This is one thread where I have not read any responses before posting this, though I plan to afterword since I feel every viewpoint deserves to be pondered. My reasoning for this switch-up is to preserve my opinion without the influences of frustration, since admittedly some opinions on this matter can easily irk people, thus swaying their view temporarily.
Following the quote in my signature, I'll try to keep my response as short and concise as possible while expressing my views.. No promises on the short, or concise part, since again as the quote suggests, in order to explain something simply you must understand it completely, and I feel no person understands this topic enough to do so.
As for formatting, I'll try to keep it easily readable, since even the most interesting topics can be turned on due to walls of text.
I'll open up with I do not believe in a higher being. I was brought up in an open minded family with many views on the matter. For example my mother is Wiccan. Each had their shots to seed their views in my head as a child, but none stuck with me. Looking back this doesn't surprise me, I was the kid who never believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any other fantasy being, including a God. This isn't to say I didn't have my brief time where other peoples opinions swayed me. During my young teens most of my friends where from very religious families, which sadly were the kind of people who liked to try and push their views on young minds. After so many speeches about God, Heaven, Hell, and the punishments I'd receive if I stay on my path, purely out of fear I picked up the concept for a solid year or so, and started going to Church with family members, praying when I wanted something to change, and fearing that someone was always looking down on me when I did bad, and praising me when I did good, this should have been the reason I wanted to be a good person. This belief didn't last long, I knew it was out of fear, and when I grew strong enough to stand up to that I stopped everything cold turkey.
Enough of my history on the matter, since that's not what this topic is about.
More on point, I don't see any reason to believe in a God if you're wise enough. The concept seems to lend itself to mans fear of death, love of power, and subtle yet primal will to do good. I feel these three core concepts drive the wide spread adoption of a higher being. Mind you I'm putting this together on the fly, I don't have a set thought process on this matter, I just feel these three concepts explain my view well.
There's death, which no man wants to face. The concept of an afterlife puts this fear to ease. Now this leads to some interesting actions on people's behalf. In some, or even most cases, this has a positive influence on society. In most religions people are encouraged to do good in order to receive some wort of reward. Than there are the religions where people are encouraged to cause harm, these thankfully are the minority. Either way it shows that people are so afraid of death and or suffering, that they're willing to live their lives under a set of rules to be rewarded in one way or another. Be it blind faith or not, this has its up side, but also opens people up to being controlled, which brings me to my next point.
There's power, this subject is more complicated, so I'll try to keep it straight forward. There are many ways this manifests when talking about religion, I'll list the negative first. There are corrupt leaders, corrupt systems, and bending of the guidelines of the religion to take advantage of its' people. All of these have been seen very publicly in recent history. There is also I believe some reasoning in this to why parents push their views on children. Be it subconscious or not, I feel some parents do this because they need control in their life. This goes beyond just their kids and religion, but I feel if the parent is lacking control in their life, this is just another way to try and find it. By teaching their kids their views they not only get a sense of satisfaction by passing on their knowledge, but also are hoping their kids follow the religions views throughout their lives, thus making it easier for the parent to give reason behind why things should be done a certain way. This isn't always a bad thing, again most religions encourage good things. It's when this concept is brought too far, or the child doesn't accept their parents views that things can get rough. This is another topic though. I guess I kinda got into the good in there also, so in general I'll just state this concept does have it's pros also.
Then there's the will to do good. This is what I feel holds the world together, be it religion of otherwise. Speaking of religion though, whether it be a side effect of appeasing the God(s) or not, it's one part of religion that I'm glad exists. Most religions have a set of rules, commandments, etc, in which you follow to get a reward. This reward varies from an after life, to powers, among many other things. Thankfully most of these rules are to do good, helping others, not doing bad, general good manners. I won't go into this too far because it's pretty obvious.
Put those three together and I feel you get what one needs to believe, if you're close minded enough to do so.
If you're more open minded and down to Earth, I believe you flip those things around, and see them for how they really are.
Death; it's something worthy to be feared. The concept that you end and that's it is pretty saddening. I feel though this is what makes life so damn beautiful. By accepting this I've spent my life looking at things so much differently than others. Everything, good or bad, is an experience, something can be learned from it, and for no other reason than I know it will improve my life. Not for some God, not to appease any higher being, but just because I love living, and I want to improve the quality in which I do so. Death makes life beautiful, and I think after you accept that it very well could be the very end, life becomes so much more real.
Power; again, even on the flip side of things this topic is complicated. From a non-believers side power has similarities and differences with a believers side of it. It can still corrupt, and often does for the same reason, people want it and when they have it they'll do anything to keep it. Though there's key differences also, which again is a whole other topic. To keep this concise, I'm not going to list these reasons, because I feel they're too far of the topic. One could easily think of some though, the roll of power from an Atheists point of view. Just think selfless thoughts, and they'll come to you.
The will to do good; thankfully this is embedded in most of us. It makes us feel good to do good. In fact many times it feels better to do good for others than it does to do good for only ourselves. I find it saddening though that this isn't enough, it seems there needs to be more incentive for people to act on this. This is a huge reason why even though I don't agree with religion as a whole, I feel it is necessary for humanity right now. We're simply not selfless enough to do good without punishments for not doing so, and rewards for doing so. Maybe we're getting close though, as time moves on we're starting to see people act on nothing more than good nature, with no religious ends. There is also bad things happening in this concept, but there will never be all good or all bad in a species.
On another front all together, I feel religion steals powerful experiences form us, and stamps it with its' ownership. The term "religious experience" itself puts ownership to epiphanies. Every now and then in ones' life through a powerful, and often extremely good, bad, or deep experience we come to a big conclusion. In this moment it all seems clear, the dots line up, and all the sudden you're sure about something. In many cases people call this "finding God", or a "spiritual awakening". I feel these terms steal from the true nature of these beautiful events. To put in personally, I feel it's when you finally get enough pieces of the puzzle to see the picture as a whole, it is your brain saying "Whoa, now that makes sense!".
To draw a quote this video, "When I compare what scientific knowledge has done for me, and what religion tried to do to me, I sometimes literally shiver." I posted that video a while ago here, and I hope you watch it. It's not perfect, it doesn't reflect exactly how I feel, and frankly I don't like his cockiness on the matter, but it's a good watch none the less.
If we as a species could accept science as the only truths we'll ever come across, the fact that science itself is still far, far, so damn far from all knowing, and the fact that furthering it is the only way to move our species forward, I feel there won't be a need for religion. I do believe it will happen one day, when life is accepted to be short, and sweet, that there is near infinite unknown, that living our lives healthily and well shouldn't have to be a rule to happen, and that it doesn't matter if everything will one day end; the fact that you're living well, and helping others in one way or another should be enough to make this life worth it, not for any end means of heaven, or other rewards. Accepting pressing facts like death and the eventual end of everything is the only way to truly live.
When we're ready to see this, it'll happen naturally.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Why is it whenever an atheist refers to the idea of god, it's always a sweeping generalization that creates these clear lines of division like "no crazy heaven or bearded jesus".
Do you really think that if there really was a god, really was an afterlife, that it would be something that your physical being could conceive and easily brush off with it's lack of complexity do to it's laughable ideas of a man sitting on a throne?
Why do atheists always seem to attack the fundamental, elementary concepts of god? It's as if the two extremes are always at war. Atheists take their shots at the hardcore religious nutjobs and the hardcore religious folks have the most hatred for the non believer. Why do atheists never seem to want to discuss more abstract ideas rooted in different ideologies? Obviously I'm not referring to you Proletaria. You know even more about this stuff than I do.
I think there's a grey area that most atheists tend to avoid because of a lack of knowledge. I don't claim to know anything. I do choose to believe in a higher existence and a sort of afterlife. But who knows really.
We'll find out when we die.
And because of that, why do people rush to label themselves? Why not just wait and find out? Why take a stance to specifically set yourself apart from others who could be right. But really you have no idea if you're right, if they're right, or if we're ALL wrong. I would rather admit that "I have no clue" than say "Well, given this evidence and this and that, THIS must be the answer...At least thats what I think." At the end of the day all "evidence" is nothing more than reaching.
