Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on April 26, 2001 03:01:42 UTC

I just wrote a huge post covering all your major points, and I just lost the damn thing. I'm really, really upset now. :( I'll try and summarize what I though was my best point below, and put the horror behind me.

"I know it's all my brain responding to auditory stimuli. Should I stop listening to music then?"

"That's what I think it's wrong with atheism, atheists keep shouting the mantra that religion is only inside our brains, and theists reply that that fact alone doesn't make any difference."

Emotions, love, laughter, etcetera, are all constructs of the human mind. They never lose their potency, regardless. If someone tells me a good joke, I laugh regardless of whether or not I know that said laughter is just a function of the limbic area of my brain. Relgion is different. It DOES lose its importance when it is acknowledged that it is a human construct. Why? Because emotions claim no hold over outside creation. They realize their limitations. No one believes that concepts like humor and happiness would exist outside of life, because they are an integral part of life and life alone.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to describe the very nature of the universe. If it truly exists in our heads, that makes it wrong. Truth is not subjective. If we weren't here, atoms would still exist. Electricity would still exist. Planets would still exist. There is a truth outside of the human experience, and it can be described. Truth is not a function of consciousness, and religion, you seem to say, IS. Rationalism describes what definitely is. Theology and philosophy describe what might be. Which is more reliable for finding truth?

If you're walking along a dirt road, and there's a rock directly in your path, yet you believe with all your might that the rock isn't there; if you honestly and entirely are sure that the road ahead is clear, will you still stub your toe when you kick it?


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins