Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
iu
 
TP, you keep using scientific theory to discount science. That's weird.

But we worship science without understanding the assumptions (like we have 3 dimensions in space/time only) don't allow us to think outside the box.

Worship science?

Science is a self-examining, self-correcting process. All the scientific method asks is if you have a hypothesis, prove it (or more accurately, try to disprove it).

If you want people to accept a hypothesis without proof, that is worship. Worship is unscientific.
 
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
If you want people to accept a hypothesis without proof, that is worship. Worship is unscientific.

Exactly, which proves atheism is dogma.

Matter can produce consciousness, that is the assumption atheists or materialists work under, that Brain produces the intangible human mind, although this is not even a hypothesis. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that the reverse is true that the universe is mental, QM have bridged the gap.So why is that my position is "more ridiculous" than an atheists position? cause i dared mentioned the word god? fpcookie already already explained and i will tell you again, the god of religion doesn't exist. I am citing science i am not against science, but i am against the dogma atheism sprouts. Atheism is nothing but a belief that nothings exists outside of our 5 senses and matter produces consciousness. When there are other dimensions (mentioned 5,000 years ago) which are beyond our 5 senses!! i am citing science. Hence atheism is dogma. If you have a workable hypothesis for matter giving rise of consciousness that lets see it. Materialism is dogma when science is talking about string theory and several unknown dimensions and forces beyond our 5 senses, materialists still talk about their own dogma. The religion of science that atheists preach (to be distinguished from science itself which is pretty neutral) is dogma. Scientists know the limitations of science, its the atheists who always go on about the 'god of gaps'. There is no 'god of gaps'. We are still unable to answer the very fundamental questions about ourselves, who are we, what are we etc.

I am not using science to disprove science, i am using the science to disprove the atheistic dogma out there by telling them about the limitations of science, which you guys preach as objective truth. It's not the objective truth it never will be, i explained 10 posts ago why. The problem is when you guys think science is only way of explaining the world. It's not. It's true atheists reckon science is all that there is and nothing else can exist unless it's measured. This is false, at the moment scientists cannot see vibrating strings but there is still a strong indication that strings exist and higher dimensions exist. Similarly consciousness is a higher dimensional quantum force that cannot be measured, it doesn't mean brain produces consciousness. If people think brain produces consciousness then that is dogma cause there is zero evidence behind it. I am ok with an agnostic position but atheism is an illogical position.
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Atheism isn't dogma and it certainly isn't a hypothesis.

It certainly is, even scientists agree. As i said scienitsts understand the limitations of science, atheists don't, they worship science as the ultimate truth. As i said if you want to be agnostic be my guest but atheism is religious belief

Horgan: Do you believe in God?

Gleiser: I position myself as an agnostic. I don’t see evidence for any kind of supernatural being or intervention, but also understand that we are partially blind to what’s out there and hence should show some humility. I see atheism as being inconsistent with the scientific method, as it is, essentially, belief in nonbelief. It does not offer any proof of nonexistence as that would be literally impossible through science. Atheism elevates belief to a rational argument that is very ill-founded epistemologically. You may not believe in God, but to affirm its nonexistence with certainty is not scientifically consistent. If you are nonbeliever, the only position consistent with science is agnosticism.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-more-we-know-the-more-mystery-there-is/
 
It certainly is, even scientists agree. As i said scienitsts understand the limitations of science, atheists don't, they worship science as the ultimate truth. As i said if you want to be agnostic be my guest but atheism is religious belief
What rot. I know you want that to be true to justify your beliefs, so you're speaking in generalisations that again highlight your misunderstanding of science (& atheism).

As I have explained to you before, nobody that understands the scientific method sees science as the ultimate truth. Certainly no scientist worth listing to does or they wouldn't be scientists.

And your comments on atheism are also a statement of what you want to be true rather than what is. A common trait with religious folk.

All atheism is is calling bullshit, "bullshit". An atheist views all religions the same way as religious folk view other religions. The only difference between an atheist and (say) a Christian is an atheist believes in one less religion than they do.

