Hi I just wanna know what the advantage is to not believing in God, I personally feel that this way of thinking is pointless.
If you want to know about myself, I would say I'm a young man, have been raised in a semi religious environment my whole life and have taken a couple philosophy classes. Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.
This board seems very boring I hope people can enlighten me or maybe just respond, no one likes being shunned lol
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 10:55:33 PM
Hi I just wanna know what the advantage is to not believing in God, I personally feel that this way of thinking is pointless.
What way of thinking are you talking about?
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:38:31 PM
This board seems very boring I hope people can enlighten me or maybe just respond, no one likes being shunned lol
Nobody is shunning you, but this is a small place and usually not very fast moving.
The way of thinking that there is no God, you know? To me it only depends on what you believe God is, or what existence is, in order to conclude that 'God does not exist'
Welcome!
Firstly...define "god".
(I think this discussion would have to wait until you reach 50 posts, though but looks like you're almost there.)
lol great some interaction, well, tbh to define god would be as hard to do as defining yourself, if I had to do it with words I guess I would say the reason behind the madness or the ultimate perspective but in my case I don't think I could possibly be fully accurate some people say god is love but I jsut don't find that to be adequate, how do you define no God?
Define "pointless".
I have plenty of things in my life that have a "point". I love my husband and my son, I love helping people and I work with animals for a living. I love the sensations of moving and breathing and enjoying nature. I love my memories and my plans for the future.
I'm at peace with dying and ceasing to be.
I'm not afraid of hell, or the devil, or some kind of eternal punishment.
I don't feel threatened by ideas that challenge me.
Sounds like some great "points" right there, to me. :)
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:47:22 PM
The way of thinking that there is no God, you know? To me it only depends on what you believe God is, or what existence is, in order to conclude that 'God does not exist'
So if not believing in a god is pointless, is believing in a god also pointless?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 24, 2011, 11:55:08 PM
Define "pointless".
I have plenty of things in my life that have a "point". I love my husband and my son, I love helping people and I work with animals for a living. I love the sensations of moving and breathing and enjoying nature. I love my memories and my plans for the future.
I'm at peace with dying and ceasing to be.
I'm not afraid of hell, or the devil, or some kind of eternal punishment.
I don't feel threatened by ideas that challenge me.
Sounds like some great "points" right there, to me. :)
pointless: to have no sense, use, or purpose. I did not mean to say you cannot find meaning in your life.
Quote from: Recusant on June 24, 2011, 11:58:03 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:47:22 PM
The way of thinking that there is no God, you know? To me it only depends on what you believe God is, or what existence is, in order to conclude that 'God does not exist'
So if not believing in a god is pointless, is believing in a god also pointless?
In my opinion no, it would be similar to believing in yourself, or in others.
If the idea of God exists, why would people deny it?, even if it is not physically existing, neither is my plans for the future, but I still believe in them. Do you believe ideas can be destroyed?
Welcome,
I won't get into too deep a discussion as this is not the preoper section for it. I will say that the "point" for me is to enjoy life, not worry about what happens to me or my "soul" after I die.
See you in the big boy boards after we reach 50.
Quote from: Jabbles on June 25, 2011, 12:13:22 AM
Welcome,
I won't get into too deep a discussion as this is not the preoper section for it. I will say that the "point" for me is to enjoy life, not worry about what happens to me or my "soul" after I die.
See you in the big boy boards after we reach 50.
lol it's gonna take forever to get to 50...
might as well just post a bunch of crap
Welcome to the forum if you are not a troll.
I feel an incredible sense of freedom not being tied down by religion or God. I hope you can learn something from the members here. They are some of the nicest people!
That's cool, like ur pic, that seems to be the idea with everyone on here, I just don't get why people decide they are tied down by God, IMO I can only tie down myself. Physically I guess a strong person could probably tie me down but that's beside the point lol :)
Lol! I dunno why, but I pictured you wrestling a bear.
LMAO a bear trying to tie me down would be pretty crazy, sounds like a nightmare haha
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:14:45 AM
lol it's gonna take forever to get to 50...
It seemed to take less than three hours, must be a record for a bicycle.
Welcome
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on June 24, 2011, 11:58:03 PM
So if not believing in a god is pointless, is believing in a god also pointless?
In my opinion no, it would be similar to believing in yourself, or in others.
There is reasonable evidence that you exist. There is reasonable evidence that others exist. Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:07:51 AM
If the idea of God exists, why would people deny it?, even if it is not physically existing, neither is my plans for the future, but I still believe in them. Do you believe ideas can be destroyed?
The idea of a teapot orbiting the sun exists, why would people deny that? The idea of hobbits living happily in Middle Earth exists, why would people deny that? An idea doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:15:29 AM
might as well just post a bunch of crap
Hi, welcome to the forum and thanks for proving that it's not hard to get 50 posts.
However, keep in mind that posting "a bunch of crap" is the kind of behavior that will get you restricted to the 50 post area even if you have more than 50 posts. ;) Frankly I should push you back in there since you broke the rules of the 50 area but I'll give you a chance to show that you are serious before I do that.
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 10:55:33 PM
Hi I just wanna know what the advantage is to not believing in God,
Freedom.
QuoteI personally feel that this way of thinking is pointless.
Removing the shackles of religious repression is not pointless.
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:54:04 PM
lol great some interaction, well, tbh to define god would be as hard to do as defining yourself, if I had to do it with words I guess I would say the reason behind the madness or the ultimate perspective but in my case I don't think I could possibly be fully accurate some people say god is love but I jsut don't find that to be adequate, how do you define no God?
???
That's just the thing, I can't define no god before you define the idea that god represents to you.
If by "god" you mean whatever caused the universe and you to exist, then I can't deny that. I can however dispute the idea that whatever that cause is is intelligent and capable of consciously designing a universe with purpose. That's what "no god" would be, for that definition.
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 10:55:33 PM
Hi I just wanna know what the advantage is to not believing in God
Having never experienced the alternative, I have no subjective opinion on this matter.
QuoteI personally feel that this way of thinking is pointless.
Reverse argument.
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:03:15 PM
Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.
Well, I have to disagree on this one because all humans are born with a lack of belief in god/s.
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:03:15 PM
Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.
Well, I have to disagree on this one because all humans are born with a lack of belief in god/s.
I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born
with a lack of belief as we are born
without belief in god(s)
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:07:51 AM
If the idea of God exists, why would people deny it?,
Gosh...um...say, lack of any good evidence?
Quoteeven if it is not physically existing, neither is my plans for the future, but I still believe in them. Do you believe ideas can be destroyed?
I pondered over this for a bit before answering. You have different things going on here. First, you're confusing the supernatural with the natural by positing the belief in a idea of a god existing and your plans for the future.
Secondly, you
believe in an idea of yours in the future is to take a once in a life time two week trip to Tokyo 30 days from now, for example.
Something comes up, you change your mind and go to Madrid instead.
Thirdly, It seems to me you pretty much killed the idea of going to Tokyo. It also seems your belief in the idea of the trip to Tokyo was a faulty belief.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born with a lack of belief as we are born without belief in god(s)
I thought I said that.
ehh...semantics...*chucklin*.
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 12:55:55 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born with a lack of belief as we are born without belief in god(s)
I thought I said that.
ehh...semantics...*chucklin*.
It's just that one implies having something but losing or otherwise being deprived of something, while the other does not.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 01:13:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 12:55:55 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born with a lack of belief as we are born without belief in god(s)
I thought I said that.
ehh...semantics...*chucklin*.
It's just that one implies having something but losing or otherwise being deprived of something, while the other does not.
I see your point. But either way works in this case because if one is born with a lack of something, he never had it to begin with....right?
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 01:21:13 PMI see your point. But either way works in this case because if one is born with a lack of something, he never had it to begin with....right?
Yes, pretty much - or at least to any reasonable person. However, such small things can spark massive misunderstanding. For instance, there are more ways of twisting "born with a lack of" than there are of twisting "born without" and certain religious types are all too twist-happy.
Me, I try to have clear wording as a general rule, unless speaking in metaphors or regarding the end result of a conversation as utterly unimportant.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 01:13:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 12:55:55 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
I agree with the point made, but again am a little displeased with the wording. We are not so much born with a lack of belief as we are born without belief in god(s)
I thought I said that.
ehh...semantics...*chucklin*.
It's just that one implies having something but losing or otherwise being deprived of something, while the other does not.
Na I'm not getting it, lack means don't have, without means don't have.
I'm resisting looking at a dictionary although I often do.
Without can mean outside, does that make a difference?
When I first started reading the words of thinken folks I admired their use of the word idle.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 25, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
Na I'm not getting it, lack means don't have, without means don't have.
I'm resisting looking at a dictionary although I often do.
Without can mean outside, does that make a difference?
When I first started reading the words of thinken folks I admired their use of the word idle.
Let us examine it then. "being born with a lack of something" versus "being born without something"
The first expression says, "born with... Oh, wait! It's not there!" thus oh-so-subtly implying that there is something missing - something that was expected to or should have been there.
The second, while meaning the same, has no such subtle implication - it is the simplest way of stating the fact in question.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 25, 2011, 03:22:58 PM
The second, while meaning the same, has no such subtle implication - it is the simplest way of stating the fact in question.
OK thanks, Lack the noun: "The state of needing something that is absent or unavailable"
Lack the Verb: "Be without"
Hey, what can I say, I'm an action guy, I'm going with the verb.
Quote from: bicycle on June 24, 2011, 11:59:48 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 24, 2011, 11:55:08 PM
Define "pointless".
I have plenty of things in my life that have a "point". I love my husband and my son, I love helping people and I work with animals for a living. I love the sensations of moving and breathing and enjoying nature. I love my memories and my plans for the future.
I'm at peace with dying and ceasing to be.
I'm not afraid of hell, or the devil, or some kind of eternal punishment.
I don't feel threatened by ideas that challenge me.
Sounds like some great "points" right there, to me. :)
pointless: to have no sense, use, or purpose. I did not mean to say you cannot find meaning in your life.
Oh, well, I guess my life is pointless then. I wonder what's wrong with that?
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: bicycle link= topic=7699.msg117686#msg117686 date=1308952995
Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.
Well, I have to disagree on this one because all humans are born with a lack of belief in god/s.
This may be true, but all humans are born with the ability to believe in both concrete and abstract concepts. That may be where bike is getting mixed up. If you go back and read some of the original argument on this post and add concept after god it makes much more sense. God concepts are ideas, no one will argue the existence of god concepts. God concepts have a history and may have motors or evolved into all sorts of interesting philosophy.
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 03:27:30 AM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on June 24, 2011, 11:58:03 PM
So if not believing in a god is pointless, is believing in a god also pointless?
In my opinion no, it would be similar to believing in yourself, or in others.
