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

Please pass the parmesan and hot pepper sprinkles, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Horta said:

Bumper sticker time.

"Schrodingers cat walks into a bar... and doesn't."

 

Dang, I must be old, but that's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Hi Pallidin

Thanks and yes I did do some reading the first time you told me to go google myself but why do you think this answers my question about how atheists and agnostics not accepting science? There was nothing about atheists or agnostics in the link you gave so what there is qw how does it have an impact on this discussion others than not getting anywhere?

jmccr8

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Horta said:

Similar assumptions could well be underlying your firm belief in god.

Were you well acquainted with the faux philosophy of "mysticism" before your paranormal experience?

You are still assigning values, it seems, to that which have no data, with "faux" an obvious rejection that there could be anything of value in mysticism. You are just a person firmly, but not unshakeably lodged in rational thinking, and your feeling the need to go on the attack by assigning total nullity to mysticism, signals that. Broaden your outlook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Pallidin

Thanks and yes I did do some reading the first time you told me to go google myself but why do you think this answers my question about how atheists and agnostics not accepting science? There was nothing about atheists or agnostics in the link you gave so what there is qw how does it have an impact on this discussion others than not getting anywhere?

jmccr8

Hey, that's ok.

Not EVERYTHING is on a plate.

In the meanwhile, hand me another slice of pizza...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are still assigning values, it seems, to that which have no data, with "faux" an obvious rejection that there could be anything of value in mysticism. You are just a person firmly, but not unshakeably lodged in rational thinking, and your feeling the need to go on the attack by assigning total nullity to mysticism, signals that. Broaden your outlook. 

That's a "yes" then? You were into mysticism before your experience?

Edited by Horta
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Horta said:

That's a "yes" then?

 

Edited by pallidin
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta go for a few... getting some pizza...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

 

Sorry for the confusion.

It was a response to habitats habit of avoiding the point via ad hominem. The quote function did't work, so I edited it.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Horta said:

That's a "yes" then? You were into mysticism before your experience?

"into" ? I can see your tactic here, assign nullity to mysticism, try to value my experiences as similarly void, because I am enthralled by the "fakery" of mysticism. Wrong again ! Neither mysticism nor my experiences are "faux", but I don't see any great connection between the two, save the possibility that it may be that those that deny the "beyond", are given no hint of it. I have never been a mystic, but I am well aware of it, and its place. You, on the other hand, have ignorantly declared it to be "faux". Some scientist you turned out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

Science provides for extraordinary possibilities. Both atheists and agnostics will have none of that.

What are you smoking?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crack, it seems, laced with PCP, sprinkled with meth and dipped in formaldehyde. 

@GoldenWolf

Edited by onlookerofmayhem
@
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

"into" ? I can see your tactic here, assign nullity to mysticism, try to value my experiences as similarly void, because I am enthralled by the "fakery" of mysticism. Wrong again ! Neither mysticism nor my experiences are "faux", but I don't see any great connection between the two, save the possibility that it may be that those that deny the "beyond", are given no hint of it. I have never been a mystic, but I am well aware of it, and its place. You, on the other hand, have ignorantly declared it to be "faux". Some scientist you turned out to be.

There is obviously a lot of emotion attached to your belief habitat. As shown in the lashing out via ad hominem towards those you deem (guess) to be ignorant (ie. those whose views don't support your own), rather than offer anything of substance that could support your belief. This is understandable, given the subject.

This seems very common among paranormal proponents, and is possibly one reason why Psychology (and resulting studies) view paranormal belief the way they do. This is one of the reasons why I see it more likely to be a subject more relevant to cognitive science than anything else.

It could be construed as acceptance based on an emotional need for something to be true (to support a personal world view), rather than whether it really is true or not. Something people convince themselves of, despite the obvious problems and simpler explanations, simply because they desperately want it to be.

It happens among all humans to some extent, scientists too with pet theories and so on. Thankfully they have developed a method to minimise this.

Edited by Horta
trouble with quote function.
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2019 at 12:29 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What exactly would an agnostic have doubts about when one neither knows or cares if there is a god?

Don't they just say

Frank Sinatra My Way - Live 1971 on Vimeo

:lol::whistle:

jmccr8

Agnostics can care 

Basically an agnostic says, "I am not going to guess or believe. I will wait until I can know"

 Some may be  happy never knowing.

Others may think about it a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2019 at 12:33 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

With or without people? Lots of people feel alone surrounded by people and make themselves un-noticeable without contact.

jmccr8

The example asked how you would know, and what evidences you would use to KNOW, if you were alone and had no one else to support tor validate your experience

We don't need the company of others to know what we are eating or doing.  The personal evidences are clear and obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What is a god with a capital g for you and what 100,000 or 50,000 yr old experiences have you had and why haven't you shared them in the past?

