 |
| |
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ah but what I'm suggesting is that he wouldn't ask the question of being alive, and the consequent questions of the meaning of life etc, firstly because of the lack of language, secondly because the lack of a sociological context that thirdly leads to a notion of "life" and "alive". His perceptions would, like a feral child, be animalistic, like a very young child who knows no language. |
Regardless the question in the social context the desire for life is. I understand what you are saying but it does not need to be in any context as desire for life is self- evident.
quote:
 True. It is used as an indictment of atheism by the theists, however I don't think that stands up. I think that it is an interesting conclusion of atheism that follows if you accept the premises of atheism in a scientific fashion as opposed to a political fashion. |
It depends on how much you believe in who and what you are. Are you made of the same substance as the universe?
quote:
True, but in the situation of our man on the island, his responses would be autonomic and animalistic, the fight-or-flight response that is necessary to the survival of his genome. I doubt very much that one expends much conscious energy in such a situation thinking of the philosophical implications of the predator, and the distinction between ones life and non-life, let alone the distinction between life and non-life of any others. In any case, the reaction between you or I, and our hypothetical man when faced with the same situation would probably not be very different. |
That is very true sir. That is my point exactly, all life holds life to be precious in and of itself.
quote:
I would take issue with that, I assumed you meant in terms of our consciousnesses. In a metaphysical sense then, the universe is because of a desire of a presumed creator? I'm afraid I can't see how that would boil down to anything more than the First Cause argument, and fall to its standard refutations. You might find more use here by looking into causality, in other words asking the question "does the whole require a cause?" The whole in this case would be necessary, composed of entirely contingent objects. Reminds me of the debate between Russell and Copleston, and with our understanding of chaos theory and determinism, I think Russell's position here is far stronger. That is to say of course, that the question itself "does the whole require a cause" is absurd, and the consequences are infinitely too demanding of the human experience. |
I did mean in terms of your consciousness. That is all that can be known or experienced. Anything else is pure conjecture.
You like Occom`s Razor and so do I. It is better than a truth table. We know certain truths as absolute. All other perceptions are discernable and conceptualized from the fundamental truths that are the lowest denominator.
1- I exist
2- I experience
3- My experience is in a state of flux( you have never had an identical meal, day, or experience)
4- I desire to be or to live
If you build on these basic truths, it leads you to the conclusion of the absolute truth of all existence.
Bold statement I know; tis true non the less.
quote:
But what of altruism to egoistic ends, where altruism may be better for the individual in given situations? |
The pre - programming of win/lose is inferior to the true paradigm of by the means of win/win. The highest form of existence can be found when all sides win either through compromise, sharing, or sacrifice.
Matters not the situation, including the Middle East.
quote:
Intriguing idea... that we are all individual macrocosms? Would you say then that we are necessary in the "cogito ergo sum" sense, or that the universe is contingent as a result? |
I would say you are the model without projecting into 'others'. I have found as soon as the concept is projected it breaks down. "To lose oneself, to find oneself" - as the scripture said.
Yes the universe is because I is  . The question "does the universe exist apart from me?" How could that be?
In the process of dialectic through a socratic method.
quote:
Tis true. It's like the idea of the artificial model of God that we all carry suggests... to quote from the Simpsons,
"Some of us prefer illusion to despair".
And who can argue with that? |
I am not so sure it is artificial, that would mean I and my reality are a cheap imitation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
(In fact the speed of expansion also gives me problems visualising the idea that light from far away objects indicate what was happening in the far past : far enough and you are looking at near the start of creation. If light from these objects travels faster than the universe expands, then shouldn't have it reached here ages ago ? After all when the universe was an inch diameter anything going light speed would cross the whole distance in 'next to no time'. But that's another topic.)
|
That's one of the problems with using the "speed" of expansion. The universe would have been opaque at such a size of course.
quote:
So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?
|
For the most part I wouldn't say so, though I'll go into it in a minute. For the most part, atheism is caused by causes closer to home, the obvious fallacies of religion; and then everything we see in the universe and in science and in logic confirms that. The danger is that the atheist falls into the trap of being fervent... very easy in a world full of BS. It is then that he might become almost religious... bound to his idea, which is unhealthy imo.
