I'd like to add that a classic must-read in this field is William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience. It covers the subject quite comprehensively, and introduces pragmatism.
It's related to explaining what you're talking about, but research is being done on the brain where scientists are triggering "religious experiences." I suggest reading this Wired article for an easy (e.g. non-scientific) article about it.
This does not do anything to explain the existence/lack of existence of any supernatural though. To the atheist, it will look like "proof" that religion is purely psychological, while to the "believer" it will seem to be proof that God put something in our brains to connect with him. In either case though, it is an interesting look into the mechanics of the human mind.
I saw a video on the subject where Dawkins put some kind of helmet on to try and trigger a "religous experience". Maybe you've seen it, I forget what it was called.
How do you view love and label something as good or evil or right or wrong?
a religious person might see the universe as a result of love. The universe was made because God wanted someone to love. All things follow from that.
an atheist, I would think in general, would see love as a product of evolution. The universe just simply came into being, and only recently, within the past 200 million years, love developed because it gave some species in the animal kingom, or just some vertabrates, a reproductive/survival advantage. Humans have just inherited this trait.
I would also assume love would one day, possibly, become a vestigial trait. Much like our jerky response when sleep, which some believe is due to a survival response we've inherited. (our ancestors slept in trees, so those who didn't fall out had a better chance of reproducing, thus the sudden awakenings)
One of the things that Dawkins talks about is the constant destruction that produces the beautiful success of the evolutionary processes. If surviving at whatever costs is the work of the creature there's going to be some fallout. And he notes that the human species has (finally?) developed the ability to do more than satisfy short term needs and project through imagination into the future the results of it's actions, what is the least accceptable action, better, better still, "best". Out of that comes a constantly balancing of our actions - "morals", ethics, letting the welfare of others become a factor in our own well being.
Which is all well and good. I'm not a scientist and know little about most of the areas Dawkins deals in.
But I believe he recognizes that while "evolution can't be immediately observed on the scale proposed, he believes we can see the results of it. That the world we're faced with today can have an explanation and that the simplest explanation isn't "God" or any such things, but rather can be deduced, implied, hinted at certainly and grasped by much more down to earth components.
One of the things about evolution that has to be considered therefore is that we are observing it from this end, the current state, and looking back and projecting forward, definitely projecting forward as we have to assume the processes that have been at work thus far will continue and if they do they're predicatable to a certain degree. I don't know if he's stated that but it seems he'd have to. Sure, anything's possible, but if anything was truly possible, "God" would be a considered possiblity to be studied and he doesn't do that. The things that others call "God" he fits into his world view. So there's some expections, boundaries that are being kept in an "anything's possible" scenario.
But to my eye - whether we accept evolution or not, however we view life and it's progression over time one thing we see is that it's moved in a very definite pattern. Whether it was survival or direction the overall parameters of physical life have followed a very definite pattern. Remember - anything's possible, if not probable, as long as it' doesn't entertain any "God" or "spiritual" components.
I've posted this several years ago, and it's not fully developed but - consider the consistencies in how life functions...
Movement. Physical movement is accomplished by the same rules and regs for any living thing. To get from one place to another it walks, crawls, swims, flies, pushes, pulls, oozes and oogs it's way from here to there. The path is constant throughout movement. Is that the most efficient method of transportation? Given the extreme challanges that life has faced over the millenia it would seem likely that alternative methods of transport would have developed but they haven't. If they are in process they're so slight as to be undiscernable. Again, projecting into the future what we see from the past there may be more efficiencies to be gained but-Why don't we see other kinds? Or do we? What are they?
Sight/Perception. Life sees, feels, knows what it knows by it's ability to capture information around it by it's own body. Why only that way? Is there something ideal about having an eye, or two, or the senses of touch, smell, hearing? Maybe wer'e not done yet but that's pretty much what's comng down the path.
Self. The awareness of being "me", and not you. Why is there only one "me", while there are and have been billions of other humans very much like "me", but never me. Why only one me?
Evolution may have produced this brain thinking this, but why does this one think it's the only one like it? Is it? If so, why? Wouldn't it be efficient in many ways to have true replication? Not cloning, but simultaneous and recurring identities? From an evoltionary standpoint that would be killer - imagine what "we" could do.
To me life is much more directed than I think Dawkins credits, but I'm not completely sure of everything he proposes. My sense is that external creation would be a viable concept if nothing else. It would account for why the world is the way it is and not something else. God knows :) there's been enough time for some true diversity in the essense of life and it's products to develop. Where are they? And what is going on today that might point to future diversification?
