Originally posted by Boris
That can be asked to you too! How do you know there is? I think there isn't as there is no evidence throughout the entire course of human history to suggest that there is in fact an afterlife. An afterlife lessens the life we have now, make the most of it, cause once it's gone.. it's gone!
However, energy cannot be destroyed.
Originally posted by Boris
That can be asked to you too! How do you know there is? I think there isn't as there is no evidence throughout the entire course of human history to suggest that there is in fact an afterlife. An afterlife lessens the life we have now, make the most of it, cause once it's gone.. it's gone!
I don't know...I sed I beleive..
You are the one claiming to know Fact. Not me. So since you know that after death there is nothing, i want you to tell me how you know. I asked you, so please answer my question.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct. When most people talk about reincarnation, they do it in a very simplified way that is fundamentally incorrect. However, the theory of Relativity is also, fundamentally incorrect. The true nature of reality (the Mystic Law) cannot be known by humans; but let me help you with reincarnation. We are all connected like waves on the ocean you cannot distinguish the water in a wave from that within the ocean, it is the same water. When a wave disappears, where has it gone? Back into the ocean. Some of the water from one wave will one-day find itself back in another wave in the future. Does that help?
Shakyamunison, that is probably the most perfect explanation for Buddhist Theory of Reincarnation, and makes the most sense. You took the ideas out of my head, and formed them into a perfect argument 👆
Re: The real question.
Originally posted by AllianceBetter nothing than something most-likly false.
So, why can't people like Dawkins actually address religious issues? Why can't the scientific community.Today, Michael Ruse suggested that the answer was simple. Idiots (my own terminology) like Dawkins focus on a series of issues, taking down one after the other, saying "This is why religion is false."
The issue is, religion doesn't care, and it won't becuase the question that religion really tries to answer is this.
"Why something, rather than nothing."
I'm sorry but thats f*cking brilliant.
Do you feel Ruse is correct in his analysis? Is that actually the ONE question religion tries to answer? Have nonreligious views failed to answer it?
See, the thing is science tries to search for the truth, religion makes it up. I'd rather look for the truth, than to make stuff up as if I've accomplished something.
Re: The real question.
Originally posted by Alliance
"Why something, rather than nothing." ... Is that actually the ONE question religion tries to answer? Have nonreligious views failed to answer it?
That question is pretty much as basic as it gets, though I do believe one could simplify it even further: just plain ol' "Why?" No specifics, no qualifiers, no conditions. Just "Why?"
You could meditate on it. You could see what rises to the surface of the mind as the question sinks in, as individual consciousness opens up to higher modes of knowing (according to mystical thinking). But ultimately, the dreamt mortal can not know the mind and motivation of the Dreamer. The best we can hope for is Love, Energy and Profound Mystery.
Closer to Earth...
A physicist once replied that, Something exists instead of Nothing because Nothing is unstable. Something is inevitable (think quantum-foam action on the metacosmic scale). But one can still ask, "Why?" Science (ie, empirical) is not designed to address this question. It deals with measurable (or at least potentially measurable) entities.
Some philosophers may just shrug their shoulders and say, "Why not?"
I've always thought of everyday religion as the system of the proper relationship between Man and God (not really going into depth about the nature of God; that's more the mystical perspective). From this relationship, we also derive a system of ethics. When religion was more mystical, perhaps, in its past, the Big Question may've held greater importance.
Originally posted by Boris
Examples of Dawkins bastardizing science, examples of him trying to detriment the credibility of science, examples of his faulty logic... you know, examples.
I don't have time right now to engage in meaningless banter with athiest apologists. I havent read The God Delusion, which would provide me the best ammo.
Dawkins claims that science disproves god.
That makes him both incorrect and a danger to the credability of science.
Originally posted by Devil King
"They" are the men who created the religion. Modern religion is the result of a lot of observation. Thousands of years worth, for that matter.
Ok, well that statement is not from the "they." This isn't some trick, its a valid question.
Originally posted by Mindship
I've always thought of everyday religion as the system of the proper relationship between Man and God (not really going into depth about the nature of God; that's more the mystical perspective). From this relationship, we also derive a system of ethics. When religion was more mystical, perhaps, in its past, the Big Question may've held greater importance.
I'd agree, but I still feel the question is pertenant today, and I don't think anyone really has a satisfactory answer.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Science is about the "How?"s, not the "Why?"s.
Which is why people like Dawkins who draw connections between science and athiesm are delusional.
Originally posted by Alliance
I don't have time right now to engage in meaningless banter with athiest apologists. I havent read The God Delusion, which would provide me the best ammo.
Ahahahahahha! Are you serious? How the hell can you even talk about Dawkins and religion without even reading his book on it?
Go read it now.
Science does pretty much disprove religion. Yes you cannot prove that a God does not exist... yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule.
Originally posted by Boris
Science does pretty much disprove religion. Yes you cannot prove that a God does not exist... yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule.
this is the problem
Science can only scientifically prove anything. Religion doesn't adopt that type of logic system. We will never be able to prove a negative.
Dawkins' fatal error is that he doesn't draw a clear line between his science and his opinion. In many genres this is ok, but when you write as a voice for "scientists" people get really uppity about it.
I love the God Delusion, as I am sure you do, however, in that case he is just preaching to the converted.
He launched a salvo in the name of science on really shaky applications of scientific concepts. To scientists and people who are enamored with that type of logic and evidence it is probably fine. To people who don't accept that as the way to view the world, I can only assume being called delusional is insulting.
Originally posted by BorisYou see, you are making yourself out to be an idiot. I am 100% sure that Alliance knows more about what Dawkins does than you do. You have shown 0 knowledge of science. You really shouldn't even bother with this conversation because you fail at logic and science.
Ahahahahahha! Are you serious? How the hell can you even talk about Dawkins and religion without even reading his book on it?Go read it now.
Science does pretty much disprove religion. Yes you cannot prove that a God does not exist... yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule.
Do you even realize that Dawkins has published far more than one book? Oh that's right, you never get to see any of that because you aren't qualified. You may shut up before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.