|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted February 03, 2017 02:38 AM |
|
|
That is the thing Artu.. what humans 'know' is constantly changing.. and in the grand scheme of things is so infinitesimal that, as I have said many times before.. is like an ant that has lived its life on a single grain of sand thinking it 'knows' what exists in the universe. Now I am not saying dismiss everything we know, because we need to build on that, but not to be so rigid in thinking. It leads to conformation bias, where if it doesn't fit in a theory it is dismissed.
The thing is .. something had to come first. Either the universe.. and if so where did it come from, or an entity. Logic suggests that the simplest answer is the best answer.. so lets say that the universe 'just sprang into being' on its own. Why? How? The argument that it was just always there is not logical. There has to be a point, no matter how far back, where it was not. Just as it is not logical to think that an entity was 'always there'. So what is the answer? I don't know, don't pretend to. It is beyond our ability to know currently. We are not yet evolved enough. As long as we bicker, hate each other over petty things, and continue to have conformation bias.. we may never evolve enough TO know.
____________
Message received.
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 02:40 AM |
|
|
artu said:
How on earth did you conclude that from what I said?
Btw, a lot of our brain activity is indeed involuntary. Free will is not an absolute concept.
Sure many of the brain's more bureaucratic functions are off limits (gets annoying when you have to manually breathe if you focus on it, but imagine having to manually order your heart to pump or personally calculate blood-sugar level). However, this doesn't necessarily have a significant adverse effect on our choices (free will in my mind is the ability to act and choose rather than being able to decide the factors at play).
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 02:53 AM |
|
|
Mytical said:
The argument that it was just always there is not logical.
for sake of argument, why?
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:03 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:19, 03 Feb 2017.
|
@Mytical
Well, the thing is, our everyday semantics and logic is inefficient when it comes to the issue of "something out of nothing" and physicists have whole seminars about this explaining why nothing isnt just nothing. I'm not claiming I understand it clearly either, since to fully digest it, you probably need some expertise. But I know some conclusions are on surface contradictory to our eveyday common sense. That's why modern physics create so many pseudo-science on the side and there's even a sub-category specifically titled Quantum Mysticism.
@Tsar
I wasn't referring to just hardwired or reflexive stuff. I suggest this book on the subject, very interesting. I'm not arguing that free will is a complete illusion but it's a very compromised concept, especially if taken as an absolute value.
yogi said:
i asked which aspect of being is in control, the body or the mind, to which you replied, that the mind is a subset of the body, diverting the question of control
the amount of our brain activity that is involuntary is a matter of choice / self-control.
let me simplify this, can 'you' alter the body?
No, you formulated the question as if the body and the mind are separate entities and one can be in complete charge of the other as if driving a car, which is a flawed dualism.
The amount of brain activity that is involuntary is NOT a complete matter of choice and self-control. There is the subconscious, there is involuntary conditioning and of course there is the plain impulsive urges which you can control not to act on but not erase either.
You can alter your mind to a degree but that has nothing to with a super-natural cosmology being real or not, it's something easily explainable with psychology. Your psyche is not God.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:58 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Your psyche is not God.
exactly so. most people's idea of god isn't even god, really. but whatever, i think i'm helping to derail this thread by discussing the origins of our existence; so i'll stop now. i could always create my own "religion", and thereby, a thread for it.
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 07:54 AM |
|
Edited by frostysh at 07:56, 03 Feb 2017.
|
Mytical -
Mytical said:
Religion itself is not bad.. in fact a lot of our history would have been lost if not for Monks who knew how to read and write, writing down things when the vast majority of people were illiterate. What corrupts religion is the people in it. Trying to force THEIR views on everybody else. Worse, what they try to force on other people makes no sense sometimes.
Particularly right, religion sometimes played a good role in history. Christianity - as a "rocket fuel" for Renaissance jump. Islam - as a main organization and killer of tribal chaos and madness.
And obviously peoples can do a horrific things, even without any religion 
But, along with that, we have enormous examples when religion was.. , was bad.  So I will answer to that with a single citation that a I liked.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg (1999AD).
