Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mallic

  1. 6 minutes ago, Eise said:

    Because you can't see it, does not mean it cannot be true. Obviously you can't stand the idea, so you just adopt the opposite idea. So you are wagging the dog: you take as true what pleases you. But I do not see this as religious or spiritual. It is dogmatic. Here, I have an exercise for you: imagine a life after death for eternity. Really meditate on it. If you do not find out that this would be hell, you did not do your homework...

    It is also interesting, that i.e. in Hinduism, the declared objective of yogis is to leave the cycle of reincarnation, i.e. get liberated from it. Isn't that funny? Some very religious people want to stop their 'eternal life', instead of living forever.

    There is no hard problem of consciousness, whatever Chalmers (who coined this phrase) might say. When all the 'easy problems' are solved, people will find out there is no problem left. And another exercise: imagine the 'hard problem' is solved by science, and there is no soul surviving death. What would you do? Commit suicide? (Which would be pretty inconsistent if you fear death.) Or learn to cope with it? Why not start now? You do not know what science will discover, so why bet on an unfunded idea? 

    Thinking that life is only worth something when it is based on 'metaphysical comfort', is living a false life. 

    Yes, it makes a pretty stubborn impression. I also think you are pretty hard with (atheist) scientists, based on lack of knowledge of what science really does and says on one side, and your own unfunded ideas on the other. I would say, relax a little, use the time you have left (which if you are lucky is obviously pretty long, when you are only 30 years old) to really get to know this miracle world you live in, and be thankful that you are born so you can enjoy this incredible fascinating universe. Doing so will make you more resilient against the daily misfortunes that happen in everybody's life. Then a real spiritual path may open for your eyes. You might discover, that it was already there all the time, but you just did not see it because you eyes were troubled by your ideas.

    Tonight there will be a total moon eclipse, and I will really enjoy it, to see the beauty of the universe, and realise my smallness in this giant, wonderful universe.

    This is why i said I'm inclined to believe reincarnation, and there is evidence to support this regardless of whether or not mainstream science accepts it or not.

    I personally can't imagine just fading into the void, that mindset is reserved for depressed people who think the world is absolutely garbage and just want the sweet release of death but are too afraid to end it themselves. Whether you like it or not, your statement isn't fact but also a belief as well. It's not that you know or are convinced there is nothing beyond this life. It's more you're like Thomas Nagal and you (Ironically enough) pray that there is nothing, because you somehow thing that it gives this life meaning.

    I actually ran into someone, who said they found joy and empowerment in their absolute meaninglessness in this universe, which was quite frankly the most terrifying thing I've ever heard in my life. You word it real nicely, but at the end of the day, all you're really doing is preaching a mindset of looking out for yourself and effectively closing yourself off to the problems of others.

    The Fact is you are trying to profess your beliefs as fact, and that makes you just as bad as you claim I am. Just remember I saw the specter of death when it almost came for my little brother, and it made it clear to me that there is no such thing as a Guaranteed long life. Your end can come for you at anytime, and assuming that you don't have to worry about death until your are old and withered is a fools claim.

    It truly is a shame, I came here hoping to disprove the misconceptions I have regarding the mindsets of you types, yet all that has happened is that you solidified them. But I'm probably asking the wrong ones and should take my search to a place where people are a little more open minded.

    Someone call the mods. Have them close this thread and ban my account. I'm done here.

  2. 16 minutes ago, Strange said:

    He has pointed out that there is no real basis for myths, that you have little knowledge of the Big Bang theory (an objective fact) and commented on your behaviour (coming to a science forum and making emotional accusations about the inadequacy of science).

    Nowhere did he say, or even suggest, that you are an idiot. For someone who has come here to attack scientists, atheists and materialists, you are remarkably sensitive to perceived but non-existent insults. 

    You...you guys think i'm attacking you?! Oh that's rich. I came here looking to straighten out some misconceptions i may have had, the big bang theory thing is something i heard from others not what i was taught. I'm sorry i don't have the capacity to think solely in cold hard logic, but if you honestly think that I am in anyway attacking you, then that says a lot more about you then it does me. Just because I'm blunt and straight forward doesn't mean I'm hostile. Sheesh.


    36 minutes ago, studiot said:


    Yes I have noticed you are basically worried about one thing and tried to engage you in concerned, polite, adult conversation about your worries.

    Unfortunately you seem to prefer indulging in slanging matches, rather than discussing your subject.


    One final attempt.


    Science-Fiction writing used to be a medium for exploring 'what if (something was slightly different, newly discovered etc)' scenarios in some depth.

    There were many perceptive stores written, both thought provoking and and entertaining.

    One you might like to read about just this subject was

    Tau Zero


    Poul Anderson

    Originally published by Gollanz.


    Oh....I do love me some science fiction...always did have an affinity for it. I'll definitely check it out thank you.


    36 minutes ago, Eise said:

    The gist of my posting still stands: there is no contradiction between a materialistic worldview and a religious outlook on life.  And that contradiction is a central point of your postings.

    The contradiction exists only in your mind (and everybody who thinks life can only be worth living when certain ideas are true). If you make your life dependent on some metaphysical 'truths' you have built your life on quicksand. There is a difference between 'truth', and what you hope is true. You choose obviously for the latter. That is not a spiritual way. You must stand the insecurities of life, which necessarily includes death.

    Stephen Batchelor once said it very clearly: Buddhism is a teaching that tries to help you to cope with the radical contingencies of life. 

    I'm sorry, but I just can't see death being the end....and frankly until scientists can solve the "Hard problem of consciousness" Then this is the stance I will take that consciousness and by extention the soul, Lives on outside the body. If that makes me come off as stubborn or ignorant, so be it.

  3. 6 hours ago, beecee said:

    Hmm, so you chose emotional, ignorant, and unsupported beliefs over evidenced based science? Do you have any evidence at all supporting any of these religions and or any soul? 

    Whatever "evidence" there is that in anyway supports what you claim, it pales into insignificance to the evidence totally supporting such beliefs to be all scientific woo, myth and nonsense.

    Perhaps it is just patently obvious that evidence for any supernatural/paranormal myth is lacking, and that alternatively, the evidence for the BB, evolution of life and universal Abiogenesis is overwhelming. Irrespective there are intelligent people who are also religious but phycologically speaking their desire for some warm inner comforting feeling over rides their logic, and of course science as yet does not have all the answers, such as why the BB banged, but it continues to search, for answers, rather then short circuiting it with unsupported myth.


    No, you don't just get the BB theory. The BB theory as first proposed by a Catholic priest, was based on observational evidence. That evidence over the last 100 years has grown so that it is by far the most accepted theory on how the universe/space/time came to be...Yes, an accident, speculatively explained by a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Richard describes it adequately and well...a happy little accident.


    The chances of the universe arising is quite real, considering that we are here. More to the point, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc So as Carl said try being couragious, and honest...It's not hard.


    Well again, it is you that has ventured into a science forum, on your white charger conducting some crusade against science. Is it not you with this weird mind set??


    I also have plenty to say about the wonders and awe and answers that science and the scientific methodology has given us. But I will express them on forums such as this, and not venture into church next Sunday, expressing what a lot of gullible fools they are. Perhaps you and I actually swung in the same tree before science evolved?

    Uh you can leave now because you've basically done nothing but prove my original point.

    Where in all your constant drivel was there to be any thing constructive other then to remind me that I'm an idiot? There is none alright? All you have done is cast everyone else here is a bad light with your bigotry and arrogance.

    So I suggest you be a good little boy go back to worshiping richard dawkins and Karl Marx and let the adults do the talking.

    2 hours ago, Eise said:

    A possible explanation is that those that are arrogant and cynical are the loudest. But there is definitely not a logical or even psychological connection between atheism and arrogance and cynicism.

    If it comforts you, I consider myself as a materialist (in the philosophical sense, not in the ethical sense of 'being only interested in as much richness as possible'), or to be a bit more precise, as a functionalist. I know it may be a challenge because on the surface it seems contradicting the value of life. But that is really a very superficial viewpoint. The idea that we are 'only' a function of our bodies, especially the brain, might look discomforting, but on the other side, taking into account the idea that we are a 'cosmic accident' makes our lives (well the whole earth with all its life forms) more precious than if we were just 'slaves of God'. 

    And I am not anti-religious too: I meditate, and once a year I go into a Zen-retreat, a week in silence. Which brings me of course to Buddhism: it knows of no god, and believes in the law of 'dependent co-arising', which is a version of the law of cause and effect. In the case of the 'soul', Buddhism says that the 'soul' does not exist independently. It comes into existence, and when we die it is dissolved. (Therefore this is better known as the idea of 'no-soul', which just means that: there exists no independent soul: if we look for the ground of the soul's existence in itself, we find... nothing.) It is one of the most important pillars of Buddhist ethics. 

    So one might say I am a religious atheist. I try to keep on a spiritual path, which is not easy, but the difficulties lie in the temptations and animosities of daily life, not in my scientific worldview: the physics of the soul might have changed since Buddhism, but there is a core element that fits to modern materialism: that we are caused, that we are a function of different elements (in Buddhism called 'skandhas', nowadays one could say chemical elements). 

