I want you to try something; I want you to try to describe a "soul" in scientific terms.
Go ahead...
Alright, I'm sure you've failed, and that is because it is impossible to do. Science and logic are inadaquate because they cannot explain or use this other realm of our psyche.
This other realm of our pysche complete's us, it makes us human. To deny it, is to deny man his soul, which deny's man himself.
Art, culture, courage, morality, and all human progress require this second half of man. Do you think Beetoven created all his music because he felt it logical to do so? Do you think Ghandi stopped eating for his country because of scienfic phenomenom?
Atheism (as I am using it) means the complete rejection of spirituality. It is as harmful a school of thought as any to exist in our world. It is the degeneration of our evolution as a society, it denies our greatest strengths as individuals and as groups.
Unfortunately, atheism has taken hold of both the philisophical communities and much of the scienfic communities. While at the same time religous fundamentalism is growing and man his logic and science (an equally as important half).
The two juxopposed trends are fueling each other, few scientist wants to admit to having spiritual beliefs because it would put them in danger of being considered a fundamentalist. While few fundamentalists want to admit to their logic because those who speak the logic are becoming more and more arrogant atheists.
I wish I could get to the fundamentalists, but unfortunately I doubt they would read this because, well, its not religous text. However, many people on the other side of the specutrum do read things such as this and that is why I am going after them.
Atheism denies man:
his soul
his purpose
his art
his love
his courage
his faith (different than soul)
his God
If you take all that away what is left. Not a hell of a lot, but the worst thing about it is that atheism is a ridiculous concept. We as humans are in no position to outright deny anything, espcially something that definitly does exist. We are only looking at things from one perspective, how can anyone say that we can see the whole picture. Anything is possible, and I respect any belief. However, the problem is that atheism denies this possibility and limits man to only things he can hold in his hand, and see with his eyes. But, there's a lot more to the world than that.
Fact is, atheism exists because scienfic thought can't explain the soul, but in the rigid thinking of science, this disturbs some people to the point where because they can't explain something they've decided to outright deny it.
Brian Liebman
P.S. There will be more coming on this
Posts
1 comment:
Original Comments Posted:
Brian Liebman wrote
at 12:43am on August 8th, 2007
There were two scientists
one was atheist
one was a christian
they were talking about how the atheist doesn't believe that there is a GOD
the christian however stated that something must have put everything in its place...
but the atheist kept denying it
later that night...
after the atheist scientist left for home...
the christian decorated the ceiling with the most magnificent looking model of the solar system...
the next day when both scientists came to work
the atheist asked, "who put that up there?"
the christian said...what do you mean?
the atheist then replied ,"who put all that stuff on the ceiling?"
the christian then said, "well it could have probably just appeared out of nowhere..."
but then the atheist pointed out, "it couldn't have just gotten there, someone put it up there"
the christian finally said, "exactly"
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:53am on August 8th, 2007
Rife with inaccuracies, hold on a minute; I'm going to have to reply in increments.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:57am on August 8th, 2007
"I want you to try something; I want you to try to describe a "soul" in scientific terms.
Go ahead..."
It's difficult to describe the soul simply because we don't know what it is. You're thesis that atheism "denies man his soul" is flawed if only for this reason; the "soul" as an observable entity does not exist. Certainly, I can attempt to define certain characteristics of the "soul" in scientific terms: altruism, love, loyalty, faith, etc. All of these sentiments are mere tokens of evolution. They attest to the necessity of some degree of selflessness in order for humans to survive and prosper as social organisms. Humans that evolved a psychological ability to act altruistically for their own well-being won in the competition for natural resources. This is because altruism is persuasion by other means; it is a complex form of acquiring support from other members of society and persuading them to act in your favor through your own deeds. This is all based on evolutionary theory.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:00am on August 8th, 2007
You're thesis that atheism "denies man his soul" is flawed if only for this reason; the "soul" as an observable entity does not exist.
See what I'm talking about because you can't observe it you deny its existance.
Screw evolution for now, lets talk about human history only because if you go before then, your talking about what is largely unknown and also the evolution of something that wasn't "human" or certainly can't be definitively called "human."
Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:02am on August 8th, 2007
See that's why science falls short you can't describe it, but that is why spirituality is necessary because it allows for spiritual growth as an invidual and people without having this conflict of denying its existence.
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:03am on August 8th, 2007
"Art, culture, courage, morality, and all human progress require this second half of man. Do you think Beetoven created all his music because he felt it logical to do so? Do you think Ghandi stopped eating for his country because of scienfic phenomenom?"
Certainly religion played a part in the accomplishments of historical giants. Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., were all very devout people. But the role that religion played in their accomplishments - inspiration - could be replaced by other objects; this truth is evident in the stampede of geniuses and heroes of history that were far more secular.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:03am on August 8th, 2007
Yet religion also played a malevolent role in history. It inspired war, violence, apartheid, and a stifling of intellectualism at an unimaginable degree. It legitimized these efforts through what it called heavenly mandate. Indeed, unlike the positive good that religion brought to civilization, these would NOT exist in a world without religion. The inspiration for their existence could NOT be replaced by secular objects.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:04am on August 8th, 2007
"Atheism (as I am using it) means the complete rejection of spirituality. It is as harmful a school of thought as any to exist in our world. It is the degeneration of our evolution as a society, it denies our greatest strengths as individuals and as groups.
Unfortunately, atheism has taken hold of both the philisophical communities and much of the scienfic communities. While at the same time religous fundamentalism is growing and man his logic and science (an equally as important half).
The two juxopposed trends are fueling each other, few scientist wants to admit to having spiritual beliefs because it would put them in danger of being considered a fundamentalist. While few fundamentalists want to admit to their logic because those who speak the logic are becoming more and more arrogant atheists."
No.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:09am on August 8th, 2007
"We as humans are in no position to outright deny anything, espcially something that definitly does exist. We are only looking at things from one perspective, how can anyone say that we can see the whole picture. Anything is possible, and I respect any belief. However, the problem is that atheism denies this possibility and limits man to only things he can hold in his hand, and see with his eyes. But, there's a lot more to the world than that."
The sort of thought process you wrongly attribute to atheism seems very similar to the thought process that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the most trifle semblance of spiritual thought to infect a person's mind. It's wrong.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:10am on August 8th, 2007
Always with the negatives of religon arguement, you atheists are so predictable. Tell me, where would the pyramids be without religon, where would Rome have gotten without religon, where would ANY FREAKING CIVILIZATION have gotten without religon.
Cut the shit, religon is a part of our history, every society has had religon and its freaking programmed into our brains to be religous by EVOLUTION.
But, I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking about being a spiritual person.
All geniuses were spiritual people, the only exception would be a genius in a field of logic or science, but even then I have my doubts.
Stanely Kumbrick, probably the greatest filmmaker of all time, was very secular, but he was not an athiest. He had spitiuality, not in the traditional sense, but well read the quote...
Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:10am on August 8th, 2007
“2001 would give a little insight into my metaphysical interests," he explains. "I'd be very surprised if the universe wasn't full of an intelligence of an order that to us would seem God-like. I find it very exciting to have a semi-logical belief that there's a great deal to the universe we don't understand, and that there is an intelligence of an incredible magnitude outside the Earth. It's something I've become more and more interested in. I find it a very exciting and satisfying hope."
-Kubrick
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:12am on August 8th, 2007
Atheists don't deliberately ignore half the picture and outright deny something without some sort of scientific inquiry. Most atheists I know would be happy to find a definitive answer to the whole "God question," even if it means finding out that God does exist. Atheists rather subscribe to the maxim, "Anything that can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof." Not a shred of rational evidence exists to support the presence of God; whatever so-called "evidence" does exist is about as credible as the literature and eyewitness accounts in the Middle Ages describing Cyclops in Slovakia and six inch-tall men in Portugal. The burden of proof is on the theists to prove their claim.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:12am on August 8th, 2007
Alright this arguement is all over the place, lets go to question and answer or something.
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:13am on August 8th, 2007
Why is this?
Because of that apophthegmatic, time-tested truth, "Entias non sunt multiplicandas praeter necessitatem"--"Do not multiply entities beyond necessities" (Occam's Razor). The correct answer is the one that requires the least amount of entities, or assumptions, to assert.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:14am on August 8th, 2007
Yeah but Chase that's what I'm saying, I'm saying that their whole super-logical thinking is missing the point. It's missing what's really there. Our soul, something that we shouldn't, we can't deny just because we don't have proof.
Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:15am on August 8th, 2007
Okay I got a question:
Do you think it is healthy for us as people to deny any purpose to our existence besides just what seems to be at the present time?
Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:16am on August 8th, 2007
In other words:
Do you think it is right to deny ourselves any sort of higher purpose?
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:17am on August 8th, 2007
But let's assume that atheists were not correct in thinking God to be a fairy-tale, which is untrue. It's irrelevant. Atheism is less of a philosophy and more of an action. Even if there were "no contest" between the theists and atheists, and that some form of spirituality were indeed possible, why would it merit going to church every Sunday? Or praying to Mecca five times a day? Or not eating pork? Let's take it a step further: why would it merit launching a holy crusade against the "infidels"? If you really believed that God existed, you would be doing his bidding to the letter if you knew what was good for you. The fact that you don't act on this belief signifies your lack of belief--or at least your uncertainty. And that uncertainty is all that is required to make atheism, as a PRACTICE, the more rational alternative.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:18am on August 8th, 2007
"Do you think it is healthy for us as people to deny any purpose to our existence besides just what seems to be at the present time?"
The question is flawed. You're attempting to beg the question.
Is it established that our existence has a purpose to begin with? "Purpose" is a man-made concept that applies only when a sentient, intelligent being is in control of the circumstances. Is any sentient, intelligent being in control of my existence? Aside from myself, no. Ergo, your question must be rephrased to reflect this.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:19am on August 8th, 2007
Okay that's ridiculous because obviously there's no agreement upon what God's bidding is. Answer my first question please though, I'm not here to discuss the existance of God both our minds are made up about that. I'm here to discuss how sick and twisted athiesm is.
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:19am on August 8th, 2007
I can deny anything I like until I have proof. If we believed in something without proof, then science would be immediately obsolete.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:20am on August 8th, 2007
What is man without a purpose? (Better?)
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:21am on August 8th, 2007
"Do you think it is right to deny ourselves any sort of higher purpose?"
Yes. If one refrains from exploiting semantic ambiguities in describing "the soul" and "the higher purpose," or by engaging in sentiment-suffused language to attempt to confuse the reader as well as the issues, one cannot argue that a "higher purpose" is a necessary component of man.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:21am on August 8th, 2007
That's a foolish fear, probably at the heart of this whole conflict. I'm living proof that science and spirituality can co-exist. Science is not obsolete to me, yet I am deeply spiritual. What's with that?
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:23am on August 8th, 2007
You seem to believe that this argument is about whether or not man ought to have a purpose. That's not the issue here. Firstly, man cannot choose whether or not he has a higher purpose. Secondly, man does not have a higher purpose. If man chooses to lie to himself about his conditions, then he will only succeed through false motivation. I prefer man to succeed with true motivation. I know plenty of examples where people are motivated for secular reasons - where they have purposes, but not "higher" purposes.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 1:23am on August 8th, 2007
At least in this issue, your logic is not scientific. Spirituality and science cannot both function on the same question. The application of one is the necessary exclusion of the other.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 1:25am on August 8th, 2007
Right, you just got it!!!!
"Spirituality and science cannot both function on the same question."
But, both are needed to answer all the questions.
Questions such as:
Why am I here?
What am I here for?
Science can't answer those, but they beg and answer and dudududu
spirituality comes marching through the door.
Delete
Dakota Jude Fontanello (North Salem High School) wrote
at 12:37pm on August 8th, 2007
Everytime I wanted to say something, I would look up and you already wrote it down brian. lol. Well thought out I have no response b/c I'm 100% with you on this. Atheism can suck it. I wish I had more to say, but it'd only be repeating what you already posted.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 2:24pm on August 8th, 2007
Thanks for the support man! Honestly, I'm a little suprised I never thought you had anything against athiesm, though I'm glad to hear it.
P.S. This is unrelated to my response to Dakota, but the discussion between me and Chase continued on for several hours on instant messaging till we both agreed that we are complete foils of each other (opposites in core beliefs) and that no progress would be made in the arguement. It really was a hell of an arguement though, it blows the stuff on here outta the sky.
Delete
Dakota Jude Fontanello (North Salem High School) wrote
at 3:10pm on August 8th, 2007
O yea I'm a big believer in God and athiesm is a big pile of un-enlightened bullshit. I do not believe in the church though. The church can go lick my donkey kong sized penis.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 8:09pm on August 8th, 2007
LOL well put, I go to Church occasionally, but the Catholic church has lost its fire. It's all for show, there's no enthusiasm in it.
Post a Comment