Theism is Primitive Thinking

perhaps

but what god , when understanding genetics , would create a situation of degradation of genes ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol, yes I suppose you're right in the fact that god does not where a labcoat but I still do not think we are disagreeing. God is a simple and nescesary illusion or theme as your previous posts have stated in the evolutionary context. Pre-human ancestrial tales of existence are as ancient as the fires they lit to keep themselves warm, but in what sense do they become obsolite? You're definitions of scientific discovery are just as reliant on any ancient theme as god.. If you are claiming that each discovery beforehand paved the way for the next one, then find a better paradigm if you are going to use the one you refute to refute itself.

Like I said, explain to me the role of the observor in quantam physics. It cannot be done without reference to some life-affirming figure. Call it the universe or whatever you will, but atheism to me seems just as much as a compromise of chirstianity. You're "laws" are Newtonian, just not dogmatic in the christian sense. By what standard of disagreement are you different? To refute an ideal by its opposite? I'd think Einstein might not agree with you, as all seems to be reletive. It makes me laugh even more to think how this man suported the idea of god as absolute, yet you'r entire system of scientific observation is reliant upon his ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I understand and appriciate the difficulty in those who wish to push their religious notions upon me without real experience OR everidence, but to claim that the belief in god is heretical to science sounds just like claiming Copernicus or Gallileo are heretical to god.

Get over these defintions, you're above it. The problem is being caught up in this whole primitive discussion like racism. The notion of confronting the problem itslef will create it. I ask, whom do you win over by you're statements? Is it merely to satisfy you're own ego, to entertain yourself, or truly educate? Winning over the masses, or cattle, is the same as taking the place of those who have oppressed you. If you are really trying to enlighten or "illuminate" than you must do it within the context of the people you are trying to reach. Lifes a garden baby, dig it.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein

List of heroes:

Jesus of Nazareth
Elijah, prophet
Jean Paul Sartre
Copernicus
Galileo
Voltaire
Terrence Mckenna
David Icke
Einstein
Watson & Crick (and the others)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it can.

Icke?
Icke?
Not a hero, a certifiable crackpot.
And McKenna isn't much better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you say role it makes it sound as if there is a plan, a choreography, something that supports the viewpoint of a God existing. Use of the role analogy itself is primitive, necessary to explain God's reason for existing than a property of matter.

To me, the observer does not change the duality of light, he discovers it. In simple terms an observer is a collection of matter that has evolved to observe other collections of matter. Yes the observer is alive. Is life then, the requirement for an observer?

You could say the universe is discovering itself and how primitive a conclusion is that? With no proof then I'd say right up there with theistic belief. At least I'd have the benefit of knowing there is a universe.

 

I feel that by now I've explained the basis for my opinion sufficiently, it just doesn't fit into you're worldview. It seems like everything im saying is flying over your head, my entire point this whole time is to the reletivity of nature, beleif, etc. There is more than enough room for god in science, its all about the language you're using and what you are referring to. Saying that we are living consciouss matter absorbing other matter is a pretty mystical idea to me. Thats what makes it such a beautiful truth.

 

Watch Icke's videos on simulated creation of the universe using vibration to create fractal patterns and evntually objects like planets out of it, absolutely brilliant. And who isn't a certified crackpot in the eyes of someone else? I'm not going to debate whether or not reptillian e.t.'s have landed on the other but as far as his research on the Illuminati power structure and scientific relationship to the occult, I find him to be flawless.

As far as Terrence goes, I can't even dignify it with an explination, the man is brilliant. He's like the philosophical equivalent of Ray Kurtzwell, his novelty theory exist before the singularity is near was ever conceived of or published.

 

But nonsense.

Also highly derivative and wrong.
The guy should be in a straight-jacket.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Singularity, shmingularity.
More nonsense.

 

Correction: there is no room for god in science.

Eating is mystical?
Wow.
Low expectations, huh?

 

Alas, I guess I was wrong...

In any case, given the complete lack of a system of greater utility, empiricism wins the day...

