Saxis Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 And don't talk about these sorts of things early on. Why? So it hurts more later when both parties are more involved?
Sarabina Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 As an atheist and a skeptic I would be very turned off if the man I was with believed in the stuff that you did. You should be grateful that this "issue" was resolved so early in the relationship. It would be best if you tried finding people who shared the same beliefs as you did. I for one, would not be able to get into a proper relationship with someone if they did not share my beliefs.
TaurusTerp Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Why? So it hurts more later when both parties are more involved? You don't talk about your bed wetting, foot fetish, stance on abortion, etc early on do you? This is basically the same thing to most people.
denise_xo Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I think differences in those kind of view points are quite legitimate grounds to break up over. Sharing essential attitudes to life is really important to many people for long term compatibility. I agree with the poster who said it's good to have that clarified sooner rather than later. He could definitely have done it without being condescending, though.
KathyM Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Been dating 3 weeks, spend pretty much every day together. We talked about spirituality on our 2nd date, thought we were on the same page, though we just only nicked the subject that day. Last night he was driving me home, I have a few theories on the afterlife- I consider myself pretty open minded, and I have "guesses" about everything but would never discredit someones ideas/beliefs. I have a theory that we are all energy- that when we die that energy just changes form. Our bodies and matter are solid because we are on a different vibrational level. Spirits can pass through solid matter because their vibration is higher. He doesn't know if there is or isn't a god, I really don't know his exact beliefs because he pretty much listened to my theories. I told him when 2 bad things happened in my life I lost a cross necklace both times, that I took it as a sign that god was looking out for me. Today he picks me up, we do some apartment looking for him as he is looking to relocate. He told me to call him when I get out of work, I thought I was off at 10, but didn't get out till 11. He seemed kinda irked because he waited around at home for an hour when he could have been napping. So, he's driving me home from work and says he wished we would have talked about beliefs/theories a few weeks ago, because he just can't date someone that "lives in a different reality than him". Twisted my words about me losing the cross necklace into "I believe in charms". I said no, I took it as a sign. He was condescending and said "so you think god has the time to rescue some people over others". I said "No, but I do believe in the power of prayer, we are all connected, so 50 people praying over something over 1 person might make more of a difference as a greater need is expressed to the universe". He's like "Yeah, I just can't agree with that" and kinda laughed it off. I said "Why can't I have my beliefs, and you have yours, and we both are content?" He said "Because I just can't take you seriously anymore". The rest of the 20 minutes ride was spent in silence. I had bought him some shower stuff earlier in the week cuz he had like no shampoo, soap or anything- apparently he had that bagged up and waiting in he car to give back to me. He got out of the car to get it out of the back seat. He said "well I wish you well". I said "uh hum", couldn't look him in the eye and walked to my doorstep. He waited in the drive as I fumbled looking for my keys, I opened the door and shut it- did not look back. This hurts, I was really getting attached to him. I enjoyed our time together. I just don't understand why some people have to be so close minded and respect that we all have our own beliefs, and that's what makes us unique. Deeply disappointed. It's normal for people to want to date others that are like them--similar in beliefs. A spiritual connection and shared beliefs is very important in a relationship. You are not a match with him. He doesn't appear to have a belief system or know what he believes, and you came across as a bit flakey when you bring it one step farther when you talked about energy and vibrations. Chalk it up to not a match, and move on.
KR10N Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 You don't talk about your bed wetting, foot fetish, stance on abortion, etc early on do you? This is basically the same thing to most people.Quick scenario: After 5 months of dating you & your SO have been sexually active for weeks. (S)He later finds out that you/they are pregnant. You/they want an abortion, (s)he wants to keep the baby... What next? Flip a coin? It's better to discuss these things early on.
OliveOyl Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 You don't talk about your bed wetting, foot fetish, stance on abortion, etc early on do you? This is basically the same thing to most people. Would you talk about your general viewpoint on religion? This is essentially what she did. There's no comparison to bed wetting. Give me a break.
KR10N Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Would you talk about your general viewpoint on religion? This is essentially what she did. There's no comparison to bed wetting. Give me a break. lol.
TaurusTerp Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 It's 3 weeks in. Simply my viewpoint that it's too early to be bringing in topics like religion. If you don't think so, good for you. I think it's too heavy though. You're right about abortion, though - that should be discussed before having sex. My bad.
