Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science is the emergent religion of Atheism

clingard86
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 11:54:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.

Atheists always chuck science at theists when discussing religion. They think they own it the way fundamentalist thing they own marriage.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 12:08:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.
Science is not atheism, atheism is not science.....the method of science is a neutral study no one gets to claim it. Unfortunately, some atheists tend to interpret science and the method of science as atheism and you see that in their speech and arguments, pretending Theists are ignorant of it. Creation, including the human form is a process, and we utilize the methods of science to understand that process so science can be interpreted either way but it in and of itself is a neutral medium/observation.

One could use science to form a worldview but it would only be an interpretation as well as incomplete, certainly not a fact, likewise Theism could interpret science. I would be skeptical for anyone to use science as a means to reach a full scope of what exists and form a worldview from it. For a more thorough examination or study one should consider more sources to develop a worldview or to consider a worldview. Spirituality picks up the ball where science leaves it or cannot reach because science is a natural/material based study and is incompatible with the nature of God but science can be in harmony with Creationism in the sense it examines the functions of creation, while spirituality examines and observes the functions of the spiritual or reality and experience beyond the physical domain. Both science, and spirituality observe two different natures and so we can embrace both not one or the other. But yes, typically atheist piggyback science as well as evolution to enforce their ideologies and to reject Theism. Science is and never will be materialism though, and evolution is compatible with creation.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 1:37:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.

na, science is used by many as a system of belief other than religion which should be a system of belief, but that doesn't mean if one is atheist one believes science faithfully. though man's use of sciences as been around as long as men see its advantage to war. atheists have been around for just as long, probably longer, even the bible mentions their existence in its times, termed as "godless". without God, nor fear of God nor respect of God would be godless. referred to today as atheist.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 1:40:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.

There are too many theistic scientists for this hypothesis to hold water.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 1:50:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

Not necessary but quite useful in refuting the silly, superstitious claims of theists.

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

That would depend on the science literacy of the person doing the talking. I'm not sure that you can generalize about such things. You can soon tell who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. Yes, I do think it is possible for a layman with only a secondary education in science to understand enough to make sensible arguments. If they can't then either their school did not do a good enough job or they were too uninterested to learn anything.

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

Science does not concern itself with a worldview.

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 1:55:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 1:37:16 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.

na, science is used by many as a system of belief ...

No it isn't. Science has nothing to do with belief. It is about knowledge.

... other than religion which should be a system of belief, but that doesn't mean if one is atheist one believes science faithfully. though man's use of sciences as been around as long as men see its advantage to war.

Huh? Science is only useful for war? Really?

... atheists have been around for just as long, probably longer, even the bible mentions their existence in its times, termed as "godless". without God, nor fear of God nor respect of God would be godless. referred to today as atheist.

Once again. If one feared god then they would not be atheists/godless. It's such a simple concept. How come you guys can never quite grasp it?
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
missmedic
Posts: 757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 2:04:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.

The opening statement "science is the emergent religion of atheism" shows a lack of a basic understanding of the words, science, religion and atheism, which is a common occurrence among the uneducated.
Here's the connection between science and atheism. It's actually pretty straightforward.
1: Science disproves specific religious claims.
2: Science makes religion unnecessary as a way to explain the world.
3: Science provides an alternate method for understanding reality.

Science doesn't just disprove specific claims of specific religions. It repositions religion as just another hypothesis about the world. It pushes religion into the marketplace of ideas, as just one other idea among many, with no special privileges and no automatic right to any unusual respect. And then it sits there expectantly, waiting for religion to defend itself. (At which point, atheism swoops in to actually do battle with religion... in an arena where religion has never really had to stand on its own.)
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.
Goldtop
Posts: 6,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 3:49:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
I came across this subject on another debating platform. And it prompted some questions:

Is science necessary to being an atheist?

Not really. Theists are all talk, they have nothing else to offer so it's easy to dismiss their irrational claims considering they can't support any of them.

