"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life"

[spidergoat]

So why can't you collect the data to confirm or deny the kreb cycle?

I can, (sigh), anyone can. I'm just not familiar with chemistry to that extent. Why pick the most complex example? Would a simpler one do?

If the scientific process can lead to a greater knowledge of air pressure, for instance, does that not prove it's worth?

No one is demanding that you have faith in the krebs cycle, only the power of reason.

Data, regardless of its origins, is dependant on the perception of suitably qualified persons - this explains why NASA doesn't hire green grocers to design their satellites and doesn't hire an electrical R&D team to head up the caferteria - in other words its only when persons who are stationed in inappropriate positions that suffering persists, like for instance when persons not familiar with the relevant proceedures attempt to pass judgement on the conclusions

No it is not, that is my whole point. Qualified in the field of science does not mean anything mystical or esoteric.

unfortunately none of these backyard experiments can indicate scientific truths that you hold as sacred cows, such as evolution, abiogenesis, the origins of the universe etc - none of the backyard experiments can even indicate a whole range of axioms and scientific defintions, such as the kreb cycle, the rest mass of a proton, planck constant etc - so it sstill not clear exactly whatyou are relying on if not the faith of authorities established in the field

With the exception of evolution, none of those things are considered scientific truths. The proof of evolution began with "the origin of species". As long as you trust that the drawings of finches are reasonably accurate, there is no reason you can't examine it for yourself. The entire body of science does not rest on primary axioms. One can examine zoology without knowing about electrons.

In practice, we rely on a faith in science, because the results are obvious and spectacular. In theory, everything the conclusions are based on is subject to criticism and examination. The same is not true of religion.

You don't have to calculate the crystal structure of a key, or know the manufacturing technique to use it in starting your car. Scientific truths like Faraday's law prove themselves every time they work as a predictive tool.

Prayer is one example of the failure of religion as a predictive tool. Sometimes is works, and this reinforces the belief. Sometimes it doesn't, but somehow we conveniently ignore that data point. This is a common fallacy in reasoning, which leads to irrational beliefs like God and Voodoo.

I've yet to hear you offer one argument in line with scripture so it seems that your familiarity with religion is only of the animalistic mixing variety (ie your parents probably forced you to go to church, which you resented, so you just sat on your brains everytime you went)

Because we are talking about science. What Jesus said about this or that doesn't apply. And I never went to church, my parents are secular Jews. I do happen to quote from religious texts when they apply. In this discussion they don't.

On the contrary I have offerered numerous arguments based on science with numerous quotes from authoratative sources - I would argue that it is more a case of you having a strong emmotional response to religion, perhaps due to your parents, and that blinds you to coming to the platform of logic which is the fluid medium of all progressive discussions

I'm trying to make a logical argument, if it isn't clear, let me try again.

The personal testimony of anyone is useless for proving any fundamental principle of the physical world. Science does not rely on the personal testimony of one person, but on impersonal, reproduceable observations. These I admit are made by people, but their personal feelings in the observation are irrelevent.

The reason science is reliable is that this principle of careful, repeatable observation weeds out the pseudoscience from fact. It eliminates the kind of flights of fancy characteristic of religion, and is thus able to discover the truth of our situation.

You keep trying to prove that the visions of a religious person are as reasonable a point of data about the universe as an observation or measurement that is not dependent on any personal characteristic of the observer. I do not see how this is logical, since people can personally experience all sorts of visions and hallucinations which are not reliable.

You assume that the perception of god is arrived at through some logical suppositioning of book knowledge or field data (similar to the basis on which theories such as abiogenesis gain credibility) - this is not the case - it is direct perception.

Indeed, I am not. But what if two people have "direct perception" of two opposite things? How is one to judge which is correct? What if that were a million rather than 2? There have probably been a million religions on Earth, and at some point, all of them had believers that thought they percieved the correctness of them.

