@shagoosty I wasn't abducted and I didn't die. I just came up with a creative way to get a break from it all. i now live in a nursing home with a black roommate that thinks he is JFK.
I'm theistic, in a way (I'm actually trying to figure whether I'm theistic or just following the rede of a religion). And to be honest, I've looked everywhere and I can't fins anything to say whether my "deity" created the universe. I'm sure there is, but it doesn't have to pertain to me. But I'm, also a scientist first. (I know it's odd, it is odd to me as well.)
The rigidity of the claim, "accepting science... while still claiming religious faith is a paradox," makes science seem like a religion. Some believe that science resembles religion, whether it's due to our faith in scientific progress or the close-mindedness concerning anything spiritual. Here, science seems to be falling victim to the same pitfall as religion: stubborn, black and white prejudice. To me, this mentality in science is the real paradox.
@Lvx66 For your claim that my paradox makes science seem like a religion to make any real impact, do you not have to espouse the idea that only a religion can oppose a religion?
Science closes and is closed to nothing spiritual/numinous and you don't need faith in the scientific process. Religion embodies unreasonable spiritual based claims about the nature of the universe and the results of the scientific process bridge the gap between faith and reason where religion does not and/or cannot.
@themanofearth No, not necessarily. I just think that this science vs. religion debate is silly. Anything based on faith can never be proven or disproven, only theorized. That's the genius of religion.
Science is the direct opposite of that. The purpose of science is to prove theories wrong. In order for anything to have any weight in science it must withstand the overwhelming scrutiny of the scientific method. How can you possibly compare that to an elaborate system of myths and allegory?
@Lvx66 Uh... because religion relies on claims about the nature of reality to be legitimate in any way shape or form that (unless science is wrong in every way shape and form) cannot be true.
@Lvx66 Ok... I'll go slower. Science contradicts religion on its most basic level. Religious claims about morality made through those myths and allegories you mentioned, make claims about the nature of reality in order to be relevant and legitimately applied to people's lives. These claims are flatly contradicted by the findings of science.
Therefore, if religious claims about morality that are based on those reality claims are true, scientific findings about the nature of reality are false.
@Lvx66 Such a statement is only logical to a scientifically ignorant/illiterate mind. Lack of knowledge strengthens incredulity in specifics and confidence in generalizations.
@xESOTERlC At the risk of sounding hostile, which I'm really not being, I agree with you. themanofearth seems to think I'm defending or attempting to redeem religion. I'm simply trying to point out that science can't be compared to anything that 's based on faith. I just don't see any real contest between the two. I can, however, perceive the threat which science might pose to the religious minded. I believe that religious claims can be a subject of scientific query...
@Lvx66 The fact is that the commonly held religions ARE contested by scientific discoveries. The important thing to distinguish is that religion and theism are not inseparable. Where science challenges faith based doctrines, it holds no stance and is inapplicable to theistic belief in general.
@xESOTERlC I definitely agree with that, it's basically what drove my argument. However, I don't think most people make that distinction (sadly, they don't seem to know the difference) and what results is in fact simple generalizations, as you mentioned earlier, at the cost of what could lead to much higher understanding in both science and spirituality.
@xESOTERlC and an interesting one at that. But by creating this competition between the two (science and religion) you only limit the potential scope of scientific investigation, and, ironically, such an argument suggests that religion poses a threat to the scientific minded, and not the other way around.
@Lvx66 Religion poses no obstacles to science.. only to the reason and intellectual acumen of those susceptible to religious doctrine.
Science will persist regardless of religions' existence so it imparts no infringement to science's potential scope..Idk where that idea even comes from. Along the way, though, particular empirical revelations impugn predisposed religious supposition.
I am one of those that do believe in all truth; Truth does come from science, but is not limited to science. And when it comes down to it the truth us just the truth, it needs no defense or arguments for it. It is surprising to some the advancements in modern physics & cosmology that right now are pointing towards the very reasonable belief in an unconditioned reality (a reality that needs no conditions met) that metaphysics has pointed towards for a while now.
@BeatMasterPhil uh... what? you believe in ALL truth? That's virtually meaningless. Truth doesn't COME FROM science, science discovers functional truths about our universe that were unknowns or merely conjectures. "truth is just the truth" What in the WORLD are you talking about? "unconditioned reality" that metaphysics points toward? WHICH metaphysics: Religious, naturalistic, solipsistic, etc.?
@themanofearth You got it, any absolute truth that we find in the world is truth. We go out into the world and meet it where it is at and don't try to make the world conform to us, but we should conform to the world. But the truth doesn't change, why would it? That is the reason there is really no reason to argue over the truth, because the truth simply is. We should simply witness to the truth.
@themanofearth "Which metaphysics" The study of metaphysics. i.e. the study of being. The reasonable and logical arguments of metaphysics have shown how reasonable an unconditioned reality outside of space/time is, and actually how necessary it is. We are now finding that science is getting closer and closer to the point where it can go no further by induction, and metaphysics must take over using its deductive reasoning. (That point being pre-big bang periods, multiverses, etc.)
@BeatMasterPhil okay...? We DO conform to the world, we have no choice but truth only comes into that as functional truth not absolute. I'm not aware of any truth that is absolute besides a factual truth which is meaningless without interpretation. "Metaphysics must take over using deductive reasoning" WHAT? Metaphysics is just questions about the nature of reality, being and the world. A metaphysical outlook is a series of assumptions answering those questions. It doesn't "take over" anything.
@themanofearth As you may know, metaphysics is the undergirding of all sciences, as without metaphysics science would have no basis. Since the questions of intelligibility, if something actually exists and can be known, are not questions of science but rather of metaphysics. Does this make metaphysics better, not at all. Its all about the right tool for the job. Meaning science can only deal with things within space/time, where metaphysics through the use of reason can go a step further.
@themanofearth That is why it is important to use all sciences in conjunction with eachother, b/c when it comes down to it there cannot be any actual contradictions of real truth. That is why I brought up how physics, cosmology, and metaphysics are starting to fall closer and closer in step in the past 5-10 years. If you are interested in physics, cosmology, and metaphysics in relationship to eachother dealing with the beginning of space/time, I've got a great book I would definitely recommend.
@BeatMasterPhil Uh... metaphysics can only "go a step further" than the functional truths of science by assuming certain things that may or may not be true about the nature of reality, being and the world and reasoning out what that or those things would mean were they true.
@themanofearth That is why it's the goal of metaphysics, just like science, to find truth. As we know in all sciences theories & such have been improved, changed, scrapped, etc. Metaphysics is a study just as science is. There are big distinctions that can be made, but a study nonetheless. A great quote is, "The greatest among men are those who do not flinch in the presence of truth, but welcome it with a simple word: Yes." That is what a meta-physician must do in the presence of truth.
@themanofearth Again, this gets back to the idea that truth is not just found in scientific truth. Truth can be found in many ways. That is why I am very curious to see where physics and cosmology head in the next 50 or so years, and if there comes a point where all practical and reasonable theories are leading to a distinct beginning to space/time. Which in that case science could go no further since it does not deal with things outside of space and time.
@BeatMasterPhil Uh... no: Metaphysic's function is to address what the truth WOULD BE if "X" assumption(s) is/are ALREADY true; which is NOT absolute/transcendent truth.
Science is underpinned by a SPECIFIC metaphysical claim called methodological naturalism or the claim that "nature is all there is" which leads ONLY to functional truths about the nature of reality and not to absolute truth.
FYI it's not "space and time" space and time are one thing - spacetime and yes science covers that.
@themanofearth Yes, you got it on the space/time idea, did not mean to suggest that space and time are 2 distinct things. I am just very interested in where physics and cosmology will be heading in the next ~50 year in looking to answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." Take Care :)
Unfortunately, the emotionally attached & reliant, the uneducated, etc, don't want to leave the pool. The warm waters of ignorance are far more comforting than the frigidity of space to them, and it is a wonder whether many of them will ever step beyond and think. Hopefully if we can improve education in our societies (world wide), eventually people can grow to see the beauty lingering outside.
@Vire70 I've always said the education is the key. Nail that down and you've already won, it's just that you might not see the results in your lifetime. Your/our grand children will be thankful though.
@BCsoccer14 Ok... rephrasing the EXACT same question and not adding any details as to specifics of your question doesn't address the information I've requested.
However, in the spirit of giving you a little intellectual leeway you can see my video:
@BCsoccer14 There was no hostility but there was in intellectual jab. If you see that as intellectual bashing I suggest (a slightly harder jab) you grow some thicker skin.
@BCsoccer14 I'd completely forgotten you existed and (upon review of the conversation we had 4 months ago) with good reason. The answer is no to the first and yes to the second though the yes answer is only a statement of ability not a statement of belief in prayer's power.
@BCsoccer14 What are you talking about? I've not been hostile toward you at all. Frustrated at having to repeat myself and and/or having to answer questions that are so inane/pointless questions maybe but not hostile. Also, if you'd taken 2 seconds to review what we'd talked about 4 months ago, you'd have realized that you've already asked that question and I've already answered you.
