Jump to content

Why would an athiest not believe in religion?


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I am using google to get my own thoughts corrected by others in case they are wrong  

AND : to push out over-conventionalism in matters of doing and interpreting science , and humanities .....

"Over-conventionalism in matters of doing and interpreting science" is also known as "rigor". The problem with viewing it as excessive is that cutting corners and sloppy rigor don't produce trustworthy explanations for natural phenomena.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personally I have nothing against religious people, or religion for that matter. In a vast majority of cases in this day and age, I believe people use it and practise it, more as a comfort entity then

Most? Do you have data on that? Why would we not believe what neanderthals believed? We could try to understand what they did in the context of the world they lived in, but does that mean we shou

Yeah. Huh? What are you talking about?  My point was a belief or faith is different than a theory that is supported by observation and experimentation.

Posted Images

49 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I am using google to get my own thoughts corrected by others in case they are wrong  

AND : to push out over-conventionalism in matters of doing and interpreting science , and humanities .....

An unconventional approch to "doing and interpreting science" is important in advancing the fronteirs of science. However, to gian those benefits it iessential that the scientists using that unconventional approach are imitimately familiar with the conventional position. Unfortunately this is rarely the case for persons promiting their ideas on science forums.

Imagination + Dramatic Novelty + In Depth Knowledge = Scientific Advance

Imagination + Dramatic Noverly + Flimsy Knowledge and Much Misunderstanding = Nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Area54 said:

An unconventional approch to "doing and interpreting science" is important in advancing the fronteirs of science. However, to gian those benefits it iessential that the scientists using that unconventional approach are imitimately familiar with the conventional position. Unfortunately this is rarely the case for persons promiting their ideas on science forums.

Imagination + Dramatic Novelty + In Depth Knowledge = Scientific Advance

Imagination + Dramatic Noverly + Flimsy Knowledge and Much Misunderstanding = Nonsense

So do unconventionalism the First Way ,,   , , Hhhhmmmm   ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

So do unconventionalism the First Way ,,   , , Hhhhmmmm   ??

I don't understand what you mean.

I am saying that unconventional approaches should only be attempted by those who are experts in the conventional approach and the knowledge acquired through that approach. (Over time unconventional approaches that work become accepted as conventional. The rest are discarded.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Imagination + Dramatic Novelty + In Depth Knowledge = Scientific Advance

Imagination + Dramatic Noverly + Flimsy Knowledge and Much Misunderstanding = Nonsense

I wonder when that equation really worked...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 8:06 AM, SergUpstart said:

God was invented by people, and in their own image, in order to explain what is currently not explained. At present, God is not needed to explain the origin of the universe.

So...you can explain it without Her?

On 2/20/2021 at 10:07 AM, John Cuthber said:

Then I suggest that you get someone else to read your stuff before posting it.
That way you might avoid saying things like "I read  it twice before reading it ."

I'm certainly not going to do that, though I'm prone to make the same type of mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

God was invented by people, and in their own image, in order to explain what is currently not explained. At present, God is not needed to explain the origin of the universe.

I believe that in the multiverse, there are innumerable Big Bangs constantly occurring, giving birth to universes. This is similar to the birth of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

I believe that in the multiverse, there are innumerable Big Bangs constantly occurring, giving birth to universes.

Then you may as well believe that god-did-it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 7:53 PM, md65536 said:

If you read what Einstein wrote and understand even just parts of it, it's easy to see that it's basically a set of assumptions that match observations of reality

Why?

154608718_4476687899018853_4282567233074010767_n.png

And how to be happy (wrong word) with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Truth or falsity of part(s) of physics have nothing to do with the [proofs of]  existence\non-existence of (a) God. We cannot in any way transcend from Physicalism of objects-in-themselves to an omnipotent , omniscient God.

What is true for you, is not true for me.

Some people need a god/ist to explain and some need a physicist; it all boils down too, whatever floats your boat; the point of the thread is, we don't need to sink their boat in order to aid the buoyancy of ours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What is true for you, is not true for me.

Some people need a god/ist to explain and some need a physicist; it all boils down too, whatever floats your boat; the point of the thread is, we don't need to sink their boat in order to aid the buoyancy of ours.

I feel sorry for "goddists" when (modern) physics cannot help them carve out their own god from somewhere in the Universe . .   . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I feel sorry for "goddists" when (modern) physics cannot help them carve out their own god from somewhere in the Universe . .   . . . 

I only feel sorry for those who aren't content with what they find.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 11:44 PM, dimreepr said:

But as chinese whispers demonstrate the longer the chain/wider the gap, the greater the message is corrupted.

So, given enough time or a long enough chain, understanding is lost; I understand that mathematics is a very robust language,

I think continuity is an important element - Einstein hasn't stayed on a pedestal because of unthinking acceptance of his scientific contributions and adoration but as a result of continuing pursuit of science based understanding that keeps revealing how those contributions have significance. Lose the continuity of the institutions and practices of science - of advancing science - and turning purely to teaching what is known, then significant knowledge decline has probably already occurred. And without ongoing active research as well as teaching we probably will not be able to sustain the technology that modern societies and economies have become dependent on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think continuity is an important element - Einstein hasn't stayed on a pedestal because of unthinking acceptance of his scientific contributions and adoration but as a result of continuing pursuit of science based understanding that keeps revealing how those contributions have significance. Lose the continuity of the institutions and practices of science - of advancing science - and turning purely to teaching what is known, then significant knowledge decline has probably already occurred. And without ongoing active research as well as teaching we probably will not be able to sustain the technology that modern societies and economies have become dependent on.

I don't deny that.

On 2/21/2021 at 12:10 PM, dimreepr said:

Newton's message is written in the most robust language known, in a continuous culture that has been building on that understanding, to the point that we understand why his message is incomplete; let's not forget, he was also an alchemist and given his prophetic qualities, had he solely focused on that, it's plausible that he might have been.

Not concrete but plausible, paganism for instance, given their (original) knowledge of herbs and natural remedies'; It's reasonable to assume they we're the scietists of their day, and there's no evidence to suggest that's not same for Buddha.

 

 

I'm not saying Einstein will be deified, I'm just saying it's plausible; every empire has it's day and then dies...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Einstein hasn't stayed on a pedestal because of unthinking acceptance of his scientific contributions and adoration but as a result of continuing pursuit of science based understanding that keeps revealing how those contributions have significance.

I think the same was true of Buddha and what's also (probably) true is, those who were taught well enough to achieve enlightenment/understanding went on to add too the wisdom.

But as I said, prophet's are rare, and only they can break the convention.

Here's a thought of a friend of mine:

Quote

'One day in the future it will almost certainly be understood as an effective approximation to something more fundamenta' - Such faith, the 'God of the Gaps' argument in reverse

And I think a fixed resilient language is key, as I think the prophet Muhammad recognised, in the way the he sought to freeze the language of the Quran.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.