There is reasonable evidence that you exist. There is reasonable evidence that others exist. Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 12:07:51 AM
If the idea of God exists, why would people deny it?, even if it is not physically existing, neither is my plans for the future, but I still believe in them. Do you believe ideas can be destroyed?
The idea of a teapot orbiting the sun exists, why would people deny that? The idea of hobbits living happily in Middle Earth exists, why would people deny that? An idea doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?
Because god is an idea, and since that is the case why would you deny that?
Quote from: Twentythree on June 25, 2011, 04:07:39 PM
Quote from: Gawen on June 25, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: bicycle link= topic=7699.msg117686#msg117686 date=1308952995
Atheism is appealing to me in the fact that it is a reaction to former beliefs...It was created because of a belief in God.
Well, I have to disagree on this one because all humans are born with a lack of belief in god/s.
This may be true, but all humans are born with the ability to believe in both concrete and abstract concepts. That may be where bike is getting mixed up. If you go back and read some of the original argument on this post and add concept after god it makes much more sense. God concepts are ideas, no one will argue the existence of god concepts. God concepts have a history and may have motors or evolved into all sorts of interesting philosophy.
You could not believe there is no god without someone telling you about god, that would not make sense to be born knowing anything, people don't even know what their instincts are until they are observed..
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 04:39:07 PM
Because god is an idea, and since that is the case why would you deny that?
The idea of a god does not equal the existence of that god. Are you implying that I'm denying that the idea of a god exists? If so I'll be as clear as possible: The ideas of not just one god, but hundreds if not thousands of gods exist. Is it your position that if an idea of a god exists, then that god actually does exist?
You failed to address a couple of questions. I'll re-post them for you:
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 03:27:30 AM
There is reasonable evidence that you exist. There is reasonable evidence that others exist. Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 03:27:30 AM
How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 05:01:48 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 04:39:07 PM
Because god is an idea, and since that is the case why would you deny that?
The idea of a god does not equal the existence of that god. Are you implying that I'm denying that the idea of a god exists? If so I'll be as clear as possible: The ideas of not just one god, but hundreds if not thousands of gods exist. Is it your position that if an idea of a god exists, then that god actually does exist?
No, God exists, thousands of "God's" would just be dividing up the same idea into however people see fit, which would be ridiculous IMO
You failed to address a couple of questions. I'll re-post them for you:
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 03:27:30 AM
There is reasonable evidence that you exist. There is reasonable evidence that others exist. Where is the reasonable evidence for any god?
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 03:27:30 AM
How does the question of whether ideas can be destroyed relate to this line of discussion?
There's a difference between knowing and believing, how would you know god does not exist, if there is no evidence...Do you feel that people came up with the idea of God for no reason? Contrarily that's almost how I feel about atheism...
I brought up the fact that ideas cannot be destroyed because in that case ideas cannot be created...
So you think that there is no reasonable evidence god exists, and yet we do exist?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:15:27 PM
So you think that there is no reasonable evidence god exists, and yet we do exist?
And so are you the god of bothering atheist forums?
The truth is there is no reasonable evidence that God exists, because reasonable evidence is only considered something you can see or touch, in which case I don't think God is small enough to see, it's almost like saying look at your eye, without a mirror. or touch your finger with the same finger.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 25, 2011, 05:20:25 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:15:27 PM
So you think that there is no reasonable evidence god exists, and yet we do exist?
And so are you the god of bothering atheist forums?
lol no I'm the tooth fairy
So are atheists, people who do not believe in god? Do not believe the world is fair? and do not believe in themselves?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:20:52 PM
The truth is there is no reasonable evidence that God exists, because reasonable evidence is only considered something you can see or touch, in which case I don't think God is small enough to see, it's almost like saying look at your eye, without a mirror. or touch your finger with the same finger.
So are you going to go away now?
Nope
you didn't answer my qustion
question*
can you see or touch, me? Do I not exist?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:24:26 PM
So are atheists, people who do not believe in god? Do not believe the world is fair? and do not believe in themselves?
Troll
what about the air you breathe? How am I a troll?
sorry I'm challenging your beliefs, I just always felt like that is a healthier way to live. I challenge my own as well. You shouldn't just ignore challenges.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:42:50 PM
sorry I'm challenging your beliefs, I just always felt like that is a healthier way to live. I challenge my own as well. You shouldn't just ignore challenges.
You haven't challenged a thing, you have nothing, you are irrelevant.
You couldn't even dance a stupid dance, you're just an inadequate defender of a non existent god who will punish you into eternity for your failure.
Umm then why can't you answer my questions?
and it sounds like your mad for some reason, but I did nothing
sorry I meant questioned, not challenged, however that's the same thing and that's called denial if you can't acknowledge that...
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMNo, God exists...
Bald assertion. Your repeated reference to ideas of a god doesn't carry any weight. Ideas do not necessarily equate to reality. I've brought this up before, and you've yet to address it.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PM...thousands of "God's" would just be dividing up the same idea into however people see fit, which would be ridiculous IMO
When those ideas plainly contradict each other, how are they "the same idea"?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMThere's a difference between knowing and believing, how would you know god does not exist, if there is no evidence[?]
Please cite any instance of me saying that I know a god doesn't exist. Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence. For a deeper look at this you might read an article by Victor Stenger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html) which looks at the issue of how lack of evidence presents a problem for those who assert the existence of a deity.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMDo you feel that people came up with the idea of God for no reason? Contrarily that's almost how I feel about atheism.
The fact that people came up with the idea of a god doesn't mean that any such god exists. People came up with the idea of phlogiston (http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm), but that doesn't mean that it actually exists. They had reasons for coming up with the idea, just as people have reasons for coming up with the idea of a god or gods. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a reason for coming up with an idea means that the idea has congruence with reality.
Quote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMNo, God exists...
Bald assertion. Your repeated reference to ideas of a god do not carry any weight. Ideas do not necessarily equate to reality. I referenced this before, and you've yet to address it.
Clarification: In context what I meant was, No I was not implying that since there is an idea of God, that this is proof that God exists...I'm saying God is an idea...and what would you know about reality? All there is, is perspective and speculation...What do I need to address?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PM...thousands of "God's" would just be dividing up the same idea into however people see fit, which would be ridiculous IMO
When those ideas plainly contradict each other, how are they "the same idea"?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PM
The idea of God, or higher power than ourselves, in those religions the different God's have different powers...ridiculous IMO
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMThere's a difference between knowing and believing, how would you know god does not exist, if there is no evidence[?]
Please cite any instance of me saying that I know a god doesn't exist. Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence. For a deeper look at this you might read an article by Victor Stenger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html) which looks at the issue of how lack of evidence presents a problem for those who assert the existence of a deity.
[/quote]
So lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it is for existence?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMDo you feel that people came up with the idea of God for no reason? Contrarily that's almost how I feel about atheism.
The fact that people came up with the idea of a god doesn't mean that any such god exists. People came up with the idea of phlogiston (http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm), but that doesn't mean that it actually exists. They had reasons for coming up with the idea, just as people have reasons for coming up with the idea of a god or gods. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a reason for coming up with an idea means that the idea has congruence with reality.
[/quote]
So are you implying that ideas come to be by fluke?
bicycle...do not use multiple post entries in a row. Take a few moments to gather your thoughts then respond in one post or edit that post if you need to add more to it. We don't need half a page to be just you posting multiple times in a spastic manner.
sorry admin :)
Bicycle, please read "How do I use the quote feature?" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=203.0) and follow the instructions you find there. Sorting through posts presented as one long quote in which you've inserted occasional comments with no differentiation is tiresome. I think you're quite capable of formatting your posts correctly if you want to.
*(See note below; thanks for editing your post.)
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 06:51:33 PMClarification: In context what I meant was, No I was not implying that since there is an idea of God, that this is proof that God exists...I'm saying God is an idea...
The Wicked Witch of the West is an idea. Phlogiston is an idea.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 06:51:33 PM...and what would you know about reality? All there is, is perspective and speculation.
So are you a solipsist?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 06:51:33 PMWhat do I need to address?
You don't
need to address anything. However, discussion is an exchange. I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality. Does the existence of an idea necessarily mean that the subject of that idea exists in reality independent of anybody's mind?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:10:36 PMQuote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 06:35:30 PMWhen those ideas plainly contradict each other, how are they "the same idea"?
The idea of God, or higher power than ourselves, in those religions the different God's have different powers...ridiculous IMO
It
isn't a single idea though. Is the idea of Shiva the same as the idea of YHVH? Is the Dao the same as Jesus? You seem to be trying to say that because various cultures have come up with concepts of the supernatural, that means that it's the same idea. A council of gods living in Valhalla or on Olympus is not the same idea as the Christian trinity. Animism isn't the same as Scientology.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 06:51:33 PMSo lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it is for existence?
I have a feeling you didn't even bother to read the article by Stenger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html). Your question doesn't make any sense. When I try to parse it, I get "So lack of evidence is conclusive proof for existence?" What are you trying to say?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 06:51:33 PMQuote from: Recusant on June 25, 2011, 06:35:30 PMThe fact that people came up with the idea of a god doesn't mean that any such god exists. People came up with the idea of phlogiston (http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm), but that doesn't mean that it actually exists. They had reasons for coming up with the idea, just as people have reasons for coming up with the idea of a god or gods. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a reason for coming up with an idea means that the idea has congruence with reality.
So are you implying that ideas come to be by fluke?
Obviously not, and that is clear to anybody who reads what I've written. This disingenuous tack you've chosen isn't getting us anywhere. Please address what I actually wrote.
* * *
*Edited to add: I see that you've edited your post to make it more readable. Thank you; I appreciate the effort. You're getting there, but you need to make sure that you have quote tags around all quotes. As it stands now, the incomplete quote tags still result in a confusing post.
Quote
The Wicked Witch of the West is an idea. Phlogiston is an idea.
good point, but God and the wicked witch of the west do not equate, in the fact that The Wicked Witch of the West was used for a story and God is used for life...Phlogiston is an idea that is proven to be inaccurate do you suppose you are going to disprove god?
Quote
So are you a solipsist?
Do you know what the reality is or not? Since your perspective is only relative I would say no. I happen to believe others exist as much as I do so no I'm not a Solipsist I guess...
Quote
You don't need to address anything. However, discussion is an exchange. I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality. Does the existence of an idea necessarily mean that the subject of that idea exists in reality independent of anybody's mind?
Like I said, what would you know about reality? Are you saying if I was dead, my ideas would also be gone forever? concepts that really have no meaning without consciousness to begin with...In this case I would see God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were...
Quote
It isn't a single idea though. Is the idea of Shiva the same as the idea of YHVH? Is the Dao the same as Jesus? You seem to be trying to say that because various cultures have come up with concepts of the supernatural, that means that it's the same idea. A council of gods living in Valhalla or on Olympus is not the same idea as the Christian trinity. Animism isn't the same as Scientology.