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences?

Many of the sciences requiring advanced math skills wouldn't be easy to understand for the layman.

I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

They never know what they're talking about. Evolution, for example, does not require advanced math skills, yet most theists who toss it out have never taken the time to understand it.

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

One could possibly glean a worldview from science, but that's not what science is about. It's a process that helps us understand the world around us.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 4:09:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.
Show me the non material.
DeBellumSilens
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:48:50 AM, clingard86 wrote:
Is science necessary to being an atheist?

No; Plato dedicates some time to arguing against atheism in The Laws. Theodorus the Atheist was an infamous Greek philosopher. 'Science' is a metaphysical paradigm of empirical epistemology (which the Greeks did not share) with materialist or physicalist ontology (which very few Greeks shared - notably the Stoics). Belief or disbelief in a god or gods is not contingent on that paradigm. Atheists have probably existed at all times in all cultures.

How easy is it for a layman to understand the higher sciences? I see many people throw out this theory and that theory but do they actually know what they are talking about?

Most of the time not, but that goes for the people supporting science too. Science itself is not a religion, but most scientifically-minded laypeople are religious about it. They have faith in their canon (peer-reviewed scientific journals - which most have never read), certified by ordained clergy (scientists), just like any Christian does. My point here is psychological and I know, before anyone jumps on this, that science in itself is not a religion. I'm talking about its devotees in the general public.

Can science provide us with a worldview, beyond mere observation?

Yes, although the philosophical merits of doing so are dubious.

If you have any related comments, relative to the theme, I would be happy to see them.

The theism vs atheism debate is essentially just people who hold some dogmas arguing against people who hold different dogmas, everyone speaking past each other and nobody seeing the other's perspective or really understanding what the opponent is trying to say.
DeBellumSilens
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 4:23:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

+50
Slothrop
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 10:33:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Can anyone offer a technique or method for gaining objective knowledge about the real world that science doesn't or couldn't use? I have never heard of one. Until one is be identified, science, in its broadest definition, is the best means we have of gaining objective knowledge about the real world.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 11:20:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 10:33:59 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Can anyone offer a technique or method for gaining objective knowledge about the real world that science doesn't or couldn't use? I have never heard of one. Until one is be identified, science, in its broadest definition, is the best means we have of gaining objective knowledge about the real world.
Spirituality, which is observation through personal experience, spirituality is the application and observation of experiences beyond the material realm/senses. After all, your experiences are all you can account for. Most likely you will discard that source, that's what atheism forces individuals to do.
Slothrop
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2018 11:41:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:20:21 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/20/2018 10:33:59 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Can anyone offer a technique or method for gaining objective knowledge about the real world that science doesn't or couldn't use? I have never heard of one. Until one is be identified, science, in its broadest definition, is the best means we have of gaining objective knowledge about the real world.
Spirituality, which is observation through personal experience, spirituality is the application and observation of experiences beyond the material realm/senses. After all, your experiences are all you can account for. Most likely you will discard that source, that's what atheism forces individuals to do.

1. Can you give me an example of something objective that you learned or discovered about the real world through the application of spirituality?

2. How do you know that you spiritually discern something accurately? That is, how do you prevent making a mistake, fooling yourself, etc.?
ethang5
Posts: 13,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 12:01:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Yet another sterling post.

+1
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 12:17:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 11:41:47 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 11:20:21 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/20/2018 10:33:59 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Can anyone offer a technique or method for gaining objective knowledge about the real world that science doesn't or couldn't use? I have never heard of one. Until one is be identified, science, in its broadest definition, is the best means we have of gaining objective knowledge about the real world.
Spirituality, which is observation through personal experience, spirituality is the application and observation of experiences beyond the material realm/senses. After all, your experiences are all you can account for. Most likely you will discard that source, that's what atheism forces individuals to do.

1. Can you give me an example of something objective that you learned or discovered about the real world through the application of spirituality?

