Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Internet...less sensitive...you'll feel better.
You threw out a general accusation as a specific charge against pretty much an entire group. I called you on it. Relax, rephrase--then I'll listen.
I am an atheist and I am tired of all these theist games … the sciences speak for themselves and need not be defended … certainly not from supernatural accusations. It should be assumed that because I do not believe in god … I do not believe in the spawned religions that (first?) ‘followed’, their good books of death, destruction and domination or the good people the RCC has privately chosen to so anoint, hahaha. We can ‘go back’ and see our past, back a hundred million years ago quite handily … and we are still discovering new things about our past, physical things, provable things … real things … how could it be otherwise, hahaha.
I refuse to believe there is a rational reason for not find anything biblical or godly concerning supposedly every visitation, every miracle, and every mention in the bible. God may not leave a footprint … but the people in the bible sure should have. Not a scrap of proof from any reliable source for one word in the bible … it just requires faith … in what??? Why would god provide a complete ‘mystical’ but provable evidence ridden past … all the while hiding his ‘real’ real world interactions from those very same people … a joke right? Theists will never discover anything else because they are not looking for anything else … which is why science keeps getting better and religion (RCC style) just stays barbarically the same. Other than their specific vision of god, the RCC is just an institution for demeaning humanity as a whole and anything we have or might accomplish. We are born in evil sin, we remain in evil sin all our lives and we die in evil sin at which time we will be punished for that evil sin … indefinitely. We are completely incapable of deciding right and wrong without an unseen and unfelt kick in the arse. But, if one failed to be converted to Catholicism, didn’t ‘give’ excessively to the Church coffers, didn’t live a near perfect life or failed to confess before death … DOOM, No bigotry here for sure hahaha. You are going to have to prove something … before I allow you to send me to hell. Everyone has choices but only some of us make them for ourselves.
What kind of god would deceive his subjects with a complete mythological reality that has deceived mankind throughout the ages at every new discovery and all throughout time on earth? Mystical universe … mystical galaxy … mystical solar system … and mystical earth … and yet the rest of us know better. The RCC would have us believe our actual provable past is just mysticism … and the mysticism they believe but cannot prove is actual reality, go figure. This has got to be a good definition for insanity.
I've had real world experience--as have many others. The fact that feel you haven't, focus attention on clams by people seeming to lack credibility and rationalize or dismiss the claims of others on rote principle doesn't mean real experiences and personal evidences don't exist.
I think you'd be better served with, "I have no experience and can't understand" rather than by, "I refuse".
Not believing in something requires no effort and no investment of emotion. It's simply the way one is. You seem to work hard at it--why?
Sinperium; I am pretty much done with this thread and am not going to play here with this nonsense much if at all. The science is sound so believe what you will. Are you putting yourself in front of the world and specifically the Christians and that means the RCC ... as being the focal point for defining religion for everyone else ... or you are not. Now if the RCC(C) is wrong as we seem to agree, then what in the world are you even doing with a bible ... a complete fabrication by said same RCC. Or are you saying the whole Church is wrong and incapable of deciphering their own personal concoction ... but that you yourself know better because 'you' had an experience. This is what I hear being said time and again … someone please pay attention to me (they) because of all people … I (they) know the truth. No individual is capable of conveying this information to or for the rest of humanity … just the same for the RCC … isn’t that what is so criminal about they are doing … privatizing god? Once Pandora’s door is opened by the scientific acceptance of the first bit of improvable magic … it will never be closed and science will lose its credibility and good standing as the epitome of the truth. I am served just fine with doses of scientific reality every time I open an encyclopedia. Most people try to correct irrational thinking … except for the religious whose practitioners seem to thrive with it … and demand expect everyone else to accept it, go figure.
I understand giving up on the thread and also absolutely agree about the confusing and contradictory messages coming from "religion". My only suggestion is not to give up on inquiry and talking/listening to individuals regarding their experiences when the opportunities present themselves.
Proclamations on the internet won't establish any truth. Looking for yourself is the only thing that will.
So why don't you do just that? So far all I have seen you do is mention your "experience" and then not understand why others don't except your "experience". You keep barking up the same tree even though it should be obvious to you by now that your tree might be nothing more than a burning bush to others and not the tree of knowledge that others base their beliefs on. Well I guess I don't blame you since that is how religious propagation works. One keeps barking up the same tree until the tree has no synapses left to connect the dots to anything other than that explanation (or in your case lack thereof).
@Smoothseas
I'm really not trying to "defend Christianity" here...or anything else religious. Nor am I trying to present myself as your own (or anyone else's) answer to life. There are no illusions about "converting" someone in this forum and I feel no need to try.
What I am trying to defend is the idea that individuals shouldn't be pidgeonholed as a group so they can be uniformly labeled less intelligent and dismissed without further consideration.
If I was sitting in a room and someone stood up and said, "It's patently obvious that no one in present in this room has ever seen a flying fish and therefore we can conclude that despite all references to them they don't actually exist or are so uncommon that they are misunderstood and described only in mythical terms." I'd stand up and say, "Excuse me--I have seen one and in fact was hit several times by them when they lept over waves and struck me in the head."
That same person could continue in demanding an explanation from me of why I can not explain how no one else present has had any experience with flying fish and then go on to publicly dismiss my claims as unsupported or not relevant and refuse to follow them up or inquire regarding them.
The person would still be ignorant and I might point it out a time or two more--particularly if I felt other persons in the room were interested in the truth.