Now as an atheist I can't speak for all atheists, but I'm yet to meet an atheist yet that claims we know all there is to know. So I'm not sure where you pulled this "ultimate truth" bullshit from.

Or are you suggesting that everyone should believe in every religion because science has limitations? Surely that's the logical conclusion if we take evidence off the table? How to choose?
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Yet again, back to "you are religious" (when i mentioned over 1,000 times i am not religious and my theory is not exactly "dogma" , yet you keep putting words in my mouth) and "god of gaps" LOL! as i said no point anymore, only the spaghetti monster argument was missing from your post.

Atheism is calling bullshit bullshit lol like consciousness is non-local and fundamental or matter produces consciousness magically? Science is actually open to the idea that matter is a product of consciousness which is actually what i am stating, when atheists state vice versa is true (that consciousness that gave rise to matter is "god") and billions of dollars been put into these researches, go tell them its bullshit cause atheists got it all figured out. :rolleyes:

You are religious in every sense of the way. If you say atheism is calling the con of organised religion, i agree, but what i am arguing are actually sound scientific hypothesis (some even theories now).
 
Last edited:
Feb 24, 2013
45,365
37,740
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm


"Put on my Blue Suede shoes & I boarded a plane.....Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues, in the Middle of the pouring rain.

When I was walking in Memphis.....I was walking with my feet ten feet off a Beale.....Walking in Memphis.....But do I really feel the way I feel?

They've got Catfish on the table....They've got Gospel in the air.....When you haven't got a prayer......Boy you've got a prayer in Memphis.

Put on my Blue suede shoes & I boarded a plane.....Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues, in the middle of the pouring rain."


Happy Good Friday Everyone!.....This one always gets to me on a day like today....God bless you all.
 
Science is actually open to the idea that . . .
Jesus, I wish you'd make up your mind. One minute you're denouncing science, the next you're using it as validation.

Science is open to any idea. That's the bloody point of it!

You keep rabbiting on about consciousness as though I'm arguing on that point. I'm not. It's actually pretty bizarre how many times you've raised it. Theoretical physics is a subset of science. It too must ultimately confirm to the same principles of all science. Yet somehow you see it as existing outside them realm of science?

Bizarre.
 
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Jesus, I wish you'd make up your mind. One minute you're denouncing science, the next you're using it as validation.

Science is open to any idea. That's the bloody point of it!

You keep rabbiting on about consciousness as though I'm arguing on that point. I'm not. It's actually pretty bizarre how many times you've raised it. Theoretical physics is a subset of science. It too must ultimately confirm to the same principles of all science. Yet somehow you see it as existing outside them realm of science?

Bizarre.

Cause to me "god" is that universal consciousness, hence i keep "rabbiting" about the consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental to nature as consciousness "creates" the "experience" we are having. Matter is a derivative of this consciousness, hence it is fundamental and universal in nature there is plenty of science out there which supports my point of view and we only just started researching about it.

I am not denouncing science, science is what science does, i am for science, i am denoucing the religion of science which is used by atheists here. There are physical forces and non-physical forces, this non-physical forces are not denied by science but denied by materialists. Science may eventually get to that but we are very far away from it, neither of us will live long enough to know about it. As per our "present knowledge" what i am trying to say is science is not the only way of verifying things, this is why i talk about consciousness and meditation, cause that is the only way you will know about "stuff" at the moment, this is actually scientific, read what Sam Harris said about meditation and Buddhism, coming from an atheist!

Let me clear the air once and for all, atheism is not consistent with the scientific method nor is theism.(at the moment anyway). I denounce atheists trying to use science to justify their belief. If you are making an argument against organised religion be my guest, i will join you in that but no one can deny what i am arguing here, not using science anyway cause i am citing science. Yes the concept is vague to us but we are heading the right direction. All scientists understand the limitations of science (at this moment anyway). Hence i am talking about meditation and consciousness here.