Wow, where could I start...".so many things to discuss, so many spiritual principles to be observed. How about the nature of the soul, how about the nature of desire and the curiosity of the Creator or better put spirit vs carnality? what you and I perceive as the "real world" are going to vary dramatically lol so is this a trick question? my world is not limited to one layer or dimension of reality and thinking/perceiving. So this is a dynamic question, I could talk about the mind which forges mentalities and ideologies or the emotions which enforces thoughts and desires and aspects of the mind. I could go on about the Gospels and the many aspects and dynamics it presents about the material world and the higher levels of experience. We could go into the nature and origin of consciousness and how that relates to the Creator, perhaps the origin of the soul and the many layers of experiences the conscious soul can have. The application of spiritual principles which can be read on my profile. The "real" world is not what you just perceive and experience in this material realm and physical body, but if you want experiences beyond the material body you have to learn and practice just like any other thing you would pursue.

2. How do you know that you spiritually discern something accurately? That is, how do you prevent making a mistake, fooling yourself, etc.?

Why would you think spirituality would be any different than learning, observing and knowing than any other field of expertise? you learn through trial and error, you learn to distinguish between the mind, which produces many errors and misconceptions/mistakes because it is not the first reality it's only a robotic mechanical function, your conscious/awareness is, the observer. Spirituality is opposed to the imagination, spirituality causes the individual to not depend upon the mind and so there is no real danger of fooling yourself. It's not imagination, you are pulling away from the mind and intimately self-reflecting and observing from an observation point transcending the limits of the physical body and mind.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 12:28:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 12:17:05 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/20/2018 11:41:47 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 11:20:21 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/20/2018 10:33:59 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Can anyone offer a technique or method for gaining objective knowledge about the real world that science doesn't or couldn't use? I have never heard of one. Until one is be identified, science, in its broadest definition, is the best means we have of gaining objective knowledge about the real world.
Spirituality, which is observation through personal experience, spirituality is the application and observation of experiences beyond the material realm/senses. After all, your experiences are all you can account for. Most likely you will discard that source, that's what atheism forces individuals to do.

1. Can you give me an example of something objective that you learned or discovered about the real world through the application of spirituality?

Wow, where could I start...".so many things to discuss, so many spiritual principles to be observed. How about the nature of the soul, how about the nature of desire and the curiosity of the Creator or better put spirit vs carnality? what you and I perceive as the "real world" are going to vary dramatically lol so is this a trick question? my world is not limited to one layer or dimension of reality and thinking/perceiving. So this is a dynamic question, I could talk about the mind which forges mentalities and ideologies or the emotions which enforces thoughts and desires and aspects of the mind. I could go on about the Gospels and the many aspects and dynamics it presents about the material world and the higher levels of experience. We could go into the nature and origin of consciousness and how that relates to the Creator, perhaps the origin of the soul and the many layers of experiences the conscious soul can have. The application of spiritual principles which can be read on my profile. The "real" world is not what you just perceive and experience in this material realm and physical body, but if you want experiences beyond the material body you have to learn and practice just like any other thing you would pursue.
The answer he is giving is a resounding NO.


2. How do you know that you spiritually discern something accurately? That is, how do you prevent making a mistake, fooling yourself, etc.?

Why would you think spirituality would be any different than learning, observing and knowing than any other field of expertise? you learn through trial and error, you learn to distinguish between the mind, which produces many errors and misconceptions/mistakes because it is not the first reality it's only a robotic mechanical function, your conscious/awareness is, the observer. Spirituality is opposed to the imagination, spirituality causes the individual to not depend upon the mind and so there is no real danger of fooling yourself. It's not imagination, you are pulling away from the mind and intimately self-reflecting and observing from an observation point transcending the limits of the physical body and mind.
Still incapable of answering the questions he dishonestly requests.
Slothrop
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 12:39:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 12:17:05 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/20/2018 11:41:47 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 11:20:21 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/20/2018 10:33:59 PM, Slothrop wrote:
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

Can anyone offer a technique or method for gaining objective knowledge about the real world that science doesn't or couldn't use? I have never heard of one. Until one is be identified, science, in its broadest definition, is the best means we have of gaining objective knowledge about the real world.
Spirituality, which is observation through personal experience, spirituality is the application and observation of experiences beyond the material realm/senses. After all, your experiences are all you can account for. Most likely you will discard that source, that's what atheism forces individuals to do.

