Wouldn't it be better if the things we believe in were true or likely to be true based on the evidence?
Why do we need a God?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Thank heavens you're a happy camper!
What does that mean? That you could be happy with scientific explanations provided there was enough evidence to support them? Or that science doesn't provide support for the kind of thing you require to be happy?
That the things that science says should make me happy, do not make me happy.
You mean like sex, socializing, relaxing, praying or meditating, eating, exercising, or watching TV?
That's just you, and that's just your version of Christianity.
(And I'm not a Christian nor do I have any inclination for it.)
Engaging in material, or (nominally) spiritual activities, as a means to a material end, is unsatisfactory.
And (at least mainstream) science does insist that the material is all there is, and that we ought to bear that in mind even when we engage even in nominally spiritual activities.
But science can determine what makes people happy, even if those things are not commonly accepted as real by physics. They are real in terms of a cultural phenomenon having a physiological effect on a person.
Do you consider happiness to be a material end?
Are you saying none of those things make you happy?
Do you consider happiness to be a material end?
Are you saying none of those things make you happy?
@wynn --
Well it's not just me. Most people who convert away from christianity are happier afterwards.
Never claimed that you were.
"Engaging in material, or (nominally) spiritual activities, as a means to a material end, is unsatisfactory to me."
Edited for factual accuracy.
Because that's all there's evidence for.
Really? Where does "mainstream" science insist on this? Gunna need a citation for this claim.
Well it's not just me. Most people who convert away from christianity are happier afterwards.
Never claimed that you were.
"Engaging in material, or (nominally) spiritual activities, as a means to a material end, is unsatisfactory to me."
Edited for factual accuracy.
Because that's all there's evidence for.
Really? Where does "mainstream" science insist on this? Gunna need a citation for this claim.
I refer you to your frequent comments on how anything that does not fit the reductionist model of mainstream Western science is "mystical pseudoscience" which, per you, "is patently ridiculous."
Science can only determine what makes some people happy, but it is not within current Western science's reach to determine what makes any particular person happy.
Science works out of the assumption that all people are essentially the same and that the same things make them happy - and considers this assumption non-negotiable.
If a person isn't happy by the things that science says make people happy, then said person is expected to believe there is something wrong with themselves.
Science expects people to reject themselves in favor of science.
Personally, no.
Only for a short time. No lasting happiness can be found in them.
So explain:
How did you come to find engaging in material, or (nominally) spiritual activities, as a means to a material end, to be satisfactory?
that statement does nothing for the atheist view you realize ...
:shrug:
Are you saying that it's impossible for science to determine the difference between a happy and an unhappy person?