About my life: I'm intelligent, decent looking, well liked, fulfilled spiritually and happy with life so far.
You talk about God then religion like the two are the same thing. We cannot prove if god exists or not, likely he doesn't or not a personal being that fits most religions, if it exists beyond time, mass etc then we will never know no way of measuring it, but we can be sure that all religions have passed their sell by date they all make god look like a total ass. Doesn't need clever science to prove anything just basic common sense and a willingness to come to terms with common facts.
@Darkside333 Ok... So you're just piss poor at communicating... And also wrong.
Right and wrong in moral terms are only subjective if you believe what is good and bad are meaningless terms so let me ask you: What does goodness mean in moral terms?
third of all, you're so fascinated by the thought of science and what it's "proven" that you havent realized it hasnt proved anything really. it's an amazing thing, i wont deny that. but everyone is just as lost. science is all theory. like any religion.
@Darkside333 Science is a philosophy not a theory. Scientific theories are based on observable empirical evidence.
Religion is neither. At best it's based on an untested and untestable hypothesis.
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." ~Unknown
The word "prof" in science is not absolute simply because of the problem of induction first formulated by David Hume. Wikipedia has a great entry on the problem if you're interested.
@Darkside333 How is my view on religion narrow minded? It's true that the Mayan religion was based around solar cycles but it's more astrological not astronomical and on top of that it centered around human sacrifice to feed the sun god so that the sun would rise the next day. How is all of that based on observational evidence?
Uh... YOU brought up the "proven" concept in science and how it's not absolutely proven. I was just acknowledging that you were right...
there's science behind it. you dont see it because you dont know the mayans personally. i have talked with them face to face and you'll find a GREAT deal of knowledge about the world in them. you speak of an ancient maya. one that took place 500 years ago.
now do you want me to bring up science 500 years ago??
things change. technology changes. they're observations continue to allow them to grow while still following their spirituality.
@Darkside333 By "them" I assume you mean the varying degrees of descendants of the Mayans who had to learn about their ancestors culture from western records because the Mayans were virtually completely wiped out by the Spanish Conquistadors over 500 years ago? i.e. they're not Mayans...
The Mayans did have very accurate predictive maps of the movements of celestial bodies and there's no denying that there was observation involved but that's not the core of their religion.
first and foremost, your argument that they are not mayans is irrelevant. say what your saying is true; that they had to learn about their ancestors culture from western records(which is wrong.) the analysis you're making about the mayans is based on those "records"(which is also wrong but for the sake of this argument let's assume you're not.) they would still be in accordance to the mayan religioin simply an evolved form. call them what you want it doesnt change anything.
secondly, the mayans are still around. and not because they've learned about their culture from western records(which there are none really) there are mayans that have continued to follow their spirituality to this day. passed down from father to son. mother to daughter. yes their land was taken from them, but they hold their religion true. now there are some "sects" of mayans that would fall into what you described, but those are not the people im referring to. (continued...)
the mayans are a people of philosophy. their priests are what you could call a teacher. a wise man. there is no "nobility" to him. they are just seen with such respect due to the fact that they have so much knowledge to offer. therefore, abolishing your theory that they were and are a controlled people. they are a body of people in hopes of evolving as a whole.
and as for the supernatural claims, i said this earlier. they are very good story tellers. call aesthetics. a not so boring people.
and there was no "core" in their religion. i think you may be confusing them with other indigenous religions(which isnt hard to do since they held a lot of common beliefs) the sun is seen as a miracle because really it is. it's essential for life, is it not? rain is also seen with great respect. so on and so forth.
@Darkside333 "The sun is a miracle" Physicists have calculated that if the natural forces were chosen randomly, 25% of all universes would have suns. Also, you don't need the weak force, 1 out of all 4 of them, to maintain suns. "Mayans learn their religion from father to son". So what you are saying is that they isolate themselves and therefore they belief it?
ok, you didnt get the whole picture. it's not the chance of there being a sun that's the miracle.(which i could still argue) the sun itself is the miracle. like i said it's essential for life. without it we wouldnt exist. call it gratitude. and i really dont know what you mean by 25% of ALL universes... how many have you been to? how many have physicists been to? physics is a branch of science largely based on assumptions and theories. (still my personal favorite though)
@Darkside333 What I meant is 25% of all possible universes with our laws. You are (kind of) saying it's a miracle that life exists. If life wasn't here, there would be no one to wonder about it. It's like saying it's special that a dice rolled a 6 (chance is only 17%), when you only CAN see the dice when a six is rolled.
A scientific theory is not a theory as people use it: it means that it's an idea with evidence backing it up, which is falsifiable.
first of all, your point irrelevant. let's say you're playing craps and you roll the dice to your favor, what is your response? to celebrate. the chance to loose was there and much higher. but you won. and something i didnt mention earlier is that you're saying the chance of there being a sun. now a sun is only part of the miracle. you need a lot more to make life possible.
i dont know exactly how you came to the conclusion that the mayans isolate themselves, but let me clarify that for you anyways. think of it like this, say you are a father, now you teach your child about science. it's that simple. there's no need for isolation. it's just what any good father would do. it's wisdom passed down.
@Darkside333 It was however a means by which the Mayan priest kings kept control of their subjects by being able to predict solar eclipses. The core of their religion was sun worship. This drove them to make observations so they could accurately predict celestial events so I suppose you could say that religion in that case proved it self as a motivational tool but not in it's foundational supernatural claims... Which is kinda necessary for religion to prove itself isn't it?
@Darkside333 On the other hand religion doesn't even make an effort to prove itself most of the time and when it has it's failed miserably to present any empirical observable evidence for the claims it makes and relies on for legitimacy.
once again, your views on religion are very narrow minded. i feel like you're attached to the mainstream views of religion. which are the religions formed to control. im may be wrong, but your responses lead me to speculate that. many religions seek truth.
@Darkside333 Well all religion's "seek" "truth" however ALL attempt to do so THROUGH absolute unproven and unprovable supernatural claims. This in turn taints their "search" for "truth" because once you invoke the supernatural all discussion (and actual seeking) ends and that's the problem. Without those supernatural claims virtually ANYTHING could be considered or argued to be a religion could it not? If that's a narrow minded view please convince me otherwise.
well no, i have to disagree. the supernatural doesnt taint the search for truth. it's just different means of attaining what one believes is truth. go back to what we had said earlier about proof. it's all subjective. the human reasoning can only see so far. the universe is far too complicated to say if a happens, then b will be the outcome. watch the video i linked you. for the most part, it's what im trying to say.
and yea you're right. any form of belief could be considered a religion if agreed on by a group of people. look up the definition of religion. i dont see why anyone would argue that.
secondly, you're assuming all religions are the same. read a book on buddhism. do your research (like a real scientist would) science comes from the word scientia, meaning knowledge. real knowledge holds no barriers. including ones from spirituality. and no im not a buddhist, but i have learned a lot from their teachings. and so should you.
@Darkside333 Well you should do YOUR research a little better there bud. Namely you should try to familiarize yourself with the person you're talking to before ("stupidly") assuming that I've never read anything on Buddhism for a start.
See my video: What Qualifies as a Religion
At this time it should be the very top one on the list of my uploads.
@Darkside333 Second, if you're namely objecting to the god concept why would you bring up Buddhism. There's no god concept in core Buddhism nor is it necessary to evoke the supernatural for core Buddhism to be valid.
and the reason i brought up buddhism is because the video said, "accepting science and scientific theories and still claiming religious faith is a paradox"
meaning your argument isnt simply toward the god concept.
@Darkside333 This is true. This was one of my earlier efforts and were I to try to produce this video now the argument would be much more specific. I leave this up because at this point in my intellectual development in relation to religion I was looking for others and perhaps leaving this up will bring more people more in my direction.
@Darkside333 LMAO! Can anyone say straw man? People come to their understanding of religion from different ways and their understanding of it changes over time. This video is a foot print of where I've been in my development and thus I (and anyone else) can track my development, hopefully understand where I've come from, and how/why I espouse the understanding I do.
you're argument is really flawed for someone who believes in science...
first of all, you imagine people thinking that god is some kind of human. like he launches lightning bolts with his bare hands. you're making a STUPID assumption. now im not religious, im simply spiritual. god isnt a being in the form you give him. he's an entity. indescribable in form. god is the universe itself. including the lighting that strikes the ground. your essence of being. creation. time endlessly flowing.
@Usersname1983 take it easy there. Deep breath. Angry ramblings countered by curt (but quite humerus) retorts, usually only begets more angry ramblings.
@themanofearth Hey, I do what I can. One can’t take a post like that too seriously. I reserve more thoughtful comments for posts that are more deserving of my time. I just thought it was funny that someone who supposedly “learned a lot from [Buddhist] teachings” would be so angry. That also makes me wonder what exactly was gained from their study of Buddhism, if anything at all.