Many people say they experience God with no prior training, and the church does not claim that any particular training is required. Many people are just as fervent about the power of crystals. With no basis in impersonal observation and reason, we would be trapped in a confusing world of pseudoscience, which is the kind of world the church created with it's teachings. As soon as we were allowed to use reason and intellect, our technology exploded, for better or worse.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spider goat

“
So why can't you collect the data to confirm or deny the kreb cycle?
”
I can, (sigh), anyone can. I'm just not familiar with chemistry to that extent.

If we could rely on what people could do theoretically rather than what they can do practically the world would be very different

Why pick the most complex example? Would a simpler one do?

Simpler experiments don't offer anything about the nature/origins and mechanisms of the universe, so its not clear why we should discuss them.

If the scientific process can lead to a greater knowledge of air pressure, for instance, does that not prove it's worth?

And what would improved air pressure technology indicate?

No one is demanding that you have faith in the krebs cycle, only the power of reason.

let me make myself clear with a quote

There is no denying that (Religion) shares themata (background principles) with Western science, such as:
1) within nature there are regularities;
2) knowing the regularities, one can predict certain events in nature;
3) thus a reliable body of knowledge about nature is useful;
4) such knowledge is taught in a language of numerical measurement.
As Wolpert writes, these presuppositions are universal.* Substance and Shadow does not aim to denigrate these the mata. But Western science attempts to demonstrate the universality of it's the mata from human powers of observation and theory. This is like trying to hold an elephant on a dish. The universe is a display of the unlimited power of the Supreme. Human power is limited.

In other words I don't see science at odds with religion - I see religion operating in a more synoptic paradigm

“
Data, regardless of its origins, is dependant on the perception of suitably qualified persons - this explains why NASA doesn't hire green grocers to design their satellites and doesn't hire an electrical R&D team to head up the caferteria - in other words its only when persons who are stationed in inappropriate positions that suffering persists, like for instance when persons not familiar with the relevant proceedures attempt to pass judgement on the conclusions
”
No it is not, that is my whole point. Qualified in the field of science does not mean anything mystical or esoteric.

It is depending on being capable of performing technical activities that are usually arrived at through hearing others experienced in the field (or reading books) and other aspects of the cultivation of knowledge (practical and/or theoretical) - the common path of theistic perfection and scientific perfection are identical in this respect
“

unfortunately none of these backyard experiments can indicate scientific truths that you hold as sacred cows, such as evolution, abiogenesis, the origins of the universe etc - none of the backyard experiments can even indicate a whole range of axioms and scientific defintions, such as the kreb cycle, the rest mass of a proton, planck constant etc - so it sstill not clear exactly whatyou are relying on if not the faith of authorities established in the field
”
With the exception of evolution, none of those things are considered scientific truths. The proof of evolution began with "the origin of species". As long as you trust that the drawings of finches are reasonably accurate, there is no reason you can't examine it for yourself.

To say that because several things look similar therefore they have something in common is logical - on what mechanism they are actually similar can be tenable in different ways - like I can say that they are similar because they were created by an entity with the same blue print ..... or I can say that thhey were created to exist within certain irreducible criteria .... etc etc - this i sthe distinction between an empiric fact and an empiric theory.

The entire body of science does not rest on primary axioms. One can examine zoology without knowing about electrons.

which explains why there is a big difference between the funding that gets allocated to disciplines of zoology and physical chemistry

(but actually there are many applications in zoology that are dependant on axoims of electrons etc, since there are frequent suppositions on the natures of animal's brains etc - actually its an unbiased observable fact that most of the advances in science come in the field of reductionism - ie reducing all observable phenomena to electrons, atoms, molecules etc - and has born an influence in all the scientific disciplines)

In practice, we rely on a faith in science, because the results are obvious and spectacular.

obvious to who?
I can light a stick of dynamite but faith (of persons unknowable to the chemical reactions) is required to draw a connection between the demonstration and the theory

In theory, everything the conclusions are based on is subject to criticism and examination. The same is not true of religion.

That is why religion is in a sorry state of affairs - because there is no standardized knowledge on what religion is and is not it can be easily misprepresented - just like prior to the standardization of medical practice there were many quacks

You don't have to calculate the crystal structure of a key, or know the manufacturing technique to use it in starting your car. Scientific truths like Faraday's law prove themselves every time they work as a predictive tool.

