Religion and atheism "the everlasting battle"

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

A feeling in your heart is not proof and so far it is not testable. No one would deny some people have spiritual feelings. In fact a team has claimed that they can induce such feelings in patients by stimulating part of their brain with electrodes. QUOTE]

Mmm.

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

If you can stimulate part of the brain to achieve spiritual feelings. Then they are saying it is material feelings. The findings would be interesting possibly. But since Science doesn't know much about the Brain. The findings do not hold much credit. So they are saying everything is a chemical combination, so according to this you can take certain drugs to make you feel happy. So drugs are greater than God. This is the same tactic used again and again. When we die that is it, so why are we searching for the truth? What is the truth? That we are Dead? It's very contradictive statement. And if you feel when you die that is it, then what is the point of your exsistance? Knowledge? Well your Knowledge says 'when we die that is it'. So it's a vicouse circle. Death death and more death. Saying we only have no spiritual feelings, is exactly what is expected from somebody whos believe death to be all-in-all.

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

Can you get this machine they used to induce spiritual feelings on the market? ! This would be preferable to using drugs.

What do they base these feelings on? When I have spiritual feelings it is not really a feeling of hapiness. It is something else. Peace and Happiness. It goes beyond anything. Anyway, tell me when this drugs out. I will surely test it out and compare it to 'my so-called feelings'. Until then I will get druged up on these feelings I have.

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

Oxford dictionary on-line:


practical

• adjective 1 of or concerned with practice rather than theory. 2 likely to be effective in real circumstances; feasible. 3 suitable for a particular purpose. 4 realistic in approach. 5 skilled at manual tasks. 6 so nearly the case that it can be regarded as so; virtual.

• noun Brit. an examination or lesson involving the practical application of theories and procedures.

— ORIGIN from Greek praktikos ‘concerned with action’.

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

If you can stimulate part of the brain to achieve spiritual feelings. Then they are saying it is material feelings.

Well scientists would more or less imply that, but it is not certain. Perhaps God tickles that part of your brain when he wants you to think a certain way?

The findings would be interesting possibly. But since Science doesn't know much about the Brain. The findings do not hold much credit.

Actually if they hold up they hold a great deal of credit. They tell us some useful things about how the brain works. And I googled the studies and these findings go back to the 1930s.

So they are saying everything is a chemical combination, so according to this you can take certain drugs to make you feel happy. So drugs are greater than God. This is the same tactic used again and again.

I agree it is the same tactic and it is no better this time than last time. Who says drugs are greater than God? Why do you feel a need to invent claims I have not made?

When we die that is it, so why are we searching for the truth? What is the truth? That we are Dead? It's very contradictive statement. And if you feel when you die that is it, then what is the point of your exsistance? Knowledge? Well your Knowledge says 'when we die that is it'. So it's a vicouse circle. Death death and more death. Saying we only have no spiritual feelings, is exactly what is expected from somebody whos believe death to be all-in-all.

I do not know why you are searching for the Truth, but from where I sit most people get by fine without thinking about these things. Who knows what the Truth is? The only truth I know is that we will all find out soon enough. Too soon in fact. I don't have any problems with the reasons for my existence and neither does the other 99 percent of humanity. My knowledge says that when we die we do not know what happens next. You may believe, but you do not, and cannot, know.

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

My knowledge says that when we die we do not know what happens next. You may believe, but you do not, and cannot, know.

Isn't that being ignorant? I thought Scientists we very intelligent and knew everything.:giggling:

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

Isn't that being ignorant? I thought Scientists we very intelligent and knew everything.:giggling:

I think we established the limits about what you know of scientists some time ago.

Science needs a test. If you can test it, you can talk about it. Death is not readily susceptible to tests because, well, so few people come back.

 

[...]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

But what about all the things that science can't prove, but can be seen so we know they exist. Does science just deny their existence?

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

But what about all the things that science can't prove, but can be seen so we know they exist. Does science just deny their existence?

If they can be seen why wouldn't science talk about them?

All science is about is a form of logical, rigorous, testable methods for studying the real world. Anything that can be examined and tested can be thought about in a logical and rigorous way. The problem with religion is so many claims cannot be tested. As I say, all a scientist needs is a handle on a question, the right question, the right experiment. The scientist may not be right, but others will follow and correct mistakes.

 

[ISDhillon]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

Hello folks,:happy:

I am going to make a generalization here and say that all humans go through life missing something, and that something is only found in god. So when you believe in god then you accept he does exist, because your existence makes sense and their is no longer anything missing. Satisfaction of your existence requires more it requires spiritual experience.

ISDhillon

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

I think we established the limits about what you know of scientists some time ago.

Science needs a test. If you can test it, you can talk about it. Death is not readily susceptible to tests because, well, so few people come back.

Daeth is a fact

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

If they can be seen why wouldn't science talk about them?

All science is about is a form of logical, rigorous, testable methods for studying the real world. Anything that can be examined and tested can be thought about in a logical and rigorous way. The problem with religion is so many claims cannot be tested. As I say, all a scientist needs is a handle on a question, the right question, the right experiment. The scientist may not be right, but others will follow and correct mistakes.

Are you descibing the big bang theory? How an explosion creates? What instance do we see that an explosion can create?

