RE: the nature of God; does it matter?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: the nature of God; does it matter?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: the nature of God; does it matter?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 2:17:31 AM

CuriousLord

Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

PS- On the nature of a God, should one exist.

Tell me, who here knows the cells of his body? No- we are not even cells before God. The atoms? The subatomic particles of the bits of dust that bouncy off your shoe?

What in all the hells makes the idiots of this world consider themselves to be significant? Why would a God care for such feeble insects that he could readily emulate? This further begs the question: "are we anything but an emulation?" The answer is startling (and one I'm not going to waste my time explaining. Go have your own existential crisis.). But this is off subject.

Should a God exist, why would he have wasted his time on us? Do you not believe such a great being could not have something better to do- at least form creatures that weren't as mind-booglingly clueless as we are?

Life. What is it? Have you seen a fractal? Have you seen the edges between the known values, where infinitely complex patterns arise? Those are life. Reality repeats with time, becoming a fractal in its own rights. Life, itself, is a fractal. The decaying edges of Order. Twisted, perverse, and replicating. We needed no God to spawn us. We were inevitable. Or, rather, life was- our specific form is arbitrary.

I lose myself in this madness, too. "It would be great if God existed- I could live forever! So, I'll reconsider- does God exist?" This is when one might lose it quickly, "Do not question God! He is, by definition, beyond your feeble attempts at reasoning! He shall explain Himself, mortal, at the time of His own chosing!" The madness can be impossible- proven through demonstration- for many to overcome. Such beauty- our madness would have us surrender our logic to it. For, after all, who would chose cold truth over unmitigated happiness? And this, fellows, is insanity.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 41

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 2:33:21 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Just going to color differently so I don't have to tear apart the quote structure.

Ah, so that's why people do that all the time. I get confused when skimming.

I refactored the quote structure myself, though.

quote:

Just because a society, tribe, government, group, corporation, etc.... act in a manner that is counter intuitive to morality, it is not the same as saying the individuals involved aren't aware there actions are immoral.

I wasn't saying that the individuals were acting in a manner they, or their society, considered immoral.

Rather that not all cultures have held the same things as immoral, and certainly not over time.

Some of the greatest outrages in modern times are mere fashion.

quote:

I'd have to read about the tribe and see what you are talking about, before I'd concur.

That could be a bit hard, as he was my highschool teacher. It's just an anecdote.

quote:

Well, it's not a weak assumption that if you don't go to heaven you go somewhere, I guess you could just stop existing. But besides that if a soul ends up somewhere, it would be reasonable to argue it wouldn't be paradise. My general God view that seems nearly universal from the religious exposure I've had is you typical join god, or become part of it.

Well, either you stop existing, or you go somewhere, in part or in whole.

There are several competing views, though, including reincarnation, which some central Catholic clergy have held and preached in the past, and also including the view of Assumption (the joining with a god) that you mentioned. Some esoteric Christian views even state that a "sinner" that progresses through Hell will be Assumed by the "anti-god".

It is reasonable to argue that, provided any god makes a judgment of any sort, then that would determine whether you go to that afterlife. I think it's also a question of whether you're "attached" to that god or not.

While I have "my" G*d, I am quite open to the idea that there are others.

In that sense, it would not make sense that any one god is the only one with an afterlife to offer.

quote:

That last rant contained no evidence, it was merely you comparing your prefered view against another view, because there is no conclusive evidence.

I was merely stating that there is no evidence to support your position, and illustrating some other positions, not forwarding evidence in support of those other positions. And the Buddhist views, as well as the Gospel of Iudas and most of the Gnostic gospels, support the notion that the physical world is a prison, possibly a purgatory or hell.

quote:

Well, I don't expect anyone to buy my view. That is why it's my view. Though the corrupt souls bit is a bit much, and your assuming I'm speaking of the christian god, as opposed to a generic God in your posts. So a lot of your Evidence, isn't related to my viewpoint, but rather your interpretation of my viewpoint.

I'm not assuming anything. Just using one commonly held faith as an example.