OliveOyl Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 It's 3 weeks in. Simply my viewpoint that it's too early to be bringing in topics like religion. If you don't think so, good for you. I think it's too heavy though. You're right about abortion, though - that should be discussed before having sex. My bad. I would think this would want to be discussed earlier on. Maybe not having deep religious debate early on, but at least knowing where people generally stand as this can be such big deal-breaker for many (e.g. many people only want to settle down with people who share the same religion and/or spiritual viewpoints).
Star Gazer Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 CG, I am really sorry you have been through this, and it must hurt. On the flip side, while it sucks that he was so blunt about it, at least he was honest and upfront about it and didn't string you along after learning something about you that he was uncomfortable with. Beliefs are so personal, and he obviously feels strongly enough about the matter to consider it a dealbreaker- its not your fault or anything personal against you, its whats unique about him. Sadly it means you aren't compatible. I think its easier to respect different beliefs between friends than it is to respect it between partners, especially when you have been in a relationship long enough to be considering marriage and/ or children. I totally agree with SB. He definitely could have communicated his thoughts more tactfully, but he did the right thing for BOTH of you. Beliefs like these are so personal, and we NEED our partners to share or RESPECT them in order for a relationship to survive. For some, New Age-y beliefs are a dealbreaker. For others, it's being a far right Republican. But at the end of the day, you're not a good fit. I know it sucks, buy try to turn the tables and think to yourself, "Hey, this dude didn't respect my beliefs, so I can't take HIM seriously anymore." Onwards and upwards!
TaurusTerp Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I would think this would want to be discussed earlier on. Maybe not having deep religious debate early on, but at least knowing where people generally stand as this can be such big deal-breaker for many (e.g. many people only want to settle down with people who share the same religion and/or spiritual viewpoints). People nix relationships for much, much less early on whereas if there's a level of commitment they're more likely to work through potential issues.
Eeyore79 Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Actually, at one time there was no real evidence of either. And, today there is NO evidence of 'string theory' either but we continue to pursue it, and I think that is a good thing. Look, I do get your point but I guess I've always admired those who have the courage to think outside of the box, the artists & the scientists. I hate to go off topic, but there has always been evidence that the earth was round. A lunar eclipse has always cast a round shadow on the moon, and there has always been a horizon (over which boats, when they were invented, vanished). String theory has a scientific basis (which many beliefs do not) but remains a theory precisely because of a lack of further evidence; nobody insists it must be true despite the absence of evidence, like they do with some other things. Thinking outside of the box is admirable, but should not include believing fairy tales for which there's no evidence or even a scientific basis.
VertexSquared Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Tbh, if you said to me stuff like "we're all energy", "different vibrational level", "I took it as a sign", "I believe in the power of prayer" - I would have thought you were one of these New Age nuts (or at the very least knew nothing about science), and I'd have run a mile, the same as this guy did. Stuff like "different vibrational level" just sounds like crazy talk to me - what's vibrating, and through what medium does it propagate? I basically wanted to echo this. To the OP: To anyone with a moderate amount of scientific literacy, what you describe is... frankly, pretty crazy. We already know a lot of the answers to the sort of inquiries you're bringing up. "It's not hurting anyone" is actually (possibly) untrue depending on context, so it *can* be a problem. He was a bit of an ass in how he handled that breakup with you, but consider it better sooner than later. Some people are not OK with those who hold beliefs that are, largely, at odds with reality. Anyways, at least the guy was upfront about it. Just means you'll have to find someone who is OK with your spiritual frame of mind. Edited July 13, 2011 by VertexSquared
