Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheism is incompatible with science


Only_

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

You are asking for a rational exposition of that which does not use the same language, you might as well ask for, say, a mathematical description of the taste of a mango. You would not be informed. The only way is to taste the fruit. The only way to understand mysticism, is to be the mystic.

The word rational isn't to be found in the request. You assumed it should be (a guess). Read it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Horta said:

QED.

You are demonstrating my argument for me. Thanks.

You have no argument, apparently, you say a rational exposition of the greatest mystery, is in the offing, but can't tell me how I will know if it is actually the real deal ? Will it just "sound right". Or will I have to just take your word, that it is coming ? Can we be sure we are even getting nearer to it ? What is plausible, is that we are not, given that mathematics tells us that any number, no matter how large, is no closer to infinity, than zero !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Horta said:

It's a great shame that of all the interesting, imaginative and deeply thoughtful philosophies available around the world, the west inherited probably the most backward one.

Then when they "borrow" ours they attach that backwardness they learned too it. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You have no argument, apparently, you say a rational exposition of the greatest mystery, is in the offing, but can't tell me how I will know if it is actually the real deal ? Will it just "sound right". Or will I have to just take your word, that it is coming ? Can we be sure we are even getting nearer to it ? What is plausible, is that we are not, given that mathematics tells us that any number, no matter how large, is no closer to infinity, than zero !

I say no such thing. 

All I'm saying is that I haven't ruled out the possibility that a rational explanation might be found. Or it might not. You are the one claiming closed minded certainty in their position.

As arguments go, you are now offering the following...

Quote

Strawman.

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Horta said:

The word rational isn't to be found in the request. You assumed it should be (a guess). Read it again.

you mean this ?

"Simply by making extra claims that it can't back up.

Though I could easily change my mind. Give the mystical explanation. Let's see it."

So you don't want a rational explanation ? What do you want, pictures, music, whale songs, or what ? What do you want the mystical explanation to be expressed in, if you don't want a rational exposition ( which I have already said, is impossible) ? Backed up in what way ? See what ? So many questions, but so few answers !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Then when they "borrow" ours they attach that backwardness they learned too it. 

Lol.

I have noticed that certain native philosophies get interpreted even by academics in very biased ways that the original custodians see with wtf? and a smile. The idea I have heard that "the white man can't understand" is probably a sound one. I have seen traditional stories reinterpreted as "creation myth" (no christian bias there lol) that even most academics themselves laugh at.

Our specialty has never been about understanding different cultures, as much as eradicating them, it seems.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

you mean this ?

"Simply by making extra claims that it can't back up.

Though I could easily change my mind. Give the mystical explanation. Let's see it."

So you don't want a rational explanation ? What do you want, pictures, music, whale songs, or what ? What do you want the mystical explanation to be expressed in, if you don't want a rational exposition ( which I have already said, is impossible) ? Backed up in what way ? See what ? So many questions, but so few answers !

 

No, never asked for one, the word rational was never there. I only asked for the mystical explanation. Surely it exists, it seems to have you hook, line and sinker doesn't it?

Quote

Backed up in what way ?

I don't know yet, I'm not asking you to back it up, that would require personal consideration but I haven't heard your particular mystical explanation as yet. Surely it is possible to be backed by something? Or are you convinced simply for no reason at all? Your belief is organic or something?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Horta said:

No, never asked for one, the word rational was never there. I only asked for the mystical explanation. Surely it exists, it seems to have you hook, line and sinker doesn't it?

I don't know yet, I'm not asking you to back it up, that would require personal consideration but I haven't heard your particular mystical explanation as yet. Surely it is possible to be backed by something? Or are you convinced simply for no reason at all? Your belief is organic or something?

Explanations of what mysticism entails, are easily found, but the real "learning" is only available to the actor immersed in it. In a similar way that explanations of what is entailed in reading a book, tells you little about the content of the experience of reading a particular book. You are assigning the label "void" to mysticism, be man enough to admit it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Habitat said:

So a mystery ?

No the hidden dimensions that QM predicts in the subatomic. 

