Is God a tyrant? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

NikolaiI

05-27-2008, 04:18 PM

God is not a tyrant, Blaze. God is infinite goodness. The creator and maintainer of the universe. He has infinite names and forms, he is One, known by different names, like truth. You might as well be saying there is no spirit, no soul, no spirituality, or no goodness. To say these things is not good. This is what I believe, anyway. Faith and love are similar, and both so important. When I say faith, and them am criticized by a hostile atheist, I must point out that I didn't say faith in God in this instance. Faith in humanity is similar to faith in God. Love of God is the most important thing in life, because worshiping God is the fastest way to self-realization. Service to God is self-less. Yet God doesn't take anything away from us, but fulfills our lacks. Self-realization is the perfection of living. So if one is self-realized, all of one's actions are on a different platform. It isn't necessarily to say that one will never make mistakes, although that is ultimately the goal. Still, to act according to the highest standard is not ever to be discouraged.

Trystan

05-27-2008, 04:24 PM

Yes. There is no question about that. Just read the Old Testament; he makes even de Sade look tame.

NikolaiI

05-27-2008, 04:29 PM

Trystan

05-27-2008, 04:37 PM

In this world, water falls freely from the sky, fruit drops freely from trees. We are not too hot, we are not too cold. The earth is in perfect health, and we are given fresh air. All of this we are given. In this world all paradoxes meet and we are given life and immortal life. You say God is a tyrant but God gave you life and eternal life, and in this life he gave you Earth and Heaven, yet you doubt his existence because you can't see his face?

We are not too hot or too cold etc. because we have evolved to better suit our environment over millions of years. We have not been "given" anything. When you say "God" who exactly are you referring to? Amun Ra, Zeus, Krishna, Jehovah? Can you prove His existence? No, and yet you speak of it being true so confidently. I need to "see his face" because there is no other proof.

amanda_isabel

05-27-2008, 04:47 PM

When you say "God" who exactly are you referring to? Amun Ra, Zeus, Krishna, Jehovah? Can you prove His existence? No, and yet you speak of it being true so confidently. I need to "see his face" because there is no other proof.

This is exactly what makes faith so remarkable, yet at the same time so criticized. "...but faith is believing what you do not see."

Christian or not, I personally think that it's quite harsh to call God a tyrant. While different people and differnt religions hold different perspectives as to who, or what, God really is, I don't really think He (or the entity of Him) could be associated with tyranny, and even if He would come to be, is there anything we can do about it? :)

NikolaiI

05-27-2008, 07:12 PM

Faith should not be criticized because faith in God is so similar, so important, as faith in our fellow humans.

We create reality right here, right now, and the only way for a better world is to dream it-- dream it now, and live it in this moment.

Reality is and its innumerable creations is so incredibly beautiful, but we experience none of that as we discuss and argue spitefully. Consciousness is the most beautiful thing, and we contemplate God as the most beautiful object, the most beautiful person. What is God's message? God's message is Love, it is contained in everything, it is read into the creation itself-- it is the creation. God created such a beautiful thing, and we are part of it. God is not a tyrant, but the All Beautiful. God's last message was "I am," and Man's last message was "I understand"-- in other words, "I understand there is a duality in me of better and worse, present and future, alive and dead, only, perceiving this duality I also see it is resting on non-existence, and so it vanishes immediately, canceling itself out." Because as soon as Man realizes this, there is no longer any doubt of his existence or his eternal life.

Quietmike

05-27-2008, 10:30 PM

I am perplexed about the "fact" of a loving god - Old Testament writings clearly prortray him at a selfish, angry, punishing god who demands unquestioning obedience - even to ordering that sqcrifices of one's own children be made to him .... he is also portrayed as "God loves you, but if you don't obey every demand, you are consigned to eternal damnation, to suffer for all eternity" ... we forgive our children for their misdoings, however
grievious, and don't burn them in eternal fires forever and ever and ever....
how comes god's love promises such torment and torture?????

NikolaiI

05-28-2008, 07:52 AM

Well, we have different views on that. In my view, we all go to God in the end, that in fact no world in the material universe lasts forever. We were with God before this life, and we will be with him eventually, the question is at the end of this life or one many later. God's message is very simple, it is the spiritual way of life, decreed in many different religions. If we followed God's directions, we could live on the Earth an unhindered number of years. If we could live on the earth as its guardians, our security as a race would be secured. If we could live in peace with each other, and if need to at a smaller population, our life would always be secure. If life were like that then someone might hear about a suicide, and they might cry or not, but then they would say "You know, I shall wait to have any children until no one on earth wishes to leave, because I care about that suicide as I do my friend, my brother, my father, myself, anyone."

jgweed

05-28-2008, 08:38 AM

"Does God symbolize tyranny?"

Either this means, on one hand, that God is actually a tyrant, or it means that it is correct to interpret at least one god as a tyrant from his reported actions.
It seems that the common conception of the attributes of God, for example that it is all-good and all-knowing and enjoys an eternal essence, would rule out the first alternative.
So the question becomes: given what we are told of God's activities---seemingly from the Old Testament---do these fit our common definition of tyranny?

blazeofglory

05-28-2008, 09:39 PM

The tyranny of God is manifest in monrchism in some countries for instance,and with some apology, for this is not a political forum, I want to share how tyranny rule over some countries. In Nepal for instance Monarchy ruled for thousand years and he is still supposed to be the incarnation of Vishnu. Nepal was a Hindu country and the king is identified with Vishnu. King Gyanendra was a merciless monarch and Hindul fanatics or fundamentallists were diehard supporters of the monarch. Now the people of Nepal has abolished the very institution of Monarchy. And now it has a self governing political corpus in Nepal.

In the same way why should we think that there is a God and we should obey him. I do not like slavery. Everybody is a master unto himself.

Let us live as a good humanbeing and do act as a morally uplifted person with a predilection for universal brotherhood.

Having said I do not subscribe to the idea that we should not be submissive to the yranny of God I do not say lthe world is soulless. I believe even the earth too is as animate as we are. I feel it.

I believe in immortality. After death we will not be destroyed and we continue living in different entities.

I simply do not subscribe to mythological gods for it stirred up too much viloence and now the world is an uglier place to live in with this divisiviness among a thousand faiths clashing with one another.

jgweed

05-29-2008, 08:45 AM

It certainly requires neither an advanced degree in history nor a prolonged study of contemporary events to understand the pernicious outcomes of many religions or their sects when they become involved in attaining or exercising political power and influence in the world, despite the fact that many of their original leaders seem to have eschewed political power for themselves.

The Atheist

06-01-2008, 04:04 PM

Does God symbolize tyranny?

The short answer to that is "yes".

Aside from biblical evidence (if you have a god, you'll have a bible) all of the gods I can find are fairly tyrannical.

Any entity, metaphysical or not, which would demand a daily oath of servitude is not an entity I would consider reasonable. It is the bahaviour of tyrants, both fictional and real, since the dawn of humanity.

On the basis of evidence for which gods exist in the minds of their believers, Adolf Hitler and Iosef Stalin were as much gods as any of the pantheon fiction has given us so far.

All of us are really unknown to ideas as to why we are here? We have a big universe always expanding housing billions of stars and we imagine that there are other planets and possibly other beings in them. Then it is natural that this mysterious world must be governed by some undefined or unknown forces. In that course of thinking we comfort ourselves thinking that some being is more powerful than us and we take solace in the idea of God at the end of the day. Or else we feel lost or pulverized in this immensity of the cosmos.

Wrong.

This smacks of a fundamental christian trying to explain why atheism is bleak and hopeless, a tactic I find particularly amusing - even if the outlook is as bleak as July noon in Antarctica, I would rather face the bleakness than tell myself fairytales to keep happy.

You've painted a picture of delusion (god) or emptiness (atheism). There are a couple of other choices. Top of the list would be accepting that we're here for a good time not a long time and make the most of it.

You have, however, pictured why many, many people choose to delude themselves with gods - it's easier to have faith in a fairy than figure it out.

Probably costs more though. No atheist tithes exist! :D

God is not a tyrant, Blaze. God is infinite goodness.

I love this one.

For god to be infinite goodness, there would have to be no badness. That is demonstrably wrong. I'm not arguing whether your particular god is good or bad, but it cannot be classed as "infinitely good" on a planet where small children die in agony through want of $2 worth of food or medicine. I say a small child because an older human could conceivably be being taught a lesson, but a toddler, no.

The creator and maintainer of the universe. He has infinite names and forms, he is One, known by different names, like truth. You might as well be saying there is no spirit, no soul, no spirituality, or no goodness.