My point was that there are mental states, some of which follow from mental illness, many of which can be induced by drugs we are not "programmed" to avoid, wherein such a state one is oblivious to what you forwarded as being genetically encoded. Unless one is inclined, as I am not, to hold that such things constitute corrupted souls or a form of possession, then these states would pose a paradox in relation to judgment.

quote:

It would probably easier and shorter just to state your view, instead of inserting your view as an analyisis of other peoples views. This thread isn't provable, or even trully debatable, rather it's just interesting for the sake of it.

I've never had a problem with debating such things in the past, and "passing ball" over things tends to bring forth new and interesting points of view. I'm not aiming for a resolution, nor do I think others are, just exploring the topic. Some of what I said about abstractions and such could be provable, but we don't have the resources for it yet; the field of memetics will possibly at some point forward some proof of an intermediate stage, though.

And I did state some of my views. I just never "got" the point of lots of people standing on their respective soap boxes and proclaiming their views without any debate. That seems to me to be one of the most significant root problems with the nature of many organized religions, in fact.

As for inserting my analysis / replies, the way I do it was a "best practice" standard on the Internet before the Web came about, let alone anyone thinking about a "forum" in this sense. The relevant RFC's are still available from the Internet Engineering Task Force and others.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Post #: 42

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 2:41:43 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well, no. Genesis (and the whole Pentateuch) is a amalgam of earlier texts, principally the so-called "E" and "J" documents. While the texts are for the most part woven together, their creation stories were just too different.

~nod~

I wasn't going to go there.

Since this was a debate on a more metaphysical level, I figured bringing too many original sources and translations from a single religion into the mix would just confuse the issue.

quote:

In the "E" text segment, which comes first, man and woman are created together, "in our image," to inherit a world that is fundamentally good.

My comment was mostly that, in this segment, there is a transition between singular and plural in the same sentences. For instance, without arguing about the originals, in the phrase "I will create ... in our image". The royal "we" could be inferred, except it's not consistently used.

A more to-the-point example, however, would be the insistance that the Jews not have other gods.

Note that the prohibition against idolatry is seperate from that, as I'm sure you know.

If there were no other gods, why prohibit people from worshipping them?

It's my view that the god of the Bible is the god of the twelve tribes, not the only god.

quote:

The "J" text creation story follows, replete with snake and fall and curse. The "transitions between singular and plural" which you note are the transitions between sources.

The transitions between the modes of the stories is not what I was thinking about, though it is a good point.

Nice to see others have studied this too.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 43

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 2:51:29 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

If god is omnipotent then he, she, it could click its metaphorical fingers and create a world without misery and give people all the knowledge we need without having to live in a world where life feeds on life.

Whoever said god, or any god, was omnipotent? I'm sure your familiar with the paradox of omnipotence.

Furthermore, it may be that you can conceive of such a world, but not all of us can.

At the very least, it would be boring as hell. In some ways, it would be hell.

Having the flip side to the coin is neccessary for an experience of contrast.

With nothing to lose, one has nothing.

quote:

Unless this benigh god has limited powers and hasn'tthe power to control the universe. You can't have it all ways.

Limited powers or limited understanding, or even having "thrown the dice" in creating us.

Or, maybe just taking the parenting approach of letting them "grow up" on their own.

From a position of reincarnation, for instance, it would make little sense to worry about what happens to the flesh.

quote:

People who talk about god being a power for good can't give one rational, coherent argument why this good, omnipotent god puts people through such a miserable time.

What is incoherent or irrational about the point of view that this could be purgatory, not the intended world?

But I've ever said G*d was a power for "good", whatever "good" is.

G*d is that G*d is; morality is a human condition.

And the illusion of "good" and "evil" moreso.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 44

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 2:52:28 AM

curiousexplorer

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

"the nature of God; does it matter?"

Of course not. If there was a god(s), creator of all existence, then everything about it would be beyond our comprehension, and thus does not matter.
"G'Kar [suiting words to actions]: I have just picked it(an ant) up on the tip of my glove. If I put it down again, and it asks another ant, "What was that?...There are things in the Universe billions of years older than either of our races. They are vast, timeless, and if they are aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know. We've tried and we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on. They are a mystery and I am both terrified and reassured to know that there are still wonders in the Universe, that we have not explained everything."
Ambassador G'Kar to Miss. Sakai, Mind War

Also when you look at the gods we have made up, they die off as societies evolve and they are popular while they are current. Popular, common, satifying the masses, like funniest home videos, big brother or Jerry Springer. In other words simplistic and childlike, not godly.
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." Robert A. Heinlein

"it is instead a question of the nature of God; real and objective, or a mental construct and subjective?"