The actual thread title was Science and God, not Science and Religion--which is pretty easily lost with some of the heated rhetoric thrown about in the thread. Religion has a place in the discussion but the idea was what if we get to the point where we can begin to understand things that explain mankind's concept of God and possibly things not presently understood that could be understood to parallel some of the concepts of a Creator, what would we do and how would we change?
So while you're pointing out that God can't exist and all such belief is religious myth you're missing half the question.
My mentioning personal experience was simply to point out that theories and explanations that reject any concept of anything "mystical" must by definition be irrational could be a wrong theory.
I did not pour out voluminous personal stories of my life in this thread as it isn't a venue for that and no one asked me to. One person did in fact ask and another expressed interest--so I corresponded outside the topic to them.
You mentioned some time back that I, "never responded to your question" (for not listening). The fact is, you never asked me any question--just made statements and counterpoints). If you asked me something directly that isn't a loaded statement or a personal jab (requiring synapses perhaps) I'll happily respond.
You're offended by my constant reference to my own experience--but have no interest in inquiring as to what it actually is. You presume I am religious--for all the reasons you presume people become religious--yet are offended when I suggest you assume much in some of your statements.
The long explanation is an just an offer to respond to some of your points that seem angry--no reason for them to be. If you really want to criticize my own beliefs though, you'd have to actually know what they were. Feel free to ask.
Ah...at last...after 907 posts of interminable drudgery we have the answer.....
God is a flying fish.....
Yay.
But but but....how will I be blessed by noodley appendages now????
Blessed are the Cheese Makers.....
Damn those Wisconsinites... I damn them all!
Stardockian 101 .... Thou shalt have a working knowledge of Monty Python.
There will be no exceptions....
It's not meant to be taken literally.
Gee Jafo...and there I was just starting to admire your admin-ish restraint and objectivity. Why do you think people have that fish symbol on their cars? Do I have to explain everything?
FYI--snarkishness noted.
Bad example. This discussion is based on the natural vs. supernatural. Not on a natural thing like flying fish which is easily proven to exist.
The problem is that is practically all you mention. Lulu at least gives actual information concerning why she believes what she believes. I have actually learned certain things about the nature of Catholicism from her debate. I may agree or disagree with her beliefs and criticize her sources of information however that is what debate is all about. I have learned much about the nature of Catholicism from BT as well. Both sides have something to offer yet you seem to think one side is totally ignored?
I'm not offended at all. I am simply trying to push your buttons to if you can get past the only argument you seem to able to present. You are being told straight out that your argument holds no water yet continue on. I'm not offended by other peoples beliefs. When discussing religion I am usually simply trying to find out why some believe certain things and also why they believe certain things even though other information may contradict those things.
If you think that you are clueless. I'm mostly being humored. Some of my statements may appear a certain way to you however I guarantee you I type with a smile on my face. I post here to learn a few things while I'm being entertained and nothing more.
This is where you falter. I know many people who believe and I do not think any of them are irrational. If it improves their lives, or gives it meaning, or helps them cope, or is simply a method they use to help educate their kids I do not think they are being irrational.
Glad you are smiling (really). I also didn't say "everyone" felt that way about mystical perceptions--I call your falter and raise you a misunderstood sir.
The difference in what Lulu presented is she is presenting religion (you really want me to post about that?) and I am pointing out that what some people perceive as religious is actually the result of real experience--and that's what distinguishes a Christian from an organized, Christian religious organization.
I could ask you to detail all the events in your life that led you to embrace your current atheology and go point-by-point through them but it would take a ridiculous amount of time to sort them out--not to mention typing them--if I chose to rebut and ask a defense of each such telling. Asking for "simple highlights" just opens the door for misquotes and out of context interpretation (which obviously you aren't a fan of).
When you have a real experience, it moves a little farther away from "amusing". What I do have is lots of time between rendering and debugging and proofing at my desk--hence, I post.
I also lied...I have never seen a flying fish and I know they don't exist. What sort of fool are you trying to take me for?
The fact that you see "two sides" to this makes my point for me. It isn't that simple.
I do not care what others post. I ignore what I choose to ignore.
Everything is real experience. We have senses which store information in our brain that adds up what we know and believe.
A trolling fool.
Regarding your last, apparently I caught one too.
Get tangled up in your own net?
What fish symbol? ....
To the rest...guess whose job it is to determine 'troll'?
Ignore my fish fetish and continue sensible debate....ok? ...
I never would have believed God actually existed until I had some very vivid personal spiritual experiences/Encounter back when I was 16. .Before that, nothing could convince me of God's existance so I will not bother trying to convince anyone -- you have to experience Him first before you can ever believe in Him. Only His Spirit can actually spark any sort of energy within us0 including the energy of faith.
There's more than science even knows- but science is a good tool- up to a point.
boldyloxx; At what point is it that science becomes ... a bad tool? What circumstances could there be that would require us to ‘bury our head in the sand’? Science is not overstepping its findings or conclusions ... it is being trampled upon by the unscientific religious communities. They would rewrite our history; destroy man's natural ambition to discover and learn for ourselves and to put a moratorium on research and development. I will cast my lot with the sciences thank you very much.
Sinperium #918 ... I understood, hahaha.
I don't know that science becomes a BAD tool, so much as it becomes no tool at all. When dealing with death, for example. Try applying the scientific method to what happens after death. You can form all the hypotheses you want, but good luck collecting experimental data to prove/disprove it.
Looks like the scientific method to me.
Here's an interesting idea. The Christian apocalypse and natural disasters on Earth. One and the same?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