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

Are you descibing the big bang theory? How an explosion creates? What instance do we see that an explosion can create?

No I am not. But I could be. We can still "hear" the echos of the Big Bang and more importantly it describes the majority of the observable data. So it is a good theory and has been widely, if provisionally, accepted. What is your point?

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

I am going to make a generalization here and say that all humans go through life missing something, and that something is only found in god. So when you believe in god then you accept he does exist, because your existence makes sense and their is no longer anything missing. Satisfaction of your existence requires more it requires spiritual experience.

I know atheists who seem perfectly satisifed to me. They do not seem to be missing anything at all. Perhaps you need to restrict your sample size?

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

No I am not. But I could be. We can still "hear" the echos of the Big Bang and more importantly it describes the majority of the observable data. So it is a good theory and has been widely, if provisionally, accepted. What is your point?

Sound is exsistant is everything we see, I think that is Scientifically proven. Water also has sound, air has sound waves, everything that exsists consists of certain amount of sound waves. Religiously this is accepted. That sound can 'create'. Without sound nothing is exsisting.

Though I find it hard to believe an explosion can systematcially create a Universe. An explosion according to the Laws of Nature destroys. It doesn't create. Finding sounds waves in the atmosphere is not enough evidence.

You would according to 'real science' go about creating a small object with an explosion. This is REAL science. Providing concreate [pardon the pun] Practicial basis for this theory. Otherwise it is simply a theory.

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

Sound is exsistant is everything we see, I think that is Scientifically proven.

Not really. Sound needs a medium to travel through. It is transmitted by changes in pressure and that requires something that will compress, no matter how small that compression might be. Air for instance. Vaccuum does not compress because it does not contain any medium and so it does not transmit sound. All those Science Fiction films with explosions in Space? Utter nonsense. Admittedly there is no such thing as a perfect vaccuum but it does not affect this post.

By "echo" I mean microwave background noise.

Water also has sound, air has sound waves, everything that exsists consists of certain amount of sound waves. Religiously this is accepted. That sound can 'create'. Without sound nothing is exsisting.

Uh huh. I think that science and religion are two separate things.

Though I find it hard to believe an explosion can systematcially create a Universe. An explosion according to the Laws of Nature destroys. It doesn't create. Finding sounds waves in the atmosphere is not enough evidence.

An argument from incredulity is not a good argument. Just because it sounds complex doesn't mean it is impossible. Besides, the explosion of the Big Bang did not systematically create anything except hot plasma and slightly heavier elements beyond hydrogen. This plasma exploded outwards, and gradually cooled, and condensed out of which Stars were, eventually formed, and hence planets and so on.

You would according to 'real science' go about creating a small object with an explosion. This is REAL science. Providing concreate [pardon the pun] Practicial basis for this theory. Otherwise it is simply a theory.

Well with hydrogen bombs we fairly effectively prove our ability to do on a small scale what the Big Bang did - fuse light elements together to create heavier ones and release a lot of energy.

 

[Pankaja dasa]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

An argument from incredulity is not a good argument. Just because it sounds complex doesn't mean it is impossible. Besides, the explosion of the Big Bang did not systematically create anything except hot plasma and slightly heavier elements beyond hydrogen. This plasma exploded outwards, and gradually cooled, and condensed out of which Stars were, eventually formed, and hence planets and so on.

In our Books called The Srimad Bhagavatam which has been in exsistance since 1400BC, mentions 'Planatery Systems'. And the movements of the Sun Planet. Now how did people in those days (which Science considers them to be unintelligent) know all this. (By the way it is known fact Science nicked most of it from Vedic Culture, then gave it their own spin). This is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5, www.vedabase.net

SB:.5.22.2
Sri Sukadeva Gosvami clearly answered: When a potter’s wheel is moving and small ants located on that big wheel are moving with it, one can see that their motion is different from that of the wheel because they appear sometimes on one part of the wheel and sometimes on another. Similarly, the signs and constellations, with Sumeru and Dhruvaloka on their right, move with the wheel of time, and the antlike sun and other planets move with them. The sun and planets, however, are seen in different signs and constellations at different times. This indicates that their motion is different from that of the zodiac and the wheel of time itself.
==

SB:5.23.2:
Established by the supreme will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the polestar, which is the planet of Maharaja Dhruva, constantly shines as the central pivot for all the stars and planets. The unsleeping, invisible, most powerful time factor causes these luminaries to revolve around the polestar without cessation.

I am not saying I understand this verse. But this describes the universe as 3-4 dimentional. Not linear. (like a really bad PC Game). Since you know a lot about Stars and such. I'm sure you can figure out what it's saying.

Bhagavatam actually says the Sun doesn' revolve all on it's own by Magic. It's movement depends on God.

Well with hydrogen bombs we fairly effectively prove our ability to do on a small scale what the Big Bang did - fuse light elements together to create heavier ones and release a lot of energy.

 

[root]

Re: Islam and atheism "the everlasting battle"

I found this thread quite interesting and would after reading it conclude the following:

"Ignorance to what a theory is and the differing types of theories misrepresentative of what in reality they represent. To argue against science whilst displaying such monstrous ignorance towards it is actually representing nothing more than a fools debate."

Root