The nature of god(s) is an answer. Whenever humanity doesn't have an answer, we call it god. For a large protion of the population this is a satisfactory answer, for the few there is much more satisfaction in not knowing, and continuing the quest for answers. These people have also existed throughout history and brought forth much of our knowledge against superstition.
And of course this kind of unfounded belief is easily exploited, giving rise to the other half of the nature of god(s), population control.

"We also need to widen this question a great deal from the Judaic-Christian-Islamic idea of God."

There you have a problem, depending on the beliefs of members. Most people only have knowledge of the religion they were raised in. Which really questions the level of actual belief and the strength of herd mentality, sorry indoctrination.

"But at the same time, many claim to have had direct personal experience of their God, and across cultures and religions, these experiences share many characteristics"

We are all the one species, of course our fantasies are going to have similarities, our brain structures are the same.
Also take a walk through a psych ward sometime, belief is meaningless. And like ghost stories and psychics, ignorance can make people search for that age old answer, god(s).

"We can see then, that God could be a real and objective being"

Actually no, we cannot "see" that from anything you have previously said. In fact everything you've said points to god(s) as nothing more than ideas in our head.

"The question for believers and followers of whatever God is then, whether it matters particularly whether God is real or a mental construct, if that need for which God is required, is fulfilled? "

If they truly believe then to them god(s) is real, and the question is meaningless. God as a mental construct is heresy, and it drains the god of it's power.

(in reply to dragone)

Post #: 45

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 2:53:31 AM

NoirUMC

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline

Ohh! A quick thought for meatcleaver:

Your average anthropologist teaches that there was once a time when mankind lived in a natural Eden-like state of abundant resources. To put it more scientifically, human ancestors lived below the natural carrying capacity of their unmodified environment; there was enough forage to go around without a lot of pissing and moaning and stealing and farming and fighting. This ceased to be the case when we as a species became more intelligent and more capable of protecting our young (so that more of them reached adulthood and breeding age) and subsequently abandoned the practice of infanticide as a form of population control. The combined factors resulted in a net increase in population.

So from that perspective, our world was created with abundant resources which we have--in our great wisdom as human beings--far outstripped.

P.S.

The wisdom thing is, of course, a thinly veiled reference to the Biblical story of the tree of knowledge. Increases in intelligence (and the size of the human braincase) can be seen as an explanation of at least one of the curses God placed on mankind following that incident--the one that leaps most readily to mind being pain during childbirth.

< Message edited by NoirUMC -- 6/14/2007 3:42:25 AM >

_____________________________

-J

Working around the clock to find new and entertaining misspellings

(in reply to NoirUMC)

Post #: 46

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:00:56 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I would encouarge you, in the question of reality vs. mental construct, to consider reality, as we know it to be.

Not to be nitpicking, but in the context of the rest of the post, "know" should perhaps be replaced with something else, such as "believe it to be", given that "We do not know reality".

quote:

But I can not stress the importance enough of the vast difference between constructed model and actual reality. Something similar to "God" may exist. This may even fall into some definitions of "God", even if loosely or with inconsistencies, but, nonetheless, God is not "God".

~nod~

Human conceptions of any god are bound to be flawed.

Not to mention that, for a number of these faiths, the beliefs were originally those of illiterate shepherders and farmers.

The notion of "consciousness", for instance, is a fairly recent one; as a term, it is a few centuries old. And it was not evidenced at all in some of the early tales of mankind, such as the Gilgamesh epic; there is no introspection, no sense of "I" that is in sync with our modern perception of it.

When even such basic ideas are absent, how can one codify beliefs in a way we can relate to?

If confronted with a spaceship, these people would be seeing a spaceship, but they would have no concept of one. So they would describe it in terms familiar to them, which would make it hard, if not outright impossible, for us to imagine what they are describing.

