Spirituality
23 Apr 07
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwWhy does this concept of "nonexistence" terrify you so much?
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?
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwI am convinced that I exist. So why do you say I am doomed to non-existence?
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?
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?
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwEvolutionary theory has no stance on God or Gods. It is merely an explanation of a phenomenon.
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.
Do you find Relativity or Gravity to be "atheistic" theories too?
25 Apr 07
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.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by sven1000I 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.
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.
Sorry, but I don't believe your claim to be a scientist, if this is your opinion.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzOn an individual scale:
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.
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.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by josephwWe 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.
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?
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.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by sven1000I'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.
As a scientist, I would have to say this second statement is largely false.
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.