babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » On human arrogance

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: On human arrogance
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 09:48 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was irritated enough by some posts on the “Irritable Babblers” thread to start this new one on human arrogance. This post is just a comment on the ‘ever-so-tiring-rehash-of-atheist-arguments’, but human arrogance is not restricted to spiritual beliefs. So I invite anyone (who is interested) to contribute their personal stories and theories on the subject of ‘human arrogance’.

Here is the (final) comment I wished to make on the subject of atheism.

One of the things that always bothered me about some scientists (and I was trained to be one) is how they know everything without a shadow of a doubt. Absolutely. Without wondering whether they could be wrong.

Imagine this. We humans live on a Planet orbiting a star that is just one among billions of other stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Which is just one of billions of Galaxies in the known Universe. Which may be just one of billions of Universes.

Our recorded civilization goes back a few thousand years on this planet which was formed about 3 billion years ago in a universe which is 15 billion years old (give or take a year) And it may be just one of billions of Big Bang - Big Crunch cycles..

And we know it for a fact that there is no such thing as a God.

I read a really cool scifi story once. A mining town was destroyed by a huge explosion in the middle of the night but next morning people woke up as usual, went to work as usual and lived their lives as usual. There was only one change: the commercials and billboards and all other forms of advertising just got crazy. There was no way to hide from it. At the end of the story they find out that they are just little miniaturized replicas of themselves and the whole town is sitting on a desktop as a testing ground for advertising techniques. A big PR company bought up all the DNA of the dead people, cloned them back to life in a miniature form and put them into a miniature replica of their town on a laboratory bench. Imagine the shock they felt when they made
it to the edge of the table and looked down!

Now I know it is only a story, but I can’t help thinking about it every time when I hear some people being so punch drunk sure about what the world is and isn’t like.

Do I believe in God?

What do we mean by God?

First of all I don’t subscribe to any organized religion. So forget any of the’official’ myths. So what is left as possible definition?

Here are a few:

A sentient being with unimaginable (for humans) powers? I have no problem imagining it, I have watched enough Star Trek to find it possible. Today's humans have unimaginable powers as seen by a Neanderthal.

A sentient being capable of creating life? Hell, no problem, humans are almost there already!

A sentient being living in another Universe running our show as an experiment or amusement? No problem, we are doing it to circus animals and rats in a maze. Why do we insist that humans are the most advanced (or even better: 'only') life
form in the Universe? Pure arrogance I think.

Life after death? How do I know until I tried it?

My favorite theories are the following: Our world (and species) was created by a juvenile god as a school project and he botched it so badly when he added humans to an already perfect world that he got a C-minus for it and he got so embarrassed that he chucked the whole thing into a wastebasket Universe’ and we have been floating there ever since.

Another of my favorite theories is that we are actually forty foot lizards living in another Galaxy and what we call ‘life’ is a ‘halodek’-type entertainment we go to once in a while. I was ’born’ when I dropped in to the theater on my slithering way home from work and put on the virtual reality helmet. When I ’die’, I will take off the helmet and call it the dumbest show I have ever seen. Then I slither home to my wife and apologize for being late.

Can I imagine that a vastly superior being created the human species for whatever reason? Absolutely. Do I see it proven? No, of course not.

However, in an (for puny humans) infinite Universe there are (for puny humans) infinite possibilities and it would be as arrogant of me to say ‘there is no such and such a thing’ as it would be of a microbe denying the possible existence of human beings.

Are any of these fantasies any use to me in real life? Yes. Both as a source of entertainment and as a reminder that I may be wrong about a lot of things, even if I am very sure about them. It helps me keep an open mind.

As far as organized religion and official myths are concerned I don’t belong to any and I am aware of its historical role as a tool of exploitation and suppression.

But being open minded to the possibility of ‘spiritual Phenomena’ is not the same as being a devout Catholic or whatever.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 November 2002 09:55 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And we know it for a fact that there is no such thing as a God.

I'll keep believing that until I'm proven wrong.

quote:
it would be as arrogant of me to say ‘there is no such and such a thing’ as it would be of a microbe denying the possible existence of human beings.


The difference is that there is evidence that humans exist. It's more arrogant to say God exists, because you expect people to accept it without any proof.

The Bible says God created man in his own image. It's really the other way around.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 10:06 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You were there when it happened, Andy, were you?
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 10:13 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS. You don’t read very carefully Andy. I am an agnostic, all I ask for is an open mind to the possibility. I am against flat denial. I never asked you to "accept it without any proof". Doubt is good. Absolute certainty (either way) is bad. It is arrogant. And that is what this thread is about. And in this regard your comments are relevant.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 November 2002 10:28 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You were there when it happened, Andy, were you?


When what happened? When humans wrote the Bible, when humans invented the Greek and Norse gods, when humans wrote the Koran, when humans told myths around campfires? Then no. But I'm pretty sure they were in fact humans, and not cats or trees.
quote:

I am an agnostic, all I ask for is an open mind to the possibility.


I have an open mind. I'm willing to accept genuine proof. Do you have any?

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 390

posted 11 November 2002 10:30 PM      Profile for Jake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Andy,

quote:
I'll keep believing that until I'm proven wrong.

As a pretty regular church goer, I view this quesion among others, from the other end. I do believe that anything is possible unless it can be shown to my satisfaction that it is clearly impossible.
But we can leave it at that. While I don't agree with your view I have no pressing need to try to convince you that you are wrong and/or that I am right.

Keep smiling Andy, some time in the future we may discover which one of us is right. Or perhaps not!!

Jake


From: the recycling bin | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 10:36 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Andy: I have an open mind. I'm willing to accept genuine proof.
Well, if you mean this, then we may be in agreement after all. Your statement suggests that you keep your mind open for the possibility. You don't absolutely believe in anything (otherwise you could not keep an open mind for a possible proof). In which case you are not an atheist either but an agnostic. Very good Andy, I am pleased to hear that.

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 10:44 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS.

Random House:

Atheist: “one who denies the existence of God or gods”

Agnostic: “one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the Universe and refrains from committing himself “


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 November 2002 10:51 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Atheist: “one who denies the existence of God or gods”

That's me, until someone or something proves me wrong.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 10:57 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Random House: 'deny' - "to state that something declared or believed to be true is not true".

Sorry, Andy, I was wrong. This does not sound like an open mind. This sounds like absolute certainty. Pity -- I almost started to hope.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 November 2002 11:06 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here is the (final) comment I wished to make on the subject of atheism.

I'll bet it isn't

quote:
One of the things that always bothered me about some scientists (and I was trained to be one)is how they know everything without a shadow of a doubt. Absolutely. Without wondering whether they could be wrong.

Zatamon, I don't know where you were trained, but you need to start hanging out with a better class of scientist.

The scientists whom I have read, seen on TV, and found to be inspiring couldn't be more different. There may be some careerist technocrats who fit that description, but real scientists are facinated, and motivated by the chase of the unknown. It is what is left unanswered at the end of the day that drives science. Zatamon, if you were trained to be a scientist, then with those attitudes it's probably better for you as well as for science that you moved on to other things.


quote:
is how they know everything without a shadow of a doubt. Absolutely. Without wondering whether they could be wrong.

If this attitude defines any one, it is a small but highly influential minority within the realm of those who understand the world through religion. I see these types on TV regularly. They are hugely influential.

I make a point of saying they are a minority for a reason. There are many people who are part of organized religions, or would define themselves as spiritual; many here on babble, who are very open minded, and who are true seekers. This, it may surprise you to know, includes a lot of career scientists; competent practicioners of their professions who work in labs and in the fields, and who are also practicing members of faith based groups or just spiritually minded.

While the old science vs. religion debate may be a timeless source of fun for those in a mood for a good argument, I suspect you're setting up a bit of an artificial duality here.

Personally, I'm an atheist. I'm happy to chat about this with you or anyone else, though I have no interest in arguing about it.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 November 2002 11:06 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This does not sound like an open mind.

Yes it does. An open mind is one that accepts facts and evidence even when it contradicts with one's preconcieved opinions. It does not mean one accepts statements and ideas with no proof whatsoever.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 11:11 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oldgoat, you did not read carefully. I said "some scientists". I never said anything about proportions. I was arguing with those who belong to the "some". If you think you do, then I am arguing with you as well. If not, then I am not.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 11:33 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andy, you started the second lap. Again (the second time) no one asked you to accept anything without proof. Either you admit the possibility (open mind) or you don't (closed mind). You can't have it both ways.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 11 November 2002 11:37 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is why I think that you can argue that there is greater intelligence "out there" while at the same time being an athiest.

God as we understand it is a subjective entity. We draw from it our sense of well being and confidence in the face of life's trials but few people will be willing to say it has objective existence. Fine what does it matter?