I know it's kind of a silly proposition. Hey, it's the future, anything can happen right? As long as God doesn't show up, anything's possible.
did anyone else not buy his statement about not knowing that many atheist feel anger toward their parents/church/situation? He acted like he never thought of it. Maybe he hadn't. I dunno. Maybe I just see another forehead behind a podium.
What about those verses he brought up? Like the one where the father killed and cooked his daughter? Is that what the bible really says? I know what twi taught, but do other churches teach differently?
did anyone else not buy his statement about not knowing that many atheist feel anger toward their parents/church/situation? He acted like he never thought of it.
From what I've seen, the atheists I got to know, from the deconversion stories that I read, atheists become that way for a wide variety of reasons, which shoots in the foot the oft used (and lame IMHO) argument that atheists become that way due to either a very traumatic experience in the church or at the hands of abusive church leaders, or the (even lamer) reason that atheists are mad, shaking their fists at God, and (according to a former poster here) they "God didn't give them their pony".
What about those verses he brought up? Like the one where the father killed and cooked his daughter? Is that what the bible really says? I know what twi taught, but do other churches teach differently?
He was speaking of Jepthah, in Judges 11, where, as a promise to God if he won a certain battle, a father offers to sacrifice to God, as a burnt offering, the first thing that meets him after the battle. Sure enough he wins the battle, comes home, and who first meets him at his home, but his only daughter. (Read the account to see for yourself)
TWI (in order to make God a little more 'humane', I guess) taught that it wasn't an actual human sacrifice, but a ceremony where the daughter remained a virgin the rest of her life (the part where she says, "Allow me to bewail my virginity with my fellows" is the supportive scripture they use to support that opinion.). But its still a burnt offering, and many scholars think that is exactly what it was.
In any event, such a promise should never have been allowed by any decent, moral entity. At all! No matter what promise was made.
I saw a video on the subject where Dawkins put some kind of helmet on to try and trigger a "religous experience". Maybe you've seen it, I forget what it was called.
I haven't seen it. Believe it or not, I think Dawkins can be a bit obnoxious so I'm not his biggest fan even if we do agree on certain things.
How do you view love and label something as good or evil or right or wrong?
Love is what it is. There is plenty of evidence of it that pretty much everyone experiences and shares. Atheists are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Emotions are real, observable, and experiencable.
a religious person might see the universe as a result of love. The universe was made because God wanted someone to love. All things follow from that.
an atheist, I would think in general, would see love as a product of evolution. The universe just simply came into being, and only recently, within the past 200 million years, love developed because it gave some species in the animal kingom, or just some vertabrates, a reproductive/survival advantage. Humans have just inherited this trait.
Perhaps. I haven't thought too much about it really. Emotions do seem to have some evolutionary traits and help us survive. However, since I don't follow your belief that "the universe was made because God wanted someone to love", I don't have to justify everything with that premise. Of course, that begs the question of why this supposedly perfect "god" would be lacking so much that he would have to create us to fulfill that.
I would also assume love would one day, possibly, become a vestigial trait. Much like our jerky response when sleep, which some believe is due to a survival response we've inherited. (our ancestors slept in trees, so those who didn't fall out had a better chance of reproducing, thus the sudden awakenings)
yes?
I see no reason for that to happen. I seriously doubt that humans will survive long enough to risk evolving to that degree anyway. Besides, the conditions that make love possible still exist, unlike the sleeping in trees thing.
As an atheist, my view is that love is love. It has no need for the supernatural to exist. The two are apples and oranges to me. You need religion to feel love as much as you need unicorns to eat pancakes.
It just might have a different implication and we just might not be hearing.
Or seeing what there is to be seen.
Ultimately, like Job, who also judged God, I think a man needs to hear from God himself. "Seeing what there is to be seen" finally came to pass for him...
........One of the things about evolution that has to be considered therefore is that we are observing it from this end, the current state, and looking back and projecting forward, definitely projecting forward as we have to assume the processes that have been at work thus far will continue and if they do they're predicatable to a certain degree. I don't know if he's stated that but it seems he'd have to. Sure, anything's possible, but if anything was truly possible, "God" would be a considered possiblity to be studied and he doesn't do that. The things that others call "God" he fits into his world view. So there's some expections, boundaries that are being kept in an "anything's possible" scenario.