@Darkside333 Well... Aren't you making the same type of "STUPID" assumption in saying, "god isn't a being in the form you give him. he's an entity. indescribable..." yadda yadda yadda? You're assuming that ALL people who believe in a god believe as you do, are you not? Additionally, your description of 'a/the god' is so ambiguous that it hardly needs to be addressed as a concept unto itself.
Q: What is god?
A: God is everything.
If that's a reasonable answer to you, you cannot call mine stupid.
well, no. i dont know what other people believe. i know what SOME people believe, including myself. and my argument doesnt require everyone to be in complete agreement. some people are brainwashed idiots. like i said im not religious. simply spiritual.
umm and why should something i believe exists not be addressed? god is, as i call "him," the creator. not everything, but the reason for it. and that reason, i find marvelous.
@Darkside333 Well your argument doesn't requier everyone to be in complete agreement AS LONG AS you stipulate it. Which you didn't until your hypocrisy was pointed out. Now you've changed the nature of your argument from a total objection to a very specific objection about YOUR definition about what religion and a god are; which kinda blunts your original argument and the initial assessment of the intelligence of any objection you've made doesn't it?
i never changed the nature of my argument. my argument was broad. my argument was simply that god isnt a being. i used my personal definition to give one interpretation of how your assumptions arent solid because not all people see god in the way you described.
@Darkside333 Well no you didn't do that. Your original argument made an absolute claim about the nature of what god is (in which you basically stated "god is everything") to assert... how did you put it? Oh yeah, the stupidity of my video.
You're NOW arguing the non universality of my argument (which I agree with) by changing the absolutist claim you made in your first comment after I pointed out your hypocrisy. More cognitive dissonance should be kicking in riiiight abouuut....
yes i did do that. "first of all, you imagine people thinking that god is some kind of human." followed up by my personal argument. i should have followed up with, "take my view for example...." even though it doesnt change the fact that it was an assumption i felt you made falsely. but really, i think we're going off on a tangent of unnecessary arguing.
@Darkside333 After watching the video again I don't imagining or assume god is some kind of human. I only used images of god/gods to represent an idea. The main thrust of the video is aimed specifically at theistic religion and how science is making the god concept virtually obsolete in our engagement in the real world. It is thus loosing it's legitimacy because it doesn't (and never really did) explain anything. It's a blind assumption made on faith and faith alone. Unnecessary argument indeed.
how about that there are natural causes for things that happen in the world?
how about that these natural causes are constant?
how about that human logic is logical?
now im not saying there is anything wrong with having assumptions, im just saying there's no point in placing science above religion. believe what you want and let others believe what they want... or if you simply have to interfere, support science dont bash on religion.
@Darkside333 How about we know that we can't be 100% certain that anything is true, not even gravity, but that, since we have an overwhelming amount of indicators that it does, the chance that it isn't consistent is negligible? We also assume that something that is real must be measurable, because something that isn't measurable doesn't influence our lives, and doesn't matter. How about our logic leads to predictions which are confirmed? We don't place science above, but in stead of, religion.
like i said there is nothing wrong with the assumptions. i was simply replying to the post themanofearth told me to take a look at. he said that science isnt based on assumptions. im sipmly stating that the very foundation of science is an assumption. im not attacking science at all. there's no reason to. just like there is no reason to attack the IDEA of religion. now as for certain religions, go right ahead. but the idea is just as solid as science is.
@Darkside333 They are not assumptions. We are just saying that the chances are so slim that the effect is negligible, not impossible. There is something wrong with the idea of religion: we don't know so goddidit + I'm afraid of death so I'll live forever + there must be meaning. They all come from the emotional parts of the brain: the parts that are not good at philosophy.
we dont know so go god did it? really? that's not how i came to be spiritual... it's far more complicated than that...
im afraid of death so ill live forever??? ummm have you ever looked up any indigenous tribe from the americas? most celebrate death. it's a cycle of life.
there must be meaning?? lol im not even sure if that relates to religion.... i think that relates to human nature.
@Darkside333 Well yes science does make those assumptions but everyone makes those assumptions every time they get behind the wheel of a car or they have a thought. But saying there's no reason to elivate science above religion and no reason to "bash on religion" sounds rather rediculous to me. What has religion given us in the last 200 years desides bad reasons for doing good things and good reasons for doing bad things?
look i could say the exact same thing about science. people have their own agendas whether they are religious, scientist, neither or both. a lot of "bad" things have come out of science and religion.
and right and wrong is so subjective. it's all causality.
@Darkside333 ... Ok now you're grasping at straws. First, science doesn't give us reasons to DO anything and religion does. Second, the "bad" things to come out of science (i'm assuming you're going to point to the tired example of the atomic bomb, the threat of biological weapons, or etc. etc.) are not CAUSED by science: Science only allows for their existence...
first off, i never said science gave reasons for anything. i simply stated that "bad" things have spawned from it. trying to imply what you did about religion. that yes it can be corrupt, but not always. it all reflects on the people behind it. stop being so biased and be a little more open minded. you say nothing good has come out of religion and i can only laugh at that. read some books. meet some people. you could learn a little something outside your box.
@Darkside333 "i never said science gave reasons for anything" The simple act of comparing the "bad" things to come out of science and the actually bad things to come from religion means that um... yes you did. I also didn't say that nothing good has ever come out of religion. In fact (if YOU'LL take the time to read) I conceded that some good comes from religion but that people do it for bad reason but I will add that if they don't do it for bad reasons they're not doing it because of religion
there's a difference between cause and reason. so no it doesnt mean i said science gives reason. also my comparison wasnt even to show that science is the "reason" for those "bad" things. i compared science and religion to show you that science and religion both have people with corrupt ideas. meaning your judgment against religion is very biased because if that's going to be your argument then you should feel the same way about science.
@Darkside333 Again, grasping at straws but now you're trying to build straw men out of them for yourself.
1 Who compared cause and reason before you did in the previous sentence?
2 (here's the big one) By comparing science and religion in terms of the corrupt nature of some ideas of people involved in their practice shows that at best you possess a PROFOUND ignorance on how science and religion function on a fundamental level. See my video Assumptions of Religion and Science for a minuscule look
@Darkside333 Third, do to the MASSIVE gain in understanding of with workings of the universe in which we live that science has allowed: more humans have been and will continue to be saved from the ravages of microbial and genetic diseases, debilitating injuries and conditions than it has alowed to be killed in ever more efficient ways.
second, a tired example huh? didnt know examples could get old when they dont fit your argument. i wasnt gonna bring up any examples really because my point isnt to attack science. allow me redirect you to my point: the IDEA of religion. im not sure how many times i will have to capitalize that word to make its point across, but ill keep trying til it does.
@Darkside333 The IDEA of religion? that's NOT a redirection that's a COMPLETELY different topic. When YOU started comparing the effects of science with the effects of religion (and you did this with the sentences, "look i could say the exact same thing about science." and "a lot of "bad" things have come out of science and religion." in relation to my assertion about the last 200 years of religious history) we left the realm of "the idea of religion".
key phrase, in that sentence is I COULD HAVE. from the very beginning i have been defending the idea of religion. the reason i "bashed" on science is to make a comparison. to try and show you that religion is not the problem because it's even that same problem exist within "science." i never left the "realm" of the IDEA of science... i just responded to your biased argument.
@Darkside333 #3 is an objective fact demonstrated by the simple number of people on this planet who are now living longer, healthier, disease free lives relative to prior ages do to the advances in our knowledge gained through science. Fourth, The "right" and "wrong" are NOT subjective. They relate to facts about the well being and suffering of conscious human beings which is measurable in an objective sense through the new sciences of nutrition, sociology, psychology, and neurobiology.
now for your 3rd argument... im afraid that's only true for most white cultures(without sounding racist of course). most other cultures have lived healthy lives without the advances of western medicine. and the repercussions for the style of living have been far kinder to the earth and society. my grandfather lives til this day standing at the age of 105(yes, standing). his father, died at the age of 103. they took no part in western medicine. (cont.)
@Darkside333 "im afraid that's only true for most white cultures" Um not it's not. The extreme fall in infant mortality rates dropping like flies over the last 200 years can conclusively prove that statement to be false by itself. Let alone the fact that on average (WORLD WIDE: not just in the "white cultures" [I can only assume you mean the developed world]) the average life span has almost doubled.
PS that was pretty racist and small. Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Italian, Arabic etc. etc.
and yes it is true. of course civilizations went through bad times, but not as many as the white cultures did. other cultures didnt indulge in the ego as much. and no my "racist" remark wasnt small. you cant blame me for what's happened. im just pointing it out how it's been. which is why i say white culture and not white people. and western medicine is a result of their culture.
@Darkside333 "not as many as the white cultures did. other cultures didnt indulge in the ego as much." You now possess a profound lack of historical knowledge also.
People have Abused Science's Power to suit their own greed ends.
