Originally posted by karoly aczel"On this forum spirituality is rarely viewed from such a holistic view (ie. that science and religion should stand side by side in determining the best possible model for how the universe works)"
This it seems is constantly coming up here. Apparently the eastern religions have had it worked out long ago.
So instead of rationality vs faith we have 'educated guesses'.
Instead of science and religion we try to incorporate both into some type of more holistic phlisophy .
We use male and female energies or left and right brain to engage more of all is not well in just swallowing the tripe we are told accept.
Mindless ideological nonsense.
Science and religion will never be able to determine "the best possible model" for how anything works.
The "universe works" according to how its creator determined it will work. The universe "works" according to its design.
Ying and Yang? Comedy.
BTW, it's Yin and Yang.
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by Great King RatNo, I caught all that, but since the idea of god(s) doesn't really register with me, figuring out exactly how an atheist is defined is not exactly straightfoward.
Sorry, but I do wonder about that. Atheism simply being an absence of belief in god(s) has been mentioned here many, many times. How you would have missed all of those instances is beyond me.
Is it really beyond you that I'm slow to understand some things?
Originally posted by josephwWhich part was mindless nonsense?
[b]"On this forum spirituality is rarely viewed from such a holistic view (ie. that science and religion should stand side by side in determining the best possible model for how the universe works)"
Mindless ideological nonsense.
Science and religion will never be able to determine "the best possible model" for how anything works.
The "universe "works" according to its design.
Ying and Yang? Comedy.
BTW, it's Yin and Yang.[/b]
what is wrong with trying to look at things from a scientific AND spiritual perspective?
After all, if an idea doesn't fit in with pretty straightforward scientific findings, such as the Young earth theory, then it is probably false.
You know what I mean ? If you have ideas about the world and it's origins, then dont you think that the theories that fit with common scientific findings are more likely to be true than ones that are dont?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelMy question is what you think you gain by looking at things from a 'spiritual' perspective?
Which part was mindless nonsense?
what is wrong with trying to look at things from a scientific AND spiritual perspective?
After all, if an idea doesn't fit in with pretty straightforward scientific findings, such as the Young earth theory, then it is probably false.
You know what I mean ? If you have ideas about the world and it's origins, then ...[text shortened]... s that fit with common scientific findings are more likely to be true than ones that are dont?
Particularly as I am unsure what a "spiritual perspective" actually entails.
If you are going to (sensibly) check your beliefs against what science says, why not simply
cut out the middleman, as it were, and simply believe what science indicates and stop at
that?
24 Jul 13
Basically my views are based on my experiences. I dont have much trouble understanding what I feel, nor communicating the gist of such an experience to some one who has also experienced the same thing.
When I try to put forward a blank statement about my worldviews to everyone, like in the op here, I have enormous problems trying to communicate.
I've found that if the other person doesn't want to get into the spirit of my posts then there are numerous ways in which she can pick my points apart.
Despite having these seemingly insurmountable obstacles in trying to communicate this stuff, I'll continue to try from time to time, and I would encourage others who have had unusual experiences,visions,etc. to also have a go at talking about it.
24 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI believe the language is changing and I use "spiritual" in front of some words to get my meaning across. Ideally it should just be "human" or "perspective" without having to put the "spiritual" in front of it, but for now it remains necessary.
My question is what you think you gain by looking at things from a 'spiritual' perspective?
Particularly as I am unsure what a "spiritual perspective" actually entails.
If you are going to (sensibly) check your beliefs against what science says, why not simply
cut out the middleman, as it were, and simply believe what science indicates and stop at
that?
'Established' science doesn't cover everything that I am trying to convey. The parts it does cover are fine. I can work a Big Bang into my views, I'm happy with the overall basic theories of evolution and other such scientific findings. But just as language is evolving to reflect the reality that people experience, so too is science changing and needs to be re-worked as better technology helps us see the world clearer. (Like with the advent of quantum theory)
Originally posted by Great King RatRocks are atheists, according to you.
Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s)!
Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s)!
Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s)!
Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s)!
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Actually, lack of belief is necessary but not sufficient to be atheist.
26 Jul 13
Originally posted by apathistLol
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Actually, lack of belief is necessary but not sufficient to be atheist.
... so atheists are ALSO just people lacking a brain 😀
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistSo what label do you think applies to all those people who neither believe
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Rocks are atheists, according to you.
Actually, lack of belief is necessary but not sufficient to be atheist.
that gods exist or believe that gods don't exist?
And do in fact simply lack a belief in the existence of gods...
Because there are many of these people.
And they are not theists, they don't believe that gods exist...
Oh hang on, we have a word for not theists... atheists.
26 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeFrom my point of view, a “spiritual perspective” can mean at least the following:
My question is what you think you gain by looking at things from a 'spiritual' perspective?
Particularly as I am unsure what a "spiritual perspective" actually entails.
If you are going to (sensibly) check your beliefs against what science says, why not simply
cut out the middleman, as it were, and simply believe what science indicates and stop at
that?
1) Some belief in a supernatural category/dimension.
2) Belief in non-physical but natural phenomenon (presumably excluding physical energy, but which seems to have sometimes referred to the psychological). Ghosts and the like could presumably fall into this category, in which case they are subject to naturalistic investigation and empirical falsification to some degree of probability.
3) Pre-conceptual awareness (as in, say, Zen).
4) An aesthetic—as opposed to empirical or logical—perspective.
In the second case and third case, there are clearer terms available—but I can’t always find fault with the historical literature for using terminology that might be confusing in a modern context (I would rather understand that literature). The same, really, for the fourth category—e.g., myth, story, poetry, art: the aesthetic response that they often evoke has gone by many names, including spiritual. [This is not to deny that scientists are aesthetically moved by scientific discovery—I suspect that most of them are.]
Only the first two usages have (or ought to have, in my view) anything to do with belief. I reject the first, and think that science offers better descriptive terms for the second. As for the others, I dislike the term “spiritual”—but accept that it has been part of the historical literature, and I prefer to translate rather than dismiss.
26 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeBuddhists who don't believe in gods ARE atheists... Although that's probably not in their case the most relevant label to use it's still a valid one.
Buddhists who don't believe in gods ARE atheists...
Although that's probably not in their case the most relevant label to use it's still a valid one.
If this is the idea you have got about atheism from reading this forum then I am not sure
you've been paying close enough attention.
Right.