I think this a law of Psychology/Sociology somekind, and this citation can be generalized onto any of mass-controlling ideas, not only on religion
Mytical said:
Let us take for instance nudity. We were born nude, are supposed to be in the image of god, yet some in religion see nudity as bad or immoral. What sense does that make? Not a bit. Some claim that marriage should be one way or another, but marriage existed before those religions .. so.. *shrugs* On one hand they claim to have a loving god, yet hate those who follow a different faith... sometimes going as far to kill them. I know some very intelligent people who are religious, and they make some good arguements.. but some .. I don't know.. if it doesn't fit their view it is ignored. That goes for atheist as well though. Or all humanity for that matter.
Here is something to digest. Just to think about. At one time we could not see cells, DNA, or chromosomes .. does that mean they did not exist until we could? Now absence of proof something does not exist is not the same as proof it does.. but just because we can not see the proof yet.. that doesn't mean there is not proof out there.. somewhere.
This is a bucket of nonsense.
1) You are trying to toe-to-toe with religion on the philosophical/theological field  - A very bad idea... religion have any answers that you wish in this case  . - The answers of mr markkur is a confirmation to that : Low facts/statistics, + lot of the theology - and the all of that is a truth somekind Whahhahaaaaaaaaaaa .
2) About DNA - nonsense. Even without discovering it, there is lot of a factors that forced scientist to think that something like exist. This is far from the any religions myths, for an examples. Besides "if something is not discovered, that's means something does not exist yet" - is a little bit sux logic, <imo>
markkur -
markkur said:
I not only have used Science in my past profession for decades but used the scientific method in improving our production process; I was very good at identifying all possible contributors to our problem-solving within the world of our manufacturing processes.
However, though I vigorously still believe in proper identification, accurate statistics, reason and logic in critical review, I think most dialogue today is far too often very arrogant and imo, does great damage to what I recognize as "the evolution of human-thought"
Mr markkur, Science, VERY often have nothing common with a logic . Quantum stuff and Relativity suttf is a super examples for that. Those two things disregarding almost any logic and life experience of the humans Lot of laughs ...
markkur said:
i.e. While we should be at a great height in thought, evidence seems quite divided, with some smattering of well-reasoned thinking but too frequently for comfort, there are many people at various sites I follow today, who appear have not been taught critical thinking or are so indoctrinated in an ideology that can not or will not get out of their own mental-box...so to speak, to even see what may be important for sound argument.
Everyone should know that if Science begins with an Agenda, then factual Science will be corrupted. For a time, I considered Global-warming - which I've since given-up pursuing the argument because at a quick-glance, I don't "always" see Science at work but instead I read or watch single-presentations that are <imvho> incomplete. i.e. All possible impacts are not included in the lecture or analysis. Maybe that was my bad luck or maybe someone has put all possibilities in a single-basket now but IDK.
The very problem in this case, that it is a VERY hard to check what really happens 2k years ago in the Jerusalem, and it is much more esier to check any Scientific Article for truth by the Scientific Society... .
So if your Agenda will told to us about resurrection 2k years ago, we will have not enough clues to debunk it. But if your Agenda will told to us, that DPRK citizen has been on the Surface of Sun, and returned back (this is official version of events in DPRK ), Scientific Community can easily debunk that .
markkur said:
Sorry, to my main-point now, I do not think that what has happened to all of our Institutions is an accident, I think it is simply the "natural" result of Mankind getting lost in itself and becoming corrupted in its ethics at minimum, morals in general and probably worse, sometimes, even the original purpose of whatever institution.
I first became aware of what I "think" is a universal malady inside today's world by waking-up and seeing what happened to something I hold dear..."my" greater one Church.
In the mpodern world - you will need no Church to be moral, and good. You have Humanism , and Human Rights, you have Justice - just believe in this stuff, as in you are believing the God, but without any resurrection, reincarnation, doomsdays etc .
Almost all religions has be developed in the times of myths and legends like in Hercules movies .
That was an old movies, translated on some channel with a poor signal. I have watched that when I was a kiddo, the Xeena also were - cool.
And those heroes kicked many assists of the Gods, if you know what I mean, REGARDLESS of the Gods was real And can easily burn you down for a single bad word into their side. This is truly different from the "Paper Gods" of the modern religions .
markkur said:
What is the problem in Politics today? The Religions? Legal systems? Diplomacy? Banking and Finance? And even in Charity-groups? (Power and Greed strikes there too) Well, it's truly a no-brainer (though I didn't see the connection for a while) and my present opinion both reads and seems silly. Human's are Humanity's most serious problem; always has been, always will be. However, how do we end that self-worship forever?