You're just not looking at it like I am, take a step back from that, Ideas come from previous ones, how could there be a Shiva and YHVH without the idea of higher being or higher perspective aka God..IMO the idea of God as a being is just a personification of the concept, humans personify everything...
Quote
I have a feeling you didn't even bother to read the article by Stenger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html). Your question doesn't make any sense. When I try to parse it, I get "So lack of evidence is conclusive proof for existence?" What are you trying to say?
Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence.
No I didn't, I have a feeling I already know what it's going to say...What I am saying is, you had a double-negative, "Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence"
Quote
Obviously not, and that is clear to anybody who reads what I've written. This disingenuous tack you've adopted isn't getting us anywhere. Please address what I actually wrote.
So ideas do not come up by fluke, but the idea of God does not make any sense to you how?
God told me he didn't exist, that's why I don't believe in him.
And, since he's God, he can do anything. ;D
your either trolling or tripping lol
This really isn't going to go anywhere until you define or describe what you mean by the word or idea "god".
I get the feeling that people are talking about different things as if there were the same. Even among believers I get the feeling that happens. ::)
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PM
QuoteThe Wicked Witch of the West is an idea. Phlogiston is an idea.
good point, but God and the wicked witch of the west do not equate, in the fact that The Wicked Witch of the West was used for a story and God is used for life...
God is used for a story; the fact that people base their beliefs on that story doesn't mean that the story is any more true than
The Wizard of Oz.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMPhlogiston is an idea that is proven to be inaccurate do you suppose you are going to disprove god?
I don't have to do that. All I'm doing is pointing out that ideas don't necessarily correspond to reality.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMQuoteSo are you a solipsist?
Do you know what the reality is or not?
Short answer? "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." — Philip K. Dick
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMSince your perspective is only relative I would say no. I happen to believe others exist as much as I do so no I'm not a Solipsist I guess...
Good. Then you agree that reality has existence independent of perspective and speculation. Do you think that human beings are capable of perceiving reality?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMQuoteYou don't need to address anything. However, discussion is an exchange. I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality. Does the existence of an idea necessarily mean that the subject of that idea exists in reality independent of anybody's mind?
Like I said, what would you know about reality?
I know more or less as much about reality (in the sense of whether it's actually real or not) as any human being. What I try not to do is confuse ideas in my head or those of other people for reality, especially when there is no evidence that those ideas have any bearing on reality. You're dodging my question. Why is that?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMAre you saying if I was dead, my ideas would also be gone forever?
Unless you've written them down or otherwise shared them, yes; we are ephemeral beings and our thoughts and ideas are generally even more ephemeral than we are.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMconcepts that really have no meaning without consciousness to begin with...In this case I would see God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were...
The first part I agree with, the second doesn't make any sense at all to me. What does "God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were..." mean?
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMYou're just not looking at it like I am, take a step back from that, Ideas come from previous ones, how could there be a Shiva and YHVH without the idea of higher being or higher perspective aka God..IMO the idea of God as a being is just a personification of the concept, humans personify everything...
When people see something for which there is no clear explanation, they often come up with conjecture or surmise to explain that phenomenon. It's not hard to imagine a process by which a surmised unseen "entity" behind thunder and lightning gradually becomes the mysterious mover behind some or all phenomena, for instance. None of this implies that the idea of a god or gods has anything to do with reality.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMQuoteI have a feeling you didn't even bother to read the article by Stenger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html). Your question doesn't make any sense. When I try to parse it, I get "So lack of evidence is conclusive proof for existence?" What are you trying to say?
Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence.
No I didn't, I have a feeling I already know what it's going to say...What I am saying is, you had a double-negative, "Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence"
I appreciate your honesty, if not your apparent lack of desire to understand the concept I'm talking about here.
Your explanation doesn't correspond to the original question, and since you aren't going to bother to understand what I'm saying, nor produce a coherent response, I feel that it's justifiable to dismiss your line of thinking here as bafflegab.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 08:31:11 PMSo ideas do not come up by fluke, but the idea of God does not make any sense to you how?
It's easy to understand how ideas of deities might arise. What I question is whether they have any correspondence to reality. There is no reasonable evidence that they do.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 09:27:12 PM
your either trolling or tripping lol
No man, it's the mystical power of God. He's so powerful he can make himself not exist. And he did. And then he told me about it.
Because HE CAN DO ANYTHING. Right?
Quote
God is used for a story; the fact that people base their beliefs on that story doesn't mean that the story is any more true than The Wizard of Oz.
If this is the case, then what is the title of the story? Religion?
Quote
Short answer? "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." — Philip K. Dick
I like that, so that would include God then. IMO if you think God does not exist, he never did, in which case, God did not go away when you stopped believing in it.
Quote
Good. Then you agree that reality has existence independent of perspective and speculation. Do you think that human beings are capable of perceiving reality?
Obviously we perceive reality, but that does not mean that it
is Reality. That is perception.
Quote
I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.
Ideas are a part of Reality. I didn't mean to "dodge" your question, sorry.
Quoteespecially when there is no evidence that those ideas have any bearing on reality.
So when terrorists blow up sh*t in the name of God, that is not proof that ideas have any bearing on reality?
What about math or science? Are those ideas?
QuoteUnless you've written them down or otherwise shared them, yes; we are ephemeral beings and our thoughts and ideas are generally even more ephemeral than we are.
I actually agree with that, time would also be considered an ephemeral concept...That doesn't mean it does not exist, at least the illusion does.
QuoteWhat does "God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were..." mean?
It means that concepts are discovered out of necessity, part of our consciousness, they are the reason we have gotten to this point. IMO that's part of what God is; The very thing that holds reality together.
QuoteWhen people see something for which there is no clear explanation, they often come up with conjecture or surmise to explain that phenomenon. It's not hard to imagine a process by which a surmised unseen "entity" behind thunder and lightning gradually becomes the mysterious mover behind some or all phenomena, for instance. None of this implies that the idea of a god or gods has anything to do with reality.
I wouldn't argue with that, unless I was gonna say God is the reason you can even perceive thunder and lightning.
QuoteYour explanation doesn't correspond to the original question, and since you aren't going to bother to understand what I'm saying, nor produce a coherent response, I feel that it's justifiable to dismiss your line of thinking here as bafflegab.
My explanation was to answer the question, "what are you trying to say?" What I was implying was you made a double negative, I was just trying to clarify what you said without a double negative...I am trying to understand, so please bother to elaborate, I'm not bafflegabbing or whatever.
Quote
It's easy to understand how ideas of deities might arise. What I question is whether they have any correspondence to reality. There is no reasonable evidence that they do.
One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.
Edit:typos
There are both ideas with evidence, and ideas without. I believe this genre is divided into fiction and non-fiction.
God is an idea without evidence. Just because a bible exists, doesn't mean squat. I've read some amazing fantasy stories with vivid detail. But that is all they are: fantasies.
Despite how much I love pegasus, I know by a proven fact, they do not exist.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AM
It means that concepts are discovered out of necessity, part of our consciousness, they are the reason we have gotten to this point. IMO that's part of what God is; The very thing that holds reality together.
People were scared, the world is scary, they had a need, relief from fear was a necessity. Some people may have the need for a god to hold their reality together, doesn't mean thinking a thing draws it into existence outside of thought. Thoughts, ideas are in the mind, you may discover things in the world that confirm your thoughts. I don't see any thing in the world to confirm god is anything but an idea, I just see the fear and the reasons for fear.
What is this, all the problems we are going to face are known to god and he's pre-programmed us to solve them, or does he download them as we need them? If you talk to him can you hurry him up on the new clean energy and a new source of nutrition.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AM
I wouldn't argue with that, unless I was gonna say God is the reason you can even perceive thunder and lightning.
It's probably best you don't say that.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AM
One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.
If a philosopher is telling you time doesn't exist after you die, you should probably find a new philosopher. How do they explain your parents attaining the required maturity to conceive you?
sweetdeath,
QuoteThere are both ideas with evidence, and ideas without. I believe this genre is divided into fiction and non-fiction.
There have been plenty of ideas that have gone from fiction to non-fiction.
QuoteGod is an idea with evidence.
typo?
QuoteDespite how much I love pegasus, I know by a proven fact, they do not exist.
A flying horse would be a physical creature, I don't believe in God as a physical thing. God would be a more metaphysical or even existence itself IMO.
magic pudding,
QuotePeople were scared, the world is scary, they had a need, relief from fear was a necessity.
I don't see how a concept of God would alleviate people's fears of the world, please elaborate...Are you trying to explain why God was created? Have you ever heard the phrase "Fear of God?"
QuoteSome people may have the need for a god to hold their reality together,
Reality
is held together...what are you talking about?
QuoteI don't see any thing in the world to confirm god is anything but an idea, I just see the fear and the reasons for fear.
You can see the world, but not god maybe because you think god is something in the world...I don't find that to be the case, and you don't really, "just see fear," do you? There is obviously more than that...
QuoteWhat is this, all the problems we are going to face are known to god and he's pre-programmed us to solve them, or does he download them as we need them?
I don't know where you got that from, sounds like you are just mocking someone, but I am supposedly the one playing games, said Whitney.
Mankind has problems, period. You cannot escape problems, you can only accept them or change the ones you have. Are you asking me what God does as if I am his messenger or I would know what he does? I have no idea what he does, to answer your question, let's see if you answer mine...
QuoteIf a philosopher is telling you time doesn't exist after you die, you should probably find a new philosopher. How do they explain your parents attaining the required maturity to conceive you?
great reading comprehension yourself, I never said a philosopher said time doesn't exist after we die, but whatever I can't control what you hear...How would I explain parents attaining the required maturity to conceive me? Well, obviously through time, but if you knew anything about physics, you would know time is relative, for example answer these questions: How long are you gonna wait to be born? Or after you die, how long do you wait for everyone else to die?
i
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AM
QuoteGod is used for a story; the fact that people base their beliefs on that story doesn't mean that the story is any more true than The Wizard of Oz.
If this is the case, then what is the title of the story? Religion?
I would consider that to be unnecessarily vague. The story might be the Bible, the Quran, or any number of other systems of mythology. There are religions which don't include the concept of a deity.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteShort answer? "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." — Philip K. Dick
I like that, so that would include God then. IMO if you think God does not exist, he never did, in which case, God did not go away when you stopped believing in it.
This fails to take into account the large percentage of people who have ceased to believe in a deity. At one time they believed in a particular god and it seemed to them that that god was present in the world; when they stopped believing in that god, it went away.
Or are you actually saying that a deity only exists if you believe in it?
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteGood. Then you agree that reality has existence independent of perspective and speculation. Do you think that human beings are capable of perceiving reality?