The same goes for anything beyond what science has encountered (i.e. anything "supernatural"); if it's something we can not accurately comprehend today, how on earth would an earlier culture fare in trying to relate to it and describe it?

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 47

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:10:02 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirUMC

Machines do as they please, physics be damned.

Having worked with computers since I was 4 years old, I can only say: definitely.

But in most cases, this comes down to glitch rates and operator error. It just seems they do.

Beyond a certain level of complexity, it is easy to ascribe intelligence, but not always correct.

quote:

I believe now in two objective supernatural entities: the God I was brought up knowing, and Murphy, the (still incorporeal) specter of bad luck who has haunted my days.

You could probably chalk up Murphy to a higher-order manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics.

At this higher order, the law would go: "Shit happens. Stuff breaks. People die. This process is irreversible."

quote:

A knowledge of science and a sense of spirituality are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

~nod~

quote:

[...]is called "magical realism,"

Or "mysticism".

I believe it was Einstein who commented that a sense of mystery is intrinsic to science and art.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to NoirUMC)

Post #: 48

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:26:32 AM

NoirUMC

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline

But, as you mentioned, it would be easy to convert these matters to abstractions.

The complicated machine becomes its own organism, with its own will. The bad luck that happens (the random dumbass mistakes you make) when you close the computer case before you're certain you've got the parts installed correctly becomes Murphy's Law at work.

:D

My primary point there is simply that I do not feel that an understanding of the physical reasons for a given event (last time? processor wasn't making good contact in the socket; impossible to tell with that big-ass heat sink on top of it) necessarily makes it impossible to believe in the affect of the supernatural the event. What the supernatural is becomes immaterial when it's simply accepted.

As an example, I don't find the concept of God creating the universe with a gigantic explosion any more or less weird than the idea of everything beginning for no reason with a gigantic explosion. Furthermore, I may know why the computer didn't work right, but that doesn't mean it's not feeling bitchy because I've been thinking of replacing it. :P

P.S.

While "magical realism" is a term I heard in class, I can't say as I've ever heard "mysticism" applied to a literary work. CRAP. Now, as I reread my previous post, I realize I deleted the sentence that talked about discussing that state of mind in some of my literature courses (that state of mind being the acceptance of physics and magic as equally real as a matter of course). Sowwy. I had intended to point out that it's called "magical realism" in books. Entirely my mistake.

< Message edited by NoirUMC -- 6/14/2007 3:43:59 AM >

_____________________________

-J

Working around the clock to find new and entertaining misspellings

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 49

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:27:40 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Tell me, who here knows the cells of his body? No- we are not even cells before God. The atoms? The subatomic particles of the bits of dust that bouncy off your shoe?

Consider the possibility of symmetries of scale.

The notion of multiple branes interacting in a higher-dimensional space would certainly fit with some "odd" conception of a different kind of particle (or perhaps even unit of computation) existing in that higher-dimensional space. This thought can be carried off in either direction to an arbitrary scale.

For all we know, particles that appear fundamental could be branes in their own right with lower-dimensionality particles mapped onto them, particles that are imperceptible at our own level, or if they are, then only as virtual particles that transiently rise above the noise floor.

Wierder theories have been posited, though with more detail I didn't think this was the thread for that).

What level of scale we are at, what levels there are, and what we conceive of as G*d would still be an open question.

quote:

Should a God exist, why would he have wasted his time on us? Do you not believe such a great being could not have something better to do- at least form creatures that weren't as mind-booglingly clueless as we are?

Do you have a cat?

I do. Love her. Great companion.

Wouldn't you sometimes like to relate on a more primal level?

And haven't you sometimes done something just to see what would come of it?

There are many reasons. But, I doubt G*d wants to interfere with our lives to a great extent.

quote:

For, after all, who would chose cold truth over unmitigated happiness? And this, fellows, is insanity.

I would, and have done so repeatedly. Or, "worse" yet, empty uncertainty.

That is why I distinguish between faith and blind faith.

Ignorance is a bliss I do not care to return to.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to CuriousLord)

Post #: 50

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:49:35 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirUMC

But, as you mentioned, it would be easy to convert these matters to abstractions.

