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

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

True, but I definitely don't buy the argument that if we didn't have Hitler pretty much the same thing would have occurred anyway.  As you said maybe some kind of large scale war would have occurred no matter who was in a leadership role, but I don't see much in the way WWI ended that made the Holocaust inevitable for instance.

Yes, I agree with that. It was a shame that the party that eventually rose up were also a group of genocidal maniacs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

He was speaking in the first person, unless you think he was lying for dramatic effect ? We know you see religious frauds behind every tree !

Thou shalt not use metaphors

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

And you have a citation for that study, of course, and are prepared to discuss your hypothesis in light of actual quantitative studies, whose results have been successfully tested in competitive conditions, of the sort popularized in the Money Ball book and movie?

You realize that if you select the most successful teams after the fact, and within each team select the best player, also after the fact, then you will sometimes discover that that player played well. Conversely, some teams whose best player wasn't playing well (whether not well anymore or not well ever or not as well as earlier best players had played) had poorer results than other teams with a higher ceiling on on individual members' performance.

Uh huh. And you recall how this study controlled for the tautological nature of its conclusion? Yes, of course you do, just as you recall what other factors were examined in the study, so that we can all better appreciate the significance of which one emerged as best.

And finally, being a star basketball player isn't the same kind of achievement as inventing basketball or causing it to become popular in the first place. Please review Walker's claim about the origins of religious movements, as distinct from maintaining a franchise.

Pope Francis plays his chosen game well, but he's no Paul of Tarsus, nor is there any reason for him to be.

 

It really isn't that complicated, the study I speak of, and I can't remember the author, but he was an American, and this is a few years ago now, and I have no reason to catalogue it, made the point that analysis of the successful team sport dynasties, across a wide variety of sports, world-wide, reveals the key factor to be the leadership of the team, usually the captain, but sometimes a small leadership group within the team. The end of such dynasties, usually co-incides with the captain going elsewhere, or retiring. The captain is known at the time of the games, so no, retrospective cherry-picking is not skewing the analysis. The guts of the argument was, that the success of sporting teams, was largely a function of the captaincy. . Does this particular "great man" theory stack up in the wider world ? More likely than not, yes. Does it have much relevance to religions as we see them in their current form, probably not, as the captain has well and truly left the team !

As for Walker's "claim" about the origins of religions, I agree with him, with what he said.....

 "it is my opinion, historically, that all major and many minor  religions begin with one human's gnosis or enlightenment  where much is revealed to them and they are changed forever. "

The so-called franchise is not something they have much control over, when dead ! Accordingly, the main point of interest has to be the original "teaching", to the extent it has survived intact, which is always doubtful, I am not interested in the subsequent politics and internal organizational power struggles. So the only "captaincy" of real interest, is the captains original teaching and leadership, not what happened after he left the team. That the original name is retained, really has little relevance to what the franchise turns into, which is sometimes little to do with that person., but reflects the need for a "brand"

Edited by Habitat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

Grow up and stop kidding yourself that atheism is compatible with reality kid. 

You're the one who needs to grow up and come to terms with imaginary friends Will. 

Atheism is reality Will. Nothing in nature indicates that God exists. God is only referenced in the writings of man. 

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

Spiritual reality is not anything to be afraid of.

No, its something to grow out of. 

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

Be courages and accept your responsibility for living in a universe that is dominated and controlled by said spiritual realities. 

That's ridiculous Will. That's not the case at all. Spirituality doesn't takes us to new planets, it doesn't cure disease. Its pretty pointless when it comes to the realities of life.

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

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

It was methamphetamine. His Dr. Feelgood administered it every day. Towards the end of the war he wouldn't get out of bed until about 2 in the afternoon. Tweeker hell.

It wasn't just meth, his quack doctor was injecting him with all kinds of bizarre concoctions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

It was methamphetamine. His Dr. Feelgood administered it every day. Towards the end of the war he wouldn't get out of bed until about 2 in the afternoon. Tweeker hell.

 

 

My recall of these stories, which I felt were being hyped for dramatic effect, was amphetamines was the main drug involved, which certainly would not be a trivial matter in affecting his mental state, but if he was getting that regularly, I don't see how he'd be doing a lot of sleeping. I would say the course of events was well set in train before drugs became a big part of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, there is no shame on me based on what 'appears' to you to be the case.  You don't know if physics has a rational explanation for 'existence' because you don't/won't/can't understand it.

