| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Marty McFly 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2009
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 3968
|
 Posted: December 31 2009 at 14:48 |
 jampa17 wrote:
Marty McFly wrote:
A lot of people believes just because they're expected to (society, friends, parents) |
I believe that if you only believe just because someone else force you to do it, then it doesn't make any sense... I really doubt that someone over his teenagers years can decide in what to believe without fearing society, friends or family... and as I see, most of the ones who are participating here in the poll are older, so... I really hope that people could make up their minds, hearts, senses or whatever to decide what to believe... don't you think...??? |
Actually, I do think. I listen to rock music for sure (main reason) because I've been exposed to rock music in my youth, childhood. Many believers, if I'm correct most of them believes learned it in childhood too. So they believe because they're used to. For them, it's something normal. Of course, there is big percentage of them who actually find it important, useful, find real purpose, these things. But honestly, a lot of them do it BECAUSE they're used to do it. There's no denying in this case I hope.
So I do think that's true what you've said. Take for example me, I'm trying to understand religion and also am advocating atheism a little bit. Maybe, later in life, I'll find something like higher power. Maybe. But I'll find it myself (or with friends, but for sure with consciousness - you know, without being forced to go to church, pray after (or before?) dinner, before going to bed. And this fact, finding it myself is one of the most important things by my opinion And also, Gluttony ISN'T A SIN, it's delight (who knows me know how I mean it and why I'm saying it)
|
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my
|
 |
Marty McFly
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2009
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 3968
|
Posted: December 31 2009 at 14:59 |
Funny, context targeted advert :-) completely relevant
|
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 31 2009 at 20:31 |
JJLehto wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ no problem at all ... I'm simply curious especially with Deists as to what their reasons are for believing. Theists usually have scripture or (reported) revelations. Deists apparently often have impressions from meditation or contemplation, or a general feeling of awe of the wonders of the world.
Well, both those arguments don't work for me. Meditation is something that IMO only offers insight, it's something that happens within a person's mind, and I don't see how it could improve a person's understanding of the universe. And as far as the feeling of awe is concerned: I have it too, but there are so many things that used to be "wondrous" but have long been explained by science. Take the rainbow as an example ... people used to think that God created it as a sign that there would be no more world wide floods (Noah's story). Today I'm confident that most Theists no longer believe in this, and even Deists consider it as a trivial thing. That certainly doesn't mean that a rainbow isn't a beautiful sight ... there's simply no longer anything mystical about it.
|
And don't get me wrong...I'm not on the midnset....god created it and boom!
I am also scientifically minded. Science does explain most things. It was actually a biology class that turned my opinion. The human body is amazing and sure, alot of could be explained but it kept getting smaller and smaller and more crazy until there was no explanation. I guess its a fine line between "we dont know yet" and "no answer". But yeah, it left me with a feeling....this just doesn't make sense to have been assembled over time. Why somethings in the body did what they did, the answer was always...they just do.
So, no meditation, no revelation, I guess my faith (because hey....even if you believe we cant be 100% sure) came from scientific observation. Which makes sense. The idea of Deism was appealing because I always felt faith and science can co-exist and are maybe essential.
|
You mean that the complexity of the human body seems to hint towards the existence of a creator? In that case I would really recommend Dawkins' latest book The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution. It offers in depth explanations and examples of how evolution by natural selection works.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: December 31 2009 at 22:25 |
|
Well again, I need to stress the creator just didn't create these things in a poof.
The universe is not 4,000 years old ya know all that good stuff.
And it may seem crazy....but I believe in evolution, and a creator....
When I have the time/money I will deff buy it. But let me just say I have heard the whole "the human body is proof against the creator because it is NOT intelligently designed". I know the body has its flaws like the knee cap, and the birth canal being wider than the bone cavity it goes through yadda yadda.
I still do not see why evolution could not be part of "the plan".
Or as Deism described it, the creator put the universe in motion...and from that point on it goes on its own.
And for the record I am a senior in college with many classes in biology (natural, organic and body) and anthroplogy. I know what natural selection says and how it works...
Edited by JJLehto - December 31 2009 at 22:26
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 31 2009 at 23:12 |
|
^^^listens quietly to hear Mike tuning up his one note.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: December 31 2009 at 23:26 |
Trademark wrote:
^^^listens quietly to hear Mike tuning up his one note. |
He doesn't appear to have a monopoly on the 'meantone temperament' system either.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 31 2009 at 23:39 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
Trademark wrote:
^^^listens quietly to hear Mike tuning up his one note. |
He doesn't appear to have a monopoly on the 'meantone temperament' system either.
|
That must be related to the "cry wolftone". 