No mr markkur, The times are changin' - like in the song . Religion beliefs - is the past. The future is unknown, but religions is the past already - <imo>.
markkur said:
When any man or woman in any walk of life executing any world-view and working at any purpose is basically self-centered? We have exactly what we have in the world today.
Do not judge any human, by a single same stuff that based on your life experience.
artu -
artu said:
There may or may not be species out there more evolved than us, but they certainly have nothing to do with how we came into existence and how humans historically deduced "a higher existence" or how ethics or philosophy developed. The problem with this line of thinking is, unlike you wishfully assume, theology or spiritual theism or any plain mysticism in general, is not something deeper, it's NOT beyond the horizon of science. It's way behind it. We KNOW when and how monotheism emerged, we know the social-historical inspirations, we know its pre-monotheistic origins, we compare local myths, we know what's common in them and what's distinctive according to what and why. These are also science, science is not just physics.
+1 - me think something like that too.
artu said:
And trying to understand how quantum physics treat "nothingness" is much more effort taking and much more sophisticated than some short-cut "God said let things be" explanation, which by the way, is an awful explanation because an entity with a personality coming into existence out of nowhere is abysmal compared to dimensions of space and time coming into existence out of nowhere. God does not have a "get out of jail free card" if "what started existence" is a question you have on your mind. Saying something exists without time and space is gibberish, it's not different than saying "this cube is not cubical." You can say it, but it doesn't correspond to anything, it's just a rhetorical gateway for people to justify a theistic perception they inherited because it made sense back in ancient times.
+1
artu said:
And back then, what started it all was pretty much "street smart" thinking, not some deep philosophical journey: I have a will, I can move things, things also move in nature, so they either have their own will (animism) or -with a little more beginner level abstraction- they also have movers (polytheism). Than comes the age of empires and you have "a lord," the king of movers who rules all. Speaking through this tradition in 21th century with a sprinkle of mystification does not make theism deeper or open-minded "beyond science."
+1, it is too abstract, but anyway I am mostly agreed.
artu said:
. . . And to put it bluntly, the ones who bring us new concepts, new perspectives, new paradigms only look down on apologetics, and justifiably so, because they are nothing more than a repackaged version of clergy. Do a quick search if you're not convinced by my words and look at what the philosophers of 20th Century and recent times spend their time on; structuralism, deconstructionism, critical theory, phenomenology, hermeneutics, social philosophy, theory of mind... And all of these are interlinked with social sciences like never before. Nobody is trying to decode God like Thomas Aquinas anymore. Faith in anything super-natural is insignificant in any intellectual field of work, it is treated as any other superstition.
Yeah.. and mostly this philosophers forgetting about humanism, but I can't too much blame them with such poor history as humanity have...
yogi -
yogi said:
i asked which aspect of being is in control, the body or the mind, to which you replied, that the mind is a subset of the body, diverting the question of control
the amount of our brain activity that is involuntary is a matter of choice / self-control.
let me simplify this, can 'you' alter the body?
Mr yogi. if you will push your will too hard, you will even alternate your own desire to alternate .
But I know, what you will be not able to alternate - your ability to fly , and I do not advice you to check it like that :
Well I will tell to u, about other method in which will can alternate the things (the Brain, the DNA included). Human's will can do the Science, and create a jet, and fly on it . And the folks that trying to alternate their brain/body to learn how to fly, is still walking on the ground .
The Brain and the Body, of human, is a very complicated things. The interaction, of those two things, is even more complicated - Neuroscience for kids, my main resource about Neuro-stuff, I recommended to anyone  .
____________
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 10:44 AM |
|
|
Myths are too hard for you to understand. So keep silence and learn from genius:
J.R.R. Tolkien
To one who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless,
even though "breathed through silver"
PHILOMYTHUS TO MISOMYTHUS
You look at trees and label them just so,
(for trees are `trees', and growing is `to grow');
you walk the earth and tread with solemn pace
one of the many minor globes of Space:
a star's a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, Inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain.
At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'erwitten without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
and endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
God made the petreous rocks, the arboreal trees,
tellurian earth, and stellar stars, and these
homuncular men, who walk upon the ground
with nerves that tingle touched by light and sound.
The movements of the sea, the wind in boughs,
green grass, the large slow oddity of cows,
thunder and lightning, birds that wheel and cry,
slime crawling up from mud to live and die,
these each are duly registered and print
the brain's contortions with a separate dint.
