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 -
Guyver

A Life Without Religion

413 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
12 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The one you've been flogging for years? You should lighten up, no pun intended. 

Which one is that specifically?. I'm sure you take issue with several views I have expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
9 minutes ago, closed for business said:

Not sure really but he has been successful enough in his daily life and does not seem to be disagreeable so he is older and is comfortable in his life other that that I cannot comment more as it would be an inaccurate projection on my part.

I knew a fellow that was attached to a childhood blanket and would stress because he couldn't take it to school with him so his mom cut small pieces from it and sewed it into one pocket in each pair on pants that he had and was an established lawyer by the time he moved past it.

I suppose I just see it as Walkerish. Like his imaginary god, this imaginary idea persists. 

The security blanket makes more sense than anything. That would answer a great deal.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It seems much more akin to flogging a dead horse.

IMO it’s more of a realization that there is no singular right answer, just as there is no singular wrong answer; chief amongst the latter being an individual’s belief that they somehow “must” have the validation of others to feel vindicated in their belief or that others “must” be validated by them in order for those others to be vindicated in their belief. NEITHER of the latter of which is necessary nor even correct IMO. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not quite, some answers aren't able to be questioned although some insist that is the case. Some people seem to think everything is an unknown. That's just not the case. That's just deliberate ignorance. 

The smartest people on the planet say there is not god. Perhaps once it was considered foolish to dismiss the god idea. That's not the case today. A much more pertinent question for current times is why should a god exist at all. 

Why is a very human question--children ask it all the time. It requires no particular intellect. You can't prove they're is no god, whatever that is, anymore than Lightly can prove there is. You both simply choose to believe what you want to believe and padding it with the beliefs of others proves nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

IMO it’s more of a realization that there is no singular right answer, just as there is no singular wrong answer; chief amongst the latter being an individual’s belief that they somehow “must” have the validation of others to feel vindicated in their belief or that others “must” be validated by them in order for those others to be vindicated in their belief. NEITHER of the latter of which is necessary nor even correct IMO. 
 

cormac

If it's a realisation that there's no definitive answer, what makes it prevalent as inquiry altogether? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not quite, some answers aren't able to be questioned although some insist that is the case. Some people seem to think everything is an unknown. That's just not the case. That's just deliberate ignorance. 

The smartest people on the planet say there is not god. Perhaps once it was considered foolish to dismiss the god idea. That's not the case today. A much more pertinent question for current times is why should a god exist at all. 

They’re not scientists then because while science shows that a God isn’t required that is not the same as God doesn’t exit. The latter question is one science CANNOT answer, nor does it attempt to. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Why is a very human question--children ask it all the time.

I could ask what would bring a god into being, or what evolutionary aspects day a god is required to exist, but it's going to be the same answer isn't it.

Human need. Not reality, desperation. 

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It requires no particular intellect. You can't prove they're is no god, whatever that is, anymore than Lightly can prove there is. You both simply choose to believe what you want to believe and padding it with the beliefs of others proves nothing. 

I don't think so. Nature isn't belief. Nature's course isn't invented and steered by man.

There's no good reason a god should exist to believe in. It's a human notion entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If it's a realisation that there's no definitive answer, what makes it prevalent as inquiry altogether? 

The human need/desire to have answers, even if there are none either currently or ever. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

They’re not scientists then because while science shows that a God isn’t required that is not the same as God doesn’t exit. The latter question is one science CANNOT answer, nor does it attempt to. 
 

cormac

Yes they are scientists, they have the right to an opinion as much as anyone. The difference is they can support their opinion that the universe is natural and that all information regarding god comes from human literature. 

That really should speak for itself right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

They’re not scientists then because while science shows that a God isn’t required that is not the same as God doesn’t exit. The latter question is one science CANNOT answer, nor does it attempt to. 
 

cormac

Why is the Universe? Why should anything exist? Why shouldn't a god be necessary? 

 

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I could ask what would bring a god into being, or what evolutionary aspects day a god is required to exist, but it's going to be the same answer isn't it.

Human need. Not reality, desperation. 

I don't think so. Nature isn't belief. Nature's course isn't invented and steered by man.

There's no good reason a god should exist to believe in. It's a human notion entirely.

Everything's a human notion, logic, science, reason, theism, atheism, agnosticism-- the false picture of the world we perceive with our limited senses. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The human need/desire to have answers, even if there are none either currently or ever. 
 

cormac

What about the ones that are there?

What warrants a rehashed myth as a possible alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I could ask what would bring a god into being, or what evolutionary aspects day a god is required to exist, but it's going to be the same answer isn't it.

Human need. Not reality, desperation. 

I don't think so. Nature isn't belief. Nature's course isn't invented and steered by man.

There's no good reason a god should exist to believe in. It's a human notion entirely.

You’re right but you’re also missing the point psyche101, while nature’s course isn’t invented and steered by man the understanding of nature’s course quite often IS. That’s on humanity and NOT nature. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Why is the Universe? Why should anything exist? Why shouldn't a god be necessary? 

Because physics chanfext states and god is a man made idea. Not a discovery.

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Everything's a human notion, logic, science, reason, theism, atheism, agnosticism-- the false picture of the world we perceive with our limited senses. 

Science isn't. It's a report of what nature does. We have no say in that. We can only write down what we nature shows us.

What makes you think our senses paint a false picture, and why would that be the case anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Atheism is as much a faith as any other, founded and promulgated on the beliefs of others. 

Just now, psyche101 said:

Because physics chanfext states and god is a man made idea. Not a discovery.