Religion on the other hand has Mandated that horrible atrocities happen. Slavery, Genocide, Discrimination, Ignorance. All of these and more are in the Old testament, new testament, Quran, and most other holy books.
Science is only a Tool, to be used to help the world, and some have taken that power and used it for themselves.
that's exactly my point blank. im not blaming science AT ALL. but you cant say religion is bad thing either. there are religions out there unlike the ones you mentioned. and those are the religions im defending. like you said dont blame the gun, blame the shooter.
But the religions Themselves encourage Ignorance over Learning.
The moment you take a claim (Any Claim) as "Absolute Truth", you stop looking for the answers.
Most religions teach Non-sense as "Absolute Truth". This is Demonstrably Bad.
The ONLY Religion that has NOT pissed me off is Buddhism, because Buddha himself said "Don't listen to authority, go out and experiment to find the truth"
I see Religion as Pointless, Why believe something silly when you can just Experiment! =^_^=
well i agree with what you're saying to a certain degree. but i especially agree with the buddhism part :). spirituality deals a lot with sending positive vibrations through one's being. and i speak for very few individual's ways of seeing religion because most people who are religious fall into religion out of fear. im spiritual because of the fact that im human. what i mean by that is that science is very... how can i put it.... tediously boring. for example(cont)
science proves that tobacco is bad for you but it can never say whether the bad is worth the result of smoking the tobacco. yea it may kill you, but life is worth living not limiting. i say this being a casual smoker, so obviously i enjoy it but if you dont enjoy it by all means dont smoke. it's simply an example. i feel religion makes more of an effort to be human rather than create "robots." yea im aware that religion has created many "robots" but once again i defend the few
"it can never say whether the bad is worth the result of smoking"
It does not have to... And Science never claimed that it EVER makes those claims.
All science is suppose to do is discover and explore the natural world... thats all.
I am not religious because I care whether or not my Beliefs are True or not. And Religion (Most of them, if not all) have not demonstrated that their claims are true.
Thus I do not believe, but we all have the freedom to believe what we please =^_^=
PS Before you do if you attempt to compare what science can give us through the understanding our universe with the bad things we've done with the knowledge/power it has allowed us to obtain I'm going to do is laugh.
i cant continue to discuss this situation because i would need to go into too much detail that in the end i dont believe you could understand because of the lack of your individual spirituality and the wall of you're obsession. continue to grow is all i can say. we each have our perspectives. we obviously come from different a understanding of life. actually another thing i can recommend is dont be a smart ass. i read that comment someone left you saying "were do you...(cont)
...think we come from?" it was obvious what he was referring to. life. the one question that troubles almost every human being. dont be so ....childish. get off your high and mighty cloud and learn some things from other people. hear out their ideas. after all, you are human as well. or will you only hear out people with phds? lol
@Darkside333 "...the lack of your individual spirituality..." HA HA HA HA! I think you're confusing religious dogma with spirituality there bud. You should've seen some of my other videos before you asserted that:
An Atheist's Spirituality
&
An Atheist's Spirituality 2
Christian "spirituality" was more than likely drummed into many (if not most) of it's adherents on mother's knee and I've yet to see a person of any Abrahamic faith with individuality as part of their spirituality. Continued...
@Darkside333 The only thing "new" in Abrahamic religions today are the mental gymnastics they have to preform and the amount of evidence they have to either twist or completely ignore to be able to justify their beliefs. And even those are simply rehashed tricks from between the middle of the 18-1900's.
@Darkside333 Fifth, over the last 200 years (& longer) the only things that religions have given the world are pious foundations focused on their own self justification for even existing like the Templeton Foundation, charities funded by religious organizations who basically con people out of their money through either threats of hell fire or fluffy hope filled promises of salvation FROM that very same hell fire in exchange for obedience to their doctrine, martyrdom in the name of God, ...
@Darkside333 And you're trying to redirect to a completely different topic again of the IDEA of religion. As I explained before, we left "the idea" behind when YOU started comparing the real world effects of religion vs science and the "bad"/bad things to come out of them. Additionally, one cannot talk about the "idea" of religion in a good light with out first conceding that the reality of religion is something completely different.
@Darkside333 ... an extremely powerful group of holy men among who's dedications in life seems to have been the systematic physical and sexual abuse of children and the protection and attraction of their abusers from secular authorities unrivaled by the most sinister (what most people would call) criminal organizations, and the increase in the number of disease sufferers do to the seemingly sadomasochistic dedication to taboos on sex, "fooling with God's creation", and in/out group morality.
and honestly i find it humorous that you would bring up the templeton foundation. for two reasons. the first being that it makes me realize that you're not getting my point at all. im defending the IDEA of religion not EVERY god damn religion out there. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USELESS INFORMATION.
@Darkside333 I've said it twice before so I'm just going to cut and paste:
"And you're trying to redirect to a completely different topic again of the IDEA of religion. As I explained before, we left "the idea" behind when YOU started comparing the real world effects of religion vs science and the "bad"/bad things to come out of them."
and once again, i could say the exact same thing about science. (ALOT of bad is coming out of it.) but it's irrelevant to say the exact same thing about science because science isnt my target. the people with corrupt minds are. religion is simply your scapegoat.
and no i didnt start comparing things. i responded to YOUR argument.
im still in the "realm" of defending the IDEA of religion.
secondly, i found it humorous cause it's the perfect example for me to demonstrate how the one thing you're defending right now is doing something very similar. western medicine cons so many people out of their money by feeding you all this propaganda on their drugs that dont cure anything but keep you alive to make sure you keep paying the bill. and they hide natural remedies from the world. and i dont blame science for that. just help me relate the nature of man to both science and religion.
@Darkside333 So now god is the JUST the creator... not, "an entity. indescribable in form. god is the universe itself. including the lighting that strikes the ground. your essence of being. creation. time endlessly flowing"?
@DjetGlea Thank you sir. I hope you enjoy the rest of the show. There a lot of my performances that you've probably not seen and many more to come. I hope you enjoy them all.
This is an awesome video. U have said in 4 minutes what I've been trying to get across to Xians 4 years now!
It's true, we've outgrown the gods...psychologically & emotionally. It's time to stop crawling & start walking. We need to take responsibility 4 our actions & be answerable to them!
It seems that the theological community can't leap across that gap that we've already conquered.
I know many Xians who apparently want out, but are weighed down with too much fear & guilt to make the 1st move.
I lost you at the Elvis analogy. There is a mountain load of evidence supporting Elvis' abduction.
shagoosty 6 months ago
@shagoosty LMAO! X-D
themanofearth 6 months ago
Comment removed
k0rps3gynd3r 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shagoosty I wasn't abducted and I didn't die. I just came up with a creative way to get a break from it all. i now live in a nursing home with a black roommate that thinks he is JFK.
k0rps3gynd3r 5 months ago
@shagoosty irony?
YourSkyliner 1 month ago
I'm theistic, in a way (I'm actually trying to figure whether I'm theistic or just following the rede of a religion). And to be honest, I've looked everywhere and I can't fins anything to say whether my "deity" created the universe. I'm sure there is, but it doesn't have to pertain to me. But I'm, also a scientist first. (I know it's odd, it is odd to me as well.)
HimesInu 7 months ago
Hmmm... Transcribe audio was actually good this time.
MilleniumAtheist 8 months ago
LMFAO XD gir at the end :D
Sora657 8 months ago
The rigidity of the claim, "accepting science... while still claiming religious faith is a paradox," makes science seem like a religion. Some believe that science resembles religion, whether it's due to our faith in scientific progress or the close-mindedness concerning anything spiritual. Here, science seems to be falling victim to the same pitfall as religion: stubborn, black and white prejudice. To me, this mentality in science is the real paradox.
Lvx66 10 months ago
@Lvx66 For your claim that my paradox makes science seem like a religion to make any real impact, do you not have to espouse the idea that only a religion can oppose a religion?
Science closes and is closed to nothing spiritual/numinous and you don't need faith in the scientific process. Religion embodies unreasonable spiritual based claims about the nature of the universe and the results of the scientific process bridge the gap between faith and reason where religion does not and/or cannot.
themanofearth 10 months ago
@themanofearth No, not necessarily. I just think that this science vs. religion debate is silly. Anything based on faith can never be proven or disproven, only theorized. That's the genius of religion.
Science is the direct opposite of that. The purpose of science is to prove theories wrong. In order for anything to have any weight in science it must withstand the overwhelming scrutiny of the scientific method. How can you possibly compare that to an elaborate system of myths and allegory?
Lvx66 10 months ago
@Lvx66 Uh... because religion relies on claims about the nature of reality to be legitimate in any way shape or form that (unless science is wrong in every way shape and form) cannot be true.
themanofearth 10 months ago
@themanofearth What?
Lvx66 10 months ago
@Lvx66 Ok... I'll go slower. Science contradicts religion on its most basic level. Religious claims about morality made through those myths and allegories you mentioned, make claims about the nature of reality in order to be relevant and legitimately applied to people's lives. These claims are flatly contradicted by the findings of science.