    So together with some of the other posters in this thread: nice to meet you!

    I do not despise religions. But I hate stupidity, the quick condemnation of other's ideas, without understanding them first. And believe me, there are also a lot of people with a scientific worldview, that are just as stupid as their religious counterparts. It is easier to live with a quick judgment, than with the insecurity that you still might not have understood enough. People hate insecurity, which is a cause of many troubles.

    That is not quit true. Georges Lemaître came to his 'primordial atom' by applying the general theory of relativity, so based on theory. Only a few years later, Hubble came with the first observational proofs that galaxies are running away from us.

    You are assuming one wrong thing. All I professed was that there is life beyond death......when did I ever once claim the existence of a god? That is completely irrelevant to my argument. 

  4. 1 minute ago, beecee said:

    Havn't read all this thread and obviously have come in late....But if these "certain" people you have asked about how the BB happened, were slightly knowledgable, they could only answer, we don't really know....Our knowledge about the evolution and expansion of spacetime/universe stops at around 10-43 seconds after the initial event. But we do have I believe reasonable speculative explanation/s one I see much sense in is...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

    Am I an Atheist??? :rolleyes: I don't like being labeled anything, particularly when that labeling is in regards to what I see the mechanics of the scientific methodology, by far the best system we have. Of course the dependence in that system relies on observations and repeatable experimental results, which of course then in turn rules out any and all supernatural and paranormal mythical nonsense.

    Of course though being a reasonable human being, I accept that others can believe in whatever myths and nonsense they want, except I am troubled by one thing...why so many that push the idea and myth of some magical spaghetti monster, that sits a high, judging all human kind, see the need to come to a science forum, expressing and crusading said nonsense.

    Because otherwise if you weren't born in a first world country, you might as well just off yourself cause there is absolutely no hope for you.

  5. Just now, DrP said:

    I try to deal with facts rather than opinions  -  thus my conversion to non belief in the supernatural.

    Well take a guess. :)     I am hardly going to convert from Christianity to any other world religion am I? Show me any evidence for any of them and you will probably have any number of people here point out where you have mistaken that evidence for being credible.  My disbelief is based on the lack of any credible evidence for gods, ghosts and the supernatural in general. I can't explain some things....   but that doesn't mean their is an invisible world around us with angels and gods paying attention to what is going on.


    And you are right - I did say I wasn't going to reply any more, but you asked me a question.

    You are on a science site asking questions to scientists about science...  His superior knowledge of the sciences isn't proof of higher intelligence.  How did you think this conversation would go?

    I figured I would at least stroke his ego a little since he thinks his opinion is so much more valuable over yours and everyone else's.

  6. 2 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Anyone saying the big bang was cause by two atoms colliding can be dismissed as not having a clue as to what they are talking about.

    I can only go by what you say. In this case "us just happening to be sentient" which implies humans.

    But for a long arc in the earth's history, there were no sentient beings. We may be the first, perhaps not. There's nothing that pre-ordained this result.

    Some things that happen are random, but not all results are random. Any argument that starts with the notion that there is some probabilistic equation that gives a meaningful result about humans coming about at the end is fatally flawed.



    Yeesh do you go through everything with this much of a fine tooth comb? I didn't think i needed to clarify that I'm revering to all living creatures.

  7. 1 minute ago, DrP said:

    Here you go. Nice to meet you.

    Well someone has a high opinion of himself.....just because your pride is hurt doesn't mean I'm not reading your stuff. Also didn't you just say you were gonna stop replying?

    In all seriousness I never considered myself a christian, in fact if you look at my OP i explicitly stated that i never considered myself a part of any of the abrehemic religions. Rather i take much of my beliefs from many eastern religions and adopt them into my own world view. Honestly it's a very important thing to clarify. Are you an atheist because you deny christianity? Or do you deny ALL religions? Like paganism, hinduism all that? Or do you just lump them all into one basket and consider them all the same? These are very important things that must be clarified.

  8. Just now, studiot said:


    I don't have any indication of your age so that great thinker Bertrand Russell may befor your time but you might find some  useful thoughts and even solace in his works, particularly


    Why I am not an Atheist


    Why I am not a Christian


    I am sorry you are having worries about dying, they seem to be getting in your way of living.

    I'm not even in my 30's yet. You might be thinking "What?! You are way too young to be thinking about death!" Nononononon. I came to the realization that the specter of death can come for us at anytime. It almost claimed my brother and everyone says the fact that he's alive is a miracle.

