• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is religion about avoiding reality?

No, the nature of them is not up in the air.Science does not take the position that they could be anything, including sentient. There is zero evidence to suggest that.

As far as I know, science takes the position that Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist. Again, as far as I know, notions of their nature beyond mere existence are nothing more than interested fascination and conjecture.

ANYTHING else with regard to the nature and qualities of these things is not defined meaning that everything regarding its state of being is included as possible.

Do you have a link that supports the notion that "science" absolutely rejects the possibility that either or both of these never experienced, so far un-experienceable, things are absolutely NOT sentient?
 
As far as I know, science takes the position that Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist. Again, as far as I know, notions of their nature beyond mere existence are nothing more than interested fascination and conjecture.

ANYTHING else with regard to the nature and qualities of these things is not defined meaning that everything regarding its state of being is included as possible.

Do you have a link that supports the notion that "science" absolutely rejects the possibility that either or both of these never experienced, so far un-experienceable, things are absolutely NOT sentient?

You really fail to understand how science works. Hint: Science is not about proving what is NOT.
 
How often does it have to be explained to you that this is wrong.

We know something is causing more gravity that the normal mass we observe can account for. This we call dark matter. We know it is there.

We know something is causing the universe to expand. This we call dark energy.

Both of these are observed by empirical means. Just like electricity.

Neither of these are observed nor can they be.

The EFECTS are observed, but neither Dark Matter nor Dark Energy are, or can be, observed. If they could be observed, they would have been observed.

Why are you having a problem grasping this? As an example, I cannot observe you in this forum, but I can read your post, an effect of you, so I assume you exist.

You, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are known to me only because of the effects that are observable.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your posts for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents it as if it has not been edited?
 
You really fail to understand how science works. Hint: Science is not about proving what is NOT.

The post to which I responded indicated that "science" had concluded that Dark Matter was not sentient.

Your comment needs to be directed to that poster.

My comment indicates that the nature of anything that is entirely unknown is unknown. Nothing more and nothing less.

As such, ANYTHING can be assumed and really must be stated as a hypothesis in order to investigate the possibilities.

Starting any scientific consideration by disallowing particular possibilities is a great way to get it wrong.

F'instance: "The Earth is the Center of the Universe" created a whole set of mathematics showing why the planets and the Sun all orbiting the Earth traveled in such odd patterns in the sky.

Proceeding with the idea that anything can be possible and testing each and every hypothesis using the scientific method has been shown to be the best way to conduct science.
 
@OP.....In the era and locale I was brought up ( small town, primarily Baptist country in SE Okla./ 50's and 60's), religion was more about avoiding eternal hellfire than reality. Fear was the motivator and eternal fire and brimstone was the consequences of not accepting the teachings.

But if you found out all of that was a lie, would it change how you view God/faith/spirituality?
 
But if you found out all of that was a lie, would it change how you view God/faith/spirituality?

Well, it would change my view about a 'vengeful God' claim to some degree But it wouldn't change my views on religion as a whole. My study of the data concludes men created God concepts in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, and in some cases to control others. That said, my personal testimony still stands. I'm certainly not here to try and convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince anyone to renounce his/her respective religious beliefs, and if one derives solace from their beliefs as long as they don't attempt to force them upon others....I consider that a good thing. ( for them )
 
Well, it would change my view about a 'vengeful God' claim to some degree But it wouldn't change my views on religion as a whole. My study of the data concludes men created God concepts in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, and in some cases to control others. That said, my personal testimony still stands. I'm certainly not here to try and convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince anyone to renounce his/her respective religious beliefs, and if one derives solace from their beliefs as long as they don't attempt to force them upon others....I consider that a good thing. ( for them )

True LM...I've always found you respectful, even though you don't see the need for yourself...thanks...
 
Each one of us experiences life and death and their insights uniquely.

You've piqued my interest. Tell me about your experience with death, and what insight you gained from it.


OM
 
I did indeed see that afterwards. A logical inquiry to an otherwise questionable (at face value) claim.


OM

I can't remember anything about what it was like before I was born and imagine it will feel the same when I'm dead.
 
I can't remember anything about what it was like before I was born and imagine it will feel the same when I'm dead.

Same here; that's pretty much why the claim of "personal experience with death" jumped off the page at me.


OM
 
Same here; that's pretty much why the claim of "personal experience with death" jumped off the page at me.


OM

I have witnessed the death of two people, that's a personal experience but they didn't mention anything about what it is like to be dead.
 
I think because religion has been so deeply ingrained (brain-washed if you'd like) into our society so much, that it does help people cope with all kinds of things.
It's perhaps the ultimate placebo effect, but it's impossible to deny.

Well said.

Simply remembering "Thou shall not murder." during a time of stress seems pretty important.
 
The post to which I responded indicated that "science" had concluded that Dark Matter was not sentient.

Your comment needs to be directed to that poster.

My comment indicates that the nature of anything that is entirely unknown is unknown. Nothing more and nothing less.

As such, ANYTHING can be assumed and really must be stated as a hypothesis in order to investigate the possibilities.

Starting any scientific consideration by disallowing particular possibilities is a great way to get it wrong.

F'instance: "The Earth is the Center of the Universe" created a whole set of mathematics showing why the planets and the Sun all orbiting the Earth traveled in such odd patterns in the sky.

Proceeding with the idea that anything can be possible and testing each and every hypothesis using the scientific method has been shown to be the best way to conduct science.

No, the post did not say science had concluded they are not sentient. The post said that science only says what the evidences supports and suggests. It does not blindly speculate, based on nothing. So if science had any evidence that something was sentient, it would present that evidence. Science does not ever say that anything is possible. Science always requires evidence.
 
You've piqued my interest. Tell me about your experience with death, and what insight you gained from it.


OM

No. Do you disagree with my statement?
 
No. Do you disagree with my statement?

If you refuse to expound upon it, then there is nothing for me yet to agree with. It's a very vague statement, but would appear to suggest that you are familiar with what it is like to be dead.


OM
 
Other sources of insight besides dead people? Seriously?

But okay; I'll play it straight. I don't know what your sources of insight are if you don't have dead people to depend on to testify to whatever. Each one of us experiences life and death and their insights uniquely.

No. Do you disagree with my statement?

We were wondering how you got your insight into being dead. Share it with us.
 
Why even pose it as a question when you're making a statement? Be honest and remove the question mark.
 
But you don’t see at all. I’m not afraid of the dark. That’s you projecting your own fear, fear you hope you’ve conquered. I think that when you’re no longer afraid, you won’t need to lash out at others.

My point is that I was never afraid of the dark, I was never in need of a belief in a special fairy who would save me from death. Death is the end. Get over it. Unless you have some sort of evidence that there is something else you are just wishing on hot air out of your arse.
 
An excellent video. Aron's primary theme is that the positions held by those in any debate on the subject are incompatible, in that "faith is an irrational position" and that "a rational person believes only what is indicated, and they're tentative even then", therefore nothing can be accomplished by such a venture.

"...they (rational people) may not believe everything completely...so we consider other options where there is uncertainty...rational people understand that what they believe is not a matter of choice, but we accept what the evidence compels us to believe, and our minds will obligately change according to our understanding of the facts."

Whereas "faith is the very opposite of that being an assertion of ~ an unwarranted assertion of unreasonable conviction assumed without reason and defended against all reason. It is unwise to believe anything without reservation, without question or without reason, but faith demands all three of these things at once, and that is irrational by definition". He identifies many of the techniques one will face in such a debate scenario such as the use of false dichotomies, arguments from ignorance and authority, goal post shifts and gish gallops, among others.

I did laugh at how, in debate, he has "to disprove every empty unsupported absurdity that every idiot ever hallucinated". My experience with creationists (especially the 'Answers in Genesis' apologists) is quite similar in that many of the publicly vociferous are intellectually dishonest by employing many of the techniques he relates (especially the constant goal post shifting, reversal of the burden of proof, the use of the non sequitur, etc.).

Yep, any faith in anything makes people do exactly that.

Some are rational in everything except their particular faith bit of the world.
 
Neither of these are observed nor can they be.

The EFECTS are observed, but neither Dark Matter nor Dark Energy are, or can be, observed. If they could be observed, they would have been observed.

Why are you having a problem grasping this? As an example, I cannot observe you in this forum, but I can read your post, an effect of you, so I assume you exist.

You, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are known to me only because of the effects that are observable.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your posts for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents it as if it has not been edited?

The effects of electricity are all we observe about it. Still know it is there.

Your ramble has no substance.
 
Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.- Wendell Johnson
 
Back
Top Bottom