Intrinsically, you're spot on - those things do not exist in any form other than as human-constructs.

To say these things is not good. This is what I believe, anyway.

We are not too hot or too cold etc. because we have evolved to better suit our environment over millions of years. We have not been "given" anything. When you say "God" who exactly are you referring to? Amun Ra, Zeus, Krishna, Jehovah? Can you prove His existence? No, and yet you speak of it being true so confidently. I need to "see his face" because there is no other proof.

Nicely put.

It certainly requires neither an advanced degree in history nor a prolonged study of contemporary events to understand the pernicious outcomes of many religions or their sects when they become involved in attaining or exercising political power and influence in the world, despite the fact that many of their original leaders seem to have eschewed political power for themselves.

So's that.

NikolaiI

06-03-2008, 02:00 AM

We are not too hot or too cold etc. because we have evolved to better suit our environment over millions of years. We have not been "given" anything. When you say "God" who exactly are you referring to? Amun Ra, Zeus, Krishna, Jehovah? Can you prove His existence? No, and yet you speak of it being true so confidently. I need to "see his face" because there is no other proof.

Basically, Lord Gaura and Nityananda. I had a dream about Nityananda this morning. I don't think that my view isn't subjective, but I don't think that means it isn't true. There's actually a whole thing in philosophy about subjectivity and truth.

Why do I believe in the philosophy of being I believe in? It makes sense to me and it accords with logic. I believe in the soul and spirituality in the same way. I believe that there are different levels of being and reality. This is connected with the idea that there are beings which are more powerful than me, in the sense that they live eternally and and perfect beings. Buddhas are the first concept for me in this regard. God is like this.

Anyway, instead of focusing on what God is, or "what we should think God is because it seems the most true," the first thing is to decide what reality is. Is there anything more than what we see, and what happens when we die? Anyway of course there's a great deal about consciousness, and the question itself is related to just about everything. Is perfection required to attain to some state? Is perfection achievable? Higher reality is... it's inconceivable. It's a concept that is so obvious...I mean, anyway, so that is the first thing. It is not the question of whether God is Krishna, or he is Allah, or YHWH, the question is "what exists," to describe what existence is, and to understand what it is. Then we have to decide what reality is. In my view, and this is the most important point, there exists a higher reality, and the only tragedy is just that it's impossible to share or describe. But humanity has produced such geniuses. Nevermind the sages if you only look at all the philosophers and artists. To turn on God is in a way to turn on all of God's followers. Of course it depends on the nature of the follower, but no one is more pure than a devotee of God.

We are not too hot or too cold etc. because we have evolved to better suit our environment over millions of years. We have not been "given" anything.

Then we are given our evolved traits by evolution. Then the question is "what is evolution," and again whether or not there is reality beyond this one. Is evolution the same as God, or does God cause evolution? Has evolution stopped now, or are we still evolving?

The Atheist

06-03-2008, 07:30 PM

Then we are given our evolved traits by evolution. Then the question is "what is evolution," and again whether or not there is reality beyond this one. Is evolution the same as God, or does God cause evolution? Has evolution stopped now, or are we still evolving?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

You are asking questions to obfuscate. Reality, like evolution, exists.

The question, "What is evolution" is a very simply answered one. I suggest starting at Talkorigins.com, where they have a very extensive database of what evolution actually is.

"Is evolution the same as god" is merely asking whether 5 is blue - it's a nonsense question. Evolution is a known and proven process, explained in millions of pages of published biological literature.

God is a metaphysical entity subject to no scientific evaluation.

As to the last question, "Have we stopped evolving" the answer to that is known.

No.

Evolution continues as we live and breathe. There are numerous examples of insects being subject to evolutionary selection to counter changing habitat.

Higher animals take a bit longer, so check back in 100,000 years or so to find other changes.

Trystan

06-05-2008, 06:36 PM

Smoogles

06-05-2008, 09:53 PM

If god were a Tyrant why would he have made it to where we exist. Think back to the origins of this matter, he is the designer... we are all dependant on something else, you are dependant on your parents (more than you'll ever know) for 'being' and your parents' parents and so on. What causes everything to happen? If you hit a cue ball and it hit's the 8 ball and it goes into the socket, how did it happen? Yes, the cue ball hit it, what hit the cue ball? The cue stick, which was was moved by your arm, which was told to do so by your brain(mind) , but what made your brain decide to move your arms? What made you do anything at all? All events can lead back and back and back, but if there is no beginning then how is there an end? There has to be someone to trigger everything, like your finger pushing down the first domino, all chains of events have an outside force that starts it off. Origin, the one we call God. Why would he spend all this time makeing us, jsut to make us suffer? To make man suffer and tormented by the very essensce of their designer? (Notice I never said creator). All human beings are rational, please people be rational, "God is that than which no greater being can be concieved." -Disproves all Atheist.

Also a word to all atheists, this is the perfect argument that proves God's existance... if you're intellectually gifted enough to grasp it then you will understand, but open your eyes...

Anselm’s ontological argument has the form of a reductio ad absurdum, which means that it takes a hypothesis, shows that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications, and so concludes that the hypothesis is false.

In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist. Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.

If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist.

The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God. There is, because it’s possible to imagine a God that does exist. There isn’t, because it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.

A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; God exists.

A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2) is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being. (3) follows simply from (1) and (2).

Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God.

(5) follows simply from (3) and (4).

Also if you believe that non-existence was greater than existence then you would've woken up today and shot yourself in the head, no questions asked; so everyone seems to agree that Existence>Non-Existence.

No one can disprove this because it is a Definition of what God is, not an observation or theory, just concrete knowledge. If you want Scientific observations that prove God's existence ask yourself who pushed the first domino, and if we were merely here then why aren't we just rock?

And if any atheist... I mean ANY atheist would like to debate me please disprove the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments and then we may speak. If you have nothing but beliefs as so many christians seem to then please do not bother with my time if you have nothing other than a good definition and concrete evidence. Because so much of Atheism seems to be based on belief also, and here are some arguments that prove God's existence. Now please show me what disproves God.

Redzeppelin

06-05-2008, 11:31 PM

People who term God a "tyrant" seem to miss the illogical nature of the their opinon and their continued existence. Any divine being that could be labled a tyrant would more than likely behave like tyrants here on earth - and they do not suffer opposition in any form. Why would a tyrant God allow someone like - for instance - The Atheist back on page 1 - to mock away and dismiss him? What is gained by that? If you're going to use the word "tyrant" than why does He behave contrary to that definition? Let's not roll out the Old Testament examples - the question is IS God a tyrant, not WAS He a tyrant?

It makes zero sense to call God a tyrant but assume He has the fairness and justice to let mockers continue to exist.

Adopt

06-06-2008, 01:05 AM

@ Smoogles

While I have no contest with your logic (as you're basing your opinions on paradoxes and logical equations that work within a language) I would like to ask what happens when the original definition of God (1) is altered. What you've presented is a circular argument: premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

Of course, I wouldn't jump right into this argument without doing a little research. There are popular objections to this theory. One of the most interesting, in my opinion, is a parody:

Necessary Nonexistence
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore God does not exist.
(Reference: Gasking's Proof', Analysis Vol 60, No 4 (2000), pp. 368-70.)

It's actually all really interesting stuff, I recommend you check it out for yourself.

Source Link: http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs%20of%20God/ontological_arguments_for_the_ex.htm

As far as God being tyrannical, any argument any of us brings up would be subjective. It all relies on what the norm is. With today's current society (and relating to Christianity's Old Testament God) I'd say yes, God has tyrannical properties, but compare it to the New Testament, or bring in other religions and it just gets too complicated.

The Atheist

06-06-2008, 02:12 AM

Also a word to all atheists, this is the perfect argument that proves God's existance... if you're intellectually gifted enough to grasp it then you will understand, but open your eyes....

Sorry, but this is exactly the type of silly assertion which christians are wont to make.

It's pleasing that you mention reductio ad absurdum, because your comment on intellectual giftedness falls nicely into the description. It immediately assumes that anyone disagreeing with the hypothesis is a congenital idiot, when the truth is that the hypothesis is far more suitable to the gullible than the intellectual. This is why the National Academy of Science, a fairly intellectually-gifted group, has a 90% disbelief rate in gods.

As to Anselm, all I see is an assertion based on the premise that non-existence and existence have a relationship to each other.

Tip: they do not. To check this out, please explain what people with non-existent collections of stamps tell us about stamp collections and people who own them. Kindergarten stuff.

Seriously, you may as well try to prove Fermi's paradox.