You have to have faith that the key starts the car however (ie you rely on the authority of persons, ie the car manufacturers, that this key starts this car)

Prayer is one example of the failure of religion as a predictive tool. Sometimes is works, and this reinforces the belief. Sometimes it doesn't, but somehow we conveniently ignore that data point. This is a common fallacy in reasoning, which leads to irrational beliefs like God and Voodoo.

This is a prime example of how an absence of standardized knowledge in religion is prominant -
Is god nothing more than a manservant of our father's in that he is obliged to be on our beck and call .

In otherword sdoesn't this idea that "god should answer our prayers" overide the central principle of religion that it is the living entity who should surrender to god (rather than god surrendering to th eliving entity)?

“
I've yet to hear you offer one argument in line with scripture so it seems that your familiarity with religion is only of the animalistic mixing variety (ie your parents probably forced you to go to church, which you resented, so you just sat on your brains everytime you went)
”
Because we are talking about science.

lol - are you sure you are in the right place - actually its a religion thread (dealing in particular with the intrinsic nature of spiritual life) in a science forum

What Jesus said about this or that doesn't apply. And I never went to church, my parents are secular Jews. I do happen to quote from religious texts when they apply. In this discussion they don't.

regardless, it seems obvious that your religious exposure was of the superficial animalistic social mixing variety
“

On the contrary I have offerered numerous arguments based on science with numerous quotes from authoratative sources - I would argue that it is more a case of you having a strong emmotional response to religion, perhaps due to your parents, and that blinds you to coming to the platform of logic which is the fluid medium of all progressive discussions
”
I'm trying to make a logical argument, if it isn't clear, let me try again.

The personal testimony of anyone is useless for proving any fundamental principle of the physical world. Science does not rely on the personal testimony of one person, but on impersonal, reproduceable observations. These I admit are made by people, but their personal feelings in the observation are irrelevent.

agreed
I also suggest that saintly persons, aside from giving indications of their perceptions also give indications of processes to enable coming to that platform of perception, mostly through advocating normative principles

The reason science is reliable is that this principle of careful, repeatable observation weeds out the pseudoscience from fact. It eliminates the kind of flights of fancy characteristic of religion, and is thus able to discover the truth of our situation.

as already mentioned earlier, the problem with religion is that the knowledge basis is not standardizd - a classic eg is your query that god doesn't answer our prayers, which overides the central principle of religion, ie surrender to god

You keep trying to prove that the visions of a religious person are as reasonable a point of data about the universe as an observation or measurement that is not dependent on any personal characteristic of the observer. I do not see how this is logical, since people can personally experience all sorts of visions and hallucinations which are not reliable.

but do such persons also advocate processes (eg normative behaviour) that enable such perception, or do they say "Hey I saw god now give me your money and daughters" (in other words do they hijack such phenomena to ride out their material desires)

I advocate that there religion can be standardized to the degree that a bona-fide religious practioner can be distinguished by a cheater by an erudite (not necessarily self perfected, but definitely established in a noteworthy level of purity themselves) practioner, mostly through the study of scripture,
“

You assume that the perception of god is arrived at through some logical suppositioning of book knowledge or field data (similar to the basis on which theories such as abiogenesis gain credibility) - this is not the case - it is direct perception.
”
Indeed, I am not. But what if two people have "direct perception" of two opposite things?

it can mean many things - just like a person interested in medical treatment may observe one person getting prescription medication, another undergoing surgery and yet another getting a massage - as long as they are bereft of the knowledge to determine the value of these activities (ie the increased medical well being of the patient) it all appears contradictory

How is one to judge which is correct?

by knowledge

What if that were a million rather than 2?

There are numerous cures for head aches on the market yet somehow we make a decision

There have probably been a million religions on Earth, and at some point, all of them had believers that thought they percieved the correctness of them.

there are numerous brands of head ache tablets - they all possess similar and sometimes identical ingredients - they all claim they work too

Many people say they experience God with no prior training,

It can happen this way but it is uncommon (like for instance just because einstein didn't get a formal education in science doesn't mean you can get by wthout one)- most people like this are merely sentimental

and the church does not claim that any particular training is required.

