A third of all Millennials express themselves as irreligious

Post Reply New Topic

DUDE, please!.. PUT on your reading glasses and Listen TO MY CLARIFICATION once again.

Classical pantheists are REAL THEISTS AND IT IS A REAL RELIGION AND they equate the Universe with GOD..

Do ya get it yet!..

I don't know how many more ways I can say THIS COMMON SENSE TRUTH.

GOD IS all NATURAL ALL THE TIME!

And that's the truth!

Disagreeing with your framing isn't the same as failure to understand your framing.

I am pretty sure that movie is about quantum physics....

Anyways what is a woo-monger? I am genuinely curious about this......either way there is plenty science doesn't 'explain' either, so can't blame people for looking outside the confines of traditional science/mathmatics in an attempt to understand the world/universe really is my opinion and some of what I've heard is intriguing. But certainly open to quantum physics theories being disproven...I do take it with a grain of salt but not so sure it should be dismissed entirely as BS in all cases but who knows.

*psychobabble about "Mother Nature"*

The natural world doesn't give a s**t about us, and anthropomorphizing it as some self-aware "motherly" figure doesn't support the existence of gods. Case in point: areas of the globe that are uncomfortable if not outright hostile to humans with less human development and infringement on the local environment (Antarctica, the Amazon, many parts of Australia).

Quantum mysticism is the most sinister piece of woo I've ever come to know from the New Age quacks. QM doesn't "explain" any of that crap because not only are those things in its domain of study, but they're not even proven to exist in the first place.

Science is a religion

Dear TEDsters,

For almost a decade I've been appauled by people claiming that "if you don't trust science you're an idiot" or "Religion ha that's just for people who don't know facts!" or the really old "If you don't think I'm right you must be incompetent".
These arguments have been made by many scientific and religious fanatics alike.

Nowadays more and more people seem to confuse science with fact. Also there is the expression "to measure is to know" (at least in my language that is an expression). Although this is in part true this doesn't hold for the entire field of science and not even neccesarily for the most basic principles of science.

First of all let me state that I do not and can (probably) never know how you percieve the world as is the case for your ability to judge me.
Secondly even how you percieve the world changes during your lifetime as does it for me. Do you still remember how when you were young a kilometer seemed so large and tables seemed high etc.?

What we can do however is take an object (clone it) show it to everyone (which doesn't mean everyone has the same perception) and label that. This is for instance what we've done with a meter. Then we use a great invention called math to be able to do calculations with or about this object.
Up till now everything is fine

Great scientists can percieve things differently. Einstein for instance saw a relation between energy, mass and the speed of light. Something nobody at that time saw, and probably many still do not. The fact is however that his equation is accurately describing/predicting many galactical events and phenomenon.

But we must NEVER forget that all we do is describe the events in such a way that our (math) explaination of it can insanely closely (up the the point where we have full believe in it) show what will happen.

The fundations of science however is that we believe what we percieve and we assume that when our describtion of it is correct the physics behind it is too.

In this thread I try to take the point of view that all science is based upon the faith that our perceptions could be wrong and that therefor our scientific findings could be wrong. (This is not my personal view but I wanted to encourage people to see it like this.)
Also I try to enhance the point that although we are reasonably sure that we have accurately described certain observations throught the use of math it could always be possible that another explaination better describes this (aka einstein > newton).
Thirdly I wanted to focus on the 'unquestionability' of science where people always think that previous scientific findings are 100% fact. Even though there are many instances of previous scientific beliefs that have been falsified through the process of science. However the very idea that backs up science is that "something is true unless proven false" basically also means "A true scientist cannot ever be 100% sure of anything". Which than automatically makes it such that he has faith that previous findings are correct.

Quite a few people get a bit too hung up on the differences between science and religion that they forget to argue with the real point that I try to make.
And some people (falsly) believe that questioning science means that you disregard findings which "work" (especially examples with medicine are used in this thread).