Is an atheist scared of the possibility of there being a creator? In terms of a creator in itself, I should say the question is irrelevant. What would matter is if, when the atheist dies, he suddenly discovers that there *is* life after death and that the creator *is* God, who being a fundamentalist Christian judges that his life is one far from God, and thus sends the atheist to Hell. It's a form of Pascal's bet.
One reason for the fallacy of atheistic *belief* (as opposed to concurrence) in atheism is that one can never be absolutely certain either way, for that would defy the point. Of course, there are thousand of conflicting religious ideas, none more consistent than any other that tells us how to guarentee a life in heaven, so arbitrary choice is impossible. What the atheist must do instead is life by what he sees around him, his own rationality and judgement, and lives life in the best way he sees fit... and we all take our individual chances when we kick the bucket. There's no lesser risk for the religious when they die... who knows? God might be an atheist .
quote:
i think we need to understand that all paths lead to 'god', whatever god may be(could be pure science and relitivism/could be an 'intelligent designer').
|
How so?
quote:
what do you think on Sir Martin Rees's take on the universe being too highly tuned for 'chance' to be a mathmatical possibiltiy of creation ever happening?
|
I think that Martin Rees has never read Gottfried Leibniz. If you play the lottery today, in the UK your chances of winning are just under 14 million : 1. If you played last week, and won, your chances of winning last weeks draw today are 1, or 100%.
The anthropic principle says that were the universe a smidgen different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. But we predicate the question by our existence which predetermines that the answer is "the probability of this universe existing is 100%". It is another measure of our "designer" geocentric mentality that we seek to find a cause and intent for this... but the universe was not designed with us in mind... we are an accident of the universe.
Also remember that fantastically simple causes can lead to fantastically complex outcomes. We see an amazingly complex universe, but again our designer mentality thinks in terms of one step to design it. That's not so. An incomprehensible number of small cause -> consequence events forged this universe, and at each small level, it doesn't seem quite so complex or surprising (weak determinism). The complexity as we see it, is a beautiful illusion of our own making.
quote:
But in our struggle through our lives it doesn't hurt to ponder on it from time to time - its quite fun and probably helps us become better human beings.
|
Here here! 
quote:
That for me is one of the stronger reasons why i think the universe and ourselves exist
|
I don't think that the reason the atoms coalesce into an atomic scientist is to ask the question "what is an atom?", so to speak... I think we assign our own meanings and purpose to it all. I don't see that we humans are the conscience of the universe... if so, then our plane of existence is running out of oil!
quote:
Regardless the question in the social context the desire for life is. I understand what you are saying but it does not need to be in any context as desire for life is self- evident.
|
Perhaps... all I'm saying is that desire for life is a consequence of life, not a cause. One needs to be alive in order to want to be alive.
quote:
If you build on these basic truths, it leads you to the conclusion of the absolute truth of all existence.
|
Hmmm, I would take the form of your four truths as "'I'... exist/experience/desire" ergo "'I'... exist/experience/desire". In that sense, it's not so much a truth as a tautology. No information as such has gone in, and none can really come out.
Reminds me of the discussion between to philosophers, one who said that the physical world didn't really exist, and the other who kicked a large, heavy rock saying "I refute it THUS!" .
quote:
The pre - programming of win/lose is inferior to the true paradigm of by the means of win/win. The highest form of existence can be found when all sides win either through compromise, sharing, or sacrifice.
|
Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with your use of "the highest form of existence". Certainly it's good for all sides involved, but it's not inherently better... since you might describe the holocaust as win/win providing you exclude everyone who wasn't a fervent Nazi.
quote:
Matters not the situation, including the Middle East.
|
Nuke the Pals! They get to die as martyrs, the Israeli's get an enormous glass lake to skate on!
quote:
I would say you are the model without projecting into 'others'. I have found as soon as the concept is projected it breaks down. "To lose oneself, to find oneself" - as the scripture said.
|
Sounds like Buddhist-like nonpermanance... to eliminate the ego.
quote:
The question "does the universe exist apart from me?" How could that be?