On the other hand intelligence has evolved on earth and we see it both in humans and in the animal and even among reptiles and insects. But what exactly is intelligence?

Human language or even any ability to communicate is one of the main signs of intelligence - why?


If you go extremely impirical, from the scientific point of view it boils down to causality. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Events occur in linear time and one thing leads to the next and so on. In such a universe everything must be deterministic, that is, nothing ultimately is left to chance. It is just that certain phenomenon have such complicated histories that they seem like chance to the observor. In such a universe there is no need for communication - things just happen. There is no conciousness at all, no free will, just a vast complicated series of micrcosmic dominoes falling throughout unlimited time and space...

Affinities dictate history chemical interactions determine the outcomes of wars and the creation of literature. Conciousness is merely a biproduct that has no ability to affect these events...In such a universe communication is not only useless but virtually impossible.

But something happened sometime long ago that made our universe potentially sentient.

Hawking I think hints at it when he says that on the event horizon of massive black holes strange things must happen to accomodate the principles of entropy we know to exist in the universe.

He says that these black holes are so massive and they condense all matter and energy and timespace into such terrible structures of absolute order that spontaneous randomness and temporal anarchy must exist opn their borders simply because there is no room or possibility of it being accomodated within these structures.

So what I think is that as a result of this fundamental principle at a quantum level we get the possibility, indeed necessity for intelligence and communication. So what this means is everywhere in the universe the very laws of the universe are pushing the cosmic dust toward sentience.

Ergo God does not exist but is in effect a work in progress and we puny humans are but a manifestation of these universal principles.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 November 2002 11:40 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I take your point Zatamon, but upon re-reading your post, I am still left with the impression that it is science in general that you are painting with a broad brush.

However I must get me off to bed,
The 'morrow, to defend what I've just said.

:edited to perfect a slightly faulty iambic pentameter.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 November 2002 11:41 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Either you admit the possibility (open mind) or you don't (closed mind).

Nonsense. I don't believe Santa or the Easter Bunny exist either. Does that make me close-minded? No, it makes me an adult.

Sure I guess anything's possible, like pigs flying. But until I see evidence of pigs flying (and I mean by their own power, and without humans mutating them to grow wings or something), then I won't believe that they can fly.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 November 2002 11:49 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reread my first post Andy (carefully, all of it) and see if what I was talking about is analogous with flying pigs, Santa or the Eastern Bunny. There are many adults who believe in God (or at least find him possible [like myself]), but very few who believe in Santa or the EB. So while being an adult normally means you don't believe in the critters, however, it does not necessarily work the other way around.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 November 2002 11:55 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
Is there any more evidence that God exists, compared to evidence that Santa exists?
From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 12:00 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Andy, you started the third lap around the same circle. In my age I am only good for two.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 November 2002 12:56 AM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I have said before, if anything irritates me about Richard Dawkins, it's his outright dismissal of the possibility of God.

Bloody unscientific if you ask me, what!

This business about the Easter Bunny and Santa clause is trotted out by Dawkins, too and it's no more valid than saying that because I've never seen Queen Elizabeth I, nor a Unicorn, that, ergo, neither one exists.

Usually I'm weak atheist or agnostic, but sometimes I believe in God for aesthetic reasons. My conception of God is that God is an emergent property of sentient life. What the hell is an "emergent" property, you may ask.

Well "emergent phenomenon" may be more accurate. This is simply a physical incarnation of the saying "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". There is a rough hierarchy to levels of material organization that by chance, tautological necessity or for a deeper reason seems to me to correspond loosely to the organization of the following subjects, for example: physics: chemistry: biology psychology.

Each of these disciplines has substantial conceptual, methodological and terminological overlaps with subjects immediately to the left. Very generally, these overlaps decrease with distance. (To avoid quibbles, let me state up front that I have some knowledge of neurochemistry and biopphysical concepts have been useful to me as well.)
The point is that there are phenomena that are studied in the righthand subject areas for which there are no conceptual or methodological tools available outside of their own subject area.

Some examples: Starting from the axioms of quantum mechanics and using its notation and terminology, one cannot predict the products of the incomplete combustion of wood.

Using only the concepts and terminology of all branches of chemistry, the survival of the allele for sickle-cell anemia in populations of recent African divergence cannot be explained.

The language of neurochemistry or neurophysiology cannot address how paired stimulus-response associations are formed.

A hardcore, committed scientific reductionist will say " What you're saying is nonsense, just because we can't do it NOW doesn't mean we won't be able to do it."

To this, I have no answer as yet, but I can buy all the chemicals contained by a living cell, but I can't create life.
Maybe we will be able to create a living cell, but I don't think so, just as I don't think we'll be able to make a computer that can think "I'm just a collection of chips and wires, howdaya like them apples?"
Why? Because I think that at a
sufficient( whatever the hell THAT word means) level of complexity, systems exhibit properties that can not be deduced by consideration of the properties of their individual components.

Perhaps an independent concioussness could emerge from a sufficiently complex society of sentient, self-aware beings. How would we know God if we met her? We wouldn't. As Arthur C. Clarke wrote ( or close enough):
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 12 November 2002 01:25 AM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's arrogant that just because we can't "prove" something, we refuse to believe in the possibility of its existance.

At one time, humans were unable to prove that the earth revolved around the sun - does that mean that it wasn't so? Of course not. So just because our puny, couple-of-milleniums-old human knowledge can't prove the existance of this of that, I'm not prepared to write it off.

Get back to me after another millenium or two and see what we can prove then.

edited to add:
(oh...and apparently, I'm a hardcore, committed scientific reductionist. is that a bad thing?)

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: andrean ]


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 12 November 2002 01:30 AM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This business about the Easter Bunny and Santa clause is trotted out by Dawkins, too and it's no more valid than saying that because I've never seen Queen Elizabeth I, nor a Unicorn, that, ergo, neither one exists.

There is proof that Queen Elizabeth I existed. Other people saw her, and there are documents showing that she existed.

And I was under the impression that Unicorns in fact do not exist. Have you heard otherwise?


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 12 November 2002 01:43 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought the "big crunch" idea had been dismissed, Zatamon.

A big relief to me, because as I understood it, time would run backwards in the crunching phase.

Which really put me off the whole idea of eating for some time.

I'm agnostic. Put a gun to my head and make me commit, however, and I'd lean to the athiest side.

On the other hand, it may surprise some that there's a bit of a Deist side to me. If I want to believe certain silly, unprovable things, and it gives me comfort to do so-- and it's not causing me any harm, I don't feel there's a need to justify those beliefs any further. Not that I pray or believe in a guy in the sky, but there are things...maybe best described as superstitions that I hold that more or less serve to make me stop and pause for a second now and then and pay attention.


The idea that the Universe itself implies a creator-- even if it's just the "watchmaker" implies the question of who made the watchmaker, and before you know it, it's just turtles, all the way down.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 November 2002 02:17 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. Exhibit A: the universe. All kinds of testimony, both verbal and written, including thousands of eye-witness reports of miracles.
There is no evidence whatever to refute Exhibit A. There are many arguments and explanations to cast doubt on the verbal and written testimony, but no evidence to disprove the existence of God.

The problem isn't lack of evidence but admissibility of evidence. Each judge is highly selective in the evidence s/he admits as relevant and/or credible.

The problem is not God's existence. The problem is God's character. Because various peoples have described god/s differently - each according to their contemporary perception and in the most poetic terms of which their language was capable - all descriptions are relegated to the category of stories.
One can categorize all stories as inadmissible. One can - in theory - give equal value (i.e. 0) to all stories.
Yet, in practice, we don't treat all stories the same. We are inclined to believe some stories and dismiss others: When someone tells us about getting a speeding ticket, we usually believe them; when they tell about seeing a ghost, we usually don't. Why? Because of our own experience. We are inclined to credit the stories in a news-magazine above the stories in tv commercials. Why? Because of our respect for the story-teller. We are inlined to value 'War and Peace' over 'Goldilocks'? Because of the subject matter.

When we hear stories about gods and creation, we judge these stories by our own experience and education. A story from another age, another culture, another sensibility, is not as convincing as one we can identify with.
There is a great difference in scale between the story of creation and the story of an Easter Bunny. The one is so much larger than us that we can't step far enough back to take in the whole subject; the other is so much smaller as to be insignificant. We sometimes treat the two subjects as equal, whereas, in fact, the only thing they have in common is our disbelief.

The problem restated: Because we don't like the way God is described in other people's stories, we choose to believe that the stories are without foundation. Toss the bathwater. What baby?

That leaves us with Exhibit A.
It is so much bigger than us that we have no perspective, no experience with which to evaluate it. To believe that the world was created and to belive that it just happened are equally reasonable and equally absurd.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 November 2002 02:39 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So do you or do you not believe in God?