Reminds me of the NPR program All Things Considered. I think it should be called Some Things Considered. I want to be fair to our atheist posters, and to Dawkins. I'm trying to be. The question "What if the Judeo/Christian God is a delusion?" should be asked, and where better to sit to consider this question than in Humes' chair, with the Darwinian explanation for a cherry on top? I'm all for good sense. The world is indeed round and spins daily and revolves around the sun yearly. Microbes cause illnesses. Is God a delusion, and ready for the scrap pile? Have we advanced to where we do not need "Him"? For Dawkins, the answer is "yes." For me, "no."
Why does Socks' avatar sometimes dance,
and sometimes not?
Johannes Kepler was one of the most important scientists in the field of astronomy. He was the founder of "celestial mechanics", having been the first to explain planetary motion.
In addition to his theories on the structure of the Universe, Kepler made important headway into the field of optics, his publication Stereometrica Doliorum formed the basis of integral calculus, and he also made important advances in geometry.
In addition to these major breakthroughs, Kepler also explained how the tides were influenced by the Moon, determined the exact year of Christ's birth, derived Logarithms based on mathematics, with no reference to John Napier's work, and is responsible for finding the three laws of planetary motion.
Kepler's first Law: The orbit of a planet about the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun's center of mass at one focus.
Kepler's second Law: A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
Kepler's third Law: The squares of the periods of the planets are proportional to the cubes of their semi-major axes.
You may also be surprised to learn that Kepler was a very religious man, who found a way to credit God for each and every discovery he would make, not to mention his own life and career paths. Kepler had originally planned on becoming a priest, but was drawn into the world of science. Furthermore, he was of the Lutheran faith, which caused him many problems throughout his life, since Germany was part of the Holy Roman Empire until its dissolution 1806. Always being subjected to persecution by the Catholics, Kepler had to relocate several times due to pressure from the Church, yet he would not convert. Also, mathematicians were not in great demand at the time, and Kepler did not have very much money to support his family. He lived in poverty, and died in poverty, but one thing is for certain, he was very prolific, and his work did not die with him.
Like so many geniuses before and after him, Kepler has never known fame or fortune, but without his perseverance and strength of character, not to mention his many important discoveries, who knows how long it would have taken for us to even begin understanding the true structure of the universe.
Keplar was the man who mathematically proved Copernicus' heliocentric theory. And he said when he was done that perhaps the world was not yet ready to accept the proof, and that he would "bear it" (the criticism) and be patient. He did the math, and he knew he was right. They were excruciating calculations. He said something along the lines of "has not God himself waited six thousand years for the eye of man to gaze upon His creation with understanding?" (Anyone know Keplar's exact quote? I'm remembering it from a philosophy lecture.)
Sparksnotes has 11 concise articles on Keplar. Here's one called: God in the Numbers
And that's what this comes down to. A man judging God.
Well, ya know, given the kind of God we're told to believe in and obey, and often w/o question, so many, many times, ... I'd say that it's about damn time!
Hell, the god of the terrorists who plowed into the World Trade Center, ... do we not judge him? For what he inspired his terrorists to do?
And this is a good report of current states of thinking.
Well, ya know, given the kind of God we're told to believe in and obey, and often w/o question, so many, many times, ... I'd say that it's about damn time!
What kind of God? Good question.
If one don't like their current one, perhaps it's time to look elsewhere.
I haven't seen it. Believe it or not, I think Dawkins can be a bit obnoxious so I'm not his biggest fan even if we do agree on certain things.
Yes, I don't think Dawkins speaks for all atheists, but he seems to want to. I'm sure there's a whole spectrum of atheistic views.
Love is what it is. There is plenty of evidence of it that pretty much everyone experiences and shares. Atheists are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Emotions are real, observable, and experiencable.
and is determined largely by your genetics. It didn't always exist. And it won't always exist.
and no, I don't consider atheists vulcans. but I see books like "Good without God", which I do plan to read. It sounds silly. It sounds like religion reincarnated under an atheistic label.
"good" and "evil" are arbitrary. In some species, mothers eat their young as soon as they are born. It is considered good for the species, because the weak are culled out.
Perhaps. I haven't thought too much about it really. Emotions do seem to have some evolutionary traits and help us survive. However, since I don't follow your belief that "the universe was made because God wanted someone to love", I don't have to justify everything with that premise. Of course, that begs the question of why this supposedly perfect "god" would be lacking so much that he would have to create us to fulfill that.