In the process of dialectic through a socratic method.
|
Indeed, but it assumes that existence as seen by one who perceives is dependent upon that persons perception, which I suppose is the point that we are both making, though you would also call it desire?
quote:
I am not so sure it is artificial, that would mean I and my reality are a cheap imitation.
|
Ah not quite... it means that "God" comes from you in your "desire" (sic) to live a moral, happy life... an internal response to the nihilism one would otherwise have to accept. One can't argue with that, because I'd prefer you as a happy, peaceful person than a murdering cannibal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
Whaleboy,
Just so you can avoid the strawman here is what I think.
God is not one being among other beings, even a supremely great being, but instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply. Identical in every way to your state of being and existence.
A necessary state of being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of existence and being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence.
But I repeat myself - LOL
I make no bones about it - I am a Christian, but I am unlike alomost every Christian I have ever known. I am inclined to the thought of Ralph Waldo Trine (In Tune With The Infinite) or Joel S. Goldsmith (The Infinite Way).
In other words if you want to know God - "Know Thyself".
To your post
quote:
The anthropic principle says that were the universe a smidgen different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. But we predicate the question by our existence which predetermines that the answer is "the probability of this universe existing is 100%". It is another measure of our "designer" geocentric mentality that we seek to find a cause and intent for this... but the universe was not designed with us in mind... we are an accident of the universe. |
Hey - I think this is the first time I have ever seen you contradict yourself... Thats a compliment my good man. It may sound like a slam but I assure you its a compliment.
LOL
The probabilty of the universe existing is 100%. If the universe exists it certainly had you in mind (metaphor) and you are no accident as that would mean the universe in and of itself is an accident.
If you play the lottery the odds are one in fourteen million or some such outrages odds. If you won the lottery last week your odds for winning are 100% last week.
quote:
Reminds me of the discussion between to philosophers, one who said that the physical world didn't really exist, and the other who kicked a large, heavy rock saying "I refute it THUS!" |
 LOL
There is information that has gone in or rather a perception of noumena in the philosophy of Kant.
So the information that comes out is the ground or first cause of existence.
quote:
Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with your use of "the highest form of existence". Certainly it's good for all sides involved, but it's not inherently better... since you might describe the holocaust as win/win providing you exclude everyone who wasn't a fervent Nazi. |
I don`t think you understood me sir.
Win/win for all parties - including the Jewish folks.
The philosophy of
Buckminster Fullers
quote:
Sounds like Buddhist-like nonpermanance... to eliminate the ego. |
"The fact is that because no one thing or feature of
this universe is separable from the whole,
the only real You, or Self, is the whole."
- Alan Watts
I respect your intellectual integrity.
I wish atheists would stop seeing all Christians as someone who would hang this sign in their church.
 Attachment: christps2side.jpg
This has been downloaded 84 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
So you are saying that he'd be a murdering cannibal without his god?
|
No. Moore came up with a system of ethics that are not predicated by a belief in God. I, however, find that it's far easier to have some kind of arbitrary spirituality in order to lead to some moral code, instead of an intellectual pursuit to that end. Most learn morality from parents and preachers after all.
It's not to say, of course, that religion leads to "nice" behaviour... indeed quite the opposite in many cases... but even to Spanish inquisitors, it felt like they were doing the right thing by their internal "moral model"... and it's why I have absolutely no problem with religious people that don't try to force their beliefs on others, or use their beliefs to justify silly things like preaching creationism.
quote:
Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply. Identical in every way to your state of being and existence.