Yet trees and not `trees', until so named and seen -
and never were so named, till those had been
who speech's involuted breath unfurled,
faint echo and dim picture of the world,
but neither record nor a photograph,
being divination, judgement, and a laugh,
response of those that felt astir within
by deep monition movements that were kin
to life and death of trees, of beasts, of stars:
free captives undermining shadowy bars,
digging the foreknown from experience
and panning the vein of spirit out of sense.
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves,
and looking backward they beheld the Elves
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind,
and light and dark on secret looms entwined.
He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers beneath the ancient song,
whose very echo after-music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-patterned; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth.
The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact,
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.
Yes! `wish-fulfilment dreams' we spin to cheat
our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!
Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem ?
All wishes are not idle, not in vain
fulfilment we devise - for pain is pain,
not for itself to be desired, but ill;
or else to strive or to subdue the will
alike were graceless; and of Evil this
alone is dreadly certain: Evil is.
Blessed are the timid hearts that evil hate,
that quail in its shadow, and yet shut the gate;
that seek no parley, and in guarded room,
through small and bare, upon a clumsy loom
weave rissues gilded by the far-off day
hoped and believed in under Shadow's sway.
Blessed are the men of Noah's race that build
their little arks, though frail and poorly filled,
and steer through winds contrary towards a wraith,
a rumour of a harbour guessed by faith.
Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things nor found within record time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organised delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).
Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have turned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.
I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.
I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends -
if by God's mercy progress ever ends,
and does not ceaselessly revolve the same
unfruitful course with changing of a name.
I will not treat your dusty path and flat,
denoting this and that by this and that,
your world immutable wherein no part
the little maker has with maker's art.
I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.
In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True.
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet may free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden not gardener, children not their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not been dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 10:59 AM |
|
|
Here you come jousting me again, Fâris artu
assuming artu said:
Theology or spiritual theism or any plain mysticism in general, is not something deeper, it's NOT beyond the horizon of science.
It is. Follow me, the experimental process around which science was founded is best suited for studying some phenomenons, as I said, clearly defined and positioned within space and time. A cell, a piece of iron, a storm. Nevertheless, you can't use it effectively to study a wide range of others kinds of phenomenons. You can't use it to study a historical fact, you can't use it to understand what is abstract, like love, friendship, sexuality, respect, family... etc. You can understand what happens to the body when a man and a woman are in action, but you can't tell why the he preferred her blond. The experimental process is what I called science, now history is a science too, as much as sexology, psychology, the difference is, compared to the experimental process, they are not fully recognized as that. You can lie in history, every fact is subject to interpretation, words are not the same: for example, the Armenian genocide is called genocide by some, punishment by others, defense operations by others, jihad... Unlike the EP, you can't reproduce the phenomenon too. This is why I tell you science is limited, as well as physics. It's not applicable at every phenomenon. And it always needs a basis, at the point where when you try to study the first basis, you can't, because you need its basis, that you can't reach. Not to mention, that we discovered a galaxy so huge that according to our laws of physics, it shouldn't exist. But it exists, so we sure have to review, constantly, what we think we know for sure, as said Mytical.
God, is an indivisible entity, transcendent, out of space and time, because He is both, just as much as He is love and hatred, light and darkness, good and bad. You can't apply such a process to try to know He's nature, to understand him. There, you use others sciences (called "sciences" by most scientists, be them from the west or middle-east) like theology, Tawhid or "science of unicity'... etc. Which will give you an idea of Him.
affirming artu said:
We KNOW when and how monotheism emerged
Uh, oh. And just how can you affirm that? Most of those who think that way say that man inspired from multiple sources to come up with the idea of a unique divinity. I say otherwise, God sent with the first human the true religion, and it has been biased to the point to create polytheism and multiple other religions. That's why you always find in them some principles of the monotheistic religions. Zeus is God, as well as Jupiter, I mean, the true one and the others are messing around. And if you check their chaotic (yet romantic) mythology, you'll find the same of some Islam or Christianity principles. According to the Greeks, IIRC Chaos, which is a form of pre-Big Bang, has been a void always existing (a principle of God) and then out of nowhere emerged six universal principals (they thought they were, but we think know today they are not so universal) Nyx (night), Ouranos and Gaia (sky and earth), Erebus... Which is fun, is that the Greeks added a seventh principle, I don't know where they brought it from. In a first version Eros is the son of Aphrodite, but in another, he is among the six first, and that reminds me of "God is love". The Greeks believed, even in what we consider a flawed conception of divinity, in those unchanging principles of the universe, that are directly related to God.
not funny artu at all said:
Saying something exists without time and space is gibberish, it's not different than saying "this cube is not cubical.
