garry420
Active member
no sir I am dharmic or spiritual or sanatani...and definitely not pro religion
how many atheists here ?
- Thread starter garry420
- Start date
- Status
garry420
Active member
well i believe in humans as supreme...god is just name..
Jaxel
Well-known member
Something Neil DeGrasse Tyson said... He was asked why 87% of the scientific community didn't believe in god... To which he responded that perhaps they were asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be asking why those 87% were Atheist. You should be asking why those remaining 13% aren't.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
When debating anything I like to apply this 3 step process:
1) Define your methodology.
2) State your claim.
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
You will find that almost all debated positions either cannot enumerate these 3 points or they are self-contradictory within these points. And those which pass enumeration are ineligible to be debated due to the lack of a common methodology with their opposition without which there is no grounds on which to debate.
Here are two related positions to demonstrate:
Position 1:
1) Define your methodology.
I use the scientific method.
2) State your claim.
God doesn't exist.
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
God doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence.
Position 2:
1) Define your methodology.
I use the Christian bible.
2) State your claim.
God exists.
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
God exists because the bible says so.
Position 1 is in contradiction with itself because the scientific method explicitly excludes supernatural explanations as untestable. Therefore you must either change your methodology or change your claim.
Position 2 passes enumeration. That is not to say that the position is correct, but rather that it is well-formed and self-consistent. The methodology defines the rules. In this case the methodology (Christian bible) doesn't lay down any rules to invalidate the stated claim and supporting argument. Compare this to position 1 which imposes a much more strict rule set on itself (scientific method).
So we can see here that only one position passes enumeration. But even if both positions passed enumeration they would not be eligible for debate because they do not share the same methodology. The two positions would have to agree to debate using either the scientific method or the bible... or any unnamed methodology as long as they agree. Only then can there be a constructive debate.
1) Define your methodology.
2) State your claim.
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
You will find that almost all debated positions either cannot enumerate these 3 points or they are self-contradictory within these points. And those which pass enumeration are ineligible to be debated due to the lack of a common methodology with their opposition without which there is no grounds on which to debate.
Here are two related positions to demonstrate:
Position 1:
1) Define your methodology.
I use the scientific method.
2) State your claim.
God doesn't exist.
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
God doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence.
Position 2:
1) Define your methodology.
I use the Christian bible.
2) State your claim.
God exists.
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
God exists because the bible says so.
Position 1 is in contradiction with itself because the scientific method explicitly excludes supernatural explanations as untestable. Therefore you must either change your methodology or change your claim.
Position 2 passes enumeration. That is not to say that the position is correct, but rather that it is well-formed and self-consistent. The methodology defines the rules. In this case the methodology (Christian bible) doesn't lay down any rules to invalidate the stated claim and supporting argument. Compare this to position 1 which imposes a much more strict rule set on itself (scientific method).
So we can see here that only one position passes enumeration. But even if both positions passed enumeration they would not be eligible for debate because they do not share the same methodology. The two positions would have to agree to debate using either the scientific method or the bible... or any unnamed methodology as long as they agree. Only then can there be a constructive debate.
garry420
Active member
1) Define your methodology.
I use the scientific method.
Origin of science came through vedic education
2) State your claim.
God doesn't exist.
Well humans are god just like seed is tree
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
God doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence.
Well there is scientific evidence that energy does exist we are all part of that supreme energy please refer to non duality concept of adavita
Position 2:
1) Define your methodology.
I use the Christian bible.
Try Bhagwat geeta or If you want something more that nothing can be better than veda's
2) State your claim.
God exists.
Well depends on how you claim god to be definitely not like religions where atheists doesn't have place in heaven..
3) Support your claim using your methodology.
God exists because the bible says so.
No it exists because humans exists.
IMP : If you really have some questions that you don't find in answers ..you are invited to my forum and i bet ask anything ..i will get you answers..both scientific and non scientific..even if you think jesus was right person..we will prove with facts that he followed vedic pattern of life
garry420
Active member
science was invention of hinduism.
start from aeroplane to surgery and majority of guys don't know the facts
you can visit my forum and post your questions in relevant section..and i bet you are thinker you will soon come out as dharmic..
Note : Hinduism is not religion its dharma and what west see hinduism is not real hinduism , thats corrupted version
whynot
Well-known member
It's good to know that everything's been invented by the hindus.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
The question is, why are so many scientists so against the possibility of a God? The existence of God doesn't somehow disprove science, nor does the proof of anything in science disprove God. The ones who are militant against the possibility of a God are clearly the ones most insecure in their own beliefs. They are two separate things and I would question the integrity of anyone who tries to make them to be opposites.
Jaxel
Well-known member
The problem is that the existence of god DOES preclude the discovery of science. The moment you decide "god was responsible", you basically close that chapter of discovery; you end research as you have technically reached the end of the line. This has been proven throughout history. The moment people like Isaac Newton or Galileo spotted "god" in their research, that is when their research stopped. The 10th and 11th century were the great age of science in the empire of Islam; but all scientific advancement stopped in the 12th century when the push for religion took over.
Jaxel
Well-known member
Also, just because I am atheist, doesn't mean I am anti-religion. I'm okay with people being religious, as long as they don't try to convert me. Don't try to convert me, and I won't try to convert you.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is hosting "Cosmos" right now, and the biggest complaint I have about it is the obvious atheist agenda in the show. Every episode, it is markedly clear how much they are pushing atheism, and they are constantly taking jabs at religion. I do have a problem with that.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is hosting "Cosmos" right now, and the biggest complaint I have about it is the obvious atheist agenda in the show. Every episode, it is markedly clear how much they are pushing atheism, and they are constantly taking jabs at religion. I do have a problem with that.