I see no reason for that to happen. I seriously doubt that humans will survive long enough to risk evolving to that degree anyway. Besides, the conditions that make love possible still exist, unlike the sleeping in trees thing.
what matters in evolution is that traits, genetic and non-genetic, are passed on. If a species can reproduce w/o the need for love, it could become a "diluted" trait. If it gives members a disadvantage in the future they could be eliminated. An Aldous Huxley kind of scenario.
As an atheist, my view is that love is love. It has no need for the supernatural to exist. The two are apples and oranges to me. You need religion to feel love as much as you need unicorns to eat pancakes.
I think you could think up a loveless supernatural being. My question is about athesim, not theism. In considering atheism, all I see is atheists attacking theism. Is that all atheism is?
From what I've seen, the atheists I got to know, from the deconversion stories that I read, atheists become that way for a wide variety of reasons, which shoots in the foot the oft used (and lame IMHO) argument that atheists become that way due to either a very traumatic experience in the church or at the hands of abusive church leaders, or the (even lamer) reason that atheists are mad, shaking their fists at God, and (according to a former poster here) they "God didn't give them their pony".
. . .
perhaps you'll appreciate this guy. I'm sure we all experienced this in twi.
AnotherDan, I do think it's very much Some Things Considered. Not that Dawkins doesn't have lots of things he's considered. I'm not faulting the work and expertise he brings to the table, but I do wonder at what point he decided to draw the line.
F'instance, evolution. Dawkins notes murder, war, brutality, prejudice, all sorts of things we would normally consider "bad" as being prominent in the O.T. Yet in his overall work he's noted how the progression of life has been and is constantly as the harsh expense of others. Animals eat each, the weak ones are killed for food by other hungry ones, etc. That's the reality of life that Dawkins recognizes that's part of how life progresses, that it's a constant struggle filled with suffering and hardship. How a "loving" God created such a world or allowed it to exist seems contrary to what religion proposes.
Yet what the Israelites did in the O.T. by killing their enemies for whatever reasons is exactly along the lines of the reality he proposes. Killing those of other "pagan" beliefs insures that there won't be infiltration by opposing influences. It insures survival, and that's how evolution progresses, by those who can adapt and change and take advantage of the resources available. If that means eliminating competitors, so be it. Survival is essential.
So basically the Israelites of record were behaving in a manner compatible with what he believes.
I think the point he wants to make - that using religious beliefs as the foundation for actions can be, is, dangerous is partially true. But the religion he's describing seems to be right in line with the way he believes life evolves. That being the case, it's perfectly right and natural.
Is God a delusion? Dawkins states religion isn't based on "fact", it's based on "personal revelation". He denies the validity of personal revelation.
But I guess that's where the "Some Things" comes in. Not that all personal revelation is right because someone says it is. But if in fact that involves real events there could be more there than meets the eye, and reducing them to delusions seems contrary to honest inquiry.
It's like water in a box. A square box fills up with water and the water shapes into a square, because that's the container it's held in. But it's still water and will reshape to whatever contain I put it in. It flows, fills, evaporates, freezes, cools and heats. But in the box I put it in, it assumes the shape of the container.
Which is all well and good. I'm not a scientist and know little about most of the areas Dawkins deals in.
Which is exactly like people like Dawkins like it. Dawkins preys on people with heavy laden adjectives that sound "smart" but when you unwind it, it is Darwins unprovable qwack views just redone, replete with a new set of adjectives that sound "scientific".
BTW, Albert Einstiens special law of relativity, combined with II Peter 3:8, make it not only plausible but perfectly feasible that the works of God where created in 6 days, and match up perfectly with the fossil record.
I will post my calculation here, but another guy from Colorado came up with the calculation first: His name is Geoff Schroeder of a group called free thinkers of Colorado here is his calculation:
I'm trying to be. The question "What if the Judeo/Christian God is a delusion?" should be asked, and where better to sit to consider this question than in Humes' chair, with the Darwinian explanation for a cherry on top?
Hi!!!
Just peaking in for a minute.
What if he is?
My guess is we all have some of it right and some of it wrong, so in a sense, I could easily say sure, my god is a delusion, at least in part.
One could also say any belief in God is delusional.
I did my time in the agnostic chair. In the end, I concluded I am happier and more peaceful with my belief in God than I was without it. So, if my God is a delusion, who cares? I'd rather be deluded and peaceful, purposeful, happy than be "sane and rational" and depressed and miserable. :)
and is determined largely by your genetics. It didn't always exist. And it won't always exist.