Therefore, if religious claims about morality that are based on those reality claims are true, scientific findings about the nature of reality are false.
themanofearth 10 months ago
@Lvx66 Such a statement is only logical to a scientifically ignorant/illiterate mind. Lack of knowledge strengthens incredulity in specifics and confidence in generalizations.
xESOTERlC 10 months ago
@xESOTERlC At the risk of sounding hostile, which I'm really not being, I agree with you. themanofearth seems to think I'm defending or attempting to redeem religion. I'm simply trying to point out that science can't be compared to anything that 's based on faith. I just don't see any real contest between the two. I can, however, perceive the threat which science might pose to the religious minded. I believe that religious claims can be a subject of scientific query...
Lvx66 10 months ago
@Lvx66 The fact is that the commonly held religions ARE contested by scientific discoveries. The important thing to distinguish is that religion and theism are not inseparable. Where science challenges faith based doctrines, it holds no stance and is inapplicable to theistic belief in general.
xESOTERlC 10 months ago
@xESOTERlC I definitely agree with that, it's basically what drove my argument. However, I don't think most people make that distinction (sadly, they don't seem to know the difference) and what results is in fact simple generalizations, as you mentioned earlier, at the cost of what could lead to much higher understanding in both science and spirituality.
Lvx66 10 months ago
@xESOTERlC and an interesting one at that. But by creating this competition between the two (science and religion) you only limit the potential scope of scientific investigation, and, ironically, such an argument suggests that religion poses a threat to the scientific minded, and not the other way around.
Lvx66 10 months ago
@Lvx66 Religion poses no obstacles to science.. only to the reason and intellectual acumen of those susceptible to religious doctrine.
Science will persist regardless of religions' existence so it imparts no infringement to science's potential scope..Idk where that idea even comes from. Along the way, though, particular empirical revelations impugn predisposed religious supposition.
xESOTERlC 10 months ago
I am one of those that do believe in all truth; Truth does come from science, but is not limited to science. And when it comes down to it the truth us just the truth, it needs no defense or arguments for it. It is surprising to some the advancements in modern physics & cosmology that right now are pointing towards the very reasonable belief in an unconditioned reality (a reality that needs no conditions met) that metaphysics has pointed towards for a while now.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil uh... what? you believe in ALL truth? That's virtually meaningless. Truth doesn't COME FROM science, science discovers functional truths about our universe that were unknowns or merely conjectures. "truth is just the truth" What in the WORLD are you talking about? "unconditioned reality" that metaphysics points toward? WHICH metaphysics: Religious, naturalistic, solipsistic, etc.?
themanofearth 11 months ago
@themanofearth You got it, any absolute truth that we find in the world is truth. We go out into the world and meet it where it is at and don't try to make the world conform to us, but we should conform to the world. But the truth doesn't change, why would it? That is the reason there is really no reason to argue over the truth, because the truth simply is. We should simply witness to the truth.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@themanofearth "Which metaphysics" The study of metaphysics. i.e. the study of being. The reasonable and logical arguments of metaphysics have shown how reasonable an unconditioned reality outside of space/time is, and actually how necessary it is. We are now finding that science is getting closer and closer to the point where it can go no further by induction, and metaphysics must take over using its deductive reasoning. (That point being pre-big bang periods, multiverses, etc.)
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil okay...? We DO conform to the world, we have no choice but truth only comes into that as functional truth not absolute. I'm not aware of any truth that is absolute besides a factual truth which is meaningless without interpretation. "Metaphysics must take over using deductive reasoning" WHAT? Metaphysics is just questions about the nature of reality, being and the world. A metaphysical outlook is a series of assumptions answering those questions. It doesn't "take over" anything.
themanofearth 11 months ago
@themanofearth As you may know, metaphysics is the undergirding of all sciences, as without metaphysics science would have no basis. Since the questions of intelligibility, if something actually exists and can be known, are not questions of science but rather of metaphysics. Does this make metaphysics better, not at all. Its all about the right tool for the job. Meaning science can only deal with things within space/time, where metaphysics through the use of reason can go a step further.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@themanofearth That is why it is important to use all sciences in conjunction with eachother, b/c when it comes down to it there cannot be any actual contradictions of real truth. That is why I brought up how physics, cosmology, and metaphysics are starting to fall closer and closer in step in the past 5-10 years. If you are interested in physics, cosmology, and metaphysics in relationship to eachother dealing with the beginning of space/time, I've got a great book I would definitely recommend.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil Uh... metaphysics can only "go a step further" than the functional truths of science by assuming certain things that may or may not be true about the nature of reality, being and the world and reasoning out what that or those things would mean were they true.
themanofearth 11 months ago
@themanofearth That is why it's the goal of metaphysics, just like science, to find truth. As we know in all sciences theories & such have been improved, changed, scrapped, etc. Metaphysics is a study just as science is. There are big distinctions that can be made, but a study nonetheless. A great quote is, "The greatest among men are those who do not flinch in the presence of truth, but welcome it with a simple word: Yes." That is what a meta-physician must do in the presence of truth.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@themanofearth Again, this gets back to the idea that truth is not just found in scientific truth. Truth can be found in many ways. That is why I am very curious to see where physics and cosmology head in the next 50 or so years, and if there comes a point where all practical and reasonable theories are leading to a distinct beginning to space/time. Which in that case science could go no further since it does not deal with things outside of space and time.
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil Uh... no: Metaphysic's function is to address what the truth WOULD BE if "X" assumption(s) is/are ALREADY true; which is NOT absolute/transcendent truth.
Science is underpinned by a SPECIFIC metaphysical claim called methodological naturalism or the claim that "nature is all there is" which leads ONLY to functional truths about the nature of reality and not to absolute truth.
FYI it's not "space and time" space and time are one thing - spacetime and yes science covers that.
themanofearth 11 months ago
@themanofearth Yes, you got it on the space/time idea, did not mean to suggest that space and time are 2 distinct things. I am just very interested in where physics and cosmology will be heading in the next ~50 year in looking to answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." Take Care :)
BeatMasterPhil 11 months ago
@1:37 That shoul be an actual billboard:D
mikstar890 11 months ago
Alfonzo's burrito's exist... THEREFORE GOD EXISTS!!!
buktomsin 11 months ago
Unfortunately, the emotionally attached & reliant, the uneducated, etc, don't want to leave the pool. The warm waters of ignorance are far more comforting than the frigidity of space to them, and it is a wonder whether many of them will ever step beyond and think. Hopefully if we can improve education in our societies (world wide), eventually people can grow to see the beauty lingering outside.
Vire70 1 year ago
@Vire70 I've always said the education is the key. Nail that down and you've already won, it's just that you might not see the results in your lifetime. Your/our grand children will be thankful though.
themanofearth 1 year ago
I like how at 1:54 you used the age of mythology Zeus.
BorogroveLM 1 year ago
Comment removed
BCsoccer14 1 year ago
@BCsoccer14 That's a complex question... In what sense?
themanofearth 1 year ago
Comment removed
BCsoccer14 1 year ago
@BCsoccer14 Ok... rephrasing the EXACT same question and not adding any details as to specifics of your question doesn't address the information I've requested.
However, in the spirit of giving you a little intellectual leeway you can see my video:
"Creation" for the Creationist
for an EXTREMELY simplified answer.
themanofearth 1 year ago
Comment removed
BCsoccer14 1 year ago
@BCsoccer14 There was no hostility but there was in intellectual jab. If you see that as intellectual bashing I suggest (a slightly harder jab) you grow some thicker skin.
themanofearth 1 year ago
Comment removed
BCsoccer14 10 months ago
@BCsoccer14 I'd completely forgotten you existed and (upon review of the conversation we had 4 months ago) with good reason. The answer is no to the first and yes to the second though the yes answer is only a statement of ability not a statement of belief in prayer's power.
themanofearth 10 months ago
Comment removed
BCsoccer14 10 months ago
@BCsoccer14 What are you talking about? I've not been hostile toward you at all. Frustrated at having to repeat myself and and/or having to answer questions that are so inane/pointless questions maybe but not hostile. Also, if you'd taken 2 seconds to review what we'd talked about 4 months ago, you'd have realized that you've already asked that question and I've already answered you.
About my life: I'm intelligent, decent looking, well liked, fulfilled spiritually and happy with life so far.
themanofearth 10 months ago
You talk about God then religion like the two are the same thing. We cannot prove if god exists or not, likely he doesn't or not a personal being that fits most religions, if it exists beyond time, mass etc then we will never know no way of measuring it, but we can be sure that all religions have passed their sell by date they all make god look like a total ass. Doesn't need clever science to prove anything just basic common sense and a willingness to come to terms with common facts.
NecipPerver 1 year ago
@NecipPerver You'd be surprised what it takes. My favorite saying from Murphy is:
Common sense isn't.