People who point to "The Earth" or "The Universe" and expect that to be sufficient proof for the existence of a supreme being can hardly expect someone like me to just accept that as face value evidence for the existence of something that ultimately must be taken, and this is the key that seems to keep getting ignored here, on faith.

Now, I know the counterargument to this one so I'll just nip it in the bud right afterwards.

If God exists then surely he, she, or it can simply appear in front of me in a way that is obviously not otherwise explainable in origin (violates thermodynamics, or whatever), and all is said and done and I shall believe.

The nipping-in-the-bud that I'm going to do is that the believers invariably say that God is much too important and that I shouldn't be so arrogant as to expect he, she, or it, to take two seconds to end any uncertainty I might have for its existence.

This, of course, is just a reversion to the "take it on faith" argument.

Ball's back in your court, nonesuch.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 12 November 2002 02:55 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that Occham's Razor is a good starting point for justifying Atheism.

quote:
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary

Dunno if it is in line with my thinking as I also enjoyed Russell's agnostic take on the Unitarians:

quote:
They believe in at most one God

I guess for me it starts to be semantics when people start saying that the power of the universe whatever that may be is God and God is the power of the universe whatever that may be.

I do however get a bit more riled when people start moving from a first cause argument (which is pretty spotty to begin with) and quickly jump to Son of God and burning bush stuff. If your going to believe in God just make sure you don't turn it into a glorified Batman managing mankink like Batman takes care of Gotham City. It is more likely if he was an omnipotent universe creating and managing wonder, that he wouldn't have a care for the affairs of humans. Voltaire said it best:

QUOTE] When his Highness sends a ship to Egypt, does he worry about whether the mice in it are comfortable? [/QUOTE]

Lots of quotes, I know, but these are topics that have been discussed down the ages. We are not really tilling new ground.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 12 November 2002 03:43 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Considering what we currently know about the universe, the wonder of our mythological gods is not in thier awesome powers, but in just how small we in fact made them.
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 November 2002 10:33 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My favorite theories are the following: Our world (and species) was created by a juvenile god as a school project and he botched is so badly when he added humans to an already perfect world that he got a C-minus for it and he got so embarrassed that he chucked the whole thing into a wastebasket Universe’ and we have been floating there ever since.

That's always been one of my favorites too. Have you seen the Far Side cartoon that basically posits the same thing, Zatamon? I always laugh when I see that.

quote:
quote: And we know it for a fact that there is no such thing as a God.

I'll keep believing that until I'm proven wrong.


One could just as easily say, "I know for a fact that there is a God and I'll keep believing that until I'm proven wrong."

quote:
There is proof that Queen Elizabeth I existed. Other people saw her, and there are documents showing that she existed.

Oh my goodness. You're using exactly the same standard of proof that people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God use as proof. Other people have written lots of documents showing that God exists and that other people have seen God. For instance, it is written that Moses saw God. It is written that many, many people saw Jesus ascend into Heaven on ascension day.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 November 2002 10:50 AM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Michelle, I was getting to that . Andy Social, I chose Queen Elizabeth I as an example, becuase she lives on in written accounts, eyewitness testimony and paintings. I won't insult your intelligence by posting an artistic representation of a Unicorn, of which many predate any artistic representaion of Elizabeth I.

A list of people who claim to have seen Unicorns:

Emperor Fu Hsi, China , ~3000 B.c.; Emperor Huang Di, in China 2697 B.C; Emperor Yao, China ~2,000 B.C; Confucius, China 551-479 B.C ; Ctesias, India ~400 B.C; Alexander the Great; Julius Caesar; Genghis Khan, India 12??.

Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, mentions Unicorns, saying of them that there is:
"...An exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros, which has a stag's head, elephant's feet, and a boar's tail, the rest of its body being like that of a horse. It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive."

There are at least a dozen other written records of Unicorn sightings. So, I stand by my original statement

.

On the other hand,

quote:
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. Exhibit A: the universe. All kinds of testimony, both verbal and written, including thousands of eye-witness reports of miracles.

but keep in mind:

quote:
As Arthur C. Clarke wrote ( or close enough):
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I tend to think that extra-terrestrials are more likely than God, so I'd want to eliminate that explanation first before soiling the knees of my nice new trousers .

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

quote:
edited to add:
(oh...and apparently, I'm a hardcore, committed scientific reductionist. is that a bad thing?)


Of course not. They have many good qualities, not the least of which is that they can be reasoned with and they're not likely to burn one at the stake for being a witch. They can be a little arrogant sometimes, though .

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 12 November 2002 11:13 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tommy, many are indeed abandoning the Big "Crunch" idea.

Recent readings have shown that the bang is speeding up, that far-flung galaxies are moving away from eachother at an increasing speed, and areas of dark matter and energy are growing.

If this prooves to be true, and if the Earth were still around a few billion years from now, the night sky would be starless!

Freaky, eh?

Bah, all of the matter in galaxies is eventually sucked into the black hole at its centre anyways, so, not to worry.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 12 November 2002 11:51 AM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is my question for anyone posting on this string: does anyone know of any arguement ever used to prove/disprove the existence/non-existence/semi-existence of a higher power which has ever had a swaying effect on another person?

To get back to the original topic, human arrogance: it seems to me the flow of this thread, right from the original statement, is a perfect example of human arrogance. The belief that sitting around discussing the above-mentioned question/statement somehow matters and that we as individuals will somehow come up with the idea that will suddenly change the way others view the world in this respect. Either you belive or you don't. Either you think about it or you don't care. It's personal, it's private, and if you're posting your own thoughts on the matter, your mind is set enough that it won't take other people's comments into consideration. The belief that what we have to say is great enough to sway what others already believe in this subject is arrogance. This post is arrogant. But we still do it.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 12 November 2002 12:02 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
When I think of human arrogance, I don't automatically think to questions of deity. I think rather to questions of our usurpation of the planet and all its resources for our own greedy uses. I think of how we treat cows, pigs, chickens and other animals so that we can have lots of cheap meat all the time. I think about how we totally and irrevocably tamper with ecosystems and foundations so that we can fly around the planet having fun, drive our stupid cars to our stupid polluting buildings and factories. I think about how we North Americans (i.e. those of us with computers to sit at and time to wonder about the existence of god) generally do little or nothing to help the other people on the planet who are STARVING, who are being persecuted for their race, their place, or their faith.

I think it's arrogant of us to take so much with so little thought to the real consequences of our greed. I think it's arrogant of us to have the kind of argument dragged out above without thinking about and being thankful for the freedom to do so. I think we're generally pretty arrogant all around and some days I wish I just weren't even here, because I know I'm just as bad as everybody else and the way that we've organized our human existence makes it so that I can't very easily escape all of these and our many other arrogances.
(Maybe it's a little arrogant to pluralize arrogance... )


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 01:26 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another excellent example for human arrogance is the following:

A citizen of a Western country, who has lived his entire life in the US/Canada/England..., may have traveled to tourist Meccas a few times, never visited and not familiar with in-depth details of another country’s culture, history, way of life, problems, values, customs and political/military situation (beyond some CNN headlines) declares in a no-nonsense way that its leader needs to be deposed/assassinated and their people given democracy, western clothing and IMF.

Nothing can excuse this kind of self centered, ignorant, devastating arrogance in my eyes. I would love to forcibly move that person to live in his ‘target country’ for a few years and see if he still has such a big appetite for the carpet bombers and the invasion he so loudly recommends.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 November 2002 01:55 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So do you or do you not believe in God?

No. At least, not the god described in the Bible and not any of Norse or Greek ones - they're too limited. They were models (speculations) devised by people who had less information available to them than we do now.
However, i do not discount the possibility of a much bigger, more remote Intelligence.

quote:
People who point to "The Earth" or "The Universe" and expect that to be sufficient proof for the existence of a supreme being can hardly expect someone like me to just accept that as face value evidence for the existence of something that ultimately must be taken, and this is the key that seems to keep getting ignored here, on faith.

I didn't call it proof - merely Exhibit A.
I don't expect people like you (or unlike you) to accept it as anything: i pointed out that this is the single piece of physical evidence, the existence of which is rarely in dispute, whether each of us decides to accept it as part of a case made for or against a belief.
The fact that i can take apart a watch and discover how it works does not prove that somebody made it: all it proves is that a watch exists. If i don't need to tell time and i've never seen metal springs and cogs before, i don't necessarily recognise it as the work of another human; for all i know, the artefact may grow on a tree someplace.
The fact that i can take apart a chrystal and understand its structure does not prove that nobody made it; it only proves the existence of the chrystal.

quote:
If God exists then surely he, she, or it can simply appear in front of me in a way that is obviously not otherwise explainable in origin (violates thermodynamics, or whatever), and all is said and done and I shall believe.