Don't continue to embarrass yourself, by associating yourself with the crackpot idea that a science breakthrough has happened, that now offers a rational explanation for existence. We have the proof of existence, have always had it, the explanation for it cannot be said to be any closer than it ever was. Otherwise it might have made the 6 o'clock news, don't you think ?

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes, I've heard you, you think 'existence' is a 'riddle' that requires something other than rationality.  Unfortunately like so many on your 'team', all you have is a claim, and thankfully unlike a lot on your team, lots of ad homs and attempted distractions where your arguments should be.  Again, all very pathetically easy, your responses perfectly fit the psychology of someone who does not want to put any effort forth to learn anything new.  To be shamed by the purposely ignorant and incurious is a compliment.

Sorry, I don't make the rules of existence, i can only tell what I have distilled from my own enquiries, and it does appear that "knowledge" of God, and we should not assume anything about what that may consist of, is not obtainable via the rational faculty, but actually requires suspension of it. That rationalism has found no God, might just be because it is not the tool for the job, and not because there is no "God" to be found. Obviously, those that are stubbornly lodged in the idea that rationalism is the all-purpose tool, won't even consider suggestions it might not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think a PhD would be beside the point.

I honestly don't think so. The best minds we have are atheist due to clarity and understanding. I can't see how a rational approach to understanding the Universe requires a god factor at all. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You just pointed out that we have 4000 years of religious history. That is 4000 years of people convinced religion is real. That is more then the Bible.

I don't agree, the Bible as I mentioned is a rehash of Gilgamesh, the Koran seems heavily inspired by the Bible too. Religion is just offering sequels that have been adopted again and again. We didn't have the understanding of physics that we currently do 4,000 years ago. Not up untill very recent times in our historical record. So we just rehashed what soneone made up centuries ago, and with time have offered those ideas undue validity. It's just a progression into better understanding. The Bible gave us benchmarks to challenge, which we did and overcame. As such, these ideas are well and truly redundant. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If all Bibles were destroyed... all religious texts, and all mention of religion removed... Do you think people would be nonreligious, or would some form of Belief pop up spontaneously?

It depends on who the movement is started and continued by. As I understand it, Christianity was largely popular as the first non discriminative organisation. It appealed to so many because there were no entry requirements. Slaves and women were welcomed when so many turned them away. If that had been classes which lead to more realistically based learning, who know where we might be today. Walker will say it will thrive anyway, but honestly, I'm not so sure. I think all it would take is an appealing concept like welcoming all without restriction. People like to feel welcomed. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Do you think removing the Bible would remove Christianity? I don't think so. I think it might fragment even more and eventually be unrecognizable, but not removed.

I think it depends what would take its place. Could be better or worse. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Anyone involved in science, who is even an Agnostic, is going to (even if unconsciously) factor in religion into what they are working on. Thus we might as well add the factor openly, and more that we're going to call it zero for such and such purposes.

I don't believe that is the case. Many of the academics whom I have seen asked have stated they don't consider God at all, let alone factor such in, as there is no point. 

God is not a serious contender in academic circles, God equates to the Easter Bunny and Santa largely in such institutions. There are some who subscribe to the idea, mostly loosely as a moral compass or such, but as far as I know, even those people don't factor the god idea into work. There at no university lectures factoring religion, there is nothing to reference. 

God is just a non starter. A preference like preferring blue over green. Some prefer to think there is an ultimate being of justice, but it's just a popular myth. 

What I'm not understanding is why would we consider God at all. Nothing in nature suggests God exists, so there are no reference points, nothing to correlate. God exists purely in the minds and writing of people. Without humans, God effectively does not exist. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Same thing with politics. It is impossible to separate church and state. The best you can do is ask people to try to consider from the secular view. 

I don't know about that, that divide is definitely there, and growing. Removing religion from schools was a great start, it's just a very gradual process because religion has a stronghold amongst the masses. Real change takes time. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

I am well aware that Hitler was being administered various drugs by his personal doctor, I have not heard that he was addicted to cocaine. A little research shows that he was not addicted to opiates until well into the war, so the claim that somehow his cocaine use drove the Nazi agenda, is nonsense. His drug use seems more a reaction to the failure of his military agenda.

Yes, but you apparently never heard that physics refutes the afterlife either. 

