gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the goal of science, the whole point of science, and what science attempts to do?
The Theory of Relative Motion and Natural Purpose
- Thread starter New Age United
- Start date
gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Yes, we use human perception to record and analyze data from our objective experiments, but human perception is on a wide continuum. The mind can be trained to be objective, suspend its biases, and to think logically and critically. Most people do not achieve this or are even interested in doing so. There is overwhelming evidence that objective reality (you use the term true reality) is well within our scope of understanding. Consider our efficient theories that led to the technology, medicine, food production, clean water, air and land travel, etc., that we all use everyday. Not to mention our landing machines onto objects in outer space millions of miles away within a three meter accuracy. It is not luck that these things work so well, it is the human mind's capacity to understand true reality that make these things not only possible, but commonplace. It is not difficult to confidently argue one potential over another when one view/potential/methodology produces the amazing values I listed that advance humanity, and other methodologies that produce only comfort, warm fuzzy feelings or talking points. What are your reasons and support for your belief that reality is outside our scope of understanding?
allinat420
Member
This....
New Age United
Well-Known Member
I like it, cuz I see your point entirely, but you fail to see that science is still subjective, it is the analytical mind at work. By the way atheism is an argument from ignorance, all though I do love the quote about open mindedness, and all of the others, an open mind is required not to neglect possibility by assuming probability as absolute truth, this is why I'm agnostic.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
In my experience it is not to try and attain a secular view of strict objectivity, that is good for a whole understanding of science but not for a whole understanding of life. Great picture quote.Yes, we use human perception to record and analyze data from our objective experiments, but human perception is on a wide continuum. The mind can be trained to be objective, suspend its biases, and to think logically and critically. Most people do not achieve this or are even interested in doing so. There is overwhelming evidence that objective reality (you use the term true reality) is well within our scope of understanding. Consider our efficient theories that led to the technology, medicine, food production, clean water, air and land travel, etc., that we all use everyday. Not to mention our landing machines onto objects in outer space millions of miles away within a three meter accuracy. It is not luck that these things work so well, it is the human mind's capacity to understand true reality that make these things not only possible, but commonplace. It is not difficult to confidently argue one potential over another when one view/potential/methodology produces the amazing values I listed that advance humanity, and other methodologies that produce only comfort, warm fuzzy feelings or talking points. What are your reasons and support for your belief that reality is outside our scope of understanding?
New Age United
Well-Known Member
You thinking that me quoting the prophets makes me less credible and I recall you saying that " no one honestly believes that the cosmos did not exist before consciousness evolved". Now I see your point entirely but it is still incredulity. You can not possibly prove that anything exists other than what is right in front of you, but we can use logic and intuition to know what is truth and what is not, but it is a fallacy to simply deny a possibility just because you can't imagine it being true.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
The scientific method itself is purely objective. Humans may make errors of bias or subjectivity, which is why all serious science goes through the process of peer review: to provide checks and balances for any subjectivity that tries to seep in. It seems like you will eventually learn how science actually works. Atheism is not an argument from ignorance, it is a rejection of all the specious positive claims that are made concerning deities. Atheism addresses belief, not knowledge. Atheists do not say that there is no creator, they couldn't possibly know that because there is no way to look everywhere in the cosmos at once. Atheists are claiming that they lack belief in a creator. There is a small subset of atheists that claim that there is absolutely no gods, but they are relying on faith as most theists do. Agnosticism is a question of knowledge, not of belief although modern vernacular has hijacked the term from Thomas Huxley from what he originally meant. The possibilities are -
Agnostic Theist - One who believes in god(s), but realizes he cannot know if one exists
Gnostic theist - One who believes in god, and claims absolute knowledge god exists (this is most theists)
Agnostic Athiest - One who lacks belief in gods, but realizes he cannot know if one exists. This is most atheists (and me)
Gnostic Atheist - One who lacks belief in gods, and claims absolute knowledge god does not exist (only Pad IME)
To know whether or not you are an atheist, ask yourself if you believe in a god. If the answer is anything but yes, you are an atheist. If you realize no one can know for sure, you are also agnostic...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Good. The reason my statements are not an argument from incredulity is because I did not make a positive statement of fact, I qualified them as my thoughts or opinions. One can only be committing a logical fallacy if they are making a positive claim of fact, i.e. 'There are no gods', 'there is a purpose to mankind and the universe', ect.. If one states, 'I think there are no gods', or 'IMO that saying x makes you less credible', these are not positive claims of fact, they are subjective claims outside the realm of facts and reality. So, it is wise to qualify a statement as opinion, belief or fact; the first two genres cannot be fallacies, but the last category can be...
gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
I must disagree with you there. I don't think atheism is an argument from ignorance. If that's the case, then religion or theism is an argument from extreme ignorance. If anything, atheism is an argument against ignorance and is the most enlightening system of belief known to exist.