We have nothing to base any ideas of the future of love on scientifically. I think it will exist as long as life exists, but who knows really? There's no way to know.
and no, I don't consider atheists vulcans. but I see books like "Good without God", which I do plan to read. It sounds silly. It sounds like religion reincarnated under an atheistic label.
The problem is that religious people tie together the concept of "good" with religion. In reality, morals exist within the human mind and society, religion is just a way of organizing the personal and social values into a unified group.
"good" and "evil" are arbitrary. In some species, mothers eat their young as soon as they are born. It is considered good for the species, because the weak are culled out.
Right, but that obviously doesn't apply to humans.
what matters in evolution is that traits, genetic and non-genetic, are passed on. If a species can reproduce w/o the need for love, it could become a "diluted" trait. If it gives members a disadvantage in the future they could be eliminated. An Aldous Huxley kind of scenario.
I think you could think up a loveless supernatural being. My question is about athesim, not theism. In considering atheism, all I see is atheists attacking theism. Is that all atheism is?
You could be right, but that's like saying, "If humans could reproduce and evolve away from the process of breathing, we might no longer breathe."
As far as atheism being anti-theism, we are to a degree but only because theists push their views on us. There is little more annoying than some religious jerk coming up to you and telling you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus, or that you're a good person, so surely Jesus will show himself to you and you'll suddenly "learn", or any of the other holier than thou attitudes we face on a regular basis.
However, we are more than just anti-theists. It's not a matter of being a Christian or anti-Christian. In mathematical terms, we aren't 1 or -1, we're 0. We simply have no belief. There's no strict moral code, no set of beliefs, or any unifying thing other than the absence of a belief in gods.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
23
30
Popular Days
Oct 19
23
Oct 16
19
Oct 17
17
Oct 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 22 posts
cman 12 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
anotherDan 30 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
23 posts
Oct 16 2007
19 posts
Oct 17 2007
17 posts
Oct 23 2007
16 posts
Posted Images
anotherDan
I'd like to add that a classic must-read in this field is William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience. It covers the subject quite comprehensively, and introduces pragmatism.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I saw a video on the subject where Dawkins put some kind of helmet on to try and trigger a "religous experience". Maybe you've seen it, I forget what it was called.
How do you view love and label something as good or evil or right or wrong?
a religious person might see the universe as a result of love. The universe was made because God wanted someone to love. All things follow from that.
an atheist, I would think in general, would see love as a product of evolution. The universe just simply came into being, and only recently, within the past 200 million years, love developed because it gave some species in the animal kingom, or just some vertabrates, a reproductive/survival advantage. Humans have just inherited this trait.
I would also assume love would one day, possibly, become a vestigial trait. Much like our jerky response when sleep, which some believe is due to a survival response we've inherited. (our ancestors slept in trees, so those who didn't fall out had a better chance of reproducing, thus the sudden awakenings)
yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I like the sudden awakening idea!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I'm with you there.
One of the things that Dawkins talks about is the constant destruction that produces the beautiful success of the evolutionary processes. If surviving at whatever costs is the work of the creature there's going to be some fallout. And he notes that the human species has (finally?) developed the ability to do more than satisfy short term needs and project through imagination into the future the results of it's actions, what is the least accceptable action, better, better still, "best". Out of that comes a constantly balancing of our actions - "morals", ethics, letting the welfare of others become a factor in our own well being.
Which is all well and good. I'm not a scientist and know little about most of the areas Dawkins deals in.
But I believe he recognizes that while "evolution can't be immediately observed on the scale proposed, he believes we can see the results of it. That the world we're faced with today can have an explanation and that the simplest explanation isn't "God" or any such things, but rather can be deduced, implied, hinted at certainly and grasped by much more down to earth components.
One of the things about evolution that has to be considered therefore is that we are observing it from this end, the current state, and looking back and projecting forward, definitely projecting forward as we have to assume the processes that have been at work thus far will continue and if they do they're predicatable to a certain degree. I don't know if he's stated that but it seems he'd have to. Sure, anything's possible, but if anything was truly possible, "God" would be a considered possiblity to be studied and he doesn't do that. The things that others call "God" he fits into his world view. So there's some expections, boundaries that are being kept in an "anything's possible" scenario.
