Atheists Unite!
-
I would reaed this if you had put some paragraphings and lessen your number of words.Originally posted by Hamiltonian1125:Haiiiii...it is really difficult to prove the existance of God. This prove is not like any math proof. The reason math is so powerful because it is build on basic axioms and statements that are universally true, hence any proof in math is simply using these axioms or other theorems( which is also based on the axioms) to proof whether a statement is mathematically correct or wrong.
There is no fundamentally correct "axioms" to prove God do not exist nor to prove it exist. Sad to say, physicists dun even understand 95 % of the universe much less to say proving the existance of God. Even the well established theory of relativity hav difficulties in merging wif battle tested quantum mech...the diff lies in the main argument of relativity is that space and time are entangled with intimate relationship whereas in quantum mech, using variable seperable in partial diff eqn for schroodinger eqn SEPARATE time and space forming time INDEPT SE. Physicists hav lots of problems to solve rather than arguing senselessly the existence of God. Atheists out there, dun be overconfident...
Personally, I do believe in God but I dont believe in Christ, Allah and such. If there is no God, then who the heck in hell creates fundamental building particles like leptons(quarks, gluons etc). Of course, we should not account every strange phenomena to the doing of God and hence beyond our comprehension.If everyone is so superstitious, then the world will not improve and what God created are just a bunch of foolishly pious human. God give us a brain and this INDICATE God LOVES ppl who use their brains to tink and wanted us to discover nature by ourself, not thru bible, quran, old testament,buddhist scripture etc. I believe God lives in our heart and i believe God isnt that narcicisitic to such extent to condemn those who do not believe Him to hell( u noe what religionS i am refering to). There should be no restriction when we are doing scientific works. Dun ever say God do not want us to noe this or that. Cmon, God give us a brain to think and analyse, so use it for goodness sake.
As for theory of evolution, forgive me for my impudence and ignorance, I tink atheists should not use it as a proof for the nonexistance of God. It is still a theory and hence may be replaced. Quantum mech is a master piece of physicists, but physicists would still discard this beauty if there is a better theory that is more consistent and more reproducable in experiments. Who noes years later theory of evolution is being replaced by a better model. The true beauty of science lies in the ability to "upgrade" and a change for a better and more consistent understanding of our universe. Thus it is pretty narcicisitic for ppl to firmly believe that theory of evolution is definitely correct. In this case, isnt ur "faith" in theory of evolution akin to those blind followers of their respective religions???? Last but not least, physics is a "bible" that give the best explaination of our universe so far, not some lame scripture from all the world religions. -
Sorry, I am a noob when it comes to posting at forums.Originally posted by davidche:I would reaed this if you had put some paragraphings and lessen your number of words. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Ok, now you're really making me laugh.
I think u r up to your old tricks again. If u felt wat i write is wrong, then show it to me. However, u just use personal atacks, weasel words and brush it all aside.
One of your point in your earlier reply is
In general, atheists are generally just people who do not believe in a God or any spiritual force. And [b]they are really not too concerned with discussion regarding religion and spirituality.
I am just telling u tat atheist can enjoy talking about religion same as non politician enjoy talking about politics. And u do not even agree with tis politically correct statement. Tsk tsk...[/b]
I'm not up to anything, you are the one misreading again. Thank you for quoting my post. I really don't see any need to clarify, it's quite straighforward. The problem is with you and your old tricks.
Please stop putting your own meaning into other people's words.
-
Ok, now you're really making me laugh.
U can laugh all u want, and u really show yourself to have answer nothing and u cannot even agree with politically correct statement tat atheist can have interest in religion as well. Since u r silent on the topic but resort to personal unuseful insults, I am going to ignore your senseless replies
I'm not up to anything, you are the one misreading again. Thank you for quoting my post. I really don't see any need to clarify, it's quite straighforward. The problem is with you and your old tricks.
Please stop putting your own meaning into other people's words -
Here's something for fellow Atheists to consider
Even though as a Buddhist the word 'God' is not in our dictionary, but this article does has its points.
http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/191
Journal
The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake
November 13, 2006 21:00
(posted by ~C4Chaos)
I just finished reading the recent WIRED feature on The New Atheism. The trinity of active mainstream atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett) are at it again evangelizing the gospel of the God-less society.
