Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 17 of 120 1 2 15 16 17 18 19 119 120
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
"The resistance is useless comment comes from "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The Vogon utters the words as he is taking Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect to be thrown into deep space. I presume Redewenur was suggesting that nothing is likely to change your belief. I don't have a problem with that as you are prepared to accept freedom of choice and pluralism in others of us. It's when belief in the supernatural influences decisions which greatly affect others that I have a problem. But of course our beliefs always influence our actions."
I agree with that 100%. Oh, it must have been a while since I've seen the Guide, since I dont remember that part.

"especially when it's related to the horrors of fundamentalism."
Good, because I'm not a fundamentalist.

Yes, I enjoy learning about science, as you suspected. Interesting quote by Confucius, makes sense though.

"More or less closely related than are chimpanzees, humans and gorillas? The other two species also engage in "Self-sacrifice, caring for others" on occassions."
Yes, that is what I was implying, actually. Somewhere along the evolutionary line something came giving less dominant traits. Something that gives them the ability to distinguish friends and those in need of help, and extend yourself to them. To me, that is among the most honorable and noble deeds a man can do. In a sense -and if I'm unclear in this, tell me and I'll explain- he is surpassing his past of constant struggles. Instead of letting go and acting upon instinct, he jumps in front of the bullet to protect his brother. The movie V For Vendetta (one of my favorites) expresses this: for when Evey is (or at least she thinks she is) being interrigated, she doesn't give up. They could take every inch of her, every inch except one, her Freedom which is largely masked inside our race. Such qualities in man do not demonstrate weakness or meekness, but show our capacity for love and kindness.

The story (myth) of the Fall of Adam and Eve illustrates this, as does evolution in my point of view.
The Bible Myth (i do not beleive that it physically happened)- God created two humans, put them in a Paradise, and let them choose their fate. They failed, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. From this, they are largely wicked. But still, they are granted Freedom of Choice. In this view, Jesus fulfilled the gap lost at the Fall, and through recognizing Him they acheive eternal life. (At the end of the book of Revelation it shows the Tree of Life [which was present in the Paradise in the Garden of Eden in which God said they could not eat] given to them. In a sense, their choice of going away from the pack (active resistence as opposed to passive) will give them Love and Freedom.
Perhaps that is just a myth, as you (and I) think. It probably did not actually happen, and what I said there is not strictly my view, but that is what Christian beleive.

The Evolutionary Process, at its core, has a similar theme/message, I think. On the surface, they would seem opposites, but perhaps not. Search deeper, climb higher, and tell me. Does evolution have a Redemptive theme?
Evolution literally means "to roll out." When I hear that word, I think of a cone, starting at the point and getting larger, out-rolling. Progress. Homo sapiens coming from single-celled organisms.

Do you agree with that or not? Keep in mind that I am writing this with an open mind. Is it cynical in any way? My point is for pluarlism for one's God is different from anothers (who might not have any, he says).

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Tim: "Does evolution have a Redemptive theme?"

1) Redemption from what, Tim?

2) Evolution has a had a consistent tendency toward producing ever more complex organisms. On this planet, it appears that at the apex of that complexity is the human brain. Do you see a redemptive theme in that?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim wrote:

"it must have been a while since I've seen the Guide, since I dont remember that part".

I sincerely hope you're not referring to the Hollywood movie of the same name! I actually can't remember if that movie has the scene in it. But if you haven't seen the British TV series try to catch a look, or, better still read the first few books in the series. Douglas Adams' viewpoint is very funny. The Hollywood version was spoiled, in my opinion, by the need to have a happy ending.

Redewenur. It's good to have an Eastern perspective in SAGG. I agree the quote from Confucius was great. And Tim, I agree that myths are a very important part of our lives. However I think the standard view of evolution, based on industrial revolution ideas of progress, contributes to the damage we inflict on our planet. We have to think of more than just "Homo sapiens coming from single-celled organisms". Perhaps you can come up with a story based on human evolution that has a redemptive theme.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Hello, again, all. My wife and I got back, last evening, from visiting the Fredericton and Woodstock area of New Brunswick, north east of Ontario. The Alumni meeting with old friends at http://www.mta.ca made for a very happy weekend.