But to my eye - whether we accept evolution or not, however we view life and it's progression over time one thing we see is that it's moved in a very definite pattern. Whether it was survival or direction the overall parameters of physical life have followed a very definite pattern. Remember - anything's possible, if not probable, as long as it' doesn't entertain any "God" or "spiritual" components.
I've posted this several years ago, and it's not fully developed but - consider the consistencies in how life functions...
Movement. Physical movement is accomplished by the same rules and regs for any living thing. To get from one place to another it walks, crawls, swims, flies, pushes, pulls, oozes and oogs it's way from here to there. The path is constant throughout movement. Is that the most efficient method of transportation? Given the extreme challanges that life has faced over the millenia it would seem likely that alternative methods of transport would have developed but they haven't. If they are in process they're so slight as to be undiscernable. Again, projecting into the future what we see from the past there may be more efficiencies to be gained but-Why don't we see other kinds? Or do we? What are they?
Sight/Perception. Life sees, feels, knows what it knows by it's ability to capture information around it by it's own body. Why only that way? Is there something ideal about having an eye, or two, or the senses of touch, smell, hearing? Maybe wer'e not done yet but that's pretty much what's comng down the path.
Self. The awareness of being "me", and not you. Why is there only one "me", while there are and have been billions of other humans very much like "me", but never me. Why only one me?
Evolution may have produced this brain thinking this, but why does this one think it's the only one like it? Is it? If so, why? Wouldn't it be efficient in many ways to have true replication? Not cloning, but simultaneous and recurring identities? From an evoltionary standpoint that would be killer - imagine what "we" could do.
To me life is much more directed than I think Dawkins credits, but I'm not completely sure of everything he proposes. My sense is that external creation would be a viable concept if nothing else. It would account for why the world is the way it is and not something else. God knows :) there's been enough time for some true diversity in the essense of life and it's products to develop. Where are they? And what is going on today that might point to future diversification?
I know it's kind of a silly proposition. Hey, it's the future, anything can happen right? As long as God doesn't show up, anything's possible.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
did anyone else not buy his statement about not knowing that many atheist feel anger toward their parents/church/situation? He acted like he never thought of it. Maybe he hadn't. I dunno. Maybe I just see another forehead behind a podium.
What about those verses he brought up? Like the one where the father killed and cooked his daughter? Is that what the bible really says? I know what twi taught, but do other churches teach differently?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
He was speaking of Jepthah, in Judges 11, where, as a promise to God if he won a certain battle, a father offers to sacrifice to God, as a burnt offering, the first thing that meets him after the battle. Sure enough he wins the battle, comes home, and who first meets him at his home, but his only daughter. (Read the account to see for yourself)
TWI (in order to make God a little more 'humane', I guess) taught that it wasn't an actual human sacrifice, but a ceremony where the daughter remained a virgin the rest of her life (the part where she says, "Allow me to bewail my virginity with my fellows" is the supportive scripture they use to support that opinion.). But its still a burnt offering, and many scholars think that is exactly what it was.
In any event, such a promise should never have been allowed by any decent, moral entity. At all! No matter what promise was made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
And that's what this comes down to. A man judging God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
As do most people I believe anotherDan.
I don't see much difference.
Because this was said or done-
I believe this or that and so I do this or that.
But it's what was said and done that is missed and the result magnified.
Rather then gathering more info before making a judgment or action.
Atheist or Christian or anyone else.
To make up one's mind on another's word is folly.
Be it the bible or whoever.
It just might have a different implication and we just might not be hearing.
Or seeing what there is to be seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I haven't seen it. Believe it or not, I think Dawkins can be a bit obnoxious so I'm not his biggest fan even if we do agree on certain things.
Love is what it is. There is plenty of evidence of it that pretty much everyone experiences and shares. Atheists are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Emotions are real, observable, and experiencable.
Perhaps. I haven't thought too much about it really. Emotions do seem to have some evolutionary traits and help us survive. However, since I don't follow your belief that "the universe was made because God wanted someone to love", I don't have to justify everything with that premise. Of course, that begs the question of why this supposedly perfect "god" would be lacking so much that he would have to create us to fulfill that.
I see no reason for that to happen. I seriously doubt that humans will survive long enough to risk evolving to that degree anyway. Besides, the conditions that make love possible still exist, unlike the sleeping in trees thing.
As an atheist, my view is that love is love. It has no need for the supernatural to exist. The two are apples and oranges to me. You need religion to feel love as much as you need unicorns to eat pancakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
cman, I hear you
Ultimately, like Job, who also judged God, I think a man needs to hear from God himself. "Seeing what there is to be seen" finally came to pass for him...
