Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Mallic said:

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.

 

Now you've met yet another one

 

6 hours ago, Mallic said:

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

What does conservative and liberal have to do with belief in a diety? I take no such labels, in fact i would suggest that anyone who marches in step with a label is nothing but gullible... 

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Mallic said:

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

As far as I can tell that only ever came from you...

Can you cite some other source?

[Mallic]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

As far as I can tell that only ever came from you...

Can you cite some other source?

Mostly when asking certain people how the big bang happened, and that's generally the answer they give me. Either that or they start yelling at me and calling me an idiot.

[Moontanman]

39 minutes ago, Mallic said:

Mostly when asking certain people how the big bang happened, and that's generally the answer they give me. Either that or they start yelling at me and calling me an idiot.

 You are asking people who do not know so they react with anger, no one who has a clue would ever say such a stupid thing... 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Mallic said:

Mostly when asking certain people how the big bang happened, and that's generally the answer they give me. Either that or they start yelling at me and calling me an idiot.

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???  I don't like being labeled anything, particularly when that labeling is in regards to what I see as 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.

Edited July 27, 2018 by beecee

[Mallic]

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???  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.

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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.

I'm not sure what you are getting at? Yes, I was lucky  enough to be born in a first world country, but by the same token myself and my partner, do do our little bit to alleviate those less fortunate by sponsoring a child from Africa. With regards to hope my good man, I am a retired tradesman that is comfortabley well off and enjoying my retirement, but accept that like you, one day I will be returned to the dust of the Earth...dead, kaput,  no evidence whatsoever of  any resurrection of any mythical soul, ...Or as a great man did say, we are all just star dust, born in the belly of stars. While it may give the impressionable folk amongst us some nice warm inner glow to believe [without any evidence] that this great big magical spaghetti monster that sits a high in the clouds and that has been there forever and ever, will take them under his wings into paradise and banish the rest of us to hell...The universe my young fella, was an accident, and out of that accident, the birth of stars and planets took place, then abiogenisis and evolution to the stage of what you and I are at now. So enjoy it while it lasts my friend!!! because there is no other purpose....when you're dead you are dead, kaput, finished. 

 

2 hours ago, Mallic said:

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.

That's funny and rather hypocritical I must say. It is you that has chosen to come into the "lion's den" so to speak. Perhaps in reality it is you that is reacting in spite, anger, remorse and sadness...Science goes on and on regardless of yours or anyone's mythical beliefs. If it wasn't for science you and I would still be swinging in the trees. Are you simply upset, angry, and spiteful, simply because science/cosmology has given observationally and experimentally  supported evidence, to explain the universe/space/time that you and I inhabit at least up till t+10-43 seconds, and pushed all modes and types of magical spaghetti monsters into near oblivion, and simply no more then a superfluous mythical explanation that holds no influence in this day and age. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

On 7/25/2018 at 1:30 PM, Mallic said:

I guess the easiest place to start is to point out my religious affiliation, and let me just say right now....I do not consider myself a christian not even close. In fact I don't consider myself aligned with any of the abrehemic religions. Instead i borrowed most of my philosophy from Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and paganism. Basically I believe in balance of body, mind and spirit, self improvement and the concept that all living things possess a soul.(That should give you a good idea which angle i'm coming from with this) This of course led me to have an interest in Parapsychology, Quantum mechanics and Panpsychism.

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? 

Quote

And as you can probably guess, all of them are considered pseudo scientific woo by strict materialists despite the fact that panpsychism is actually gaining academic credibility, as it fills in the gaps that materialism can't answer(Even more to the dismay of strict materialists considering panpsychism is basically a rebranding of animism) And if you're thinking none of those have shown proof, well actually they have it's just the proof isn't good enough. Because apparently anecdotal evidence is all but useless ,because normal humans aren't intelligent enough to understand what they saw and are just deluded fools, despite the fact that there have been studies to support various things such as Dr Ian Stevensons Theory of reincarnation, which people will insist is a hoax despite no one being able to disprove it yet.

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.

Quote

The point i'm trying to make is it feels like there's this mindset that If you are an atheist your IQ goes up by like 30 points and anyone who is religious or spiritual is automatically inferior to you and should be treated as such.

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.

 

Quote

Which brings us to scientific materialism. This idea that everything is made purely of matter and all other prospects are impossible just doesn't make sense to me. Even from a scientific standpoint this just seems illogical and frankly depressing. Like when asked what made the universe we get the big bang theory. Fine. But how it came to be, you get some very interesting answers. My favorite is richard dawkins famous quote stating that we and the universe we live in are some "Happy little accident". An accident like we were the result of a drunk night at a bar or something.

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.

 

Quote

I mean the chances of the universe we living being purely by accident are so astronomically low, that in my opinion to even suggest such a thing is an insult to science. And yet there are plenty"Wannabe smart guys" who just lap it all up. Which in turn leads people to believe that when we die we simply cease to exist, despite the fact that....well lets take a basic law. It's impossible to create something out of nothing right? Very basic law of everything. Which means the reverse should be true as well. Something can't become nothing, and that includes consciousness. Which makes the very idea feel like something an edgy teenager would say.

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.

 

Quote

Anyway...point what is it? What i want to know is....is this mindset prevalent in the scientific community and if not, then why does it seem to common among those who detests religious people to the point where they go one step further and deny spirituality as a whole? It almost seems spiteful really.

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??

