Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So the context is...Thief post 143 Spiny Norman response post 155 ...and my response to Spin Norman post 159...
Where precisely do you see my confusing biology with atheism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Science Better Than Religion?
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
Where precisely do you see my confusing biology with atheism?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Hmmmm......as he was responding to a well known practitioner of denial....
I say nature is creation.
Too much creation with too much detail....to make denial.
McBell
Unbound
Thief
Rogue Theologian
As always...nothing but retort.....and nothing more to offer.....
attaboy!
outhouse
Atheistically
What do you mean? its on the theist to prove THEIR claims of a deity are credible. Not mine to disprove. You cannot disprove something that does not exist.
But I can make one hell of a court case that would find all gods are man made. A position you cannot defend against.
outhouse
Atheistically
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Ok...you have already learned from my posts over time that I understand the concept of Cosmos to be the same as the concept of God...that's a given....the Cosmos itself is my proof...you live, move, and have your being in it...God that is...
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
We all believe that the cosmos exists Ben. I don't think anyone here is an atheist in relation to the cosmos if that is what you are identifying as God. I think that you will not find anybody who wants to prove to you that the reality doesn't exist Ben.
This thread is about science and religion, your definition of God relates to neither.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Bunyip...your problem is that you have not studied religion and thus are ignorant of what God is according to religious teaching......I hove posted stuff on RF before to explain, but alas..there is always the next atheist to step up and plead ignorance...
The Upanishads, the concluding sections of the Vedas written in the first millennium B.C.E., provide a more systematic and philosophically sophisticated cosmology. Most significant was the emphasis on the concept of Brahman (the ultimate as found in the cosmos as a whole), and its association with Atman (the ultimate as discovered through introspection).
Read more: Cosmology - Asia - Buddhist Cosmologies, Chinese Cosmologies, Bibliography - Cosmos, Cosmic, Vedic, and World - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/7598/Cosmology-Asia.html#ixzz3ZtamqyK6
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Ben, none of that addresses the topic. Spare me your personal assessments. I am not atheist towards the cosmos Ben. You can call it the universe, the cosmos, Brahman or Melissa for all it matters. I don't think anybody here is an atheist towards the cosmos.
Last edited:
MD
qualiaphile
Science is a tool, it is not a philosophy. Scientism is a philosophy, one which has created its own followers amongst atheists who claim that science can bring them the truth.
Science cannot and probably will not ever answer the most fundamental question of ourselves, what is subjective experience aka consciousness. If you have studied science thoroughly and especially computer science and neuroscience, you will know this to be true.
I do feel that Scientism will create its own religions, like the Singularity faith and other big ones. Such 'new religions' have the same old formulas, and will probably last for a long time well after their creators die.
Generally people who believe in Scientism don't have deep training in science themselves, and are generally ex religious fundamentalists, who become atheist fundamentalists after their 'transformation'.
If Science can never fully explain what it means to be human: to love, hate, see colors, love music, etc then it has hit a roadblock and Scientism is also eventually doomed to fail.
Religion provides hope, meaning, strength, community and collective power. It also provides hate, war, tribalism, etc.
Science provides solutions to problems. But it also creates extremely effective weapons of destruction, and a whole new host of problems with every old problem it solves.
Science cannot and probably will not ever answer the most fundamental question of ourselves, what is subjective experience aka consciousness. If you have studied science thoroughly and especially computer science and neuroscience, you will know this to be true.
I do feel that Scientism will create its own religions, like the Singularity faith and other big ones. Such 'new religions' have the same old formulas, and will probably last for a long time well after their creators die.
Generally people who believe in Scientism don't have deep training in science themselves, and are generally ex religious fundamentalists, who become atheist fundamentalists after their 'transformation'.
If Science can never fully explain what it means to be human: to love, hate, see colors, love music, etc then it has hit a roadblock and Scientism is also eventually doomed to fail.
Religion provides hope, meaning, strength, community and collective power. It also provides hate, war, tribalism, etc.
Science provides solutions to problems. But it also creates extremely effective weapons of destruction, and a whole new host of problems with every old problem it solves.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No offence, but religion will never answer those questions either. So that is a moot point.
By that measure religion is also a failure, it answers none of those questions.
What you have is simply a fallacy - you criticise science for failing to answer question that religion can not answer either.
MD
qualiaphile
Maybe religion can. If religion deals with the abstract and the subjective, and God is the subjective expression of the universe, then religion can provide far more than science can in some aspects.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Maybe religion can - the point is that so far it hasn't. So it is a moot point.
MD
qualiaphile
To the dharmic faiths it has. And I added other good points on religion as well.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well ok, what is the Dharmic explanation of this fundamental question?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
That is not an admission that you were wrong about the Cosmos being the same as God....in fact you are compounding your erroneous opinion by now saying none of what I posted addresses the topic?
So what is your problem...do you accept that religious doctrine does view the concept of Brahman/God as the Cosmos?
For the record...the summary of our exchange goes like this...
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Ben - YOU , made that claim in your post #187. How can I be wrong - when it is your claim Ben, not mine?
You mean YOUR opinion Ben, that was your claim mate.
Yes of course, I said so in my past post to you. I am not atheist in relation to the cosmos Ben.
Yes Ben, you equated the cosmos with God and pointed out that Hindus call the cosmos Brahman. I said that I believe that the cosmos/Brahman/the universe exists. I am not an atheist in respect to your conception of God Ben. I don't think anybody is.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Science is great in describing what is, how the stars are made, but looking at the stars without this knowledge and seeing the stars as they truly are, is another story, knowledge cannot give you that poetic feeling of how we see the stars, feeling we are a part of the stars, no science can do that, this inner feeling is what I can true religion, not the religion that has been organized, that's dead religion, as also science is dead without the poetic stream of life.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I made the claim in my post #187...correct....and you in the very next post #188 claimed that......"This thread is about science and religion, your definition of God relates to neither"
That is not an admission that you believe the cosmos/Brahman/the universe exists...it says my definition does not relate to either religion or science...