I have heard of Thee.... but now I see Thee
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Not really Dan. It's a man judging what someone says is the actions of a god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Oak, I respect your POV, and Dawkins'
Reminds me of the NPR program All Things Considered. I think it should be called Some Things Considered. I want to be fair to our atheist posters, and to Dawkins. I'm trying to be. The question "What if the Judeo/Christian God is a delusion?" should be asked, and where better to sit to consider this question than in Humes' chair, with the Darwinian explanation for a cherry on top? I'm all for good sense. The world is indeed round and spins daily and revolves around the sun yearly. Microbes cause illnesses. Is God a delusion, and ready for the scrap pile? Have we advanced to where we do not need "Him"? For Dawkins, the answer is "yes." For me, "no."
Why does Socks' avatar sometimes dance,
and sometimes not?
Keplar was the man who mathematically proved Copernicus' heliocentric theory. And he said when he was done that perhaps the world was not yet ready to accept the proof, and that he would "bear it" (the criticism) and be patient. He did the math, and he knew he was right. They were excruciating calculations. He said something along the lines of "has not God himself waited six thousand years for the eye of man to gaze upon His creation with understanding?" (Anyone know Keplar's exact quote? I'm remembering it from a philosophy lecture.)
Sparksnotes has 11 concise articles on Keplar. Here's one called: God in the Numbers
Mosh, I read the Wired article. Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well, ya know, given the kind of God we're told to believe in and obey, and often w/o question, so many, many times, ... I'd say that it's about damn time!
Hell, the god of the terrorists who plowed into the World Trade Center, ... do we not judge him? For what he inspired his terrorists to do?
Thought so. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Certainly we judge.
And when we are judged, do we have a say?
And this is a good report of current states of thinking.
What kind of God? Good question.
If one don't like their current one, perhaps it's time to look elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes, I don't think Dawkins speaks for all atheists, but he seems to want to. I'm sure there's a whole spectrum of atheistic views.
and is determined largely by your genetics. It didn't always exist. And it won't always exist.and no, I don't consider atheists vulcans. but I see books like "Good without God", which I do plan to read. It sounds silly. It sounds like religion reincarnated under an atheistic label.
"good" and "evil" are arbitrary. In some species, mothers eat their young as soon as they are born. It is considered good for the species, because the weak are culled out.
what matters in evolution is that traits, genetic and non-genetic, are passed on. If a species can reproduce w/o the need for love, it could become a "diluted" trait. If it gives members a disadvantage in the future they could be eliminated. An Aldous Huxley kind of scenario.
I think you could think up a loveless supernatural being. My question is about athesim, not theism. In considering atheism, all I see is atheists attacking theism. Is that all atheism is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
perhaps you'll appreciate this guy. I'm sure we all experienced this in twi.
http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/scien...ion/gullibility
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You're right, Bolshevik. I do appreciate it. ;)
Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
AnotherDan, I do think it's very much Some Things Considered. Not that Dawkins doesn't have lots of things he's considered. I'm not faulting the work and expertise he brings to the table, but I do wonder at what point he decided to draw the line.
F'instance, evolution. Dawkins notes murder, war, brutality, prejudice, all sorts of things we would normally consider "bad" as being prominent in the O.T. Yet in his overall work he's noted how the progression of life has been and is constantly as the harsh expense of others. Animals eat each, the weak ones are killed for food by other hungry ones, etc. That's the reality of life that Dawkins recognizes that's part of how life progresses, that it's a constant struggle filled with suffering and hardship. How a "loving" God created such a world or allowed it to exist seems contrary to what religion proposes.
Yet what the Israelites did in the O.T. by killing their enemies for whatever reasons is exactly along the lines of the reality he proposes. Killing those of other "pagan" beliefs insures that there won't be infiltration by opposing influences. It insures survival, and that's how evolution progresses, by those who can adapt and change and take advantage of the resources available. If that means eliminating competitors, so be it. Survival is essential.
So basically the Israelites of record were behaving in a manner compatible with what he believes.
I think the point he wants to make - that using religious beliefs as the foundation for actions can be, is, dangerous is partially true. But the religion he's describing seems to be right in line with the way he believes life evolves. That being the case, it's perfectly right and natural.
Is God a delusion? Dawkins states religion isn't based on "fact", it's based on "personal revelation". He denies the validity of personal revelation.