Then why would they regularly hold sermons/classes - at the very least they would help people learn that that no particular training is required.
Assuming that they are working with a scripture there would also at least be an opportunity to learn what it contains (unless the congregation are invited to stare at a black dot or babble in tongues on their first visit to the congregation)

Many people are just as fervent about the power of crystals.

therefore many people are fools

With no basis in impersonal observation and reason, we would be trapped in a confusing world of pseudoscience, which is the kind of world the church created with it's teachings.

then it is the fault of the teachers

As soon as we were allowed to use reason and intellect, our technology exploded, for better or worse.

and if it ends up for the worse, which is what the threat of nuclear war, deforestation, green house emmissions and a plethora of social ills caused by harnessing a working force to perservere for miserly gains seems to suggest, then its unclear why technology bereft of a guiding value system is of any value

 

[spidergoat]

Simpler experiments don't offer anything about the nature/origins and mechanisms of the universe, so its not clear why we should discuss them.

Because it's the same method. And some simple experiments have been very revealing, such as the discovery of the circumference of the Earth using two wooden sticks.

If we could rely on what people could do theoretically rather than what they can do practically the world would be very different

I understand your reservations about that. It might be interesting to take one particular scientific assumption and analyze it down to the basic level. Perhaps in another thread.
Science isn't based solely on crude information or observation either, there is a fair measure of guesswork, assumptions, theories, inspiration, and passion about it. Ideally, religion is that way too. I think the real problem isn't the ideas enshrined in many religious traditions, but their involubility in light of contradictory information.

In other words I don't see science at odds with religion

Are you willing to consider that evolution is not at odds with religion?

If you wanted to make a good argument, you could just say that God started evolution. The result is not an obliteration of the God idea, but a weakening of one argument in favor of God, which went,

"how did all these species get here that are so perfectly and complexely formed?"​

What you don't seem to get is that the scientific tradition is fueled by doubt, by a fascination with the unknown, the mysteries. It does not claim to know everything. I would be very interested in any method that allowed me to see God. I have tried quite a variety of them. I have found the sacrements of South America to be particularly interesting. My experience with religion was not social, but more academic. I read alot on my own (I used to work at the library). I was really into Buddhism for some years. It sounds like for you, atheism is a closing off of the mind from the full possibilities of existence. For me, means a healthy rejection of basic assumptions. If the electron is proved not to exist, then perhaps it doesn't. In fact, I think electrons have been split apart and found to consist of other sub-atomic particles, and particles sometimes act like waves. So the world that science has revealed is not clear-cut or definitive. It's more like peeling an onion.

It seems the real question in your mind is; when does speculation become fact.

I think it's a matter of degree.

Athiests like Dawkins do not believe that theism is 100% wrong, however, the God theory has as much credibility as the celestial teapot theory, that is to say, very small.

And it's getting smaller all the time. What if a God was revealed to you that wasn't a God? Would you be able to distinguish the difference? That the all-powerful force was mostly a figment of your imagination? What if, one day, you realize that the image you are holding in your mind can only be that, an image, a symbol. What if the force is impersonal, atomic, and that the particular arrangement of our brains are unique in history, one of the most complex objects that ever occurred?

The idea of evolution means that the cosmos undergoes a progression from the simple to the complex. The farther back you go, the simpler the interaction of matter, so that a complex creative force so longer becomes necessary. The complexity happens at the end of the process. The creative force was a passive property of matter all along, and you are the manifestation of it. It only has a personality, because you have a personality. This message is no less hopeful or inspirational than that of theistic religion, it's more like Taoism.

Science may one day realize the dream of the ancient Taoists, immortality. I guess if you believe in a soul apart from the body, it would be impossible to download your mind into a machine, or somehow replicate it's function. But, if it's the result of reduceable parts, it could be accomplished. There is a built in error rate in the brain, which it compensates for, so the replica wouldn't even have accurate to the molecular level. There are consequences for having a particular belief system.