What is religion and theism ignorant to? All the scientific evidence and contradictions against their beliefs. And logic, reasoning, and rationality.
What is atheism ignorant to? Illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or highly improbable or highly unlikely things.
I know it may not technically be possible to make an outright claim that there are absolutely no god(s), but I do see that as how reality truly is.
The simple fact that we have incredibly so much scientific knowledge and evidence and understanding about nature, especially in certain fields like biology and physics for example, is enough for me to realize that no god(s) exist. I don't know about you, but it's enough for me.
Even if we didn't have all the knowledge and evidence that we have today (say, similar to 2015 years ago), I still wouldn't consider god(s) a good explanation or even a remote possibility.
Last edited:
gorillagrower0840
Well-Known Member
And I'm also gonna have to disagree that science is subjective. Although I can and do see where you are coming from with that. I understand your point completely.
But then, isn't everything subjective then? If that's the case, then science is surely the least subjective thing.
Science is about as objective as it can get I'm afraid.
I don't believe in science, I understand its logic and evidence based conclusions.
But then, isn't everything subjective then? If that's the case, then science is surely the least subjective thing.
Science is about as objective as it can get I'm afraid.
I don't believe in science, I understand its logic and evidence based conclusions.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
I'm debating in my head whether I'm theist or atheist. I believe in a conscious and effective intelligence that operates the universe, but no a separate, singular supreme being, what does that make me?
Can you be atheist and still believe in providence.
These beliefs are not irrational I have good reason and will try to collect my thoughts some more on the subject.
Can you be atheist and still believe in providence.
These beliefs are not irrational I have good reason and will try to collect my thoughts some more on the subject.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
A part of me strongly attaches itself to atheism, but I can not deny my own logic and reasoning, I guess I would have to classify myself as an agnostic theist. Can you read the previous post and give me your honest opinion.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
God damn you guys and your intelligence, I can actually feel your knowledge eroding my beliefs. This is gonna be a book some day, if you see it "the Theory of Reative Motion and Natural Purpose". If you see it pick it up, I promise it will be an actual theory and I will wait till I'm much more educated.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
What if, there was a way to intuitively express the truth, but the only way is to use the notion of God and Satan. What if I were to refer to Awareness as God and to the Ego as the devil, Satan, Lucifer. You are either following the will of God or you are following the will of Satan. From my book- Jesus speaking to Satan. "What is it worth to win the world and lose your soul, what is it worth to lose the Vastness of Eternity, to fall into this little trap of words that you have set, what is it worth to lose the Glory of the Kingdom, where righteousness is an easy way of life, to fall into the darkness, where your cleverness is a powerful deception"
Would this make me less credible in your opinion, could you ignore all of the religious dogma and find the truth that I am to express.
Would this make me less credible in your opinion, could you ignore all of the religious dogma and find the truth that I am to express.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Btw my book is free of charge, i'am no woo - woo charlatan con - artist. "You shall not charge a mean price for the word" Muhammad. It is entitled The Vision of Humanity- The Immortal Truth. It was written quite fast because I was honestly in fear that Satan would off me before I got it written lmfao. No worries it's all good now and I did take the time to properly edit the book.
If you are interested you can email me at [email protected]. I will reply with the pdf.
If you are interested you can email me at [email protected]. I will reply with the pdf.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Continued from my book. ......."I can not deny the power of your deception, truly you have already conquered the world, but you know just as well as I do that you can not destroy the Light". It is Satan trying to conquer Jesus' will.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Continued from my book. ......."I can not deny the power of your deception, truly you have already conquered the world, but you know just as well as I do that you can not destroy the Light". It is Satan trying to conquer Jesus' will.