atheists refuted

[Postmaster]

in that case nothing can be explained.

 

[Postmaster]

I think the most fudemental understanding of anything is that which you presently know to be the most accurate (metaphysics or science) Which means even when we discover something it will eventually become the past. Everything has to be maintained thats the catch of life. Or one could say Progressive revelation.

 

[Nick_A]

I think the most fudemental understanding of anything is that which you presently know to be the most accurate. Which means even when we discover something it will eventually become the past. Everything has to be maintained thats the catch of life. Or one could say Progressive revelation.

Yes, this is the revelation Freud received which compelled him to write:

"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not been able to answer... the great question that has never been answered: what does a woman want?" Sigmund Freud

As men, what we think we know of women will become a thing of the past. This simply could not be endured if they didn't offer us necessary and delightful compensations. So the question becomes what do we really need to understand?

 

[c0de]

in that case nothing can be explained.

The person I responded to said that
everything can be explained... Go and
ask a physicist how much can be "explained"
and then you will really be in awe.

I believe in revelation.
A bitter pill to swallow for many,
I am not forcing it down anyone's
throat. Just making an argument
for my own. I am obligated to do
this much.

 

[Nick_A]

The person I responded to said that
everything can be explained... Go and
ask a physicist how much can be "explained"
and then you will really be in awe.

I believe in revelation.
A bitter pill to swallow for many,
I am not forcing it down anyone's
throat. Just making an argument
for my own. I am obligated to do
this much.

I've experienced the results of your revelations. This further proves the necessity of uniting revelation with common sense for it to profit rather than destroy us.

 

[c0de]

I've experienced the results of your revelations.

... don't even get me started on your "cave" Nick...

 

[Nick_A]

And don't even get me started on your cave Nick...

You lack the humility to become open to understand it. It is this same collective lack of humility that though normal for the collective human condition, sustains this artificial divide between atheism and religion.

"In the intellectual order, the virtue of humility is nothing more nor less than the power of attention." Simone Weil

To begin to understand the value of humility over arguing is an essential step to becoming a Man in the real meaning of the word. Not many are willing to be men.

 

[c0de]

You lack the humility to become open to understand it.

Thanks for the lecture on humility Nick.

It means a lot coming from someone who has
openly stated that he is unwilling to submit to
any dogmatic revelation out of simple pride.

Btw, when you imply here that you can understand
revelation better then me, thats counter-productive
to your own argument of "humility"... Just a heads up.

 

[Postmaster]

Yes, this is the revelation Freud received which compelled him to write:



As men, what we think we know of women will become a thing of the past. This simply could not be endured if they didn't offer us necessary and delightful compensations. So the question becomes what do we really need to understand?

I'm so glad you meniotned this because I also bleieve there is a signficiant connection to why women bahave this way. Women have a natrual evolutionary hardwired social intelligence attraction switch and social intelligence is something that is constantly changing.

 

[Nick_A]

Thanks for the constructive criticism Nick.

It means a lot coming from someone who has
openly stated that he is unwilling to submit to
any dogmatic revelation out of simple pride.

Btw, when you imply here that you can understand
revelation better then me, thats counter-productive
to your own argument of "humility"... Just a heads up.

No, I'm just willing to be more open, more impartial than you, which opens oneself to help from above or as you would say: revelation. Where you openly submit to something you define as "revelation," without any form of inner verification as to its merit, I appreciate the power of attachment which allows us to "test the spirits" as advised by John

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too" Simone weil

This what we do. All this righteous indignation is simply the results of the pain endured from arguing without detachment and the power of attention.

The Buddhist parable of the Burning House has initiated this fomous saying: "Only fools fight in a burning house." I'm just more open to admitting it. The longer we fight in a burning house, the longer we remain unaware that it is burning.

You want to accept a conception of "revelation" and fight others who deny it. Buddhism suggests it is just fools fighing in a burning house and Plato says it is just people in the darkness of a cave supporting cave conceptions. I believe that it is through detachment that we can become more aware of what we lose from fighting in a burning house or in a cave so as to become more open to help from above (revelation) for the human condition.