 

well sure, in the relative medium of the mind and senses ... extrapolate to the macro or microcosm and its a different story.

IOW empiricism has nothing to do with "greater" utility and everything to do with "relative" utility

 

There really isn't anything relative to physics that would support the myths and superstitions of religious cults. Assigning some wishy-washy version of a "will" to the universe is no more valid than those medieval superstitions.

No, atheism is a term created by theists to help them validate their mythical beings.

We evolved on a branch of evolution many other animals did not, that of a higher intelligence. Nothing magical or mystical about that.

hehe - that ones self-comedic.

It's much easier to dispel with the ignorance of the past and leave out the ridiculous levels of confusion and contradiction provided by theist's medieval mindset with their archaic explanations of how things work.

 

Fair enough.

Two points however:

1) Empiricism makes no claim to any 'ultimate' (non-relative) utility.

2) There is no system that can claim to explain in such a pervasive manner (which means, again, that empiricism is our best approach..).

 

dont forget Elmo....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is this true? I realize that we must be speaking about the claims of empiricists rather than empiricism - which can't really claim anything. But I am not making this nitpicky point. The nitpicky point leads to empiricists, in general, not this or that flakey empiricist who might claim anything. Aren't they, in general, forming conclusions about the way things are, not simply 'what a certain person will experience is case X while doing B.' It seems like empiricists, in general, are making claims of creating universal maps and models, which would imply objective utility.

 

As art, perhaps. As science, no, not really.

Terrence was the Leary of DMT with pretty much the same draw backs. His brother Dennis is the scientist.

 

Others might beg to differ

think again, again and yet again

 

i don't understand this philosophy, which is so prevalent with atheists and theists alike, that somehow science and god are mutually exclusive. that science somehow negates the existence of god. i don't see it that way at all. quite the opposite actually. the more we understand science, the more we know about law and order, and consequences to actions...the more we understand that there is a higher power in the universe that we are all subject to. now that's obvious to me but i suppose it's not to everyone, because what we choose to do with scientific findings is negotiable. so let's break it down...

we have resources and information available. what do we do with it? what perception drives our endeavors? a perception of no god leads to a blatant disrespect and abuse, driven by intentions of greed, sloth, lust, pride, envy, wrath, and gluttony. gross observation...we are abusing and destroying ourselves and this planet. we are suffering. we are enslaved. a perception of god leads to accountability and responsibility to the greater good, and an appreciation for what has been given to us. if the power and the resources do not belong to us, then we can not own them, and we are free. we are free to be grateful and reverent for what we receive, and realize that not everything has a price tag, and it is entirely unacceptable to abuse our privilege of life.

though, i do not see many theists demonstrating this perception.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PE, you don't know what god is. you seem to be equating the word god with magic, or nonsense, when that is not true. god is law. god is a real power and a force that exists, and that we ARE subject to. and if science has taught us anything, it's taught us that there is a lot we don't understand about ourselves and our existence.

if science is the answer, then why in the hell are we failing so miserably?

 

Complete nonsense. Science has never indicated a higher power in the universe.

So, what makes it so obvious?

Yet, the planet has been under the rule of theism for centuries, so what is obvious is that it has been demonstrated time and time again that the perception of a god leads to "blatant disrespect and abuse, driven by intentions of greed, sloth, lust, pride, envy, wrath, and gluttony."

That isn't the case, is it? We are destroying ourselves and this planet as a result of theist rule and mindset.

Preachy gibberish.

It is dead on true.

Science hasn't taught you anything, that much is crystal clear.

Because the earth has been under the rule of insane theists like yourself, YOU are the problem.

 

keep pointing your finger Q. the problem with ALL OF US is greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, wrath, envy, and lust. AND a complete disregard for the greater good caused by a separation from each other and god. this problem to be fixed by a restored communion, which is the entire point of the bible. AS I STATED, it is a problem shared by atheists and theists alike.

 

The problems created by theists are most certainly not shared by us all. It is people like YOU who have brought us to the brink of self-destruction as you wallow in the myths and superstitions of the past and completely ignore reality.