Why there almost certainly is No God!!

ergomaniac

Member

its wrong to think "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it"
does the cosmos exist without man. two hands clap. although it does go on if I am not here. the cosmos is huge. anything else out there. and what about non man.
"if man were merely a product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be the chance of nature. but no. reason is there at the beginning. creative, divine, reason."
it would make no sense to who. and not everyone has the same senses. and not everything. is radiation or infrared real if i cant see them. a chance of nature implies nature can exist on its own. as if on whatever day god said let there be man. or did they grow up together. and what reason. to glorify god.
if evolution is ok to believe, than did someone get it wrong the first time. and what about prehistoric. not too long ago was an article about new life, using new parts. here on earth. now. arsenic i believe. unlike any other. in a certain lake. planned?
the biggest message ive been inspired by was selflessness. a loss of ego. which lends to the notion that were all part of something much bigger. call it god if you will. but i dont pray to it. i dont ask it for favors. or material things. i dont ask it why we have pain, suffering or tsunamis. and trying to appease it seems contradictory. who really needs everyone to worship them. the last line of the above article ill leave alone.
 
Last edited:

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
Science and Religion's Common Footing
Is science capable of providing a common morality? Mathematician Eric Priest answers.
Science and Religion's Common Footing | Big Questions Online

Science has its own set of guidelines in the same way that religious belief does, but within those guidelines it has enormous freedom. And so one of the key features of science, and being a scientist like myself, is to be open, to be open to questions, to be open to new experiences, to expect that my ideas are going to change and going to evolve in the future. And I think the same is true for religious belief. To me the life of faith is a pilgrimmage; it's a journey.
 

ergomaniac

Member
Biocentrism feels like it kinda sorta starts to get it.

VERY interesting. to say the VERY least.
theres a name for it. i had no clue. and this i have to look up. i only looked at the link but should go on. it makes too much sense.
i havent read much modern or contemporary work into this subjuct. it reminded me of a book i read a long time ago called the tao of physics. i cant really recall specifics. but like other books it just got me thinking. and feeling.
and not to be totally wierd. but. has anyone ever been in place where they were looking at something. and thought. am i looking at "myself". or part of "me". or felt. is whatever im looking at. "looking" back. not sure if thats on topic. or off topic. or just plain off the wall.
maybe i should lay down for a bit.
 
Last edited:

GirlyMan

Member
i only looked at the link but should go on. it makes too much sense.
The book is a good read, but if you already [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok"]Grok - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] it from the wikipedia summary it's not really necessary.

has anyone ever been in place where they were looking at something. and thought. am i looking at "myself". or part of "me". or felt.
Haven't not felt that way for a long time now, decades.

is whatever im looking at. "looking" back.
That's the abyss. Don't fuck with it.

Only one step left to fuse science and religion. There is a God, and it is us. Where "us" is that which is conscious.
 
Last edited:

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story' | Science | The Guardian

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.


What are the things you find most beautiful in science?

Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations of physics."
 
Last edited:

GirlyMan

Member
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." - Hawking 2011

The promise of a postmortem preservation of identity is not only untenable, it is delusional.
 
Last edited:

ergomaniac

Member
never heard of grok either. or dont really recall it. or just passed it over. or of the book its from. it says a large passage of it is quoted it in a book called be here now. which i actually own. by ram dass. formerly known as richard alpert.
go to the bottom of the wiki link and it says there a book called the primal blueprint. by mark sisson. never heard of that either. or gary taubes. maybe i should get out more. to help illustrate the virtues and health benefits of following the paleolithic lifestyle, he uses a fictional character named grok. so. in a weird way did that just come around full circle somehow.
 

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
See you on the other side! LMAO

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpl-KQeT5M"]YouTube - ?The End of The World Is Near 2011 - CNN iReport?‏[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY"]YouTube - ?R.E.M. - It's The End Of The World?‏[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GirlyMan

Member
Only 4 minutes from now. Better grab my "go" bag. Don't want to be short on underwear or socks. ;)

Putting my "go" bag back in the closet. Feel kinda sorry for the poor fuckers who spent the family farm. They were fucking idiots, though.
 

zkt

Member
Jesus Christ. LMFAO
Someone should find a way to animate this thread and put it on You Tube.
This is some really good shit.
 