Obviously we perceive reality, but that does not mean that it is Reality. That is perception.
Agreed. Why do you capitalize "reality"? Are you a pantheist?
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteI've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.
Ideas are a part of Reality. I didn't mean to "dodge" your question, sorry.
No problem. I agree that ideas are a part of reality. So is reality determined by ideas, or does reality exist independently of ideas? Does the Wicked Witch of the West exist outside of the pages of a book, a movie screen and people's minds?
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteWhat I try not to do is confuse ideas in my head or those of other people for reality, especially when there is no evidence that those ideas have any bearing on reality. (Full sentence restored)
So when terrorists blow up sh*t in the name of God, that is not proof that ideas have any bearing on reality?
What about math or science? Are those ideas?
Actions motivated by ideas exist in reality. That is not evidence that the idea of a god means that that god exists. Math and science are mental constructs; there is no evidence that they exist independently of minds and books.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteUnless you've written them down or otherwise shared them, yes; we are ephemeral beings and our thoughts and ideas are generally even more ephemeral than we are.
I actually agree with that, time would also be considered an ephemeral concept...That doesn't mean it does not exist, at least the illusion does.
Right, but the illusion of time, or any other illusion doesn't determine what is real. As you alluded to, there are physicists who think that time as we perceive it doesn't actually exist. We already agreed that perception and reality are not synonymous.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteWhat does "God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were..." mean?
It means that concepts are discovered out of necessity, part of our consciousness, they are the reason we have gotten to this point. IMO that's part of what God is; The very thing that holds reality together.
Thanks for the clarification. Was it necessary that the concept of the Wicked Witch of the West be "discovered"? About that: There is no evidence that the world of platonic ideals actually exists, so I think that the more reasonable terminology would be "invented" rather than "discovered" when it comes to abstract concepts like "god."
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteYour explanation doesn't correspond to the original question, and since you aren't going to bother to understand what I'm saying, nor produce a coherent response, I feel that it's justifiable to dismiss your line of thinking here as bafflegab.
My explanation was to answer the question, "what are you trying to say?" What I was implying was you made a double negative, I was just trying to clarify what you said without a double negative...I am trying to understand, so please bother to elaborate, I'm not bafflegabbing or whatever.
I wrote what I meant, and your rewording changes the meaning of what I wrote. Do you think that because there are two negatives in a sentence, that means the sentence is grammatically (or in some other way) incorrect? If so you're mistaken (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/double.html). The thing is, the arrangement of negatives written in the way that I wrote them actually doesn't make a double negative in the sense that you seem to be implying that it does. The sentence I wrote:
"Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence." Your rewording (correction? not!) in the form of a question:
"So lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it is for existence?" This obviously changes the meaning of the sentence. I'm not sure why you would do such a thing, and I stand by my analysis. You mangled the meaning of what I wrote, either intentionally or not.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AMQuoteIt's easy to understand how ideas of deities might arise. What I question is whether they have any correspondence to reality. There is no reasonable evidence that they do.
One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.
When a spiritual entity such as a deity is believed to have the ability to have a direct effect on reality, that effect should be detectable. There is no reliable, reasonable evidence of any such effect.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 06:14:45 AM
I don't see how a concept of God would alleviate people's fears of the world, please elaborate...Are you trying to explain why God was created? Have you ever heard the phrase "Fear of God?"
Everyday you go out hunting with your people some days you don't all come back, maybe only a third of your children reach their teens. An afterlife would be comforting in such a situation, geez an afterlife would probably comfort me if I could actually believe. Great Barrier reef suffers another year of bleaching, doesn't matter there's sure to be a better one in the next life.
QuoteM.P Some people may have the need for a god to hold their reality together,
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 06:14:45 AM
Reality is held together...what are you talking about?
Some people have a hard time living with the idea death is the end. Personally I would find it hard if I had to bury my children, it was so common not that long ago.
QuoteM.P. I don't see any thing in the world to confirm god is anything but an idea, I just see the fear and the reasons for fear.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 06:14:45 AM
You can see the world, but not god maybe because you think god is something in the world...I don't find that to be the case, and you don't really, "just see fear," do you? There is obviously more than that...
There is more than that but fear is enough for one sentence, I don't think religions were created to say thanks.
QuoteM.P. If a philosopher is telling you time doesn't exist after you die, you should probably find a new philosopher. How do they explain your parents attaining the required maturity to conceive you?
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 06:14:45 AM
great reading comprehension yourself, I never said a philosopher said time doesn't exist after we die, but whatever I can't control what you hear...How would I explain parents attaining the required maturity to conceive me? Well, obviously through time, but if you knew anything about physics, you would know time is relative, for example answer these questions: How long are you gonna wait to be born? Or after you die, how long do you wait for everyone else to die?
i
I don't think my waiting has any effect on time, I've watched a pot come to the boil, it takes the same times as when I don't watch. This following previously quoted paragraph was the reason I mentioned time. I wouldn't ask a philosopher about time, if I was in the library I'd go to a different isle.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 03:05:51 AM
One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.
Quote from: bicycle on June 25, 2011, 05:20:52 PM
The truth is there is no reasonable evidence that God exists, because reasonable evidence is only considered something you can see or touch
There is evidence to support the existence of air, gravity, subatomic particles, light outside the visible spectre (read: energy waves), black holes, sound and so on.
You can't see or touch any of those.
Reasonable evidence is the evidence which corroborates the existence of something. Just seeing or touching is not reasonable evidence in itself. You can very well see and touch someone accused of commiting murder. Does that prove that the accused is guilty?
Quotein which case I don't think God is small enough to see, it's almost like saying look at your eye, without a mirror. or touch your finger with the same finger.
Just out of curiosity, what is your level of education?
QuoteReasonable evidence is the evidence which corroborates the existence of something. Just seeing or touching is not reasonable evidence in itself. You can very well see and touch someone accused of commiting murder. Does that prove that the accused is guilty?
Fair enough, I understand now what reasonable evidence constitutes as. In this case, no one on here should believe there is intelligent life on other planets because no one has ever found evidence which corroborates the existence of it. However, life is created, which means there is a creator.
Quote
Just out of curiosity, what is your level of education?
You are curious, my level of education is higher than most, I am also curious but I don't want to change the subject.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 04:04:30 PMFair enough, I understand now what reasonable evidence constitutes as. In this case, no one on here should believe there is intelligent life on other planets because no one has ever found evidence which corroborates the existence of it. However, life is created, which means there is a creator.
Indirect evidence of life on other planets is the presense of it on this one. Do I believe aliens have come to Earth in their flying saucers all X-Files style..? No. Do I believe there may be life on planets other than this one..? Possibly. Yes, some people would go as far as to say they do believe such life exists. Me... I'm agnostic when it comes to that subject.
QuoteYou are curious, my level of education is higher than most, I am also curious but I don't want to change the subject.
I'm sorry, but from what I read so far, I would like to call bullshit on this one. The reason for question was for future reference - how much simplifications to use in my explanations and what linguistic level.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 04:04:30 PM
Fair enough, I understand now what reasonable evidence constitutes as. In this case, no one on here should believe there is intelligent life on other planets because no one has ever found evidence which corroborates the existence of it.
I don't think anyone here says such a thing.
Quote...my level of education is higher than most...
QuoteHowever, life is created, which means there is a creator.
Ok then...
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 04:04:30 PM
However, life is created, which means there is a creator.
Quote
Quotemy level of education is higher than most
Then it shouldn't take you long to figure out why the sentence I quoted above contains a huge logical fallacy.
Quote from: bicycle on June 26, 2011, 04:04:30 PM
However, life is created, which means there is a creator.
Quote
Quotemy level of education is higher than most
Then it shouldn't take you long to figure out why the sentence I quoted above contains a huge logical fallacy.
However, life is created exists, which means there is a creator it came to exist.
Fixed.
what's the difference between coming to exist and creating?
edit: Creating as in creating yourself, such as the universe.
Quote from: bicycle on June 28, 2011, 08:55:01 PM
what's the difference between coming to exist and creating?
creating requires a creator being; developing naturally doesn't.
Asmodeon, Obviously life exists on other planets, but intelligent life has never been proven. Scientists haven't gotten far enough in the universe yet to find another Earth. Doesn't mean the universe isn't big enough to have another one, which is why I believe there is. You say we are the proof that intelligent life exists on other planets, but how could that life exist without the same qualities of our planet? Human beings would not be sufficient evidence that there is another planet capable of having life like ours.
For future reference I'm in college which is why I have been busy lately but I think I can handle your linguistics.
Quote from: Whitney on June 28, 2011, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: bicycle on June 28, 2011, 08:55:01 PM
what's the difference between coming to exist and creating?
creating requires a creator being; developing naturally doesn't.
I can see it's probably better not to use create in an argument such as this, but it doesn't necessarily suggest a sentient creator to me.
The meteorite struck the poor chicken, creating a mess all over the place.
It is possible god tossed that rock, but not necessary.
Poor chicken! What did he ever do to sky daddy? D:
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 29, 2011, 01:44:00 PM
Poor chicken! What did he ever do to sky daddy? D:
Why would some angry god whack a chicken?
You said he so I suppose he preferred the company of other hes.
If it was a non gender specific bird I was going to say she had a shrine for Vishnu.
I'm assuming Vishnu supports a vegetarian lifestyle, there seems to be a lot of Vishnu vegetarian restaurants.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 29, 2011, 05:51:18 AM
I can see it's probably better not to use create in an argument such as this, but it doesn't necessarily suggest a sentient creator to me.
this is why I think creation/creator is a bad use of words when exploring the origins of everything:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creator
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creation
so while the word create doesn't necessarily have direct connections to sentient involvement declivities of that word do have direct connections to a creative being...and then we get nonsense like "anything that came to exist was created so there must be a creator and we call him god" It is confusion due to inappropriate word choice at best and purposeful misdirection at worst.
Would intelligent life on other planets also think of good and wrong?
I wonder whether they would be religious.
Would a being that is advanced in analytical reasoning destroy itself?
I'm of the opinion that if we get more intelligent as we are now, we will destroy ourselves.
Quote from: iSok on June 29, 2011, 09:35:00 PM
I'm of the opinion that if we get more intelligent as we are now, we will destroy ourselves.
I think the problem is that the number of intelligent humans is dwarfed by the number of idiots. So when some scientist comes up with a cool toy that just happens to have the ability to be massively destructive (even though it also could be a great power source) our dumb leaders make it into a weapon.
So more intelligence would lessen the chance of us destroying ourselves.
Quote from: Whitney on June 29, 2011, 09:44:32 PM
Quote from: iSok on June 29, 2011, 09:35:00 PM
I'm of the opinion that if we get more intelligent as we are now, we will destroy ourselves.