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 02:29 |
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 02:49 |
God might not exist.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 04:37 |
It's very difficult to create dissonance with a single tone ... you need a tritone for that 
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 05:29 |
JJLehto wrote:
Well again, I need to stress the creator just didn't create these things in a poof.
The universe is not 4,000 years old ya know all that good stuff.
And it may seem crazy....but I believe in evolution, and a creator....
When I have the time/money I will deff buy it. But let me just say I have heard the whole "the human body is proof against the creator because it is NOT intelligently designed". I know the body has its flaws like the knee cap, and the birth canal being wider than the bone cavity it goes through yadda yadda.
I still do not see why evolution could not be part of "the plan".
Or as Deism described it, the creator put the universe in motion...and from that point on it goes on its own.
And for the record I am a senior in college with many classes in biology (natural, organic and body) and anthroplogy. I know what natural selection says and how it works...
|
So you already have all the info, and you've seen many examples for the "architectural failures" in our "design". Of course it could be possible that a divine Creator supervised the whole process. But it can all be also explained without that supervision, and this alternative is not only more plausible (because it would explain the flaws in the "design", it's also more probable due to Occam's Razor. And even if you assume the classical Deist position (that some creator put the universe in motion and then walked away) ... who created the creator?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 05:39 |
JJLehto wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ no problem at all ... I'm simply curious especially with Deists as to what their reasons are for believing. Theists usually have scripture or (reported) revelations. Deists apparently often have impressions from meditation or contemplation, or a general feeling of awe of the wonders of the world.
Well, both those arguments don't work for me. Meditation is something that IMO only offers insight, it's something that happens within a person's mind, and I don't see how it could improve a person's understanding of the universe. And as far as the feeling of awe is concerned: I have it too, but there are so many things that used to be "wondrous" but have long been explained by science. Take the rainbow as an example ... people used to think that God created it as a sign that there would be no more world wide floods (Noah's story). Today I'm confident that most Theists no longer believe in this, and even Deists consider it as a trivial thing. That certainly doesn't mean that a rainbow isn't a beautiful sight ... there's simply no longer anything mystical about it.
|
And don't get me wrong...I'm not on the midnset....god created it and boom!
I am also scientifically minded. Science does explain most things. It was actually a biology class that turned my opinion. The human body is amazing and sure, alot of could be explained but it kept getting smaller and smaller and more crazy until there was no explanation. I guess its a fine line between "we dont know yet" and "no answer". But yeah, it left me with a feeling....this just doesn't make sense to have been assembled over time. Why somethings in the body did what they did, the answer was always...they just do.
So, no meditation, no revelation, I guess my faith (because hey....even if you believe we cant be 100% sure) came from scientific observation. Which makes sense. The idea of Deism was appealing because I always felt faith and science can co-exist and are maybe essential.
|
Deism can certainly co-exist with science ... it's still a position that can't be tested or falsified, but at least it's completely metaphysical and does not have any significance in our daily lives, it doesn't imply the existence of miracles, it doesn't say what happens when we die and how to live in order to achieve eternal life etc.. The only "beef" I have with it, like I mentioned in the previous post, is the problem of who created the creator ... but maybe the human mind is simply incapable of imagining that something exists without an environment of any kind. After all, if I assumed a "Non-Deist" position then I would essentially be saying that the universe simply exists, without a cause. It's not a satisfying answer either ... So my position as an Atheist is that I don't know whether the universe has a creator or not. Given the history of human assumptions about creators having turned out to be wrong, and natural causes replacing these theories, I'm more confident in the naturalistic view, but like I hinted to above, that may create a problem of infinite regression in itself. In any way, it has no significance for our daily lives.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 05:41 |
Trademark wrote:
^^^listens quietly to hear Mike tuning up his one note. |
The master of allegations and insinuations speaketh again. 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 12:23 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ no problem at all ... I'm simply curious especially with Deists as to what their reasons are for believing. Theists usually have scripture or (reported) revelations. Deists apparently often have impressions from meditation or contemplation, or a general feeling of awe of the wonders of the world.
Well, both those arguments don't work for me. Meditation is something that IMO only offers insight, it's something that happens within a person's mind, and I don't see how it could improve a person's understanding of the universe. And as far as the feeling of awe is concerned: I have it too, but there are so many things that used to be "wondrous" but have long been explained by science. Take the rainbow as an example ... people used to think that God created it as a sign that there would be no more world wide floods (Noah's story). Today I'm confident that most Theists no longer believe in this, and even Deists consider it as a trivial thing. That certainly doesn't mean that a rainbow isn't a beautiful sight ... there's simply no longer anything mystical about it.
|
And don't get me wrong...I'm not on the midnset....god created it and boom!