The area is about 1300 kilometers from Toronto. From Toronto, this takes us about 13 hours of driving, at 100 Km's (about 70 mph)--mostly four-laned highway. We stayed, going and coming, at Trois Rivieres (Three Rivers, Quebec), which is half way. The weather was an excellent. It was just the right amount of warm rain--the whole 12 days.
=============================================================
I see that there has been a lot of quite interesting posts over the last 12 days. Good reading, too.

DEFINING GOD
TerryNZ comments: "And I think many times in this not-quite-science forum we suffer from this. No-one has adequately defined what they mean by God."

TBZ, have you read the way I sign some of my posts?

As has been pointed out, it is not easy for some of us to define "God": How can we humans, using what I feel are very limited human senses, define that which is ineffable--too great to be expressed in words? This is why I always ask atheists: "Tell me, what comes to your mind when you hear theists--and there is more than one kind--speak of God--and I will tell you whether I believe it or not?

I supsect that most atheists make the mistake of thinking that theists are all idolaters--that is, those who think of God as an objective being, out there.

Obviously primitive polytheists--and many are still with us in the modern world--think of the gods as objective beings who can control the lives of us mere human beings. Polythiests worship objective forms we call idols, as if they are gods. Unsophisticated ancient Greeks believed that such super human-like gods actually lived on Mount Olympus.

Let me simplify things by telling you what I do NOT believe: As I have said, often, I do NOT believe in a god who is an objective person or being who exists in any three-dimensional sense of the word. This is why I use the special symbol found in my signature. Take a look.

Physically speaking, I sense GOD in all of nature, in at least five ways: To my sight GOD is light, in all its forms; to my hearing GOD is sound, and to my touch, GOD is all that I feel. In addition, I taste GOD and smell the GOD in all that I call nature. Who would say that this is impossible?

Later, I will add how I experience GOD in my intellect and spirit, as part of the mix.



Last edited by Revlgking; 07/18/07 03:35 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
T
Turner Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
I will add to the above as I write:
GØD AS INTELLECT
Intellectually speaking, I think of GØD as all that I know, now. GØD is all that I know and all that I will ever know, now and in the future.

GOD AS SPIRIT
Spiritually speaking, IMHO, GØD is all that IS in all of nature. In other words, GØD is all that we call the conscious mind--in the micro and the macro.

GØD, also includes that which we call the very helpful and computer-like unconscious mind. Google on the work of Seth Lloyd, MIT--See his book, THE UNIVERSE AS A COMPUTER.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Last evening, I talked with Turner, a teacher and a pro musician, at his place. Theologically and philosophically speaking, he and I, obviously, see eye to eye, even heart to heart. With his approval, I posted the above from his 'puter.

GØD includes everything we sense with our senses; everything we think about, mentally and intellectually, and everything we relate to culturally and spiritually. GØD is the source of all creative faith, hope and love, within, around, below, above.

Atheists are free to reject and to choose not to relate to this GØD-concept, as defined above, but as one writer in the brainmeta.com forum puts it:

"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists.

If God is defined as a Creator separate from his creation, then there is little or no scientific support for this claim. So whether God exists, or not, comes down to how we define God."

Atheistic existentialists have been known to say that the whole idea of existence and our consciousness of it is simply "absurd". No wonder many have lived lives filled with despair ending in suicide.



Last edited by Revlgking; 07/18/07 03:03 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists. "
It's probably not possible to refute the existence of God, but this "argument" is drivel, regardless.

"No wonder many have lived lives filled with despair ending in suicide. "
Yea ... there were tons of us at Jonestown.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Hiya Revl.
Welcome back.
Me too! Isn't summer wonderful! Almost daily I marvel that it is all still limping along (Nature/our ecosystem, biosphere, etc.).

re: "Atheistic existentialists have been known to say that the whole idea of existence and our consciousness of it is simply "absurd"." -Revl.

My thought was that it depends on how you define absurd.
...and y'know, it's not just a simple definition that matters, but how we inculcate the word.
Am I using that word right?
I mean how we take the word in and what it "means" to us individually.

We all define G0d into, or out of, existence. What bothers me is that even if I define G0d into existence, I may still have the wrong definition.

Anyway....
I'm reading E.O. Wilson's 2006 book, The Creation, and thought his take on religion was interesting. He points out that from an evolutionary standpoint religion (belief in overarching principles based on external powers or motives)(~my quick definition)... religion is a fairly recent development.
Hmmmm... I'm losing the point here.
Religion is maybe 30,000 yr. old, but science is only 300 years old (depending on how you gauge science).
That alone deserves some pondering, but....