1. Can you give me an example of something objective that you learned or discovered about the real world through the application of spirituality?

Wow, where could I start...".so many things to discuss, so many spiritual principles to be observed. How about the nature of the soul, how about the nature of desire and the curiosity of the Creator or better put spirit vs carnality? what you and I perceive as the "real world" are going to vary dramatically lol so is this a trick question? my world is not limited to one layer or dimension of reality and thinking/perceiving. So this is a dynamic question, I could talk about the mind which forges mentalities and ideologies or the emotions which enforces thoughts and desires and aspects of the mind. I could go on about the Gospels and the many aspects and dynamics it presents about the material world and the higher levels of experience. We could go into the nature and origin of consciousness and how that relates to the Creator, perhaps the origin of the soul and the many layers of experiences the conscious soul can have. The application of spiritual principles which can be read on my profile. The "real" world is not what you just perceive and experience in this material realm and physical body, but if you want experiences beyond the material body you have to learn and practice just like any other thing you would pursue.

I was asking for "an" - that is, a single - example, hopefully your best one.


2. How do you know that you spiritually discern something accurately? That is, how do you prevent making a mistake, fooling yourself, etc.?

Why would you think spirituality would be any different than learning, observing and knowing than any other field of expertise?
I"m not, necessarily. I"m just asking you a question, hoping to learn something.

Are the methods of spiritual learning and observing different from that of science? If so, how? If not, then my point holds.

you learn through trial and error,
Is how you evaluate your trials and errors different from how science evaluates it"s trials and errors?

you learn to distinguish between the mind, which produces many errors and misconceptions/mistakes because it is not the first reality it's only a robotic mechanical function, your conscious/awareness is, the observer.

I don"t understand what is distinguished from the mind in what you wrote. The mind versus what? Go back and read that sentence that you wrote.

Spirituality is opposed to the imagination,
Huh? Can you explain that.

spirituality causes the individual to not depend upon the mind and so there is no real danger of fooling yourself.
How can it be that there is no danger of fooling yourself if you don"t depend on the mind? What else are you depending on, and why can"t that be fooled?

. . . you are pulling away from the mind and intimately self-reflecting and observing
That sounds like the mind. What is self-reflecting if not the mind?

from an observation point transcending the limits of the physical body and mind.
How do you know you are transcending the limits of the physical body and mind?
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 1:57:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

With that post getting a +50 and a +1, it's my job to see PureX doesn't get too much of a big head!

PureX is right that the OP should have said 'scientism' not science, but he's wrong to suggest it is new or growing in a 'new generation of knee-jerk atheists', although I don't know wat a knee-jerk atheist is or if I am one!

A historical examples of scientism was the world-wide fad for 'eugenics' at the beginning of the 20th century. It was scientism because it took a scientific principle ('survival of the fitest') and took it as a moral principle to be emulated. But its association with atheism is tenuous - it was embraced most enthusiastically in the highly Christian United States where eugenics programs continued upto 1972 at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll begin be pointing out that this isn't about whether god exists or not but whether theism is a useful myth, as Epicurus famously pointed out 2000 years ago.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 2:16:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 4:23:02 PM, DeBellumSilens wrote:

Most of the time not, but that goes for the people supporting science too. Science itself is not a religion, but most scientifically-minded laypeople are religious about it.

No.

religious
adjective
adjective: religious
1. relating to or believing in a religion.