Lucas
Well-known member
In my honest opinion you cannot say from someone dying/reviving that they've actually been in heaven/with god or w/e they say. It's pretty much your perception, thoughts and probably what you believe in is what you will think about when you come back from a state like that. You'll see what you want to see or remember what you want to remember.
Jaxel
Well-known member
To quote Susan Jacoby's review:
‘Heaven is for real’ and the immature American mind
By Susan Jacoby
There really is such a thing as American exceptionalism: we are more gullible than the public in the rest of the developed world. Sitting pretty at No.1 on The New York Times paperback nonfiction bestseller list is a secondhand memoir, Heaven Is For Real , describing a four-year-old boy’s visit--when he nearly died from a burst appendix--to a heaven complete with clouds, winged inhabitants, and a baby sister his parents had lost to a miscarriage. Only in America could a book like this be classified as nonfiction.
The account of ColtonBurpo’s visit to heaven was written by his father, Todd, an evangelical pastor in Nebraska, and Lynn Vincent, who collaborated on another work of so-called nonfiction, Sarah Palin’s immortal Going Rogue. Of course, none of these good Christian folks produced this nonsense about a little boy in heaven for financial gain. Only atheists write books for money.comment of Barnes & Noble’s vice president for marketing, Patricia Bostelman.
“When you buy the religion subject,” Bostelman said, “you are presented with many stories about heaven, personal experiences about near-death and the afterlife. “But what was unusual about this book was that it was the story of a little boy. It deactivated some of the cynicism that can go along with adults capitalizing on their experiences.”
This is an adult woman with an influential job. The little boy wasn’t the one capitalizing on his fantasies (not experiences, Ms. Bostelman). The boy’s father, his Christian literary agent, Christian publisher, and Sarah Palin’s collaborator were the ones doing the capitalizing.
No doubt the boy’s memories are as vivid and sincere as the memories of all of those preschoolers, coached by adults and “recovered memory” therapists in the 1980s, who claimed that they had been sexually abused en masse in nursery schools by teachers practicing Satanic rituals.
This book, and its commercial success, remind us again of the effectiveness of religious indoctrination early in life. They recall the truth of the Jesuit saying, “Give me a child until he is seven, and I will show you the man.” Can there possibly be any child raised by devout Christian parents who does not, well before kindergarten, have images of winged beings and puffy clouds embedded in his or her brain? Small children believe in Santa Claus for the same reason--because their parents, whom they love, teach them to believe in Santa. The difference is that, at an appropriate age, parents admit that the Santa story isn’t true. They never admit, however, that heaven is the same sort of story.
What is truly disturbing about this book’s huge commercial success is that it attests to the prevalence of unreason among vast numbers of Americans. (The book is way down in the ranks on Amazon.com in the United Kingdom.) The Americans buying the book are the same people fighting the teaching of evolution in public schools. They are probably the same people who think they can reduce the government deficit without either paying higher taxes or cutting the military budget, Social Security and Medicare benefits. In this universe of unreason, two plus two can equal anything you want and heaven is not only real but anything you want it to be. At age four, the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is charming. Among American adults, widespread identification with the mind of a preschooler is scary.
BirdOPrey5
Well-known member
What happened 500+ or even 100 years ago isn't much relevant to today. I'm perfectly content God created the Universe and all the laws in it and that we should strive to discover everything we can about it. What some corrupt church members did in the past doesn't speak for the entire God-believing word.
You say you don't have problem with religious people, just don't try to convert me. I can say the same about atheists- don't try to convert me either- and the premise of Cosmos is most certainly trying to convert people to atheism. I only saw the first episode but it was clear their anti church agenda where the Pope and other Catholics were drawn like evil demons.
The entire episode was bad science at its worst. The tale of Giordano Bruno- who was no scientist. Giordano Bruno had no scientific proof of anything he was preaching- so how was he so right? Logically we can only conclude one of two things- either he just happened to be right OR he had some as of yet unknown power/force, some might call "vision." Neither of those bode well for people trying to proclaim the perfectness of Science.
Jaxel
Well-known member
It's just as relevant today. As dumb as the Ken Ham VS Bill Nye debate was; there is still a rather striking response to a single question that was asked which encompasses all I've tried to explain in my previous posts:
This is what I am talking about with "god" being the "end of the road". Both science and religion claim to be searching for "truth"; but when it comes down to it, science finds truth, and continues to search for more truth. Religion claims truth, and demands no other truths before it. The moment you decide "god is responsible for it", that is where the discovery of science ends.
BTW, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone with these posts. I like to believe this thread was made to be an outlet for people to discuss this topic; and that is what I am doing.
BTW, I also hated the first episode of Cosmos well. And I commented in a previous post about the clear atheist agenda of the show.
Last edited:
John
Well-known member
I've never quite understood militant atheism (even though I spent a good portion of my life as an agnostic), other than to surmise that at it's core is the overwhelming human desire to not submit to authority outside of one's own desires. The message of Jesus is one of good news for humanity...it's humans that have turned it into any and everything but that. It's sad, actually, to think you have the meaning behind your life all figured out and the conclusion you've come to is there really is no meaning, that you're a freak result of chance...an accident of chemistry, more or less.
Jaxel
Well-known member
The show Cosmos does everything it can to minimize the role of religion in science. They fail to mention the religious leanings of most of the characters in history, except when they can use it to take jabs at religious failings. A recent episode discussed the nature of natural selection and artificial selection. They talked about how humanity has selectively bred into what they are today... but then I feel like they deliberately failed to mention even a single thing of Friar Gregor Mendel, the guy who actually discovered the rules of genetics and heredity.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