What about if space and time have always existed? They are both (seen as) incarnations of God. Plus, artu, when we will have a clear definition of space, and of time, we will maybe be able to affirm such a claim of yours. Because until today, we don't know what space and time are.
taboo artu said:
Faith in anything super-natural is insignificant in any intellectual field of work, it is treated as any other superstition.
And this is why I don't give much credit to those modern scientists. They apply their EP on everything, and when they can't, than the thing which can't be understood simply doesn't exist. They advance on assumptions, they make hypothesis and build a whole science upon them. They developed taboos making some ideas refused by default. Basically, they turn science into a religion. Here, imo, they're not different from that church clergy you were talking about.
This is why I tell ya if you want to understand God, which is honourable, don't try to with science, or with what we call science today.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 12:14 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 13:10, 03 Feb 2017.
|
i'm breaking what i said before, because i feel particularly engaged by the above post by alhazin; which i absolutely recommend for a qp. very well put, alhazin.
and, i'll go you one further: in order to understand god, you must put what people think about it, behind you. because the people themselves, with their religions, are doing the same thing as the scientists; which is assuming much from a base that is next to nothing like what they describe god as being. they base their ideas of "him", on what people are. the religious assume(because it's written down in a book), that god created mankind in "his" image. and that basis is wrong. you might as well say that god created zebra's, or more accurately, monkey's, in "his" image. since the physical evolution of the universe and everything in it, has been pretty well proven(in the physical sense, strictly).
---------
i just thought of a summarization of what alhazin said. science studies the physical realm, and only the physical realm. since god doesn't exist in the physical realm, it cannot be studied(or even quantified) by science. science cannot even quantify the fact that there is another realm besides the physical.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 01:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:09, 03 Feb 2017.
|
AlHazin, that's A LOT of arbitrary assumptions you throw around and than calling plain facts a taboo because you can't get over your own taboo's.
Quote:
God, is an indivisible entity, transcendent, out of space and time, because He is both, just as much as He is love and hatred, light and darkness, good and bad. You can't apply such a process to try to know He's nature, to understand him. There, you use others sciences (called "sciences" by most scientists, be them from the west or middle-east) like theology, Tawhid or "science of unicity'... etc. Which will give you an idea of Him.
And you cant compare a unicorn's anatomy to a horse's because they don't poop. As long as these are just words which don't even have a hypothetical explanation, such as what it is to be able to exist out of time and space, how can existence "continue" without time etc, they will remain gibberish and just because somebody arbitrarily assumed and memorized before you and made you memorize tawhid, such things don't turn into science. Theology is cultural, science is universal.
Quote:
What about if space and time have always existed?
Big Bang suggests otherwise, there could be other universes or a series of Big Bangs but such assumptions have nothing to do with the super-natural. The super-natural is not a weak explanation because science is perfectly accurate about every detail, the super-natural is a weak explanation because it is an overwhelmingly transparent fairy tale.
Quote:
And this is why I don't give much credit to those modern scientists. They apply their EP on everything, and when they can't, than the thing which can't be understood simply doesn't exist. They advance on assumptions, they make hypothesis and build a whole science upon them. They developed taboos making some ideas refused by default. Basically, they turn science into a religion. Here, imo, they're not different from that church clergy you were talking about.
That's like ignoring the whole point of my post. They don't ignore anything, they EXPLAIN it as an anthropological phenomenon. You are the one who advance on arbitrary assumptions, not them, you don't prove something doesn't exist (that's an infinite set), you prove something does. I'm sure your "out of space and time" God, who gives advice on how to treat men after they return from battle, telling Muhhammed's wives to behave or else he'll find new virgins, managing property law, marriage law, tax law according to 7th century customs, making literal errors when borrowing earlier myths such as the seven sleepers in a cave, making arithmetic errors when distributing inheritance is truely universal and people who study 10 billion light year away stars should have checked up on him before they treat God as a legend! And on top of this you claim they turn science into religion because they see the obvious, that these are just folkloric lore and ancient law? Science is not dogmatic, it tests itself with its own methods and calling a myth a myth is not prejudice, saying, such as yourself, "if they didn't find it hard to practice, everybody who read the Quran would be a Muslim," now, that's what actual prejudice works like.