I think the problem is that the number of intelligent humans is dwarfed by the number of idiots. So when some scientist comes up with a cool toy that just happens to have the ability to be massively destructive (even though it also could be a great power source) our dumb leaders make it into a weapon.
So more intelligence would lessen the chance of us destroying ourselves.
You sure have a point there. But I think there are intelligent human beings out there who still use weapons because they have a lust
for power, I think it's quite natural for us. I see the love for leadership as a huge problem for our world.
But I meant something different.
Let's say theoretically that there's no God and that our morals are formed by society and are also a part of our nature.
Have we reached the peak of human perfection?
Because the way I see it is that if we humans evolve to a next stage where we will have a higher form of analytical reasoning.
On a side note: I don't even know if that would make us more intelligent, what is intelligence exactly?
Let's that is analytical reasoning.
Will we then destroy ourselves
voluntarily?
Right now for example, the extinction of the human race would be the best thing for our planet.
The only reason we are not doing it is because emotional plea's are holding us back.
'I don't want to die, it's scary'.
So if we advance, will we then realise that there's no point in living and destroying other realities if the very point of
life is to exist. Then if that's the only point, why should we sacrifice many at the cost of a few?
By existing we are destroying the point of existence, by being a threat to other species.
It seems that we are slowly understanding that it's not all about 'us' in the modern age, while witnessing the destruction
of nature. At the same time we do want to exist and continue our existence.
Will this balance eventually change?
So it would follow that in the end we will voluntarily end our existence for the sake of others.
Suppose there's life on Planet X, do we have the right to invade?
So I really do wonder if there are advanced species in the universe.
Maybe that other beings eventually found this out, that extreme intelligence is a voluntarily end. A cycle of nature.
One of the reasons why it seems futile for me to search for intelligence.
That is an odd line of reasoning.
I have no idea how the only reason we're not offing ourselves is because of emotional pleas. Could you explain how the emotional pleas are the only posible reason to not kill oneself.
How does one realize that there is no point in living? What is the reasoning that leads to this conclusion?
How does extreme intelligence lead to suicide?
I'm just wondering because I'm not following what you're saying.
if we evolved to have higher reasoning skills we'd realize that we can live sustainably on the planet and that we can't take a smash and grab approach to harvesting resources...
Just because some people do stuff that harms the earth doesn't mean it is logical that all humans must destroy themselves lol; we didn't hurt anything back when we were tribal.
Quote from: Davin on June 29, 2011, 10:11:19 PM
That is an odd line of reasoning.
I have no idea how the only reason we're not offing ourselves is because of emotional pleas. Could you explain how the emotional pleas are the only posible reason to not kill oneself.
How does one realize that there is no point in living? What is the reasoning that leads to this conclusion?
How does extreme intelligence lead to suicide?
I'm just wondering because I'm not following what you're saying.
This thought just popped into my head a few days ago, I'll try to explain.
1. Life has no purpose.
2. The only reason we want to exist is because of our
instinct to survive. ( which I meant with emotional plea).
3. Existence is the only purpose, nothing else.
4. Analytical reasoning beings will no longer be ruled by instinct, which destroys point 2.
5. Point 3 will be taken into consideration.
6. Existence is the only purpose: Existence of the many or the existence of a few?
7. The few will end themselves for the many.
Point 6 is crucial because I think that if we advance more we can't tolerate other life to exist.
We will probably find a way to manipulate our environment without nature helping us.
Then we will invade other planets to introduce our 'system'.
Quote from: Whitney on June 29, 2011, 10:16:12 PM
if we evolved to have higher reasoning skills we'd realize that we can live sustainably on the planet and that we can't take a smash and grab approach to harvesting resources...
Just because some people do stuff that harms the earth doesn't mean it is logical that all humans must destroy themselves lol; we didn't hurt anything back when we were tribal.
Well the point is that when we were tribal we didn't do much harm to our planet.
Right now we do a lot of harm.
Quote from: iSok on June 29, 2011, 10:25:12 PMThis thought just popped into my head a few days ago, I'll try to explain.
1. Life has no purpose.
I don't agree with this.
Quote from: iSok2. The only reason we want to exist is because of our instinct to survive. ( which I meant with emotional plea).
I think there are many other reasons people want to exist.
Quote from: iSok3. Existence is the only purpose, nothing else.
This conflicts with 1, because this would be a purpose that 1 said is not there. I also don't agree that that is the only purpose.
Quote from: iSok4. Analytical reasoning beings will no longer be ruled by instinct, which destroys point 2.
I'm not sure this will ever be the case and I've certainly seen more evidence to the contrary. Even as we become better analytical thinkers we don't lose all else.
Quote from: iSok5. Point 3 will be taken into consideration.
As shown earlier, point 3 conflicts with another premise.
Quote from: iSok6. Existence is the only purpose: Existence of the many or the existence of a few?
This conflicts with premise 1. If we're being hypothetical then there are many other posibilities than many vs. few.
Quote from: iSok7. The few will end themselves for the many.
This seems very much like it's missing a lot to connect from the provided premises.
Quote from: iSokPoint 6 is crucial because I think that if we advance more we can't tolerate other life to exist.
We will probably find a way to manipulate our environment without nature helping us.
Then we will invade other planets to introduce our 'system'.
I'm not this way, I've met other people not this way, so I'm sure this is not the only way for humanity to progress.
You stated that you just recently thought about this and eluded to not putting too much thought into it, so if you don't know or haven't had enough time to clearly define and get all premises going, that is fine with me. Don't just throw in stuff to statisfy my objections, expecially if you're still busy with school.
Quote from: Davin on June 29, 2011, 10:53:15 PM
Quote from: iSok on June 29, 2011, 10:25:12 PMThis thought just popped into my head a few days ago, I'll try to explain.
1. Life has no purpose.
I don't agree with this.
Quote from: iSok2. The only reason we want to exist is because of our instinct to survive. ( which I meant with emotional plea).
I think there are many other reasons people want to exist.
Quote from: iSok3. Existence is the only purpose, nothing else.
This conflicts with 1, because this would be a purpose that 1 said is not there. I also don't agree that that is the only purpose.
Quote from: iSok4. Analytical reasoning beings will no longer be ruled by instinct, which destroys point 2.
I'm not sure this will ever be the case and I've certainly seen more evidence to the contrary. Even as we become better analytical thinkers we don't lose all else.
Quote from: iSok5. Point 3 will be taken into consideration.
As shown earlier, point 3 conflicts with another premise.
Quote from: iSok6. Existence is the only purpose: Existence of the many or the existence of a few?
This conflicts with premise 1. If we're being hypothetical then there are many other posibilities than many vs. few.
Quote from: iSok7. The few will end themselves for the many.
This seems very much like it's missing a lot to connect from the provided premises.
Quote from: iSokPoint 6 is crucial because I think that if we advance more we can't tolerate other life to exist.
We will probably find a way to manipulate our environment without nature helping us.
Then we will invade other planets to introduce our 'system'.
I'm not this way, I've met other people not this way, so I'm sure this is not the only way for humanity to progress.
You stated that you just recently thought about this and eluded to not putting too much thought into it, so if you don't know or haven't had enough time to clearly define and get all premises going, that is fine with me. Don't just throw in stuff to statisfy my objections, expecially if you're still busy with school.
Yes it was a thought that I had a few days ago that just came up with no particulary reason.
So I don't even know whether I agree with this.
Could you however give a few more reasons for life than to experience and enjoy life?
Since you object to the very first point.
Davin, I'm honest in this question.
I'm not taking the approach of 'you don't believe in God, kill yourself'.
If I happen to disbelief, enjoying life would be the only reason (which is the main reason right now also though...)
The most I can say is that we live our lives as if there were a purpose. On that topic I at least see people of all religions and lack of religions doing, the only thing being different is that some believe that there is an objective purpose even though they don't really know what it is.
I wouldn't put it so narrowly to say that unbelievers live life to enjoy life. Sure that's a huge part of it, but you make it sound as if in order to make sacrifices people necessarily have to be theists.
Much of what you are talking about as far as "higher form" and "advanced" and "perfection" are not concepts that sit well within an evolutionary perspective. Evolution is not a ladder or an inclined plane, it's more of a web, where life takes any rout that will ultimately lead to stability within the environment, between parasite and host and between competition for resources i.e. food. Intelligence in itself evolved as the ultimate form of adaptation, this gave early humans the opportunity to plan for and predict the future thus increasing our survival rate. That is how natural selection, selected intelligence. We are in constant pursuit both biologically and culturally for an environmentally stable strategy. For example, as intelligent as we are one of our greatest threats is disease. Disease has no intelligence whatsoever. If disease kills humans and humans are supposed to be advanced, who is really advanced, us or the disease. Who wins in the end? No one. That is the beauty and complexity of evolution, there are no winners, no losers, just a lucky few who were able to reside in a stable state longer than others.
If you have not heard of the Red Queen Hypothesis you should check it out. It is based on Alice and the Queen playing chess in the Louis Carroll story. Alice is trying to promote her rank of pawn by moving to the farthest square on the board, when the queen tells her that she must run as fast as she can just to remain in the same place. This hypothesis posits the notion that evolution is just a constant arms race, a cold war of advancement and subversion. That with each perceived advancement there is an equally advanced subversion therefore you are really going nowhere. With each niche that is filled, there is opportunity for exploitation of another.
Here are a few interesting examples that I can see in our world today.
Development of automobiles means greater transportation efficiency and freedoms. Results in congested traffic conditions that often move slower than your average walking pace/damages air quality.
Computers offer a paperless way to store data. Results in stacks of servers instead of stacks of paper.
Agricultural advancements and factory farming brings affordable food to all. Results in obesity epidemic/environmental deterioration.
It's a constant give and take. Advancement is just an illusion.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 29, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
The most I can say is that we live our lives as if there were a purpose. On that topic I at least see people of all religions and lack of religions doing, the only thing being different is that some believe that there is an objective purpose even though they don't really know what it is.
I wouldn't put it so narrowly to say that unbelievers live life to enjoy life. Sure that's a huge part of it, but you make it sound as if in order to make sacrifices people necessarily have to be theists.
I'm sorry if I meant it that way.
Making sacrifices has nothing to do with being a theist or atheist.
The only difference between me and an atheist is that I'm of the opinion that I should believe/surrender my consciousness to a Law (God)
since the universe is controlled and organised with the help of laws, then I don't see a point in just wandering around if
everything else has submitted including us for a large part (physical laws). An atheist might still have better morals.
We make sacrifices because it makes us happy.
For example a mother of two, with almost nothing to eat would rather give her children.
This will make her more happy than intaking the bit of food she has left.
Another mother would rather fill her stomach than filling the stomach of her children.
It'll make her more happy.
@Twentythree,
Thanks for you response and the food for thought.