~nod~

quote:

The complicated machine becomes its own organism, with its own will.

Depends on your definition of "will", but it can certainly be modelled as an organism with behaviour.

Ever notice how good programmers sometimes seem to anthromorphize their programs?

They don't.

They anthromorphize humans.

The social dangers of abstract thinking, hmm?

quote:

What the supernatural is becomes immaterial when it's simply accepted.

~nod~

I commented on that, too, in the "For those with a Christian bent..." thread.

When one relates more directly to the world, without labels, then "supernatural" is a word others use.

quote:

that state of mind being the acceptance of physics and magic as equally real as a matter of course

I view it a bit differently.

Consider it from a somewhat solipsist angle for a moment.

The most basic, and most limiting, tools with which you can relate to the world are your senses.

Whatever you perceive, for all practical purposes, is your reality, by definition: you have nothing else.

But in the presence of an external world, the same problem becomes the map-territory relation, or at least a central part of it. While people may observe the same objective reality, if there is one (I'm not an outside observer, so it's an antinomy for me to say), they don't see it the same way.

It comes down to paradigms of perception.

If an atheist was present when Moses saw the burning bush, if that was actually a real event, they'd see the same thing.

They would analyze it differently, though.

Abstractions are a chicken-and-egg problem.

Does my brain reflect my mind (which presumably has its own causality in that case, which is, in turn reflected)?

Or does my mind reflect my brain?

Abstractions are symmetric in this regard.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to NoirUMC)

Post #: 51

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:51:34 AM

curiousexplorer

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

"Those who believe in a Higher Power hold onto that, and those are don't believe still hold onto something, even if it is nothingness and emptyness. "

I'm sorry slaverosebeauty, but you do not understand nonbelief. It is nothing like believing in a religion, nor is it about holding onto nothingness or emptyness. It is simply not believing, nothing more. It is putting all the fairytales in the same basket instead of choosing one, and happily facing the limits of human understanding as part of life. The only kind of holding onto something, is holding on to observable reality and the testing of that reality, and its more observation and thought than holding on.
Sorry, but it annoy's me when "spiritual" people try to compare belief with nonbelief like they are the same thing.

"In a sense, there is a certain amount of jealousy I have towards people who have faith."

I sometimes get that myself, in the ignorance is bliss kind of way, but then I come to my senses. Understanding the concept of religion is far better than being enslved by it.

"but the concept of God, and the knowledge of right and wrong. It seems fairly obvious to me, anyway, that basic human notions of right and wrong cross every society."

Not true, especially if you look back over time. Our societies have different ideas about marriage, murder, human sacrifice, cannabalism, just to name a few. Even the christians have god sending people out to slaughter other people and take virgin slave wives. Our morals are agreements developed over time for our mutual benefit. The further reaching a society, the more common it's ideals.

"Blatant cold-hearted murder, everyone knows that is wrong. "

No, not everyone. There are predators in our society. Also a common theme of religions is extreme xenophobia, wiping out those who are different, the "wrongdoers".

"Everyone knows taking other peoples belongings is wrong"

wrong again. The bible gives specific details on taking other mens wives. Or do you just mean taking the belongs of others in the same group?

"If I didn't control myself because something in my head tells me to(not literally a voice), I don't think it'd matter what laws there were"

But there are many parts to that voice in your head. It doesn't just tell you not to do wrong, it tells you if it's free reign your probably not going to be the local dominant male. Self preservation, future scenarios, imagination, and thousands of years of societal experience. And don't forget extreme situations have been known to change peoples morality. Anything from crash survivors eating dead people, to the atrocities of war.

"Well, if his rules and behaviors were encoded genetically there never will be an excuse, because we all know the difference between right and wrong, even the criminal knows the difference they just ignore it or rationalize through it(devil/ego). "

You are a century or two behind the times. We know not all people have the same sense of right or wrong. If god(s) encode behaviour into our DNA, then it also encodes the sociopaths. You are falling into one of the classis god traps, god is responsible for good, people for evil. Anyone wonder why human influenced climate change has been so popular with so little to back it up?

"It's oh so simple and comfy to label a god/gods/goddess as cruel and vindictive and blame them on all the bad shit instead of accepting responsibility of things that happen around the world as an individual huh."