But I guess that's where the "Some Things" comes in. Not that all personal revelation is right because someone says it is. But if in fact that involves real events there could be more there than meets the eye, and reducing them to delusions seems contrary to honest inquiry.
It's like water in a box. A square box fills up with water and the water shapes into a square, because that's the container it's held in. But it's still water and will reshape to whatever contain I put it in. It flows, fills, evaporates, freezes, cools and heats. But in the box I put it in, it assumes the shape of the container.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Socks,
Sometimes your thoughts take the exact shape my head's in.
I don't know how "revelation" could be anything other than "personal."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Which is exactly like people like Dawkins like it. Dawkins preys on people with heavy laden adjectives that sound "smart" but when you unwind it, it is Darwins unprovable qwack views just redone, replete with a new set of adjectives that sound "scientific".
BTW, Albert Einstiens special law of relativity, combined with II Peter 3:8, make it not only plausible but perfectly feasible that the works of God where created in 6 days, and match up perfectly with the fossil record.
I will post my calculation here, but another guy from Colorado came up with the calculation first: His name is Geoff Schroeder of a group called free thinkers of Colorado here is his calculation:
http://www.freethinkerscs.com/articles/letusdothemath.htm
Time scale
One day is with the Lord is as a thousand years
and (plus) a thousand years as one day. II peter 3.8
First part “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years”
EARTH TIME GOD’s Time
1) 1,000 years = 1day
2) 1,000 years x 365 = 1 day x 365 days
(thus 365 days are = 365,000 years)
3) 365,000 Years = 1 year
4) 365,000 years X 1,000 years = 1 year x 1,000 years
5) 365,000,000 (365 million years) = 1,000 years
Second part And (+) A THOUSAND YEARS IS AS ONE DAY
Earth time God’s Time
6) from 5 above 365,000,000 = 1,000 years
7) 365,000,000 = 1,000 years = ONE DAY (+) Text
THUS 365,000,000 365 million years = One day (God’s time)
Bible Geological Time Line
(Leap year days are not added)
Beginning of Day 7 = 0 from completed creation
Day 6 0- 365,000,000 years
Day 5 365,000,000 years - 730,000,000 years
Day 4 730,000,000 years - 1,095,000,000 years
Day 3 1,095,000,000 years - 1,460,000,000 years
Day 2 1,460,000,000 years - 1,825,000,000 years
Day 1 1,825,000,000 years - 2,190,000,000 years
THUS NOT ONLY DOES EINSTEIN MAKE SENSE EINSTEIN IS BIBLICAL.
II Peter 3:8 is supported by Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity. Einstein and II Peter 3:8 are true and Evolution is False and a Lie.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Hi!!!
Just peaking in for a minute.
What if he is?
My guess is we all have some of it right and some of it wrong, so in a sense, I could easily say sure, my god is a delusion, at least in part.
One could also say any belief in God is delusional.
I did my time in the agnostic chair. In the end, I concluded I am happier and more peaceful with my belief in God than I was without it. So, if my God is a delusion, who cares? I'd rather be deluded and peaceful, purposeful, happy than be "sane and rational" and depressed and miserable. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Wow.
Hey, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but please don't listen to me. I don't know what I'm talkin' about.
Abi... didn't see you here. It's good to see your face. Thanks for peekin' in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Hi Abby,
Nice to see you peeking. If you were peaking you would be in your prime, (I think you are) or climbing mount everest.
Later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
We have nothing to base any ideas of the future of love on scientifically. I think it will exist as long as life exists, but who knows really? There's no way to know.
The problem is that religious people tie together the concept of "good" with religion. In reality, morals exist within the human mind and society, religion is just a way of organizing the personal and social values into a unified group.
Right, but that obviously doesn't apply to humans.
You could be right, but that's like saying, "If humans could reproduce and evolve away from the process of breathing, we might no longer breathe."
As far as atheism being anti-theism, we are to a degree but only because theists push their views on us. There is little more annoying than some religious jerk coming up to you and telling you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus, or that you're a good person, so surely Jesus will show himself to you and you'll suddenly "learn", or any of the other holier than thou attitudes we face on a regular basis.
However, we are more than just anti-theists. It's not a matter of being a Christian or anti-Christian. In mathematical terms, we aren't 1 or -1, we're 0. We simply have no belief. There's no strict moral code, no set of beliefs, or any unifying thing other than the absence of a belief in gods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.