So misdirection and confusion are viable ways of expressing a truth? :huh: My god isn't an alien by ant definition but if it thinks and realizes potential then we are driven by the same evolutionary processes so for me just more others like me that are not identical to me or each other.:D

 

I can conceive aliens however that is not sufficient proof for me to believe that they have been here so no I am not unless properly vetted paper is given to show that any of these entities have had real physical in reality as described by you in the last few posts.

It is not known if it is real or not and at this time, well actually for quite a while members have questioned and butted you and it is, for the most part, a fantastical story designed to affirm your construct as that is your position that all men create constructs.

jmccr8

god is a name like dog.

no.  I am trying to be clear and honest 

if it walks like a god, talks like a god, and has the powers of a god, then a sensible human might think of it as a god.

But god, like dog, is only a word/label human attach to beings with certain  qualities  

the rest is irrelevant to the point i was making

You have to decide for yourself if such things are real. I am just telling you about my experiences with them :)

Humans make mental constructs about all real things. We also build constructs about unreal things.The trick is how to work out which is which.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Piney said:

In the Christian Mysticism I encountered, (Quaker) there was no set philosophy or should I say "doctrine". Just a group of people worshiping or meditating in silence, holding their own personal beliefs. But then again I was born into a "Non-Theistic" Meeting with many atheists. 

There's probably as many forms of mysticism as their are mystics. Christian or otherwise. Some of the new age versions are interesting, though not for the mysticism itself. It's like the "urethritis" of the philosophical world, in that it can be very non specific.

Though I do have some idea of the mysticism that habitat alludes to. I certainly know that he bases a paranormal world view on it, or at least finds it supportive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Please post the post of Pysche’s that states this. 

The path you promote works best for your survival in a very religious based environment., it certainly has no value for me. 

Change the world, making it a better place well J., has a daughter and a grandchild this is a wonderful and noble way to do this. 

For one who prides himself on understanding and embracing others perspectives since he was 3  how did you miss the obvious. 

I get for you, you have to find ways to better the world and I think prostelizing the biblical way of life is your way. 

 

No need to.  He will not deny it and if you don't believe me then YOU go to the trouble of looking for it. I've got better things to do 

No my "path" is scientifically proven to work in any environment. Although some studies show it works best in a place where others share  your belief  So it would work well for you in America :) 

Sorry but having kids doesn't change the world for the better.  That requires specific planned behaviours to minimise your effect on the environment and to make the world a more equal and kinder place by helping others as much as you can. 

I would NOT go so far as to say that having children is selfish, because a certain number are needed to maintain the population but it is basically morally neutral .

I don't proselytise   the biblical way There are many good things about the bible's way of living. Western society has already incorporated many of them in our laws and moralities,  but it is not written for modern people and it has flaws.  i would promote a secular humanist lifestyle using ethics and moralities which are found in the bible but not exclusive to it   PLUS living a balance of spiritual and materiel lifestyle.

Any faith or belief which is positive and constructive is as good as any other  and most people pick one found in their local community    

Are yo saying that you have no interests in making the world a better place?

You have children.

It should be one of the most important things for you to  try to achieve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Horta said:

Though I do have some idea of the mysticism that habitat alludes to. I certainly know that he bases a paranormal world view on it, or at least finds it supportive.

He's very evasive on the subject. 

 

8 minutes ago, Horta said:

There's probably as many forms of mysticism as their are mystics.

When Quakerism first developed many early Quakers were actually  raving lunatics.

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

21 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE

I am all out of likes.:huh:

jmccr8

I generally don't give likes at all lol.

So apologies to the posters who go to such effort. It isn't that I don't like the posts, I do, and it's nothing personal.

Similar things have been shown to have detrimental effects in social media studies. It also does help marginalise those with weird or non mainstream beliefs and helps form "cliques" (which are probably unavoidable when 3 or more humans interact with each other lol).

I have been trying to find a way to disable the entire function.

Perhaps I should just lighten up a bit lol.

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

1 minute ago, Piney said:

He's very evasive on the subject. 

Meister Eckhart is one oft quoted favourite I think.

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

He's very evasive on the subject. 

 

When Quakerism first developed many early Quakers were actually  raving lunatics.

Lol.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horta said:

There is obviously a lot of emotion attached to your belief habitat.

No, I am quite comfortable with facts. But if you feel the need to discredit what you say is "faux", you'd be better employed asking yourself where that drive comes from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Horta said:

Bumper sticker time.

"Schrodingers cat walks into a bar... and doesn't."

 

And he walked in through  the wall, not the door .

 

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.