As far as talking about God and religion being the same thing check out my video called: What Qualifies as a Religion
You might find it interesting.
themanofearth 1 year ago
look up alan watts - existence is weird
Darkside333 1 year ago
and as for right and wrong. i simply disagree. it's subjective. cause and effect.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Cause and effect... are not subjective.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
never said causality is subjective. i said right and wrong are.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Ok... So you're just piss poor at communicating... And also wrong.
Right and wrong in moral terms are only subjective if you believe what is good and bad are meaningless terms so let me ask you: What does goodness mean in moral terms?
themanofearth 1 year ago
third of all, you're so fascinated by the thought of science and what it's "proven" that you havent realized it hasnt proved anything really. it's an amazing thing, i wont deny that. but everyone is just as lost. science is all theory. like any religion.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Science is a philosophy not a theory. Scientific theories are based on observable empirical evidence.
Religion is neither. At best it's based on an untested and untestable hypothesis.
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." ~Unknown
The word "prof" in science is not absolute simply because of the problem of induction first formulated by David Hume. Wikipedia has a great entry on the problem if you're interested.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
no.... i believe you're making a play on words.
and even if you werent, your opinion about religion is very narrow minded.
look at the mayan religion and youll see that it's based on observation. they just happened to be great story tellers as well.
and how can you bring up the problem of induction, when you're defending science through observable empirical evidence?
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 How is my view on religion narrow minded? It's true that the Mayan religion was based around solar cycles but it's more astrological not astronomical and on top of that it centered around human sacrifice to feed the sun god so that the sun would rise the next day. How is all of that based on observational evidence?
Uh... YOU brought up the "proven" concept in science and how it's not absolutely proven. I was just acknowledging that you were right...
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
there's science behind it. you dont see it because you dont know the mayans personally. i have talked with them face to face and you'll find a GREAT deal of knowledge about the world in them. you speak of an ancient maya. one that took place 500 years ago.
now do you want me to bring up science 500 years ago??
things change. technology changes. they're observations continue to allow them to grow while still following their spirituality.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 By "them" I assume you mean the varying degrees of descendants of the Mayans who had to learn about their ancestors culture from western records because the Mayans were virtually completely wiped out by the Spanish Conquistadors over 500 years ago? i.e. they're not Mayans...
The Mayans did have very accurate predictive maps of the movements of celestial bodies and there's no denying that there was observation involved but that's not the core of their religion.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
first and foremost, your argument that they are not mayans is irrelevant. say what your saying is true; that they had to learn about their ancestors culture from western records(which is wrong.) the analysis you're making about the mayans is based on those "records"(which is also wrong but for the sake of this argument let's assume you're not.) they would still be in accordance to the mayan religioin simply an evolved form. call them what you want it doesnt change anything.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@themanofearth
secondly, the mayans are still around. and not because they've learned about their culture from western records(which there are none really) there are mayans that have continued to follow their spirituality to this day. passed down from father to son. mother to daughter. yes their land was taken from them, but they hold their religion true. now there are some "sects" of mayans that would fall into what you described, but those are not the people im referring to. (continued...)
Darkside333 1 year ago
@themanofearth
the mayans are a people of philosophy. their priests are what you could call a teacher. a wise man. there is no "nobility" to him. they are just seen with such respect due to the fact that they have so much knowledge to offer. therefore, abolishing your theory that they were and are a controlled people. they are a body of people in hopes of evolving as a whole.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@themanofearth
and as for the supernatural claims, i said this earlier. they are very good story tellers. call aesthetics. a not so boring people.
and there was no "core" in their religion. i think you may be confusing them with other indigenous religions(which isnt hard to do since they held a lot of common beliefs) the sun is seen as a miracle because really it is. it's essential for life, is it not? rain is also seen with great respect. so on and so forth.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 "The sun is a miracle" Physicists have calculated that if the natural forces were chosen randomly, 25% of all universes would have suns. Also, you don't need the weak force, 1 out of all 4 of them, to maintain suns. "Mayans learn their religion from father to son". So what you are saying is that they isolate themselves and therefore they belief it?
Thunderios 1 year ago
@Thunderios
ok, you didnt get the whole picture. it's not the chance of there being a sun that's the miracle.(which i could still argue) the sun itself is the miracle. like i said it's essential for life. without it we wouldnt exist. call it gratitude. and i really dont know what you mean by 25% of ALL universes... how many have you been to? how many have physicists been to? physics is a branch of science largely based on assumptions and theories. (still my personal favorite though)
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 What I meant is 25% of all possible universes with our laws. You are (kind of) saying it's a miracle that life exists. If life wasn't here, there would be no one to wonder about it. It's like saying it's special that a dice rolled a 6 (chance is only 17%), when you only CAN see the dice when a six is rolled.
A scientific theory is not a theory as people use it: it means that it's an idea with evidence backing it up, which is falsifiable.
Thunderios 1 year ago
@Thunderios
first of all, your point irrelevant. let's say you're playing craps and you roll the dice to your favor, what is your response? to celebrate. the chance to loose was there and much higher. but you won. and something i didnt mention earlier is that you're saying the chance of there being a sun. now a sun is only part of the miracle. you need a lot more to make life possible.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Thunderios
and yes there is evidence behind it, but still only theories. dont bullshit.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Thunderios
i dont know exactly how you came to the conclusion that the mayans isolate themselves, but let me clarify that for you anyways. think of it like this, say you are a father, now you teach your child about science. it's that simple. there's no need for isolation. it's just what any good father would do. it's wisdom passed down.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 It was however a means by which the Mayan priest kings kept control of their subjects by being able to predict solar eclipses. The core of their religion was sun worship. This drove them to make observations so they could accurately predict celestial events so I suppose you could say that religion in that case proved it self as a motivational tool but not in it's foundational supernatural claims... Which is kinda necessary for religion to prove itself isn't it?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 On the other hand religion doesn't even make an effort to prove itself most of the time and when it has it's failed miserably to present any empirical observable evidence for the claims it makes and relies on for legitimacy.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
once again, your views on religion are very narrow minded. i feel like you're attached to the mainstream views of religion. which are the religions formed to control. im may be wrong, but your responses lead me to speculate that. many religions seek truth.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Well all religion's "seek" "truth" however ALL attempt to do so THROUGH absolute unproven and unprovable supernatural claims. This in turn taints their "search" for "truth" because once you invoke the supernatural all discussion (and actual seeking) ends and that's the problem. Without those supernatural claims virtually ANYTHING could be considered or argued to be a religion could it not? If that's a narrow minded view please convince me otherwise.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
well no, i have to disagree. the supernatural doesnt taint the search for truth. it's just different means of attaining what one believes is truth. go back to what we had said earlier about proof. it's all subjective. the human reasoning can only see so far. the universe is far too complicated to say if a happens, then b will be the outcome. watch the video i linked you. for the most part, it's what im trying to say.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@themanofearth
and yea you're right. any form of belief could be considered a religion if agreed on by a group of people. look up the definition of religion. i dont see why anyone would argue that.
Darkside333 1 year ago
secondly, you're assuming all religions are the same. read a book on buddhism. do your research (like a real scientist would) science comes from the word scientia, meaning knowledge. real knowledge holds no barriers. including ones from spirituality. and no im not a buddhist, but i have learned a lot from their teachings. and so should you.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Well you should do YOUR research a little better there bud. Namely you should try to familiarize yourself with the person you're talking to before ("stupidly") assuming that I've never read anything on Buddhism for a start.
See my video: What Qualifies as a Religion
At this time it should be the very top one on the list of my uploads.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Second, if you're namely objecting to the god concept why would you bring up Buddhism. There's no god concept in core Buddhism nor is it necessary to evoke the supernatural for core Buddhism to be valid.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
agreed i did assume wrongly.
and the reason i brought up buddhism is because the video said, "accepting science and scientific theories and still claiming religious faith is a paradox"
meaning your argument isnt simply toward the god concept.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 This is true. This was one of my earlier efforts and were I to try to produce this video now the argument would be much more specific. I leave this up because at this point in my intellectual development in relation to religion I was looking for others and perhaps leaving this up will bring more people more in my direction.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
so the purpose of this video is to fool people to follow in your direction?? kinda like you describe religion right? tsk tsk tsk.... shame
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 LMAO! Can anyone say straw man? People come to their understanding of religion from different ways and their understanding of it changes over time. This video is a foot print of where I've been in my development and thus I (and anyone else) can track my development, hopefully understand where I've come from, and how/why I espouse the understanding I do.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
lol sorry that was my sense of humor. i didnt necessarily mean it. ;)
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Tiz all good. :-)
themanofearth 1 year ago
you're argument is really flawed for someone who believes in science...
first of all, you imagine people thinking that god is some kind of human. like he launches lightning bolts with his bare hands. you're making a STUPID assumption. now im not religious, im simply spiritual. god isnt a being in the form you give him. he's an entity. indescribable in form. god is the universe itself. including the lighting that strikes the ground. your essence of being. creation. time endlessly flowing.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 If ignorance is bliss, you must be truly happy… despite your meaningless, angry ramblings.