A necessary state of being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of existence and being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence.
|
It's a fascinating way of looking at it, but in as far as I can tell, if God is necessary and, as you imply, all lines of inquiry necessarily lead to God, then it implies that all lines of "existence-preceeds-essence" inquiry must reach infinity to achieve "existence=essense" whereas instead they regress. In short, if that is God, then God cannot be knowable, and we cannot be knowable to God.
quote:
In other words if you want to know God - "Know Thyself".
|
I concur with that!
quote:
The probabilty of the universe existing is 100%. If the universe exists it certainly had you in mind (metaphor) and you are no accident as that would mean the universe in and of itself is an accident.
If you play the lottery the odds are one in fourteen million or some such outrages odds. If you won the lottery last week your odds for winning are 100% last week.
|
Ah I can see why you thought it was a contradiction, and it was my fault for not being clear. For the universe to have had me in mind, I would have had to be 100% likely from the point of view of someone (like yourself) standing at the big bang 14 billion years ago. That is of course silly since the universe could have gone any number of ways... but my enquiry now pre-determines that 100% probability... not the other way around.
quote:
So the information that comes out is the ground or first cause of existence.
|
Hmmm... the only information that can come out is the form of the tautology in itself... in other words "I exist therefore I exist", or "I experience therefore I experience" etc. The form of the tautology, and what you might call the ground or first cause of existence, is "I"; the ego-predicate. This might indicate some internalised perception of God as I believe, but cannot be used to say "I exist necessarily therefore the cause of my existence, exists necessarily", since necessity is an ego-predicate.
quote:
I wish atheists would stop seeing all Christians as someone who would hang this sign in their church.
|
A true Christian would offer an XBox
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
"So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?"
Why such a question? |
I'm not sure - i just find that often when i have these discussions with an aethist(not that often as more people seem to label themselves as agnostic that i know), i sense an element of fear of the unknown? I could percieve that the universe and our relevance to it from that perspective as being one that can lead to a sense of fear/despair?
And its one of the reasons that religions came about. It can be argued that the aethist view point is the most humanly mature view of existence. But i often find that it reaches too far from our roots(scared apes come down from the trees) and leaves a sense of emptyness in a person.
So purely from the physical and mental well being of an individual i dont have a problem with people believing in whatever religion they want to. Proof/fact in this realm isn't always the measure of victory.
Still if your 'happy' with an aethist viewpoint then thats cool
quote:
UR:
Science is not god - science just tries to understand nature, nothing more. |
well i would ask you to look at that sentence and understand that religion is all about understanding nature too, and how we fit into it.
So what i was getting at is that both science and religion are tools that we use to understand the world around us. Science is better at answering some of these questions, religion is better at answering some of those science struggles with. neither has all the answers imho.
quote:
UR:
For atheists gods don't exist because there are no reasons for such beliefs. Things such as "fine tuning" just smack of "god-in-the-gap."
Furthermore, there are all sorts of problems associated with a "creator," such as who created the creator. |
True 
quote:
UR:
You don't need a creator for ethical behaviour though. If a person needs a powerful entity to watch over his shoulder for him to act ethically, there is a slight problem. |
This is a difficult one, and one where in theory religion should come up trumps; but history is littered with religions failure - or more accurately maybe, man's failure to properly follow his religion. Again its part of what can be percieved as the aetheist's weakness - in that it forgets the fraility of human exsitence or our humble origins. Humankind is weak, we prove it over and over again - just look around the world, look over the street, look around at home.
This is where religion is meant to help us by providing a framework for our societies to function together. The sadness of this is that often its the real non-religious person(even when pretending to be religious) that does all the damage in the world.
If we all lived by the common good that all religions hold in thier teachings, then we wouldn't have the world we do - imho it would be a much more peacefull and productive world. Thats the real worth of religion, and one that is all to often not understood or acted on.