 

Quote

Sorry if this was long, but I've had A LOT on my mind. In fact I'm pretty sure i didn't get everything down.

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?

Edited July 27, 2018 by beecee

[John Cuthber]

16 hours ago, Mallic said:

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.

Hi.

You just met another one.

I can't help wondering how you judge the  intentions of the atheists you have met- especially in the light of your apparent failure to listen to people.
Could you explain that for me please?

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Mallic said:

Mostly when asking certain people how the big bang happened, and that's generally the answer they give me. Either that or they start yelling at me and calling me an idiot.

Maybe you should start a thread here (in the cosmology section) to ask what the Big Bang model actually is, how much we can be sure of (and why), what we don't know, etc.

For example, the Big Bang model starts with the universe in a hot dense state. It says nothing about how we arrived at that state, it says nothing about "creation", etc. Because we have no scientific theories that work beyond that initial hot, dense state.

[Eise]

17 hours ago, Mallic said:

But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy.

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.

17 hours ago, Mallic said:

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.

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.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

The BB theory as first proposed by a Catholic priest, was based on observational evidence.

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.

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, Eise said:

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.

This is correct. But Lemaitre did publish an estimate of the expansion rate, based on the red shift data, a couple of years before Hubble’s paper. (There is some interesting history around this. I can’t remember the details but part of Lemaitre’s paper was omitted in the translation for some reason)

[Eise]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

But Lemaitre did publish an estimate of the expansion rate, based on the red shift data, a couple of years before Hubble’s paper.

I stand corrected:

Quote

Alexander Friedmann in 1922 was the first to publish nonstatic solutions to Albert Einstein’s field equations. However, he did not extend that work into a cosmological model built on astronomical observations. Some five years later, Georges Lemaître also discovered dynamical solutions. In the same publication in which he reported his discovery, he extracted (on theoretical grounds) the linear relationship between velocity v and distance r: v = Hr. Combining redshifts published by Gustaf Strömberg (who relied mostly on Vesto Slipher’s work) and Hubble’s determination of distances from magnitudes, he calculated two values for the Hubble constant H, 575 and 670 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, depending on how the data are grouped. Lemaître concluded from those results that the universe was expanding. Two years later Hubble found the same velocity–distance relationship on observational grounds from practically the same observations that Lemaître had used.

 

[Mallic]

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. 

[Eise]

8 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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. 

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. 

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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. 

 

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

by

Poul Anderson

Originally published by Gollanz.

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, Mallic said:

Where in all your constant drivel was there to be any thing constructive other then to remind me that I'm an idiot?

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. 

[Mallic]

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

by

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.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Mallic

[koti]

1 hour ago, Mallic said:

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. 

@beecee Does this kind of ignorant and hostile behaviour towards oneself become less annoying when you come of age or do the level of frustration and/or rage in some cases stay more or less the same? I’m asking for a friend.

[Eise]

26 minutes ago, Mallic said:

I'm sorry, but I just can't see death being the end...

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.

36 minutes ago, Mallic said:

and frankly until scientists can solve the "Hard problem of consciousness"

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. 

41 minutes ago, Mallic said:

If that makes me come off as stubborn or ignorant, so be it.

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.

[Mallic]

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.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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.

Can you remember your previous lives?

[koti]

11 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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.

 

Now is a good time to present the evidence, lets see it.

Edit: Cross posted with dimreepr.

Edited July 27, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Mallic said:

You...you guys think i'm attacking you?!

Um. Yes. For example:

23 hours ago, Mallic said:

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

23 hours ago, Mallic said:

But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy.

3 hours ago, Mallic said:

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.

Do you need more? And those are just the explicit examples, the entire tone of your posts are aggressive and insulting.

2 hours ago, Mallic said:

Just because I'm blunt and straight forward doesn't mean I'm hostile.

Kettle. Black.

2 hours ago, Mallic said:

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.

There is no problem with that. We all fill in the gaps in our knowledge with our preferences and beliefs. I am, by inclination, a materialist and a naive realist (in other words, the world we see around us is pretty much the same as "reality"). But I know those are logically indefensible. They are, if you insist, matters of belief. But I would change them instantly, if there were evidence to the contrary.

53 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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.

I am fairly sure, from what I have seen of Eise's posts, that that is not the case. 

Also, it is extremely insulting to claim that other people must be morally deficient because they don't share your beliefs. That is normally what we hear from the more dogmatic and fundamentalist religious types.

One can be deeply religious and a selfish psychopath. One can be a materialist atheist and still be the kindest and most generous should on Earth. The two things are totally unrelated.

55 minutes ago, Mallic said:

But I'm probably asking the wrong ones and should take my search to a place where people are a little more open minded.

To be honest, you won't find people more open minded than scientists. It is their job and training to be open minded. 

Unless, by "open minded" you mean "willing to believe any old shit that sounds nice even though there is no evidence."

57 minutes ago, Mallic said:

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

You can report your post and request this. Based past experience, they won't oblige.

But I'm sorry that you are not willing to engage in open-minded discussion with people who have (a variety of) differing opinions from your own. I suspect you have lost an opportunity to learn more about science, the world and other people.

Instead you have chosen to ignore (or misrepresent) what has been said in order to bolster your own prejudices. That is very sad.

[Thorham]

On 7/25/2018 at 5:30 AM, Mallic said:

Because apparently anecdotal evidence is all but useless

It's only useless if it can't be repeated as many times as is necessary to get good data.