Usersname1983 1 year ago
@Usersname1983 take it easy there. Deep breath. Angry ramblings countered by curt (but quite humerus) retorts, usually only begets more angry ramblings.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Hey, I do what I can. One can’t take a post like that too seriously. I reserve more thoughtful comments for posts that are more deserving of my time. I just thought it was funny that someone who supposedly “learned a lot from [Buddhist] teachings” would be so angry. That also makes me wonder what exactly was gained from their study of Buddhism, if anything at all.
Usersname1983 1 year ago
@Usersname1983
ummmm im not angry. you're just being very defensive. the video itself said debate.
now if you cant defend your beliefs without countering mine reasonably i suggest you dont say anything at all.
im more than willing to admit when im wrong.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Good, then I’ll just accept that you’ve admitted you’re wrong and leave it at that.
Usersname1983 1 year ago
@Usersname1983
talk about ignorance is bliss... you sure are full of yourself.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Rephrase that so it makes sense in the context of our “conversation” and I’ll give a proper reply.
Usersname1983 1 year ago
@Usersname1983 LMAO! Good one. X-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Well... Aren't you making the same type of "STUPID" assumption in saying, "god isn't a being in the form you give him. he's an entity. indescribable..." yadda yadda yadda? You're assuming that ALL people who believe in a god believe as you do, are you not? Additionally, your description of 'a/the god' is so ambiguous that it hardly needs to be addressed as a concept unto itself.
Q: What is god?
A: God is everything.
If that's a reasonable answer to you, you cannot call mine stupid.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
well, no. i dont know what other people believe. i know what SOME people believe, including myself. and my argument doesnt require everyone to be in complete agreement. some people are brainwashed idiots. like i said im not religious. simply spiritual.
umm and why should something i believe exists not be addressed? god is, as i call "him," the creator. not everything, but the reason for it. and that reason, i find marvelous.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Well your argument doesn't requier everyone to be in complete agreement AS LONG AS you stipulate it. Which you didn't until your hypocrisy was pointed out. Now you've changed the nature of your argument from a total objection to a very specific objection about YOUR definition about what religion and a god are; which kinda blunts your original argument and the initial assessment of the intelligence of any objection you've made doesn't it?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
i never changed the nature of my argument. my argument was broad. my argument was simply that god isnt a being. i used my personal definition to give one interpretation of how your assumptions arent solid because not all people see god in the way you described.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Well no you didn't do that. Your original argument made an absolute claim about the nature of what god is (in which you basically stated "god is everything") to assert... how did you put it? Oh yeah, the stupidity of my video.
You're NOW arguing the non universality of my argument (which I agree with) by changing the absolutist claim you made in your first comment after I pointed out your hypocrisy. More cognitive dissonance should be kicking in riiiight abouuut....
Now.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
yes i did do that. "first of all, you imagine people thinking that god is some kind of human." followed up by my personal argument. i should have followed up with, "take my view for example...." even though it doesnt change the fact that it was an assumption i felt you made falsely. but really, i think we're going off on a tangent of unnecessary arguing.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 After watching the video again I don't imagining or assume god is some kind of human. I only used images of god/gods to represent an idea. The main thrust of the video is aimed specifically at theistic religion and how science is making the god concept virtually obsolete in our engagement in the real world. It is thus loosing it's legitimacy because it doesn't (and never really did) explain anything. It's a blind assumption made on faith and faith alone. Unnecessary argument indeed.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 See my video: Assumptions of Science and Religion
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
watched it. i disagree. there are many MANY and i mean MAAAAANY assumptions in science. that is all.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 such as.....?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
lol really you cant think of any?
how about that there are natural causes for things that happen in the world?
how about that these natural causes are constant?
how about that human logic is logical?
now im not saying there is anything wrong with having assumptions, im just saying there's no point in placing science above religion. believe what you want and let others believe what they want... or if you simply have to interfere, support science dont bash on religion.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 How about we know that we can't be 100% certain that anything is true, not even gravity, but that, since we have an overwhelming amount of indicators that it does, the chance that it isn't consistent is negligible? We also assume that something that is real must be measurable, because something that isn't measurable doesn't influence our lives, and doesn't matter. How about our logic leads to predictions which are confirmed? We don't place science above, but in stead of, religion.
Thunderios 1 year ago
@Thunderios
like i said there is nothing wrong with the assumptions. i was simply replying to the post themanofearth told me to take a look at. he said that science isnt based on assumptions. im sipmly stating that the very foundation of science is an assumption. im not attacking science at all. there's no reason to. just like there is no reason to attack the IDEA of religion. now as for certain religions, go right ahead. but the idea is just as solid as science is.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 They are not assumptions. We are just saying that the chances are so slim that the effect is negligible, not impossible. There is something wrong with the idea of religion: we don't know so goddidit + I'm afraid of death so I'll live forever + there must be meaning. They all come from the emotional parts of the brain: the parts that are not good at philosophy.
Thunderios 1 year ago
@Thunderios
we dont know so go god did it? really? that's not how i came to be spiritual... it's far more complicated than that...
im afraid of death so ill live forever??? ummm have you ever looked up any indigenous tribe from the americas? most celebrate death. it's a cycle of life.
there must be meaning?? lol im not even sure if that relates to religion.... i think that relates to human nature.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Well yes science does make those assumptions but everyone makes those assumptions every time they get behind the wheel of a car or they have a thought. But saying there's no reason to elivate science above religion and no reason to "bash on religion" sounds rather rediculous to me. What has religion given us in the last 200 years desides bad reasons for doing good things and good reasons for doing bad things?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
look i could say the exact same thing about science. people have their own agendas whether they are religious, scientist, neither or both. a lot of "bad" things have come out of science and religion.
and right and wrong is so subjective. it's all causality.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 ... Ok now you're grasping at straws. First, science doesn't give us reasons to DO anything and religion does. Second, the "bad" things to come out of science (i'm assuming you're going to point to the tired example of the atomic bomb, the threat of biological weapons, or etc. etc.) are not CAUSED by science: Science only allows for their existence...
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
first off, i never said science gave reasons for anything. i simply stated that "bad" things have spawned from it. trying to imply what you did about religion. that yes it can be corrupt, but not always. it all reflects on the people behind it. stop being so biased and be a little more open minded. you say nothing good has come out of religion and i can only laugh at that. read some books. meet some people. you could learn a little something outside your box.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 "i never said science gave reasons for anything" The simple act of comparing the "bad" things to come out of science and the actually bad things to come from religion means that um... yes you did. I also didn't say that nothing good has ever come out of religion. In fact (if YOU'LL take the time to read) I conceded that some good comes from religion but that people do it for bad reason but I will add that if they don't do it for bad reasons they're not doing it because of religion
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
there's a difference between cause and reason. so no it doesnt mean i said science gives reason. also my comparison wasnt even to show that science is the "reason" for those "bad" things. i compared science and religion to show you that science and religion both have people with corrupt ideas. meaning your judgment against religion is very biased because if that's going to be your argument then you should feel the same way about science.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Again, grasping at straws but now you're trying to build straw men out of them for yourself.
1 Who compared cause and reason before you did in the previous sentence?
2 (here's the big one) By comparing science and religion in terms of the corrupt nature of some ideas of people involved in their practice shows that at best you possess a PROFOUND ignorance on how science and religion function on a fundamental level. See my video Assumptions of Religion and Science for a minuscule look
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 If religion is ever right it's right by accident.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Third, do to the MASSIVE gain in understanding of with workings of the universe in which we live that science has allowed: more humans have been and will continue to be saved from the ravages of microbial and genetic diseases, debilitating injuries and conditions than it has alowed to be killed in ever more efficient ways.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
second, a tired example huh? didnt know examples could get old when they dont fit your argument. i wasnt gonna bring up any examples really because my point isnt to attack science. allow me redirect you to my point: the IDEA of religion. im not sure how many times i will have to capitalize that word to make its point across, but ill keep trying til it does.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 The IDEA of religion? that's NOT a redirection that's a COMPLETELY different topic. When YOU started comparing the effects of science with the effects of religion (and you did this with the sentences, "look i could say the exact same thing about science." and "a lot of "bad" things have come out of science and religion." in relation to my assertion about the last 200 years of religious history) we left the realm of "the idea of religion".
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
key phrase, in that sentence is I COULD HAVE. from the very beginning i have been defending the idea of religion. the reason i "bashed" on science is to make a comparison. to try and show you that religion is not the problem because it's even that same problem exist within "science." i never left the "realm" of the IDEA of science... i just responded to your biased argument.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 #3 is an objective fact demonstrated by the simple number of people on this planet who are now living longer, healthier, disease free lives relative to prior ages do to the advances in our knowledge gained through science. Fourth, The "right" and "wrong" are NOT subjective. They relate to facts about the well being and suffering of conscious human beings which is measurable in an objective sense through the new sciences of nutrition, sociology, psychology, and neurobiology.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
now for your 3rd argument... im afraid that's only true for most white cultures(without sounding racist of course). most other cultures have lived healthy lives without the advances of western medicine. and the repercussions for the style of living have been far kinder to the earth and society. my grandfather lives til this day standing at the age of 105(yes, standing). his father, died at the age of 103. they took no part in western medicine. (cont.)