 

[SkinWalker]

So why can't you collect the data to confirm or deny the kreb cycle?

I can, (sigh), anyone can. I'm just not familiar with chemistry to that extent. Why pick the most complex example? Would a simpler one do?

Because this is how you run from those that question your claims rather than answer them. You have to create a strawman that distracts the rationally minded person long enough to redirect them with deception and obfuscation. It doesn't matter to LG that even someone not educated in chemistry can potentially learn it and thus observe and experiment on an idea like the kreb cycle. Nor does it matter that you can pick up a peer-reviewed journal and read the work of others who have collected data on the kreb cycle. The same cannot be said for the religious superstitions he claims to be facts, he's interested only in erecting a wall around his claims to ward off inquiry.

Sorry, LG. Your erection isn't big enough.

 

[Prince_James]

Skinwalker:

Technically, the equivalent of a Peer Reviewed Journal are the tens of thousands of people for the last 6,000 years of recorded history that discuss their experiences of God in surviving texts.

That is to say, religion has produced results of some variety for some people. Enough so that he can indeed "reference other experiences" of all world religions.

 

[SkinWalker]

Skinwalker:

Technically, the equivalent of a Peer Reviewed Journal are the tens of thousands of people for the last 6,000 years of recorded history that discuss their experiences of God in surviving texts.

And yet they are demonstrably wrong about a great many things. So, if their texts are inaccurate, and their inability to adequately "review" their texts to hold them accountable for accuracy has failed, why should we hold their opinions of any regard.

Peer review means that the methodology is made public such that anyone is capable of duplicating the results. LG choses to make his claim then hide like a coward behind the "you don't believe so you won't understand" fallacy. That's intellectual bullshit.

 

[Prince_James]

Skinwalker:

And yet they are demonstrably wrong about a great many things. So, if their texts are inaccurate, and their inability to adequately "review" their texts to hold them accountable for accuracy has failed, why should we hold their opinions of any regard.

The majority of scientific viewpoints expressed in Peer Reviewed journals have been shown to be wrong, also. Advances in science have made much of the history of science a joke by modern standards. Moreover, much of the things LightGigantic would reference would not be "manifestly wrong". That is to say, these accounts would not be creation myths or pseudo-scientifical in nature. They'd be of experience of interacting or being apart of God, or prophesying, or various other things.

Peer review means that the methodology is made public such that anyone is capable of duplicating the results. LG choses to make his claim then hide like a coward behind the "you don't believe so you won't understand" fallacy. That's intellectual bullshit.

I know of no religion which claims that one who practices their religion will be excluded from experiencing certain things. In fact, most religions offer up ways for people to attain those states.

 

[SkinWalker]

The majority of scientific viewpoints expressed in Peer Reviewed journals have been shown to be wrong, also.

Really? "The majority?" I'd like to see you quantify that. But even if true, at least the methods of science have demonstrated that they are open to criticism and inquiry. Whereas, the adherents that go on about "special religious knowledge" that is, curiously, only available to believers, are not.

The point is that believers in religious superstition claim that their beliefs are factual, but refuse to offer any testable evidence of their claims. They rely on mythologies which they accept as the basis of their delusions, but, on the whole, refuse to analyze or critically evaluate their texts. If they did, they wouldn't stand up to criticism and fold like a house of cards.

 

[Prince_James]

SkinWalker:

Really? "The majority?" I'd like to see you quantify that.

Newtonian Physics < Quantum Mechanics/Relativity < String Theory/M-Theory/Some other unified Theory if possible.

Darwin's Evolution v. every other flavour until the scientifically accepted one today.

The fact that QM and String Theory have mutually exclusive theories without resolution so far...

Et cetera, et cetera.

The point is that believers in religious superstition claim that their beliefs are factual, but refuse to offer any testable evidence of their claims. They rely on mythologies which they accept as the basis of their delusions, but, on the whole, refuse to analyze or critically evaluate their texts. If they did, they wouldn't stand up to criticism and fold like a house of cards.