  9. 4 minutes ago, MathGeek said:

    Right.  The presupposition of materialism is methodological rather than absolute.  As Gould points out, it cannot be proven by science but it is necessary for science to proceed.  

    Gould went on to describe science and religious faith as treating "non-overlapping magisteria." (NOMA)  Religious faith treats matters of the spiritual realm - heaven and hell, God and angels, miracles and morality that are outside of the sphere of science because (by definition) they violate the methodological presupposition by which science operates.  Science only addresses things in the physical realm.

     "NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution." (Gould)

    The National Academy of Sciences has adopted a similar stance, ""Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But 
    science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria and references therein.

    So it's not that one thing invalidates the other or that they should coexist and compliment each other, but that they deal with 2 separate fields of human experience entirely?

  10. Just now, Strange said:

    And I suppose I can't really understand why anyone would think it wasn't. But we should all be tolerant of each others' beliefs.

    I'm not sure why anyone would argue that. It sounds a bit like the argument that "atheists must be immoral because they don't have a god telling them what is right or wrong".

    If you were JUST an atheist, it wouldn't be a problem. But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy. Like I know for a fact conservative atheists exist....which for the longest time i thought was a combination so rare, that i genuinely wondered if i could get them on an endangered species list.

    Take this how you will, and maybe I'm not talking to the right ones. But I've yet to meet an atheist that was one because of genuine disbelief, as opposed to just using it as an excuse to spite people who do believe or as an excuse to just do whatever they want regardless of the consequences. For lack of a better term, I've yet to meet an atheist where a disbelief in god was all it was.

    It's like that guy who can't go 5 minutes without reminding everyone that he's gay, you know the guy right? That's how it is with some of the people I've seen

    The worst case I've seen was a guy who would literally just get set off if you so much as mention the word "Soul"......I am not exaggerating. He literally started ranting and raging the moment someone used the word "Soul". There's just so many things to say about that I don't know where to begin.

  11. 1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

    Only if cutting through to the chase is moving the goalposts, I doubt your own part in this is anything but running wildly around the field shouting you can't catch me when no one is wanting to catch you... 

    Stop trying to be subtle about your mockery you aren't very good at it. Also Never think i am ever discrediting science, I'm a technology nerd for crying out loud. Like strange said most religions are accepting of sciences advancements, but i just cant see how someone can justify that we are just glorified fleshy robots. How someone can say everything i think and feel are nothing more then impulses and delusions. I mean For example: I can't imagine any situation where say, Cheating on your wife and then telling her that it was caused by a chemical reaction in your brain, would have her be like "Oh ok"

  12. 6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:


    No it would be called illogical, believing the church over science could be called ignorant but there is no shame in ignorance. Ignorance can be cured by a person determined to find the evidence for or against what ever he is ignorant about. so far methodological naturalism works, everything we have in our lives we have due to science, need clean water? pray for it, want a church to pray in? pray for it, want food, power, houses, transportation? when prayer makes you a church go to it and pray for these things. Currently they are provided by science including the churches you seem to think praying in makes a difference. 

    The supernatural has no measurable effect on reality, if it did it would not be the supernatural it would be natural. 

    Stupid on the other hand cannot be fixed, stupid is forever...

    But that's kinda moving the goal post isn't it? 

  13. 1 minute ago, Strange said:

    How do you know that? (I have, and I have no idea if it is better or worse to believe in an afterlife or not. Maybe believing that gives you some comfort.)

    Only one of those is a science!

    Maybe you need a priest or a psychiatrist. Or both! I don't know. But I certainly don't think science (or arguing against science) is going to help.


    But wouldn't turning to the church be considered anti science?

  14. 11 minutes ago, Mallic said:

    At least you're more polite about it then the jerk above you.


    4 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I don't mind you down voting this. But I do want to say that it wasn't intended as an insult. You have made a number of claims about science which are clearly either false or demonstrate a serious lack of understanding.

    As I have said before, I think you should learn more about the scientific theories you are criticising before criticising them.

    Being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of. We are all ignorant to varying degrees. There are many people here who know a lot more than me about a lot of things. (And I doubt there are any subjects where I know more than anyone else.) 

    We can all learn. And one of the great things about science is that there is always more to learn. Including, sometimes, that what we have learned before is now wrong! There have been several major paradigm shifts (like revolutionary changes) in science just in my lifetime. And I can't wait for the next one. I don't care if it is that consciousness IS a function of the brain or proof that it ISN'T. Just bring it on.


    ......You've never gone through death anxiety before have you? And I would learn more about scientific theories if a lot of them weren't so boring.