Good luck on not giving modern scientists or philosophers too much credit, that's why the Muslim world can't produce almost no universal intellectuals for the last 300-400 years anyway. And in the end, they turn into the ones nobody else cares what they give a credit to or not. Because you don't give a credit to them, you deduct like someone from the 18th century. These are not paths that have not been walked on. It's easy preaching to your own choir, not so easy to actually discover something new. Your countries will keep getting bombarded by cultures that do give credit though, and have the latest technology, while you mumble "what's God's will is God's will." The royalty will educate themselves in the West, people will run away to more advanced countries despite the scorn, only to work at some bottom of the bottom labor, in about 500 years or so the culture will probably dry out completely anyway, maybe even earlier. Then, most probably your grand grand children will be thought in school Allah, the way we are thought Zeus or Odin.
fred said:
i just thought of a summarization of what alhazin said. science studies the physical realm, and only the physical realm.
No, science also studies why we have the wish to assume another realm or why we did assume other realms through out history the way we did. As I already said, science is not just physics, it will also explain to you why some societies dreamed of Valhalla and others Eden and others reincarnation. It will show you the ties between social structure and these constructions of alternative realms.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 02:57 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I'm not arguing that free will is a complete illusion
You can alter your mind
willpower > spacetime
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:01 PM |
|
|
|
I like Marvel Comics, too.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:04 PM |
|
|
+QP Artu
____________
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:24 PM |
|
|
the power of your arrogance is surging!
can you summarize your point for me?
the car controls the driver?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:30 PM |
|
|
|
I already did, Yogi. You formulate a false duality between the mind and the body, their relationship is not analogous to a driver and his car. "To simplify" as you suggest, a tumor in your brain will affect the way you contemplate, so will drugs, so will anything else that affects the chemistry of your brain. You can not overcome that by "will power."
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:49 PM |
|
|
artu said:
No, science also studies why we have the wish to assume another realm or why we did assume other realms through out history the way we did. As I already said, science is not just physics, it will also explain to you why some societies dreamed of Valhalla and others Eden and others reincarnation. It will show you the ties between social structure and these constructions of alternative realms.
so, my vision was a construction from my own brain? tell me, just where would such a vision come from in my brain? especially being that, i WAS completely under the belief that no god existed, before that vision? and please don't tell me i hallucinated, again. because i've already differentiated between mere hallucinations, and what i saw in my mind's eye; which was a revelatory vision that changed my entire outlook on, until then, what i thought about god(s) and creators. i didn't see jesus's face in a piece of toast, artu. i saw the realm where everything is created, and where everything truly exists. i also saw the creator itself.
but believe whatever you want. it's not like it matters anyway what anyone really believes. hell, if the circumstances were reversed, i'd probably not be inclined to believe you, either.
in fact, i'd probably say that you lost your freakin' mind in that acid trip.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:54 PM |
|
|
OK, so our debate is an exchange of assumptions as I see.
And no, theology is no as cultural as you may think. Theology developed in almost every culture, and thus is what we call universal.
Theorizing Artu said:
Big Bang suggests otherwise, there could be other universes or a series of Big Bangs but such assumptions have nothing to do with the super-natural. The super-natural is not a weak explanation because science is perfectly accurate about every detail, the super-natural is a weak explanation because it is an overwhelmingly transparent fairy tale.
How do you call this? That's right, an assumption lol
Quote:
That's like ignoring the whole point of my post. They don't ignore anything, they EXPLAIN it as an anthropological phenomenon.
As I said, you can't apply the experimental process on the study of humans. And because you can't, you will be obliged to interpret the results you will gather upon studying let's say, cave paintings, hieroglyphs, ancient writings, multiple corpses, interpreting is the key word here. If you assume religions, beliefs come from a folkloric convention, you will likely interpret those results in that way.
Experimental process is: you take a phenomenon, which can be pretty much everything as long as it is physical, you experiment a given operation on it, you note the results, you interpret. Then you repeat, multiple times, again and again.
The conclusions drawn are usually right. Usually. Because man misses quite often. You can't do that with history, beliefs, emotions... etc.