Actually, most religions have a huge degree of religious scholarship which scrutinizes their text. Also, many traditions, amongst which LightGigantic is a member, go through years of mystical training and contemplation. This is to say, they do not "rely on mythologies", but include direct mystical experiences. Accordingly, their experience of such cannot be discounted from any objective basis. One, of course, cannot prove their systems by recourse to that either, although the continued results over thousands of years seem to point at least to some degree of psycho-physical similarity amongst human beings that allow for it.

Also, many religions hold no blatant logical contradictions in their doctrines.

 

[Sarkus]

Newtonian Physics < Quantum Mechanics/Relativity < String Theory/M-Theory/Some other unified Theory if possible.

Darwin's Evolution v. every other flavour until the scientifically accepted one today.

The fact that QM and String Theory have mutually exclusive theories without resolution so far...

Et cetera, et cetera.

Welcome to the world of THEORY.
Noone is saying that these THEORIES are 100% truth - and the more we learn about stuff the more we can refine the THEORIES.

Religion has no such theories - it is all TRUTH as far as they are concerned.



My other point is that those doing Scientific Peer Reviews are not biased to the outcome - in fact it will be more likely that the PEERS will want the review to disprove the claims being made.

Your example of the supposed equivalent within religion is thus nowhere near the same. There is no real scrutiny of the claims by people without the bias of theism already entrenched within them....

... not until recently, anyway, with the increased spread of atheism and the more wide-spread unwillingness to "believe" every little thing that is told to us.

So please don't try and claim that religion has anything close to the rigour of science.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Welcome to the world of THEORY.
Noone is saying that these THEORIES are 100% truth - and the more we learn about stuff the more we can refine the THEORIES.

Religion has no such theories - it is all TRUTH as far as they are concerned.

Religious scholarship and progression invalidate this statement. Moreover, I am fully aware that science works on theories and have no problem either accepting or supporting such. It just also points to the fact that partial fallacy does not mean the system is, in and of itself, impossible of producing truth.

That is to say, to equate religion as inferior to science because there are errors, and to subsequently repudiate religion on the foundation, is to repudiate science, also.

Your example of the supposed equivalent within religion is thus nowhere near the same. There is no real scrutiny of the claims by people without the bias of theism already entrenched within them....

So you are saying that every single religious adherent, in 6,000 years of recorded history, wasn't even in the least bit skeptical of their religion?

So please don't try and claim that religion has anything close to the rigour of science.

This I am not claiming. Only that:

1. Partial fallacy does not invalidate the system.
2. Religious practitioners have a community of saints and sages upon which to reference and to consider when faced with mystical revelation equivalent to a Peer Reviewed Journal's access to the community of scientists.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spider goat

Originally Posted by Lg
Simpler experiments don't offer anything about the nature/origins and mechanisms of the universe, so its not clear why we should discuss them.
”
Because it's the same method. And some simple experiments have been very revealing, such as the discovery of the circumference of the Earth using two wooden sticks.

What is the same method used for estimating the circumference of the earth that offers an insight into something factual about the origins of life/universal creation etc
“

Originally Posted by Lg
If we could rely on what people could do theoretically rather than what they can do practically the world would be very different
”
I understand your reservations about that. It might be interesting to take one particular scientific assumption and analyze it down to the basic level. Perhaps in another thread.

you want to ride with the earth's circumference thing?

Science isn't based solely on crude information or observation either, there is a fair measure of guesswork, assumptions, theories, inspiration, and passion about it.

agreed

Ideally, religion is that way too. I think the real problem isn't the ideas enshrined in many religious traditions, but their involubility in light of contradictory information.

I gave the example how contradictions also seem apparent in medical practices (allopathic drugs, surgery and massage) for one bereft of knowledge - perhaps you could state a contradiction and we can see exactly what you have in mind.

“
Originally Posted by Lg
In other words I don't see science at odds with religion
”
Are you willing to consider that evolution is not at odds with religion?

If you wanted to make a good argument, you could just say that God started evolution. The result is not an obliteration of the God idea, but a weakening of one argument in favor of God, which went,

"how did all these species get here that are so perfectly and complexely formed?"