VertexSquared Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Actually, at one time there was no real evidence of either. And, today there is NO evidence of 'string theory' either but we continue to pursue it, and I think that is a good thing. Look, I do get your point but I guess I've always admired those who have the courage to think outside of the box, the artists & the scientists. ALL men don't expect ALL woman to be any one thing or another. I don't believe this is a, 'men versus woman' deal. Sorry. And I definitely don't think that someone being open minded & having an original thought is a sign they are, 'psychos'. I understand that's not your point either musemj, I was simply taking the opportunity to clarify mine. Good 'science begins with being open minded enough to explore the unknown & seemingly unknowable. The Earth being round & not the center of the universe was just a bunch of unscientific, crazy talk at one time too, at least until some had the courage to consider it. The evidence for the Earth's roundness has always been there. The difference is that people hadn't yet connected the dots -- they hadn't developed the mathematics and observational approaches that were necessary to prove certain things true yet. Regarding string theory, it's an attempt to solve a necessary problem of reconciling two uneasily-incompatible frameworks (quantum mechanics and general relativity). It's a theory that needs more sophisticated testing to really hammer out (which is why we built things like the LHC). The theory exists because it comes about as a result of piecing together what we know about GR and QM regarding the mathematics involved. It's not some evidence-less, random theory that there's no proof for. There's a lot of claims it posits that need to be tested to know more for sure, but the point still stands. It's the only game in town. There is a difference between being open-minded and being ignorant/susceptible to crackpottery and demonstrably false beliefs. Good science does venture into the unknown, but it does so with a structured method and justified approach. You don't just go wildly poking around assuming things to be true for no reason other than emotional appeal. If the OP really wants to hold onto her beliefs, she of course has every right to. She just needs to find someone who doesn't have a problem with those beliefs. Edited July 13, 2011 by VertexSquared
OliveOyl Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I basically wanted to echo this. To the OP: To anyone with a moderate amount of scientific literacy, what you describe is... frankly, pretty crazy. We already know a lot of the answers to the sort of inquiries you're bringing up. "It's not hurting anyone" is actually (possibly) untrue depending on context, so it *can* be a problem. Why is it any more crazy than believing that a book written by a bunch of old men a few thousand years ago is the ultimate word of God? Do you call Christians crazy? My point is not to bring up which religion or spiritual belief is "right." There's no way I could even do that (nor want to). Just seems strange that the OPs beliefs are labeled "nut-case" whereas other belief systems are accepted as non-nutcase even though they too lack the same scientific rigor.
TaurusTerp Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Why is it any more crazy than believing that a book written by a bunch of old men a few thousand years ago is the ultimate word of God? Do you call Christians crazy? My point is not to bring up which religion or spiritual belief is "right." There's no way I could even do that (nor want to). Just seems strange that the OPs beliefs are labeled "nut-case" whereas other belief systems are accepted as non-nutcase even though they too lack the same scientific rigor. Even though I think most religious people are a little crazy, I think everyone can see a difference. Christianity is a long established religion, and most of the people who call themselves Christians were raised this way since they were young. Even if I don't believe in a higher power, I can understand that people aren't able to just ignore everything they've learned since they were children. OP's ideas, on the other hand....just seem like random thoughts pulled from a drug-induced haze when she was 16. I'm sure that's pretty condescending, so apologies, but couldn't think of a better way to phrase it.
D-Lish Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 As an atheist and a skeptic I would be very turned off if the man I was with believed in the stuff that you did. You should be grateful that this "issue" was resolved so early in the relationship. It would be best if you tried finding people who shared the same beliefs as you did. I for one, would not be able to get into a proper relationship with someone if they did not share my beliefs. I'm the same- I couldn't relate to the necklace thing, and it would be a turn off for me. Religion can be a pretty huge deal breaker for many people. It's very important to be compatible when it comes to your religious views. I'm not bashing your views- only saying that it would be 100% impossible for me to date a religious man as an Atheist. When I had an account on POF, the first thing I would do is look at their picture- and the second check would be their religious affiliation.