I find it hard to believe that in a world run purely on science's values that we would have the option of all living better lives, it would be very efficient i'm sure - but not be able to provide the warmth and comfort that we apes need in our big empty universe
EDIT: oh if your wondering about the italics, i was trying an 'easy' way to do the reply to many parts of one post. It didnt work as i expected and i could'nt be bothered removing the [i]'s 
Last edited by child of Thor on 15-08-2005 at 15:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
It's a fascinating way of looking at it, but in as far as I can tell, if God is necessary and, as you imply, all lines of inquiry necessarily lead to God, then it implies that all lines of "existence-preceeds-essence" inquiry must reach infinity to achieve "existence=essense" whereas instead they regress. In short, if that is God, then God cannot be knowable, and we cannot be knowable to God. |
Ah but God can be knowable through and by the experiential knowledge of one`s own.
I know you don`t like quotes from other people but these quotes best fit the bill for what I am trying to convey.
"The spirit of man is inseparable from the Infinite, and
can be satisfied with nothing less than the Infinite."
- James Allen
"For now we see in a mirror, darkly; (enigma, puzzle, riddle), but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. "
- Apostle Paul
"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
What I am saying is that I agree with you that man has a working model in himself of the active eternal God.
I take it one step further and say it is not just a model but the reality in and of itself.
You are experiencing God this very moment, it is life itself.
"There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained.
How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now."
- Ramana Maharshi
OK - no more quotes
quote:
That is of course silly since the universe could have gone any number of ways... but my enquiry now pre-determines that 100% probability... not the other way around. |
That is like saying,
Either I do not exist, or there is a pen in my pocket.
Or the planet is to overpopulated for unicorns and perfect islands.
quote:
Hmmm... the only information that can come out is the form of the tautology in itself... in other words "I exist therefore I exist", or "I experience therefore I experience" etc. The form of the tautology, and what you might call the ground or first cause of existence, is "I"; the ego-predicate. This might indicate some internalised perception of God as I believe, but cannot be used to say "I exist necessarily therefore the cause of my existence, exists necessarily", since necessity is an ego-predicate. |
But you are necessary, if not, please recount a memory from when you did not exist?
I am glad you liked the PS2 thing.
Cmon - lets hear a good Jewish joke
You nihilists, quite viewing the universe like this.
Attachment: cat.jpg
This has been downloaded 59 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Ah but God can be knowable through and by the experiential knowledge of one`s own.
|
You're attempting to show then that an experience of God is evidence for God's existence, in which case we need to define existence. I hold it as meaning objective and contingent and subject to perceptive enquiry. That does not apply to anything that exists in our minds, no more than a wet dream exists in reality.
That we might be able to experience God ourselves imo supports my contention that God is artificial; a model for our subconscious in order that we may function well in society. That God in the familial sense has these properties is more a fault of the history of religion than indicative of any supposed actual properties.
quote:
I take it one step further and say it is not just a model but the reality in and of itself.
You are experiencing God this very moment, it is life itself.
|
Tis a fascinating way of looking at it, and I commend your ability to think it so. I am indeed open to it, though I suspect that just as logic cannot permeate the obstinacy of human faith, the human mind as *I* perceive it, or how I perceive my life is something of an infinity. As a result, not only can it not be scientifically known, but it cannot be communicated, any more than I can communicate my experience of the colour "red". Nevertheless, I'd like to hear more about how God, in our agreed sense, is reality... and what implications you think it has for God as we understand it?
As I understand it, it sounds rather like how a Buddhist would internalise Krsna and his relationship with Krsna.
quote:
That is like saying,
Either I do not exist, or there is a pen in my pocket.
Or the planet is to overpopulated for unicorns and perfect islands.
|
Apologies, I was being unclear. My existence, which is certain, denotes that the occurence of the causes of my existence, though infinetely more complex for me to appreciate, are also certain (100% probability). It makes no sense to enquire about the fantastic unlikelihood of it since you cement the probability by doing so... so in effect, thinking in terms of "holy sh*t, I was so unlikely, I must have had a designer", is geocentric. By that I mean it better describes our own psyche than any universal truths.
"Either I do not exist, or there is a pen in my pocket" is difficult since a pen is contingent at the moment, whereas the universe and its causes that predicate you, are necessary.