There are scriptural references that indicate that a species may change over periods of time, that the universe is incredibly ancient (older than current scientific estimations) and periodically goes through cyclic manifestations and annhilations etc etc - there are also distinct references that there are irreducable definitons of species (ie man and monkeys don't have a common ancestor) and that there are several blue prints that account for the millions (specifically 8 400 000) species - so since the only tangible presentations of evolution seem to be somewhat sketchy impressions of speciation, which doesn't at all threaten the presentation of these statements of scripture

What you don't seem to get is that the scientific tradition is fueled by doubt, by a fascination with the unknown, the mysteries. It does not claim to know everything.

the same sort of curiousity drives theistic enquiry

I would be very interested in any method that allowed me to see God.
I have tried quite a variety of them. I have found the sacrements of South America to be particularly interesting. My experience with religion was not social, but more academic. I read alot on my own (I used to work at the library). I was really into Buddhism for some years.

Despite whichever religious system one chooses it works by the same principle - There is the example that if one wants to directly see the president of the USA one is dependant on the process he advocates (ie you have to share his interests - you cannot just barge your way into his office - on the contrary you won't get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries). There is the statement that one should not try and see god but act in a way that god wants to see you.

It sounds like for you, atheism is a closing off of the mind from the full possibilities of existence.

that, it is

For me, means a healthy rejection of basic assumptions. If the electron is proved not to exist, then perhaps it doesn't. In fact, I think electrons have been split apart and found to consist of other sub-atomic particles, and particles sometimes act like waves. So the world that science has revealed is not clear-cut or definitive. It's more like peeling an onion.

It seems the real question in your mind is; when does speculation become fact.

I think it's a matter of degree.

still you see that some sciences are more demonstratable than others - like compare metal fabrication and IT to archeology and anthropology
“

 

[Sarkus]

So you are saying that every single religious adherent, in 6,000 years of recorded history, wasn't even in the least bit skeptical of their religion?

There's a big difference between "least bit skeptical" and being atheist.

Please name one true atheist that lived 3,000 or more years ago.

1. Partial fallacy does not invalidate the system.

But it must bring into question the system's ability to produce valid / worthwhile results.
If it can not be shown to be fallible then ANOTHER system must be introduced to sort out the chaff from the wheat. And this then makes the original system pointless.

2. Religious practitioners have a community of saints and sages upon which to reference and to consider when faced with mystical revelation equivalent to a Peer Reviewed Journal's access to the community of scientists.

A community that has also been determined / given its place by a similar board? And where was the rigour in their determination - or where the "saints and sages" determined by people that held the same beliefs as them - with an undeniable bias in their rigour?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by Prince_James
So you are saying that every single religious adherent, in 6,000 years of recorded history, wasn't even in the least bit skeptical of their religion?
”
There's a big difference between "least bit skeptical" and being atheist.

Please name one true atheist that lived 3,000 or more years ago.

There are numerous citations within the Vedas (the second and third created beings of existence, madhuba and kaitaba, were atheists) - in terms of more contemporay times (ie within the purview of empirical groping into ancient history), 4 of the 6 traditional philosophies of india are either direct or indirect forms of atheism

“
Originally Posted by PJ
2. Religious practitioners have a community of saints and sages upon which to reference and to consider when faced with mystical revelation equivalent to a Peer Reviewed Journal's access to the community of scientists.
”
A community that has also been determined / given its place by a similar board? And where was the rigour in their determination - or where the "saints and sages" determined by people that held the same beliefs as them - with an undeniable bias in their rigour?

institutionalizing knowledge is both necessary and problematic - regardless of whether you are talking of science or religion

 

[spidergoat]

What is the same method used for estimating the circumference of the earth that offers an insight into something factual about the origins of life/universal creation etc

It's called The Scientific Method.

you want to ride with the earth's circumference thing?

Sure. It is one of the earliest examples of rational deduction.

