The Human belief systems.

[David Maes]

Unfortunately Mr. Meas, the touched tend to utter their beliefs in the science forums. Robert has provided more than enough forums for the expression of the spiritual. These people believe it is their righteous duty and human right to convert everyone to their bullsh#t. I do not impose my concept on the spiritual forums and should not have you spiritualist imposing your beliefs on the science forums. MUST I MAKE IT CLEARER THAN THAT?

Why are you so emotional Dave?
You are not uttering one of your beliefs I hope?

Unless you can prove it, I consider it just like a dream.


Why actually are you so against belief?

I feel more like an agnost; but I don't have any trouble with pure positivism, just like I don't have any trouble with pure belief. And why being against the mixture of both? Don't you think it can be very interesting also?

Another thing...
Most of the people on this planet believe in a deity or are religious or at least believe in something.
Imagen science would prove that there is no deity and there is no hereafter for example.
Do you think it would be a good idea to prove that?

Taking away people's god?

I think it's not only about physical survival, but about emotional survival as well.

Is science your god??

I think as long as humanity has emotions, humanity will have god(s).
And why wouldn't we?

The fact that we have them does not prove their existence nor do they prove the falsity of them/him.

[dleviwing]

David;
I have moved your post to its own thread to allow me to answer your questions without further disruption of the Motion thread with such off topic posts.

Why are you so emotional Dave?

I am not an emotional person but I am very analytical. Raising four children I leaned to appear emotional in order to give them the illusion that I was angry with what they did. Some people never think you are serious unless you yell or scream; that’s very unfortunate that I must treat adults like children to make them understand they are misbehaving.

Why actually are you so against belief?

I am not against peoples belief systems unless those systems impose on the rights of others. Posting religious beliefs in a science forum is violating my rights and is simply RUDE. Posting off topic posts in a members thread is also a violation of that members rights and simply RUDE. Even though I am an atheist I do not impose or promote that belief system on others and expect the same from them. Can you say the same for Christians, Moslems, Jewish, or most other religions? Many people require such philosophies to instill right and wrong in people of a society and others simply use them to instill fear and control. Governments do not need sub-governments within them!

Another thing...
Most of the people on this planet believe in a deity or are religious or at least believe in something. Imagine science would prove that there is no deity and there is no hereafter for example. Do you think it would be a good idea to prove that?

By all means if proof exists it would be extremely important to release such information. Do I think it would make a difference with the believers? –NO.

Is science your god??

I is a philosophy of analytical methodology I accept to determine truth. That does not mean there are not those who are misusing it or attempting to discredit it. These are the people I object to most; ignorant and stupidity have no place in any field of science. Calling a religion science is oxymoronic.

I think as long as humanity has emotions, humanity will have god(s).
And why wouldn't we?

The fact that we have them does not prove their existence nor do they prove the falsity of them/him.

That’s why we developed science; to separate fact from fiction!

BTW: My apologies for the type-O misspelling of your name.

[Graybeard]

Another thing...
Most of the people on this planet believe in a deity or are religious or at least believe in something. Imagine (if) science would prove that there is no deity and there is no hereafter for example. Do you think it would be a good idea to prove that?

Taking away people's god?

Dear Dave (Maes) ... I don't think it is ever a good idea to bite half the bullet. However I agree, like you, that Scientists should not be missionaries.

But what is to be done? To take away peoples Gods because they are only half-truths (what does that make the other half ?) If Science is true and you accept it then you can no longer support people in their delusional beliefs. This would be a betrayal of your fellow man. Its not so much a question of un-deceiving others as more about making Science available through education to all, and their future generations.

I think it's not only about physical survival, but about emotional survival as well.......

I think as long as humanity has emotions, humanity will have god(s).
And why wouldn't we?

Because there is no way to solve the worlds problems other than through a scientific understanding of first causes, wouldn't you agree? We are adults in evolution now and we must put far from us childish things.

cool bananas ... greg

[sillysally]

I think as long as humanity has emotions, humanity will have god(s).
And why wouldn't we?

The fact that we have them does not prove their existence nor do they prove the falsity of them/him.

This is pathetic.

Sorry but everyone is responsible for being able to control themselves. When people start wigging out because science can demonstrate how everything happened, those emotional people will need to either be sedated or locked up so they don't impose on our freedom from their uncontrollable emotions. Like suicide bombers knocking on your door because they care and want to save you. That's all feeling, nothing more nothing less.

[sillysally]

I don't think you're pathetic David Maes, just the thought of having to protect a person's fantasy is pathetic. I like making everything real.

[dleviwing]

The whole thing boils down to the fact that science is a METHODOLOGY and religion is an IDEOLOGY. It’s the apples and oranges analogy.

[unwritten]

aren't apples and oranges both fruit?
true they grow under different conditions,

science & religion both have their explanations for fruit
but if pitted one against the other,
or if only one may be chosen,
then to be a scientist is to say i do not believe in religion,
but do the religious say i do not believe in science?

to me,
one way believes everything is the result of some unknown power,
and the other believes everything is the result of some known power,

both believe in power,
so why would they argue for their way of:
(seeing, perceiving, drawing conclusions) > believing...
(why the power struggle?)

so now what? what if they're both wrong, or both only
partially right?
a Theory of Everything
would imply that both would be factored into the
equation-prayer

[melanie]

As a human being that was never really born how could i ever have any beliefs except for the idea of beliefs which is just a human conceptual construct of belief with no real foundation to believe in a belief

so i's belief that there is no such thing as beliefs and i believe that

ideas come from thinking but where does thinking come from .. GO(o)D

[Profpat]

Hi Melanie and Unwritten;

It was Rene Descartes who stated " I THINK THEREFORE I AM " I say " I THINK I THINK BUT I"M NOT SURE "

Einstein said " I WANT TO KNOW GOD'S THOUGHTS, THE REST ARE DETAILS "

Georges Lemantre the originator of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

I think God and science go hand in hand. And so if one is dismissive of one or the other is to limit your exploration.

Best to you both,

Pat

[dleviwing]

aren't apples and oranges both fruit?
true they grow under different conditions,

Unwritten;
Both science and religion are ologies (fruit)(branches of learning). Science is based on measured or observed facts whereas religion is solely based on belief by the human psyche. Scientist do not say there is no god; they simply say there is NO PROOF of a god. Atheist say there is no god and that is another belief system; one I tend to adopt.

People should have the freedom to choose their belief systems without being cohered, intimidated, or fear of reprisals. No one should die by another’s hand because they do not abide by another’s belief system unless that system condones killing and the individual acts upon that belief; those individuals must be stopped.