Not necessarily. We often discount and ignore our own experience. Far more often, we discount and ignore other people's experiences, when those are unlike our own.

quote:
The nipping-in-the-bud that I'm going to do is that the believers invariably say that God is much too important and that I shouldn't be so arrogant as to expect he, she, or it, to take two seconds to end any uncertainty I might have for its existence.
*
Belivers may say that. I haven't.
All i've said was that you - and i, and each person, everywhere - choose what evidence we will admit and what evidence we dismiss.

And i mentioned that whatever we believe about the universe is reasonable on the basis of the evidence we use. Whatever we believe about the origin of the universe is also absurd. We are all able to make an argument; none of us is able to produce conclusive proof.

* PS I didn't have time to go into it before.
I always find this one amusing. Imagine taking two seconds to break the laws you live by - say, killing a friend - every time some microbe in your intestines doubts your existence. Simpler to take an antibiotic.
And this analogy is still in the wrong ballpark: to a god who creates universes, microbes and humans are roughly equivalent. Why should It care whether something It can make or un-make by the billions believes in It or not?

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 12 November 2002 02:04 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am an atheist. Period. Don't bother arguing with me about it, because it's a waste of time.

However:

Just because a god-like entity absolutely does not exist for me, does not mean it does not exist for someone else. For those who believe in god, god exists. For those who do not, god does not. Quantum mechanics supports this.

In case anyone cares, my atheism does not make me any less spiritual than the most devout deity-worshipper. It simply means that my conept of the universe, or multi-verse if you wish, does not include a god-like entity. It's a non-linear, intuitive perception, extremely personal and experiental. It doesn't do well when described. In fact, the more words I apply to my spirituality, the less it exists for me.

So, I'll shut up about it now.

Edited to add: Zatamon, I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the more you go on about human arrogance and the arrogance and narrow-mindedness of other babblers, the more impossibly arrogant and narrow-minded you seem? Not saying you are, mind you. Just seems that way.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 02:14 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rebecca, what took you so long?
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 12 November 2002 02:33 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you're going to believe in God just make sure you don't turn it into a glorified Batman managing mankind like Batman takes care of Gotham City.

Haha! *applause*

I do think it's pretty arrogant to put down other people's beliefs on this. It is an intensely personal thing, and there's no way to prove one thing or the other conclusively.

I do find atheism kind of limiting. For me. But it isn't for everyone, and I don't see the point of arguing about it. Other people will either change their minds or they won't. It doesn't make a demonstrable difference in my life what other people think. It's what they do that matters.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 02:42 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Michelle: That's always been one of my favorites too. Have you seen the Far Side cartoon that basically posits the same thing, Zatamon? I always laugh when I see that.
Michelle, I have had this idea for so long that I honestly don't remember if I made it up myself or got it from somewhere else. I would love to see the Far Side cartoon though...

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 12 November 2002 04:03 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do think it's pretty arrogant to put down other people's beliefs

Arrogant might not be strong enough a word for some, Smith. It requires a particularly European magnitude of arrogance to muster the audacity required to deny the validity of other worldviews. Speaking of the hardline scientific materialists here, those who refuse to allow the validity of non-scientific worldviews.

To them I say, go live among the Waunana in the Brazilian rainforest, or the Apaches of the American southwest, or the Siberian shamanic tradition, or the Sufis of the Chishti, or the Zen monks of Antaiji.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 November 2002 04:35 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. Exhibit A: the universe.


And there is also evidence for the metaGod who crated God, (Exhibit A: God). And there is plenty of evidence for the MetametaGod who created Metagod....


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 04:40 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
About putting down other people’s beliefs. Smith, if you read my posts on this thread carefully (every word counts – just ask oldgoat ) you will see what I called arrogant: to declare what does and what does not exist in the Universe(s), in absolute terms, without admitting the slightest chance that the declaration may be wrong.

I did not ask anyone to believe in any specific god (without any evidence whatsoever). All I have been asking is an admittance that it is possible: we don’t know everything, there may be a god (see some possible definitions I provided in the first post) or other spiritual and/or paranormal phenomena. Is that too much to ask for? To refuse that admittance is what I called arrogant and I stand by that opinion.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 12 November 2002 04:42 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
The universe just barely counts as evidence of the universe. It's a pretty big leap of faith to suggest that because the universe exists, God must have created it.

What do we know about any of it?


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 04:45 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who suggested it, LB?
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 12 November 2002 04:51 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Someone up above offered the existence of the universe as Exhibit A in the case of the existence of god.

I just wanted to pipe in. Don't take me too seriously.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 04:54 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was nonesuch's first post, as misunderstood by Dr. Conway. Nonesuch clarified it brilliantly (IMO) in her comeback. Take a look, it's a pleasure to read.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 12 November 2002 05:08 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you will see what I called arrogant: to declare what does and what does not exist in the Universe(s), in absolute terms, without admitting the slightest chance that the declaration may be wrong.

Yeah, and I understand your feeling, and I feel it myself to some degree - but people have their reasons for believing what they believe.

And I think it's rare to find anyone who believes anything as absolutely as you suggest. I believe we have gravity here on earth, but if I wake up tomorrow and everything's scattered and floating in the air, I'll have to rethink that.

Personally, I'm much less offended by atheists than by people who embrace a "Batman"-type God and denounce others who don't believe.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 12 November 2002 05:18 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To get back to the original topic, human arrogance: it seems to me the flow of this thread, right from the original statement, is a perfect example of human arrogance.

'a priori' proof of the existence of God is something that humankind has been searching for centuries. I don't think it is arrogance. As Russell(?) said: "an unexamined life is not worth living".

Moreover lots of good has come out this examination. Cognito Ergo Sum for starters, came from Descartes meditations on the existence of God and man's relation to him. Secondly, most early work on the philosophy of the mind started with an examination of where God played in it. Looking at this question helped us find out who we are.

Besides its fun.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Pogo ]


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 05:19 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Random House: “arrogant” – “making unwarrantable claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights”.

Refusing to admit that they may not know everything and they may be wrong in their declaration (about the non-existence of god/paranormal/etc.), I believe, does qualify. Let them admit the slightest chance that they may be wrong and I will remove the accusation of arrogance.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 12 November 2002 05:30 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Refusing to admit that they may not know everything and they may be wrong in their declaration (about the non-existence of god/paranormal/etc.), I believe, does qualify. Let them admit the slightest chance that they may be wrong and I will remove the accusation of arrogance
Zatamon, lots of people have unwavering beliefs with regard to the nature of their universe and are perfectly entitled to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Demanding that they waver on their beliefs in order to have bestowed upon them your approval and certification of a lack of arrogance is, well, supremely arrogant. Silly.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 05:34 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rebecca, I demand nothing. I expressed a personal opinion.

PS. Anyone claiming to be infallible exhibits pretensions of deity and, in my view, is supremely arrogant (see definition above).

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 November 2002 05:44 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, there is no arrogance like that of the pedant, is there? It was Socrates who made the quote, Pogo . I like the rejoinder, but don't know the source:
" The unlived life is not worth examining."

From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 12 November 2002 05:45 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zatamon, what exactly is your definition of god, as distinct from a hypothetical naturally ocurring entity who has advanced/evolved to the point where we, at our limited stage might experience this beings manifestations as magic.

An example might be "Q" in Star Trek, or the beings in the story you referred to in your first post. Azimov wrote a short story about an evolving computer which continued working after the universe had wound down through entropy, solved the problem, and initiated the creation of a new universe. "Let There Be Light" were the final words of the story as I recall. I think Arthur C. Clarke said that technology at it's most evolved would be indistinguishable from magic.

God, as I understand people to mean it, (and I could be way off) by definition exists and always existed outside of and above the objective forces and realities which drive the cosmos. To me, if something purports to exist outside of reality, I may be forgiven for taking it not to be real.

I am not an athiest because god doesn't exist any more than another is religious because god does exist. I am an atheist because I am not psychologically predisposed to believe in god.

Individuals psychologíes are fluid, so I might change, but I'm sceptical. (we've established that though, haven't we. )

What we're talking about here, IMHO are two legitimate and sometimes-but-not-necessarily-exclusive ways of relating to the world we live in. It's whatever works for you.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 05:45 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I moved the post to the intended location...

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 November 2002 05:49 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know this should be on "Irritable Babblers", but doesn't anyone read my posts except for skdadl?

oldgoat, I refer you to TWO posts in THIS THREAD!!!

quote:
but keep in mind:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Arthur C. Clarke wrote ( or close enough):
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sometimes I wonder why I bother ***walks away muttering to self***


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 12 November 2002 05:53 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
'a priori' proof of the existence of God is something that humankind has been searching for centuries. I don't think it is arrogance. As Russell(?) said: "an unexamined life is not worth living".


