Atheists, theists, outside views, and empiricism

[osgart]

Empiricism is just a totally different explanation of reality than when someone arrives at spirituality. It's comparing two totally different forms of knowing. It's two different methods of arriving at conclusions. Asking for direct evidence for the spiritual realm is totally absurd.

Spirituality is based in one's own philosophical worldview and the arguments and experiences that are inferred from this world that convince the believer. Empiricism claims that everything is only knowable through measuring physical phenomena and developing useful models of reality, that show direct results.

To ask for direct evidence of the spiritual realm is assuming the conclusion can be arrived at physically. It's just a waste of time to pursue the argument that way. It would be better to ask from what evidence do you infer a spiritual realm exists. Or ask, how does God reveal God to human beings.

Break the endless loop of nowhere arguments and debates.

 

[Scolopendra]

Empiricism is just a totally different explanation of reality than when someone arrives at spirituality. It's comparing two totally different forms of knowing. It's two different methods of arriving at conclusions. Asking for direct evidence for the spiritual realm is totally absurd.

Spirituality is based in one's own philosophical worldview and the arguments and experiences that are inferred from this world that convince the believer. Empiricism claims that everything is only knowable through measuring physical phenomena and developing useful models of reality, that show direct results.

To ask for direct evidence of the spiritual realm is assuming the conclusion can be arrived at physically. It's just a waste of time to pursue the argument that way. It would be better to ask from what evidence do you infer a spiritual realm exists. Or ask, how does God reveal God to human beings.

Break the endless loop of nowhere arguments and debates.

From what evidence do you infer a spiritual realm exists?

 

[Tiberius]

By natural law observation first science first is observation not math. So machines don't exist.

I was taught that suns metals formed images in clouds as human ideas about machine design. So most of its form already existed.

And when medicines own about five categories of due effects from mild to very bad I don't think you are honest.

Science cannot patent nature. So they abstract potency by an extract then an interference.

As humans abused old medical drugs you also had to alter treatment.

Science had to use machine enlargement of cells as they lost the healers natural human ability to know without harm.

Science begot medical science. If nature didn't exist you wouldn't even own science medicine.

Again, your posts are impossible to understand. Is English a second language to you?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Empiricism is just a totally different explanation of reality than when someone arrives at spirituality. It's comparing two totally different forms of knowing. It's two different methods of arriving at conclusions. Asking for direct evidence for the spiritual realm is totally absurd.

Spirituality is based in one's own philosophical worldview and the arguments and experiences that are inferred from this world that convince the believer. Empiricism claims that everything is only knowable through measuring physical phenomena and developing useful models of reality, that show direct results.

To ask for direct evidence of the spiritual realm is assuming the conclusion can be arrived at physically. It's just a waste of time to pursue the argument that way. It would be better to ask from what evidence do you infer a spiritual realm exists. Or ask, how does God reveal God to human beings.

Break the endless loop of nowhere arguments and debates.

I don’t see the loop being broken any time soon. You’re right though, there’s not much to be gained, or learned, from endless circuitous arguments between parties endlessly talking past each other.

 

[RestlessSoul]

From what evidence do you infer a spiritual realm exists?

Through direct perception and first hand experience.

 

[Scolopendra]

What do you perceive? Be more specific. You hear voices? Have visions? Or is it just a profound conviction you have?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But it's unfair to group all theists like that possibly 20% or so. Since you seem to be talking more of the Ken Ham type, going by the statement about "flood believers".

In the US for example, a lot of Christians aren't really that vocal or set in their ways, but the ones who are, are sure good about getting attention and camera time.

That is kinda similar to atheists on the internet...lol

 

[Brian2]

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that science provides the answers because there are parts where religion can't provide the answers.

I'm saying that science can provide the answers because it has a proven track record of having done so in the past.

Science has provided useful results. When it comes to explanatory capability, I don't think religion has done the same.