Religious view: I donno, maybe
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Good post, gets the brain thinking Seems we are relatively on the same page, just a little different in opinion over the evolution timescale. I do agree anything is 'possible' given enough chance, no laws/boundaries, and enough time, but I don't think that this universe has no laws/boundaries. Which is also where we are in agreement.
In response on a few of the items.
One word - decomposition
Missed my point a little on this one, it takes a while for a body/skeleton that has not been consumed by another animal to decompose. If there were billions of animals dying daily due to the ridiculous amount of uncontrolled evolution that would need to occur to ensure the end result manifested in something that would function correctly and not make the animal explode the volume of dead animals would quickly outweigh the available space/time/parasites needed to consume the dead.
Agreed and I did miss your point but I think it still stands to a degree. There are billions of "animals" (better term would be organisms) dying every day... of these not all have skeletons - breakdown occurs very rapidly. Evolution doesn't cause death it happens because of an unfavourable variation causing an organism not to survive... ie a slow zebra vs a fast zebra being chased by a lion... the fast will survive the slow will not - natural selection in action. Thus animals will die but not at the rate you are expecting because it is not just a case of unfavourable variation = death but rather unfavourable variation increases the likelihood of death under certain situations. Evolution is occuring but at a very slow rate with very small variations. Undetectable most times but slowly building up.
It wouldn't but as you say the chances of it occuring successfully are minute such that it may occur only once... also once we do have something in existence then that thing in existence will compete with the newly evolved thing and only the most capable one of surviving would survive.
Not all the time, an ecosystem is all about organisms working together to create a sustainable environment. Everything in existence that had once evolved would continue to evolve regardless, they would of course have the same predators, and if we are talking about growing longer legs or dying because a fish just turned into a lion and its bigger then you so you better run faster fair enough haha...but there are plenty of 'evolutions' which would not be classed as direct competition with its predecessor. Which would theoretically continue happening despite a successful batch of kiddies.
There is a bit of tank/anti tank to evolution between species... however there is also intraspecific competition (ie competition within the species). If one member can survive and reproduce better than another then he/she is going to have more offspring with his/her variations in the next generation which will over time lead to a total increase over many generations of those variations in the population.
The other question is, what defines a stoppage to the cells expanding and continuing the evolution of that particular leg/arm/head/organ/whatever? In my mind it would be the same as a cancer, just a reeaallllly slow one, if not controlled by something.
Cells are limited to a certain size because as they increase the SA/vol ratio of said cells decreases and thus the efficiency of diffusion of materials into the cell and wastes out of the cell also decreases and eventually lack of resources/ waste build up and the cell dies.
As far as why do cells not continue growing well now you are moving into how are genes controlling the growth and development of things...something science is still working out fully. I suppose the question you are forwarding is whether there is there a divine control? how could we tell if it was put there by God or developed without? There really is no way of proving that one way or the other sorry to say.
Evolution is still occuring today it is just that over the time line of the scientific observation we struggle to see this. Support for evolution can come from numerous areas -- take dogs for example... hundreds of different varieties yet all the same species... lots of variation... how did that variation come about - through specific breeding choices... humans have been at it for 1000's of years and they are all still the same species but given enough time those variations would eventually lead to animals that couldn't breed with one another and create a fertile offspring and therefore we would have a new species.
Yep I understand, I mean I know plants combine to form new 'species' too, but they are still plants, its not like a plant has grown a leg or anything. I was referring more to the evolution of something unseen, something new...evolutionary! Not a different colour coat of hair hehe. I classify this more as mutation though thats about where my knowledge ends, im sure there are clearly defined boundaries between mutation and evolution.
When I think of evolution the way they portray it in documentaries, media etc.. its always a struggle between species to survive, eat or be eaten. Now if I was a fish and another fish got a bigger tail or whatever and started eating me, and I in my little fish head somehow managed to realise I needed spines to scare that fish off, do you think there would have been enough time for that fish to develop spines before it got eaten out of existence?
Humans are doing a pretty awesome job at killing every living creature on the planet, it would make sense to me if it was a time where animals would be thinking in their heads they need to evolve some crazy ass stuff, now would be the time! I would have thought at least sheep or cows would have evolved some poison glands or something.
Either way its such an amazing world, imagine what it will be like in another 1000 years when all our children have to study is buildings. Urgh.
Ok gonna try and pull this apart a bit more for you... using your examples. If you had a big fish eating the little fish... then yes the little fish would not have time to develop spines... however if there were members of that species that had small variations that enabled them to avoid being eaten... better camouflage, bony bumps on somewhere making it harder to chew them, etc then over time those variations would become more common in the population while those fish without them would die out... You are correct in saying though that if we do get a very sudden change then animals may not be able to survive... in fact we count on it to kill bacteria... antibiotics kill the bacteria before they can adapt to the changed environment...
The main thing to remember with evolution is that the time scale for these things to occur are immense... humans are a blip on the timescale of earth. Animals don't think about adapting to a situation rather it just happens (natural selection)... so animals can't just evolve but rather the ones with traits that allow them to survive will do so while those that don't, won't. And those traits will become more common in the population over time.
Why is it whenever an atheist refers to the idea of god, it's always a sweeping generalization that creates these clear lines of division like "no crazy heaven or bearded jesus".
I know personally I just use common examples, like Heaven or Jesus. The concepts in general though are pretty clearly defined I feel, they are either rewards or punishments in which there is no proof of and often lead to terrible happenings among difference religions. Not to mention they change over time as the religion develops, which when speaking of the people who follow the hard copy rules kind of makes no sense.. The simple fact that they change over time should raise a red flag that they're not from anything other than the minds of people.
Why do atheists always seem to attack the fundamental, elementary concepts of god? It's as if the two extremes are always at war. Atheists take their shots at the hardcore religious nutjobs and the hardcore religious folks have the most hatred for the non believer. Why do atheists never seem to want to discuss more abstract ideas rooted in different ideologies? Obviously I'm not referring to you Proletaria. You know even more about this stuff than I do.
Again speaking for myself, I would love to discuss the gray areas. I hope that's there this topic goes.
And because of that, why do people rush to label themselves? Why not just wait and find out? Why take a stance to specifically set yourself apart from others who could be right. But really you have no idea if you're right, if they're right, or if we're ALL wrong. I would rather admit that "I have no clue" than say "Well, given this evidence and this and that, THIS must be the answer...At least thats what I think." At the end of the day all "evidence" is nothing more than reaching.
Well, turns out all my responses are going to be of myself lol, big surprise right? :P. I personally dislike religion as a whole for not only the reasons I listed in my last post, but also because I feel believing in anything that crutches a fear, or is based on nothing more than faith is unhealthy for the furthering of our understanding of those unknown concepts. Accepting reality how we understand it, and not settling for "Well idk, so screw it" is a huge way we push our understanding of reality.
I accept that I have no clue if there is or isn't a God, and have no grounds other than human logic (which could be hugely flawed) to speak of. One thing I'd like to bring up on this though, is you're never forced to prove a negative, only positives. So on this front this concept as a whole of believing in something unproven, and so influential on our world I feel deserves all the attention it can get.
EDIT:
To quote a person more wise than myself, my last point lends itself to Ayn Rand and her short segment in a five part interview on various topics in which she was asked about religion.
She touches on better then I why we should't just wait it out and accept that we don't know if anyone is right, when people are committing to things that not only can't be proven, but cause harm to both society and furthering our understanding of the reality around us.
Whether or not you agree with her religious views, one has to admit she is a brilliant philosopher. If anyone who choices to click on that link above hasn't seen that five part interview, or heard or her in general, I urge you to at least watch the who interview. A person that down to Earth should be learned about in order to, again, further your understanding of the reality around you, be it religious or otherwise.
