Originally posted by josephw While pondering the good news of the evolutionary atheists gospel I had a revelation. From the first predecessor of the human species that crawled out of the primordial soup to the last of our kind is doomed to nonexistence.
Does anyone know of anything else they would like to add to this idea?
Why does this concept of "nonexistence" terrify you so much?
Originally posted by josephw While pondering the good news of the evolutionary atheists gospel I had a revelation. From the first predecessor of the human species that crawled out of the primordial soup to the last of our kind is doomed to nonexistence.
Does anyone know of anything else they would like to add to this idea?
I am convinced that I exist. So why do you say I am doomed to non-existence?
If you mean I may not exist 200 years from now then why don't you also worry that you don't exist on mars or Jupiter? What about 300 years ago, did you exist then? Who needs infinite existence?
Originally posted by josephw Well, you have to admit it's a more positive alternitive.
But don't you think it's a little fishy that evolution leaves one with nothing? I think the whole idea of evolution was created for the porpose of supplying evidence for atheism in the first place.
Evolutionary theory has no stance on God or Gods. It is merely an explanation of a phenomenon.
Do you find Relativity or Gravity to be "atheistic" theories too?
Science isn't driven by the pursuit of objective truth, it is driven by money, desire for fame, intrigue with a particular puzzle piece, desire to be right, etc... Scientists often like to portray it as pursuit of objective truth; it sounds nobler. It does have the nice feature that it is repeatable by others. People can build on past success, although often after a lot of fumbling around. If science evolves towards the truth, it is only because the truth is successful (the airplane that works is purchased). I know people in my field who pursue studies they don't believe reflect truth, simply because there is funding for it.
Originally posted by sven1000 Science isn't driven by the pursuit of objective truth, it is driven by money, desire for fame, intrigue with a particular puzzle piece, desire to be right, etc... Scientists often like to portray it as pursuit of objective truth; it sounds nobler. It does have the nice feature that it is repeatable by others. People can build on past success, although o ...[text shortened]... d who pursue studies they don't believe reflect truth, simply because there is funding for it.
I don't think so. I have no desire to be famous. I have no desire for great wealth. In fact, if money was what truly mattered to me, I wouldn't be doing science. Science is rather poorly paid, when you consider the amount of money most scientists could making doing other things.
Sorry, but I don't believe your claim to be a scientist, if this is your opinion.
Originally posted by scottishinnz I don't think so. I have no desire to be famous. I have no desire for great wealth. In fact, if money was what truly mattered to me, I wouldn't be doing science. Science is rather poorly paid, when you consider the amount of money most scientists could making doing other things.
Sorry, but I don't believe your claim to be a scientist, if this is your opinion.
On an individual scale:
You have to recognise that many great scientists were driven by their ego.
But also many were deeply religious and had a belief that they were trying to understand rules put in place by their god.
On a macro economic scale
Scientific discoveries are powered by freedom of information and economic decessity. Religion is normally an obstacle in that it acts as a brake on change.
Originally posted by josephw While pondering the good news of the evolutionary atheists gospel I had a revelation. From the first predecessor of the human species that crawled out of the primordial soup to the last of our kind is doomed to nonexistence.
Does anyone know of anything else they would like to add to this idea?
We are at least not doomed to non-existance so much as irrelivancy. We may in all our pride so we shall matter from now on but in all likely hood we don't. I do beleive we continue to exist but that we don't matter in the end on the plane.
The greatest men in our history will one day be forgotten becasue other great men will take their place of importance in our society. We only matter to those we love and to ourselves.
Originally posted by sven1000 As a scientist, I would have to say this second statement is largely false.
I'm not debating whether people are or aren't in it for the pursuit of objective truth. I fully believe your claims there. What I'm saying is that the scientific method is near bullet-proof. If your claims are false, nobody can repeat your experiment, whatever, people are going to catch it.
So, is there something fundamentally wrong with the scientific method in the abstract? I would not blame the tool for being mishandled by the worker.
Doomed!
24 Apr '07 05:42
Back to Top