I have maintainted this for some time now. This thread is answered by belief only. Relying on science to answer all questions is a belief that all things will be answered by science. It is dogma/faith in that all things are physical. There is no way around that. Many here continually wish to argue that a belief that all things are physical is not a belief. All scientific research is limited to all things physical. that is it's nature. Science will not give me:
a reason to live. a reason to love faith In people. Hope of any kind.
Science will not help me: Love anything or anyone Be a better person Understand what it means to share
In fact for all the things that truly matter in life science is absolutely useless. I understand this.
In this thread it is no more authorative than any other belief. Still people seem to cling to this belief. When will they learn. :)
Whats so hard to understand, making goals for yourself and trying to achieve gives you a reason to live (and a good one too).
Really? One must want to achieve for reasons. Within a simple goal lies a host of motivations. Without these basic motives a goal is not even possible. The reasons to live derive from the core motivations. The core motivations are the reasons goals are made and therfore the reason or reasons to live. If a goal ceases to be fun, enjoyable or rewarding in any sense it ceases to be a reason. A goal is simply a vehicle to experience the true reasons to live.
Not so. Our mental and physical health is dependent - especialy at a young age - on empathy.
This is not true. "Mental health" is a very subjective idea. We would simply function under different circumstances. We are quite adaptable you know. The concept of Empathy is non essential to our existance.
Young children aquire an understanding of normal social behavior through inter-personal bonds, without them it would be very hard to function.
Hard to function? By who's definition? It is not needed behaviour. What is normal changes like the wind and is completely subjective. As I said we are very adaptable.
Science doesnt give us anything - science is a tool
it enables us to use our abilities for the best
This assumes science has some ability to bring out the best. This is your opinion/belief. It is a false assumption. Science has no qualities. We are the possessor of qualities and we express them through tools.
The fact is that alot of people have anxiety problems that dont let them express feelings and be 'open', and this drug helps those people solve thier problem.
Far better to achieve it by will.
Science is a tool. People help people better with science.
So the tool gaurantees a better outcome? For a reasonable inteligent person you endow a tool with some interesting innate abilities.
Bullshit. If you dont think science can help ("science is absolutely useless") you wouldnt have used a computer.
I never said science was useless. This is your knee-jerk reaction in defense of your belief
It's self evident that science is useless? care to elaborate? Science is self correcting by nature (peer review, double blind test exc.), how exactly is that a religion.
The concept of science itself is not. The nature of your belief in it makes this so. You define your existance with it.
Your right its hard to see the purpose in science with all those facts in the way!
Again you are giving qualities to a tool. Science has no purpose. We use it for a purpose. The value of that purpose is completely subjective.
The soul according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance â€” spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) â€” particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
The soul is an immortal and spiritual body of light, the essence of which is Satchidananda and Parasivam, eternal, uncreated and identical with God Siva. The soul animates life and reincarnates again and again until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with God Siva is realized. The soul is the atman of the Vedas. www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/virtue/SVGlossary.html
The spiritual life force or essence, carrying an individual's personality and consciousness of all actions. www.wrexhamparaskeptics.4t.com/definitions.htm
There are many sources of basically similar definitions through out the world.The definitions themselves describe something that has no measurable aspect. You cannot see a thought. The fact that we are, and are interacting at this very moment is self evident. How we mechanically achieve this is imaterial...(hehe) I said imaterial ;P. All science will ever achieve is to give us a measurement of some aspect of change of momentum over time that the soul caused. Our tracks if you will. The soul is a basic definition that describes the cause of what science detects. We still have no idea what a force really is either. The change of momentum with respect to time is a measurable way of describing a phenomenon. It is very usefull for achieving things in a very limited fashion. Facts derived from this mode of thinking do not define the phenomenon and only a fool would follow such folly.They descibe it in one way. You can mechanicaly describe all that I am and all you will ever have is a mechanical description. Something mechanical is not animate as we define ourselves. If you wish to define yourself soley by the narrow view that science offers that is your choice of belief. I love how people who think of science as more than the tool it is, attemt to push scientific dogma upon things where it does not apply and when faced with the fact that everything we do is based upon belief and point of view they get all riled up and claim foul. The very basis for this sight is a prime example. The basis of creationism is spiritual and creationism is only one small part of that picture.. The basis of evolution is not spitual. Two very different animals that have nothing in common. To look at something from only one direction will only give you one view. The mechanics of this life can be useful but are just the vehicle. Evidence provide thus far is not the problem. The question is evidence of what. Someone elses interpretation is not mine. Very subjective. Again, this forum topic has been misplaced.
I am still amazed that this thread had been allowed to carry on. As a scientific question this topic is a dead end since it is not a scientificly based question. Science is a useless tool for this job. If you insist on using science to determine an answer it is your religion. That is a no brainer.
Why do you think that? Why is religion excluded from logical scrutiny?
If I may, Logic has it's place. Logic applied where it has no meaning sucks the life out of that which brings joy.
I do not: listen to or create music using logic. decide to put burgundy in my home made spagetti with logic. watch the clouds roll by and imagine what they look like with logic. Logic is for the practical. Joy is for living. Religion brings many people joy. A life without logic is do-able A life without joy is no life at all.
I find it quite interesting how often debates in this forum turn into a discussion on the validity of religion and or a belief in a higher power. It's like people are trying very hard to understand logically how faith works. Of course the how is not important. It is only the why that matters.
I think 'authoritative' assertions like that are what drive us to debate the debate.
On the contrary. To you it is mainly the "how" of things that matter. To me and others like me it is only the "why" that really matters. Your view is very narrow and self limiting. You believe you are a happening that will pass. There is no why. This is not my view.