Just to be clear, since I do come across so set in my opinions, I am very open minded. When I am shown something of depth and value, I take it in, I don't push my views out and over anothers' if theirs have legitimate claims. If a point is brought up that knocks a leg from under my chair of reason, I will happily fall.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
I consider myself a pantheist of sorts. I don't know in which category does that fall. Since we are on it, I'm not really familiarized with religious terms, so forgive any mistake or misuse of words.
I believe that "god" is everything, the whole universe and the laws that govern it. My "god" doesn't have a name, intention or purpose; its only quality is existing. I use quotation marks because it's not a god in the normal way; it's not antropomorphic, it doesn't have a master plan or expects you to behave in a certain way, it doesn't look upon us. I know those characteristics don't define all "normal" gods, but I think I got my point across. My god is not a person.
So what is it? God (I'm going to stop using "my", just imagine it's there) is many things. First, it's the universe, or better yet, it's the fact that the universe exists, which I find pretty amazing. It's not the creator of the universe, it's the characteristic of its existance. It's also the answer to those kind of questions the science will never be able to answer (I think the correct term is metaphysics.) Why is the universe made out of atoms (or whatever it is actually made of)? Why is the speed of light 300k m/s, and not some other random number? Why does gravity, or even mass exist? Why does energy and monumentum conserve? God is all those answers. It all seems so random.
As to proving it's existance, just look around. I know it's not actually proof enough, but it's the best I can do.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In a sense we are all divine. We are all connected to the universe and products of a chain of events that led to this moment. The science of the universe is so perfect it all played out in a distinct way, garnered by a distinct set of rules. How can a state of being above all and apart of all possibly have wants and needs. It just is.
I don't see how we can be the product of a coddling being that necessitates unruly punishments for petty desires, or requires constant indulgence of prayer, monetary bestowment and vain monuments. We place the divine in a level beyond us, and yet we insist on humanizing it such odd ways. But that is how I perceive it.
Also, I don't really think we can all see the image of a god in the same way. That is truly stupid to imagine and the idea of a universal religion is nonsensical. I mean, look at how we have grown as a species, even in the span of only a thousand or even a hundred years. Today we see things in a totally different light that the people who wrote the bible, we don't even speak the same language anymore (and by language I mean our state of minds and how our society understands one another).
That even holds true today. A person who lived his entire life in rural China family man is so different from a rich, bachelor New York businessman, or even Bear Grylls who takes nature by the horns, these three people are practically alien to one another. So how can you expect their spirituality to be the same. They each understand the world and the universe around them in complete unique perspectives, so how can you possibly expect them to experience a god in the same way?
Also, I don't really think we can all see the image of a god in the same way. That is truly stupid to imagine and the idea of a universal religion is nonsensical. I mean, look at how we have grown as a species, even in the span of only a thousand or even a hundred years. Today we see things in a totally different light that the people who wrote the bible, we don't even speak the same language anymore (and by language I mean our state of minds and how our society understands one another).
That even holds true today. A person who lived his entire life in rural China family man is so different from a rich, bachelor New York businessman, or even Bear Grylls who takes nature by the horns, these three people are practically alien to one another. So how can you expect their spirituality to be the same. They each understand the world and the universe around them in complete unique perspectives, so how can you possibly expect them to experience a god in the same way?
You have a solid point, and this is why I believe in Objectivism form a philosophic stand point, and wish more people knew about it. To spell it out shortly, we have to ask, what it philosophy? Philosophy is the science of the nature of existence. Objectivism is (as any philosophy) a base of basic concepts which guides your life, and gives you the principles to make your own choices. It tells you that the reality you perceive exists, that your understanding of it should be based on knowledge, nothing should be taken on faith, and a man's reason is his most powerful tool.
I think everyone, from any background, has a basic reasoning in which they can pull from if it's not covered up by other peoples' views in which they were taught. That could lead into tradition, which I also think is a foolish thing in most cases. Why should I eat fish during a certain time of the year, what good does that do me if I dislike fish? Different topic X( *pulls hands off keyboard*.
Anyway, I think Objectivism is as close as any one has gotten yet to a clear lens in which ti view the world. I'm sure it will change over time with new philosophies, but that is part of Objectivism, if the change is rational and for the better, than it should happen.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Matter cannot be created without energy, and energy cannot be created... Only change forms. Simply put, science creates a paradox in which we should and cannot exist without a higher power. God may not be a being on a throne... He may not even have the capacity to be self aware... But science points to the fact that something sparked the universe/ multiverse/ big bang.
You can try to reply and question god's origin... But that logic is flawed. If he/it lies outside of the rules of realitivistic physics.. then time does not appt and no origin is required.
It is quite honestly more simple minded to claim there is no god than to worship the great pumpkin.
All you are saying is that we don't yet understand what the universe was like before the big bang. It must be possible for matter to be created, because matter "exists" right now. We only experience matter changing forms and being converted to energy, but somehow the matter got created in the first place. Our universe may be the result of a previous universe that collapsed back on itself, maybe there have been N universes prior to ours.
God is not a solution/answer to this mystery any more than ancient greeks blaming things on celestial movements.
In all this no matter how many universes there were you eventually have to come back to a beginning... at least as we understand time and space. Thus from a human perspective there has to have been something to kick start all of this... was it a divine creator... possibly (In fact I personally think so)... or was it something else... if so what is that something else?
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even if the universe continually collapses and expands... at some point time, matter, and energy needs an origin because it belongs to a universe governed by relativistic physics. In order for all that we know about science to be true... everything that we know and understand about relativistic phyiscs/ quantum physics needs to hold true under all cases within the universe. If this does not... then science itself is flawed and our entire understanding of the universe is flawed.
As I said earlier. God (which again is not a guy sitting on a throne) does not need to be governed by the laws of physics, and therefore does not need an origin. If god created time... why would he need to exist within it?
PS: Aethiesm is an oxy-moron. Most aethiests truely are not aethiests after all. Science is in and of itself a religion. Just like being unable to prove god, you are unable to prove science. You can never prove a fact 100%, you can only disprove something. This said, science is the fundamental creator for all these aethiests and therefore becomes a god.
Also, I don't really think we can all see the image of a god in the same way. That is truly stupid to imagine and the idea of a universal religion is nonsensical. I mean, look at how we have grown as a species, even in the span of only a thousand or even a hundred years. Today we see things in a totally different light that the people who wrote the bible, we don't even speak the same language anymore (and by language I mean our state of minds and how our society understands one another).
That even holds true today. A person who lived his entire life in rural China family man is so different from a rich, bachelor New York businessman, or even Bear Grylls who takes nature by the horns, these three people are practically alien to one another. So how can you expect their spirituality to be the same. They each understand the world and the universe around them in complete unique perspectives, so how can you possibly expect them to experience a god in the same way?
You have a solid point, and this is why I believe in Objectivism form a philosophic stand point, and wish more people knew about it. To spell it out shortly, we have to ask, what it philosophy? Philosophy is the science of the nature of existence. Objectivism is (as any philosophy) a base of basic concepts which guides your life, and gives you the principles to make your own choices. It tells you that the reality you perceive exists, that your understanding of it should be based on knowledge, nothing should be taken on faith, and a man's reason is his most powerful tool.
I think everyone, from any background, has a basic reasoning in which they can pull from if it's not covered up by other peoples' views in which they were taught. That could lead into tradition, which I also think is a foolish thing in most cases. Why should I eat fish during a certain time of the year, what good does that do me if I dislike fish? Different topic X( *pulls hands off keyboard*.
Anyway, I think Objectivism is as close as any one has gotten yet to a clear lens in which ti view the world. I'm sure it will change over time with new philosophies, but that is part of Objectivism, if the change is rational and for the better, than it should happen.
Winged you raise an interesting point with philosophy... want to ask you about 2 points you raised... just to give me some clarity on the philosophy itself.
1. In every situation there is going to be other people's views that influence our own... drawing this backward in time ... where did the first person's views come from? Was that individual truly unique and creative to come up with all the ideas we have today? Where did the basics of thought come from? Why are humans the only ones to have ideas about God/No God? How does objectivism deal with this?
2. Objectivism -- the reality you percieve exists... therefore if I perceive a reality in which there is a God does that mean there must be one? Or does it only deal with physical things? This seems a rather limiting theory if that is the case... what about something that no-one has experienced yet??? does that mean it does not exist? lets take our neutrinos travelling faster than light... they have been doing so since... forever... however objectivism would say that this could not have been until we found a way to test it?? is that correct?
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even if the universe continually collapses and expands... at some point time, matter, and energy needs an origin because it belongs to a universe governed by relativistic physics. In order for all that we know about science to be true... everything that we know and understand about relativistic phyiscs/ quantum physics needs to hold true under all cases within the universe. If this does not... then science itself is flawed and our entire understanding of the universe is flawed.
As I said earlier. God (which again is not a guy sitting on a throne) does not need to be governed by the laws of physics, and therefore does not need an origin. If god created time... why would he need to exist within it?
PS: Aethiesm is an oxy-moron. Most aethiests truely are not aethiests after all. Science is in and of itself a religion. Just like being unable to prove god, you are unable to prove science. You can never prove a fact 100%, you can only disprove something. This said, science is the fundamental creator for all these aethiests and therefore becomes a god.
Our knowledge, however limited, is the only logical thing to base our decisions on. Yes, it's likely that all of our science will one day be proven wrong, or at least incomplete, this isn't a new concept. This isn't to say we're completely wrong about everything though, if you believe this than you fall within the the philosophical group called Antirealists, where to put it very simply, claim that science itself is isn't worthy of being proclaimed as factual. Not all facts are based off science though, take mathematics, 2+2=4 correct? It takes no reasoning or science to come to that conclusion. If you pinch yourself it hurts, right? Which means your nerves are sending signals to your brain, which responds through a complex system of nano electro static charges and allows you to feel pain, that is science. But in its basic form, the question takes no form of reasoning to answer. Since we can predict these happens, that 2+2=4 and pinching yourself causes pain, and all things of the like, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reality we live in has a constant, and thus can be studied, and learned about, and means that facts do exist. This constant can and will change over time (lots of time), but this again falls under the concept of a solid reality in which we live. Of course there are still near infinite things we know nothing about, but using anything but reason to ponder them is a shame, since reason is the only thing that has guided our race this far.
Even the most profound, out of the box thoughts that can be mentioned, can be classified, and broken down into some branch of philosophy in which it can be reasonably looked at. Your view leads to nothing but dead ends, and doesn't use any of our races' hard earned knowledge to stand on. Metaphysics is indeed a branch in itself, and pretty much where this thread would fall under, so outside thoughts are good, and I'm not condemning you at all, just putting my views in as well.
Also, science is not a religion, in any sense. Science is the tool in which we use to understand happenings in nature, that it all. Philosophy 1 in county college covers this right off the bat.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Also, I don't really think we can all see the image of a god in the same way. That is truly stupid to imagine and the idea of a universal religion is nonsensical. I mean, look at how we have grown as a species, even in the span of only a thousand or even a hundred years. Today we see things in a totally different light that the people who wrote the bible, we don't even speak the same language anymore (and by language I mean our state of minds and how our society understands one another).
That even holds true today. A person who lived his entire life in rural China family man is so different from a rich, bachelor New York businessman, or even Bear Grylls who takes nature by the horns, these three people are practically alien to one another. So how can you expect their spirituality to be the same. They each understand the world and the universe around them in complete unique perspectives, so how can you possibly expect them to experience a god in the same way?
You have a solid point, and this is why I believe in Objectivism form a philosophic stand point, and wish more people knew about it. To spell it out shortly, we have to ask, what it philosophy? Philosophy is the science of the nature of existence. Objectivism is (as any philosophy) a base of basic concepts which guides your life, and gives you the principles to make your own choices. It tells you that the reality you perceive exists, that your understanding of it should be based on knowledge, nothing should be taken on faith, and a man's reason is his most powerful tool.
I think everyone, from any background, has a basic reasoning in which they can pull from if it's not covered up by other peoples' views in which they were taught. That could lead into tradition, which I also think is a foolish thing in most cases. Why should I eat fish during a certain time of the year, what good does that do me if I dislike fish? Different topic X( *pulls hands off keyboard*.
Anyway, I think Objectivism is as close as any one has gotten yet to a clear lens in which ti view the world. I'm sure it will change over time with new philosophies, but that is part of Objectivism, if the change is rational and for the better, than it should happen.
Winged you raise an interesting point with philosophy... want to ask you about 2 points you raised... just to give me some clarity on the philosophy itself.
1. In every situation there is going to be other people's views that influence our own... drawing this backward in time ... where did the first person's views come from? Was that individual truly unique and creative to come up with all the ideas we have today? Where did the basics of thought come from? Why are humans the only ones to have ideas about God/No God? How does objectivism deal with this?
2. Objectivism -- the reality you percieve exists... therefore if I perceive a reality in which there is a God does that mean there must be one? Or does it only deal with physical things? This seems a rather limiting theory if that is the case... what about something that no-one has experienced yet??? does that mean it does not exist? lets take our neutrinos travelling faster than light... they have been doing so since... forever... however objectivism would say that this could not have been until we found a way to test it?? is that correct?
Good questions, but I fear the answer won't be as complete as you'd like.
1. There was no one person who sparked the very first true idea. As we know, people evolved from lesser mammals, who learned things pretty much via a mix of chance and necessity, thus why evolution itself takes so long. So when speaking of the first rational thoughts, you have to realize the progression of intelligence does exist, this is a fact. So in short, the basics of thoughts came from necessity, and chance. Even basic creature knows right from wrong to some degree, they don't run around killing them selfs, that wouldn't help their species. This is very, very basic, and where complex thoughts evolve from over time. We have concepts of Gods because we're at an intellectual level where we have consciousness, we can look in a mirror and comprehend that we exist, and that that's us in the reflection. So with that comes complex problems, like death. We try to find solutions for these problems, Gods and other metaphysical concepts are the only way to create solutions for them, since everything we know so far says that when you die, that's it. People don't want to accept this, so they have to turn to faiths, be it their own rendition of one, or a current concept.
2. No. If something is unproven, it shouldn't be a bases for a choice, that is a better wording. This is a very deep concept, so I'll follow suit with this. Lets say you believed in heaven, and in your religion there was no rule against suicide. So why not just kill yourself to get there? If you believe it, and it's better than here, than why not get there faster? Because it's not reasonable, and deep down you'd know this. There is no proof of it, so risking your life over it isn't logical. This concept can be brought back to topic in that, again, making choices on faith isn't reasonable, but that isn't to say these things don't exist, just that to our knowledge they don't, and should be perceived as such until evidence in presented.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Sorry, usually four pages isn't that bad to read, but the length of the posts... (I'll read it after work when I have more time. )
Anyway, the way I see it, and the way Science sees it, there is Theism, Strong Atheism, and Weak Atheism. We all know what Theists are, so lets forego that. Strong Atheists assert that there is no god, none. They say that the world exists without any god of any form. Weak Atheists assert that there is no evidence to prove a god exists, but that evidence may one day be found, just not yet.
As for Agnosticism? There are Theistic and Atheistic Agnosticism. Theistic Agnosticism says that there is a god but it's impossible to know him/her. Atheistic Agnosticism says that there is probably no god but it's impossible to know for certain.
Anyway, that's off the top of my head, so if I got something wrong, feel free to correct me.
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even if the universe continually collapses and expands... at some point time, matter, and energy needs an origin because it belongs to a universe governed by relativistic physics. In order for all that we know about science to be true... everything that we know and understand about relativistic phyiscs/ quantum physics needs to hold true under all cases within the universe. If this does not... then science itself is flawed and our entire understanding of the universe is flawed.
As I said earlier. God (which again is not a guy sitting on a throne) does not need to be governed by the laws of physics, and therefore does not need an origin. If god created time... why would he need to exist within it?
PS: Aethiesm is an oxy-moron. Most aethiests truely are not aethiests after all. Science is in and of itself a religion. Just like being unable to prove god, you are unable to prove science. You can never prove a fact 100%, you can only disprove something. This said, science is the fundamental creator for all these aethiests and therefore becomes a god.
Our knowledge, however limited, is the only logical thing to base our decisions on. Yes, it's likely that all of our science will one day be proven wrong, or at least incomplete, this isn't a new concept. This isn't to say we're completely wrong about everything though, if you believe this than you fall within the the philosophical group called Antirealists, where to put it very simply, claim that science itself is isn't worthy of being proclaimed as factual. Not all facts are based off science though, take mathematics, 2+2=4 correct? It takes no reasoning or science to come to that conclusion. If you pinch yourself it hurts, right? Which means your nerves are sending signals to your brain, which responds through a complex system of nano electro static charges and allows you to feel pain, that is science. But in its basic form, the question takes no form of reasoning to answer. Since we can predict these happens, that 2+2=4 and pinching yourself causes pain, and all things of the like, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reality we live in has a constant, and thus can be studied, and learned about, and means that facts do exist. This constant can and will change over time (lots of time), but this again falls under the concept of a solid reality in which we live. Of course there are still near infinite things we know nothing about, but using anything but reason to ponder them is a shame, since reason is the only thing that has guided our race this far.
Even the most profound, out of the box thoughts that can be mentioned, can be classified, and broken down into some branch of philosophy in which it can be reasonably looked at. Your view leads to nothing but dead ends, and doesn't use any of our races' hard earned knowledge to stand on. Metaphysics is indeed a branch in itself, and pretty much where this thread would fall under, so outside thoughts are good, and I'm not condemning you at all, just putting my views in as well.
Also, science is not a religion, in any sense. Science is the tool in which we use to understand happenings in nature, that it all. Philosophy 1 in county college covers this right off the bat.
As you, yourself stated, "beyoned a reasonable doubt." You CANNOT prove as a definitive fact anything that we know in science. Take for example of 2+2=4.. just because everytime we do it this holds true, does not mean that for some unforseen reason at some unforseen point in time 2+2!=4. As you again touched on... you cannot even prove that that universe exists at all, and if we don't exist in material form then 2+2!=4, as 2 and 4 do not even exist.
You stated that my view leads to dead ends, but this is completely incorrect. YOUR view leads to dead ends, whereas mine explains that there is something outside of our potential to understand. I believe there is a diety/thing/event/idea that exists outside of uni/multiverse and that at some point in time scripted all that we know. You believe that all we know is self-contained and repetitive.
Science is and will always be a religion. In a freshmen level science class, you learn how there is no positive fact, only a negative fact... and this holds true to all of science. For hundreds of years it was a scientific FACT that the universe was centered on Earth... and this was disproven. When people base their whole understanding of the universe on a set of rules and numbers that cannot be fully proven... this a religion. As much as you aethiests want to deny it... you believe in a higher power/ diety that rules this universe... and that higher power is science.
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even if the universe continually collapses and expands... at some point time, matter, and energy needs an origin because it belongs to a universe governed by relativistic physics. In order for all that we know about science to be true... everything that we know and understand about relativistic phyiscs/ quantum physics needs to hold true under all cases within the universe. If this does not... then science itself is flawed and our entire understanding of the universe is flawed.
As I said earlier. God (which again is not a guy sitting on a throne) does not need to be governed by the laws of physics, and therefore does not need an origin. If god created time... why would he need to exist within it?
PS: Aethiesm is an oxy-moron. Most aethiests truely are not aethiests after all. Science is in and of itself a religion. Just like being unable to prove god, you are unable to prove science. You can never prove a fact 100%, you can only disprove something. This said, science is the fundamental creator for all these aethiests and therefore becomes a god.
Our knowledge, however limited, is the only logical thing to base our decisions on. Yes, it's likely that all of our science will one day be proven wrong, or at least incomplete, this isn't a new concept. This isn't to say we're completely wrong about everything though, if you believe this than you fall within the the philosophical group called Antirealists, where to put it very simply, claim that science itself is isn't worthy of being proclaimed as factual. Not all facts are based off science though, take mathematics, 2+2=4 correct? It takes no reasoning or science to come to that conclusion. If you pinch yourself it hurts, right? Which means your nerves are sending signals to your brain, which responds through a complex system of nano electro static charges and allows you to feel pain, that is science. But in its basic form, the question takes no form of reasoning to answer. Since we can predict these happens, that 2+2=4 and pinching yourself causes pain, and all things of the like, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reality we live in has a constant, and thus can be studied, and learned about, and means that facts do exist. This constant can and will change over time (lots of time), but this again falls under the concept of a solid reality in which we live. Of course there are still near infinite things we know nothing about, but using anything but reason to ponder them is a shame, since reason is the only thing that has guided our race this far.
Even the most profound, out of the box thoughts that can be mentioned, can be classified, and broken down into some branch of philosophy in which it can be reasonably looked at. Your view leads to nothing but dead ends, and doesn't use any of our races' hard earned knowledge to stand on. Metaphysics is indeed a branch in itself, and pretty much where this thread would fall under, so outside thoughts are good, and I'm not condemning you at all, just putting my views in as well.
Also, science is not a religion, in any sense. Science is the tool in which we use to understand happenings in nature, that it all. Philosophy 1 in county college covers this right off the bat.
As you, yourself stated, "beyoned a reasonable doubt." You CANNOT prove as a definitive fact anything that we know in science. Take for example of 2+2=4.. just because everytime we do it this holds true, does not mean that for some unforseen reason at some unforseen point in time 2+2!=4. As you again touched on... you cannot even prove that that universe exists at all, and if we don't exist in material form then 2+2!=4, as 2 and 4 do not even exist.
You stated that my view leads to dead ends, but this is completely incorrect. YOUR view leads to dead ends, whereas mine explains that there is something outside of our potential to understand. I believe there is a diety/thing/event/idea that exists outside of uni/multiverse and that at some point in time scripted all that we know. You believe that all we know is self-contained and repetitive.
Science is and will always be a religion. In a freshmen level science class, how there is no positive fact, only a negative fact... and this holds true to all of science.For hundreds of years it was a scientific FACT that universe was centered on Earth... and this was disproven. When people base their whole understanding of the universe on a set of rules and numbers that cannot be fully proven... this a religion. As much as you aethiests want to deny it... you believe in a higher power/ diety that rules this universe... and that higher power is science.
Basing choices off metaphysical concepts like that can't lead to anything. If you believe what you're saying, than why take your next breath? Since you may all the sudden not need oxygen. Why share your thoughts? The universe could rubber-band on itself and create another big bang. Why do any good in the world? Your views are purely metaphysical, I know I've beat that work with a stick but it's all your opinion is based on. You can not be living by your view, it is impossible.
It may be interesting to ponder about, but your views do no good, they lead to no concrete reasoning, nor do they help you live your life.
This man explains Science and Philosophy rather well, and was lucky enough to have his videos played for 101 classes, he is indeed a teacher himself.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Basing choices off metaphysical concepts like that can't lead to anything. If you believe what you're saying, than why take your next breath? Since you may all the sudden not need oxygen. Why share your thoughts? The universe could rubber-band on itself and create another big bang. Why do any god in the world? Your views are purely metaphysical, I know I've beat that work with a stick but it's all your opinion is based on. You can not be living by your view, it is impossible.
I don't think you fully understand my views :-/. As I tried to explain in my initial post that you replied to. I believe there is a god that either intentionally or unintentionally created all that we know (including science). I do not think of god in terms of a single being that smites people for blasphemy, or blesses people for good behavior.... I believe that god is something that our human brains cannot comprehend, as he is outside of our universe and therefore our brains cannot properly conceptualize him/it.
To use the dimensional example to explain god, if 2D beings existed, they would not be able to understand or conceptualize a 3D being, as their brain only thinks in 2D. Our human brains think in what I call 3.5D as we can only truely conceptualize time as moving foward. Our human brains cannot conceptualize anything beyond this, and this is why so many people try to say that God requires an origin as well.