High Hitler: how Nazi drug abuse steered the course of history

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Horta said:

I think the way ww1 ended made further large scale conflict in Europe inevitable, and in many ways gave rise to the conditions for the nazis to rise to power. Interesting also that the nazis used the anti semitic works of religious nutjob Martin Luther to help sway the public. Some historians consider the holocaust a continuation of his work. Or at least that it was made easier because of it.

 

It was really the Depression that caused the trouble, not only with Germany, but Japan, they were the industrial countries hardest hit. Hitler would never have got to wield power, without it, and it is the wielding of power that matters, there are plenty of hate-inspired people in the world who would cause tremendous harm, but they don't get the chance to implement it. Focusing on the man Hitler, as some kind of  unique case of "evil", is dumb, it misleads people into thinking it takes an unlikely freak of nature to create what happened, and that it can't happen without such a rare "evil" individual. Not so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think we can glean that Hitler's drug use probably was not an issue in the period before the war "went bad" for Germany, which was was probably late 1941, when he was supposed to have had a breakdown, after becoming apprised of intelligence that the campaign in the East faced unanticipated opposition. Churchill was on the booze the whole war, these people had probably less input than we imagine, once the war had got momentum, they were also passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Don't continue to embarrass yourself, by associating yourself with the crackpot idea that a science breakthrough has happened, that now offers a rational explanation for existence. We have the proof of existence, have always had it, the explanation for it cannot be said to be any closer than it ever was. Otherwise it might have made the 6 o'clock news, don't you think ?

No, it wouldn't make the 6 o'clock news. Why would it? 

You seem to think there was some eureka moment? It might have hit you like that, explaining your ridiculous resistance to well known physics though. 

Its almost Hillarious that you think that because you didn't get a phone call from Caltech to personally inform you that it didn't happen! 

I think that could well be the worst argument you have deployed in your protest to quash information that you have been oblivious to. Your like that Kenyan Bishop wanting to have fossils removed from public display. 

Tte only one who has been embarrassed here is quite clearly yourself Hab. Your ignorance got caught with its pants down. 

44 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Sorry, I don't make the rules of existence,

LOL, you sure? 

You seem to be attempting to do just that when you laughably claim to know more than the best minds on the planet. 

44 minutes ago, Habitat said:

i can only tell what I have distilled from my own enquiries, and it does appear that "knowledge" of God, and we should not assume anything about what that may consist of, is not obtainable via the rational faculty, but actually requires suspension of it.

That's ridiculous. Belief for the sake of belief because the idea appeals. 

44 minutes ago, Habitat said:

That rationalism has found no God, might just be because it is not the tool for the job, and not because there is no "God" to be found. Obviously, those that are stubbornly lodged in the idea that rationalism is the all-purpose tool, won't even consider suggestions it might not be.

Why would God exist? There simply no need for such in a natural universe. How is it not more sensible that God is simply a man made construct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

I think we can glean that Hitler's drug use probably was not an issue in the period before the war "went bad" for Germany, which was was probably late 1941, when he was supposed to have had a breakdown, after becoming apprised of intelligence that the campaign in the East faced unanticipated opposition. Churchill was on the booze the whole war, these people had probably less input than we imagine, once the war had got momentum, they were also passengers.

However, we can see it gve people confidence in him from an early stage. The man who was tireless about bettering his country for his people. 

It was not simply a last development on his way out. It helped him rise to power too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Why would God exist? There simply no need for such in a natural universe. How is it not more sensible that God is simply a man made construct? 

Would the real God please stand up ? Wouldn't that make a great title for a book ! It does appear that there is an avenue that people can avail themselves of, that offers a way of "knowing" the "real" God, but nothing can be said about the knowing and the God, except perhaps that the two are the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Horta said:

I think the way ww1 ended made further large scale conflict in Europe inevitable, and in many ways gave rise to the conditions for the nazis to rise to power. Interesting also that the nazis used the anti semitic works of religious nutjob Martin Luther to help sway the public. Some historians consider the holocaust a continuation of his work. Or at least that it was made easier because of it.

 

I would guess some of Nazi thinking followed Wilhelm Marr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

However, we can see it gve people confidence in him from an early stage. The man who was tireless about bettering his country for his people. 

It was not simply a last development on his way out. It helped him rise to power too. 