I don't "curse science". I quite like it. It's a massive part of why we are here! But science can only provide us with a limited understanding of the nature of reality as we all know what's going on is more than what is seems but we don't know exactly what is it, cause at the end of the day us humans are restricted to a 3 dimensional plane and 5 senses. This is why i love science, i also understand the limitations of it. At present its pointing in the right direction when it says consciousness is non-local in nature, but we may never get to the truth, cause of our lack of understanding of higher states of consciousness (dimensions/consciousness), hence we are severely restricted. In other words you simply cannot measure what not measurable. Just like a string is not measurable, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is my point when i say not everything is observed, seen and measured for it to be true. You can verify all of this through meditation and explore the realities and states of consciousness yourself.

My exception in this thread came from your (or atheists in general) claim that science is interested in the "truth", but as Bohm said, you can only experience it in finite ways by observing it. From a gnostic perspective, one cannot experience truth via intellectual observation, which is why the intellect needs to be rested through transcendental meditation. My push from atheism into spirituality came from asking the exact same questions that scientists ask at this time. That is, I was not content with the normal religious arguments that it is a "security blanket for the weak" or it is a mass mind control mechanism. I figured there had to be something more to it, and that logically it had something to do with the brain.

I am disliked by the religious people here for a reason cause i reject their interpretation of a loving caring father who hears our prayers etc, i am also dreaded upon by atheists cause i won't subscribe to their belief. Materialists argue with prejudice that consciousness is generated by the brain. Spiritualists argue that consciousness is a sub-atomic energy exclusive of the brain. Intellectually determining which is correct is futile. It would be far better for you to traverse these planes of existence within yourself, through meditational practices, and obtain your own knowledge on the matter. Don't believe in what i am saying though, try it yourself and before you say what that got to do with "anything" for that matter, we are discussing god in a god thread isn't it? it is relevant as Sagan said "depends on how you define god" , when he was asked if he is an atheist. Hope this helps
 
Last edited:

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Cause to me "god" is that universal consciousness, hence i keep "rabbiting" about the consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental to nature as consciousness "creates" the "experience" we are having. Matter is a derivative of this consciousness, hence it is fundamental and universal in nature there is plenty of science out there which supports my point of view and we only just started researching about it.

I am not denouncing science, science is what science does, i am for science, i am denoucing the religion of science which is used by atheists here. There are physical forces and non-physical forces, this non-physical forces are not denied by science but denied by materialists. Science may eventually get to that but we are very far away from it, neither of us will live long enough to know about it. As per our "present knowledge" what i am trying to say is science is not the only way of verifying things, this is why i talk about consciousness and meditation, cause that is the only way you will know about "stuff" at the moment, this is actually scientific, read what Sam Harris said about meditation and Buddhism, coming from an atheist!

Let me clear the air once and for all, atheism is not consistent with the scientific method nor is theism.(at the moment anyway). I denounce atheists trying to use science to justify their belief. If you are making an argument against organised religion be my guest, i will join you in that but no one can deny what i am arguing here, not using science anyway cause i am citing science. Yes the concept is vague to us but we are heading the right direction. All scientists understand the limitations of science (at this moment anyway). Hence i am talking about meditation and consciousness here.

I don't "curse science". I quite like it. It's a massive part of why we are here! But science can only provide us with a limited understanding of the nature of reality as we all know what's going on is more than what is seems but we don't know exactly what is it, cause at the end of the day us humans are restricted to a 3 dimensional plane and 5 senses. This is why i love science, i also understand the limitations of it. At present its pointing in the right direction when it says consciousness is non-local in nature, but we may never get to the truth, cause of our lack of understanding of higher states of consciousness (dimensions/consciousness), hence we are severely restricted. In other words you simply cannot measure what not measurable. Just like a string is not measurable, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is my point when i say not everything is observed, seen and measured for it to be true. You can verify all of this through meditation and explore the realities and states of consciousness yourself.

My exception in this thread came from your (or atheists in general) claim that science is interested in the "truth", but as Bohm said, you can only experience it in finite ways by observing it. From a gnostic perspective, one cannot experience truth via intellectual observation, which is why the intellect needs to be rested through transcendental meditation. My push from atheism into spirituality came from asking the exact same questions that scientists ask at this time. That is, I was not content with the normal religious arguments that it is a "security blanket for the weak" or it is a mass mind control mechanism. I figured there had to be something more to it, and that logically it had something to do with the brain.