There are scriptural references that indicate that a species may change over periods of time, that the universe is incredibly ancient (older than current scientific estimations) and periodically goes through cyclic manifestations and annhilations etc etc - there are also distinct references that there are irreducable definitons of species (ie man and monkeys don't have a common ancestor) and that there are several blue prints that account for the millions (specifically 8 400 000) species - so since the only tangible presentations of evolution seem to be somewhat sketchy impressions of speciation, which doesn't at all threaten the presentation of these statements of scripture

Well, this is the whole sticking point. Just like when Galileo discovered that the Earth is not the center of the universe, evolution seems to contradict a holy book. Evolution has been dicussed to death here, but it seems you are arguing from ignorance. The evidence not only for speciation, but the ancestral relationship between apes and humans is very clear and compelling.

the same sort of curiousity drives theistic enquiry

But, it seems, only within scriptural limits, and as long as no new information contradicts deeply held beliefs.

still you see that some sciences are more demonstratable than others - like compare metal fabrication and IT to archeology and anthropology

Some only require more patience and technical jargon to understand, that doesn't mean that they are identical to mystical proclamations from priests.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

There's a big difference between "least bit skeptical" and being atheist.

Please name one true atheist that lived 3,000 or more years ago.

There are very few historical figures which are known to exist 3,000 years ago (although I could give you plenty more people 2,500 years ago). But as LightGigantic pointed out, atheism is a main part of Hinduism.

Similarly, "the fool in his heart says there is no God" in......Proverbs? Points out that at least the notion of Atheism was not unknown to the ancient Jews.

But it must bring into question the system's ability to produce valid / worthwhile results.

Then most certainly must science share the same fate.

If it can not be shown to be fallible then ANOTHER system must be introduced to sort out the chaff from the wheat. And this then makes the original system pointless.

Again, same with science.

A community that has also been determined / given its place by a similar board? And where was the rigour in their determination - or where the "saints and sages" determined by people that held the same beliefs as them - with an undeniable bias in their rigour?

COnsidering religious traditions work on the premise of community, yes they were given their place by a similar board. Apostolic and guric succession, master-apprentice, organized clergy, et cetera, et cetera. Moreover, determination was usually rather rigorous, considering religious institutions had a vested interest in not letting quacks talk for them.

 

[S.A.M.]

There's a big difference between "least bit skeptical" and being atheist.

Please name one true atheist that lived 3,000 or more years ago.

The most significant atheistic school of thought in ancient India that I know of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka

Carvaka, also frequently transliterated as Charvaka or Cārvāka, and also known as Lokayata or Lokyāta, is a thoroughly materialistic and atheistic school of thought with ancient roots in India. Available evidence suggests that Carvaka philosophy was set out in the Brhaspati Sutra in India, probably about 600 BCE.

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/C_0143.htm

According to Charvaka philosophy, all knowledge derives from the senses. Inference has no value and the scriptures are false. What cannot be seen does not exist. There are no other worlds as they cannot be perceived.

Charvakas believe that there are four elements (bhutachatustaya): earth, water, fire and air. Everything is composed of these four elements, and it is the combination of these elements which produces consciousness (chaitanya). Charvakas do not believe in abstract concepts such as vice and virtue, or in causal relationships. They believe that it is the 'essential nature' (svabhava) of a thing to undergo transformation by itself (svatah). Moderate (shiksita) Charvakas, however, say a thing comes into being due to its 'essential nature'. They admit the validity of perception and inference.

According to Charvaka philosophy, sensual pleasure is the only end of human beings. Charvakas do not believe in Hell as a separate state of being but only as earthly suffering. Liberation is the dissolution of the body. Death is the end of all. After death, the body and consciousness cease to exist (na pretya sangjnasti, Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.4.12).

 

[codanblad]

The ones you refer too cannot comprehend what you ask. I think they lack spiritual abilities.

i think you're being presumptious. men are just animals, and animals survive without a spiritual life. our brains are certainly different, but that different that we cannot live without spirituality? spirituality doesn't fit in with natural selection, except within the frames of caring for others as a means of increasing the group's survival chances. should you consider such nurturance to be an example of spiritual fulfilment, then animals that care for their young are also spiritual. i would also still require proof that men would die without this.