Science is not a religion so someone who accepts the methodology of science cannot be "religious"about it unless you are using the word metaphorically.

They have faith in their canon (peer-reviewed scientific journals - which most have never read),...

Faith as in trust (for good reason). That is not the same faith as in "belief without evidence" which theists employ. Using words with religious connotations to describe the non-religious is a trick (conflating the meanings of words) which some people use in a dishonest manner to try and score cheap points.

... certified by ordained clergy (scientists), just like any Christian does.

Ditto. Scientists are never ordained. That word only applies to priests or ministers.

My point here is psychological and I know, before anyone jumps on this, that science in itself is not a religion.

Psychological or trying to tar science with the same brush as religion where you don't appreciate the irony in doing so (a tacit admission that being religious is undesirable)?

I'm talking about its devotees in the general public.

And again. Accepting the veracity of science does not make someone a devotee of science (in the religious sense you are conflating it with).

Well done. You have tried to trash science by accepting that religion is trash. That's irony for you.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
DeBellumSilens
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 2:48:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 2:16:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
Science is not a religion so someone who accepts the methodology of science cannot be "religious"about it unless you are using the word metaphorically.

In the text you quoted I said that I know science is not a religion. It's pretty obvious I was using it metaphorically. I mean that the psychology of the average scientific devotee is basically the same as that of the average Abrahamist. I don't mean that science is in itself like Abrahamism.

Faith as in trust (for good reason). That is not the same faith as in "belief without evidence" which theists employ. Using words with religious connotations to describe the non-religious is a trick (conflating the meanings of words) which some people use in a dishonest manner to try and score cheap points.

Faith as in "not understanding the technical details but believing anyway".

It's not a trick, it's how they actually behave, and it's obvious to anyone who doesn't share the "science is the only truth" dogma.

Ditto. Scientists are never ordained. That word only applies to priests or ministers.

Poetic license. Ordained clergy are experts in their field and they decide what is or is not true within their paradigm, then the flock believes them. If that's not a huge portion of scientifically minded laypeople, then I don't know what is.

Psychological or trying to tar science with the same brush as religion where you don't appreciate the irony in doing so (a tacit admission that being religious is undesirable)?

I'm not trying to tar science with anything, I'm talking, yet again, about people who are not scientists but believe it with absolute conviction.

And again. Accepting the veracity of science does not make someone a devotee of science (in the religious sense you are conflating it with).

No, but precluding the possibility that anything but science could have anything valuable to say about reality or the truth does make someone a devotee of science.

Well done. You have tried to trash science by accepting that religion is trash. That's irony for you.

I'm not trying to trash science, read it again without the indignation and see if you understand this time.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 3:12:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/20/2018 4:23:02 PM, DeBellumSilens wrote:
The theism vs atheism debate is essentially just people who hold some dogmas arguing against people who hold different dogmas, everyone speaking past each other and nobody seeing the other's perspective or really understanding what the opponent is trying to say.

I so disagree with that. The sharp end of the debate is of course evolution v creationism and that is a good place to examine it. The Dover trial was not about which holy book - the Bible or Darwin's OoS - should be taught as the 'truth' about life on earth. It was about were kids are to be taught how to discover truth. Do you find truth by reading the first chapter of Genesis or by digging in the ground and discovering fossils and sailing to remote Islands and observing the beaks of birds?

I hope you see that is quite different from what your post suggests.
DeBellumSilens
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 3:13:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 3:12:06 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I so disagree with that. The sharp end of the debate is of course evolution v creationism and that is a good place to examine it. The Dover trial was not about which holy book - the Bible or Darwin's OoS - should be taught as the 'truth' about life on earth. It was about were kids are to be taught how to discover truth. Do you find truth by reading the first chapter of Genesis or by digging in the ground and discovering fossils and sailing to remote Islands and observing the beaks of birds?

I hope you see that is quite different from what your post suggests.

That's fair enough and I don't disagree with you; I really meant "the theism vs atheism debate on internet forums" :D.
Casten
Posts: 2,510
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 4:19:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 1:57:12 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/20/2018 2:48:00 PM, PureX wrote:
It's not science, it's "scientism".

Science has nothing at all to do with atheism, or theism. It is not capable of addressing either of those conceptual realities in any meaningful way.

It's "scientism": the ideological mythology that is being built around a bias toward, and the willful ignorance of science that has become the new "god" of the modern atheist. Scientism is the myth that science reveals "The Truth". And that ONLY science reveals The Truth. Because The Truth is material, and all else is conjecture. It's insane, I know, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down it's popularity among a new generation of 'knee-jerk' atheists.

With that post getting a +50 and a +1, it's my job to see PureX doesn't get too much of a big head!

PureX is right that the OP should have said 'scientism' not science, but he's wrong to suggest it is new or growing in a 'new generation of knee-jerk atheists', although I don't know wat a knee-jerk atheist is or if I am one!

A historical examples of scientism was the world-wide fad for 'eugenics' at the beginning of the 20th century. It was scientism because it took a scientific principle ('survival of the fitest') and took it as a moral principle to be emulated. But its association with atheism is tenuous - it was embraced most enthusiastically in the highly Christian United States where eugenics programs continued upto 1972 at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org...




I'll begin be pointing out that this isn't about whether god exists or not but whether theism is a useful myth, as Epicurus famously pointed out 2000 years ago.

To be fair, I've found it's pretty common for people to accuse their ideological opponents of knee-jerk emotionalism, no matter the nature of the argument or which side of it they're on.
You'll always find me here: https://www.debateart.com...
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 5:02:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 2:48:26 AM, DeBellumSilens wrote:
At 7/21/2018 2:16:30 AM, dee-em wrote:

Science is not a religion so someone who accepts the methodology of science cannot be "religious"about it unless you are using the word metaphorically.

In the text you quoted I said that I know science is not a religion. It's pretty obvious I was using it metaphorically. I mean that the psychology of the average scientific devotee is basically the same as that of the average Abrahamist. I don't mean that science is in itself like Abrahamism.

Except that there is no such thing as a scientific devotee with the religious connotations which you deliberately inject to make your "psychological" case. They are not the same as you well know but you do it anyway to further your anti-science narrative. I'm fairly sure I know who you really are and what your agenda is. We've seen you (or your like) before.

Faith as in trust (for good reason). That is not the same faith as in "belief without evidence" which theists employ. Using words with religious connotations to describe the non-religious is a trick (conflating the meanings of words) which some people use in a dishonest manner to try and score cheap points.

Faith as in "not understanding the technical details but believing anyway".

But understanding the scientific method and having trust in it based on past results. Which is a very different thing to the blind faith of theists. But you go right ahead and try to conflate them anyway. We know that this is all you have.

It's not a trick, it's how they actually behave, and it's obvious to anyone who doesn't share the "science is the only truth" dogma.

So you keep asserting. Doesn't it sound just a little bit hollow even to you?

Ditto. Scientists are never ordained. That word only applies to priests or ministers.

Poetic license. Ordained clergy are experts in their field and they decide what is or is not true within their paradigm, then the flock believes them. If that's not a huge portion of scientifically minded laypeople, then I don't know what is.

LMAO. Poetic license. Riiiigggghhhhhtttt.

Psychological or trying to tar science with the same brush as religion where you don't appreciate the irony in doing so (a tacit admission that being religious is undesirable)?

I'm not trying to tar science with anything, I'm talking, yet again, about people who are not scientists but believe it with absolute conviction.

Yeah, we've heard it all before. "We know that we are pretty bad but you are no different to us really". Did that childish argument work in the playground for you?

And again. Accepting the veracity of science does not make someone a devotee of science (in the religious sense you are conflating it with).