I like his point that science is "The invention of this remarkable engine of testable learning...." -E.O.Wilson

...and after pointing out that our "learning" has doubled roughly every 15 years for the past 350 years, he goes on to conclude...

This "learning" has led us to a worldview or "image [that] has subsumed religious rivalries and reduced them to intertribal conflict." -E.O.W.

...well, I guess not all of "us." ...and I mean worldwide, not "us" here, personally.

...and I'm only halfway throught the book. More later.

Lately I've been thinking that Religion might be the answer (to climate change), since governments clearly won't be saving us.
This is basically the thrust of this book also.
Save the Creation.

~~SA smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists..." This "argument" is drivel, regardless.
Come now, TFF, you must have a better rebuttal that that. Now tell me the god-concept you think I have in mind.

You write: "Yea ... there were tons of us at Jonestown." US? You mean atheists?

BTW, Jim Jones and his followers were not any kind of spiritual theists. Obviously, along with their leader, they were mentally ill and worshipped an idol, a material being, in the physical form of Jim Jones, as if he were God.

BTW, I am curious: Do not atheists think of matter as the highest good possible? If not, what is the highest good for atheists?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
SA, about 'absurd'. That which is plainly not true or sensible; so contrary to reason that it laughable, foolish, ridiculous.

There is obviously more than one kind of atheism. BTW, I like to think it is possible work with positive and rational atheists for the greater good.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
If I may....

Jonestown = sarcasm.
...and "drivel" is valid, because it all depends on our definitions.

I think you and I agree much more than most on the "nature" of G0d, and I like your descriptions and definitions; but I would use different words. I still have a different "definition."

So what does that matter?
What does matter is the result of our definitions, not the particular semantics of a definition.

The results of our various definitions are pretty much the same. We want peace and harmony, social and economic justice, sustainability and evolution. Things matter.

...and speaking of matter.... I think space is the highest good, as it generates both matter and energy. It's what's "behind" reality, as G0d is behind everything.

Later... smile
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Rev, almost every question you ask is nonsense, b/c of the implicit assumptions. But first things first.

"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists..."

This is a stupid argument. It takes the form "(Probably Y since X)" or "(X probably implies Y) and X." (it's a little more complicated than that, but it's not worth going into more detail, the argument is so utterly stupid) Using his pseudologic, it is not probably impossible to refute the existence of god, it IS impossible to refute the existence of god, b/c it's given that God is proved.

I know what your definition of God is. It means whatever you elect to have it mean at the moment. God is all things. God is everything. God is the spiritual. God is all things that exist; some things clearly exist; therefore god exists. I get your argument. It's as uncomplicated as it is unenlightening. But that definition of God is nonsense. It's not wrong. It's not right. It's just nonsense. There is a lot of baggage associated with the word God. Why use the word God to describe "all things" unless you are attempting to deceive. You are deceiving yourself and you are attempting to deceive others. Your every post on the subject conveys this. First god is everything. Then god is only the good stuff. It's a definition of terms that is intended to conflate and confuse what is being said. No surprise there, as you use the word "science" also in a way that attempt to deceive.

I didn't say that JJ's group were spiritual. But they weren't atheists either.

"Do not atheists think of matter as the highest good possible?"
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this forum.

Atheists have different views about what might be the highest possible good. Some of us possibly don't even believe in the highest possible good. I'm agnostic on the subject. But I'm pretty the set of atheists who think that "matter" is the greatest possible good is empty.

Atheism is not a system of ethics, nor does it subsume a system of ethics. The ways that atheists develop their ethics is either through adopting some additional philosophy (humanism, randian objectivism, what have you) or by instantiating a system of personal ethics (which may be transmitted by tradition).

I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)



Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, believe me, I am sincere when I say that I like what you wrote in response to my comments. You dialogued. You expressed how you feel about things, your feelings.

Jean just called me to a very important and material phenomenon: "DINNER...!"

I hope we will continue to dialogue on this important issue. Maybe, we can invite SA in, as a referee, on what we write to one another, okay?



G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Rev. I agree with TFF. Your definition of God changes with the comment you are trying to combat. You said:

"To my sight GOD is light, in all its forms; to my hearing GOD is sound, and to my touch, GOD is all that I feel. In addition, I taste GOD and smell the GOD in all that I call nature".

