First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Narrow-minded viewpoints (materialism)
Posted 4/7/16


As an aspiring buddhist, and an atheist, I see it as a cultish reactionary movement in the scientific community against anything other than what they know. They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.



22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
Most scientists are agnostic.

People that throw science into their arguments and don't understand it use it that way.

Posted 4/7/16
Is it narrow-minded to be right?!?
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Hail_King_Kakao wrote:

Is it narrow-minded to be right?!?


....So long as one doesn't bastardize science to justify a 'Godless' belief system.

Posted 4/7/16

Hail_King_Kakao wrote:

Is it narrow-minded to be right?!?


You haven't proven it is right..
Posted 4/7/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

....So long as one doesn't bastardize science to justify a 'Godless' belief system.


Does it really bastardize it though.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

^Where I stand and most scientists do.


Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

-Einstein



Hail_King_Kakao wrote:
Does it really bastardize it though.


Abso-fucking-lutely.
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Sarah_Blight wrote:


You haven't proven it is right..


I suppose you're right but something something space teapot.

Also I've always considered my self a very atheist leaning agnostic.
Posted 4/7/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Abso-fucking-lutely.


Naw ok :C
Posted 4/7/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

^Where I stand and most scientists do.


Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

-Einstein



Hail_King_Kakao wrote:
Does it really bastardize it though.


Abso-fucking-lutely.


I don't claim to be a scientist, nor do I worship brilliant men for their achievements. I'm not attacking agnosticism, but denial of entertaining the idea of possibility, and rigid adherence to establishment's doctrine unless fucking Einstein says otherwise.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Sarah_Blight wrote:

I don't claim to be a scientist, nor do I worship brilliant men for their achievements. I'm not attacking agnosticism, but denial of entertaining the idea of possibility, and rigid adherence to establishment's doctrine unless fucking Einstein says otherwise.


Science doesn't prove the existence of a God anymore than it disproves it--is what I was getting at. Pretty much in agreement with you.

I was just clarifying it's not exactly the 'scientific community's' doing, rather than the people adopting science in a bastardized way to justify their declarative statements and arguments.


14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Sarah_Blight wrote:

As an aspiring buddhist, and an atheist,


So...you're telling everyone you're an atheist, but you believe in some fat smiling guy turning into a god and sitting in the clouds because he became smart. And that the squirrel stealing your bag of peanuts at the park might have been a trial lawyer twenty years ago.

Ooo-kay. Guess we're just trying everything to show off.

(Hint: An "Agnostic" doesn't know what his central belief is, an "atheist" attacks it. A bit of Webster's might help clarify things.)


They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.


Thing is, using your belief to make it do what you want to do to prove some frustrated political point is exactly what most atheists accuse "those crazy terrorists" and "Red-state book-burners" of doing.
They like Sci-ence! because they think it's "not on anyone's side", but that neutrality means it's not on theirs either. It just Is, and won't always do what you want to the Bad People.

And unless you can point to a Law of Gravity and show us a picture of it, Science is essentially blind faith in an invisible set of agreed-upon assumptions people guessed about the world, and leading their lives accordingly.
10640 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
I think instead of 'bastardizing' science, they're just using scientific and pseudoscientific claims to give legitimacy to their points of contention and baseless claims.

...and we already have people who have no idea what science is shouting down from the rooftops.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

gornotck wrote:

I think instead of 'bastardizing' science, they're just using scientific and pseudoscientific claims to give legitimacy to their points of contention and baseless claims.

...and we already have people who have no idea what science is shouting down from the rooftops.


Baseless is putting it mildly.

5039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 4/7/16

Sarah_Blight wrote:



As an aspiring buddhist, and an atheist, I see it as a cultish reactionary movement in the scientific community against anything other than what they know. They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.





What are you asking? I cant seem to figure out what it is you are trying to say. Are you saying atheism is bad? Materialism is bad? Religion is bad? I just cant figure it out.

Can the OP or anyone clear up what the question that is being debated here is?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.