 

[c0de]

No, I'm just willing to be more open, more impartial than you, which opens oneself to help from above or as you would say: revelation.

Well, I appreciate your directness. I am given to it myself.
But that is not what I was concerned about, but since you
have responded so politely, I will let it go.

You want to accept a conception of "revelation" and fight others who deny it.

Dude... all I asked was "what is gravity"?

 

[Friend]

I search about this amazing book

Gerald Schroeder - Books - The Hidden Face Of God

The Hidden Face of God will open a world of science to religious believers, and it will cause skeptics to rethink some of their deepest beliefs.

 

[wil]

Dude... all I asked was "what is gravity"?

And I guess you got your answer, by the gravity of his response.

 

[c0de]

And I guess you got your answer, by the gravity of his response.

(sigh)... ive been spending waaaaay too much time on this forum........

its starting to mess with my head man...

well... ... time to go to fencing practice...

hmm... wait ... i think i see a pattern here (lol)...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste friend,

thank you for the post.

I know how to think atheists

do you mean to say that you know how to think like a person that holds no belief in a creator deity?

even if that were so, and i seems manifestly not given your views of a creator deity, are you suggesting that all atheists, in all places, have the same reason for being atheist?

In this subject I respond to this opinion of another Member here

who?

Therefore I indicated to the elements which all components of the universe is composed of it .
It is impossible that there is an element of oxygen and hydrogen in nature as a result of the transformations natural automatic.. At an unchanged rates ...

clearly, since there is oxygen and hydrogen it is not impossible.. moreover, all particles change.. heck, you realize that to a large extent that question is meaningless given the quantum nature of..well... quantum particles.

I know that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the elements.. But creatures consisting of organic materials which is composed of origin from elements and atoms ...The most important of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen..

if you know that the ToE has nothing to do with origins why are you basing your apologetic on it?

general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic ..this means that the changes in the life in this world ( according to the theory) is possible at the level of the cell and it's components, including smaller elements of its composition.

the general theory? what does this mean? are you speaking of cosmology now or still biology? i would suspect biology but i'm not sure given that i'm not aware of anything known as "general theory". perhaps you are meaning to indicate what is called the Modern Synthesis which adds new data to the ToE and a subsequent explanation to correlate the new data?

The idea of atheism is linked to the absence of creator for the universe..

well... sure... it's specifically link to a lack of belief in deities of any sort though some beings confine such a definition in the manner which are you indicating.. i do, for instance.

The solar system.. it is part of the universe

The atom...comprising all the elements of life

It is impossible that this installation atomic elements similar to the format of the of the astronomical solar !!! ... is linked to self-development...such as the theory of evolution .​

molecules don't actually look like that, you know?

they don't orbit in a fixed path nor, for that matter, can they be rightly said to orbit at all... they are in a quantum cloud, here's a bit about the electron cloud: Electron cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamic Voice

ok.. so you copied it from that website. that website, however, doesn't say where it got the quote from. though i note that somewhat lackadasical referencing is not uncommon amongst the works of Dr. Naik.

Well ... Is it possible to established building without maker or creator ?

by it's very definition a building (something that humans build) cannot be built without human(s) building it. so all buildings have creators. you, too, can create a building if you'd like.

Is it possible to develop sand unify with iron or steel to form building which designed in complex manner (or even simple) ??

sure.... i'm not seeing where this part of your discussion is going...

It is like the idea of the theory of evolution to a large extent.

oh..

well.. if you think that is so then i have very little chance of persuading you otherwise, i'd imagine.

suffice it to say that i do not agree with your analogy and the implications which are drawing from it.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.

How can man become, despite the abundance of material required to construct him, unless there is an architect to design his construction...good point. The best thing random chance (on a non sentient level), has shown on macro scale so far is a hurricane, or a mutated gene (causing death), or a space shuttle burning up on re-entry...