Michael Scally MD

Doctor of Medicine
Death and Science

Despite overwhelming evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution (ET) and scientific consensus that intelligent design theory (IDT) is inherently unscientific, IDT has received considerable support from the general public, educators, and elected officials. Many schools include IDT in science curricula; 25% of U.S. high-school biology teachers devote at least some class time to the topic, and nearly half of those view IDT as a “valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.” Although a Dover, PA, court ruled in 2005 that schools could not include IDT in Pennsylvania science curricula, the debate is far from over. In 2008, Louisiana passed a bill permitting science teachers to use outside sources—including those supporting IDT—in curricula, and in 2009 the Texas state education board voted to allow IDT to be taught alongside ET in science classes.

This debate is not restricted to the U.S.; in 2006 the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (a major branch of the nation's federal research funding agency) refused to fund research examining the (presumably negative) effects of IDT's notoriety, on the grounds that there was not “adequate justification for the assumption that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design, was correct.” In 2009, the province of Alberta passed a law that may allow parents to remove children from courses covering evolution. Given this international climate of continuing support for IDT and doubt about ET, despite IDT's lack of scientific credibility and the large body of scientific evidence supporting ET, it is likely that psychological motives, beyond logic and reasoning, underlie the willingness of educated individuals such as teachers and school board members to question ET and accept IDT as a viable alternative.

Indeed, psychological motives, which often operate implicitly, can shape sociopolitical beliefs and ideologies. A comprehensive meta-analysis found that political conservatism is at least partly rooted in the basic need to manage feelings of threat and uncertainty. Specifically, conservative attitudes relate positively to death anxiety, intolerance of ambiguity, and low self-esteem. Other research shows that increasing existential anxiety by reminding people of their own mortality influences attitudes toward hypothetical political candidates, actual political figures, and foreign-policy strategies. Thus, although dispositional political and religious ideologies may be central factors underlying the success of the IDT movement and corresponding doubt about ET, fundamental psychological motives, such as the need to maintain psychological security, are also likely to influence these beliefs when activated. (Cognitive processes also play a role in shaping these views; studies have shown that young children, and adults with Alzheimer's who cannot remember learned knowledge about the origins of objects, tend to show a preference for teleological and other essentialist explanations for the origins of objects and organic phenomena).

In the present research, they examined whether implicit concerns stemming from individuals' awareness of their own mortality might be a cause of the widespread support for IDT and corresponding skepticism of ET seen among a wide range of individuals in North America. Researchers tested the hypothesis that heightened mortality awareness would lead individuals to embrace IDT and reject ET; in other words, that shifting one's opinion on these theories is a “terror management” strategy—stimulated by the basic need to maintain psychological security.


Tracy JL, Hart J, Martens JP. Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution. PLoS ONE 2011;6(3):e17349. PLoS ONE: Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution

The present research examined the psychological motives underlying widespread support for intelligent design theory (IDT), a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence; and antagonism toward evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence. We tested whether these attitudes are influenced by IDT's provision of an explanation of life's origins that better addresses existential concerns than ET. In four studies, existential threat (induced via reminders of participants' own mortality) increased acceptance of IDT and/or rejection of ET, regardless of participants' religion, religiosity, educational background, or preexisting attitude toward evolution. Effects were reversed by teaching participants that naturalism can be a source of existential meaning (Study 4), and among natural-science students for whom ET may already provide existential meaning (Study 5). These reversals suggest that the effect of heightened mortality awareness on attitudes toward ET and IDT is due to a desire to find greater meaning and purpose in science when existential threats are activated.
 

GirlyMan

Member
Death and Science ...
....
in other words, that shifting one's opinion on these theories is a “terror management” strategy—stimulated by the basic need to maintain psychological security.
...
These reversals suggest that the effect of heightened mortality awareness on attitudes toward ET and IDT is due to a desire to find greater meaning and purpose in science when existential threats are activated.
Yeah, no shit. In my experience, research psychologists tend to be very good at designing and conducting "Yeah, no shit." experiments. I find the work of the physiologists like [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet"]Libet[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness"]Siegelman[/ame] more interesting.

You're temporary, dude. I'm temporary. We're all temporary. Everything is temporary. Goddam just grow a sack and deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Biocentrism

This book is a mindfuck, plain and simple. I really don't know where to start this discussion, but a few questions for Girly:


How would you sum up the message of this book in a few sentences?
I guess if I had to I would say:
Time and space are perception only. Consciousness is king.

But, what does this really mean for my life? I guess I am having trouble extrapolating his points into something more useful or meaningful. I also found the writing style just slightly above horrible, and I think that makes it more difficult for me to relate personally to it.
 

Sponsored Links

Top