oldguy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I hate to go off topic, but there has always been evidence that the earth was round. A lunar eclipse has always cast a round shadow on the moon, and there has always been a horizon (over which boats, when they were invented, vanished). String theory has a scientific basis (which many beliefs do not) but remains a theory precisely because of a lack of further evidence; nobody insists it must be true despite the absence of evidence, like they do with some other things. Thinking outside of the box is admirable, but should not include believing fairy tales for which there's no evidence or even a scientific basis. Still off topic for a bit. The lunar eclipse being elliptical was long believed due to the Earth being more disk shaped, the ships vanishing over the horizon was believed to be a phenomenon that may have been similar to perspective. Certainly not the Earth being a sphere, they could not comprehend that. And we of course where the center of the universe as everything seemed to move around us. But you are correct regarding my poor choice of using this analogy to defend the OP's beliefs. The evidence for the Earth's roundness has always been there. The difference is that people hadn't yet connected the dots -- they hadn't developed the mathematics and observational approaches that were necessary to prove certain things true yet. Off topic again for a moment; Of course the Earth has always been round and the proverbial DOTs had been connected, just incorrectly. Much of what we've discovered was as a result of looking for something else and usually by someone else. In fact I believe it is the advancement in our ability to communicate more efficiently that has accelerated our discoveries because we have greater access to each others ideas. Regarding string theory, it's an attempt to solve a necessary problem of reconciling two uneasily-incompatible frameworks (quantum mechanics and general relativity). It's a theory that needs more sophisticated testing to really hammer out (which is why we built things like the LHC). The theory exists because it comes about as a result of piecing together what we know about GR and QM regarding the mathematics involved. It's not some evidence-less, random theory that there's no proof for. There's a lot of claims it posits that need to be tested to know more for sure, but the point still stands. It's the only game in town. It's the most popular game in town & it began with an idea long before it became a theory I believe. There is a difference between being open-minded and being ignorant/susceptible to crackpottery and demonstrably false beliefs. Good science does venture into the unknown, but it does so with a structured method and justified approach. You don't just go wildly poking around assuming things to be true for no reason other than emotional appeal. You... no, admittedly we, assume these are one persons wild imaginings, that they are not an accumulation of thoughts, ideas, or pondering s. We are assuming a lot and pitting our bias's to what we hold to be 'truth' against an idea. Otherwise why would there be such an emotional reaction? I'm seriously curious; is there a way of demonstrating this as a false belief with no merit, and if so would it apply to most religious beliefs as well? If the OP really wants to hold onto her beliefs, she of course has every right to. She just needs to find someone who doesn't have a problem with those beliefs. Back on topic; I completely agree & said so earlier. I'm not a "new age, nut(?)'. But I am finding it increasingly difficult to slam the door on someones ideas or beliefs without even considering it simply because they are not in lockstep with my own. Even yours:laugh:JK.
OliveOyl Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Even though I think most religious people are a little crazy, I think everyone can see a difference. Christianity is a long established religion, and most of the people who call themselves Christians were raised this way since they were young. Even if I don't believe in a higher power, I can understand that people aren't able to just ignore everything they've learned since they were children. OP's ideas, on the other hand....just seem like random thoughts pulled from a drug-induced haze when she was 16. I'm sure that's pretty condescending, so apologies, but couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. Nearly everyone who come to New Age beliefs actually consciously chose them, instead of being spoon-fed the ideology from when they were little. It seems strange to denounce people who consciously choose their beliefs as "crazy" over those who blindly accept what they are taught.... The belief system isn't random at all. No more random than any major religious belief system. Sorry for veering off-topic again...
Hot Chick Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 He was probably bored with your theories and did not want to be subjected to more talks like that. I'm sorry but that is what I think. All your theories are "hearsay" that you came up with and talking about it is just going around in circles and boring. I don't think you sound very intellectual and if you could have amore relevant conversation about the economy or the situation in Libya, and had a solid opinion about it obviously based upon your keeping up in the news, he probably would have been more impressed with you. Also...in the early stages of the relationship, try to focus on the guy and letting him shine. Ask him about HIM and compliment him, etc. Talk about his career, his hobbies, his favorite sports, hate to say it, make it about him and shift the conversation to him a lot. Just a dating tip...it actually works. This will keep his ego up and actually keep him wanting to see you. hearing the drivel about your theories of existence are boring and nonsense, and no wonder he headed toward the hills. Sorry if this is blunt.
sb129 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Yeee ouch. Saucer of milk? Some people are so nasty. For the record, I don't happen to agree with CGs beliefs, but at least I can be nice about it.