God does not require an origin... Science does. In my initial post I mentioned that science is stuck in a self contained paradox. For the rules of relativistic science to hold true, then the universe itself must be contained within this rules. If these rules do hold true (without a god), we should not exist at all as there is no way for the origin to occur. ---> Matter cannot be created without energy. Energy cannot be created... simply change forms. <------
I understand the bases of your view and just want to state I in no way condemn you for it, I just share my view strongly, as any confident person should.
Lets talk reason for a second though. In your belief, god is unprovable, and controls all, so nothing is constant and nothing is provable. How does this help you live your life? How would this help our race get to where we are today if everyone believed it? If your view is true, than your free will is an illusion created by this God. If your God controls all, than he'd control you doing these things, and thus be part of his plan, correct? I just don't see this good in your view from a ration stand point. God has the wheel, so just let him drive?
Again, this is all covered in Antirealism, but I'd like to pick your brain to understand why you live by these views.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
God does not require an origin... Science does. In my initial post I mentioned that science is stuck in a self contained paradox. For the rules of relativistic science to hold true, then the universe itself must be contained within this rules. If these rules do hold true (without a god), we should not exist at all as there is no way for the origin to occur. ---> Matter cannot be created without energy. Energy cannot be created... simply change forms. <------
This is why I lean towards some sort of divine being rather than being an Atheist. It's a fact I feel like a lot of people ignore when going on religious tirades.
Anyway, the way I see it, and the way Science sees it, there is Theism, Strong Atheism, and Weak Atheism. We all know what Theists are, so lets forego that. Strong Atheists assert that there is no god, none. They say that the world exists without any god of any form. Weak Atheists assert that there is no evidence to prove a god exists, but that evidence may one day be found, just not yet.
There is no such thing as strong or weak atheists. It all has to do with humility.
Given the current circumstances and evidence available, one can conclude that at this point in time there is no God (as described by most major religions) but in the event of surfacing evidence/tangible proof, one is willing to reconsider their position.
Atheism bases itself on scientific methodology whereby all hypotheses are evaluated within a certain confidence interval and a given estimated error margin.
Science can thus offer itself the luxury of constantly improving its knowledge of the world. A steadfast position cannot yield such a progressive attitude- which is why science cannot be considered a religion since very little to nothing is definitive, absolute or beyond challenge.
I understand the bases of your view and just want to state I in no way condemn you for it, I just share my view strongly, as any confident person should.
Lets talk reason for a second though. In your belief, god is unprovable, and controls all, so nothing is constant and nothing is provable. How does this help you live your life? How would this help our race get to where we are today if everyone believed it? If your view is true, than your free will is an illusion created by this God. If your God controls all, than he'd control you doing these things, and thus be part of his plan, correct? I just don't see this good in your view from a ration stand point. God has the wheel, so just let him drive?
Again, this is all covered in Antirealism, but I'd like to pick your brain to understand why you live by these views.
Yes and no... you are again conceptualizing god as a single self aware being. As I have stated, in my opinion god is outside of our universe and therefore not the same as us. As someone else on this thread stated... god could be the universe itself.
Anyways, I'm going to split the answer to your question in three.
First, it is extremely simple/ close minded to deny the existence of anything metaphysical. If something lies outside of physics then the term exist does not even apply to it? Humanity... while it has conceptualized theories such as the multiverse and M-Theory... will never be able to prove these. However, alot of mainstream science believes and often lives by these theories?
Second, if you do not believe in a higher power at all... then why do you believe in morals or ethics? If there is no extraworldly punishment for what we conceptualize as evil... why do YOU not live a hedonistic selfish life? Why do YOU conform to the rules of society when they do not personally benefit you? Theoretically, if there is no such thing as sin... then there is no reason to not commit these acts. Lying, Stealing, Cheating, Raping, Murder... they are all perfectly fine acts, as there is absolutely no reason to be an ethical person.
Third, I have personally witnessed what I consider miracles in my life. You non-believers will argue with me all day and try to tie a physical cause to what I consider a metaphysical result... and so, I will not even attempt to list them. However, no matter how much I try to explain these things with a worldly reason... I cannot (and trust me, my brain processes everything with logic rather than emotion).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Following the quote in my signature, I'll try to keep my response as short and concise as possible while expressing my views.. No promises on the short, or concise part, since again as the quote suggests, in order to explain something simply you must understand it completely, and I feel no person understands this topic enough to do so.
As for formatting, I'll try to keep it easily readable, since even the most interesting topics can be turned on due to walls of text.
I'll open up with I do not believe in a higher being. I was brought up in an open minded family with many views on the matter. For example my mother is Wiccan. Each had their shots to seed their views in my head as a child, but none stuck with me. Looking back this doesn't surprise me, I was the kid who never believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any other fantasy being, including a God. This isn't to say I didn't have my brief time where other peoples opinions swayed me. During my young teens most of my friends where from very religious families, which sadly were the kind of people who liked to try and push their views on young minds. After so many speeches about God, Heaven, Hell, and the punishments I'd receive if I stay on my path, purely out of fear I picked up the concept for a solid year or so, and started going to Church with family members, praying when I wanted something to change, and fearing that someone was always looking down on me when I did bad, and praising me when I did good, this should have been the reason I wanted to be a good person. This belief didn't last long, I knew it was out of fear, and when I grew strong enough to stand up to that I stopped everything cold turkey.
Enough of my history on the matter, since that's not what this topic is about.
More on point, I don't see any reason to believe in a God if you're wise enough. The concept seems to lend itself to mans fear of death, love of power, and subtle yet primal will to do good. I feel these three core concepts drive the wide spread adoption of a higher being. Mind you I'm putting this together on the fly, I don't have a set thought process on this matter, I just feel these three concepts explain my view well.
There's death, which no man wants to face. The concept of an afterlife puts this fear to ease. Now this leads to some interesting actions on people's behalf. In some, or even most cases, this has a positive influence on society. In most religions people are encouraged to do good in order to receive some wort of reward. Than there are the religions where people are encouraged to cause harm, these thankfully are the minority. Either way it shows that people are so afraid of death and or suffering, that they're willing to live their lives under a set of rules to be rewarded in one way or another. Be it blind faith or not, this has its up side, but also opens people up to being controlled, which brings me to my next point.
There's power, this subject is more complicated, so I'll try to keep it straight forward. There are many ways this manifests when talking about religion, I'll list the negative first. There are corrupt leaders, corrupt systems, and bending of the guidelines of the religion to take advantage of its' people. All of these have been seen very publicly in recent history. There is also I believe some reasoning in this to why parents push their views on children. Be it subconscious or not, I feel some parents do this because they need control in their life. This goes beyond just their kids and religion, but I feel if the parent is lacking control in their life, this is just another way to try and find it. By teaching their kids their views they not only get a sense of satisfaction by passing on their knowledge, but also are hoping their kids follow the religions views throughout their lives, thus making it easier for the parent to give reason behind why things should be done a certain way. This isn't always a bad thing, again most religions encourage good things. It's when this concept is brought too far, or the child doesn't accept their parents views that things can get rough. This is another topic though. I guess I kinda got into the good in there also, so in general I'll just state this concept does have it's pros also.
Then there's the will to do good. This is what I feel holds the world together, be it religion of otherwise. Speaking of religion though, whether it be a side effect of appeasing the God(s) or not, it's one part of religion that I'm glad exists. Most religions have a set of rules, commandments, etc, in which you follow to get a reward. This reward varies from an after life, to powers, among many other things. Thankfully most of these rules are to do good, helping others, not doing bad, general good manners. I won't go into this too far because it's pretty obvious.
Put those three together and I feel you get what one needs to believe, if you're close minded enough to do so.
If you're more open minded and down to Earth, I believe you flip those things around, and see them for how they really are.
Death; it's something worthy to be feared. The concept that you end and that's it is pretty saddening. I feel though this is what makes life so damn beautiful. By accepting this I've spent my life looking at things so much differently than others. Everything, good or bad, is an experience, something can be learned from it, and for no other reason than I know it will improve my life. Not for some God, not to appease any higher being, but just because I love living, and I want to improve the quality in which I do so. Death makes life beautiful, and I think after you accept that it very well could be the very end, life becomes so much more real.
Power; again, even on the flip side of things this topic is complicated. From a non-believers side power has similarities and differences with a believers side of it. It can still corrupt, and often does for the same reason, people want it and when they have it they'll do anything to keep it. Though there's key differences also, which again is a whole other topic. To keep this concise, I'm not going to list these reasons, because I feel they're too far of the topic. One could easily think of some though, the roll of power from an Atheists point of view. Just think selfless thoughts, and they'll come to you.
The will to do good; thankfully this is embedded in most of us. It makes us feel good to do good. In fact many times it feels better to do good for others than it does to do good for only ourselves. I find it saddening though that this isn't enough, it seems there needs to be more incentive for people to act on this. This is a huge reason why even though I don't agree with religion as a whole, I feel it is necessary for humanity right now. We're simply not selfless enough to do good without punishments for not doing so, and rewards for doing so. Maybe we're getting close though, as time moves on we're starting to see people act on nothing more than good nature, with no religious ends. There is also bad things happening in this concept, but there will never be all good or all bad in a species.
On another front all together, I feel religion steals powerful experiences form us, and stamps it with its' ownership. The term "religious experience" itself puts ownership to epiphanies. Every now and then in ones' life through a powerful, and often extremely good, bad, or deep experience we come to a big conclusion. In this moment it all seems clear, the dots line up, and all the sudden you're sure about something. In many cases people call this "finding God", or a "spiritual awakening". I feel these terms steal from the true nature of these beautiful events. To put in personally, I feel it's when you finally get enough pieces of the puzzle to see the picture as a whole, it is your brain saying "Whoa, now that makes sense!".
To draw a quote this video, "When I compare what scientific knowledge has done for me, and what religion tried to do to me, I sometimes literally shiver." I posted that video a while ago here, and I hope you watch it. It's not perfect, it doesn't reflect exactly how I feel, and frankly I don't like his cockiness on the matter, but it's a good watch none the less.
If we as a species could accept science as the only truths we'll ever come across, the fact that science itself is still far, far, so damn far from all knowing, and the fact that furthering it is the only way to move our species forward, I feel there won't be a need for religion. I do believe it will happen one day, when life is accepted to be short, and sweet, that there is near infinite unknown, that living our lives healthily and well shouldn't have to be a rule to happen, and that it doesn't matter if everything will one day end; the fact that you're living well, and helping others in one way or another should be enough to make this life worth it, not for any end means of heaven, or other rewards. Accepting pressing facts like death and the eventual end of everything is the only way to truly live.
When we're ready to see this, it'll happen naturally.
Do you really think that if there really was a god, really was an afterlife, that it would be something that your physical being could conceive and easily brush off with it's lack of complexity do to it's laughable ideas of a man sitting on a throne?
Why do atheists always seem to attack the fundamental, elementary concepts of god? It's as if the two extremes are always at war. Atheists take their shots at the hardcore religious nutjobs and the hardcore religious folks have the most hatred for the non believer. Why do atheists never seem to want to discuss more abstract ideas rooted in different ideologies? Obviously I'm not referring to you Proletaria. You know even more about this stuff than I do.
I think there's a grey area that most atheists tend to avoid because of a lack of knowledge. I don't claim to know anything. I do choose to believe in a higher existence and a sort of afterlife. But who knows really.
We'll find out when we die.
And because of that, why do people rush to label themselves? Why not just wait and find out? Why take a stance to specifically set yourself apart from others who could be right. But really you have no idea if you're right, if they're right, or if we're ALL wrong. I would rather admit that "I have no clue" than say "Well, given this evidence and this and that, THIS must be the answer...At least thats what I think." At the end of the day all "evidence" is nothing more than reaching.
Religious view: I donno, maybe
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Agreed and I did miss your point but I think it still stands to a degree. There are billions of "animals" (better term would be organisms) dying every day... of these not all have skeletons - breakdown occurs very rapidly. Evolution doesn't cause death it happens because of an unfavourable variation causing an organism not to survive... ie a slow zebra vs a fast zebra being chased by a lion... the fast will survive the slow will not - natural selection in action. Thus animals will die but not at the rate you are expecting because it is not just a case of unfavourable variation = death but rather unfavourable variation increases the likelihood of death under certain situations. Evolution is occuring but at a very slow rate with very small variations. Undetectable most times but slowly building up.
There is a bit of tank/anti tank to evolution between species... however there is also intraspecific competition (ie competition within the species). If one member can survive and reproduce better than another then he/she is going to have more offspring with his/her variations in the next generation which will over time lead to a total increase over many generations of those variations in the population.
Cells are limited to a certain size because as they increase the SA/vol ratio of said cells decreases and thus the efficiency of diffusion of materials into the cell and wastes out of the cell also decreases and eventually lack of resources/ waste build up and the cell dies.
As far as why do cells not continue growing well now you are moving into how are genes controlling the growth and development of things...something science is still working out fully. I suppose the question you are forwarding is whether there is there a divine control? how could we tell if it was put there by God or developed without? There really is no way of proving that one way or the other sorry to say.
Ok gonna try and pull this apart a bit more for you... using your examples. If you had a big fish eating the little fish... then yes the little fish would not have time to develop spines... however if there were members of that species that had small variations that enabled them to avoid being eaten... better camouflage, bony bumps on somewhere making it harder to chew them, etc then over time those variations would become more common in the population while those fish without them would die out... You are correct in saying though that if we do get a very sudden change then animals may not be able to survive... in fact we count on it to kill bacteria... antibiotics kill the bacteria before they can adapt to the changed environment...
The main thing to remember with evolution is that the time scale for these things to occur are immense... humans are a blip on the timescale of earth. Animals don't think about adapting to a situation rather it just happens (natural selection)... so animals can't just evolve but rather the ones with traits that allow them to survive will do so while those that don't, won't. And those traits will become more common in the population over time.
Again speaking for myself, I would love to discuss the gray areas. I hope that's there this topic goes.
Well, turns out all my responses are going to be of myself lol, big surprise right? :P. I personally dislike religion as a whole for not only the reasons I listed in my last post, but also because I feel believing in anything that crutches a fear, or is based on nothing more than faith is unhealthy for the furthering of our understanding of those unknown concepts. Accepting reality how we understand it, and not settling for "Well idk, so screw it" is a huge way we push our understanding of reality.
I accept that I have no clue if there is or isn't a God, and have no grounds other than human logic (which could be hugely flawed) to speak of. One thing I'd like to bring up on this though, is you're never forced to prove a negative, only positives. So on this front this concept as a whole of believing in something unproven, and so influential on our world I feel deserves all the attention it can get.
EDIT:
To quote a person more wise than myself, my last point lends itself to Ayn Rand and her short segment in a five part interview on various topics in which she was asked about religion.
Ayn Rand
She touches on better then I why we should't just wait it out and accept that we don't know if anyone is right, when people are committing to things that not only can't be proven, but cause harm to both society and furthering our understanding of the reality around us.
Whether or not you agree with her religious views, one has to admit she is a brilliant philosopher. If anyone who choices to click on that link above hasn't seen that five part interview, or heard or her in general, I urge you to at least watch the who interview. A person that down to Earth should be learned about in order to, again, further your understanding of the reality around you, be it religious or otherwise.
Just to be clear, since I do come across so set in my opinions, I am very open minded. When I am shown something of depth and value, I take it in, I don't push my views out and over anothers' if theirs have legitimate claims. If a point is brought up that knocks a leg from under my chair of reason, I will happily fall.