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 "im afraid that's only true for most white cultures" Um not it's not. The extreme fall in infant mortality rates dropping like flies over the last 200 years can conclusively prove that statement to be false by itself. Let alone the fact that on average (WORLD WIDE: not just in the "white cultures" [I can only assume you mean the developed world]) the average life span has almost doubled.
PS that was pretty racist and small. Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Italian, Arabic etc. etc.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
and yes it is true. of course civilizations went through bad times, but not as many as the white cultures did. other cultures didnt indulge in the ego as much. and no my "racist" remark wasnt small. you cant blame me for what's happened. im just pointing it out how it's been. which is why i say white culture and not white people. and western medicine is a result of their culture.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 "not as many as the white cultures did. other cultures didnt indulge in the ego as much." You now possess a profound lack of historical knowledge also.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
and to be quite honest you're not seeing the whole picture. "science" has created problems just as big(if not bigger) than religion.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333
No it hasn't
People have Abused Science's Power to suit their own greed ends.
Religion on the other hand has Mandated that horrible atrocities happen. Slavery, Genocide, Discrimination, Ignorance. All of these and more are in the Old testament, new testament, Quran, and most other holy books.
Science is only a Tool, to be used to help the world, and some have taken that power and used it for themselves.
Don't blame the gun, blame the shooter =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
@BlankPicketSign
that's exactly my point blank. im not blaming science AT ALL. but you cant say religion is bad thing either. there are religions out there unlike the ones you mentioned. and those are the religions im defending. like you said dont blame the gun, blame the shooter.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333
But the religions Themselves encourage Ignorance over Learning.
The moment you take a claim (Any Claim) as "Absolute Truth", you stop looking for the answers.
Most religions teach Non-sense as "Absolute Truth". This is Demonstrably Bad.
The ONLY Religion that has NOT pissed me off is Buddhism, because Buddha himself said "Don't listen to authority, go out and experiment to find the truth"
I see Religion as Pointless, Why believe something silly when you can just Experiment! =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
@BlankPicketSign
well i agree with what you're saying to a certain degree. but i especially agree with the buddhism part :). spirituality deals a lot with sending positive vibrations through one's being. and i speak for very few individual's ways of seeing religion because most people who are religious fall into religion out of fear. im spiritual because of the fact that im human. what i mean by that is that science is very... how can i put it.... tediously boring. for example(cont)
Darkside333 1 year ago
@BlankPicketSign
science proves that tobacco is bad for you but it can never say whether the bad is worth the result of smoking the tobacco. yea it may kill you, but life is worth living not limiting. i say this being a casual smoker, so obviously i enjoy it but if you dont enjoy it by all means dont smoke. it's simply an example. i feel religion makes more of an effort to be human rather than create "robots." yea im aware that religion has created many "robots" but once again i defend the few
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333
"it can never say whether the bad is worth the result of smoking"
It does not have to... And Science never claimed that it EVER makes those claims.
All science is suppose to do is discover and explore the natural world... thats all.
I am not religious because I care whether or not my Beliefs are True or not. And Religion (Most of them, if not all) have not demonstrated that their claims are true.
Thus I do not believe, but we all have the freedom to believe what we please =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
@Darkside333 WOW! Care to elaborate?
PS Before you do if you attempt to compare what science can give us through the understanding our universe with the bad things we've done with the knowledge/power it has allowed us to obtain I'm going to do is laugh.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
i cant continue to discuss this situation because i would need to go into too much detail that in the end i dont believe you could understand because of the lack of your individual spirituality and the wall of you're obsession. continue to grow is all i can say. we each have our perspectives. we obviously come from different a understanding of life. actually another thing i can recommend is dont be a smart ass. i read that comment someone left you saying "were do you...(cont)
Darkside333 1 year ago
@themanofearth
@themanofearth
...think we come from?" it was obvious what he was referring to. life. the one question that troubles almost every human being. dont be so ....childish. get off your high and mighty cloud and learn some things from other people. hear out their ideas. after all, you are human as well. or will you only hear out people with phds? lol
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 "...the lack of your individual spirituality..." HA HA HA HA! I think you're confusing religious dogma with spirituality there bud. You should've seen some of my other videos before you asserted that:
An Atheist's Spirituality
&
An Atheist's Spirituality 2
Christian "spirituality" was more than likely drummed into many (if not most) of it's adherents on mother's knee and I've yet to see a person of any Abrahamic faith with individuality as part of their spirituality. Continued...
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 The only thing "new" in Abrahamic religions today are the mental gymnastics they have to preform and the amount of evidence they have to either twist or completely ignore to be able to justify their beliefs. And even those are simply rehashed tricks from between the middle of the 18-1900's.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 "i cant continue to discuss this situation..."
Do what you like man. Learn to express your ideas in a more coherent fashion is all I can say.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Fifth, over the last 200 years (& longer) the only things that religions have given the world are pious foundations focused on their own self justification for even existing like the Templeton Foundation, charities funded by religious organizations who basically con people out of their money through either threats of hell fire or fluffy hope filled promises of salvation FROM that very same hell fire in exchange for obedience to their doctrine, martyrdom in the name of God, ...
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
now, you say people live longer? hmmmmm... a biased a opinion maybe? you're focused on the religions that make a mockery of religion.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 And you're trying to redirect to a completely different topic again of the IDEA of religion. As I explained before, we left "the idea" behind when YOU started comparing the real world effects of religion vs science and the "bad"/bad things to come out of them. Additionally, one cannot talk about the "idea" of religion in a good light with out first conceding that the reality of religion is something completely different.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Darkside333 ... an extremely powerful group of holy men among who's dedications in life seems to have been the systematic physical and sexual abuse of children and the protection and attraction of their abusers from secular authorities unrivaled by the most sinister (what most people would call) criminal organizations, and the increase in the number of disease sufferers do to the seemingly sadomasochistic dedication to taboos on sex, "fooling with God's creation", and in/out group morality.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
and honestly i find it humorous that you would bring up the templeton foundation. for two reasons. the first being that it makes me realize that you're not getting my point at all. im defending the IDEA of religion not EVERY god damn religion out there. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USELESS INFORMATION.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 I've said it twice before so I'm just going to cut and paste:
"And you're trying to redirect to a completely different topic again of the IDEA of religion. As I explained before, we left "the idea" behind when YOU started comparing the real world effects of religion vs science and the "bad"/bad things to come out of them."
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
and once again, i could say the exact same thing about science. (ALOT of bad is coming out of it.) but it's irrelevant to say the exact same thing about science because science isnt my target. the people with corrupt minds are. religion is simply your scapegoat.
and no i didnt start comparing things. i responded to YOUR argument.
im still in the "realm" of defending the IDEA of religion.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 Did I leave anything out?
themanofearth 1 year ago
secondly, i found it humorous cause it's the perfect example for me to demonstrate how the one thing you're defending right now is doing something very similar. western medicine cons so many people out of their money by feeding you all this propaganda on their drugs that dont cure anything but keep you alive to make sure you keep paying the bill. and they hide natural remedies from the world. and i dont blame science for that. just help me relate the nature of man to both science and religion.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 So now god is the JUST the creator... not, "an entity. indescribable in form. god is the universe itself. including the lighting that strikes the ground. your essence of being. creation. time endlessly flowing"?
Flip-flop much?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
ummmm no i didnt say JUST the creator. i said "he" is the creator. the REASON for things.
dont confuse yourself now.
Darkside333 1 year ago
@Darkside333 See post that begins with, "Well no you didn't do that" and apply the concepts therein.
themanofearth 1 year ago
very good video
bobby472 1 year ago
C'mon, Elvis was kidnapped by aliens.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras LMAO!
themanofearth 1 year ago
2:08 ... now that's a god!
charlieapeshit 1 year ago
@charlieapeshit lol!
JKTProductionzIncNCo 1 year ago
Great vid! And was that gir from invader zim at the end?
ambasa013 1 year ago
@ambasa013 Thanks and yes it was GIR. He makes an appearance at the end of all my vids. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
STANDING APPLAUSE!!!!!
DjetGlea 1 year ago
@DjetGlea Thank you sir. I hope you enjoy the rest of the show. There a lot of my performances that you've probably not seen and many more to come. I hope you enjoy them all.
themanofearth 1 year ago
This is an awesome video. U have said in 4 minutes what I've been trying to get across to Xians 4 years now!
It's true, we've outgrown the gods...psychologically & emotionally. It's time to stop crawling & start walking. We need to take responsibility 4 our actions & be answerable to them!
It seems that the theological community can't leap across that gap that we've already conquered.
I know many Xians who apparently want out, but are weighed down with too much fear & guilt to make the 1st move.
Cootabux 1 year ago