The arrogance lies in the fact that it has not been humankind, but the upperclass of humankind who has been searching for the existence of god. Those who could afford to gain the education, to sit around playing philosophy while the workers worked and the toilers toiled. Quote Russell (I have no idea who he/she/it is) as you did to any working class person through the ages. People who have not had the time or desire to "examine their lives". See if they feel fulfilled with their existence.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 06:06 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oldgoat, this is not only about god(s). This is about any unusual (paranormal) phenomena. In some posts on the paranormal, a while ago, I reported a personal experience that happened in my childhood: my mother announcing deaths of close relatives, hundreds of miles away, minutes after the time of their deaths.

Most hardcore rationalists dismissed my report out of hand, some of them quite insultingly. That was fine, I respect anyone’s right to choose what to believe and what not to believe.

However, I was really irritated by the flat refusal to consider even a remote possibility that I was neither lying , nor delusional.

Now, as far as God is concerned: your assumption that I mean a god “outside of and above the objective forces and realities which drive the cosmos” – you are incorrect.

For me the definition of reality is all encompassing. If there is a god (or any number of them), he/she/it is part of it.

Our human intelligence and mental capacities may or may not conceive of it. We may or may not understand it. Our science may or may not be an adequate tool to study it.

I suggested a few possible definitions in my first post:

- A sentient being with unimaginable (for humans) powers?

- A sentient being capable of creating life?

- A sentient being living in another Universe running our show as an experiment or amusement?

- A vastly superior being who created the human species for whatever reason?

Again, I am not saying any of it exists. However, I don’t pretend that I know enough about all out there to declare that it doesn’t.

BTW – I love the Asimov story you refer to, and in his autobiography Asimov lists it as his all time favourite of his own short stories. I was so happy when I saw that. The story is fantastic!

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 12 November 2002 06:36 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sisyphus: You've been with us for well over a year, and have made over 170 contributions.

OK, what the hell, I guess I'll start reading your posts.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 12 November 2002 06:59 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oldgoat, I assume I answered your questions satisfactorily. If not, let me know.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 November 2002 09:19 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In case anyone cares, my atheism does not make me any less spiritual than the most devout deity-worshipper. It simply means that my conept of the universe, or multi-verse if you wish, does not include a god-like entity. It's a non-linear, intuitive perception, extremely personal and experiental. It doesn't do well when described. In fact, the more words I apply to my spirituality, the less it exists for me.

This could be said just as aptly of Mathematics. Lots of people belive in it, but nobody has ever pointed out to me a mathematic walking down the street. Or an electricite, either, but they belive fervently in Electricity.
Well, okay, one has circumstantial evidence for the existence of Electricity: the predictable and repeateable effect of its actions (while, of course, the sun rising predictably and repeatedly is not admissible evidence of an intelligence behind the universe). But i've never seen any physical or circumstantial evidence, nor heard any eye-witness testimony, nor seen a photographic or even painted portrait, nor read any affidavits or historical documents to support the existence of Mathemataics. It exists - if it does - in a realm and language and experience which do not impinge on the rest of reality.
Kind of like spirits.

quote:
The arrogance lies in the fact that it has not been humankind, but the upperclass of humankind who has been searching for the existence of god. Those who could afford to gain the education, to sit around playing philosophy while the workers worked and the toilers toiled. Quote Russell (I have no idea who he/she/it is) as you did to any working class person through the ages. People who have not had the time or desire to "examine their lives". See if they feel fulfilled with their existence.

Yes and no.
Certainly, the leisured classes have done more writing on God and all that than the working class has. I'm not entirely sure that working people have never wondered - either about all that, or about the meaning of their own lives. Speculation about the world, how and why it came about, how it works and how it could be forced/bribed/cajoled to work better predates class structure by a considerable margin. We can't, either of us, say for sure that the first god theories didn't come from fishermen or farmers. We can't, either of us, predict which class will carry on spirituality.
(Btw, i belive every life, from that of a plankton to that of a Nobel prize winner, is worth living for its own sake, examined or not.)

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 November 2002 10:46 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oldgoat, good. It's hard to pull off this human arrogance gig, if no one's paying attention. ***arms crossed, foot tapping***

From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 November 2002 11:25 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not all that hard...
I'm arrogant because nobody who contradicted me did it with sufficent authority, credibility or aplomb to make me feel humble.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 12 November 2002 11:30 PM      Profile for koan brothers     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To them I say, go live among the Waunana in the Brazilian rainforest, or the Apaches of the American southwest, or the Siberian shamanic tradition, or the Sufis of the Chishti, or the Zen monks of Antaiji.

Most of the god-fearing, open-minded folks in my neck of the woods would be quick to point out that all of the above are going straight to hell when they die.


From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 November 2002 11:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This could be said just as aptly of Mathematics. Lots of people belive in it, but nobody has ever pointed out to me a mathematic walking down the street. Or an electricite, either, but they belive fervently in Electricity.
Well, okay, one has circumstantial evidence for the existence of Electricity: the predictable and repeateable effect of its actions (while, of course, the sun rising predictably and repeatedly is not admissible evidence of an intelligence behind the universe). But i've never seen any physical or circumstantial evidence, nor heard any eye-witness testimony, nor seen a photographic or even painted portrait, nor read any affidavits or historical documents to support the existence of Mathemataics. It exists - if it does - in a realm and language and experience which do not impinge on the rest of reality.

Mathematics is an abstraction invented by human beings in order to develop ways to manipulate the physical world in their minds.

Therefore mathematics does have a connection to the world around us, as evidenced by everything from the car you drive (or bus you ride) to the computer you use. A simple mathematical calculation will tell you the strength of the electromagnets needed to make your monitor work with the screen size it has.

quote:
I always find this one amusing. Imagine taking two seconds to break the laws you live by - say, killing a friend - every time some microbe in your intestines doubts your existence. Simpler to take an antibiotic.

Well, if God exists, it can zap me with cancer, or a heart attack, or whatever, and in the afterlife if there is one I can then humbly admit I'm wrong.

But until then I will take the reasonable position (to me, anyway) that the burden of proof lies on those who make assertions about beings that I cannot sense.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 12 November 2002 11:51 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quote Russell (I have no idea who he/she/it is) as you did to any working class person through the ages.

Bertrand Russell was big in the British working Class even though he was an Earl. His pacifist writings earned him 6 months in jail during the 1st world war. After the second world war he was a militant in the campaign for nuclear disarmament.

If you don't think these questions aren't asked by everyone, then you share different pubs and lunchrooms than I do.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 November 2002 11:53 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mathematics is an abstraction invented by human beings in order to develop ways to manipulate the physical world in their minds.

Yeah, i knew it was all in your mind. But i never made fun of you or put you down or intruded on your conversations with people who share your belief.

quote:
Well, if God exists, it can zap me with cancer, or a heart attack, or whatever, and in the afterlife if there is one I can then humbly admit I'm wrong.

It probaly will (statistics) and you probably won't (character) and It probably doesn't care either way (scope). I like some afterlife stories, hate others. Probably won't get to choose.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 November 2002 12:42 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, i knew it was all in your mind. But i never made fun of you or put you down or intruded on your conversations with people who share your belief.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Every now and then I witness these odd synchronicities between elements of the left and elements of the extreme right, both of whom have members that (a) have strong religious or spiritual beliefs and (b) take a very anti-science viewpoint sometimes to the level where any useful gain from scientific inquiry or application of its theoretical or practical tools thereof is dismissed out of hand.

And unlike religion or spirituality, mathematics does not depend on a priori "faith" in some unseeable entity in order to get it to work. ANYBODY can get mathematics to work.

By contrast, religionists regularly accuse people of having "insufficient faith" if they don't exhibit the symptoms of rapture, enlightenment, or whatever, and the rules of the game seem to change capriciously.

With mathematics, the rules of the game don't change. Your analogy is not a good one, in essentials, as religion or spirituality covers completely different aspects of human nature and personal growth than mathematics does.

Disclaimer: While I am an atheist I do not deny the ability of anyone to believe in whatever he or she wants. I also do not deny the nature of events such as the one that occurred to Zatamon's relatives, since those don't depend on the existence of a supreme being; they depend on the existence of unexplained synchronicities in human experience of events far away.

In sum, I get tired of unwarranted suspicion of science and I get tired of people telling me that I'm such a horrible person for not believing in God, or a Universal Force, or whatever. What would you have me do? Deny my own personal experience so you can be happy?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 13 November 2002 01:00 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Strange thread.
Since religion or lack of, seems to be part of it. Religion is just not part of my life. I mean traditional religion.
I don't even bother saying that I am an atheist or a don' t knower. I think I belong to the don't care if there is a god or two or three or a hundred. It will not change my life.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 13 November 2002 01:08 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And there is also evidence for the metaGod who crated God, (Exhibit A: God). And there is plenty of evidence for the MetametaGod who created Metagod....

Like I said elsewhere, it's just turtles, all the way down.