I am also scientifically minded. Science does explain most things. It was actually a biology class that turned my opinion. The human body is amazing and sure, alot of could be explained but it kept getting smaller and smaller and more crazy until there was no explanation. I guess its a fine line between "we dont know yet" and "no answer". But yeah, it left me with a feeling....this just doesn't make sense to have been assembled over time. Why somethings in the body did what they did, the answer was always...they just do.
So, no meditation, no revelation, I guess my faith (because hey....even if you believe we cant be 100% sure) came from scientific observation. Which makes sense. The idea of Deism was appealing because I always felt faith and science can co-exist and are maybe essential.
|
Deism can certainly co-exist with science ... it's still a position that can't be tested or falsified, but at least it's completely metaphysical and does not have any significance in our daily lives, it doesn't imply the existence of miracles, it doesn't say what happens when we die and how to live in order to achieve eternal life etc.. The only "beef" I have with it, like I mentioned in the previous post, is the problem of who created the creator ... but maybe the human mind is simply incapable of imagining that something exists without an environment of any kind. After all, if I assumed a "Non-Deist" position then I would essentially be saying that the universe simply exists, without a cause. It's not a satisfying answer either ...
So my position as an Atheist is that I don't know whether the universe has a creator or not. Given the history of human assumptions about creators having turned out to be wrong, and natural causes replacing these theories, I'm more confident in the naturalistic view, but like I hinted to above, that may create a problem of infinite regression in itself. In any way, it has no significance for our daily lives.
|
Man's actions alone have painted the idea of gods and need for gods into a corner that is becoming smaller with each increase in our level of understanding. We have done this through-out history - the old gods were not displaced by new gods or stronger old gods in a divine battle royal, they were found not to fit the new knowledge and consigned to the "not needed on the journey" bin of mythology by man. In recent history there has been no need to topple the old gods, since those that are left are niche gods in their respective locations, so new discovery errodes away at the belief systems that support the remaining gods, creating newer belief systems, or disregarding the new data because it conflicts with an existing belief system.
This theological reductionism is a continuous process that took man from worshipping the sun and moon, the gods of rivers and mountains to the various pantheons of ancient cultures to monotheism and all the way to deism (or pantheism or panentheism ... I'm still struggling to differentiate those three as being separate states rather than variants of the same assumption arrived at by different routes - however I have no need to differentiate between them any more than a monotheist needs to differentiate between the polytheist pantheons of ancient Greece, Rome or Scandinavia).
The end result of this process will never be atheism, (so I disagree (slightly) with Mike that deism is the same as agnosticism or panentheism is tantamount to atheism - they are asymptotic), some vestige of the need for a divine entity can be placed somewhere in the unknown; regardless of how far science advances our knowledge of the unknown, there will always be another unknown beneath it for man to latch onto and call god if he so desires. None of this will remove the idea of gods, the need for gods nor the desire for gods to exist.
However, what this process has done as a by-product is to remove man from the centre of everything. The more knowledge man has of the Universe the more man is pushed to the sidelines, which not only reduces man's relationship to the Universe, but questions his relationship to the gods and those gods relationship to man. This comes into direct conflict with every concept of every religion and why such knowledge is so threatening to established religions, (eg why evolution is such a thorn in their sides). All religions are human-centric, they are there for the betterment of mankind in one form or another - once mankind stops being the centre of the Universe, then religions themselves stop being at the centre of humanity and the gods' position in the Universe comes under question. Deism is the last grasp at this human-centric view of the Universe - putting a god at the centre of the singularity moments before the creation of the Universe re-establishes man's position as the raison d'être for everything and putting a god at every wondrous stage in the evolution of life has the same effect on a broader scale, (which in many respects is akin to prehistoric man putting a god in every natural phenomena (sun, wind, water etc) within his known, self-contained, Universe).
So my position as an Atheist is not that I don't know whether the Universe has a creator or not, (that is a non-question), but that I can look at the whole picture and accept that during the development of human knowledge the need and the idea of gods were a inevitable step for which they never needed to actually exist at all.
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 12:39 |
|
But still, your last sentence indicates that you share my position. You are an Atheist, and that you assume that the Theist god is imaginary. You are not completely denying its existence (as a Post-Theist you say that you are "beyond" these discussions), but you suggest that the Theist god most likely just exists in the minds of its followers.