Not going on the link you provided, he seemed to be a health "nut" well after acquiring power, and the drugs that were freely available, were cracked down on. I don't think we can blame drugs for Hitler's rise, they might have hastened his exit though. If we accept the idea that he started to lose the plot in late 1941, and drug use may well be part of that, a good piece of evidence would be his declaration of war on the USA in December '41, which was completely unnecessary, it is more than arguable that America would not have gone to war with Germany, at least in the short term, without it. The memoirs of his personal adjutant at the time, would be indicative, I recall reading that he mentioned that what he described as the "god-light" in Hitler, that was so evident before the breakdown he had in September '41, never returned. He was a different man. Whether the drugs fed into that, we may never know. It may have been more  the realisation that the war was being lost, which seems not only to have been his opinion, German bonds trading on the Swiss exchange crashed at the same time, never to recover their value. It may have been a combination of things, but that declaration of war, certainly says he was a shot duck, mentally by late '41.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Would the real God please stand up ? Wouldn't that make a great title for a book ! It does appear that there is an avenue that people can avail themselves of, that offers a way of "knowing" the "real" God, but nothing can be said about the knowing and the God, except perhaps that the two are the same thing.

Those people are how God came to exist in the mind, how does that not put the god idea into perspective? We only think God exists because some people came up with the idea.

Rationalising and building on that idea strikes me as rather ridiculous. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I would guess some of Nazi thinking followed Wilhelm Marr

Possibly, I think (eventually) it mostly followed the thoughts of Hitler though. Where he ultimately drew his sources, who knows? It seems antisemitism already existed to some extent, and the nazis used the later anti-semitic works of Luther as a propaganda tool to help stir up further resentment.

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

24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, it wouldn't make the 6 o'clock news. Why would it? 

It would be something stupendous, that the unimaginable, had somehow been imagined. And yet here you are telling us it is a "known" !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Rationalising and building on that idea strikes me as rather ridiculous. 

It is in the abandonment of rationalizations and ideation, that  the possibility exists. This, of course, is anathema to careful consciousness. So very few venture there, but some that have, have become household names. Maybe a little bit of "God" rubbed off on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It would be something stupendous, that the unimaginable, had somehow been imagined. And yet here you are telling us it is a "known" !

Stupendous doesn't have anything do with stupidity.

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

4 minutes ago, Horta said:

Possibly, I think it mostly followed the thoughts of Hitler though. Where he ultimately drew his sources, who knows? It seems antisemitism already existed to some extent, and the nazis used the later anti-semitic works of Luther as a propaganda tool to help stir up further resentment.

Jewish pogroms are dotted through history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Obviously, those that are stubbornly lodged in the idea that rationalism is the all-purpose tool, won't even consider suggestions it might not be.

That's not true.  There is one thing that should be clear and that is that most everyone who has disagreed with you here has provided far more specific and more numerous detail on exactly why they disagree with you than you have as to what you specifically mean let alone the support for it.  They obviously have considered it since they're able to provide that detail, it's been considered and rejected, by me for as I said lack of clarity and lack of argument or evidence for support.  

So let's go, okay, I will consider that rationalism is not the all-purpose tool.  Emotions are not always rational depending on what perspective you are looking at it from, agreed.  What else?  My consideration of your idea is currently being countered by the observation that, to my knowledge, everything that has ever been demonstrated to exist has relied on rationalism.  It appears that you are being suspiciously selective, you are all about rationalism most of the time, you just appear to want to cheat and carve out a couple narrow exceptions to allow just your pet beliefs in.  When confronted with how if you're going to avoid special pleading then your methodology lets in things like Santa too, you get huffy and hand-wavy and ridicule the idea of comparing an obviously fictional character to what you're talking about (whatever that specifically is...), I think they're either morons or , I've lost track.  You definitely don't counter the analogy though (hint: the argument that Santa is fictional requires rationalism).

Do you have anything, anything at all to counter that, any of that seem like an unreasonable objection?  What is your irrational/a-rational argument for whatever it is that you believe?  I'm actually not sure if you're talking about the inadequacy of rationalism with relation to your opinion that existence is a riddle, or your belief in the beyond, or both. 

Regardless, that's all just a long-winded route to the obvious:  if you've got a better tool than rationalism then by all means show it off.  I want to see it work though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I want to see it work though.

Not by expectation of having others demonstrate it, you won't. You must become the experiment, not the external critic. Mysticism really is, "inside knowledge", no pretence is made of it being transmissable, and the insistence it must be, is simply not playing by the rules of the game, a different game altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

To the theme music from  The  (original) Magnificent Seven  :) 

And the music for VB.

You can get it at vb.com.au

Matter of fact I've got it now!

;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
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.