And Dale says,


quote:
Here is my question for anyone posting on this string: does anyone know of any arguement ever used to prove/disprove the existence/non-existence/semi-existence of a higher power which has ever had a swaying effect on another person?

As resolute as I appear to be on my views on this subject and many others, it's rare that they don't end up being refined or augmented as a result of discussions.

As for defining the word arrogance, I thank Laurie Goldstien for inspiring my deffinition: That thing which right wing idealogues most often confuse with, and substitute for, intelligence.

The one thing going for Athiesm lately is that we currently have a naturalistic explanation for life, the universe and everything that squares with what we can observe.

A supernatural explanation is no longer required; we have eliminated the last possible gap god can exist in.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 01:14 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
clersal, the original intention of the thread was 'human arrogance', not religion. So far five examples of human arrogance were listed:

1./ The arrogance of refusing to admit that one may be wrong about the nature of the universe

2./ The arrogance of treating the Planet, other species and defenseless humans with contempt.

3./ The arrogance of treating some countries as if we had a right to walk all over them.

4./ The arrogance of refusing to admit the possibility of a finite limit (to experience and/or understand) for the human species, that can not be exceeded even in infinite time. (this one is carried over from the “Irritable Babblers” thread)

5./ The arrogance of Zatamon for starting this thread.

Do you (or anyone else) have any pet peeves against other manifestations of human arrogance?

I think 1./ grabbed the imagination of most and it is the least important or interesting.

I have a lot of other examples of human arrogance I could mention but I also would be interested in someone’s learned (or otherwise) opinion about the origin (fear? insecurity?) , nature(inherited? acquired?) and cure (is it possible?) of human arrogance.

I hope some of you will tackle these aspects and give 1./ a rest (I think we pretty well talked it into the ground).

PS. Tommy, you may have overlooked a tiny little gap left in Galaxy #8402485678 in Universe #764204123

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 13 November 2002 01:15 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Strange how we have to prove.....
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 13 November 2002 01:21 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I forget where I read it, but someone once described humans as "explaining machines".
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 13 November 2002 01:22 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep if we don't know the answer we make one up. Even if there is not an answer we make one up.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: clersal ]


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 13 November 2002 01:27 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And unlike religion or spirituality, mathematics does not depend on a priori "faith" in some unseeable entity in order to get it to work. ANYBODY can get mathematics to work.

Anybody can get meditation to work. Meditation requires a state of profound objectivity to transcend the constant mental chatter of our own thought-network. The observer becomes the observed. Nothing is taken on faith.

Mysticism for want of a better word, its essence, is that in the deepest part of your own being, in the very centre of your own pure awareness, you are fundamentally one with Spirit, one with Godhead, one with the All, in a timeless and eternal and unchanging fashion.

There is no dogma attached to this. Those that have returned from this profound awareness, from Krishnamurti to Patanjali, the Buddha or Hakuin, have very cautiously remarked that the first step is self awareness, and that self awareness requires a degree of objectivity that withers all but a few most diligent seekers.

Someone once said that if we could use a long stick to measure the depth of human understanding that the stick would be marked only at the very bottom.

Meditation could be described as the way to approach this depth of understanding.

DrConway, I think that if in the future you are to enter into discussions on the subject of belief and religion et cetera at least a cursory understanding of a few alternative traditions, Buddhism is a good example, would be wise and to your benefit.

edited to add:

I don't at all mean to single you out DrConway but, as it was you I quoted...

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 13 November 2002 01:44 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I might go along with that. I know someone who said that buddhism did just that. He got his act together.

I realize Zatamon that this thread is not about religion. That there is or isn't a god, or many gods is arrogance. I agree with what you said.

We do not question enough. We must have an answer. We are so arrogant that we cannot believe that we do not know. That bugs me. It bugs me when people make racist remarks and they don't even realize it.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 November 2002 02:06 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote: Yeah, i knew it was all in your mind. But i never made fun of you or put you down or intruded on your conversations with people who share your belief.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Not much, really. One time, i asked you to butt out of a discussion on the supernatural, because you considered all of it bunk and some others might find that opinion off-putting. All water under the proverbial bridge.

quote:
Every now and then I witness these odd synchronicities between elements of the left and elements of the extreme right, both of whom have members that (a) have strong religious or spiritual beliefs and (b) take a very anti-science viewpoint sometimes to the level where any useful gain from scientific inquiry or application of its theoretical or practical tools thereof is dismissed out of hand.

Hardly applicablwe here. I presented both sides as bereft of hard evidence.

quote:
And unlike religion or spirituality, mathematics does not depend on a priori "faith" in some unseeable entity in order to get it to work. ANYBODY can get mathematics to work.

Anybody can get it to work... within its own language and context. But who has seen it, talked to it, invited it to dinner in real life?

quote:
By contrast, religionists regularly accuse people of having "insufficient faith" if they don't exhibit the symptoms of rapture, enlightenment, or whatever, and the rules of the game seem to change capriciously.

Not really. The rules are pretty consistant. Rapture, speaking in tongues and so forth are fairly extreme manifestations of the Spirit, not gifted to every passerby.

quote:
With mathematics, the rules of the game don't change. Your analogy is not a good one, in essentials, as religion or spirituality covers completely different aspects of human nature and personal growth than mathematics does.

True and true. Mathematics is, indeed, a game. Like Scrabble, Bridge or Pick-up-sticks, it is inrternally consistent. Like the others, it is irrelevant and inapplicable to life, except by analogy.

quote:
Disclaimer: While I am an atheist I do not deny the ability of anyone to believe in whatever he or she wants. I also do not deny the nature of events such as the one that occurred to Zatamon's relatives, since those don't depend on the existence of a supreme being; they depend on the existence of unexplained synchronicities in human experience of events far away.

... or close by. In any case, they depend on (so far) unexpalined phenomena.
And, so what? It's not your job to explain every phenomenon in every babbler's experience. Sometimes, it's okay to let 'em sail by, unexplained, unchallanged...

quote:
In sum, I get tired of unwarranted suspicion of science and I get tired of people telling me that I'm such a horrible person for not believing in God, or a Universal Force, or whatever. What would you have me do? Deny my own personal experience so you can be happy?

Certainly not! Your frustration not only doesn't make me happy, but, since i'm an empath, makes me downright miserable. You are NOT a horrible person; you are a very nice, good, intelligent, valuable person. Causing you any kind of pain is abhorrent to me, and the only reasons i would knowingly cause you pain is the opportunity of promoting growth...
That, and feeding my ego.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 November 2002 02:24 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS
Whatever apology, compensation or penance Mathematics demands.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 November 2002 02:24 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not really. The rules are pretty constant. Rapture, speaking in tongues and so forth are fairly extreme manifestations of the Spirit, not gifted to every passerby.

Precisely my point.

The presence or lack of qualities attributable to "faith" do not appear or disappear on a consistent verifiable basis. By contrast, in mathematics, it is a repeatable, reproducible process that can be set up from basic principles.

Integral calculus, to pick one example, seems perfectly mysterious to people, yet it can easily be demonstrated using some basic building blocks: the area of a rectangle, and the concept of a sum.

All else is details.

I can thus teach you integral calculus, provided you already know a little bit of differential calculus in order to reverse derivatives, but it's actually not crucial.

Conversely, can you reliably, reproducibly, imbue me with "the burning in the stomach" (as the Mormons call it), or "the rapture" or whatever? I don't think so, because fundamentally such things are subjective phenomena that are not reliably reproducible. This is why I believe your analogy fails.

As for flotsom, I find it just a bit irritating that you think I should know ALL religions before I choose to have NO religion.

To use an imperfect analogy of my own, I don't need to know how a car works inside in order to start it and drive it.

I don't need to know how the complexities of bus scheduling are resolved in order to be able to stand in front of a bus stop and know that at time A, I will have a bus materialize in front of me to convey me to my destination.

Similarly, I don't think I need to spend my time studying every last religion out there to know that my well-being and my worldview works better without a religion than with one, having been exposed to Christian sects (United Church, Roman Catholic, et cetera) in my youth as well as a smattering of Judaism from having known Jewish neighbors and having had Jewish friends.

I suppose you could say it might benefit me in some way personally, but I feel that my personal growth is best set up and encouraged in the study of science.

flotsom, you have also remarked to me that I have "invalidated" religious viewpoints before. Would you not agree that people who hold religious viewpoints often invalidate the atheist one by marginalizing such viewpoints, secularizing religion into the state governing apparatus, and in reversing the burden of proof as to why it should be taken for granted that God or some other supreme being exists?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 02:42 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The essence of human arrogance, I believe, is very closely related to the following:

1./ need for security/certainty
2./ lack of curiosity
3./ fear of doubt
4./ lack of critical thinking
5./ self-love
6./ aggression
7./ desire to dominate
8./ a closed mind

Every one of us is guilty of one or more of the above at one time or another. The important question is how to recognize and how to control them.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 November 2002 02:45 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The presence or lack of qualities attributable to "faith" do not appear or disappear on a consistent verifiable basis. By contrast, in mathematics, it is a repeatable, reproducible process that can be set up from basic principles.