I'll look into it.
Quote from: iSok on June 30, 2011, 01:19:37 AM
I'm sorry if I meant it that way.
Making sacrifices has nothing to do with being a theist or atheist.
The only difference between me and an atheist is that I'm of the opinion that I should believe/surrender my consciousness to a Law (God)
since the universe is controlled and organised with the help of laws, then I don't see a point in just wandering around if
everything else has submitted including us for a large part (physical laws). An atheist might still have better morals.
I think you grasp non religious perspectives better than most theists I've come across, who seem to think that there are only two possibilities: their way or some dark nihilism devoid of anything but the pointless thoughts of a purposeless organic mass simply living just for the sake of being alive.
But for better clarity,
purpose is better split into two parts: purpose in a world without a god and objective purpose in a world where there is a god.
Do you see your belief in an objective purpose giver (god) influence how you see your life now here on Earth or does it have more to do with what you believe your afterlife would be like?
Quote from: bicycle on June 28, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Asmodeon, Obviously life exists on other planets
It's not
obvious, it's
plausible. Obvious will enter the equasion once life is found outside Earth.
Quotebut intelligent life has never been proven.
Is there intelligent life on Earth then..? "Intelligent" is in the eye of the beholder.
QuoteScientists haven't gotten far enough in the universe yet to find another Earth.
They have. Several Earth-like planets have been found.
QuoteDoesn't mean the universe isn't big enough to have another one, which is why I believe there is.
Had the original argument not been wrong, I'd call this point fair. Way to go, bike! Didn't think you were capable of fair points.
QuoteYou say we are the proof that intelligent life exists on other planets, but how could that life exist without the same qualities of our planet?
Chemical properties of Si are in many crucial ways similar to those of C, so it could theoretically be used as the cornerstone element in living organisms. That said, who says life on other planets even has to be so much as remotely similar to that on this one..? I sure don't.
QuoteHuman beings would not be sufficient evidence that there is another planet capable of having life like ours.
Nor are they sufficient to prove that there is intelligent life in the universe. We are, after all, self-proclaimed intelligent. And many people are about as intelligent as... Tomatoes, really...
However, the presense of Earth-like planets in the universe and the presense of life on this Earth-like planet combine to indirect evidence of life on other such planetss.
QuoteFor future reference I'm in college which is why I have been busy lately but I think I can handle your linguistics.
Not without twisting words and reading between the lines though... But I suppose that comes from that religion thing you are into.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 30, 2011, 02:52:18 AM
I think you grasp non religious perspectives better than most theists I've come across, who seem to think that there are only two possibilities: their way or some dark nihilism devoid of anything but the pointless thoughts of a purposeless organic mass simply living just for the sake of being alive.
I am certainly of the opinion that religious people might be happier than atheist or agnostics.
We simply don't want to end existing and continue life after death. I think this thought
gives a lot of comfort to most people, like I said to most people.
The atheist surely must think of this, that death is the absolute end of all.
That you are gone and you will never come back, I'm sure that in some way this must affect a person.
This doesn't mean that the atheist lives a dark and nihilism life, you can add purpose to it.
But once again, I'm sure of the opinion that man would be happier if there was a purpose
for life, even more if there was some form of life after death.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 30, 2011, 02:52:18 AM
But for better clarity, purpose is better split into two parts: purpose in a world without a god and objective purpose in a world where there is a god.
Do you see your belief in an objective purpose giver (god) influence how you see your life now here on Earth or does it have more to do with what you believe your afterlife would be like?
It's an interesting question you ask here, I can't answer it without explaining what the view of Islam is on the human being. It'll also be a nice way to summarize what I read a couple of days ago.
It will be however an extremely long post and today is my final exam (I can smell freedom).
So if you are interested in this, I'll give an elaborate reply this afternoon probably.
Quote from: iSok on June 30, 2011, 11:30:49 AM
I am certainly of the opinion that religious people might be happier than atheist or agnostics.
We simply don't want to end existing and continue life after death. I think this thought
gives a lot of comfort to most people, like I said to most people.
The atheist surely must think of this, that death is the absolute end of all.
That you are gone and you will never come back, I'm sure that in some way this must affect a person.
This doesn't mean that the atheist lives a dark and nihilism life, you can add purpose to it.
But once again, I'm sure of the opinion that man would be happier if there was a purpose
for life, even more if there was some form of life after death.
If you're talking about existential angst, which is different from the fear of death, then I also think that atheists are more prone to it, before accepting that death in its totality is a part of life.
QuoteIt's an interesting question you ask here, I can't answer it without explaining what the view of Islam is on the human being. It'll also be a nice way to summarize what I read a couple of days ago.
It will be however an extremely long post and today is my final exam (I can smell freedom).
So if you are interested in this, I'll give an elaborate reply this afternoon probably.
Sure, and good luck on your exam (I'm glad I don't have any of those anymore).
In Islam God has 99 sacred names in order for human beings to understand Him (The Most Merciful, The Avenger, The Loving, The Light and so on..).
God rules and sustains the universe with the aspects of Tanzih and Tasbih. Tanzih is declaring incomparability of God with other creatures.
Tasbih is affirming similarity with other creatures.
All names of God contain Tasbih and Tanzih, but some names are overruled with Tanzih and others are overruled with Tasbih. But this can be better explained in a graphic way
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2s1awiu.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2s1awiu.jpg&hash=2c71912ff50f2726b972df20ff0c8f2700ad46e8)
Tanzih: All worlds have the same center, but the center (God) has no dimension.
Creatures are distant from God because of God's incomparability.
(42:11 - Naught in the universe is like Him).
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F333wv83.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F333wv83.jpg&hash=5c0b4d04c5eb8ee08f8a69384f4d1bc85847b54c)
Tasbih: It symbolizes God's concern over other creatures in terms of kindness, mercy, compassion, and love.
Every creature is connected to the Center, it gains it's reality from the Center.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F99dthz.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F99dthz.jpg&hash=89d9b9a56e2de045dc9211de787c9dd81774a90d)
Tasbih & Tanzih together is Tawhid, declaring the Oneness of God. It's how God governs, sustains
and controls the universe in an organized way by preventing chaos.
The worst sin according to Islam is shirk, setting up rivals with God, this is destroying Tawhid and ultimately destroying the reality of others, because it causes chaos. You set up other centers within reality which causes the unreal to lose its connection to the Real. This doesn't have to be just idols you worship. I'll quote two Hadith (sayings of the Prophet).
The Prophet came out to us from his house while we were discussing the AntiChrist.
He said, 'Shall I tell you about something that is more frightening to me than the AntiChrist?'
The people replied that he should.
He said, 'Hidden Shirk, in other words, that a man should perform the salat (prayer)
and do it beautifully for the sake of someone who is watching.'
'The most frightening thing that I fear for my Community is associating others with God.
I do not mean to say that they will worship the sun, or the moon, or idols.
I mean that they will perform works for other than God with a hidden desire.
So the most important saying of a Muslim is 'La iLaha il Allah' = 'There is no god but God'.
It rejects all other gods, idols, desires and egocentric thoughts that human beings have come up with and it testifies of the Ultimate Reality.
It's usually said with the last breath before death.
'Allah Akbar' = 'God is Greater' is another example of this, which means that God is greater than all
other things that humans have come up with. Ultimately the Qur'an describes heaven as a good place and hell as a bad place to be.
From an Islamic perspective the fire in hell is a response towards those who claimed greatness (pride) by which they destroyed other realities.
Fire also grows without considering its rampage on other realities.
The universe is controlled by laws, because of these laws there is order and no chaos.
Islam is of the opinion that one should submit to God, since everything else has already.
Not submitting is causing disorder; the universe is a sign for people to know that submission causes order.
One has to submit if there's enough evidence.
(2:12 - Beware! they do spread disorder but they realize it not.)
The human being consists of a soul a spirit and a body. I won't go to deep into this.
The body has submitted, the soul and the spirit haven't yet. People should do this out of free will.
The down side is that they can make the wrong choice, but the good side is that the choice makes us more aware of reality.
Other creatures do not have this awareness.
If we take a look at the universe, everything has divine attributes of God, even minerals.
At the bottom there are minerals then there is microscopic life. They have certain divine attributes.
Next there are plants; they are for example 'Grateful' and 'Generous', when you give them enough water they'll give you fruit.
Then there are animals, at the final stage there is the human being.
The human being has all the divine attributes.
The whole cosmos with all it's divine attributes has been placed within the human being, the human being is the micro cosmos.
Some of us are dominated by Tanzih (bad people), others are dominated by Tasbih (good people).
The foremost are those who have balanced this and put everything in the right place, they are the prophets and the close friends of God.
We end up with people like Pol Plot (a mass murderer) and Bhuddah.
It's that Tanzih and Tasbih create this immense spectrum of human developing which cannot be found
among any other creatures since we have all the attributes that can be found in the Cosmos.
There's a cosmos (microcosmos) in each and every one of us that one has to dominate by Tasbih and preferably balance.
(2:143 - Thus, have We made of you an Ummat (community) justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves.)
So according to the Islamic perspective acknowledging God is acknowledging oneself. A famous proverb says: 'He who knows himself knows his Creator.'
Stimulating and achieving this balance is by practicing the five pillars of Islam.
Declaration of Tawhid, Prayer 5 times a day, Fasting during the month of Ramadan, Zakat (2,5% - 10% of yearly income to the poor) and Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca).
The Christians and the Jews say that Adam was made in God's image.
The Hindu's say that man's first parents were Mahadev and Parwati and they were made in the image of God.
This doesn't mean that God is an old man with a beard like we tend to see him in popular culture.
It means that the human being has all the attributes of God, like explained above.
The human being is the vicegerent of God according to Islam, he has to perfect the balance and put things in the right place within oneself.
A verse in the Qur'an explains that only the human being is able to carry this Trust of God.
(33:72 - We offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to carry it and were afraid of doing so; but man carried it. Surely he is wrong-doing, ignorant.)
The Heavens refused because they are the luminous, they are close to God and could not bear the Tanzih (distance of God) of that trust. The Earth refused because it could not bear the Tasbih (Nearness to God), the Earth is dominated by Tanzih. The mountains refused because they could not tolerate the extremes of either Tanzih or Tasbih. But the human being has accepted it.
(2:30 - Just recall the time when your Lord said to the angels, "I am going to appoint a vicegerent on the Earth." They humbly enquired, "Are you going to appoint such a one as will cause disorder and shed blood on the Earth? We are already engaged in hymning Your praise, and hallowing Your name".
(2:31 - God replied, "I know what you do not know." After this He taught Adam the names of all things. Then He set these before the angels and asked, "Tell Me the names of these things, if you are right (in thinking that the appointment of a vicegerent will cause disorder).
The names in this verse is generally seen as all the attributes of God.