Yes I understood what you were saying.
I think people who trust in science to provide the answers have already decided against the answers that religion (specifically the Bible) provides, and have decided that naturalistic answers are the ones they want.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes I understood what you were saying.
I think people who trust in science to provide the answers have already decided against the answers that religion (specifically the Bible) provides, and have decided that naturalistic answers are the ones they want.

I can't speak for others, but I trust in ANYTHING that produces useable results. If religion could do that, I'd be happy to trust in religion.

 

[PureX]

I can't speak for others, but I trust in ANYTHING that produces useable results. If religion could do that, I'd be happy to trust in religion.

It does that for a huge number of humans. The vast majority of them, in fact. And it could do so for you, if you were willing to view it in a more practical way. If you insist of viewing religion as a promise of 'magical' results, you will continue to be disappointed. Which I am sure you know. But if you were to view it as a set of tools you can use to achieve practical results, you would find that you can achieve them, just as so many other humans do.

For example, you could choose to pray for a couple minutes every morning in gratitude for the gift of another day of life as a human being. And in just a short time, you would find that you feel better about each day as you venture out into it. You will find yourself being more positive, and enthusiastic, and even joyful. Whereas before maybe you were just kind of negative and trepidatious. Or if you tend to be a kind of nervous and high-strung individual, you might try praying for calm, and peace, and clarity for a few minutes in the morning, or at any point during the day when the need becomes evident. And it will work to help you actually become calm, and more peaceful, and more clear-thinking.

This is how billions of humans use religion to help them in their daily lives. Religions are just a collection of practical 'tools', like prayer, meditation, ritual, confession, self-searching, restitution, and so on that people can use to help them change and repair their psyche. And these tools work for them whether we believe that God exists or not. Because all they require from us is a little bit of faith and the willingness to practice at them. There are plenty of agnostic theists in the world who are as skeptical of God's existence as you are. But they they are willing to let the fact that they don't know, work for them in their favor. And it does work, if it's engaged in practically.

 

[Brian2]

I can't speak for others, but I trust in ANYTHING that produces useable results. If religion could do that, I'd be happy to trust in religion.

Science gives useable results in how the world works and how we can use that knowledge.
Religion has useable answers in how and why the world and us are here and how to live a good life and why.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.

 

[BrightShadow]

We disagree there. I give credit where it is due to people.

I meant to say - I give no extra credit to Atheists! We all are born with basic moral compass!

 

[Tiberius]

It does that for a huge number of humans. The vast majority of them, in fact. And it could do so for you, if you were willing to view it in a more practical way. If you insist of viewing religion as a promise of 'magical' results, you will continue to be disappointed. Which I am sure you know. But if you were to view it as a set of tools you can use to achieve practical results, you would find that you can achieve them, just as so many other humans do.

For example, you could choose to pray for a couple minutes every morning in gratitude for the gift of another day of life as a human being. And in just a short time, you would find that you feel better about each day as you venture out into it. You will find yourself being more positive, and enthusiastic, and even joyful. Whereas before maybe you were just kind of negative and trepidatious. Or if you tend to be a kind of nervous and high-strung individual, you might try praying for calm, and peace, and clarity for a few minutes in the morning, or at any point during the day when the need becomes evident. And it will work to help you actually become calm, and more peaceful, and more clear-thinking.

This is how billions of humans use religion to help them in their daily lives. Religions are just a collection of practical 'tools', like prayer, meditation, ritual, confession, self-searching, restitution, and so on that people can use to help them change and repair their psyche. And these tools work for them whether we believe that God exists or not. Because all they require from us is a little bit of faith and the willingness to practice at them. There are plenty of agnostic theists in the world who are as skeptical of God's existence as you are. But they they are willing to let the fact that they don't know, work for them in their favor. And it does work, if it's engaged in practically.

But the problem is that religion doesn't provide useable results consistently. Does every person who prays in the morning start to feel better about each day? If so, religion would be used as a treatment for things like depression. But religion doesn't do this.