For the most part, I agree with them. Belief in God is not required and it's the cause of so much suffering around the world via religious extremisms. However, their approach is too fundamentalistic for my taste. While I personally don't limit the idea of God to its Christian or Muslim or Jewish concept, I also don't think that logic and rationalism alone could ever take the place of faith and religion. It's like saying that integral calculus can be taught to students without them learning basic algebra.
The biggest flaw of the New Atheists is that, their ideas, no matter how rational, are FLAT. They are too focused attacking the the idea of God without defining which level of God they're attacking. I say that they're pretty much attacking the mythic God. However, they're making a lot of performative contradictions and thus elevate their own level of God in the process: the mental God (read: logic, rational).
But if there's one good thing that the New Atheists are doing, it's that they're elevating the psychological development of people who are ready to step out of mythic belief in God. I just hope that these people don't get stuck in rational level because there are other higher levels of God that can only be understood and appreciated once we take a skinny dip into the trans-rational.
Kudos to the WIRED article for not buying into the atheistic Kool Aid
"The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong."
(Note: For more details on levels of God and a more-embracing spirituality, check out the book Integral Spirituality, and the ISC portal). -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
This is meaningless, because nobody can agree on "trans-rational" experiences.
*snip*But if there's one good thing that the New Atheists are doing, it's that they're elevating the psychological development of people who are ready to step out of mythic belief in God. I just hope that these people don't get stuck in rational level because there are other higher levels of God that can only be understood and appreciated once we take a skinny dip into the trans-rational.
Science is effective because it is at least intersubjective. The explanations at least support the data and at best are parsimonious as well.
Once we enter the realm of metaphysics, the shouting matches and personal attacks begin. -
True...Originally posted by Cystaire:This is meaningless, because nobody can agree on "trans-rational" experiences.
Science is effective because it is at least intersubjective. The explanations at least support the data and at best are parsimonious as well.
Once we enter the realm of metaphysics, the shouting matches and personal attacks begin. -
Not true..Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:True...
-
You should really read Ken Wilber's book, for a start on theoretical knowledge, A Brief History of Everything is a must-read for Ken Wilber's titles. That's also his best selling one.Originally posted by Cystaire:This is meaningless, because nobody can agree on "trans-rational" experiences.
Science is effective because it is at least intersubjective. The explanations at least support the data and at best are parsimonious as well.
Once we enter the realm of metaphysics, the shouting matches and personal attacks begin.
Trans-rational experiences are intersubjective, in fact, there are 4 levels of transrational, transpersonal experiences that Ken Wilber has mapped that spans across different spiritual or non spiritual contemplative traditions that is experienced by lots and lots of people throughout history and even today. I myself have experienced one level of transrational experience, and my other friends in the forum has experienced more or all of the transrational experiences Altogether there are 10 stages of human consciousness, mythic and rational/logic are lower than the transrational.
Unfortunately I don't have the book with me otherwise I can quote from the book.. really a good read. -
You disagree?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Not true..
The article simply states that there are mysteries beyond our understanding now, which is of course true. And that nothing is cast in stone, which is also correct.
However, where the degrees of the truth matters, how can "trans-rational" experiences be superior to rational inquiry, since it is not even intersubjectively agreeable? -
See my reply above.Originally posted by Cystaire:You disagree?
The article simply states that there are mysteries beyond our understanding now, which is of course true. And that nothing is cast in stone, which is also correct.
However, where the degrees of the truth matters, how can "trans-rational" experiences be superior to rational inquiry, since it is not even intersubjectively agreeable? -
This will get very confusing very quickly, suffice to say I agree that there is an intersubjective feeling of spirituality. But to claim trans-rational experiences as "higher" than rationality is necessarily a personal opinion.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You should really read Ken Wilber's book, for a start on theoretical knowledge, A Brief History of Everything is a must-read for Ken Wilber's titles. That's also his best selling one.