VertexSquared Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Why is it any more crazy than believing that a book written by a bunch of old men a few thousand years ago is the ultimate word of God? Do you call Christians crazy? My point is not to bring up which religion or spiritual belief is "right." There's no way I could even do that (nor want to). Just seems strange that the OPs beliefs are labeled "nut-case" whereas other belief systems are accepted as non-nutcase even though they too lack the same scientific rigor. It's all crazy, yes. I'm not a "new age, nut(?)'. But I am finding it increasingly difficult to slam the door on someones ideas or beliefs without even considering it simply because they are not in lockstep with my own. Even yours:laugh:JK. The problem is when you invoke things that are demonstrably false. You'd see someone as crazy if they admitted they believed in a flat Earth or the Stork Theory of Baby Delivering. These would set off huge warning bells to you because you understand the evidence against them. Similarly, the OP's beliefs come across as crazy to those who understand the evidence against those things, and so forth. We already know we're not "made of energy" (we're made of matter, and we have mass -- and Einstein showed us that there is a mass-energy equivalence, but that doesn't mean we're actually made of energy. Energy has a very specific definition). We already know everything is causally linked to the brain, and we know how it evolved. We've come a long way when it comes to all the physics you can do on a tabletop. We know what happens when you die. We know all the logical implications and problems with argument-from-ignorance and the God of the Gaps argument. We know that the power of prayer and "charms" are statistically no different from pure chance (and thus any other action you wish to bring up) -- the only benefit being a happier psychological state if you derive utility from it. To pick-and-choose eventualities is to fall victim to confirmation bias. There comes a point when you're no longer "respecting beliefs" but overlooking nutty views wrought forth out of ignorance. Ignorance is no crime -- we're all ignorant of something. But ignorance is something to be remedied, not blindly accepted, imo. In the case of the OP's situation, the guy felt she was crazy and moved on. Could he have used more tact? Arguably so. Could she have made an attempt to come to reality? Sure. But if she doesn't want to do that and really wishes to hold onto her beliefs, she just needs to find someone who's OK with it -- that's all. Edited July 13, 2011 by VertexSquared
oldguy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) For the sake of argument; string theory is reliant on multiple dimensions. It would then be conceivable that we are linked to them in ways we obviously con not sense or are aware of. And even though our memories and cognitive abilities are wrapped up in our brains that does not necessarily mean that we don't simultaneously exist on other plains. There is still great debate as to where the, "I think therefore I am" awareness is located. And again, just for the sake of pondering, what IF, it's not located here, in one of the dimensions we have sensory access too? "What IF there are dots we are not aware of"? The problem is when you invoke things that are demonstrably false. You'd see someone as crazy if they admitted they believed in a flat Earth or the Stork Theory of Baby Delivering. These would set off huge warning bells to you because you understand the evidence against them. Similarly, the OP's beliefs come across as crazy to those who understand the evidence against those things, and so forth. We already know we're not "made of energy" (we're made of matter, and we have mass -- and Einstein showed us that there is a mass-energy equivalence, but that doesn't mean we're actually made of energy. Energy has a very specific definition). We already know everything is causally linked to the brain, and we know how it evolved. We've come a long way when it comes to all the physics you can do on a tabletop. We know what happens when you die.We know what happens to the physical mass that makes up our bodies, yes. As Carl Sagan use to say; "we are all star stuff" and unto star stuff we shall return. We know all the logical implications and problems with argument-from-ignorance and the God of the Gaps argument. We know that the power of prayer and "charms" are statistically no different from pure chance (and thus any other action you wish to bring up) -- the only benefit being a happier psychological state if you derive utility from it. To pick-and-choose eventualities is to fall victim to confirmation bias.[/b] There comes a point when you're no longer "respecting beliefs" but overlooking nutty views wrought forth out of ignorance. Ignorance is no crime -- we're all ignorant of something. But ignorance is something to be remedied, not blindly accepted, imo. The concept of believing what we think we know as being all there is to know is in itself a bit ignorant. For instance, many of the things you sight as things, 'we know' we actually think we know based on the dots available. And no, I don't run around saying we are wrong about what 'we know', I just know we probably don't know what we know LOL. In the case of the OP's situation, the guy felt she was crazy and moved on. Could he have used more tact? Arguably so. Could she have made an attempt to come to reality? Sure. But if she doesn't want to do that and really wishes to hold onto her beliefs, she just needs to find someone who's OK with it -- that's all. :laugh:I forgot about the OP:laugh: we need to start another post:D Edited July 13, 2011 by oldguy