15 hours ago, Habitat said:

When you think about it, the human brain is a practical "invention" of evolution, it is the science that has some seeming prospect of being of practical interest and use, that gets funded, excursions into research of curiosities are a comparative rarity. We can assume that technical breakthroughs are the raison d'etre for the likes of the LHC, not the supply of resolution to the mysteries pondered by God-botherers and their antagonists. Were any such breakthroughs to be made, they would be purely incidental. We would be like the seagulls following the trawler, hopeful of some by-catch, but not the reason the depths are being trawled. I think your confidence that science is going to crack the fundamental architecture, and in so doing wrap up the whole conundrum, is optimistic, but not realistic.

But why? That's all very flowery prose, but we are clearly on the verge of understanding creation and abiogenesis. There's just not good reason to think these avenues will fail us. The standard model and the Higgs did not. What do you see as the precise issue that will dim the prospects of these very strong possibilities?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psyche101 said:

No the hidden dimensions that QM predicts in the subatomic. 

But why? That's all very flowery prose, but we are clearly on the verge of understanding creation and abiogenesis. There's just not good reason to think these avenues will fail us. The standard model and the Higgs did not. What do you see as the precise issue that will dim the prospects of these very strong possibilities?

Would an explanation that excludes causality satisfy ? It would have to, if there are no more causes to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

So there is nothing beyond reason and logic, that informs ? That is your creed, but it is just an assumption. You are caught in the loop !

Are you not caught in a loop? 

How is it reasonable to say 4 ancient philosophers render all we have learned in the last 200 years wrong? All because a superstition fits a personal preconception? 

That is astoundingly presumptuous. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

iAre you not caught in a loop? 

How is it reasonable to say 4 ancient philosophers render all we have learned in the last 200 years wrong? All because a superstition fits a personal preconception? 

That is astoundingly presumptuous. 

There is no contradiction between learning via the rational faculty and the non-rational faculty, just as there is no contradiction between learning a language from a book, or by living where it is spoken, these are two very different avenues, but the end result is a more well-rounded knowledge of the language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read the thread, so please forgive me.

But my thoughts are this: I believe in a God, as well as the "supernatural"

Life seems much more satisfying and complete.

But perhaps I should be an atheist with high narcissism, yeah...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Haven't read the thread, so please forgive me.

But my thoughts are this: I believe in a God, as well as the "supernatural"

Life seems much more satisfying and complete.

But perhaps I should be an atheist with high narcissism, yeah...

Nice ad hominem.  Thanks for such a valuable contribution.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

Nice ad hominem.  Thanks for such a valuable contribution.

You're welcome. Can I further assist?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Haven't read the thread, so please forgive me.

But my thoughts are this: I believe in a God, as well as the "supernatural"

Life seems much more satisfying and complete.

But perhaps I should be an atheist with high narcissism, yeah...

The New Atheism is another form of religion. It has nothing to do with science and is in fact, highly incompatible with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

The New Atheism is another form of religion. It has nothing to do with science and is in fact, highly incompatible with it.

You know, I've never had a "feel" for atheism. Seems intuitively absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pallidin said:

You know, I've never had a "feel" for atheism. Seems intuitively absurd.

I do happen to know a real atheist, and she laughs at "atheist conventions" and the like, scathingly asking, "what do they talk about, nothing ?" I can see the point she is making, but be assured there are few or no real atheists here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

I do happen to know a real atheist, and she laughs at "atheist conventions" and the like, scathingly asking, "what do they talk about, nothing ?" I can see the point she is making, but be assured there are few or no real atheists here.

Whats a "real" atheist?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Whats a "real" atheist?

Someone who flat-out gives zero credit to any God existing. In many ways preferable to the half-assed variety !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Someone who flat-out gives zero credit to any God existing. In many ways preferable to the half-assed variety !

Image result for hand raised emoji

 

me

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Someone who flat-out gives zero credit to any God existing. In many ways preferable to the half-assed variety !

I think there's a lot of them here. Might include myself among them (although maybe not quite zero credit - very close though). You don't appear to find them preferable to whatever a half-assed variety is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arbenol said:

I think there's a lot of them here. Might include myself among them (although maybe not quite zero credit - very close though). You don't appear to find them preferable to whatever a half-assed variety is.

They generally avoid the religious arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

They generally avoid the religious arguments.

Why should they? And how would you know? A person's real world interactions are often very different to their internet ones.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Whats a "real" atheist?

Hi Arbenol

I guess that would depend on where you are. Up here on Thursday nights we drink beer and load shotgun shells with rock salt then Friday and Saturday nights we go out and find religious heretics and hang them on an upsidedown cross and use them for target practice, what do you guy do for fun.

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.