Sure. Very comforting and reassuring. As are all man-made, self-contained and self-consistent human constructs. They work just fine, until the next earth-quake.
Who you gonna call on when/if they fail?
I'm not putting the human constructs down - love 'em, use 'em, have faith in 'em, rely on 'em - just wondering whether they're the be-all and end-all.

Look: getting born into the world is a major gamble. Math works sometimes, but in between, a lot of weird shit goes down. Sometimes, some people that weird shit is going down on haven't been educated to calculate how much shit per head they're supposed to take. So, no matter how much they revere it, math isn't a lot of immediate practical use to them.
What shoukd they believe in?

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 02:53 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
9./ role playing
10./ desire to impress
11./ ignorance

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 November 2002 08:06 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sure. Very comforting and reassuring. As are all man-made, self-contained and self-consistent human constructs. They work just fine, until the next earth-quake.
Who you gonna call on when/if they fail?
Who's gonna answer? That god in your head won't stop the tons of steel and concrete from crushing the life from you, but it may provide some comfort before you die. If you're atheist, you may derive comfort from thoughts of your loved ones. It's not for you, nonesuch, to question the adequacy of the atheist's interior experience when facing calamatous death.

And until I see a god appear to prevent small children, in the most Catholic of countries, from being crushed to death inside their pre-school...

One of the things that I find really cool about zen buddhism, is that it's an atheistic religion that is compatible with deity-based religions, like Christianity. Of course many Christians argue that all buddhists will roast in the fiery pits of hell, but their god is clearly of the more petty and vindictive persuasion.

I stopped believing in a god when I was a child. As Oldgoat puts it, I was not psychologically disposed towards belief in a supreme deity. I was agnostic until I was in my mid-teens when, after examining several deity-worshipping religious sects, I came to the rational decision that there definitely was no god whatsoever. For a variety of reasons a universe without a god is a more comforting one to me.

Now that I'm older and understand better the nature of the universe and how our separate realities can inform its properties, to some degree (and that has been proven in the physical world with quantum computing experiments), I know that it's reasonable to say that for those who believe in a god, a god exists. My universe, as a definitively god-free zone, is no less wonderful than someone else's god-centred universe. Or the agnostic's universe that encompasses all possibilities.

What really pisses me off is the assumption that because I'm atheist, I'm arrogant, narrow-minded, judgemental, and living in a cold, frightening spiritual vacuum that will fail me at my moment of death. To those who have suggested such, directly or indirectly, I invite them to blow it out their intolerant asses.

As for arrogance, I suggest that without it, humans would still be living in trees and rocks with the rest of the animals.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 13 November 2002 10:04 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
. As are all man-made, self-contained and self-consistent human constructs. They work just fine, until the next earth-quake.
Who you gonna call on when/if they fail?

Who do you call on when God fails you? Or do you fit all human tragedies into God's plan.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 10:10 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
12./ confidence
13./ audacity
14./ foolhardiness
15./ rudeness

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 10:30 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS. We can all pretty well agree that there is no absolute proof either way. And it is very unlikely that we will have any. So what do we have to fall back on?

Many people claim (myself included) that they have had some kind of spiritual experience suggesting to them that there is unusual phenomena out there (paranormal, ESP, gods, ghosts, etc).

Can you have an ‘atheist experience’ that suggests the opposite? How do you experience the lack of something? I am not saying it can’t happen, I just can’t imagine how.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 13 November 2002 10:33 AM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anybody can get meditation to work. Meditation requires a state of profound objectivity to transcend the constant mental chatter of our own thought-network. The observer becomes the observed. Nothing is taken on faith.

Mysticism for want of a better word, its essence, is that in the deepest part of your own being, in the very centre of your own pure awareness, you are fundamentally one with Spirit, one with Godhead, one with the All, in a timeless and eternal and unchanging fashion.

There is no dogma attached to this. Those that have returned from this profound awareness, from Krishnamurti to Patanjali, the Buddha or Hakuin, have very cautiously remarked that the first step is self awareness, and that self awareness requires a degree of objectivity that withers all but a few most diligent seekers.


I agree wholeheartedly, flotsom, having some small experience with the K's talks and a little practical experience with zazen. Your respect and apparent understanding of Ken Wilber, though is indicative of a mind that is equal to any of the tasks required for a "rationalist" undrestanding of the world. Wilber writes clearly, but he is not simple, and he plays by the rules of logic and evidence. Although, I don't share the harsh purity of DrConway's (in my words) "radical scientifc empiricist" viewpoint, I do have sympathy for his claims of where the burden of proof rightly lies.

The path to knowledge that begins with a clear, rippleless mind is perhaps the most demanding and truly productive that is available to we limited, imperfect bald apes on our out-of the-way dust speck in the impossibly large cosmos.

But no a priori assertions about the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods can be allowed to interfere with a truly objective search, would you not agree?

Krishanmurti, Basso, Dogen... none of the Patriarchs will contaminate practice with such idle metaphysical speculations, no?

Faith can be the bedrock of a truly productive spiritual search. I believe this has been shown in the context of every theistic tradition. But by those who have achieved spiritual knowledge, it is always recognized as being faith.

What do you think?


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 November 2002 10:36 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who do you call on when God fails you? Or do you fit all human tragedies into God's plan
There are some Christian denominations that insist upon prayer passivity in the face of human tragedy because it is all part of their god's plan. But in the mainstream I understand that the Judeo-Christian god seems to allow humans their material world while tending to the spiritual aspect of existence itself. I personally don't delineate material and spiritual in that way, or at all really, but I'm sure it's very helpful to some to organize reality that way. And if your god exists wholely or largely in the spiritual realm, no burden of proof is required. Whereas for the atheist, that lack of proof - definitive or even extrapolative - supports their atheism.

The difference in position, vis a vis a deity-created universe, is in personal inclination towards either a necessity for definitive proof, or a need to believe, in the absence of proof, in a god or gods.

It seems to be a function more of personality and perception than anything else. But that's an atheist view. A deity-believer would argue otherwise.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 10:39 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sisyphus: I do have sympathy for his claims of where the burden of proof rightly lies.

Doc (and others) are absolutely right about this. But it works both ways. That is why I am an agnostic.

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 10:48 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reviewing the thread I found only Jake who actually implied he believed in one particular God (regular churchgoer) – all the others have argued AGAINST the unsupported statements that there isn’t one!

So, what is with all this strawmen being knocked down one after the other? Why argue with statements no one made? Just curious.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 November 2002 10:51 AM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've always considered arrogance and pride to be the same thing. Not the kind of pride where you do a good job, but biblical pride. The kind that requires smiting. This pride is a result of either anger or insecurity.

Anger that you're not being recognized to the extent you should be or insecurity about the role you play in life. Watch people driving for a good example. People who suffer road-rage are extremely arrogant. "That person stole my right-of-way! How dare they not recognize MY right-of-way!". Anything where one person places themselves above another for any reason is arrogance and derives from anger and insecurity.

Other good examples are racism (any ~ism for that matter), politicians (see the above comment regarding arrogance as defined as a right-wing property), people who "people-watch", people who classify other groups of people as being arrogant.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 10:55 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
dale, a cigar is, sometimes, only a cigar.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 11:10 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is one creative (if somewhat silly) challenge to some spiritualists. The post is copied from Znet. Enjoy.

“Hi Guys
I want to know at what point in his existence does the SOUL become part of a person? Is it during conception, orgasm or birth? Where does that SOUL come from? Is there storage where SOULS linger around waiting for some one to be born? Out of all SOULS that exist (if they exist at all) how is it decided that one should be yours? Is the SOUL always in control? Does the SOUL have any mystical or real powers? What happens to the SOUL when you are awake, asleep, confused, comatose or dead? Inside you, where does the SOUL dwell? What is the difference between SOUL, SPIRIT and subconsciousness? Is there anything as such? Does the SOUL die? If it does not what does it do when you cease existing and exterminated? “


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 November 2002 11:17 AM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, I've got the answer to everyone's spiritual problems.

Selectsmart Homepage

Go to this site and follow the links to the religion selector. There is a short quiz, and based on your answers, they will tell you what religion you should be.

My results were: Unitarian Universalism 100%
Secular Humanism 90%
Neo-Pagan 88%
Liberal Quaker 84%

Life would be so much easier if all decisions could be made like this.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: dale cooper ]


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 November 2002 11:33 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, what is with all this strawmen being knocked down one after the other? Why argue with statements no one made? Just curious.
I'm not sure what you mean. Since the burden of proof lies in proving the existence of something, not the non-existence, we atheists have nothing to prove, and therefore are not presenting any "straw men". The only "straw man" presented is this god, referred to in the male gender (don't even get me started on how offensive THAT is) by at least one participant.