During the centuries eventually Imam Al-Ghazali reduced all the attributes within the human to four entities. The four are the Sage, the Demon, the Pig and the Dog. It's clear what the sage and the demon do. Someone dominated by the Pig wants always more and more, his hunger is never satisfied. The Dog is aggressive when it's not trained but it's not evil like the Demon, sometimes it'll hurt it's owner. Every human being consists out of these four entities.
From an Islamic perspective, the reason that animals like the tiger are going extinct is because their attributes within the human being is disappearing. We are destroying our fitrah, the innate belief in a Creator. Destroying that is denying who we are and makes us heedless of our balance. Our inward reality is always manifesting in the outward reality. It's ultimately a violation of our vicegerency. And it generally makes us more pigs than human beings because we constantly want more and more.
You could say that the Pig is dominating in modern times, with our consumer culture.
It's not easy to summarize such a topic, I hope you gained a little bit of understanding, while I'm reading it back it is a bit hard to understand.
With the above in mind, I behave and see life in a very different way. My life revolves around the five times prayer.
Everything I do, I always tend to think 'why am I doing this?'. A while ago I gave here an example of morals.
Some people when they visit the grocery store, they tend to grab the best vegetables. But that makes them for a part demons and pigs while no one should act like that.
So in it's essence it really helps me to understand myself and why I do certain things.
If one does it well, you can eventually find heaven in your heart.
Heaven is nearness to God for me personally, I can achieve that also within this reality, without hoping for heaven.
Hopefully I've answered a part of your question about my objectives for existence and how I interact with reality.
Quote from: iSok on June 29, 2011, 11:16:30 PMYes it was a thought that I had a few days ago that just came up with no particulary reason.
So I don't even know whether I agree with this.
Could you however give a few more reasons for life than to experience and enjoy life?
Since you object to the very first point.
The purposes in ones life depends on the person. Even those that believe in an objective purpose are doing so subjectively due to the lack of objective evidence. This means we're all on the same playing field of life purposes. It is possible that a person has no purpose for their life, but I'm sure that is very rare.
You stated earlier that, "3. Existence is the only purpose, nothing else." Now you're stating that a purpose of life is to experience it as well as adding in another purpose of enjoying life. So in the first premise you stated "1. Life has no purpose." But you've already come up with three different purposes for life since then. Also adding in experiencing and enjoying life really screws up your argument because now instead of just not following, you've wiped out many other premises:
1. Life has no purpose. Life has at least three purposes: existence, experiencing and enjoying.
2. The only reason we want to exist is because of our instinct to survive and to experience life and to to enjoy life.
3. Existence is the only purpose, nothing else. Existence is a purpose, experiencing life is a purpose and enjoying life is a purpose.
4. Analytical reasoning beings will no longer be ruled by instinct, which destroys one part of point 2, but leaves still more purposes so this premise leads no where.
5. Point 3 will be taken into consideration.6. Existence is the only purpose: Existence of the many or the existence of a few? Existence is not the only purpose. The second part is still a false dichotomy.
7. The few will end themselves for the many. No reason to do so.
Quote from: iSokDavin, I'm honest in this question.
I'm not taking the approach of 'you don't believe in God, kill yourself'.
If I happen to disbelief, enjoying life would be the only reason (which is the main reason right now also though...)
Oh don't worry, if I kill myself it won't be because of something someone said over the internet.
Thanks for the long but interesting post. It's a great contribution here, and an incredible insight especially to me as I know very little of the deeper teachings of Islam. It's always interesting to me how just a bit of rewriting makes all the difference.
The universe is controlled by laws, because of these laws there is order and no chaos.
Islam is of the opinion that one should submit to God, since everything else has already.
Not submitting is causing disorder; the universe is a sign for people to know that submission causes order.
One has to submit if there's enough evidence.
The universe is controlled by laws, because of these laws there is order (out of) chaos.
(Atheists are) of the opinion that one should submit to (Nature), since everything else has already.
Not submitting is causing disorder; the universe is a sign for people to know that submission causes order.
One has to submit if there's enough evidence.
Hi iSok
Interesting to hear your views from a Muslim perspective. I particularly like these images;
Quote from: iSok on June 30, 2011, 03:45:05 PM
All names of God contain Tasbih and Tanzih, but some names are overruled with Tanzih and others are overruled with Tasbih. But this can be better explained in a graphic way
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2s1awiu.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2s1awiu.jpg&hash=2c71912ff50f2726b972df20ff0c8f2700ad46e8)
Tanzih: All worlds have the same center, but the center (God) has no dimension.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F333wv83.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F333wv83.jpg&hash=5c0b4d04c5eb8ee08f8a69384f4d1bc85847b54c)
Tasbih: It symbolizes God's concern over other creatures in terms of kindness, mercy, compassion, and love.
Every creature is connected to the Center, it gains it's reality from the Center.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F99dthz.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F99dthz.jpg&hash=89d9b9a56e2de045dc9211de787c9dd81774a90d)
Tasbih & Tanzih together is Tawhid, declaring the Oneness of God. It's how God governs, sustains
and controls the universe in an organized way by preventing chaos.
In my personal reading into mythology and religion, it seems the idea of god(s) existing at the centre of everything is an ancient one, and is at least 5000 years old. In ancient Egypt, India, China and Greece, one of the most important seats of the god(s)was the pole star / celestial pole, which was seen as being the centre of the heavens (from our viewpoint on Earth all the stars appear to revolve around the pole every night).
This was mirrored on the Earth by the idea of an omphalos / sacred centre. The Greeks had Delphi, the Jews and Christians have Jerusalem and you Muslims have Mecca.
Your pictures of Tasbih / Tanzih reminded me of both the ancient geocentric model of the Universe which Mohammed and the early Muslims believed in;
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F6576%2Fgeocentric.gif&hash=1a5fd3b13b51e8f54200ca41c3c311a7f0558271) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/geocentric.gif/)
and also the Egyptian heiroglyph for the god Ra;
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg819.imageshack.us%2Fimg819%2F9278%2F48269437.jpg&hash=c3ed26a7c061004c83c253baabe83b730480aeb9) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/48269437.jpg/)
Your idea of Allah controlling the universe and preventing chaos also sounds very similar to ancient Egyptian beliefs, and the cosmic balance they called maat;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat
Too few lions: Your knowledge on all the God(s) myths make me happy. I am not the only super nerd who loves to research everything. :D :D
iSok, thanks for the post, it does clarify your perspective, even if it didn't go too deep into Islamic teachings.
Too Few Lions, I thought of this after reading your post:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mapsanddirections.us%2Fmedieval-map-770.jpg&hash=6576a4d9ce200c05d044cbf7b356685d8c269b30)
It's a medieval map, and that circle in the centre is Jerusalem.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on June 30, 2011, 06:04:51 PM
Your idea of Allah controlling the universe and preventing chaos also sounds very similar to ancient Egyptian beliefs, and the cosmic balance they called maat;
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg819.imageshack.us%2Fimg819%2F9278%2F48269437.jpg&hash=c3ed26a7c061004c83c253baabe83b730480aeb9)
Just look into my eyes.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 30, 2011, 10:52:46 PM
Too few lions: Your knowledge on all the God(s) myths make me happy. I am not the only super nerd who loves to research everything. :D :D
hehe I quite like the idea of being a supernerd! Actually, this does look a bit like me;
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg38.imageshack.us%2Fimg38%2F6310%2Fsupernerdrefined.jpg&hash=fec4dd3ddfbab03333042bddd62bf403e33720d5) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/supernerdrefined.jpg/)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 30, 2011, 11:20:10 PM
iSok, thanks for the post, it does clarify your perspective, even if it didn't go too deep into Islamic teachings.
Too Few Lions, I thought of this after reading your post:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mapsanddirections.us%2Fmedieval-map-770.jpg&hash=6576a4d9ce200c05d044cbf7b356685d8c269b30)
It's a medieval map, and that circle in the centre is Jerusalem.
Yeah, Medieval Christians actually believed Jerusalem was the geographical centre of the Earth, just as many Muslims today seriously believe that Mecca is the geographical centre of the world. From at least the 4th Century the supposed burial spot of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was viewed as the centre of the Earth by Christians.
I actually think the idea of an earthly centre / world axis is at the heart of biblical mythology. There's a tradition dating back to at least the second century that Jesus was crucified at the centre of the world, and that he was crucified on the same tree that Adam and Eve ate the fruit from. Hence the redemption of humanity happened at exactly the same location as the fall, both occurring at the centre of the world.
You can see the link between Adam and Jesus in Christian icons of the crucuifixion. There's usually a skull under the crucifixion, it's the skull of Adam. Adam was also supposedly buried at the centre of the world, and Jesus was crucified at the same spot he was buried (Golgotha translates as 'the place of the skull' - the skull referring to Adam's skull). Jesus' blood cleansed his original sin and humanity's original fall;
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg39.imageshack.us%2Fimg39%2F5769%2Fthecrucifixion.jpg&hash=8f7f5a848995f5d8cffde8fd4124e953b47f9530) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/thecrucifixion.jpg/)
Thank you for the responses, I forgot a very important part in my last post, so I'll finish that part before I respond.
It's how Islam looks at other human beings (non-Muslims). They are divided basically in the people of Reason and the people of Imagination.
From the Islamic perspective: Human intelligence consists of two main faculties: Imagination & Reason.
Islamic scholars were specialized in either one, two or in some rare cases all three fields of sacred knowledge.
Imam Al-Ghazali was a scholar who specialized in all three fields.
1. Kalam (Theology based on Revelation)
2. Philosophy (By Reason, mostly inspired by Neo-Platonism)
3. Theoretical Sufism (By Medidating to Experience God)
The Kalam scholars thought of things like 'How to differentiate between a 'good' Muslim and a 'bad' Muslim', 'Is the Qur'an created or Eternal?', 'Are God's attributes the same as God or are they different?', 'Do humans have free-will or are they predestinated?'.
Some scholars were highly critical of Kalam because of the overrationalizing and nit-picking.
The Kalam scholars maintained that their science was important as it gave people the understanding of who God was and how they should respond to God.
Profitable Knowledge according to Islam is the knowledge that prepares one for the encounter with God.
Scholars continue discussing up till today if certain branches of Kalam are actually fulfilling that role.
The philosophers developed a parallel with Kalam.
But the philosophers were heavily influenced by the Greek intellectual heritage, especially Aristoteles.
The philosophers focused more on reality unlike the Kalam who focused on revelation.
The philosophers used reason as a primary tool and saw it as infallible, some of the philosophers eventually
claimed that one doesn't a need a prophet as they considered themselves to be prophets. Let's say that they were obsessed with reason.
Theoretical Sufism is the third branch. They focused on Imagination by writing a lot of poetry and using symbolic language.