As I said above, in an discussion that is essentially about whether you're a Theist or not (which would be any discussion about religion, as the word is commonly used), I don't make much difference between Deists and Atheists simply because the difference is entirely metaphysical (call it esoteric if you will) with absolutely no implications for our lives as humans, or for scientific discoveries. If a Deist says there are such implications, then he's really a Theist.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 14:43 |
stonebeard wrote:
God might not exist.
Discuss. |
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 14:45 |
^ there's not much to discuss for me there, since I agree with the statement. 
|
|
alphawave10
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 26 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 34
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 19:53 |
|
The main problem with religion is that you either believe or you don't. There are no gray areas, because it is a personal thing, a bit like music.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 01 2010 at 21:10 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
But still, your last sentence indicates that you share my position. You are an Atheist, and that you assume that the Theist god is imaginary. You are not completely denying its existence (as a Post-Theist you say that you are "beyond" these discussions), but you suggest that the Theist god most likely just exists in the minds of its followers. |
That's an interpretation. Probably not the one I was intending, but close enough. I never said nor implied "most likely", though that is one of the milder conclusions. A theist would not use the words "may","might", "likely", "assume" and neither would an atheist - they are agnostic words. I am not assuming the theist gods are imaginary, I am saying that not only does every shred of evidence that supports the existence of gods come from the imagination of man, that the need for gods and idea of gods also comes from the mind of man. This is more fundamental than just saying gods do not exist, this is saying that the whole concept of gods and worship comes from the mind of man.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
As I said above, in an discussion that is essentially about whether you're a Theist or not (which would be any discussion about religion, as the word is commonly used), I don't make much difference between Deists and Atheists simply because the difference is entirely metaphysical (call it esoteric if you will) with absolutely no implications for our lives as humans, or for scientific discoveries. If a Deist says there are such implications, then he's really a Theist.
|
If you countenance that a god may exist, or might exist then I cannot see how that makes you an atheist, that's agnosticism, if a deist holds that a god does exist, but does not interact with the universe and it's critters, then they are still a theist, because there is no corroborated evidence that a theist's gods interact with the universe either. Isn't the difference between a theist and an atheist entirely metaphysical?
Edited by Dean - January 01 2010 at 21:12
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 02 2010 at 06:44 |
^ I haven't seen any of the "New Atheists" say that god does not exist. The modern Atheist position is that of a very extreme Agnostic: You can't disprove the existence of a god, but there is no good reason to believe that there is one. All the Theist God theories are riddled with inconsistencies and based on highly improbable and unproved miracle stories, and history is full of examples of gaps in our knowledge that had been attributed to the divine for centuries, until a naturalistic explanation was found. Apply a good dose of common sense in the form of Occam's Razor, and the result will be that while you cannot disprove god, you can - for your practical life - make the assumption that there is no god, until you see some very good reason to assume otherwise. Edit: And about the Deist position: Of course there is no good reason to believe that either. If you suppose an "Einsteinian" point of view ... I could agree with that, but it's simply a form of appreciation for how complex and beautiful our world is, and how it exceeds our capabilities, evolved apes as we are, to comprehend it. I like that position, but ultimately you of course have the problem of infinite regression (Who created the Deist god). Here Occam's Razor also applies: As strange as it may seem: Maybe there really was no first cause. Of course these discussions always depend on how you define words like "Atheist" or "Agnostic", but I think you know what I mean.
Dean wrote:
If you countenance that a god may exist, or might exist then I cannot
see how that makes you an atheist, that's agnosticism, if a deist holds
that a god does exist, but does not interact with the universe and it's
critters, then they are still a theist, because there is no
corroborated evidence that a theist's gods interact with the universe
either. Isn't the difference between a theist and an atheist entirely
metaphysical? |
See the beginning of this post in regard to the part that I put in bold letters. I completely agree with the part in italics. As far as the last bit is concerned: Theists make the assumption that not only there is a God, but that it also interacts with the physical world. The afterlife is also such an interaction, since the concept makes the assumption that we, who are part of the physical world, enter another plane of existence after we die. Or you explain it with the concept of a "soul", which is part of the supernatural and somehow injected into our physical body upon birth and then returns to the supernatural world when we die. So I agree with what you said, but I would add that for Theists the metaphysical interacts with the physical. For them God manifests in the physical world, and especially the Christian belief would not have found such widespread acceptance in the Roman empire if it hadn't been for the miracles.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - January 02 2010 at 06:48
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
