>Contemplation is spontaneous awe at the sacredness of life . . . It is gratitude for life, for awareness and for being. It is is a vivid realization of the fact that life and being proceed from an invisible, transcendent, and infinitely abundant Source.
>mfw dead inside fedoralords will never get this, can only shriek "proof?" "evidence?" "proof?" like autismo-trons on the fritz ad nauseaum
>posting some great quote that can have merit to anyone appreciative of life, regardless of faith or lack thereof
>HURR DURR FEDORAFAGS
Nice confirmation bias. Youre reading what you want to read
as a fedoranus i disagree you need to feel like a special magical guy created everything for you to appreciate the beauty of nature,
the beauty of nature and life can be attributed to all the rhythmical patterns and and all the beauty in those patterns
why does nature have to arise from some infinite and invisible source for it to be pretty? also protip: the big bang fulfills all the requirements of
>transcendent (beyond human comprehension/easy understanding)
>infinitely abundant (infinitely expanding universe)
>invisible (we will never see the big bang the origin of life)
No, it doesn't. I like how if you posit something behind the Big Bang fedoras throw up a stop sign for some reason. Also what a load. "Hurr the beauty of then universe is just patterns" uh yeah obviously dude did I say it was meaningless chaos or something? Why do fedoras think the material basis of something invalidates how it is experienced qualitatively?
>needing a fucking empirical study done before the big science man says it's OK to feel gratitude for the miracle of life and consciousness
The atheists who say this are doing it in response to religious claims that atheists can't enjoy life or appreciate the world. It has nothing to do with the imaginary scenario you just pulled out of your arse m8.
The "big science man" is not an authority, he's influential. You yourself further the pop debate between religion and science by speaking in these terms, like it's not possible to have religious views unless you believe in young earth creationism. Fuck you. I can just tell you think you're the "little man" and feel validated by it.
>No, it doesn't. I like how if you posit something behind the Big Bang fedoras throw up a stop sign for some reason.
Because science needs strict methodological rigor and religious people frequently try to shoehorn unfalsifiable causes into it like they're not making up bullshit. Do you think classical music needs more dubstep remixes? Do you think the Bible needs more pagan influences? Do you think grilled fish needs cheese and chocolate condiments? Trying to interject mystical "transcendent" bullshit into discussions about the material world defeat the purpose of having a methodology that tries to give detailed explanatory and predictive power over the material world. You've already got your little book that has the conclusions you look to support, of course you don't want them tested. This is why religion has become more abstract over the years with deists and agnostics and shit. Science killed the Christian role as the center of education about the natural world that it had in the Middle Ages, so modern Western religious identity is almost entirely about socializing, cultural posturing and ethics.