I am disliked by the religious people here for a reason cause i reject their interpretation of a loving caring father who hears our prayers etc, i am also dreaded upon by atheists cause i won't subscribe to their belief. Materialists argue with prejudice that consciousness is generated by the brain. Spiritualists argue that consciousness is a sub-atomic energy exclusive of the brain. Intellectually determining which is correct is futile. It would be far better for you to traverse these planes of existence within yourself, through meditational practices, and obtain your own knowledge on the matter. Don't believe in what i am saying though, try it yourself and before you say what that got to do with "anything" for that matter, we are discussing god in a god thread isn't it? it is relevant as Sagan said "depends on how you define god" , when he was asked if he is an atheist. Hope this helps
It’s a very theistic approach to consider that all this had us and conciousness in mind when creating all of those billions of years and billions of collapsed stars and galaxies!
Why not just cut to the chase,why all the waste and destruction and endless creation and endless time?
So you’re saying god is a sadist and a time waster?
 
Feb 24, 2013
45,365
37,740
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
It’s a very theistic approach to consider that all this had us and conciousness in mind when creating all of those billions of years and billions of collapsed stars and galaxies!
Why not just cut to the chase,why all the waste and destruction and endless creation and endless time?
So you’re saying god is a sadist and a time waster?

Are you saying your life is a waste of time amigo?

You are the universe made conscious in a manifest form.....Be thankful for your blessings & stop arguing against your own conscious existence, you silly.
 
Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
It’s a very theistic approach to consider that all this had us and conciousness in mind when creating all of those billions of years and billions of collapsed stars and galaxies!
Why not just cut to the chase,why all the waste and destruction and endless creation and endless time?
So you’re saying god is a sadist and a time waster?


Indeed, and why bother with so many things such as junk DNA? Surely a universal consciousness would be efficient?
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Are you saying your life is a waste of time amigo?

You are the universe made conscious in a manifest form.....Be thankful for your blessings & stop arguing against your own conscious existence, you silly.
No silly billy, I’m saying why all the wanton waste,destruction on a scale almost unfathomable,when we are the creators utmost outcome?
Why not just cut to the chase?
It’s like building an entire city to service one family in one house!
That’s god in a nutshell!
 

Jack Gun Cyril Stun

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2012
1,237
1,504
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No silly billy, I’m saying why all the wanton waste,destruction on a scale almost unfathomable,when we are the creators utmost outcome?
Why not just cut to the chase?
It’s like building an entire city to service one family in one house!
That’s god in a nutshell!

Yes a very simplistic version of a creator has us as the utmost outcome. Surely we have a long way to evolve, well you’d hope.
Maybe there is something in the experience of evolution itself?
And universe could be teeming with unseen, as yet unknown life, well that’s my bet.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
S

Sorry but I do not trust a religious site. They tend to lie about everything and fabricate data.
Lets see something from a reputable organisation to support their fictional chart.
American Scientists!!
Remember,they get their grants from Congress!:)
Best keep up appearances if ya wanna keep sciencing!:thumbsu:
 
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
So you’re saying god is a sadist and a time waster?

So after all this explanation you still can't let go of god being a "being", deciding on things and judging people, watching us masturbate etc? Maybe you want me to read up on Spinozism more? and no not from Wikipedia, from proper sources. All temporal things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction. This is what Harris described while talking about impermanence, very heart of Buddhism. Read on Anatta, i am done explaining stuff here, you cannot educate someone who doesn't want to be educated, even an atheist like Harris could grasp it but Dawk wannabes cant. Stick to your doctrines then mate, its all good
 
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
S

Sorry but I do not trust a religious site. They tend to lie about everything and fabricate data.
Lets see something from a reputable organisation to support their fictional chart.

Maybe i should quote skeptic.com for you to buy the datas? The dawk wannabes are really struggling big time :D

http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/fir...d-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/

“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).”

The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.

When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2004
34,418
14,191
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Back