Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

What will quantum physics research do to Atheism?

How do you get to be as judgmental as that, Wolfie?
Your version of reality is obviously the version you - and you alone - declare it to be.
Every atheist is doing pretty much the same thing as you.
How do you see society functioning with every member inhabiting a different 'reality' from everybody else?


How do you get to be as judgmental as that, Wolfie?
Your version of reality is obviously the version you - and you alone - declare it to be.
Every atheist is doing pretty much the same thing as you.
How do you see society functioning with every member inhabiting a different 'reality' from everybody else?

Every human is doing the same thing as me. We are all arguing from our frame of reference. Some people include super ghouls and ghosts in their frames, others do not.

How would I see society functioning with everyone inhabiting a different reality? Much like it always has, where everyone does inhabit a different reality. That is why religion has been so successful, because it helps us all conform into single realities.

My utopian ideal would simply include a religion that venerates the truths of science and reason. Of course not all things in buzzwords like "science" and "reason" are true, but these things and their debate and discovery would be the religion.

Humanity should look at everything biologically. Treat the planet as if we were an aquariest and the planet is our tank. Human behavior is all ultimately rooted in biology. We should remove prexisting morals, and start again fresh. For many, that seems like it ignores a spiritual component, but I would counter with the idea that humans need gratified on spiritual levels as our biology dictates, so this is not exclusive.

"My utopian ideal would simply include a religion that venerates the truths of science and reason"

What is your definition of science and reason?

"My utopian ideal would simply include a religion that venerates the truths of science and reason"

What is your definition of science and reason?

The standard ones I am sure apply well enough.

With the leftist inversion of any and all definitions, there is no longer a standard.

With the leftist inversion of any and all definitions, there is no longer a standard.


Wrong.

Leftism has not changed science's definition. The scientific method, the modern models used, etc. are all used to understand our world. It's not the fault of the institution of science if the Western media likes to breed out the "rightist" material from the public. 

From the Oxford dictionaries online

" Science.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science

I don't think someone could ever find "god" through mere observation and experiment. It's good only on a more superficial level. Let's suppose that God is really present on earth in an human body. How could science will ever know it? All they will find is mere blood an guts because that's all the eye can see. But someone who have "intuition" MAYBE have a chance to know is real nature.

The spiritual path can be seen as a labyrinth. There's a lot of way where you can lose yourself. I see the scientific materialistic atheist as someone who as not yet enter the labyrinth.

I see the scientific materialistic atheist as someone who as not yet enter the labyrinth.

Such people have certainly entered 'A' labyrinth. One that exists among the grey, cerebral canyons.

Nothing exists besides nature.

The main point of disagreement here is that what we know is that nature exists.  To then say that nature is all that exists is both an assumption and counter-intuitive.  As I said if we do not have a metaphysical absolute to make reference to we must assume that matter is absolute, which makes no sense as it is not even something we can adequately define in scientific terms.  Philosophically matter is not hard to define provided we accept that it is not the totality of what is meant by the term existence.

I think this point is more relevant to the original post than arguments over religion, although the op seemed to implicate that this kind of thinking would lead to religiosity, I'm more interested in the metaphysical truth of the matter, which is only indirectly related to religion insofar as religion is seen to be a metaphorical language used to express metaphysical thought.  To me naturalistic thinking seems to bypass most of the more difficult questions about the nature of reality.  

I see the scientific materialistic atheist as someone who as not yet enter the labyrinth.


What is a "scientific materialistic atheist"?

He may be referring to Wolfie.

I see the scientific materialistic atheist as someone who as not yet enter the labyrinth.


What is a "scientific materialistic atheist"?

From the Oxford dictionaries online

I don't think someone could ever find "god" through mere observation and experiment. It's good only on a more superficial level. Let's suppose that God is really present on earth in an human body. How could science will ever know it? All they will find is mere blood an guts because that's all the eye can see. But someone who have "intuition" MAYBE have a chance to know is real nature.


If humans have the capacity to know God, then so can science, at it is run by humans.

Or do you want me to just take your word for it that your "intuition" tells you all that you need to know?


I see the scientific materialistic atheist as someone who as not yet enter the labyrinth.


What is a "scientific materialistic atheist"?


I don't even know but it has become almost a slur by pseudo-theists. I ignore it. Their "intuition" allows them to "see" the "higher plane". So they take fake pitty on those who don't share the experience. It is the same as speaking in tongues and being abducted by aliens.

Worry about deforestation instead.

If humans have the capacity to know God, then so can science, at it is run by humans.

If humans have the capacity to know that 1 + 1 = 2, then so can science, at it is run by humans.

This is incorrect, science is based on empirical evidence, it does not function in the realm of truths that are known intuitively.  Though I don't agree with the point you were arguing against I think this is worth pointing out.  What most people call an 'intuition' of the existence of God is an echo or trace of metaphysical intuition, we already possess knowledge of reality because we are real, this is direct knowledge and not inferred from objects.  A good example is the existence of integers, the number one reflects a quality inherent in reality itself, that of unity.  This is the reason for its existence, it is conceptual but also concrete, most modern people cannot understand this, they believe it to be an arbitrary abstraction, which is clearly false if one really considers its nature.

Take a man and place beside him a light source, so he throws a shadow.
Then place another man closer to the light source.
With the second man's shadow superimposed over the first, how many shadows are there?
one plus one equals one.

I was trying to describe paradox, the other day, and came up with that.
Difficult thing to describe, where 1+1=2 OR 1.
I'm still working on the AND 1.
Maybe you intellectuals could assist?