Smoogles

06-06-2008, 04:24 PM

To Adopt:

Quite interesting my friend, thank you for the information. But that doesn't disprove that there isn't a God that infact proves my point that my "definition" of God is correct and must be concievable, and existence is more perfect than non-existence. As for your quote

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

Those are pure theory I see no reason or logic behind that except opinion and pointless blabber, please show me the reason behind why the greater the disability the more impressive the achievement.. From what I have experienced when I lift weights hurt or with a broken arm my achievements are not that impressive if any at all... unless you and I have a different sense of what 'achievements' really are.

To The Atheist

First of all your very name contradicts logic and reason of philosophy so in turn you must not have any reason and logic unless you are falling back on your beliefs. (Which it seems you are) then that would make you a hypocrite, and no one likes those, do they? Prove my argument wrong, my argument which is perfect in every aspect (Except that it doesn't depict a loving, caring God, just that one exists) and if you are saying that my argument is for the Gullable then how come it is unproven, and it lies on the basis of logic and reason, unless someone you know has totally proven me wrong then if you disagree with this, then you in turn disagree with philosophy. I am sorry if I put out the wrong image of "If you don't agree with me I'll pee on you" but I didn't mean it that way. And I don't care what a bunch of people from an Academy of "Science" believe, if anything they are Deist and they don't even know it themselves. This is what you believe not everyone else, why rely on what everyone else believes if it is unlogical and unreasonable? The very basis of this argument is just that... reason and logic. So Atheism does not exist in terms of philosophy, that just leaves Deist.

NikolaiI

06-06-2008, 05:46 PM

You are asking questions to obfuscate. Reality, like evolution, exists.

The question, "What is evolution" is a very simply answered one. I suggest starting at Talkorigins.com, where they have a very extensive database of what evolution actually is.

"Is evolution the same as god" is merely asking whether 5 is blue - it's a nonsense question. Evolution is a known and proven process, explained in millions of pages of published biological literature.

God is a metaphysical entity subject to no scientific evaluation.

As to the last question, "Have we stopped evolving" the answer to that is known.

No.

Evolution continues as we live and breathe. There are numerous examples of insects being subject to evolutionary selection to counter changing habitat.

Higher animals take a bit longer, so check back in 100,000 years or so to find other changes.

Yes..............I agree. We are still evolving. I've read two books on the subject.

I am not trying to obfuscate. Please don't talk like this. The whole reason I'm here is for harmony.

My question as to "what is evolution," meant, "is there an intelligent force behind evolution, and is there an ideal goal which we are-- designedly-- being evolved into?" And the answer is not known, but I say yes.

"Is evolution the same as god" is merely asking whether 5 is blue - it's a nonsense question. Evolution is a known and proven process, explained in millions of pages of published biological literature.

Yes. And yet we can still understand that there is something deeper. We are always expanding our knowledge like-- finding out a reason how or why. Is there a how and a why to evolution? Intuitively I would say yes, I would say yes there is intelligence and goodness behind everything.

Anyway I am not against evolution...I'm only trying to discuss about God. I agree with evolution and that we are still evolving. I'm trying to get past everything to address issues concerning God.

Evolution is very well known, yet there is definitely something intrinsic to it that we do not as yet know. For instance, what we know about evolution scientifically does not address the fact that we live spiritual lives also as a result of evolution-- as in, the human life is the only one that has a spiritual life, as we know it.

And if you again say anything like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I will discontinue my participation and I bid you adieu at this time, should you do so.

blazeofglory

06-06-2008, 09:13 PM

For instance, what we know about evolution scientifically does not address the fact that we live spiritual lives also as a result of evolution-- as in, the human life is the only one that has a spiritual life, as we know it.

Spirituality is indeed subtler than this idea, the idea that the human life is the only one that has a spiritual life. We must go still deeper. Animal beings are close to nature. They do not have a civilization we have. That they do not have a means of communication verbal and print we have does mean that they are nonspiritual beings.

Without all we have, too many warring religious faith holders, ideologues, religious pundits and Gurus they are still purer and cleaner than us. They do not invent ideas and ideologies to fight with one another.

With our many gods, too many religions, faiths we are still disrupting the harmony animals naturally have in nature.

We should not be pretentious and conceited with regard to human nature. Animals are not conceited and do not make pretensions about anything.

I therefore politely disagree that animals are purer and less pretentious beings than human beings.

If we take spirituality as pretension, hypocrisy, arrogance, conceitedness we are more spiritual than animals or else animals are more spiritual without voluminous mythological books and discursive arguments and logic.

Adopt

06-06-2008, 11:50 PM

Smoogles

06-07-2008, 12:03 AM

Ahhhhhhhhhhh very interesting, very interesting. I feel so ignorant in my response.

So it is saying that the bigger the handicap the more impressive the feat? So since the world is the greatest achievement then he must not exist because his biggest handicap which is non-existence is necessary for the world to be. This is extremely contradictory, it is saying that there was a 'creator' but his greatest handi-cap was non-existence, so there had to of been a creator. Wouldn't he have to be, in order to have a handicap? A creator that created everything while not existing, sorry if I am dumb and stupid but that just seems to be self-contradictory. How can someone create something while not existing in order to create it in the first place? And even if he could who is to say the biggest handicap is existence itself? Maybe it's just disbelief in the fact that his creations deny his very existence.

The Atheist

06-07-2008, 12:47 AM

To The Atheist

First of all your very name contradicts logic and reason of philosophy so in turn you must not have any reason and logic unless you are falling back on your beliefs. (Which it seems you are) then that would make you a hypocrite, and no one likes those, do they?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to convey here - you mention beliefs and contradictions which I'm unaware of, please expand, because you've just lost me.

Prove my argument wrong, my argument which is perfect in every aspect (Except that it doesn't depict a loving, caring God, just that one exists) and if you are saying that my argument is for the Gullable then how come it is unproven, and it lies on the basis of logic and reason, unless someone you know has totally proven me wrong then if you disagree with this, then you in turn disagree with philosophy. I am sorry if I put out the wrong image of "If you don't agree with me I'll pee on you" but I didn't mean it that way.

No, I think you've just copied an error. It's a fairly basic one to do with what non-existence is. Logic only works if the input is logical - in the case of your proposition, the input is flawed. I have no need to prove your argument wrong which is why I used the metaphor of Fermi and Drake's equation.

And I don't care what a bunch of people from an Academy of "Science" believe, if anything they are Deist and they don't even know it themselves.

Ah, now I'm beginning to get a clearer picture - you know none of the people involved yet you've decided they are deists. You claim to know others' minds - are you telepathic?

This is what you believe not everyone else, why rely on what everyone else believes if it is unlogical and unreasonable? The very basis of this argument is just that... reason and logic. So Atheism does not exist in terms of philosophy, that just leaves Deist.

Very good, atheism isn't a philosophy, you are getting there. The point you now need to get to grips with is that philosophy is irrelevant - a human has no need of a philosophy just because you claim they do.

My question as to "what is evolution," meant, "is there an intelligent force behind evolution, and is there an ideal goal which we are-- designedly-- being evolved into?" And the answer is not known, but I say yes.

That's fine, but you're making up premises to suit yourself, because we actually know exactly how evolution has worked so far. I strongly recommend The Selfish Gene to get to grips with the subject. It certainly doesn't preclude a designer if that's what you like to think.

Yes. And yet we can still understand that there is something deeper. We are always expanding our knowledge like-- finding out a reason how or why. Is there a how and a why to evolution? Intuitively I would say yes, I would say yes there is intelligence and goodness behind everything.

If there is an intelligence and goodness behind everything, please explain where the good is in letting little children starve to death in agony?

Evolution is very well known, yet there is definitely something intrinsic to it that we do not as yet know. For instance, what we know about evolution scientifically does not address the fact that we live spiritual lives also as a result of evolution-- as in, the human life is the only one that has a spiritual life, as we know it.

Here, you're confusing facts with opinions. Your opinion is that there is such a thing as "sprituality". No evidence yet exists of that, so I cannot treat it as any kind of fact. So far, all output of the human brain has been able to be measured and if that changes, then I'll give due consideration to "spirituality".

And if you again say anything like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I will discontinue my participation and I bid you adieu at this time, should you do so.

No offence was meant, but you were putting a question which could only be answered to your satisfaction rather than any attempt to discuss.

NikolaiI

06-07-2008, 07:04 AM

Do you know what preclude means?

I have a good idea of the general way evolution works. I am saying that perhaps there is another idea under it, either a guiding intelligence or an ultimate ideal. There are some writers that write a great deal about this.

No I was asking questions which could be answered any way. But rude sarcasm I will not reply to, anymore.

I have faith that you're not that rude, though. :)

Yes it is my opinion that spirituality exists, and that God exists, also that it is not unreasonable to think so. I don't mind discussing it. If I'm squirmish, it's only because it is a sensitive area, and I don't want to make anyone's day worse.

There are many different contributors and theories in philosophy and theology, I know of only a few, and those without penetrating knowledge. Still, I believe in spirituality, be that Tai Chi, a Native American sweat lodge, a Christian worship service, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim worship-- any of these, I see spirituality in all. One of the main common characteristics is centeredness or balance. Also it is good health, wonderful happiness and sharing of happiness, positive affirmation and calming the mind at the same time bringing the mind and body together...and I do not think that my spiritual practice is so pure.

Why do I believe God exists?
First, because I believe there's a reality we don't see-- that is, simply a more real or basic reality. This reality doesn't have finite characteristics, although it is characteristic of being non-dual, and also if we don't understand this, then good. Non-duality means the complete absence of anything that is not completely at peace. There is absolutely no-- there is no pain, no descriptions, no confusion, no doubt, and nothing negative or positive. It is better than the very best thing.

And after considering this for a while, and having some experiences, I decided that I would try to consider if there were actual beings alive-- whether they be Buddhas, Demigods, or God. I decided eventually that all were real. Shakayamuni Buddha is alive, just as is Sri Nityananda Prabhu, the most merciful aspect of God.

Taken more philosophically-- God exists has already been decided, and the only question is whether there is conscience or inconcscience. But I don't see any of these ideas being discussed. The topic always seems to be rerouted to something incredibly mundane.

The Atheist

06-07-2008, 06:46 PM

Do you know what preclude means?

Absolutely, but I wonder whether you do, given the following...

I have a good idea of the general way evolution works. I am saying that perhaps there is another idea under it, either a guiding intelligence or an ultimate ideal. There are some writers that write a great deal about this.

No I was asking questions which could be answered any way. But rude sarcasm I will not reply to, anymore.

Since I was being neither sarcastic or rude, I'm not sure where you got that from.

Yes it is my opinion that spirituality exists, and that God exists, also that it is not unreasonable to think so. I don't mind discussing it. If I'm squirmish, it's only because it is a sensitive area, and I don't want to make anyone's day worse.

No problem here, most people are quite sensitive on the subject since it involves deeply-held beliefs.

One of the main common characteristics is centeredness or balance. Also it is good health, wonderful happiness and sharing of happiness, positive affirmation and calming the mind at the same time bringing the mind and body together...and I do not think that my spiritual practice is so pure.

Just one thing - if the spirituality is so great from those doctines, how is it that millions of hindus starve or die of preventable disease while muslims use a perverted form of theology to repress women?

Why do I believe God exists?

....

The topic always seems to be rerouted to something incredibly mundane.

My own answer to that is because most answers are, in fact, mundane. It's far less sexy to consider life as a materialistic outcome than the comfort blanket of having the sky-daddy in charge.

NikolaiI

06-08-2008, 02:57 PM

"My own answer to that is because most answers are, in fact, mundane. It's far less sexy to consider life as a materialistic outcome than the comfort blanket of having the sky-daddy in charge."

What does sexy have to do with it? Aren't we talking about sanity, peace and spirituality? Or is spirituality only a comfort? Wait-- you actually said spirituality doesn't exist at all? So then, the soul does not exist, either? You believe there is nothing at all but can be measured by our senses and then also the instruments we use to extend the senses?

So what is the self, then? I am speaking of what the "I" is. It is not my body. You would agree with that, right? I'm just wishing to discuss these related ideas, because I think it would help a very great deal in discussing God, the sum of all souls. Spirituality, the soul, and God all cannot be separated.

"Just one thing - if the spirituality is so great from those doctines, how is it that millions of hindus starve or die of preventable disease while muslims use a perverted form of theology to repress women?"

Why did my saying spirituality exists get turned into: "I vouch for the pureness of the spirituality of everyone in the world who-- we don't know, but for the sake of this discussion-- are theists." To say the spiritual tradition of Hinduism is rich would be an underestimate missing the point. Hinduism is not really one thing-- but if it were, we could say it is inconceivably vast in all sorts of treasures; moral instruction for the good or perfect life, instruction for advancement in spirituality, art, culture, and so much beauty and truth in worship.

One of the most amazing things there is in life is when you open the door into spirituality, when you actually accept that people can know thin even if they can't explain them. That people can know things that are beyond us. I know this and accept it very easily. It is very simple-- there I am, with a certain quality and quantity of knowledge. How could there not be so many people who know much more than I do? So we are always somewhere in the middle.

I know atheism has some adherents and it has some intelligence in it, but by far, by so much, the greater option is still theism. What cannot be satisfied by worshiping the One who created us? He created our minds and our capacity for understanding truth, He is Absolute Truth, himself. This kind of takes away all duality of whether He is Real or not, because in a real sense we are worshiping the undefinable, ever-distant, Absolute Truth. That is God. When you understand this you will no be impressed by people saying "How can God exist if there are people suffering?"

Trystan

06-08-2008, 06:02 PM

This is exactly what makes faith so remarkable,

Or foolish, depending on your perspective.

The Atheist

06-08-2008, 06:26 PM

What does sexy have to do with it?

Nothing at all - it was afailed attempt at levity.

Aren't we talking about sanity, peace and spirituality? Or is spirituality only a comfort? Wait-- you actually said spirituality doesn't exist at all? So then, the soul does not exist, either? You believe there is nothing at all but can be measured by our senses and then also the instruments we use to extend the senses?

Bingo!

In half a century of checking, there's nothing I've seen, heard or felt that cannot be explained rationally by materialistic means.

So what is the self, then? I am speaking of what the "I" is. It is not my body. You would agree with that, right?

No, I would disagree with you. The "self" or whatever you like to call it, is the product of our brain. Just as a dog or cat recognises itself as an individual, so do we.

I'm just wishing to discuss these related ideas, because I think it would help a very great deal in discussing God, the sum of all souls. Spirituality, the soul, and God all cannot be separated.

Correct - which is why theism puts them all in the same basket. To me, it's all just human construct.

One of the most amazing things there is in life is when you open the door into spirituality, when you actually accept that people can know thin even if they can't explain them. That people can know things that are beyond us. I know this and accept it very easily. It is very simple-- there I am, with a certain quality and quantity of knowledge. How could there not be so many people who know much more than I do? So we are always somewhere in the middle.

This is where we differ. I have yet to see anything - anything at all - which cannot have a simple, materialistic answer. That is the missing piece of the puzzle. If I ever found something, I would no doubt becoem some kind of theist. And please don't think it's because I haven't been looking for it, because that would be wrong.

I know atheism has some adherents and it has some intelligence in it, but by far, by so much, the greater option is still theism.

Opinion.

What cannot be satisfied by worshiping the One who created us? He created our minds and our capacity for understanding truth, He is Absolute Truth, himself. This kind of takes away all duality of whether He is Real or not, because in a real sense we are worshiping the undefinable, ever-distant, Absolute Truth. That is God. When you understand this you will no be impressed by people saying "How can God exist if there are people suffering?"

No, you've got me completely wrong. Suffering has nothing to do with my attitude towards gods - that was merely a counter to your argument of "perfection". Trust me, I understand everything there is to understand about gods and why people believe in various types of them. I just fail to see any evidence to convince me that any of them exist.

NikolaiI

06-09-2008, 09:50 PM

In half a century of checking, there's nothing I've seen, heard or felt that cannot be explained rationally by materialistic means.

It's good that you never give up searching. :D I have experienced exactly the opposite-- never that there is less than I know, but always that there is more than I know.

No, I would disagree with you. The "self" or whatever you like to call it, is the product of our brain. Just as a dog or cat recognises itself as an individual, so do we.

I think there are different levels. The Buddhists describe ego as being made up of five aggregates-- sensation, feeling, thought, discrimination, and consciousness-- I may have one wrong, but something like that I think. Then yet another defines us as Sense, Mind, Intelligence, and Soul. I don't know truly if I can say I think one is more true than another, although I've had experiences which can confirm them at different times.

Correct - which is why theism puts them all in the same basket. To me, it's all just human construct.

First of all, theism sometimes treats them one way and sometimes another. I am not speaking of Christian theist philosophy as I know less of it, but Vaishnava philosophy, which is also monotheist. It is similar in many regards but as to the soul, I cannot say it has the same instructions. In Christianity for instance, it is often accepted to eat meat, but in my opinion, to kill any being is karmic. It is not right to kill any living being-- regardless of whether it is an ant or a person.

The concept of God satisfies all of my concerns: morality, beauty, intelligence, spirituality. The tradition and philosophy satisfy me, the practice and the community. This is why I believe-- not because it is comfort; another way of saying because I am weak. God is both the non-dualistic, or impersonal, source of reality, and all spiritual beings, but is also a personality, as far as I can understand. What is God to me, though, being so distant? But God speaks to us in persons who are perfect.

This is where we differ. I have yet to see anything - anything at all - which cannot have a simple, materialistic answer. That is the missing piece of the puzzle. If I ever found something, I would no doubt becoem some kind of theist. And please don't think it's because I haven't been looking for it, because that would be wrong.

I would be suspicious if I actually thought there was nothing spiritual.

And I have one thing I would like to ask you. Everything you've said about God, I want to ask you what you think of Love if you apply it to Love. Love is invisible, powerful, eternal. . . and can anyone tell you rationally what it is? What would you tell me if I said I didn't believe in Love, because I'd never seen it, and I only believed what I saw? If I thought it was an idea, and at that a delusion, because it didn't actually exist. I never saw love, and I think it is actually a bad thing. Things done in love are not good. Wouldn't you simply think I had no understanding of what something done in love was?

No, you've got me completely wrong. Suffering has nothing to do with my attitude towards gods - that was merely a counter to your argument of "perfection". Trust me, I understand everything there is to understand about gods and why people believe in various types of them. I just fail to see any evidence to convince me that any of them exist.

Okay, fair enough, and thank you for clarifying. Thank you also for being so kind as to discuss this with me. I look forward to your responses.

All I have for you really is my firm conviction that Faith is not in necessary conflict with Reason. My own experiences of the spiritual, the soul and God are numerous and varied. I've never heard God or seen His face. I sort of tend to forget, because I've had so many and I can sort of rest on the conviction that I know he exists-- as my best self, I believe in Him. The absolute best humanity I can think is one that follows God. Self-realization is, after all, a never-ending process. I think that countless sages are correct in that God exists. Those that say He doesn't, that is fine, and we'll have these discussions.

The Atheist

06-10-2008, 05:42 PM

And I have one thing I would like to ask you. Everything you've said about God, I want to ask you what you think of Love if you apply it to Love. Love is invisible, powerful, eternal. . . and can anyone tell you rationally what it is? What would you tell me if I said I didn't believe in Love, because I'd never seen it, and I only believed what I saw? If I thought it was an idea, and at that a delusion, because it didn't actually exist. I never saw love, and I think it is actually a bad thing. Things done in love are not good. Wouldn't you simply think I had no understanding of what something done in love was?

Excellent point, and again, one which is often raised.

My personal opinion is that people who ask these kind of questions just don't understand either human-construct emotion, or chemical reactions in the brain, or both.

I find completely materialistic explanations of love to be perfectly reasonable. I'm pleased you mention people without knowledge of love, because we have examples from occasional cases of children brought up in completely loveless surroundings and they have no concept of it at all. Love does not exist outside of human-construct - we learn it on our mothers' knees.

It's an enormous subject, so I'll leave it there unless you want to discuss it further.

All I have for you really is my firm conviction that Faith is not in necessary conflict with Reason.

Nope, sorry, that one just can't work. Reason and rationality deal only in the materialistic world. Until spirituality or some supernatural phenomenon is proved materially, faith cannot be part of reason.

My own experiences of the spiritual, the soul and God are numerous and varied. I've never heard God or seen His face. I sort of tend to forget, because I've had so many and I can sort of rest on the conviction that I know he exists-- as my best self, I believe in Him.

That pretty much describes most people's views. I see it as does science, just another by-product of intelligence, like dreams, daydreams, hope and wonder.

The absolute best humanity I can think is one that follows God.

If only that were true, I wouldn't class myself as an atheist. Unfortunately, following god has always involved organised religion and ten thousand years of human history has well and truly proven that religion always gets perverted into something other than what it purports to be. Religion has always been about control and millions of corpses can attest to it.

Self-realization is, after all, a never-ending process. I think that countless sages are correct in that God exists. Those that say He doesn't, that is fine, and we'll have these discussions.

That's fine, but it does open you to the dangers of believing someone else insead of yourself. While I respect the fact that almost all scientists and doctors are atheists, their opinions have no bearing whatsoever on how and what I think.

Chester

06-10-2008, 07:07 PM

Love does not exist outside of human-construct
I'm not one for these "Does God exist" debates because they bore me to tears and frankly I don't care what anybody else wants to believe. But I just had to jump on here when I took note of the above. This question is far from decided. This is a philosophical question that's at least 2500 years old. If you're trying to solve it with science you're using the wrong discipline.

Other than that, my only question to you would be, do you have some kind of source for this:

Almost all scientists and doctors are atheists
Almost all? Science isn't inherently hostile to the idea of God. By all rights, it can best be indifferent to it. Maybe you can point me to a source, if you have a chance. If not, no biggie.

Just wanted to say those things. Again, this isn't my kind of fight.

Carry on.

The Atheist

06-11-2008, 08:33 PM

I'm not one for these "Does God exist" debates because they bore me to tears and frankly I don't care what anybody else wants to believe. But I just had to jump on here when I took note of the above. This question is far from decided. This is a philosophical question that's at least 2500 years old. If you're trying to solve it with science you're using the wrong discipline.

Couple of points here - the fact that 2500 years of discussion have gone on is probably rendered meaningless by the fact that medical knowledge for 2400 years at least of that time was so limited as to make speculation just hissing in the wind.

I don't think there's any great leap to use a conjunction of science (neuroscience and biology) and psychology (the nature of human-construct and society) to explain "love" or any other emotion.

The other major point is that I was expressing an opinion, not claiming it as fact. There is scientific/psychological knowledge which can give the answers to the question of what love is, while I've yet to see any other explanation beyond "god gave it to us". Both of those reasons may be false and the answer is something entirely different, but since the former fits both the facts and the materialsitic universe we observe, I'll go with it.

Other than that, my only question to you would be, do you have some kind of source for this:

This is a good place to start (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)

Having a look around, it may be that medical doctors in USA still hold religious beliefs in line with averages. Quite odd, religious doctors are pretty well an extinct species in most of the rest of the English-speaking world - but that is anecdotal evidence from many non-US doctors.

Science isn't inherently hostile to the idea of God. By all rights, it can best be indifferent to it. Maybe you can point me to a source, if you have a chance. If not, no biggie.

Just wanted to say those things. Again, this isn't my kind of fight.

Carry on.

No problem. I have to disagree on science not being hostile to the concept of god - it has to be by nature. It's a widespread opinion, and one which I wish would change. Science is about observation and replication, neither of which are traits of god. Science discounts god every time an experiment is carried out - no allowance is made for supernatural interference and none has yet been observed.

The National Academy of Sciences tends to bear this out, with a huge decline in belief in the supernatural as human/scientific knowledge has advanced - here (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html).

Chester

06-11-2008, 09:19 PM

I don't think there's any great leap to use a conjunction of science (neuroscience and biology) and psychology (the nature of human-construct and society) to explain "love" or any other emotion.

The other major point is that I was expressing an opinion, not claiming it as fact. There is scientific/psychological knowledge which can give the answers to the question of what love is, while I've yet to see any other explanation beyond "god gave it to us". Both of those reasons may be false and the answer is something entirely different, but since the former fits both the facts and the materialsitic universe we observe, I'll go with it.
Well I'm willing to agree that scientific/psychological knowledge can give us the answers to how love is accessed. With this I have no quarrel, sir. I'm more interested in what it is. My point of interest is the concept of love. The form. The ideal. One either believes (as you do) that it's a human construct, or one believes that it's a human discovery. It's either chemical processes, manufactured completely in one's own head, separate and apart from anybody else's reality; or it's something already here, real and palpable that one taps into, something significant, something bigger than us. Science cannot solve this, and I appreciate your admission that what you expressed was mere opinion. This is refreshing. I’m not used to that from people who seem to regard science as the be-all and end-all.

The fact is that one must consider the question in philosophical terms, and one must make one's choice based on what seems more reasonable. I don't begrudge anybody else's choice. I will just say I'm satisfied with mine. And since the time I made it, nothing has ever been the same.

I have to disagree on science not being hostile to the concept of god - it has to be by nature. It's a widespread opinion, and one which I wish would change. Science is about observation and replication, neither of which are traits of god. Science discounts god every time an experiment is carried out - no allowance is made for supernatural interference and none has yet been observed.
Well if one considers the possibility of God as Creator, and/or a transcendent God, or an immanent God (ala Spinoza), one’s not going to get very far looking for God with science. And when it comes to issues like “supernatural interference,” you’re now discussing things that have more to do with the nature of God, as opposed to God’s existence. Either way, it seems we’re back to philosophy again, the only proper discipline for the questions at hand.

As for scientists and God, I will just leave you with this quote from Max Planck, the father of quantum physics: "Anybody seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith." Why? Because science can explain a lot, but in the end analysis, science can't explain science. I’m sure you don’t need me to introduce you to Hume. Let’s just say that the scientist’s world (indeed the atheist’s world) is built on just as many assumptions as the theist’s. And we’ll leave each other to our own.

The Atheist

06-12-2008, 01:25 AM

Well if one considers the possibility of God as Creator, and/or a transcendent God, or an immanent God (ala Spinoza), one’s not going to get very far looking for God with science. And when it comes to issues like “supernatural interference,” you’re now discussing things that have more to do with the nature of God, as opposed to God’s existence. Either way, it seems we’re back to philosophy again, the only proper discipline for the questions at hand.

Does anyone seriously have Spinoza's god? I see lots of reference to it, but I've never met a real-life person who believed in such an impotent concept. I suppose they must exist, but sure, it's not an identifiable concept. It;s certainly not one which bothers me at all - who and how the Big Bang or whatever was sparked can happily remain a mystery.

As for scientists and God, I will just leave you with this quote from Max Planck, the father of quantum physics: "Anybody seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith." Why? Because science can explain a lot, but in the end analysis, science can't explain science. I’m sure you don’t need me to introduce you to Hume. Let’s just say that the scientist’s world (indeed the atheist’s world) is built on just as many assumptions as the theist’s. And we’ll leave each other to our own.

Nope, I can't buy that one. I'm pretty confident Hume would agree with me, although appeals to 200-year dead authorities isn't my forte anyway.

You're in danger of incorrectly linking atheism and science - while the two have lots of commonalities in the people who adhere to them, atheism is a lack of belief and rerquires no assumptions at all. An atheist is just a blank page; where a theist has a page full of evidence to suit his/her beliefs, an atheist has seen no evidence of god/s and therefore an empty sheet.

In science, I prefer to think that only one assumption is required: that reality exists. Given the lack of appeal of solipsism, the path seems pretty clear to me.

Chester

06-12-2008, 08:00 AM

Does anyone seriously have Spinoza's god? I see lots of reference to it, but I've never met a real-life person who believed in such an impotent concept. I suppose they must exist, but sure, it's not an identifiable concept. It;s certainly not one which bothers me at all - who and how the Big Bang or whatever was sparked can happily remain a mystery.
Are you really asking if anyone believes in pantheism? I must say I’m very surprised you haven’t (until now) met a “real-life” person who believes in it. Participating more in forums with discussions like this one might prove beneficial for you. One ought to get around more. Nice to meet you. (Although I’m more of a Whitehead guy, whose Process and Reality might add some of the potency you apparently find missing. Then again, speaking of philosophers...)

appeals to 200-year dead authorities isn't my forte anyway
And there we have it. The underlying dismissal of hundreds (thousands) of years of philosophy. If I am in danger of linking atheism to science (it was you actually who earlier linked the two by claiming “almost all” scientists are atheists. I’m trying to separate the link. It’s why I jumped on here, along with the desire to make clear that the matter of love is an undecided one), you are in danger of forsaking philosophy for science. Each has its relevant place. Questions of God’s existence are philosophical questions. You are free to call some of the larger questions of the universe “not identifiable” (whatever that means) and choose to “happily” ignore the mysteries. This is your prerogative. There are those for who the questions become important, pointing perhaps as clues. Then there are those who choose not to look beyond the immediate vicinity of what their five senses command. But if you find yourself curious one day, I might recommend to you the long and storied history of philosophy. Start with Plato, would be my suggestion.

I prefer to think that only one assumption is required: that reality exists.
Oh, my. This single sentence itself is laden with mysteries. Reality? No matter. The point is, what you don’t seem to realize, is that everything from that assumption onward, the way in which you have chosen to view the world (and I’m not criticizing the choice you have made, mind you) is too an assumption, including (especially) the assumption that you’re not making assumptions.

The Atheist

06-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Are you really asking if anyone believes in pantheism? I must say I’m very surprised you haven’t (until now) met a “real-life” person who believes in it. Participating more in forums with discussions like this one might prove beneficial for you. One ought to get around more. Nice to meet you. (Although I’m more of a Whitehead guy, whose Process and Reality might add some of the potency you apparently find missing. Then again, speaking of philosophers...)

Trust me - I've been participating in philosophical discussions since long before there were desktop computers, let alone the internet. Maybe my answer was partly facetious in that as soon as any kind of discussion involving deism comes up, my mind switches off automatically. It's just such a soft option, plus, I honestly don't know a single person who would espouse the position in public, other than those who do so through some perversion of political corrcetness where claiming atheism is perceived as negative.

And there we have it. The underlying dismissal of hundreds (thousands) of years of philosophy.

Absolutely!

I find the thought of caring what some bearded German thought even 200 years ago laughable, let alone those of 2000 years ago.

I have a great analogy for philosophy - the Drake Equation on Fermi's Theorem. It is GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. There are too many unknowns for it to work, yet people use it as some kind of proof of something. Frank Drake built an empire out of it! To me, former philosophy is like that - these people were working with such an ignorant base that pretty much everything they ever said is rubbish. Eternal verities aren't. Do you thinkJe pense donc je suis would have arisen in Descartes mind if he could have gone and seen the physical thought on via MRI? Would Plato have vomited out The Republic if he'd seen all the trouble Das Kapital had caused?

Maybe they would; I've always thought philosophy students were poor relations.

To me, philosophy is not like art, which can appreciate with age. It is something to be updated and replaced. I already have.

Edit: Grrr, pushed the wrong button and hit "enter". I'll come back finish it off...

The Atheist

06-12-2008, 02:36 PM

world record for most bunged-up posting, must be too early....

The Atheist

06-12-2008, 02:50 PM

If I am in danger of linking atheism to science (it was you actually who earlier linked the two by claiming “almost all” scientists are atheists.

Yes, but "scientists" is not a synonym for "science".

I’m trying to separate the link. It’s why I jumped on here, along with the desire to make clear that the matter of love is an undecided one), you are in danger of forsaking philosophy for science. Each has its relevant place. Questions of God’s existence are philosophical questions.

Sure, but to me there's a touch too much agnosticism in there, and I mean the kind of agnosticism which is "cannot know" rather than "don't know". I'm happy to take the latter position, there's an almost infinite amount I don't know, but I don't believe there's anything I can't know.

One day, maybe, I'll come across a question with a non-material answer. I guess that's the day I accept that metaphysics is even a subject.

You are free to call some of the larger questions of the universe “not identifiable” (whatever that means) and choose to “happily” ignore the mysteries. This is your prerogative. There are those for who the questions become important, pointing perhaps as clues. Then there are those who choose not to look beyond the immediate vicinity of what their five senses command. But if you find yourself curious one day, I might recommend to you the long and storied history of philosophy. Start with Plato, would be my suggestion.

As you can see above, far from starting with the old rat, I've long finished with him. The philosophies I do have an occasional ponder on are those of Sagan, Dawkins, Russell and more modern chappies who have a bit of scientific and mathematical knowledge to kick it all off from. Seems a bit childish to me to ask "What is life" when we can break it down into individual atoms and see the relationship between them.

Oh, my. This single sentence itself is laden with mysteries. Reality? No matter. The point is, what you don’t seem to realize, is that everything from that assumption onward, the way in which you have chosen to view the world (and I’m not criticizing the choice you have made, mind you) is too an assumption, including (especially) the assumption that you’re not making assumptions.

I certainly realise it, we just completely disagree. I probably thought your way a couple of lifetimes ago, but reality just keeps on persisting. We are so close to unlocking some of the weirdest secrets of the universe that I can only accept that reality as I know it actually exists. Once you get past that point, everything clicks into place nicely, without a single assumption necessary. That's the beauty about mathematics (which is probably a better word than science, since all science is maths anyway). So far, it has never, ever, ever been wrong! Not once. There have been various theories and hypotheses which have been proven wrong, but mathematics itself has stood up for a lot longer than philosophy, so I'm pretty comfortable sticking with it.

Chester

06-12-2008, 04:51 PM

Trust me - I've been participating in philosophical discussions since long before there were desktop computers, let alone the internet. Maybe my answer was partly facetious in that as soon as any kind of discussion involving deism comes up, my mind switches off automatically. It's just such a soft option, plus, I honestly don't know a single person who would espouse the position in public, other than those who do so through some perversion of political corrcetness where claiming atheism is perceived as negative.
I am not a deist.

I find the thought of caring what some bearded German thought even 200 years ago laughable, let alone those of 2000 years ago.

I have a great analogy for philosophy - the Drake Equation on Fermi's Theorem. It is GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. There are too many unknowns for it to work, yet people use it as some kind of proof of something. Frank Drake built an empire out of it! To me, former philosophy is like that - these people were working with such an ignorant base that pretty much everything they ever said is rubbish. Eternal verities aren't. Do you thinkJe pense donc je suis would have arisen in Descartes mind if he could have gone and seen the physical thought on via MRI? Would Plato have vomited out The Republic if he'd seen all the trouble Das Kapital had caused?

Maybe they would; I've always thought philosophy students were poor relations.

To me, philosophy is not like art, which can appreciate with age. It is something to be updated and replaced. I already have.
Well I'm simply at a loss as to how to respond to this. I suppose it's refreshing in some sense to see such close-mindedness so freely admitted. I'm sure I don’t have to point out the glaring irony of your philosophy on philosophy. Let's hope it doesn’t soon get "updated and replaced."

At any rate, your choice to reject philosophy brings our conversation to an end, I'm afraid. We speak two different languages. It's not my job to teach you mine, nor convince you of its importance and relevance. We are engaged in much different pursuits. Your mathematics will suit you well for the answers to your questions. It's simply lacking in answers to mine.

Best,

J.

The Atheist

06-12-2008, 09:48 PM

Well I'm simply at a loss as to how to respond to this. I suppose it's refreshing in some sense to see such close-mindedness so freely admitted.

I have to object to that - I've examined classical philosophy and found it irrelevant and naive. There's nothing close-minded about it. Being open minded is about being open to other ideas, not embracing them.

I'm sure I don’t have to point out the glaring irony of your philosophy on philosophy. Let's hope it doesn’t soon get "updated and replaced."

That's exactly my point - it would get updated if needed.

At any rate, your choice to reject philosophy brings our conversation to an end, I'm afraid. We speak two different languages. It's not my job to teach you mine, nor convince you of its importance and relevance. We are engaged in much different pursuits. Your mathematics will suit you well for the answers to your questions. It's simply lacking in answers to mine.

I'm always happy to let go, although the wording of your final paragraph troubles me because you're still making a case for the importance and relevance of philosophy while declining to discuss it.

Swamidragon

06-12-2008, 11:28 PM

peoples i think you shouldnt express your oppinions on this subject unless you have read the Bible and discussed it with some specialists and i mean not only with theologists but with historians too.

The Atheist

06-13-2008, 04:58 AM

peoples i think you shouldnt express your oppinions on this subject unless you have read the Bible and discussed it with some specialists and i mean not only with theologists but with historians too.

Just for your information, I'm very confident that my knowledge of the bible and its history, especially from an historical perspective is equal to, or better, than most christians.

My uncle was a Reverend Canon in the Anglican church who also had a ThD in divinity. For historical purposes, I rely on a contingent of historians I talk to online which includes two members of the Royal Historical Society (http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/). Believe it or not, I also converse with a group of atheists who are translating the original Amharic texts. Biblical knowledge isn't hard to find if you care to look, and I was lucky in having a personal head start.

Chester

06-13-2008, 08:36 AM

I'm always happy to let go, although the wording of your final paragraph troubles me because you're still making a case for the importance and relevance of philosophy while declining to discuss it.
Okay. Back for one more thing. Who’s declining to discuss it? Some arguments (and I originally got on here just to question your assertion that love is a human construct) can only be addressed using the tools of the philosopher. But you have found philosophy (at least “classical” as you have called it) “irrelevant and naive”, an appeal to “dead authorities.” The very subject matter with which philosophy concerns itself is of no interest to you. Your interest is entirely within the narrow confines of what you can see of your world. Everything you see is explainable, if I understand your argument, and questions regarding that which are not explainable (questions like whether love is a construct or a discovery and, I would imagine, things like the origin of the universe, potential reasons, et al, questions – in other words – unsuitable for mathematics and suitable only for philosophy) are meaningless. These are “childish questions” which are “not identifiable” and strictly for “bearded Germans from 200 years ago.”

Now that’s fine. I respect your position but would ask that you think twice about bringing philosophical questions to the table and then divorcing yourself from philosophy.

Here. The conversation has gone like this:

TA: The French say X
C: Yes, but the French also say Y
TA: Oh, well of course I don’t believe the French.

The rest of this has been me defending “the French.”

Philosophy, classical or otherwise (as if the big epistemological questions are somehow temporal in nature or have been adequately resolved), does not need my defense, and I have better things to do with my time. No hard feelings.

The Atheist

06-13-2008, 03:31 PM

Everything you see is explainable, if I understand your argument, and questions regarding that which are not explainable (questions like whether love is a construct or a discovery and, I would imagine, things like the origin of the universe, potential reasons, et al, questions – in other words – unsuitable for mathematics and suitable only for philosophy) are meaningless.

I think you've missed the point a little - I don't think there are any inexplicable questions (which I did stress in bold earlier). There are some we don't know the answer to yet, but they will become apparent in time. I certainly don't believe there are any questions which cannot ultimately be solved by maths and science. I just think philosophy without science is irrelevant, not philosophy itself that's irrelevant. Philosophy is excellent at asking questions, science is very good at answering them.

These are “childish questions” which are “not identifiable” and strictly for “bearded Germans from 200 years ago.”

This is misquoting what I actually said. I think you're reading past my words a little, as evinced by your note previously that "I am not a deist" in response to me not suggesting you were. Above, taking the "not identifiable", I used that only to describe Spinoza's god - which is correct. Spinoza's god is invisible, impotent and meaningless - it cannot be tested for, but since it is completely impotent, who in his right mind would bother looking for it? Looking for Spinoza's god is identical to looking for the IPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn). Those kind of questions can be safely left to philosophy along with Schrodinger, because things which have no effect on the material world are indeed immaterial. :D

This also is false:

Here. The conversation has gone like this:

TA: The French say X
C: Yes, but the French also say Y
TA: Oh, well of course I don’t believe the French.

I'm not looking for an argument here - like yourself, I have better things to do - but I'd like you to at least get my position right. The above bears no relation to how the conversation has gone and it does seem clear that you don't quite understand what I've said because you're misquoting or wrongly paraphrasing it.

Chester

06-13-2008, 06:38 PM

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think my little French language illustration is right on the money.

It’s like this. You brought a question into the mix that is not provable by science, that is to say it is strictly a philosophical question. You said love is a human construct. I was happily minding my own business until I saw that. When I challenged the assertion on philosophical grounds, you dismissed philosophy in general, even though it was you (unwittingly, I can now see) who brought philosophy into the discussion.

Okay. Why is it a philosophical matter and not one for science? Because you cannot, it seems to me, say that love is a human construct unless you know for sure what love is. This is where science fails us. Now, science has done a yeoman’s job of telling us what happens in our brains when we feel love. But I still don’t know what love is. I might even go so far as to say (strictly for argument’s sake) that love can be “created” within the brain. But that still doesn’t tell me what’s been created. What is this concept of love? I’d like to know what it is.

These kinds of questions (and others like, for example, “what is beauty?” and “might there be a reason for the universe?” and “If I can conceive of a Creator, might there have been one?”) are profoundly interesting to me. Taken all together, one might want to consider if the questions lead somewhere.

Now, these questions simply don’t lend themselves very well to science. You would call them immaterial and, I presume, irrelevant. That’s fine. You’re (let me know if I’m paraphrasing badly) an empiricist. Rationalism is not your cup of tea. Okay. So where does that put us?

Well, it means we’re arguing over basic epistemology. We're arguing over the ways in which knowledge is obtained. And for you to press your point further, you’re going to need to put forth an argument that rationalism ought to be dismissed and the only kind of knowledge worth a damn is that acquired through empirical means.

The problem with that is that you would soon find yourself engaged in – brace yourself – philosophy. I’ve never tried it so I don’t know all the difficulties but you’d have to show that empiricism is superior to rationalism, maybe even that rationalism ought to be dismissed outright, and I just don’t know how one can do that with empirical methodology. That is to say, you’d need empiricism to prove empiricism.

You might want to consult Roger Bacon for help. He was a famous empiricist. Or George Berkeley. Or John Locke. Sadly, though, Bacon’s been dead for 700 years, Berkeley for 250 years, and Locke for 300 years. And I know how you feel about dead philosophers.

The Atheist

06-13-2008, 07:48 PM

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think my little French language illustration is right on the money.

It’s like this. You brought a question into the mix that is not provable by science, that is to say it is strictly a philosophical question. You said love is a human construct. I was happily minding my own business until I saw that. When I challenged the assertion on philosophical grounds, you dismissed philosophy in general, even though it was you (unwittingly, I can now see) who brought philosophy into the discussion.

Nope, you have definitely missed the point. I didn't say anywhere that "love" is not provable by science. I gave my take on it, which is a position I expect to see verified in the fullness of time. The philosophy I dismissed is the "classical" kind - I did note that I was interested in the philosphies of Russel, Dawkins,Sagan, et al.

Okay. Why is it a philosophical matter and not one for science? Because you cannot, it seems to me, say that love is a human construct unless you know for sure what love is. This is where science fails us. Now, science has done a yeoman’s job of telling us what happens in our brains when we feel love. But I still don’t know what love is. I might even go so far as to say (strictly for argument’s sake) that love can be “created” within the brain. But that still doesn’t tell me what’s been created. What is this concept of love? I’d like to know what it is.

Now I see where the problem arises. You believe "love" to actually exist.

A materialist says that "love" does not exist, but that humans class a group of feelings created within the brain under a heading of "love". That is the human-construct part. Why we have those feelings is fairly easy to see - some of it is inbuilt survival mechanism (protecting young), some of it is simply hormonal (lust) and some of it is habitual.

I go with the materialist view on it, because it fits the scenario, it is borne out by observation of other species and because we know for sure that children who are not told they are loved don't feel loved.

These kinds of questions (and others like, for example, “what is beauty?” and “might there be a reason for the universe?” and “If I can conceive of a Creator, might there have been one?”) are profoundly interesting to me. Taken all together, one might want to consider if the questions lead somewhere.

Lots of people do, which is why religion exists. I'm pleased you raise beauty, because if beauty were an intrinsic value, it would be shared, and it clearly is not. Beauty is indeed, in the eye of the beholder and accordingly, a question "what is beauty" is not just irrelevant, it's meaningless.

Now, these questions simply don’t lend themselves very well to science. You would call them immaterial and, I presume, irrelevant. That’s fine. You’re (let me know if I’m paraphrasing badly) an empiricist. Rationalism is not your cup of tea. Okay. So where does that put us?

I'm not sure where you're headed with this as I am 100% rationalist. It would be irrational not to accept empirical evidence. You seem to think the two are opposing branches, when they are not at all - two trunks of the same tree is a better way of looking at it. I repeat my earlier assertion that no questions are outside of science. There may be some which are outside of our present scientific knowledge, but that will change over time.

Chester

06-13-2008, 09:24 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

The Atheist

06-13-2008, 09:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Excellent!

Note this bit:

...This is commonly called continental rationalism, because it was predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas in Britain empiricism dominated.

Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist...

Note that I am English, which may have led to your confusion.

Chester

06-13-2008, 10:03 PM

Please don't take this the wrong way, my friend. I don't mean to be rude, but there is simply too much ground to cover here with you, much of it basic epistemology, and I simply just don't have the time or the interest. My apologies.

Equality72521

06-14-2008, 02:24 PM

What makes God a tyrant?
Is there even a God to be a tyrant?
What makes faith or love?
Can science really explain everything?

Addressing the first issue: I don't think, God is necessarily the tyrant, I think organized religion makes God seem the tyrant. It's the religions that tell you if you don't follow this faith or this sect of the faith then you'll be damned or situations such as that. Religion has become a mockery of what it should be. Religion should be the worship of a divine being of your choosing. Looking to the Christian religion, for example, people are advertising on t.v. to get people to join their church. Churches are competing for attention, telling you their church is the right way, what they believe will secure you a better place in heaven. Does anybody listen to this? Think about it. It's all basically worshipping the same ideals. Christians have God and Jesus was his prophet, Muslims have Allah and Muhammed was his prophet, ideally, each religion has a god and maybe a prophet. God should be how you see him. You shouldn't have to have a church or anybody else to tell you how to believe. So, God is not the tyrant. It's the humans who think that they speak for God themselves who are the tyrants. They are the ones who make religion difficult and and drive people away. Not God.

Addressing the second issue: A god/goddess is what you believe it to be. There is no official and set way for anyone to believe. Even if what one believes isn't an official religion, there is no shame in following. Your religion is your religion. Your beliefs shouldn't be influenced by the majority unless that is what you truly believe. There are so many religions that are "official religions" but those are not the only ones for people to choose. One's God or Goddess is what one makes it and how it always will be, not matter what people say.

Addressing the third issue: Faith and love are ideals that people see. I personally see faith as trust. I don't put faith in a God or Goddess unless I truly trust myself in that religion and the divine being I am worshipping. That is what I consider faith, some agree or disagree, but it's how I know a lot to view it. There's nothing beautiful about it or wonderful, it's just trust. You have to be mature enough to see that trust is important in a religion or belief for your own well being. Love can be a connection, passion, addiction, it can also be a false belief in our heads, it depends on who you are speaking to. We read and hear about people who love. I've never seen true love and doubt I ever will, because I doubt the existance of it. I believe love to personally be an idea that you want to exist, if you want love to exist, it does, in a religion, in a relationship, in anything. That's what you can sum love up as, a want, not a true feeling.

And finally, addressing the fourth issue: Since is a very powerful tool that is constantly used in todays societies and life. I think that most people should try and differentiate science and religion. Religion is a belief system which is actually in the mind. Science is proving real, true, and probable/possible things. Science, I think, is the answer to everything that isn't of the belief system.

NikolaiI

06-14-2008, 07:32 PM

Excellent point, and again, one which is often raised.

My personal opinion is that people who ask these kind of questions just don't understand either human-construct emotion, or chemical reactions in the brain, or both.

I find completely materialistic explanations of love to be perfectly reasonable. I'm pleased you mention people without knowledge of love, because we have examples from occasional cases of children brought up in completely loveless surroundings and they have no concept of it at all. Love does not exist outside of human-construct - we learn it on our mothers' knees.

Yes, those are are reasonable, too. But I am actually not saying something is there-- God, love-- that you are saying is not. Actually you are saying something is there-- anything you or I could say, think or imagine, and I am saying it is not really. This life is actually illusion. There is a part of us that is controling our lives, and that part exists, but the rest of it is mere phantasmagoria. Does God exist? Well, yes, God is the Source of Reality. It doesn't matter that we call God God.

For me this is understandable and reasonable. And actually the existence of God changes the entire equation. The world we know-- in relation to God, must be of God's reality. This means the nature of reality is one where we are unborn, then manifest, then unmanifest again.

Nope, sorry, that one just can't work. Reason and rationality deal only in the materialistic world. Until spirituality or some supernatural phenomenon is proved materially, faith cannot be part of reason.

And you have faith in the material world. Can you explain your logic...?

Reason and faith do not have to be against each other. That doesn't mean that every time they are together, it just means they are not necessarily at odds. That is both for your faith in the material world, and my logical understanding of a spiritual, faith based existence.

Every being has faith in something. He may have logic, but then he has faith in logic.

The Atheist

06-15-2008, 04:30 AM

And you have faith in the material world. Can you explain your logic...?

Reason and faith do not have to be against each other. That doesn't mean that every time they are together, it just means they are not necessarily at odds. That is both for your faith in the material world, and my logical understanding of a spiritual, faith based existence.

Every being has faith in something. He may have logic, but then he has faith in logic.

No, this is a semantic fallacy.

The word "faith" has several different meanings. Faith in an unknown, invisible entity is totally different from faith that 2+2=4. One can be proven in a variety of ways, the other, not at all.

The only argument down your lane is solipsism. (gosh, this is very reminiscent of the previous dialogue)

NikolaiI

06-15-2008, 03:19 PM

No, this is a semantic fallacy.

The word "faith" has several different meanings. Faith in an unknown, invisible entity is totally different from faith that 2+2=4. One can be proven in a variety of ways, the other, not at all.

The only argument down your lane is solipsism. (gosh, this is very reminiscent of the previous dialogue)

Do not think of God as a person. God is something like reality, but it is the true reality into which everything fades. It is like Consciousness-Force. Everything in life is not actually real. Illusions that pass and imagined karmic ties that disappear. Everything always disappears into this reality.

God's existence changes our reality. It means our reality is reflective of God's, because God's reality is infinite. It has infinite dimensions, and ours is just a small part of it.

Life is a dream-- when you actually see this, it is like a revelation. You are very peaceful, because you know the future is infinitely peaceful.