here's the thing though, we are not 100 percent sure what reality is. We do not have prove of whether God exists or not, so how do we know what reality is? Everything said on here is just opinions/beliefs...

Edited by failturner25, 03 October 2012 - 10:54 AM.


#81    Timonthy

Timonthy

    Placid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aust.

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:05 AM

View PostHabitat, on 03 October 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Nothing clever about that argument, that proposition is accessible to rational enquiry. Try again.
Can you answer any question without having to lace your post with unintelligible fluff?

Posted Image


#82    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:31 AM

The problem with these arguments is that people have been thoroughly brain-washed into believing the word "rational" implies that which is sane, right, or correct. The proper way of looking at things. This is wrong, 'rational' thinking is simply a systematic way of looking at the relationship of elements within a system, it has no application at all to answering the problem of how the whole system, that is the entirety of known elements, came about. The only scope then for scientific rationalism is to discover hitherto unknown elements to the puzzle,to continue the game, but the problem does not go away, science has nothing to say about the how and why of the totality. Only the interactions within it.


#83    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,046 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:36 AM

Rational
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
Source: http://dictionary.re...browse/rational

Edited by Hasina, 03 October 2012 - 11:37 AM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#84    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:43 AM

Rational derives from the word ratio, a precisely defined relationship between distinct elements in a system. It tells you nothing about how you come to have a pie chart to play with. Known reality is the pie.


#85    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,046 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:46 AM

rational (adj.)
late 14c., "pertaining to reason;" mid-15c., "endowed with reason," from L. rationalis "of or belonging to reason, reasonable," from ratio (gen. rationis) "reckoning, calculation, reason" (see ratio).
Source: http://www.etymonlin...p?term=rational

Posted Image

~MEH~


#86    Batfastard

Batfastard

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 35 posts
  • Joined:26 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW England

  • I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
    Hunter S. Thompson

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:47 AM

I think the word that describes my stance in all this is apatheist, basically I am not interested in whether God exists or doesn't exist, and the answer has absolutely no relevance to how I live my life.


#87    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:49 AM

View PostBatfastard, on 03 October 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I think the word that describes my stance in all this is apatheist, basically I am not interested in whether God exists or doesn't exist, and the answer has absolutely no relevance to how I live my life.
Oh, I don't know, you cared enough to post !


#88    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,046 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:51 AM

He shared his opinion. I post a lot about politics but I never vote because I don't care enough to.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#89    Batfastard

Batfastard

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 35 posts
  • Joined:26 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW England

  • I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
    Hunter S. Thompson

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:51 AM

View PostHabitat, on 03 October 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Oh, I don't know, you cared enough to post !

I wouldn't say I 'cared', I was merely rubbernecking the debate


#90    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 03 October 2012 - 01:04 PM

View PostHabitat, on 03 October 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

The problem with these arguments is that people have been thoroughly brain-washed into believing the word "rational" implies that which is sane, right, or correct. The proper way of looking at things. This is wrong, 'rational' thinking is simply a systematic way of looking at the relationship of elements within a system, it has no application at all to answering the problem of how the whole system, that is the entirety of known elements, came about. The only scope then for scientific rationalism is to discover hitherto unknown elements to the puzzle,to continue the game, but the problem does not go away, science has nothing to say about the how and why of the totality. Only the interactions within it.

Ah, the tedious old "science can't address my beliefs" shtick. Sorry, if something can't be addressed by the scientific method, it doesn't exist. Science is just a tool, a way of approaching our understanding of the world around is.

Rather than me not understanding rationality, you don't seem to understand science.

Believing in something that has no empirical evidence for it is irrational, and your made up definitions aren't going to change anyone's minds.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 03 October 2012 - 01:05 PM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users