VertexSquared Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) For the sake of argument; string theory is reliant on multiple dimensions. It would then be conceivable that we are linked to them in ways we obviously con not sense or are aware of. And even though our memories and cognitive abilities are wrapped up in our brains that does not necessarily mean that we don't simultaneously exist on other plains. There is still great debate as to where the, "I think therefore I am" awareness is located. And again, just for the sake of pondering, what IF, it's not located here, in one of the dimensions we have sensory access too? "What IF there are dots we are not aware of"? The dimensions come about as a result of the mathematics. They're not mindlessly brought in in order to handwave away unexplainable things. That is one common criticism of ST -- that it's somehow untestable. The answer is that "we don't really have to test certain things directly." It ultimately boils down to whether or not the effects we can measure are ultimately consistent -- if the manifestations in our lower-dimensional-experience follow suit. It's like how we know the sun is made of hydrogen even though we've never actually gotten close to it physically. We know it's hydrogen because of the way it acts and because of substantiating evidence such as spectral line readings. Same goes for things like neutrinos, proposed by Pauli, who was ashamed of himself for having introduced a "particle we couldn't observe" -- and yet here we are producing neutrino beams. Or how about Dirac's prediction of antimatter? Or the prediction of the locations of Neptune/Pluto before we had ever directly observed them? There are lots of ways science progresses. Some of it direct, some of it indirect. Some things we can deduce mathematically, but we sometimes we simply lack the technology necessary to adequately test for certain aspects. Again, that's what the LHC/LISA/dark matter projects are meant to help elucidate. As for consciousness, that isn't actually much of a debate anymore. It's only perpetuated as a debate by those unfamiliar with modern neuroscience (similar to how evolution is no longer a question, but scientific fact). We may not know the specifics of all the individual components, but we have a good idea how it works and what *kind* of mechanics are at play. Awareness is, again, a concept causally linked to the brain. We know how sensory stimuli operate and we know how it's processed. We can temporarily knock out certain portions of the brain and witness the resulting effects in sentience and behavioral processing. You don't need things like a soul to explain consciousness. As for "what if there are dots we are not aware of" -- there are infinitely many "what ifs" we could invoke. This is, again, a problem leading into argument from ignorance. We don't say "Just because we don't know if X is true, it must therefore be true." It's like saying "I just saw something fly across in the sky -- it must be an alien spaceship!" when there are many other viable solutions. So what if there are dots we can't see? If we have no reason to assume they exist, why assume such a thing? What about triangles we can't see? What about the flying spaghetti monster? What about Thor or Apollo? In the logical vacuum of the purely unknown, *anything* goes as fair game when it comes to what is possible. Of course, that doesn't actually mean we have good reason to actually believe in any one thing over the other. We know what happens to the physical mass that makes up our bodies, yes. As Carl Sagan use to say; "we are all star stuff" and unto star stuff we shall return. Trying to argue that humans have a soul that operates with all the functions of a sentient mind independent of the body is not much different from arguing that even after you smash down a computer to the point if scrap metal it must somehow has a spiritual form that transcends its physical components. You then have to wonder if everything, then, has a soul. It gets to the point where you realize that the concept of the "soul" is a bit silly when we can explain everything physically. The "soul" is an emotional appeal arising out of fear of death, which is itself a widespread necessary condition for the evolution of intelligent beings. When you die, your brain stops. It'll eventually decompose into nothing. The last time your brain was nothing was, also, before you were born. Death will be no different from that sort of experience. So yes, you'll eventually return back into the very same star stuff from which you were brought up. 13.7 billion years is an awfully long time for our atoms to be clinking around the universe before they came together to give us less than a century of amazing sentience. Life is great, eh? What an opportunity... and so much more profound than any manmade myths, Gods, or monsters. The concept of believing what we think we know as being all there is to know is in itself a bit ignorant. For instance, many of the things you sight as things, 'we know' we actually think we know based on the dots available. And no, I don't run around saying we are wrong about what 'we know', I just know we probably don't know what we know LOL. No serious scientist believes we know all there is to know. Scientists *embrace* the fact that we're at the forefront of our ignorance. But this doesn't mean it's OK to use argument from ignorance to form your beliefs. If that's how you want to play the game -- by invoking things like God of the Gaps -- then you have to be ready for the notion that God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Anyways I am getting offtrack and hijacking the OP's thread so I will stop here. XD Edited July 13, 2011 by VertexSquared
Recommended Posts