Long ago, and not so long, in every era of man's history, the people within it thought they were right and were certain of their knowledge. Then, as every age is replaced by another, most of the time what they were sure of is seen today as completely wrong.
What tells you, people, that today our knowledge is not wrong in its major part too? I heard that anthropologist say that we (today's humanity) were in the age of reason. Huh. Every age thought they were the age of reason. In that logic, anthropology is not different from psychology which is not considered a 100% science. And if anthropology is not "really" a science, then I am free not to take its conclusions to heart. I agree with Mytical in his previous posts, where he has a more humble and sure approach of "knowledge". We of course have to work on a basis, that doesn't mean that basis won't be replaced one day. What I can give credit to is the conclusion drawn from EP, that's pretty much all. And even, lately fluorine has been classified dangerous along with arsenic, while when I was a kid a had to take little fluorine pills because it helps toughening teeth.
pessimist artu said:
Good luck on not giving modern scientists or philosophers too much credit, that's why the Muslim world can't produce almost no universal intellectuals for the last 300-400 years anyway.
Yes and no. What you say is wrong for the most part. Do you think that all the scientists who are universal intellectuals all come from the West and far East? Please go check how many Middle-Easterns (Muslim or not) or Arabs or I don't know which race you want, actually work in western institutions, like NASA, universities, companies, and tell me we don't produce. You can't judge the way you do because today's cards are not the same as they were: globalization. Our (Arab) world is corrupted, ruined for sure, but guess what? Europe was worse in middle ages. Did it disappear?
That said, you are indeed right when you say this:
Quote:
Then, most probably your grand grand children will be thought in school Allah, the way we are thought Zeus or Odin.
But not for the reasons you give.
The prophet (SAAWS) already told us of the end of Islam, this is quite off topic but let me tell you this. He said that in one night, qorân will be erased from everywhere on this Earth, every book, every heart too. No one will be able to remember a single word of it. And then, Islam will totally disappear from the surface of Earth, to the point that some of my people will say: La ilâha illa Allah (no other divinity but God), and their children asking them: What does that mean?
-We don't know, we caught our parents on it, so we say it.
The followers to the prophet: will it save them by saying it even though they don't know what it means?
The prophet: it will.
There will always be, though, people beloved by God, until the very end of this pretentious planet.
So yeah, no fear artu, Islam will disappear eventually, sooner or later, it is meant to by God Himself. But I say, fear this day, for it won't smell very nice for you mate. I'll still do my best to throw water on you while you'll be flaming 
Anyway, this is not the question. We are getting further and further from the first point. As I told you, science, which wanted to be objective, is, because employed by humans, getting "altered" by that scientific community. Being objective is nearly impossible practically speaking. It works well for some phenomenons, and doesn't at all for others.
PS. Thank you Fred but I don't think I deserve all that lol  I missed the main objective which is to convert artu. Even though I'm glad I converted you! That stubborn artu will follow too, eventually. HC is mine for the taking mwahahahahaaa... 
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 03:59 PM |
|
|
|
lol, lsd converted me. you can't take credit for that.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 04:01 PM |
|
|
|
cars dont drive people, no matter how unhealthy they are
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2017 04:17 PM |
|
|
You are talking completely past each other.
Science is called science, because it uses the so-called "scientifical method" in order to gain knowledge. Key words to describe the scientific method are: empirical, measurable, falsifiable, reproducable.
So things built on the scientific method on one hand and on faith on the other are mutually exclusively; you don't need faith, when you can (it is possible to) use the scientific method, while typically the things that are faith-based cannot be object of the scientific method.
In the process of gaining knowledge, the scientific method generally meets "problems", that is, phenomena currently unexplainable. In some cases assumptions are made. Dark matter/energy is an assumption based on the scientifically gained knowledge that there is an effect but no in any way tangible, visible, empirically checkable cause.
Another problem of this kind is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.
What these have in common is, they seem to point to the "existance" of MORE than we can "see", something like higher dimensions "around" us, for example.
However - God doesn't come into play nowhere, when you look at the scientific side, because God is basically a very specific assumption/explanation that cannot be falsified by experiment.
Faith is something you do not need ANY evidence for. It's like betting on your favorite team - there is no evidence, but for you there are "signs" - or just hope it fervently.
Completely unrelated things.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
