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 -
Only_

Atheism is incompatible with science

3,680 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Horta
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

Nice ad hominem.  Thanks for such a valuable contribution.

You're welcome. Can I further assist?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.