Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 15, 2008 at 5:23pm

I have read just recently that even what we consider objective truths in science is limited in our language and how language creates our world. Our language use itself will never make anything truly objective, for good and bad.

It's a huge subject and me rambling will not clarify much I guess, but if you are interested in doubting today's science, I suggest you look it up. It actually suggests that our scientific view is all limited to the language we use. Of course, quite ironically, this theory was also written in the language scientific theory is based upon: English.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skylar on September 16, 2008 at 2:04pm

This is an appeal to ignorance, and a false assumption. Some of "us" are aware of the scientific evidence existent to support a conclusion. Have you ever heard of peer review?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on September 15, 2008 at 7:53pm

Skylar, I agree with this. Whatever science states it puts forward in a formal and formularised manner offering evidence. This can be examined, tested and refuted if proven wrong or accepted if right.

Religion requires no evidence and often rejects what can be materially displayed. The sole basis for religion is faith in the unprovable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on September 15, 2008 at 8:06pm

You can be anything you want to convince yourself of. Though if you apply scientific method to your views, beliefs, ideas etc you have a chance of separating what is real from what is fantasy, imagination or unreal.

There are unexplained things in the material world but in no way does there appear to be a supernatural or spiritual parallel world. Especially one with an entity which interacts with the material.

I don't accept Heaven as a reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wolf Martinus on September 16, 2008 at 1:35am

I don't believe in Heaven for the same reasons that apply to my non-believe in God.
Beliefs based on blind faith are completely arbitrary and therefore not usefull.

So I guess that also makes me an aheavenist, and -yes, you can be an atheist and still believe in a lot of weird stuff. But why would you want to do that?

On the other Hand - and while I don't like the term Spirituality because of it's supernatural connotations - I don't doubt that atheists can and do have spiritual experiences. I'm not really sure because I don't remember spiritual religious experiences from my former halfheartedly religious life as a christian (only boring experiences, a LOT of them), but from what I've been told they do not seem to be too different from what I experience when I'm in awe of the beauty of nature or when I'm enjoying music or other arts.
(This of course excludes the "you should really go see a shrink" variety of spiritual experiences religiuos nuts sometimes claim to have)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil Hale on September 16, 2008 at 2:50pm

"Beliefs based on blind faith are completely arbitrary and therefore not usefull."

belief is intrinsically 'blind', in that it doesn't require empirical evidence. Far from arbitrary, many religions would argue that everything has a purpose, quite the opposite of arbitrary nihilism. And not useful? I'm not sure what relevance 'use' has in this discussion. I think in many cases belief offers a more acceptable version of reality than science; that doesn't justify belief in heaven, but belief is certainly useful anyway, it often gives us a strong moral code to abide by, it aims to prevent rash actions and consequential 'evil'.

So we will admit to having almost religious experiences when witnessing a glorious aspect of nature, or during a concert, or perhaps when in love - but refrain from using the word 'spiritual' because of the connotations with God? Well maybe that's because the few and far between fantastic moments of 'enlightenment' in life are what people have called God for centuries. That, and the strong feeling we all have (but may choose to ignore) to do good?

Psychology may have given us a lot of explanations, but that doesn't disprove the 'feeling'.


"I don't accept Heaven as a reality."
How can something which has no matter or proportions be differentiated from that which is nothing - right? I don't think this disproves its existence though, just suggests it's immeasurable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on September 16, 2008 at 8:43pm

So, everything which can't be measured (quantified?) exists or possibly exists?

I just don't see the point or purpose of something with no matter or proportions that is immeasurable yet is full of supernatural entities and deceased creatures. And, according to many, there can be interaction with the real world.

I have other things to occupy my thoughts than ginormous, unknowable whatevers existing or not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wolf Martinus on September 17, 2008 at 2:32am

No, belief is not intrinsically 'blind'. My belief that America exists (I have not checked personally) is based on an overwhelmingly large body of mostly consistent evidence.

OTOH, the concept of heaven's properties (what is it like?, how do you get there? who gets there?) seem to vary greatly depending on who you ask (muslims, christans of every flavour, …). And none of these properties is testable. In fact it is possible to construct an infinite number of heavens all of which have unique properties that make them incompatible. But since these hypothetic heavens are not testable they are all equally (un-)likely. Thats the ultimate of arbitrary.

That does not mean that one of these (or any other) could not be the "One True Heaven(tm)", but exploring a concept like this is, unless done for entertainment purposes, a complete waste of time.

Something else: the idea that "everything has a purpose" is one of the cardinal mistakes religions make. They see a tree and conclude that it was made just for the purpose of spending them shade.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on September 17, 2008 at 7:46am

With the exception of Asian religions where the tree itself as a spirit and thus has its own life and purpose of life :) It is not there to primarly support humans, it was there as a spirit before human's existence. Why is it that the Abrahamic religions differ so much on this notion, despite Asian religions and the Abrahamic almost started in the same area of the world?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on September 19, 2008 at 7:14pm

LeaT, I think a short answer may be the notion of the 'Book' which holds all the answers. My understanding of Asian & Vedic faiths shows that books, although valued, are not central. They have many writings over many centuries and don't imbue one as supreme.

The Abrahamic claim to have abandoned polytheism which limits them to a pretty narrow interpretation of their deity - it must be all everything. A lot to ask from a god, no wonder it gets nasty.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page