"The planet is too overpopulated for unicorns and perfect islands"... well I'll ignore the perfect island to avoid confusion with the ontological argument, but again a unicorn, if it were to exist, is contingent.
quote:
You nihilists, quite viewing the universe like this.
|
Surely some lifeless rock would have the big teeth? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
'm not sure - i just find that often when i have these discussions with an aethist(not that often as more people seem to label themselves as agnostic that i know), i sense an element of fear of the unknown? I could percieve that the universe and our relevance to it from that perspective as being one that can lead to a sense of fear/despair? |
There are all sorts of atheists.
Lets start from the basics. Broadly speaking, anybody who does not have a active belief in a god or a group of gods is considered an atheist. This comes from the definition of atheism*, which is theism with the Greek prefix "a-," meaning "without."
Now, there are a number of reasons for people who have no religious beliefs. For many, they looked at all the available evidence and concluded that there is no good reason to belief in one. For a few, the rejection of religion (mostly Christianity) is based on emotions. So, I cannot completely exclude that some atheists may include a component of fear. For the majority of us, though, this is not an issue.
On the contrary, atheists are the brave ones. Consider that what we face: void, eternal darkness, nothingness. To reject a creator is to reject eternal life - okay, you don't have to believe in a god to believe in souls, but that's the usual case. I reckon many people choose to believe in a religion or another because they cannot bear to face this ultimate destiny. It is an emotional crutch.
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
But i often find that it reaches too far from our roots(scared apes come down from the trees) and leaves a sense of emptyness in a person. |
Some say if you are not in love you have an emptiness in you
I guess a large part of that has to do with a person's disposition and what "emptiness" is to him. Many people can't handle being solitude for long periods of time, not me. I have much less human contact than your average person, part of it is because the nature of my chosen career path and another part the nature of my current job. It doesn't bother me at all.
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
So purely from the physical and mental well being of an individual i dont have a problem with people believing in whatever religion they want to. Proof/fact in this realm isn't always the measure of victory. |
The "live and let live" position, one of the good ones to have. If you see it purely from a happiness point of view there's nothing wrong with that, although some of us see it from another angle.
First you get all sorts of associated problems with religion, such as fundamentalism, cults, scams (faith healers, etc.), persecutions and even wars. If we avoid religion altogehter we can avoid a lot of this nasty stuff.
Second some atheists see religion as a drug. If your friend is happy when he's high on dope, will you try to get him off his substance dependence?
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
Still if your 'happy' with an aethist viewpoint then thats cool[/i] |
I can't say I am happy because I will be ultimately be nothing, but I cannot get it past myself to believe in something without evidence.
Such is life, innit?
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
well i would ask you to look at that sentence and understand that religion is all about understanding nature too, and how we fit into it. |
Science doesn't try to understand nature with make-up stuff, though
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
So what i was getting at is that both science and religion are tools that we use to understand the world around us. Science is better at answering some of these questions, religion is better at answering some of those science struggles with. neither has all the answers imho. |
Depends on the questions. Science won't - and cannot - touch any of the questions that deal with meanings, reasons behind such and such, etc. That is the nature of science, and you may consider that as a weakness. However, philosophically speaking, are such questions meaningful in this universe?
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
This is a difficult one, and one where in theory religion should come up trumps; but history is littered with religions failure - or more accurately maybe, man's failure to properly follow his religion. Again its part of what can be percieved as the aetheist's weakness - in that it forgets the fraility of human exsitence or our humble origins. Humankind is weak, we prove it over and over again - just look around the world, look over the street, look around at home. |
If you are saying that religion is better at inducing ethical behaviour - possibly, although as you said, history is rifted with examples of how religion could cause massive sufferings and damage. Heck, even the Old Testament has records of how the Israelis did nasty things to other tribes.
Yes, humans are weak and frigile in many ways, but faith isn't going to make us stronger - see if Pat Roberts or Jerry Falwell dares to put his hand in a jar fill with posionous snakes.