No, but precluding the possibility that anything but science could have anything valuable to say about reality or the truth does make someone a devotee of science.

Keep asserting. You may even convince yourself if you try hard enough. LOL.

Well done. You have tried to trash science by accepting that religion is trash. That's irony for you.

I'm not trying to trash science, read it again without the indignation and see if you understand this time.

I understand fully and I know who you are and what your agenda is. You are fooling no-one. Go back to the playground and try to convince the kiddies there that science is like religion. It doesn't work on adults.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
DeBellumSilens
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 5:14:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 5:02:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
Except that there is no such thing as a scientific devotee with the religious connotations which you deliberately inject to make your "psychological" case. They are not the same as you well know but you do it anyway to further your anti-science narrative. I'm fairly sure I know who you really are and what your agenda is. We've seen you (or your like) before.

Paranoid cynicism aside, I am not anti-science; I am a philosopher of science and a chemist by education. You can stop painting me with that brush any time you like. I love science. I just understand its limitations better than the non-scientist devotees.

But understanding the scientific method and having trust in it based on past results. Which is a very different thing to the blind faith of theists. But you go right ahead and try to conflate them anyway. We know that this is all you have.

There is no 'scientific method'. There are ontological and epistemological principles which are applied in manifold ways across vastly disparate fields. The method of an organic chemist is not the method of a computational neuroscientist. Romanticising vaguely about 'the scientific method' is another one of those cute things devotees without technical training do.

So you keep asserting. Doesn't it sound just a little bit hollow even to you?

No, because he empirical evidence is all all through this thread and all over the rest of the internet. You're doing it right now.

Yeah, we've heard it all before. "We know that we are pretty bad but you are no different to us really". Did that childish argument work in the playground for you?

What exactly have you made up about me in your head? Do you think I'm a theist? rofl

I understand fully and I know who you are and what your agenda is. You are fooling no-one. Go back to the playground and try to convince the kiddies there that science is like religion. It doesn't work on adults.

I love it when so-called rational people invent conspiracy theories.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2018 5:25:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 7/21/2018 5:14:31 AM, DeBellumSilens wrote:
At 7/21/2018 5:02:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
Except that there is no such thing as a scientific devotee with the religious connotations which you deliberately inject to make your "psychological" case. They are not the same as you well know but you do it anyway to further your anti-science narrative. I'm fairly sure I know who you really are and what your agenda is. We've seen you (or your like) before.

Paranoid cynicism aside, I am not anti-science; I am a philosopher of science and a chemist by education. You can stop painting me with that brush any time you like. I love science. I just understand its limitations better than the non-scientist devotees.

But understanding the scientific method and having trust in it based on past results. Which is a very different thing to the blind faith of theists. But you go right ahead and try to conflate them anyway. We know that this is all you have.

There is no 'scientific method'. There are ontological and epistemological principles which are applied in manifold ways across vastly disparate fields. The method of an organic chemist is not the method of a computational neuroscientist. Romanticising vaguely about 'the scientific method' is another one of those cute things devotees without technical training do.

So you keep asserting. Doesn't it sound just a little bit hollow even to you?

No, because he empirical evidence is all all through this thread and all over the rest of the internet. You're doing it right now.

Yeah, we've heard it all before. "We know that we are pretty bad but you are no different to us really". Did that childish argument work in the playground for you?

What exactly have you made up about me in your head? Do you think I'm a theist? rofl

I understand fully and I know who you are and what your agenda is. You are fooling no-one. Go back to the playground and try to convince the kiddies there that science is like religion. It doesn't work on adults.

I love it when so-called rational people invent conspiracy theories.

Let's use science and examine the evidence. In your very first post you associated science with "being religious", "having faith", "using canon", "ordained clergy", "having devotees". But no, you had no ulterior motive for making such absurd comparisons. You know and love science. And you are not a theist. And pigs fly over my house daily. LMAO.

Begone anti-science troll.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.