Also too many people are thinking that the idea of God is somehow ret*d because science has proven that there is none... which is also false. Science has just shown that to explain most things we do not need one (btw I am an atheist). And imo we cannot go into the argument because science can never prove that there is no God because he would be almighty (if he exists he can make us believe whatever we could believe).

The brain in the vat argument does well to make people think about the above concepts.

In the end I came to realize that it takes more faith, and less benefits, to believe in science than it does in God
http://www.ted.com/conversations/9998/s ... igion.html

Just noticed some lexical ambiguities in my previous post that I can't change due to the new edit policy. Qi/ki/chi, prana, magic, the Force, the Weave, PSI, and whatever-other-mystical-malarky-have-you, are NOT in the domain of quantum mechanics; and the reference to "QM" later in the post was not to quantum mysticism, but to mechanics.

Anyways.



No, it uses the appearances of such, but most of the people in that movie are either part of JZ Knight's spiritualist cult, are speaking outside of their scientific fields of expertise (if they have any legitimate scientific backgrounds at all), and the single guy who actually knew what he was talking about was misled and cherry-picked to support the movie's premises. He even spoke out against the film-makers for doing this.

Actual quantum mechanics supports very little in the way of the movie's premises (i.e., psychic powers, manifestations, astral travel, the so-called "law of attraction", and so on and so forth).

This is a fairly comprehensive dissection of that piece of pseudointellectual trash, and its fallacies:




A woo-monger (my terminology, not saying I'm the first person to use it) is someone who exploits common logical fallacies latent in everyday public thinking for the promotion of pseudoscience, religion, or "magical thinking" in general. Other synonyms might be "quack", "charlatan", "snake oil salesman", and "confidence trickster", except very often they've fallen victim to their own lies and ignorance and believe in the very product they're selling.



The natural world doesn't give a s**t about us, and anthropomorphizing it as some self-aware "motherly" figure doesn't support the existence of gods. Case in point: areas of the globe that are uncomfortable if not outright hostile to humans with less human development and infringement on the local environment (Antarctica, the Amazon, many parts of Australia).

For some definition of religion, at least.

Personally I don't see any important difference between, for example, an atheist psychiatrist who espouses the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness (as such a person accepts on faith a set of received knowledge bearing at best incidental resemblance to truth, promulgated by those who stand to materially benefit from said knowledge being acted upon, and does so act upon it, authoritatively and at times coercively) and your typical priest. But the former would be counted as irreligious.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
Somehow the US is much more religious than Europe, I never understood why. Almost none of the politicians are openly atheist, unlike Europe.

I think you have to factor in the fact that there seems to be a natural progression towards being more religious as we get older. I mean, looking at the 15-30 crowd int he 60s and 70s, I highly, highly doubt they are as religious and observant as they are now they they have gotten several decades older. At this age millennials are still trying to determine what their identity actually is. And of course there is also the fact that irreligious and atheist are definitely not synonyms in any way, shape or form. So I think this has to be factored in, much as I understand why some Aspies here might feel hopeful that this is a sign of religion and spirituality disappearing.

I think you have to factor in the fact that there seems to be a natural progression towards being more religious as we get older. I mean, looking at the 15-30 crowd int he 60s and 70s, I highly, highly doubt they are as religious and observant as they are now they they have gotten several decades older. At this age millennials are still trying to determine what their identity actually is. And of course there is also the fact that irreligious and atheist are definitely not synonyms in any way, shape or form. So I think this has to be factored in, much as I understand why some Aspies here might feel hopeful that this is a sign of religion and spirituality disappearing.

This.
Irreligous is not the same thing as "militantly atheist". And probably about 30 percent of Victorians were not regular churchgoers either.

REALLY.

In what WAY is Mother Nature not REAL?

Explain please...

I'M ALL EARS.

I clearly stated that GOD is the same dam thing as Mother Nature.

And you turned around and clearly stated THAT GOD is NOT anymore real than the Abrahamic GOD.

What part of THAT did YOU NOT you get.

Seriously.

I'm ALL EARS.

IF ya wanna explain, CLARIFY, AND VALIDATE your idea to ME.

IF NOT.. THE RECORD STANDS AS is.