I have no arguement with people who profess a belief in a supreme being, or with people who may wish to admit to the possibility of one. That's a personal decision. I am, however, quite annoyed by people's insistence that I and other atheists should admit to the existence, or possibility of existence, of something for which there is no proof whatsoever.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 11:34 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have done the test, dale, it was fun.

Here are my first three candidates for religion:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (87%)

Now I will find out what each means.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 11:41 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rebecca: Since the burden of proof lies in proving the existence of something, not the non-existence
The burden of proof lies with every statement anyone makes.

If you categorically state something does exist -- prove it.

If you categorically state something does not exist -- prove it.

(And please, no more Santas, Eastern Bunnies and flying pigs -- we are a lot more sophisticated than that, aren't we?)

Assumption of existence of ‘aether’ (hypothetical medium light was thought to propagate in) was widespread before the Michelson-Morley experiments. If anyone dared to make a categorical statement that “aether does not exist” his fellow scientists would have politely asked him what evidence he had for his statement.

The Michelson-Morley experiments proved that there can not be an aether because if there was one, then the experiments would have shown interference rings (which were not present in spite of the incredible precision and accuracy of the experiments). Of course this is not an ‘absolute proof’ (manifestation of aether could have been cancelled out by a yet unknown factor), but it gave credence to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity which led to other experiments that put even more nails in the aether’s coffin.

Doc may argue that there was a good reason to assume the existence of aether, but many, many people, based on personal experience (dismissed by those who did not have, or denies to have had, any) claim they also have good reason to assume the existence of god/ESP/ghosts/life after death/paranormal phenomena.

I can easily live with statements like: "I don't believe because I don't see it proven".

I still think stetements like: "I know for a fact that there is no such and such a thing anywhere in the billions of galaxies in the entire Universe(s)" is misguided in the best case, rudely arrogant in the worst.

As far as the he/she/it is concerned, I am just too lazy to bother all the time. I often use 'he' without implying gender (in Hungarian there is no distinction).

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 13 November 2002 12:12 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (89%)
3. Liberal Quakers (77%)

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 12:17 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow! I knew there was a reason I liked you, clersal!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 November 2002 12:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here is my question for anyone posting on this string: does anyone know of any arguement ever used to prove/disprove the existence/non-existence/semi-existence of a higher power which has ever had a swaying effect on another person?

Whoo boy. Well, there's the teleological argument - how could it be possible for the world to be so ordered and minutely detailed if it was just some random occurrence and not intelligently planned? If you look at a watch, it's pretty close to impossible that a watch could just somehow grow at random into physical being - there has to be a watchmaker who created it. How much more complicated is the world?

Then there is the ... drat, I forget the name of it. But anyhow, the argument is by Descartes, and it is that it is impossible to conceive of something that does not exist, or something greater than that which exists. How is it possible to be able to conceive of something that does not exist? For instance, how could we conceive of eternity if eternity does not exist? How could we conceive of omnipotence if it doesn't exist?
Here's a good summary for the existence of God, according to Descartes:
1. I think, therefore I am.
2. I cannot be mistaken about the ideas I have.
3. There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e., the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea). In other words, you cannot have an idea about something that does not exist. This includes things like unicorns, because a unicorn is just made up of things that we have seen before, like a horse, like a horn, etc.
4. I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.
5. My idea of perfection is the most objectively real idea that I have.
6. The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance.

There's one other attempted proof of God that I'm forgetting too - there are three major ones that people have used over the ages, but the third one slips my mind.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 November 2002 12:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As Russell(?) said: "an unexamined life is not worth living".

Wasn't that Socrates?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 01:03 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, Michelle, I wanted to make the 100-th post! You beat me to it with a double post! Not fair!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 November 2002 01:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Triple post. Sorry.

quote:
Can you have an ‘atheist experience’ that suggests the opposite? How do you experience the lack of something? I am not saying it can’t happen, I just can’t imagine how.

Isn't that what 20th century atheist existentialism was all about? The idea being that you become an existentialist after what I would call a spiritual experience (although I guess a negative one) of realizing the emptiness of existence, and suddenly coming to the knowledge, deep down inside, that this is all there is, there is no soul, and that you are burdened with the ultimate choices for all of your actions.

It always reminded me of that machine in - was it The Restaurant at the End of the Universe? - one of those Adams books anyhow - where as a punishment you enter this machine that makes you feel your insignificance in comparison to the universe to such an extent of clarity that it totally fries your brain or something?

Seems to me that would be akin to a "religious experience" even without feeling that there was a god involved.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 November 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There's one other attempted proof of God that I'm forgetting too - there are three major ones that people have used over the ages, but the third one slips my mind.

I can see the horizon is flat from where I stand, therefore the world must be flat.

I don't want to get involved in an arguement about the existence/nonexistence, etc. But how can these scientific/logical arguements be used when everyday we discover there is so much more that we don't know about the universe? There is so much out there we don't understand. So much mystery. All it proves is that we don't know much. Maybe the arrogance lies in thinking we have finally reached a plateau of some sort where we are beyond making mistakes and we have some sort of solid footing to stand on.

And if these logical arguements for the existence of whatever were really all that valid, wouldn't the whole world be converted by now?

Nah. We believe what we want to believe and that's the beauty of faith. Shout it out now! F-A-I-T-H I got faith!


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 01:18 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
“you can kill a man, destroy his body, break his spirit, but only the Total Perspective Vortex can annihilate a man’s soul” -- Douglas Adams in The "Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (one of me previous babble-locations )
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 13 November 2002 01:24 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
dale: Nah. We believe what we want to believe and that's the beauty of faith. Shout it out now! F-A-I-T-H I got faith!
F-A-I-T-H I got faith in the God of Epistemology!

Random House: "epistemology" -- "a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge".


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 November 2002 01:30 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does that God require sacrifices?
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 13 November 2002 01:32 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Doc (and others) are absolutely right about this. But it works both ways. That is why I am an agnostic.

Zatamon, it seems to me that your position has been absolutely clear from the getgo. That's why I haven't addressed anything you've said head-on, 'cause my only response to what I've seen posted by you so far is "Oh. Uh-huh. I agree. " Hardly the stuff of fiery debate, I'm afraid.

What I posted, was primarily in response to flotsom who seems to present a paradox, something I can't resist! . Let me explain: I fear that my last post may have seemed condescending or patronizing. While I can be both of those things unfortunately, in this case it was caused by clumsiness in expression rather than intent .

I'm assuming that flotsom is posting from the even-handed perspective of Ken Wilber, in whose view the methods of science (i.e. observation, experiment, hypothesis, in whatever combination) constitute but one of several valid ways in which to acquire knowledge.
A scientific investigation into the possible existence of anything, has to start without placing the burden of proof anywhere. To say, "Look, the odds of there being a Yeti (for example) that has escaped positive identification for this long makes it so unlikely that such a thing exists that I'm not going waste my time looking for it." strikes me as reasonable, if not sensible.
But you can't get from there, to "Yeti's don't exist." without some sort of justification.

I'm an empiricist. My journey into the "hard sciences", catalogued in a futile attempt to discuss "intuitive understanding", ended in a discipline adequately described by the term "cell biology". The theory of cell biology is vast, but is doesn't begin to equip one to predict the behaviour of even isolated clonal cells without a very painstakingly contrived system of controls and specific questions. Even then, there are surprises.
I'm an empiricist. Rule number one:
by definition, empiricism does not allow proof of the non-exitence of phenomena. Period.

There is no theoretical proof, no matter how clever that can prove that anything exists or doesn't exist. Period.

The source of my respect for mathematics, to the small extent that I have understood any of it, is that it is the only language (system of symbolic representation and communication of things real or imaginary) that can reveal to us novel properties of things it represents, merely through the generation of new "grammatical sentences" (equations).

Wow. If people don't find that mind-blowing, I sure do, notwithstanding Einstein's remark, quoted by Zatamon in another thread.

Yet, experimental physics is not dead yet. And it won't be, 'cause seeing is believing.

If I understand her correctly, I think I agree most with Rebecca West. Each of us lives in a universe largely of our own creation. The depth and richness and correspondence of "our" reality to any "objective reality" is limited by our individual and species biology (nod to Pinker here), by the extent to which that biology is shaped by external forces and constraints and by any as yet unverified "emergent properties" (soul, anyone?) of our biology, sociology and who really knows what else.

Personally, I think the antidote to human arrogance is to be found in the "who really knows what else" part. It's also the most interesting to me.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 13 November 2002 01:39 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca