Skip to main content

Home/ Atheist Thoughts/ Group items tagged relationships

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
anonymous

Power of life by spiritual way - 0 views

rudrakshapower.co.in/?pgtyp=viewallprod&cids=7&scids=15

Rudraksha Religion Spirit Happy Revival Collector Power Mala

shared by anonymous on 16 Apr 09 - Cached
  • anonymous on 16 Apr 09
     
    A successful man needs three types of power physical, mental and spiritual. There are lots of ways to get mental and physical power but what about Spiritual power? How one could get spiritual power? There are lot of ways mentioned in our Vedas like Dhyan,kendar,sadhna but in today's hectic life nobody have enough time to do such practises so the option left is of wearing gemstones,malas and rudrakshas. There are lot of products like Ardhanareshwar Mala, Brahmaghayan Mala,Saturn Siddha Mala etc. But the questions arise that what kind of benefits one can get from wearing which mala. For ex. Ardhanareshwar Mala is most useful for wanting harmony and unity as well as invokes great friendship with others. It is highly recommended for husband and wife wanting a harmonized relationship. For more details click on the title……………….
thinkahol *

The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion | Watch Free Documentary Online - 0 views

topdocumentaryfilms.com/horizon-guide-science-religion

The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion | Watch Free Documentary Online

shared by thinkahol * on 08 Jan 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 08 Jan 11
     
    As the Pope ends his visit to Britain, historian Dr Thomas Dixon delves into the BBC's archive to explore the troubled relationship between religion and science. From the creationists of America to the physicists of the Large Hadron Collider, he traces the expansion of scientific knowledge and asks whether there is still room for God in the modern world.
AskMissAndrea B

Let Sleeping Kids Lie - Evolution and Sleep - 0 views

askmissandrea.wordpress.com/...let-sleeping-kids-lie

children child parenting science evolution evolutionary biology psychology humanism humanists scientific secular teaching teacher special education rational human relationships naturalism infants toddlers preschool pre-teen teen girl girls good kids boy b

shared by AskMissAndrea B on 12 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • AskMissAndrea B on 12 Jan 12
     
    Please feel free to check out my blog at askmissandrea.wordpress.com, where I discuss how evolution impacts human behavior and physiology.
Bakari Chavanu

Dawkins vs. Collins: analysis of the debate. - 1 views

richarddawkins.net/,Gary-J-Whittenberger-eSkeptic

religion atheism dawkins science evolution

shared by Bakari Chavanu on 28 Sep 09 - Cached
  • In the first exchange, Dawkins and Collins apparently agreed that the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Dawkins indicated that science is appropriate to the task of answering the question, but Collins disagreed: "From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."
  • "God cannot be completely contained within nature," he implied that God can be partly contained within nature, which makes God open to scientific analysis.
  • By inventing a category called "supernatural" and relegating hypothetical things to it, they apparently hope to protect those things from the requirement of evidence.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • What does this mean? Does it make any sense to say that something exists outside space and time? When we apply the word "exists" to something, don't we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time?
  • Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?
  • By insisting that God exists "outside of nature," Collins nearly makes his supernatural compartment so small that there isn't enough room for God.
  • He is certainly correct that the inefficiency of evolution, not to mention its "errors of design," is inconsistent with the traditional idea of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. This traditional kind of God would be more likely to operate through Creationism, but this hypothesized mode of operation is not supported by the evidence of biology, genetics, geology, and cosmology.
  • Dawkins proposed two possible explanations for the values of the physical constants we find in our universe. One is that these constants couldn't be any different from what they are; they simply are what they are.
  • Within this great mulitverse environment, there are bound to be some universes that have the physical constants at just the right values to support the development of life, and we find ourselves in one of them.
  • Although Dawkins seems to present the two best currently available alternatives to Collins' God hypothesis to explain the life-enabling values of the physical constants of our universe, he and Collins both seem to accept without any skepticism the proposition that our universe is improbable. But how can they just assume this? In my opinion, they do this through a misapplication of probability theory. In the debate they used the "gravitational constant" as an example. They correctly noted that if the gravitational constant (G) were different by one part in a hundred million million, then life, as we know it, would not be possible in our universe.
  • One must know how many items with the feature are in the population and how many items without the feature are in that same population (or alternatively, how many items altogether are in the population).
  • In fact, we do not know that any other universes exist at all! Without knowledge of other universes, Dawkins and Collins misuse probability theory to conclude that our universe is rare
  • More must be said about Collins' contention that the application of Occam's razor supports the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis. It doesn't. The God hypothesis is less parsimonious than the multiverse hypothesis for two reasons: 1. it invents a totally new type of entity, a supernatural being "outside time and space," which is not necessary with the latter hypothesis, and 2. it leads to the classic problem of infinite regress. If there must be something outside our universe, i.e. God, to explain the existence of our universe, then there must be something outside of God, i.e. "Z," to explain God. Then something is needed to explain "Z," ad infinitum.
  • Alluding to St. Augustine and commenting on the book of Genesis, Collins said "It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God."
  • Collins responded that if one accepts God's existence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that God might occasionally intervene in the world in a miraculous way, and that if one accepts that Jesus was divine then the Resurrection is "not a great logical leap." But these are big "ifs," and although Collins tries to show that they are plausible, he offers no good evidence to show that they are probable.
  • Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him.
  • Dawkins responded that good and evil don't exist as independent entities but that good and bad things simply happen to people.
  • Collins' "moral law" argument is another variation on the "God of the Gaps" theme. If science doesn't yet have a complete description of a phenomenon, then there must be a super-being behind the scenes who is responsible for whatever is in the gaps.
  • Collins' idea of a "moral law" is premature and far too rigid when one considers the variability in moral rules across different geographic areas, cultures, ethnicities, and religions.
  • "Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation." Part of the difficulty here is that "faith" has several different meanings and unfortunately Collins isn't clear about which meaning he intends. "Faith" may refer to a religion or worldview, as in "My faith is Islam." It may refer to an attitude of trust or confidence, as in "I have faith in my physician."
  • In his concluding remarks Collins indicated that he is interested in many "why" questions for which he believes answers may not come from science but from the "spiritual realm." In his concluding remarks Dawkins indicated his doubt that the future discoveries of science would support any of the beliefs of the traditional religions, beliefs that he regards as parochial, but nevertheless worthy of some respect. And on that conciliatory note, the debate was concluded.
  • Who won the debate? From the perspective of style or mode of expression, perhaps Collins won. At times, Dawkins seemed to come across as a bit testy and abrasive.
  • Gary J. Whittenberger
  • Maybe the best approach in any such discussion forum is to try to flush out first exactly where the theist is positioned on the spectrum of belief by a series of clear questions. eg for Christians: - Do you accept the literal truth of the Bible (completely, or just the New Testament?) - Do you believe in Jesus's miracles, virgin birth, physical ascencion to Heaven? - Do you believe that God regularly intervenes in the natural universe eg by answering prayers, or in the design of organisms? etc
  • Bakari Chavanu on 29 Sep 09
     
    Excellent article and good for discussion. Would like to read others in this group think.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page