The non-thinking that is Religion.

[humndislocation]

Another point I feel the need to make. Many people have argued that it's close minded to say that a god doesn't exist, because there's no way to know 100% that it isn't true, or one day science might prove it to be true. That we shouldn't make up our minds one way or another, because it's close minded to do so.

For those that hold this point of view, I have to ask. If I said that I'm actually a secret government agent, fighting terrorism, and that the government give me orders by sending radio signals to a nanoscopic cybernetic implant in one of my teeth, that relays orders straight to my brain. Can you honestly say that you would consider all three of these possibilities to have an equal chance of being true:

1) I'm lying, or taking the piss
2) I'm schizophrenic
3) It's 100% true.

Can you honestly say that thinking 3 is equally as likely as 1 or 2 isn't in the least bit silly? Can you honestly say that it's arrogant to think 3 to be the least likely of the three?

If not, then what is the difference, other than the fact that the religious school of thought is older?

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Not that it's any of your fucking business, but no I'm not. Should I be? Would that make me more susceptible to your point of view?
But WHY? Why ask something like that?

Because the only other options are a) you're being deliberately obtuse and purposefully failing to see the point or b) you're really failing to see the point.

Something not being supernatural just because we don't yet understand it isn't that hard a concept to assimilate.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

It's a perfectly legitimate question, Alex. How do you know that at some point in the future science won't get to a point where it has to confront and accept something that just is, and has no explanation?
How do you know that the essence of the reality and the universe is not paradoxical and contradictory?
Perhaps reality can only be explained rationally down to a certain level, quantum particles obey completely different laws to protons, neutrons and electrons, so what makes you so sure that whatever essence that allows these particles to exist will ever be comprehensible to the human brain? And how do you know that the essence of the universe is not governed by something which could in someway be described as conscious?

Because to believe that the Universe is governed by a 'consciousness' is to believe in god. And that's just superstitious babblings that should have died out long before the 21st Century.

If you want to believe in the supernatural, in ghosts, goblins, pixies and fairies (cos you may as well if you think that the Universe doesn't adhere to it's own laws, no matter how bizarre they may turn out to be) then you are welcome.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

One thing I've noted, is that those arguing in favour of religious belief, seem to be arguing that we shouldn't attack religious thinking

Debate is good, but sadly what brought me into this debate was Alex being so dogmatic and making personal attacks on people for their beliefs, which in the majority of cases, do no harm to the world or people around them.

Fundementalists/literalists can be a problem, yes.

As are militant atheists because instead of accepting there are and should be differences in the human race, want to attack others for not being the same as them (whether that be a physical or personal attack).

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Another point I feel the need to make. Many people have argued that it's close minded to say that a god doesn't exist, because there's no way to know 100% that it isn't true, or one day science might prove it to be true. That we shouldn't make up our minds one way or another, because it's close minded to do so.

For those that hold this point of view, I have to ask. If I said that I'm actually a secret government agent, fighting terrorism, and that the government give me orders by sending radio signals to a nanoscopic cybernetic implant in one of my teeth, that relays orders straight to my brain. Can you honestly say that you would consider all three of these possibilities to have an equal chance of being true:

1) I'm lying, or taking the piss
2) I'm schizophrenic
3) It's 100% true.

Can you honestly say that thinking 3 is equally as likely as 1 or 2 isn't in the least bit silly? Can you honestly say that it's arrogant to think 3 to be the least likely of the three?

If not, then what is the difference, other than the fact that the religious school of thought is older?

The thing about your example above is that we can see you Bryan, and you are known, whereas we are talking about a concept.

Sure, in most cases some things are more likely than others to be true, but outright dismissal of one thing without any observable data to go on, makes it arrogance to assume it just isn't there at all.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by LesMts

Yes, but people who aren't in the field should be very careful about extrapolating a very speculative field of science past anything larger than the subatomic.
And it's not supernatural.

I'm not sure who you are talking about but seeing the contribution I have made in this thread, it could be me. You are right, but surely we can all join in a serious discussion on ugs without being Einstein, and debate and learn something?

Anyway, reading your post prompted me to want to say this;
I just want to make it clear to those who may be pigeon-holing me, that I am agnostic and didn't say that quantum physics is supernatural.

I used quantum physics as an example of where scientists have had to re-think a great deal, showing that nothing is set in stone.

It also attempts to explain the nature of the universe, thus relevant, and there have been sub-atomic observations that correlate to the nature of the universe, including what's in it and how it works.

Atoms=Universe=Our existence

However, not once did I say that quantum physics holds the key to revelations about a spirituality or deity, but I think it's a good example where in my opinion, no-one should hold dogmatic views, and the natural world works in mysterious ways.

If they want to that's up to them, but to berate others and arrogantly dismiss them in the way Alex has with utter contempt is offensive and unwelcome, and gives nothing useful.

That's up to him though, it's his life.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

Because to believe that the Universe is governed by a 'consciousness' is to believe in god. And that's just superstitious babblings that should have died out long before the 21st Century.

If you want to believe in the supernatural, in ghosts, goblins, pixies and fairies (cos you may as well if you think that the Universe doesn't adhere to it's own laws, no matter how bizarre they may turn out to be) then you are welcome.

He hasn't said what he believes personally!

[scottyboy]

with regards to meditation, i think the idea is that if you can train yourself to focus on, well, nothing... it will make it much easier to focus on other things. john mclaughlin and john fruciante, for example, apparently found it easier to learn pieces of music after trying it for a bit

unless your a buddhist monk: in that case i think the idea is to develop 'freedom from the self' in order to help achieve enlightenment and nirvana. or something.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Atoms=Universe=Our existence

And nothing, NOTHING can exist outside of the Universe, as the Universe is EVERYTHING.

Which is what Les and I have been saying for the last two hours....whilst you've banged on about the 'supernatural'.

Even if a god was proved to exist 'he' would not be 'supernatural' because 'he' would occupy the same Universe, the same reality as us. 'He' would be just another being in a Universe no doubt crammed with them.

Regardless of whether something can be understood by us, however weird something appears to be, if it exists in our Universe then it will have a perfectly rational reason for existing, no matter how bizarre that meaning appears to us.

And even if it's really fucking weird, it still won't be supernatural.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

And nothing, NOTHING can exist outside of the Universe, as the Universe is EVERYTHING.

Which is what Les and I have been saying for the last two hours....whilst you've banged on about the 'supernatural'.

Even if a god was proved to exist 'he' would not be 'supernatural' because 'he' would occupy the same Universe, the same reality as us. 'He' would be just another being in a Universe no doubt crammed with them.

Regardless of whether something can be understood by us, however weird something appears to be, if it exists in our Universe then it will have a perfectly rational reason for existing, no matter how bizarre that meaning appears to us.

And even if it's really fucking weird, it still won't be supernatural.

That's not true. You do not know that mankind will be able to find and apply a new natural law to a new discovery.
Whatever definition that comes under, makes it intangible to us, provoking awe, as in so many scientific discoveries.
It seems to me your definition of supernatural stuff is laced with fantasy and imagination, rather than the possibility of other dimensions and things we won't ever be able to explain.

Did you know that much of science and experimentation began as a desire to find the existence of a supernatural entity or god, that magical quantity that inspired alchemism. Without that, would we as a species have even bothered dedicating lives to chemistry and the birth of modern science? That drive led humans forwards, and their contributions to the knowledge we have today.
Give it it's dues if you are so keen on science and remember where modern lab work came from.

You say it's outdated, naive and superstitious to believe in something intangible and outwith our perception, but I find that ridiculous.

[Thee Alex]

Here's a nice little statement from Wikipedia -

According to the strict materialist view, if something 'supernatural' exists, it is by definition not supernatural.

Whether we ever understand it or not (and I'm confident that, given enough time, we will) doesn't matter, if something can be proved to exist then it is not supernatural. If it can't be proved to exist, and the weight of evidence suggests that it doesn't exist....well then it doesn't matter what you call it, cos you're engaging in a pointless exercise.

If we subject everything to reason, our religion will have nothing mysterious or supernatural in it. If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.
-Blaise Pascal

Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so
-Galileo

If it exists it can be (eventually) measured, if it doesn't we need not concern ourselves with it.

Kate, I suggest you go back and look up the meaning of the word 'supernatural', as you seem to be working from a different definition to the rest of us.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

Here's a nice little statement from Wikipedia -



Whether we ever understand it or not (and I'm confident that, given enough time, we will) doesn't matter, if something can be proved to exist then it is not supernatural. If it can't be proved to exist, and the weight of evidence suggests that it doesn't exist....well then it doesn't matter what you call it, cos you're engaging in a pointless exercise.





If it exists it can be (eventually) measured, if it doesn't we need not concern ourselves with it.

Kate, I suggest you go back and look up the meaning of the word 'supernatural', as you seem to be working from a different definition to the rest of us.

It's from dictionary.com, good enough for me!

And yours is only according to the strict materialist view. There are other views, and just because you adhere to one does not make it true.