Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here we go again. How hard is this to understand? Apparently very difficult. Atheism is not a religion. It is not a philosophy. It is not a belief system. Atheism is a belief like off is a TV channel. And the idea that science does NOT support atheism is even more ludicrous. In fact, the opposite is true. Neither science nor rational thought supports the idea that an immortal invisible deity created the universe, is responsible for everything that happens to us, and that we miraculously have eternal life after death. The fact that the majority of people are religious does not make religion true. It just makes it popular.
maybe not religion since there is are no deities, creeds or canon; but, it is blind faith in something that is unknowable without proof and only slight evidence for (and some evidence against).
thats why the premise in the op is broken: scientists dont do blind faith. the scientific method is a heavy proof and evidence based discipline.
From what I can tell Tolle repackaged a lot of Hindu and Buddhist beliefs to make them accessible (palatable?) to New Agers - some might say he even misappropriated them. I suppose as long as he recognizes the "original source" material of his beliefs then it's all well and good but I generally find it distasteful - perhaps he is just a conduit but when his work is referred to as "teachings" it sounds like he may be getting too much credit. At least understand that the basis is from religions far older than even Christianity and Judaism and not something devised in recent times.
maybe not religion since there is are no deities, creeds or canon; but, it is blind faith in something that is unknowable without proof and only slight evidence for (and some evidence against).
thats why the premise in the op is broken: scientists dont do blind faith. the scientific method is a heavy proof and evidence based discipline.
That is the myth the evangelists promote. Things are either true or false, depending on scientific evidence. Except most things have not been researched, and of things that have been researched, most evidence is not conclusive.
When laymen say "nobody knows exactly what...." or "nobody can say with 100% certainty..." it means something very different than when scientists say those things.
When laymen say "nobody knows exactly what...." or "nobody can say with 100% certainty..." it means something very different than when scientists say those things.
If you want to really find out what is or is not known to science you would have to do a lot of reading. Just believing the evangelists won't give you a realistic idea.
If you want to really find out what is or is not known to science you would have to do a lot of reading. Just believing the evangelists won't give you a realistic idea.
That was my point, yes. In fact my point was also you have to read more than pop-psych articles too.
One thing that illustrates this the most is how laypeople frequently misinterpret the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal, often to try to bolster a pop-psych argument.
That was my point, yes. In fact my point was also you have to read more than pop-psych articles too.
One thing that illustrates this the most is how laypeople frequently misinterpret the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal, often to try to bolster a pop-psych argument.
You have absolutely no idea what I have read. You have absolutely no reason to think my ideas are based on anything in pop psychology.
That was my point, yes. In fact my point was also you have to read more than pop-psych articles too.
One thing that illustrates this the most is how laypeople frequently misinterpret the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal, often to try to bolster a pop-psych argument.
That is the myth the evangelists promote. Things are either true or false, depending on scientific evidence. Except most things have not been researched, and of things that have been researched, most evidence is not conclusive.
the scientific method is dynamic based on evidence provided by evolving technology. after 40 years, the voyager telescope took photographs of pluto which now disproves its classification of its planet-hood because it doesnt have a regular orbit, rotates in the opposite direction and has very little atmosphere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was mostly referring to the generic 'you.'