Well it is refreshing. Usually god gets the god and people get the bad, sometimes via the devil, but often on our own. As for taking responsibility for the bad crap, how does one do that? Are you saying people are responsible for natural disasters?

"I find it bizarro that people think god is all bad when shit happens, and never view the good things and go - hey, maybe that was a god/gods/goddess.
Blame is easier than beauty anyday I guess, hey."

What a pretty little fairyland you live in. Here is a touch of reality.
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

"how does this jibe with the idea that a part of the brain appears to be reserved for 'religious experience'?"

I don't think that it is. There have always been people who will pushed the boundaries of knowledge no matter what religion says, or the power it weilds. And there have always been people who know the religion is rubbish, and use it to exploit others. Not everyone believes, and even among the believers there is a lot of lip service instead of actual belief. For example sad christians at funerals? Any christian who truly believed could never be asad that a loved one was in heaven with their god, yet the culture of that religion is sadness. Either they really don't believe, or they think everyone is going to hell.

"People who are depressed about the meaninglessness of their existence generally dont have sex to make kids and frequently kill themselves. "

And why do you see non belief as sepressed about the meaningless of their existence, not breeding and suicidal? And let's not forget all those people who went beyond the drug of the masses to change the meaning of oue existence. Faith in this case is faith in the pursuit of knowledge.

"That's to your credit. Few atheists I have met, and no atheist "religions" I've seen, feel the same.
They usually prefer to push their faith (and any position but the agnostic is faith) on others. "

What a joke. For starters any atheist religion is not atheism anymore. Atheism is simply not believing gods. Nothing more, nothing less. If it's a religion then it's just a substition, probably from believers unsatisfied with their god(s).
Also agnostism is faith. The only position which is not faith based is atheism, as it starts with observable reality, not with the premise of some kind of god. Agnostics still assume a god, just not to know it.
Also atheists speak up about the realities of religion, instead of the doctrines of one, and they speak up when religious doctrine tries to override knowledge. This is often seen as pushing their knowledge as anything which confronts someones faith is seen as an attack.

"Cannibalism and incest with minors comes close to universal rejection."

I suggest a better look at society's current problems and the wide variety of cultures over time.

(in reply to NoirUMC)

Post #: 52

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 3:53:45 AM

NoirUMC

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline

Good examples, As. One of my favorites was the way an old cowboy I know reacted to an unlucky gun. He received it as a gift from the estate of a friend and gave it away as quickly as possible. Asked if his reaction was due to bad memories he replied, "No. It's just a bad gun."

Edited to add a name because I was too slow to reply yet again.

< Message edited by NoirUMC -- 6/14/2007 3:55:15 AM >

_____________________________

-J

Working around the clock to find new and entertaining misspellings

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 53

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 4:03:33 AM

curiousexplorer

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

"Your average anthropologist teaches that there was once a time when mankind lived in a natural Eden-like state of abundant resources."

Eden-like state? What anthropolgist is that naive? Try an animal population instead of eden-like state. Low life spans, high infant mortality, predation, disease, edd and flow of food-abundance and starvation. That is the reality of early man, not Eden.

"there was enough forage to go around without a lot of pissing and moaning and stealing and farming and fighting."

Doubtful. Studies of primitive societies show conflict is very natural, so are things like pecking order. Think about chimps if it helps. Not that they are like us, but they are similar to distant ancestors.

"and subsequently abandoned the practice of infanticide as a form of population control."

LOL, try infant mortality, not practicing infanticide as population control. Even today "third world" countries have high infant mortality. Children were often considered powerful sacrifices but limiting population, what ancient culture did this?

(in reply to curiousexplorer)

Post #: 54

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 4:20:34 AM

NoirUMC

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline

The difference here is that in an animal population plagued by high mortality rates, disease, predation, etc... there is no need for one individual or group of individuals to commit what some humans have come to term "sin" (that is, to cross a moral or ethical boundary) in order to survive, get ahead, get food, etc. "Sin" did not exsist. Humans are one of the very few creatures of the zillions on the face of this earth that happen to kill one another with such zeal. Even predatory creatures engage in nonlethal forms of conflict resolution.

