Flat Earth

[JohnEmmett]

Sure there is. The evidence out there indicates that thought is a complex chemical reaction. No more complex chemical reactions means no more thought.

sure

 

[dlamberth]

you realize behavior will matter in the afterlife

The difference between us is that your living for beliefs in afterlife. The trajectory of having God as my reality IN this life is the path I'm pulled towards. A question I ask: If God isn't one's reality in their life, what do Lovers of God have left? And I don't think very much. At least it seems to be pretty low in importance. So what's left are afterlife hopes.

you may not realize beliefs matter

I think that gnostic experience matter way more. From what I've seen, gnosis experienced travels much deeper into ones Soul and psyche than do mental beliefs...and in the process have a greater effect towards having God as one's reality.

 

[dlamberth]

Sure there is. The evidence out there indicates that thought is a complex chemical reaction. No more complex chemical reactions means no more thought.

I'm having trouble finding the words that question the idea that what make up a life form, be it Human or otherwise, as being "thought". If there was an afterlife, "thought" isn't something I've consider as needed in that realm.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sorry, but you will need to provide support for your claims and conclusions. Otherwise, they have to be considered unreliable. Your rules, not mine.

The problem here is that at some point you have to consider some things you consider true to be foundational, and therefore usable for support for other things within your own personal paradigm. In order for these things to be considered to be true would dictate where that person has placed their own faith. That's one of the great ironies of atheism, within its ranks reside some of the most blindly religious people I've ever seen. They just bow to the god of illogical reasoning instead of another, and their scriptures state, 'and science said' rather than 'and God said'.

Science is, in the main, trusted because it has a history of demonstrably working and correcting its errors in an open and transparent way. Religious sources not so much.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Science is … trusted because it has a history of demonstrably working and correcting its errors

science adapts but atheists stay stuck

 

[Subduction Zone]

science adapts but atheists stay stuck

Why make such obviously false statements? What if I said the same about Buddhists? It would be just as true.

 

[JohnEmmett]

What if I said the same about Buddhists? It would be just as true.

you can say Buddhists stay stuck


however that is good


whereas atheism is detrimental

 

[Subduction Zone]

you can say Buddhists stay stuck


however that is good


whereas atheism is detrimental

How is atheism detrimental? I would think that false religious beliefs would be more harmful.

 

[JohnEmmett]

How is atheism detrimental? I would think that false religious beliefs would be more harmful.

the afterlife is a reality, hence you are in denial

 

[Subduction Zone]

the afterlife is a reality, hence you are in denial

No. If there was reliable evidence for it I would be in denial. What objective evidence is there of an afterlife? We know that there is not any scientific evidence, so I will lower the bar to objective evidence in general.

I think you are the one that may be in denial.

 

[JohnEmmett]

objective evidence

subjective evidence is fine

 

[Subduction Zone]

subjective evidence is fine

No, it really is not. Legally subjective evidence is rarely allowed into courtrooms. If you want to claim that someone is in denial you need something much stronger than subjective evidence.

But thanks for refuting your own claim.

 

[OnePath]

Science is, in the main, trusted because it has a history of demonstrably working and correcting its errors in an open and transparent way. Religious sources not so much.

That's a problem with science, there are always changes. It's not stable in the least. Besides, 'science' is still telling you that you are hurtling on a ball in the vacuum of space in multiple directions at over 2 million miles per hour, while a gravitational force that cannot be measured keeps planets, moons, and comets in a predictable orbit, all satellites around the earth in perfect order, the tides a predictable interval, and all while you can't feel or measure any of it. Sorry, I'm not that gullible.

 

[JohnEmmett]

No, it really is not.

you think this way and that's why you are atheist


I think differently and that's why I'm Buddhist

 

[Subduction Zone]

you think this way and that's why you are atheist


I think differently and that's why I'm Buddhist

I know so. And that is why if anyone is in denial it is you. One can find subjective evidence to support almost any claim. That makes it rather worthless. Objective evidence is evidence for whoever sees it. Objective evidence can support only one side of a story.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I know so. And that is why if anyone is in denial it is you.

you need to take responsibility for your views (subjective)


rather than let science take all responsibility (objective)


you already are responsible for your views (subjective)

~

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a problem with science, there are always changes. It's not stable in the least. Besides, 'science' is still telling you that you are hurtling on a ball in the vacuum of space in multiple directions at over 2 million miles per hour, while a gravitational force that cannot be measured keeps planets, moons, and comets in a predictable orbit, all satellites around the earth in perfect order, the tides a predictable interval, and all while you can't feel or measure any of it. Sorry, I'm not that gullible.

The fact that science is changing is its strength, not its weakness. You need to look at the pattern of the changes. The changes continually grow smaller as we zero in on the actual answer. Sources such as religious books do not have a self correcting mechanism. When they have a claim that has been shown to be wrong there is no way to fix that error.

And what makes you think that the gravitational force cannot be measured? That was first done a long long time ago. You should not say "I'm not that gullible" when your posts tell us the opposite. Do you know how we know that scientific theories are reliable? Because we can test them. They are continually tested. Sometimes, rather rarely these days, they need a minor tweak.

Tell me, do you think that your beliefs about a Flat Earth are rational?

 

[Subduction Zone]

you need to take responsibility for your views (subjective)


rather than let science take all responsibility (objective)


because you already are responsible for your views (subjective)

~

So you have absolutely nothing. And you wonder why rational people do not believe you. False accusations do not help you.

 

[JohnEmmett]

So you have absolutely nothing. And you wonder why rational people do not believe you. False accusations do not help you.

you will answer for being an atheist


even if you say it is nothing I know it's everything

 

[Subduction Zone]

you will answer for being an atheist


even if you say it is nothing I know it's everything

Really? How do you know this? And why would Buddha care about whether someone was an atheist or not? You do not sound like any Buddhist that I have ever met.