Trans-rational experiences are intersubjective, in fact, there are 4 levels of transrational, transpersonal experiences that Ken Wilber has mapped that spans across different spiritual or non spiritual contemplative traditions that is experienced by lots and lots of people throughout history and even today. I myself have experienced one level of transrational experience, and my other friends in the forum has experienced more or all of the transrational experiences Altogether there are 10 stages of human consciousness, mythic and rational/logic are lower than the transrational.
Unfortunately I don't have the book with me otherwise I can quote from the book.. really a good read.
Also the acceptabililty of Wilbers' school of thought is not intersubjective because he has his critics. The shouting matches have long begun. -
You remember the chicken and egg problem? It seems that the egg is winning the race at the moment.Originally posted by Cystaire:This will get very confusing very quickly, suffice to say I agree that there is an intersubjective feeling of spirituality. But to claim trans-rational experiences as "higher" than rationality is necessarily a personal opinion.
Also the acceptabililty of Wilbers' school of thought is not intersubjective because he has his critics. The shouting matches have long begun.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/ -
His philosophy is quite wide naturally since it is an integral viewpoint. But I can ascertain you that from my experience and my friend's experience and many others' experience that there is indeed a higher reality and that it is similar to what Ken Wilber has mapped.Originally posted by Cystaire:This will get very confusing very quickly, suffice to say I agree that there is an intersubjective feeling of spirituality. But to claim trans-rational experiences as "higher" than rationality is necessarily a personal opinion.
Also the acceptabililty of Wilbers' school of thought is not intersubjective because he has his critics. The shouting matches have long begun.
And transrational is not prerational, it's quite different. So there is no doubt and confusion over what is prerational and transrational for one with the sort of experiences. It is not a personal opinion - because of the different levels of holons and I think I won't elaborate here - you have to read his book and you will understand how it is not so..
Anyway his book is truly worth reading and considering, of course any philosophy that is as wide as his will attract many critics of different schools of thought. But if we can experience ourself intuitively we will know it to be true. -
Ha ha. Because there's nothing to answer, it's all in my first post. And this post of yours only confirms that you've been misreading me all the while. You only need to read my first post carefully instead of the way you personally want to. There wasn't much to say, I had already said what I meant to say.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U can laugh all u want, and u really show yourself to have answer nothing and u cannot even agree with politically correct statement tat atheist can have interest in religion as well. Since u r silent on the topic but resort to personal unuseful insults, I am going to ignore your senseless replies
You claim my replies are senseless but it's all in your mind. My point has been clear and straightforward. -
I agree with Cystaire, AEN should go and die first to prove that there is rebirth.Originally posted by Cystaire:You disagree?
The article simply states that there are mysteries beyond our understanding now, which is of course true. And that nothing is cast in stone, which is also correct.
However, where the degrees of the truth matters, how can "trans-rational" experiences be superior to rational inquiry, since it is not even intersubjectively agreeable?
-
Dying won't prove rebirth at all because in my next life I might have forgotten about you.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I agree with Cystaire, AEN should go and die first to prove that there is rebirth.
Meditation will - and it is a tried and proven method.
There is already a topic on that in my forum so please read first, I don't want to repeat everything.
Anyway this is a very different topic from what I have been discussing above. -
There was nothing to answer, I made my post before yours and as I said, my point is there for you to read without misreading. What was after was mostly to talk about the kind of person you have been in sgforums and the reputation you have earned for yourself.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U can laugh all u want, and u really show yourself to have answer nothing and u cannot even agree with politically correct statement tat atheist can have interest in religion as well. Since u r silent on the topic but resort to personal unuseful insults, I am going to ignore your senseless replies -
You are not going to reply because you can't? Because you are hiding and shunning away from the truth about yourself? Always like that, when we show you what you've done, always avoid here avoid there.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U can laugh all u want, and u really show yourself to have answer nothing and u cannot even agree with politically correct statement tat atheist can have interest in religion as well. Since u r silent on the topic but resort to personal unuseful insults, I am going to ignore your senseless replies
ps; how does it feel to be the one exasperated for once? -
is this about christians again? i read about them until v du lan liao. can change topic to what atheists actually believe?