Rumi is a classical example of theoretical Sufism if you read his poems.
The Sufis meditated on God's names, you could say that they act a lot like Buddhists.
They wanted to experience the truth instead of using primary revelation or reason.
Most of them followed the Prophet's Sunnah (The way of conduct) like on how to eat, sit, sleep so in generally on how to act and behave
in order to experience the nearness of God.
Earlier I explained Tanzih (Distance from God) and Tasbih (Nearness to God), together they form Tawhid (Oneness of God).
Understanding Tawhid means that one understands that every creature is simultaneously confronted with Mercy & Wrath, Gentleness & Severity,
Life-giving & Slaying, Bestowal & Withholding, Reality & Unreality.
This in order to balance the microcosmos within the human being, it shapes people and people choose how.
Knowledge can increase that process of shaping or it can also destroy it.
Islamic scholars are of the opinion that people should learn all three fields of knowledge to create a balance
within the human faculty and understand the limits of each respectable field. Nothing is infallible when it goes into extremes.
But when one all three are combined, one achieves an unshakable faith and peace within the heart from an Islamic perspective.
But what happens when one adopts Reason or Imagination as the main faculty?
To understand rationality in the Islamic perspective. One establishes the principle of either/or and it cannot be both.
People who use solely reason to understand the Real, they establish difference and separation. That's the only way reason can see.
Rational process emphasizes to greater analysis and difference.
The more attention people pay to difference the more they will see the cosmos as a separate object which can be analyzed in different parts.
This means that people eventually adopt the attitude of Tanzih (Distance from God).
Eventually people will find it logic and reasonable to become atheists or agnostic or see God in the way deists see Him.
This is called within Islam 'ta-til' which means 'divesting God of his function' and ultimately leads to Shirk.
New divinities like 'Communism', 'Capitalism' or 'Science' are put in the place of God and questioning is unheard of.
Imam Al-Ghazali knew for example that this would happen, so he refuted the philosophers in 'the incoherence of the philosophers' by saying
that one should adopt multiple ways to enrich the intellect.
You could say that the Muslim world adopted the way of Al-Ghazali and the western world
the way of Avicenna (who gave the Greek intellectual heritage to Europe by influencing Thomas Aquino which in turn lead to secularism).
So from the perspective of Islam: If one adopts the way of reason solely eventually he'll become an atheist or an agnostic.
The other way is the way of Imagination, which is especially the Tasbih (nearness to God) of the human mind.
Sufi's for example tend to support Tasbih more than Tanzih and when one goes into extremes, everything is holy.
Since everything has God's attributes.
There are those who just come up with a religion and those who change the original message of One God.
The Norse mythology is an example when the human being loses control of his imagination and just comes up gods, which is also a form of Shirk.
Hinduism is an example when Imagination just changes the original religion.
The Hindu scriptures and even Hindu's themselves believe in One God but they argue that God is everywhere, in other words they are only looking at Tasbih and denying Tanzih. They end up worshipping idols and human beings that have past away. The same dangers play in Islam, especially among extreme Sufis.
Who now argue that one can ask the Prophet for help instead of God, since the Prophet is the most perfect human being and he must have a connection to God.
The Kalam scholars obviously find this insane and express Tanzih more.
Tanzih = Servanthood
Tasbih = Vicegerency
The Muslim world is currently dominated by Kalam 'scholars' (theology) who nit-pick into everything and a minority of sufi's.
They have lost the big picture and usually are busy with refuting eachother and claiming that they have the truth.
Most Muslims however that live today are expressing especially a form of Tanzih.
Islamic scholars in the present age describe the relation between God and the human being as one of servanthood (tanzih), they are obsessed with theology (Kalam).
There are very few people who adopt all three fields of knowledge.
Revelation is the only way to keep Imagination (Tasbih) and Reason (Tanzih) in balance.
Scholars often say that the sun shines to let the eyes see, revelation shines to let Imagination & Reason see, see what their limits are.
I hope my post(s) helped that Islam is not the typical 'worship the Moon-God of war and kill all the unbelievers (by beheading)' as it is often portrayed in the media.
Quote from: iSok on July 01, 2011, 02:41:01 PMI hope my post(s) helped that Islam is not the typical 'worship the Moon-God of war and kill all unbelievers' as it is often portrayed in the media.
But then, of course, one could say that a religion is only as good as its worst follower... Kind of like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Following that line of thought, Islam is pretty much worse than the "media-generated" example you provided.
Quote from: iSok on July 01, 2011, 02:41:01 PMThe Norse mythology is an example when the human being loses control of his imagination and just comes up gods, which is also a form of Shirk.
How are my Nordic gods any different than yours? The answer: more awesome.
There is no attempt at reconciling a caring Wodin with a cruel world, because Wodin himself is not very kind. And what is the main way to get into the desired afterlife? Is it blind faith? No. Belief in Wodin or any other Norse god? No. All one needs to do to get in is to fight bravely and honorably. Even the desired afterlife of sex, drinking and fighting is much preferable to the Muslim or Christian afterlife.
Quote from: Davin on July 01, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: iSok on July 01, 2011, 02:41:01 PMThe Norse mythology is an example when the human being loses control of his imagination and just comes up gods, which is also a form of Shirk.
How are my Nordic gods any different than yours? The answer: more awesome.
There is no attempt at reconciling a caring Wodin with a cruel world, because Wodin himself is not very kind. And what is the main way to get into the desired afterlife? Is it blind faith? No. Belief in Wodin or any other Norse god? No. All one needs to do to get in is to fight bravely and honorably. Even the desired afterlife of sex, drinking and fighting is much preferable to the Muslim or Christian afterlife.
Hear hear! Personally I think the Norse gods piss all over Allah, Yahweh or the Christian god!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg695.imageshack.us%2Fimg695%2F9121%2Fchristianitymygodhasaha.jpg&hash=be3d119178e2b3a8f4916e48e58043e2c04be890) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/695/christianitymygodhasaha.jpg/)
ISok, while there are undoubtedly many tolerant Muslims, I've read the Qur'an and can totally understand how some Muslims might want to kill infidels based on the teachings in that book. My one overriding memory of the Qur'an is that it just constantly repeats that all believers will go to the Gardens of Paradise and all non-believers will burn in hell and have boiling water poured down their throats for all eternity, over and over again, hundreds of times in pretty much every sura. If I'm honest, it didn't seem to say a lot else! It contains a lot of really nasty Dark Ages stuff like;
002.039 But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be Companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.
003.151 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers
004.101 For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
005.010 Those who reject faith and deny our signs will be companions of Hell-fire.
008.050 If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying): "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-
018.102 Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment.
021.098 Verily ye, (unbelievers), and the (false) gods that ye worship besides God, are (but) fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come!
024.057 Never think thou that the Unbelievers are going to frustrate (God's Plan) on earth: their abode is the Fire,- and it is indeed an evil refuge!
033.064 Verily God has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire
035.036 But those who reject (God) - for them will be the Fire of Hell: No term shall be determined for them, so they should die, nor shall its Penalty be lightened for them. Thus do We reward every ungrateful one!
047.015 (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell forever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?
048.013 And if any believe not in God and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject God, a Blazing Fire!
050.024 (The sentence will be:) "Throw, throw into Hell every contumacious Rejecter (of God)!-
098.006 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
Etc etc etc (yawn!)
As a Muslim, what do think will happen to all us non-Muslims on the 'Day of Judgement'? The Qur'an seems pretty unequivocal that we'll all burn and be tortured in hell for all eternity. Personally, I think anyone with the remotest level of humanity should question a religion that teaches such barbaric things.
With Islam, this teaching seems to be at the very core of the religion, the Qur'an is after all supposedly the direct word of your god. While you may talk about lots of other theological concepts such as tanzih and tasbih or Sufi teachings on love, these seem to me as an outsider to be later accretions to Islam influenced by Greek philosophy and other external sources, which are surely inferior to the direct word of your god?
This talk about Norse gods and such reminds me of this:
The Saga of Biorn (http://vimeo.com/18011143)
Just as a side note ;)
NZ has got this great "Drama" TV show about the norse gods, called the almighty Johnsons
The Almighty Johnsons promo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5mVxPrnaPc&feature=related)
Quote from: Too Few Lions on July 01, 2011, 05:44:21 PMwhile there are undoubtedly many tolerant Muslims
.., they are not doing enough to stop those other assholes from blowing up stuff in the name of their god. As long as that is the case, "Islam is a religion of peace" is a load of crap.
...Not that Christians are any better at all, really
EDIT: Oh! Forgot the jews. How did THAT happen..? Throw them in with the rest for good measure.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 02, 2011, 08:28:20 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on July 01, 2011, 05:44:21 PMwhile there are undoubtedly many tolerant Muslims
.., they are not doing enough to stop those other assholes from blowing up stuff in the name of their god. As long as that is the case, "Islam is a religion of peace" is a load of crap.
...Not that Christians are any better at all, really
EDIT: Oh! Forgot the jews. How did THAT happen..? Throw them in with the rest for good measure.
I agree 100%, I was just trying to be polite, and accept that there are some more tolerant Muslims out there (somewhere...) I've never bought any of that "Islam is a religion of peace" crap either, monotheistic religions are inherently intolerant to anyone who doesn't believe in their particular brand of god, and have been throughout history. At the present time Islam is definitely the most intolerant religion in the world, but go back 500, 1000 or 1500 years and Christianity wore that crown.
The truth is we'd be persecuted in pretty much every Muslim country if we lived there and openly confessed to being atheists. If we were actively atheistic we'd be jailed or executed. We couldn't even renounce Islam openly if we were born there as Muslims. Apostasy's still a serious 'crime' in Muslim countries, in some it still carries the death penalty >:(
Quote from: Too Few Lions on July 02, 2011, 08:40:27 PMThe truth is we'd be persecuted in pretty much every Muslim country if we lived there and openly confessed to being atheists. If we were actively atheistic we'd be jailed or executed. We couldn't even renounce Islam openly if we were born there as Muslims. Apostasy's still a serious 'crime' in Muslim countries, in some it still carries the death penalty >:(
Good point right there.
Now, some of those tolerant muslims will probably say "Oh, but that's not what the Quran is all about anjd what Islam is all about" and so on and so forth. Oh no..?
Wake up call: It's not your book that defines your religion - it's the people reading it.
iSok, your quoting the Book(tm) to me, at least, is meaningless if you mean to demonstrate that Islam is a good religion. Meaningless because the quotes you pick say something about
you as a muslim, ignoring the lines some explosive underpants wearing fundie or a totalitarian government would cling on to... Those with murder and death, for instance. As long as you say Islam is peaceful and just and whatever else it may be while lots of people and even governments use it as a tool of opression and destruction, we have a bit of a conflicting opinion going, no..?