When will religion be overteken by logic?

This isn't a proper representation of science. String theory, parallel universes, etc., are not accepted by science, because there is no way to test these ideas.

Science requires that those solutions we have for how things work (theories) be able to be tested. These other ideas are ... ideas. That branch of physics is called "theoretical physics" and depends on mathematical models and assumptions that are outside of the process that science uses to create theory. (I know the naming is a mess.)

Scientific American has an article that points out that there are a QUADRILLION string theories that could possibly explain our current universe. And, that's just the ones where there are ten (or is it eleven) dimensions. And, NONE of them an be tested. The article is easy to find because of that word in the title.

 

I wouldn't be so hasty in throwing around accusations of incapability of scientific logical thinking, if that post is an example of yours.

The use of the phrase invisible man in the sky is a descriptive one that indicates that the entity "god" is unseen, unheard and indeed beyond human perceptions. It isn't a advocate of anything at all.

Science does not in anyway shape or form suggest we live in our own "virtual reality". That isn't science that is philosophy.
True the math that fuels the multitude of multi-universe/dimension hypotheses are exactly that. Mathematical speculations on what lies beyond our perceptions. They are all small t theories which in scientific parlance are nothing more than hypotheses, not conclusion.

The limitations of human perception is at the root of my primary rationale for being an agnostic atheist. Otherwise I'd be a full blown atheist.

 

You may speak for yourself. You can be an accident of nature.

 

You have declared the identity of an atheist. Usually that means YOU see YOUrself as that higher intelligence. I believe you describe that beautifully.

 

I don't know what you are saying here, but it doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution OR creationist dogma.

 

We can all be considered "accidents of nature". I see no problem with that at all since it is biologically and behaviorally true. All of us humans, bar none.

 

your strawman is a shining example of the purity of religious conceit.

 

actually it has a considerable amount to do with the theory of evolution from a genetic perspective. Biologically we are all "accidents of nature", as is every other living thing. That's science.

 

OK. I get your point here.

I would say humans are the result of numerous selection processes applied over billions of years.

Over the last 20K years human brains have gotten smaller by about the volume of a tennis ball.

How was it decided that humans should have smaller brains?

Did God do that? Were there natural selection processes at work? Was it an accident?

 

Thank you for arguing my point better than I could have! You are obviously more educated than I am. I am on the right track here, but as I said I could not argue "can't prove a negative" as well as you. What is your education if I may ask?

 

Words of men taken as gospel is a dangerous thing IMO.

 

You are misrepresenting the research about homo sapiens brain size. Modern human brains are ON AVERAGE roughly 60 cm3 smaller than neanderthal brains but even their brains fall within the range of human brain size. That is certainly no argument for "god did it". there are all kinds of other natural explanations before one leaps immediately to the divine. It was definitely no accident. Its all about that Pre Frontal Cortex, baby. Wouldn't be surprised if neanderthals need bigger amygdala and hypothamlmus and we know they required a bigger visual cortex (they had way better eye sight than we did, but we have better smell). So the differing size of the brain has a perfectly natural explanation including why bigger isn't necessarily better.

 

That shows your value, if any for human life is accidental and worthless. Life without purpose. That is how nations are conquered.

 

Your premise only concludes that all accidents are positive results. Given a similar amount of negative accidents....we would not be here.

 

I'm just an old fart with an eclectic intellectual curiosity. Never paid attention in school, but starting my adult working life sure as hell knocked the snot outta, motivating me to dedicate myself to my intellectual development thru lifelong learning. (Around 25, my completely mature Pre Frontal Cortex came to the realization that I had forgotten so much from when I knew everything I could ever need to know).

Add being a voracious reader, having the benefit of countless professional training courses and a ton of battle scars from practical application and you arrive at my nerdy knowledge base. Just trying to make the most of a most happy accident of my birth.

 

Nonsense. It says nothing about "purpose" because its not about purpose its about biology.
Life has lots of purposes, the most important sapient purpose is simply living a good and decent life. Our biological purpose is quite clear. The purpose of our sapience is to question, explore, learn, provide, love, produce, create, etc etc etc. That is called being human in my parlance.

 

A good and decent life as determined by you I suppose? Here today, gone tomorrow. Eat drink and be merry (or whatever) for tomorrow we die! If there is any "goodness" in this world, it was not an accident. It was determined and put here. Animals only look after their own pleasure.

 

Interesting. And your profession or former profession? Of course feel free to not answer, just curious. I read too much fiction. I have delved deep into the condition of narcissism because I deal with a family member that has that disorder. It has made my life so much easier knowing what she is and I have educated the rest of the family about it. Now we don't let her ruin Thanksgiving dinners anymore. She is absolutely dumbfounded because we give her no ammunition to hurt us with.

 

What a load of crap. We are communal animals who have an instinct to look after others, not just searching for our own "pleasure". You are spouting pure nonsense.

 

you're spouting nonsensical chance...... a load of crap in itself.

 

You ignore the biology of our species and when people bring up traits of it you attribute it to a higher power, not biology. It's not by chance we are communal animals. It is for the survival of our species.

 

So what is the record of Buddhism that you refer to? Some sort of Buddhist text?

So what are your 'default' beliefs which you have outside of Buddhism?

 

But you believe in some of their myths?

 

yes I do, I believe in an afterlife and reincarnation, but as I said, that is based on personal experiences and I accept the mind can play tricks on people and I may be wrong, wont know for sure until we die

I think it would be a better world if all religions members could accept their religious beliefs may be wrong, even if they do not believe so

 

I do not have a Buddhist bible if that is what you are asking

not sure what your other questions means, like you I was born an atheist, then became Christian, then atheist, then Buddhist