That's the difference between science and religion. Science gives us things like lightbulbs, computers, and medicine, because these things work on objective principles. Religion does not.

 

[Tiberius]

Science gives useable results in how the world works and how we can use that knowledge.
Religion has useable answers in how and why the world and us are here and how to live a good life and why.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.

Religion assumes that there must be a why. It's an invented answer for a question that hasn't yet been shown to exist.

 

[Brian2]

Religion assumes that there must be a why. It's an invented answer for a question that hasn't yet been shown to exist.

Even atheists want something as opposed to nothing, to bring a little hope into the live of everyone, including our suicidal youth, and so it seems that we are stardust is as good as it gets. This is no different to "we are bull dust" however.
But being serious (as if that is not serious enough), we are born as questioning beings and wanting to know the answers and "why" is one of the questions.................... and the answer is there if you are serious about finding it.......................... and of course for an answer to that question the answer to the God question has to be yes.
Science with it's naturalistic methodology is not the place to find God however, even if nature is a good place to find God.

 

[Tiberius]

Even atheists want something as opposed to nothing, to bring a little hope into the live of everyone, including our suicidal youth, and so it seems that we are stardust is as good as it gets. This is no different to "we are bull dust" however.
But being serious (as if that is not serious enough), we are born as questioning beings and wanting to know the answers and "why" is one of the questions.................... and the answer is there if you are serious about finding it.......................... and of course for an answer to that question the answer to the God question has to be yes.
Science with it's naturalistic methodology is not the place to find God however, even if nature is a good place to find God.

The difference is that atheists find their own meaning. "Life means what I choose for it to mean." It's very different to having the meaning imposed by some outside source. "Life means what God says it means."

 

[Brian2]

The difference is that atheists find their own meaning. "Life means what I choose for it to mean." It's very different to having the meaning imposed by some outside source. "Life means what God says it means."

I guess that's the difference between life actually having meaning and not having real meaning.
We of course have value what there is a meaning and a creator who values us for what we are.
If you ask a theist about the meaning of life, there is not set answer however, so that comes from us.

 

[Tiberius]

I guess that's the difference between life actually having meaning and not having real meaning.

Are you suggesting that a meaning we decide on for ourselves is not valid?

We of course have value what there is a meaning and a creator who values us for what we are.

Huh? I don't quite get what you are saying here.

If you ask a theist about the meaning of life, there is not set answer however, so that comes from us.

So there is no set meaning of life for a theist?

 

[Brian2]

Are you suggesting that a meaning we decide on for ourselves is not valid?

I would say that all we have is the meaning that we decide ourselves but for an atheist this meaning has not chance of being the real meaning of life, because for an atheist there is no real meaning, iows we just are, for no reason.

Huh? I don't quite get what you are saying here.

I can't work out the wording I meant but I was speaking of the value we have as humans on top of the meaning
of life we also have. Theists (particularly Christians) value themselves because of the value God gives them and have meaning in their lives that rests on what God says about them.

So there is no set meaning of life for a theist?

Ask different theist and I think you would get different answers. I think people usually have more than one meaning and purpose in their lives.

 

[Tiberius]

I would say that all we have is the meaning that we decide ourselves but for an atheist this meaning has not chance of being the real meaning of life, because for an atheist there is no real meaning, iows we just are, for no reason.

I don't see how that makes it any different for a believer. If we are all deciding on meaning for ourselves, then we're all in the same boat, it seems.

I can't work out the wording I meant but I was speaking of the value we have as humans on top of the meaning
of life we also have. Theists (particularly Christians) value themselves because of the value God gives them and have meaning in their lives that rests on what God says about them.

Do you think that atheists don't value themselves?

Ask different theist and I think you would get different answers. I think people usually have more than one meaning and purpose in their lives.

And as you said, that comes from ourselves. As in, not God.