• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Do You Believe in Previous or after Life?

Gilgamesh

New Member
If you think back to the times of Ptolemy and how they had thought earth was the center of universe, and you propose something else, you were ridiculed, and even some went to a trial, such as Galileo.

Even at present, with all the marvels of science, I believe we still have much more to discover to understand our universe.

If you're ridiculing and berating someone for their belief based on current understanding, based on what you see and read, I think you're as same as the followers of Ptolemy and as same as the people who were charging Galileo with heresy.

You do not have to believe what others may propose, but certainly should not ridicule them.
 

Peder

Well-Known Member
Bob,
Just to clarify. I didn't see the Community Guidelines as being opposed to anything you said. In fact, I probably respect both you and your beliefs about open discussion. I especially admire your moral stamina in being willing to fight for other people's right to have their beliefs and state them openly. I think that would amount to uncommon valor on many boards I have seen. But I like the idea. :flowers:
Sincerely,
Peder
 

drdln

New Member
Even at present, with all the marvels of science, I believe we still have much more to discover to understand our universe.

Agree. While science has broken many boundaries in quantum physics, it has yet to unlock all of the secrets of the universe. Science will get there eventually. It probably won’t happen in our lifetime..
 

beer good

Well-Known Member
I respect your belief or anyone else's too. But that is not the answer. To understand we have to get down from the band wagon that physics and metaphysics or science and religion are like oil and water.

I have taken unusual position to believe that "Science, Religion & spirituality" can co-exist rather than believing that science and faith are like oil and water. They don't mix.

We are missing a lot by treating them like oil and water. World will be better place if we rethink, IMHO. I agree with what Einstein said.

"Religion without science is blind.
Science without religion is lame."
Quoting Einstein doesn't give you the right to misappropriate his findings. If you believe there is one god who loves us all and that the conservation of energy means nothing ever dies, like I said, good for you. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's certainly a far more agreeable religious belief than some others. But if you're trying to say that E=MC2 proves the existence of such a god and eternal life, then you are quite simply wrong. Sorry. It just doesn't. If you disagree, feel free to show your calculations. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and beliefs; they do not have the right to their own facts.

Also, speaking of Einstein quotes, there's this.
Albert Einstein said:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
 

dude

Member
Polly,
Bob was outlining a set of guidelines for discussion behavior; I thought it would be useful to also show the forum's own guidelines.
Was that not OK? :confused:
Peder

It wasn't useful and only shows that you like to play the watchdog of this board. Why don't you just put the forum's guidelines in your signature?
 

Peder

Well-Known Member
It wasn't useful and only shows that you like to play the watchdog of this board. Why don't you just put the forum's guidelines in your signature?

It's always interesting to see how one is seen. Thanks for your impression.

"Watchdog of the board?" News to me.

But thanks for your opinion.
 

Polly Parrot

Moderator
Staff member
Polly,
Bob was outlining a set of guidelines for discussion behavior; I thought it would be useful to also show the forum's own guidelines.
Was that not OK? :confused:
Peder

It's fine but as a response to Bob M. it seemed a bit pedantic. Or maybe just to me. :flowers:
 

Peder

Well-Known Member
I'll repeat, it is always interesting to see how one is seen.
Thanks for your opinion, Polly.
 

drdln

New Member
What you quoted Einstein is about bible. My concept of religion or god is not based on bible or any other specific religious faith. For example, God is not in church or mosque or temple or gurdwara only that appears every Sunday. God is also not sitting somewhere in the sky watching our actions. The God is in us, the God is in congregation. “If we can't see God in all, we can't see God at all.”

I understand that you have problem with my views. Because I cannot spill my philosophy in few lines that took several books to express. I have no problem with your views.
 

beer good

Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with your views - in fact, as I recall I've said the exact opposite. I do have a problem with the current trend of people using scientific-sounding language to sell ideas that have nothing whatsoever to do with science. Not having read your books, I don't know what it is you're selling, exactly, and I apologize if I got the wrong impression; I merely wanted to point out that mass-energy equivalence, as it's stood since Einstein and beyond, does not mean what you said it means. If you've revolutionized physics, I'm sure you'll receive recognition for that, as well you should.
 

Bob Magness

Member
If you think back to the times of Ptolemy and how they had thought earth was the center of universe, and you propose something else, you were ridiculed, and even some went to a trial, such as Galileo.

Even at present, with all the marvels of science, I believe we still have much more to discover to understand our universe.

If you're ridiculing and berating someone for their belief based on current understanding, based on what you see and read, I think you're as same as the followers of Ptolemy and as same as the people who were charging Galileo with heresy.

You do not have to believe what others may propose, but certainly should not ridicule them.

As for the trials that is because it went against the Church’s dogmatic view of the time. You won’t get any argument from me on how religion has stunted the advancement of science at points in our history. I think we can all agree we shouldn’t put people in jail for having unorthodox ideas.

However, I would have had no problem with people at the time criticizing and ridiculing his ideas if he had no compelling evidence to back it up. Anyone who has worked on the research and theoretical side of the scientific community will tell you it is still that way. They are vicious. They will tear your ideas to pieces. But if your idea can stand the rigors of scientific inquiry it will survive. But you have to understand, if you have an idea that goes against everything that the existing amount of evidence suggests, then you have to come up with evidence at least as strong.

Ptolemy and Galileo didn’t just sit there and pontificate “My idea COULD be correct. You don’t KNOW. We can’t KNOW everything.” No, they produced EVIDENCE. True, the Church didn’t care about evidence, but science did. So I am going to say the same thing to people who want to convince me there is an afterlife that I would have said to Ptolemy and Galileo at their time: Show me the evidence. As a skeptic I actually like being proved wrong. It happens quite often. And I will adjust my beliefs in accordance with the evidence. But I am not going to adopt an unsubstantiated belief just because “the universe is mysterious and we can’t know everything.” IMO that attitude is intellectually lazy.
 

beer good

Well-Known Member
^^ What he said.

It's funny that you should bring up Galileo, since he's brought up so often that some people have coined the phrase Galileo gambit or Galileo fallacy for the idea that since they made fun of Galileo and he was right, it therefore follows that if "they" make fun of me, I must therefore be right. Which is an interesting logical leap.
 

Peder

Well-Known Member
^ ^ ^ Bob and Beer Good definitely present the scientific view clearly, and having been a scientist all my life I understand and believe it completely.

Nevertheless I am a Christian.

Go figure.

:flowers:
 

Landslide

Well-Known Member
^ ^ ^ Bob and Beer Good definitely present the scientific view, and having been a scientist all my life I understand and believe it completely.

Nevertheless I am a Christian.

Go figure.

:flowers:

I don't think you need to be one or the other. You can be both.
What I don't agree on is mixing the two up. Science is about facts (even if they are to be proven wrong later) and religion is about faith.
Faith is what allows you to believe without evidence. But it shouldn't be mixed in with science.
 

Peder

Well-Known Member
Thank you all for your concessions. They do save a lot of fruitless back and forth arguing.
Sincerely,
Peder
:flowers:
 

abecedarian

Well-Known Member
I don't think you need to be one or the other. You can be both.
What I don't agree on is mixing the two up. Science is about facts (even if they are to be proven wrong later) and religion is about faith.
Faith is what allows you to believe without evidence. But it shouldn't be mixed in with science.


Faith doesn't discount facts, but I think it allows one to view the so-called facts in a different way. If facts can change, as in new scientific knowledge changes previously accepted 'facts', it makes sense that faith is a blessing since it allows one to say, "Regardless of the current accepted 'facts', I believe the absolute truth on any given topic is still out there." I don't believe science and faith are always at odds;we just haven't gotten ALL the facts on the table yet.
 
Top