Science isn't. It's a report of what nature does. We have no say in that. We can only write down what we nature shows us.

What makes you think our senses paint a false picture, and why would that be the case anyway?

How far into the electromagnetic spectrum can you see, Psyche? I never thought a man of science would question the limitations of human senses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You’re right but you’re also missing the point psyche101, while nature’s course isn’t invented and steered by man the understanding of nature’s course quite often IS. That’s on humanity and NOT nature. 
 

cormac

Nature will correct us if we get it wrong though. That's why the sciences are filled with revisions. 

The god idea exists in thousands of forms, each tailored to cultures and ideologies. Why would any single one be correct? What redeeming features do god ideas have?

It's on mam that god exists at all. Without us, no god would exist. Nothing but man reports that idea. It belongs 100% to mankind. Nature is only full of surprises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Because physics chanfext states and god is a man made idea. Not a discovery.

Science isn't. It's a report of what nature does. We have no say in that. We can only write down what we nature shows us.

What makes you think our senses paint a false picture, and why would that be the case anyway?

Science is a manmade idea to describe the universe; it is not the universe itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Atheism is as much a faith as any other, founded and promulgated on the beliefs of others. 

No it certainly isn't.

Stories of man don't make athiests. They birth religions. this is the default untill man's ideas pollute that position. That's not a belief in anyway.

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

How far into the electromagnetic spectrum can you see, Psyche? I never thought a man of science would question the limitations of human senses. 

Light years with my home built radio telescope. An old Foxtel dish can open up new worlds to you.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes they are scientists, they have the right to an opinion as much as anyone. The difference is they can support their opinion that the universe is natural and that all information regarding god comes from human literature. 

That really should speak for itself right there.

You’re attributing to science something science DOESN’T do. True science steers clear of attempting to answer the question “Does God exist” because it knows there is no scientific way to conclusively validate or invalidate that question. FULL STOP. Any interpretations beyond God “isn’t required” are personal interpretations and have no place in the discussion. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Science is a manmade idea to describe the universe; it is not the universe itself.

No it's not.

It's a man made report on what happens that is beyond our control and understanding. We don't make up sciences, we report them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What about the ones that are there?

What warrants a rehashed myth as a possible alternative?

Thousands upon thousands of years of personal and religious interpretation as fact, even though it’s not, as well as BILLIONS of people who live by those interpretations. The last few hundred years of accrued knowledge is a mere drop in the bucket in comparison. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

You’re attributing to science something science DOESN’T do. True science steers clear of attempting to answer the question “Does God exist” because it knows there is no scientific way to conclusively validate or invalidate that question. FULL STOP. Any interpretations beyond God “isn’t required” are personal interpretations and have no place in the discussion. 
 

cormac

I prefer the simplicity of there's no good reason to consider god at all. It's just a redundant idea. No more valuable than the theory of phlogiston.

Seems pretty much the same thing I would have thought. I'm not really one for dancing around definitions. 

Not being able to prove a negative doesn't support the negative. By the same logic unicorns live on the dark side of the moon and eat moon moss from the deepest craters.

Pretty sure science will concur that the god idea is not worth even considering. There's nothing to support that particular myth. 

Not being able to prove a negative is just stalling for the sake of stalling isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Thousands upon thousands of years of personal and religious interpretation as fact, even though it’s not, as well as BILLIONS of people who live by those interpretations. The last few hundred years of accrued knowledge is a mere drop in the bucket in comparison. 
 

cormac

Wouldn't that also equate to doctors should never have started washing their hands, and ghosts are real and homeopaths are valid.

Same evidence for all that isn't it?

That doesn't strike me as a good idea to be honest, nor do I see how beliefs themselves bolstered by an appeal to authority offers validity either.

What your more referring to is mental states isn't it? People feel better if lots of other people think the same as they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

I prefer the simplicity of there's no good reason to consider god at all. It's just a redundant idea. No more valuable than the theory of phlogiston.

Seems pretty much the same thing I would have thought. I'm not really one for dancing around definitions. 

Not being able to prove a negative doesn't support the negative. By the same logic unicorns live on the dark side of the moon and eat moon moss from the deepest craters.

Pretty sure science will concur that the god idea is not worth even considering. There's nothing to support that particular myth. 

Not being able to prove a negative is just stalling for the sake of stalling isn't it?

You’re entitled to your opinion and I can respect it but your opinion DOES NOT trump what science is nor what it says about the “requirement” for God versus any incorrect claim that it somehow “disproves/negates” God. At best science can only kick the question down the road and that won’t likely change until it can show, definitively, what (if anything) exists/existed in 11 dimensional space prior to the BBT. Even THAT will be a matter of debate I’m sure. 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Wouldn't that also equate to doctors should never have started washing their hands, and ghosts are real and homeopaths are valid.

Same evidence for all that isn't it?

That doesn't strike me as a good idea to be honest, nor do I see how beliefs themselves bolstered by an appeal to authority offers validity either.

What your more referring to is mental states isn't it? People feel better if lots of other people think the same as they do.

We are where we are through learning BUT we didn’t start off with the answers and even the answers we’ve discovered DIDN’T become common knowledge overnight, nor was it always quickly accepted. We as a species more often than not prefer to believe a convenient lie over an inconvenient truth. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Isn't the idea that God doesn't exist no different from the belief it doesn't? Considering we have no way of figuring out a yes/no to the question. As the only divine entities we know of are from the works of mankind. So there is no "true" concept of God. If you want to get technical the universe is God, as we are a product of it. The universe created us. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.