In other posts you have claimed God is a word for all there is. But now you seem to be saying God is not dark. Anything you can't hear, touch, feel, taste or smell is not God. What controls all these things; the Devil, Satan, Ahriman? Of course it's not possible to disprove any sort of God exists if we keep changing the definition of what that God is, especially if we make the prior assumption there is a God in the first place. As TFF says it sounds like you accept God can be anything we want it to be. This idea has always ultimately led to the belief that once we have decided what our God is we can then try to exterminate others who don't accept our definition.

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 07/18/07 11:53 PM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Rev. So you are back. I hope you had a nice break.

You miss the point about atheism-- it is that no matter what you define as G -strangeO- D is rejected by those who do not believe that the definitions are any sort of manifestation of divinity. I agree they may exist, I just reject the suggestion that they are evidence for G-srrangeO- D and are merely natural phenomena or part of the human condition. No god, no angels, no invisible friends, no sum of all existence- just humans trying to get on with it all. Why do you find that simple fact so confronting?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF writes: "I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy, by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)"

Now this expresses what I feel is the essential nature and true essence of atheism; not being sure of the value of caring. Thanks for pointing this out to us.

John writes: GOD IS LOVE. Now Love is all about caring, and being willing to care.
==================================================
TerryNZ asks: "Anything you can't hear, touch, feel, taste or smell is not God."?

No. IMHO, God includes what we call evil. Isaiah 65 makes this point. However, I think of evil as being like chaos; it is good in the making. Creation (I prefer to think in terms of emanation) is about bringing order out of chaos.

You ask: "What controls all these things; the Devil, Satan, Ahriman?"

I am not a dualist, nor a fundamentalist. BTW, 'devil'--The Greek is 'diabolos', from which we get 'diabolic'-- literally means that which splits and divides us from our good.

TNZ, even my short signature makes it clear: in my opinion, GØD includes everything, even atheists. It even includes the right of atheists not to be included. smile

TNZ comments: "As TFF says it sounds like you accept God can be anything we want it to be."

If this is a question my answer is: GØD is, like all self-evident existence, self-evident.

GØD IS THE TOTAL PROCESS OF LIFE--part of the philosophy of the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

Of course I like existing. I readily admit that I want to go on and on existing, ad infinitum, and growing as part of the eternal process of life, within self-evident existence, GØD, which I find it impossible to deny.

I see no advantage in denying that which is self-evident, do you? If so tell me what it is.

TNZ: "This idea has always ultimately led to the belief that once we have decided what our God is we can then try to exterminate others who don't accept our definition."

"Exterminate others?" Where did I say this? Quite the opposite. It is my firm hope that others will choose NOT to reject the opportunity to live on and on by exterminating their souls.

HELL IS NON-BEING
BTW, this is my definition of "hell"--non-being.
As Hamlet put it, the choice is, "To be, or not to be..."
I see atheism as choosing not to be. Correct me, if I am wrong. If atheists choose not to be, tell me, why would anyone make such a choice? It boggles the mind.

If death is followed by non being, none of us will ever know. But if there is being beyond death think of the fun those who believe are going to have with their atheist friends. smile

BTW, Ellis, I agree with you: "getting on with it all..." is what it is all about, if you agree to add: morally and ethically. I also happen to believe that there is an option: this "getting on" is without end.

Last edited by Revlgking; 07/19/07 04:57 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
TFF: "I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)"

You can be sure, TFF, that by itself, the rejection of a god-concept is no more a philosophy than the rejection of astrology, but why, indeed, should you care? In either case it's hardly a fact that's worthy of a second thought, unless you happen to be someone intent on repeating to the world, ad nauseam, how wonderful it is not be an atheist, and instead to be a member of the species who has a proper grasp of the value of "caring".

Have you good people got the message yet?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"not being sure of the value of caring"
That's far too general a statement. I'm not sure I care about whether atheism is a full-fledged philosophy. That doesn't mean I'm not sure I care about anything.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I see no advantage in conflating distinct ideas.
I see no advantage in misrepresenting reality or to drawing incorrect inferences.
I see no advantage to asserting that something is self-evident when it is not.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
But, TFF, those tools are central to the rhetoric. Now, according to the above, you've evidently chosen "not to be" and are therefore in "hell", so just be a good atheist and admit to your spiritual, moral and ethical inferiority. That's the proposition, is it not? - or perhaps I misunderstand the condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou forum preachers.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 17 of 120 1 2 15 16 17 18 19 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5