Blue eyes, brown skin, thick soled feet, are not random mutations at all.

why do you think random chance has anything to do with chemistry?

hurricanes are not random nor chance, by the way.
The Space Place :: How Do Hurricanes Form?

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste code,

thank you for the post.

I was actually replying to the quote of Francis Bacon....

you said:

"This is why none of the great scientific minds were atheists."

which is an interesting bias to me. this implies that scientists that are atheists are not "great scientific minds" but that certainly doesn't tell us what a "great scientific mind" is except one that believes in a creator deity which seems, on the surface, to be unrelated to the question of "great scientific minds" or even such a broad term in the first place.

indeed it seems that applying the criteria of a belief in deities to be given the title of "great scientific mind" undercuts the whole idea of the value of ones scientific mind with the idea of belief... i.e. if you believe the right things you are a great scientific mind even though you may, in fact, be just an ordinary scientific mind.

everyone has biases so i'm not saying anything about that other than i find this particular one to be interesting... and i'd imagine a great many monotheists feel the same way though they've said it as such that i can recall.

I never said I base my religious views on science dude.

nor did i indicate that you had. i said that doing so would be incorrect.. i also indicated that basing one religious views, or lack thereof, on the opinions of others is equally incorrect and encouraged beings to base their views on their own experiences and considerations.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Code,

thank you for the post.

What is "gravity"?

a quick internet search delivered more than 3,000,000 hits to this very question.

there are, as you probably know, a variety of answers that can be given depending on the age of the data they are using to answer the question. quite simply gravity is the resultant force due to magnetic and electric accelerations, expressed in field spin around matter.

there is, indeed, no unified theory that has been wholeheartedly accepted.. string theory does combine Gravity, Weak/Strong and Electromagnetic but the observations are still some time away given the equipment failure at LHC.

Where does "gravity" come from?

magnetic and electric accelerations.

What causes it?

see above.

Giving a name to such phenomenon does
not mean that you have explained them.

whilst true enough this is a philosophical statement and not particularly relevant to this subject alone. humans cannot explain the taste of an orange to someone that has never tried one.

of course as this is a chat forum on religion rather than science

metta,

~v

 

[c0de]

Vaj,

Dude you are confusing the word "cause" with "associated".
The truth is no one has any idea where Gravity comes from.
If you do not believe me, go and ask any physicist. That is
what our professor told us.

As for string theory, that is not technically even a science (yet).

But you know what... i dont know if I want to be arguing with you
on this thread man... I usually only ever engage in argument when
someone else starts the argument by attacking religion etc....
this thread is kind of an attack on atheists... and... I don't really
want to be taking part in any such attacks....

so i will take my leave dude.


*Salutes... walks away*

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Code,

thank you for the post.

Vaj,

Dude you are confusing the word "cause" with "associated".

quite possible though given my usage of the term it wouldn't seem to be so in this particular instance. i grant that i often use terms without a clear understanding of their meaning, that is often the case even for a native speaker of a language, is it not?

The truth is no one has any idea where Gravity comes from.
If you do not believe me, go and ask any physicist. That is
what our professor told us.

may i ask why it is that you think professor is correct about this assertion? i have several books on my book shelf that talk about gravity and quantum theories of gravity and all of that sort of thing, they all seem to agree on what gravity is and how we human sorts experience it. they do, however, disagree on the why's of the question.

As for string theory, that is not technically even a science (yet).

oh? i wonder how it is that there are string theorists then? perhaps you are indicating the lack of intersubjective evidence regarding strings or the variations of string theory itself?

But you know what... i dont know if I want to be arguing with you
on this thread man... I usually only ever engage in argument when
someone else starts the argument by attacking religion etc....
this thread is kind of an attack on atheists... and... I don't really
want to be taking part in any such attacks....

that is a refreshing attitude usually attacks on atheists get the monotheists together like nothing else.

my contention is that the apologetic is ill-informed about science and atheists more than trying to discuss science per se or atheists for that matter though, of course, such is necessary to explain why the apologetic is ill founded.

metta,

~v