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
I find it hard to believe that in a world run purely on science's values that we would have the option of all living better lives, it would be very efficient i'm sure - but not be able to provide the warmth and comfort that we apes need in our big empty universe |
There are alternatives to religions. For example there are secular ethical theories. Evolution can explain why most people act in a generally good fashion. Religions may have their values in the past, however as humans we cannot remain in our crandle forever. For several centuries many had tried to get rid of our dependence on religion. Maybe it is time for us to grow up.
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
EDIT: oh if your wondering about the italics, i was trying an 'easy' way to do the reply to many parts of one post. It didnt work as i expected and i could'nt be bothered removing the [i]'s |
I was wondering when did self biased took over your bodyaccount 
* For a comprehensive treatment of the subject please refer to Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Beware that it is a very heavy duty read.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Who cares what Nietzche thought? He was completely psycho!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
Sorry for taking so long to respond, I had a virus to deal with. It was a very nasty one as it was just written and none knew about it.
My computer was borrowed by a friend of mine and he turned the firewall off. Its back on all you hacker types - LOL
I imagine it came from either an atheist or a fundamentalist religious type as I am disliked by both camps. The atheists do not like me because I mention the word 'God' and the fundies don`t like me because I mention the word 'enlightened' and sound to Eastern.
Funny - some of my bitter enemies are 'Christians'; the blind do lead the blind.
'Lord save me from your followers, amen'.
Ah - the price of being free to think my very own thoughts.
Whaleboy
quote:
You're attempting to show then that an experience of God is evidence for God's existence, in which case we need to define existence. I hold it as meaning objective and contingent and subject to perceptive enquiry. That does not apply to anything that exists in our minds, no more than a wet dream exists in reality. |
You really do have your own style when it comes to philosophy. Gotta love it.
Here is a wonder to behold Whaleboy.
Diogenes was asked, "What is the difference between life and death?
"No difference."
"Well then, why do you remain in this life?"
"Because there is no difference."
quote:
That we might be able to experience God ourselves imo supports my contention that God is artificial; a model for our subconscious in order that we may function well in society. That God in the familial sense has these properties is more a fault of the history of religion than indicative of any supposed actual properties. |
But your breath is my breath, your water is my water, and your sunshine is also mine. All things are interconnected and there is not one being, object, or event that is not part of the whole.
You cannot separate yourself from the universe no matter how hard you try.
How real is your universe you are experiencing right now?
Are you experiencing a whole reality or just a partial reality?
quote:
Tis a fascinating way of looking at it, and I commend your ability to think it so. I am indeed open to it, though I suspect that just as logic cannot permeate the obstinacy of human faith, the human mind as *I* perceive it, or how I perceive my life is something of an infinity. As a result, not only can it not be scientifically known, but it cannot be communicated, any more than I can communicate my experience of the colour "red". Nevertheless, I'd like to hear more about how God, in our agreed sense, is reality... and what implications you think it has for God as we understand it?
As I understand it, it sounds rather like how a Buddhist would internalise Krsna and his relationship with Krsna. |
If you push atheism to the extreem (and I do mean extreem) conclusion, you will arrive at the same place and you will find me sitting here grinning at you .
Half hearted attempts at finding truth never work or are a success. You must push your thinking and desire to the point of stretching the mind beyond all conventional thinking. You must pop the bubble.
These are the chains and parameters others have established so that everyone stays in line and does not think for themselves.
A story is told of a Buddhist monk and a student crossing a river. When they were half way the student asked the teacher " when will I find God?"The monk grabbed the student and with superhuman strength pushes him under the water.
The student grapples but the masters grip is just to powerful. When his lungs are just about to burst the monk yanks the young boy out of the water. As he is gasping for air the monk sais "when you desire God like you just desired a breath of air, then you will find him".
I am saying once you realize that all you can ever know is your own experience - best find out what that is.
"And thats all I have to say bout that."
 Attachment: stage65c.gif
This has been downloaded 25 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2005 14:37
|
