Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Samana Johann]

.

My dear fellow intelligent human beings,

Enough is enough!

It is all about truth. About the Objective Truth, of course.

Enough of this old religion BS, of the laughable Ken Wilbur BS, of the incoherent Kastrup BS, of the naive and childish Phenomenology BS, and of the useless Transcendental Mysticism BS. Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars, because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

What we should be thinking and believing is that life is individuals' quests to truth and beauty, and the holy grail is always receding from us but normally does not permanently disappear.

Belindi, I do completely agree with you, my friend!

We are all distinctly unique individuals, ultimately taking care of our own self. As it is pretty objectively self-evident, no religion or spirituality has ever fitted all humans. We are adults, and therefore, most of all, we are responsible for ourselves, and we have a duty to critically think for ourselves.

The history of Western science is the best positive example we all should learn from. Western science is objective, and therefore,in principle, it is acceptable to all properly educated individuals. Had Western science not been objective, there would not have been such thing as objective technology for all to benefit from.

I'd love to find a religion, or at least a spirituality, that I didn't need faith to believe in. Then I could follow it's tenets (if they are any different to those I currently subscribe to) with a clear intellectual conscience.

Lagayscienza, in light of the above insight of Belindi, only Western science can fulfill your above very intelligent criteria. As far as I was able to understood you better recently, you have already been naturally following your individual atheistic spiritual path to truth for a long time!

And, I have no doubt in my scientific mind, that Western science, given enough time for its natural understandably slow progress, will finally answer all the important questions that we, intelligent humans, have been asking ourselves ever since the dawn of human civilization, when early on, we invented the idea of THE GOD OF THE GAPS in order to simply make ourselves feel better about living in the vast unpredictable Universe.

Sincerely yours,
Jon (an experimental quantum physicist, and no-longer a Buddhist)

There is no such as "objective truth", at first place, good householder. Sciences isn't aware of mind, so how could it ever be above sensuality: spiritual. It's so firm bond to the world that it can not even imagine something like even low spirituality. My person doesn't think that good householder Jon ever had been "Buddhist" as well, but maybe he touched some western fakes of the Dhamma, scientific introduced...

[Lagayscienza]

Ah, Dr Johnathan Osterman PhD, aka Material Girl, aka Samana Johan, aka ... has rejoined us. He/she has lifted a snippet of one of my posts from some thread and posted it above as if it were part of a discussion I never had. Leave Off!!!

[night912]

.

Scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution was NOT proven
by mathematical equations, only because it is obviously self-evident.

Therefore, clearly, no creator god was needed to create
all living biological organisms on our planet Earth, and elsewhere
in our Big-Bang-created purely physical Universe.

This is an objective truth.

Actually, this is objectively false. The Theory of Evolution doesn't explain how life came into existence on our planet Earth. It's also not self-evident, in fact, no scientific theory is. That's not how science works. Science is evidence based, it's not based on making bald assertions and declaring that it's the truth.

Lastly, the Big Bag model doesn't say anything about our physical Universe being created by a big bang. So, again, your claim is objectively false. As of now, there's no scientific evidence indicating that the universe was created.

Sorry, but creationists like you can misinterpret the science so that it appears to align with what you want, but at the end, the scientific data clearly demonstrates that you're wrong. I expected more from Dr. Manhattan.

[Lagayscienza]

Biogenesis, from a materialist POV, must have involved the evolution of the nonliving to the living. Life wasn't just magicked into existence but evolved from a non-living substrate. Work to tease out the details of biogenesis is ongoing and progressing.

The notion that the "Scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution is obviously self-evident" is obviously false. If evolution by natural selection had been so "self-evident" we would have noticed it and understood it long before Darwin, Mendel, and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

From our modern perspective, evolution is obviously true - we can see it happening in real time - but it took centuries of science to arrive at the modern understanding of evolution. Today, it is hard to think of a scientific theory that is supported by such a wealth of solid evidence. Yet creationists still refuse to accept it because it goes against cherished religious beliefs. That is too bad for them.

[Moreno]

.

The scientific theory of Big Bang was scientifically proven
by Albert Einstein's mathematical equations of General Theory of Relativity.

Therefore, clearly, no creator god was needed to create our Universe.

This is an objective truth.

It wasn't proven by his equations, they gave a framework to explain it. There was empirical work that went into supporting the theory. Further it doesn't really explain the beginning, why anything happened at all. The Big Bang theory does explain our best sense of what happened in the early moments of the universe. Which doesn't resolve theism.

[Sculptor1]

.

My dear fellow intelligent human beings,

Enough is enough!

It is all about truth. About the Objective Truth, of course.

What is meant by "spiritual", surely this is the essentially subjective par excelance

[Sy Borg]

I like science to be science. It's already being too corrupted by corporate money and politics, without religion adding additional distortions.

Science cannot be a religion because it does not claim to be right. Science is not about being knowing everything because that's impossible. Rather, it is about knowing more than was known previously.

As for religion, watching the decay of western societies in real time, it seems as though many humans need a buffer between them and the exceptionally harsh objective truth. That truth is that we all must kill or exploit others to survive - a bit like gladiators thrown into the pit of life to duke it out until a champion emerges. Humans, ants and tardigrades are champs at the moment, and equivalent battles rage on within those groups.

It's no doubt easier to face life's travails if we believe that we, and our loved ones, will enjoy eternal paradise in the afterlife. It's rather more comforting than the fact that we simply snuff it, with our parts being recycled into other entities, and our memories lost in time. Also, without the boundaries provided by religion, many people seem to be aimless and miserable. It doesn't help that the unofficial secular prescription for a good life (study, job, home, family) is now impossible for most. Little wonder people are getting more into gaming and identity politics - looking for something to do and someone to be.