    The main one's that interest me are astrology, Quantum mechanics, Various fringe sciences and what people tend to laugh off as pseudo science like parapsychology. I mean how much use is it, knowing all 11,800 species of ants? Or knowing about the 4th tooth difference between a croc and an alligator? And lets not forget the pitch drop experiment.....why does that one even exist?

    Honestly I just want something to quell this feeling of dread of my own inevitable death. And forgive me if I get emotional, but something beyond death would mean those who got dealt a bad hand in life can get another chance....idk call me sentimental or the wish of someone powerless to do something himself.

  15. 5 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

    True, and that is a good thing. I would encourage you to keep learning, also across many different disciplines. 

    However, to really understand something (such as e.g. quantum mechanics) thoroughly, having broad yet superficial knowledge isn’t enough - one also needs in-depth knowledge of the subject matter in question. And acquiring this generally takes time and effort, which is why most scientists are experts only in one particular field.

    At least you're more polite about it then the jerk above you. But yeah I get it. Still I can't really limit myself to just one field. Even if it is shallow i wanna at least know the basics so when i get in discussions i at least have SOME idea what im talking about.

  16. 3 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

    There is no hierarchy, but the different scientific disciplines deal with different domains of enquiry. Psychologists are not trained in quantum mechanics, and you wouldn’t want a phycisist attempting to treat you when you go into a mental hospital, would you?

    Inter-disciplinary communication and cooperation is crucially important, but most scientists have in-depth knowledge in only one particular area.

    And i think that's my issue. I hesitate to call myself in any one area, but I studies most of the scientific fields to know at least the basics in a lot of them. So my knowledge is more....diverse at the very least. And I would at least hope most scientists would know basic first aid, at least.

    1 minute ago, Markus Hanke said:

    There is no “2 atoms thing” in physics.

    I never said it was physicists who try to discredit religious people did i?

  17. 5 minutes ago, swansont said:

    I know of no legitimate scenario where this is proposed as the big bang. (Atoms came after the BB but atoms collide all the time, so how is that an issue with regards to things happening "by accident"?)

    There's no evidence that this is the case. Is Uranium actually required for life? In a certain isotopic ratio "required"? (I hope not, since these have changed over time)

    There's the anthropic principle. Any species could be sentient, and contemplate this issue. It didn't have to be humans. But since we're sentient, we have the ability to do so.

    These are very vague and specious arguments.

    That's a problem for you, perhaps, but it's not a given that humans are (or should be) anything special


    Ok let me break this down. 

    This 2 atoms thing, mostly come from people who wanna try and discredit religious people. 

    and I'm not discrediting anything else being sentient. That's like me saying animals like dogs and what not aren't sentient. That would be foolish. Why would i be surprised if another creatrures ended up being capable of speech? I shouldn't

    And you seem to assume that my belief is limited to only humans which again isn't the case. I'm talking in regards to all living sentient creatures. Be they Humans, Animals, or creatures we have even yet to see. I know i'm terrible at explaining stuff, but my thinking isn't as one dimensional as you seem to think it is.

  18. 13 minutes ago, Strange said:

    They certainly won't if you refuse to learn anything about what science says, and just make it up instead. On the other hand, you might get some answers from science (which is all we can ever hope for).

    I would be tempted to say, of course there is.  But it depends (as so often with questions like this) on definitions. What do you mean by "physical"? Is music "physical"? Is art? Is love?


    I mean in terms of life beyond the veil, what happens to our consciousness? Is it all limited to our brains like so many grimdark enthusiasts love to profess? or is there something more? The field of quantum mechanics brings a lot of hope for the idea that there is something past death and that it is merely an illusion. And there is evidence of such things being true for example ian stevensons research on reincarnation despite a lot of it not being concrete. But to so confidently say "Nope there's nothing, you just rot when you die" or "Yep they lost their one chance at life before it really began.....sucks to be them" I just don't understand how anyone can think like that.

  19. 8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    That never happened.

    Maybe you would be less confused by what scientific theories say if you actually found out what they say.

    Read the Douglas Adams quote again. And again until you understand the point it is making.

    The reason that they are "the elements needed for life" is because life developed from the elements that existed. If the elements were different and had different properties, then a different form of life might have evolved.

    So you don't think we should try and understand anything. Fine. But that does mean that a science forum is not the best place for you.

    I would say it is exactly the opposite: it is bringing the vast and unimaginable down to a humanly comprehensible level.

    I'm sure you'll get no shortage of opinions!

    You might be right about one thing. The answers i seek probably won't come from science. Is there something more to the universe then the physical? Or are we the result of some sick cosmic joke? Sticking around only long enough to know what we want, and then spontaneously cast back into the void.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.