Hence the comparison to Eden--a place without "sin."

Much of what makes us human (that is, much of the natural nastiness you complained about) comes about as a result of living above the carrying capacity of our environment. We burn stores of plant remains that took our environment millennia to produce in order to maintain our lifestyles and our populations. We kill for it, too.

All animal life engages in conflict to some degree or another. The point is that there's a difference between two bulls establishing supremacy and two nations destroying entire generations of lives. And yes, some of our closer relations engage in lethal warfare as well. Rather telling, don't you think?

The practice of infanticide (most often carried out by simply leaving the infant child behind without its elders to care for it) was practiced to maintain mobility in prehistoric groups. A given number of adults can only carry a given number of children who are themselves incapable of walking.

http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker/publications/PLW%202006%20Pat%20Smith.pdf

The problem we encounter is that sex is fun for us and we sometimes do it when it is not to our greatest advantage. This is not often the case with other species--or else they don't care as much what happens to inconvenient offspring. They certainly don't give it a name.

http://primatology.net/2007/05/14/female-led-infanticide-among-sonso-chimpanzees/

According to this article on chimpanzees, some of our relatives are guilty of the same crime. ;)

Short version: I didn't make this shit up.

< Message edited by NoirUMC -- 6/14/2007 4:32:47 AM >

_____________________________

-J

Working around the clock to find new and entertaining misspellings

(in reply to curiousexplorer)

Post #: 55

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 4:21:43 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: curiousexplorer

The only kind of holding onto something, is holding on to observable reality and the testing of that reality, and its more observation and thought than holding on.

~nod~

Something that may appear paradoxical to many, until they get to know me, is that my faith is balanced by a worldview that is actually fairly close to the philosophy of Objectivism in many areas (though I'd say Rand got it wrong on many counts; hardly surprising, given her background).

So I'd say faith can coexist with that, though that eliminates the bliss along with the ignorance.

quote:

I sometimes get that myself, in the ignorance is bliss kind of way, but then I come to my senses. Understanding the concept of religion is far better than being enslved by it.

Whenever I think ignorance is bliss, I try to picture myself as a sheep and go "baaah."

It goes over very quickly.

quote:

You are falling into one of the classis god traps, god is responsible for good, people for evil.

Very common, yes.

False dichotomies can be a tricky fallacy to avoid.

quote:

Either they really don't believe, or they think everyone is going to hell.

Or sad in the same way I get a bit down whenever someone I love is going away for a while.

But, mostly, the churches have an odd way of looking at things.

quote:

What a joke.

It wasn't.

quote:

For starters any atheist religion is not atheism anymore.

Hence the quotes.

quote:

Atheism is simply not believing gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, atheism is believing in the absence of gods.

Agnosticism is not believing in gods.

The former is a faith, the latter is the absence of one.

quote:

Also agnostism is faith. The only position which is not faith based is atheism, as it starts with observable reality, not with the premise of some kind of god. Agnostics still assume a god, just not to know it.

No, agnostics say "I don't know. Could be either way. I have no grounds for a conclusion."

That's admitting ignorance. The scientific position.

Absence of proof is neither proof of absence nor proof of presence, but rather just that: absence of proof.

Atheists say "This is how it is: there is no such thing."

That's a faith. An unscientific belief.

Starting from observable reality is good. I did that. At this point, there will be a lot of things we don't have observations to know anything about. The scientific approach is not to negate them, to make a conclusion based on no evidence, but rather to state: "This is unknown to us."

Now, one can stick to this, the agnostic position, or one can add faith.

One faith that can be added is that of atheism: the position that "the unknown areas of this map are blank."

Religions stick various other things in those unknown areas of the map.

quote:

Also atheists speak up about the realities of religion, instead of the doctrines of one, and they speak up when religious doctrine tries to override knowledge. This is often seen as pushing their knowledge as anything which confronts someones faith is seen as an attack.

I'm usually right there beside them when speaking up about many of these issues.

But quite a number of atheists will seek to convert people from a faith wherein Goatse fills the "unknown" spaces to one wherein the unknown spaces are blank. Which is understandable, given how traumatized they may have been to behold Karl's hindquarters.

From a philosophic point of view, the question of knowledge is fairly wide in scope, so I'll leave that out.

quote:

I suggest a better look at society's current problems and the wide variety of cultures over time.

I said "comes close". I never said it was universal, non-situational or whatever.

In fact, I made the same point you did: there is no evidence that moralities are hardcoded, and a fair bit of evidence to the contrary. Morals are fashions, little more. They swing one way, then the other. Only taking a step back and comparing them over time, as you said, can one identify them as fashions. To a person in the grip of fashions, it never seems like fashion, just the "right thing to do". Morals are no different in that regard.

I have rejected most fashions I have identified since elementary school.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to curiousexplorer)

Post #: 56

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 4:40:22 AM

NoirUMC

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline

So here's a thought: perhaps whether or not the existence of this supernatural entity matters is contingent upon how many individuals in a given culture, society, universe--whatever--actually believe in it.

That is, the more people believe, the less it matters whether or not it's all in their heads. There. Now I can claim I've made an attempt at answering our OP's original question. :)

_____________________________

-J

Working around the clock to find new and entertaining misspellings

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 57

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 5:12:05 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

People who do believe in some sort of god/goddess are often accused of needing a crutch.
Yet over and over I see the statement by those who don't believe in some sort of spiritual entity that they always want it easy - let this force 'make things better' - they want a crutch.
Well, if you want it easy and everything done for you - I guess if it works for you.
Me, I would rather have the freedom to fuck up in my own special way, instead of live in some boring eutopia where some 'force' has done everything for me. Wheres the chance for self discovery and growth when everything is so fucking perfect?

Peace
the.dark.

You don't have that much freedom to fuck up because you are subject to your biological make up and environment. Whatever you believe, in god or not, your freedom has been seriously curtailed, as has your perception of the known universe. We have been designed to survive or at least to try and survive in a particular environment where choices are very limited. So much for god given freedom of choices. God obviously doesn't trust humans very much.

Wheres the chance for self discovery and growth when everything is so fucking perfect?

Huh? If you have intelligence then no matter what the environment there is room for self discovery, one doesn't have to be put through sadistic trials and tribulations to explore ones consciousness and if it was left to believers in god we wouldn't have been allowed on a journy of self discovery but told what the truth is and deal with it or suffer the consequences ie. torture or burning at the stake or some such thing.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to RCdc)

Post #: 58

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 5:26:59 AM

NoirUMC

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/17/2007
Status: offline

I wrote my previous post on infanticide in response to the wrong person. I apologize for the confusion this must be causing. However, I'm also too sleepy to sort it all out. :(

I must also apologize for not having made my earlier reference to a metaphorical "Eden" more clear; I had no intention of painting a picture of a prehistory without violence.

_____________________________

-J

Working around the clock to find new and entertaining misspellings

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 59

RE: the nature of God; does it matter? - 6/14/2007 5:56:36 AM

RCdc

Posts: 8674
Status: offline

Now you're are talking imagination.

I am talking as if it is fact - which is what you wanted.

If there is a god/goddess - whatever - you want them to make everything ok. If they come off their little cloud or dark abyss - wherever - and stop famine and war and death and destruction and make all the trees green and the land arable and productive so that no one ever starved and everyone was happy in their little glass houses (which would be ok because no one needs hide anything anymore or be descret because we are now in utopia and glass walls will never shatter in a perfect world) - and the rivers only run one way and the sea was brimming over with horny little cod and the sky is always blue, even when it rains and when it rains, it rains skittles or J20 or whatever your bent is and all animals offered themselves to slaughter because that's a good thing and they do it with a smile on their face and wag in their tails - and it was easy to shut your eyes and suddenly be in miami when 2 seconds earlier you were in Delhi... and everything is beautiful and perfect and handed onto you on a silver platter and you can experience everything without the bad kind of pain and every fetish was perfectly acceptable and nothing is taboo and life is all picket fences and children skipping down the street then -

- what is the point of growth?

You want some god/goddess to make everything great so you dont have to do fuck ?

To me - all that shit - would leave me pretty empty.

Peace

the.dark.

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: the nature of God; does it matter?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125