Ha. Bagstone.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In a sense we are all divine. We are all connected to the universe and products of a chain of events that led to this moment. The science of the universe is so perfect it all played out in a distinct way, garnered by a distinct set of rules. How can a state of being above all and apart of all possibly have wants and needs. It just is.
I don't see how we can be the product of a coddling being that necessitates unruly punishments for petty desires, or requires constant indulgence of prayer, monetary bestowment and vain monuments. We place the divine in a level beyond us, and yet we insist on humanizing it such odd ways. But that is how I perceive it.
Also, I don't really think we can all see the image of a god in the same way. That is truly stupid to imagine and the idea of a universal religion is nonsensical. I mean, look at how we have grown as a species, even in the span of only a thousand or even a hundred years. Today we see things in a totally different light that the people who wrote the bible, we don't even speak the same language anymore (and by language I mean our state of minds and how our society understands one another).
That even holds true today. A person who lived his entire life in rural China family man is so different from a rich, bachelor New York businessman, or even Bear Grylls who takes nature by the horns, these three people are practically alien to one another. So how can you expect their spirituality to be the same. They each understand the world and the universe around them in complete unique perspectives, so how can you possibly expect them to experience a god in the same way?
I think everyone, from any background, has a basic reasoning in which they can pull from if it's not covered up by other peoples' views in which they were taught. That could lead into tradition, which I also think is a foolish thing in most cases. Why should I eat fish during a certain time of the year, what good does that do me if I dislike fish? Different topic X( *pulls hands off keyboard*.
Anyway, I think Objectivism is as close as any one has gotten yet to a clear lens in which ti view the world. I'm sure it will change over time with new philosophies, but that is part of Objectivism, if the change is rational and for the better, than it should happen.
:: Enkeria [Twitter / Twitch / Website / Tattoos]
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even if the universe continually collapses and expands... at some point time, matter, and energy needs an origin because it belongs to a universe governed by relativistic physics. In order for all that we know about science to be true... everything that we know and understand about relativistic phyiscs/ quantum physics needs to hold true under all cases within the universe. If this does not... then science itself is flawed and our entire understanding of the universe is flawed.
As I said earlier. God (which again is not a guy sitting on a throne) does not need to be governed by the laws of physics, and therefore does not need an origin. If god created time... why would he need to exist within it?
PS: Aethiesm is an oxy-moron. Most aethiests truely are not aethiests after all. Science is in and of itself a religion. Just like being unable to prove god, you are unable to prove science. You can never prove a fact 100%, you can only disprove something. This said, science is the fundamental creator for all these aethiests and therefore becomes a god.
Winged you raise an interesting point with philosophy... want to ask you about 2 points you raised... just to give me some clarity on the philosophy itself.
1. In every situation there is going to be other people's views that influence our own... drawing this backward in time ... where did the first person's views come from? Was that individual truly unique and creative to come up with all the ideas we have today? Where did the basics of thought come from? Why are humans the only ones to have ideas about God/No God? How does objectivism deal with this?
2. Objectivism -- the reality you percieve exists... therefore if I perceive a reality in which there is a God does that mean there must be one? Or does it only deal with physical things? This seems a rather limiting theory if that is the case... what about something that no-one has experienced yet??? does that mean it does not exist? lets take our neutrinos travelling faster than light... they have been doing so since... forever... however objectivism would say that this could not have been until we found a way to test it?? is that correct?
Even the most profound, out of the box thoughts that can be mentioned, can be classified, and broken down into some branch of philosophy in which it can be reasonably looked at. Your view leads to nothing but dead ends, and doesn't use any of our races' hard earned knowledge to stand on. Metaphysics is indeed a branch in itself, and pretty much where this thread would fall under, so outside thoughts are good, and I'm not condemning you at all, just putting my views in as well.
Also, science is not a religion, in any sense. Science is the tool in which we use to understand happenings in nature, that it all. Philosophy 1 in county college covers this right off the bat.
Good questions, but I fear the answer won't be as complete as you'd like.
1. There was no one person who sparked the very first true idea. As we know, people evolved from lesser mammals, who learned things pretty much via a mix of chance and necessity, thus why evolution itself takes so long. So when speaking of the first rational thoughts, you have to realize the progression of intelligence does exist, this is a fact. So in short, the basics of thoughts came from necessity, and chance. Even basic creature knows right from wrong to some degree, they don't run around killing them selfs, that wouldn't help their species. This is very, very basic, and where complex thoughts evolve from over time. We have concepts of Gods because we're at an intellectual level where we have consciousness, we can look in a mirror and comprehend that we exist, and that that's us in the reflection. So with that comes complex problems, like death. We try to find solutions for these problems, Gods and other metaphysical concepts are the only way to create solutions for them, since everything we know so far says that when you die, that's it. People don't want to accept this, so they have to turn to faiths, be it their own rendition of one, or a current concept.
2. No. If something is unproven, it shouldn't be a bases for a choice, that is a better wording. This is a very deep concept, so I'll follow suit with this. Lets say you believed in heaven, and in your religion there was no rule against suicide. So why not just kill yourself to get there? If you believe it, and it's better than here, than why not get there faster? Because it's not reasonable, and deep down you'd know this. There is no proof of it, so risking your life over it isn't logical. This concept can be brought back to topic in that, again, making choices on faith isn't reasonable, but that isn't to say these things don't exist, just that to our knowledge they don't, and should be perceived as such until evidence in presented.
Anyway, the way I see it, and the way Science sees it, there is Theism, Strong Atheism, and Weak Atheism. We all know what Theists are, so lets forego that. Strong Atheists assert that there is no god, none. They say that the world exists without any god of any form. Weak Atheists assert that there is no evidence to prove a god exists, but that evidence may one day be found, just not yet.
As for Agnosticism? There are Theistic and Atheistic Agnosticism. Theistic Agnosticism says that there is a god but it's impossible to know him/her. Atheistic Agnosticism says that there is probably no god but it's impossible to know for certain.
Anyway, that's off the top of my head, so if I got something wrong, feel free to correct me.
This stuff gets complicated fast.
As you, yourself stated, "beyoned a reasonable doubt." You CANNOT prove as a definitive fact anything that we know in science. Take for example of 2+2=4.. just because everytime we do it this holds true, does not mean that for some unforseen reason at some unforseen point in time 2+2!=4. As you again touched on... you cannot even prove that that universe exists at all, and if we don't exist in material form then 2+2!=4, as 2 and 4 do not even exist.
You stated that my view leads to dead ends, but this is completely incorrect. YOUR view leads to dead ends, whereas mine explains that there is something outside of our potential to understand. I believe there is a diety/thing/event/idea that exists outside of uni/multiverse and that at some point in time scripted all that we know. You believe that all we know is self-contained and repetitive.
Science is and will always be a religion. In a freshmen level science class, you learn how there is no positive fact, only a negative fact... and this holds true to all of science. For hundreds of years it was a scientific FACT that the universe was centered on Earth... and this was disproven. When people base their whole understanding of the universe on a set of rules and numbers that cannot be fully proven... this a religion. As much as you aethiests want to deny it... you believe in a higher power/ diety that rules this universe... and that higher power is science.
Basing choices off metaphysical concepts like that can't lead to anything. If you believe what you're saying, than why take your next breath? Since you may all the sudden not need oxygen. Why share your thoughts? The universe could rubber-band on itself and create another big bang. Why do any good in the world? Your views are purely metaphysical, I know I've beat that work with a stick but it's all your opinion is based on. You can not be living by your view, it is impossible.
It may be interesting to ponder about, but your views do no good, they lead to no concrete reasoning, nor do they help you live your life.
This man explains Science and Philosophy rather well, and was lucky enough to have his videos played for 101 classes, he is indeed a teacher himself.
I don't think you fully understand my views :-/. As I tried to explain in my initial post that you replied to. I believe there is a god that either intentionally or unintentionally created all that we know (including science). I do not think of god in terms of a single being that smites people for blasphemy, or blesses people for good behavior.... I believe that god is something that our human brains cannot comprehend, as he is outside of our universe and therefore our brains cannot properly conceptualize him/it.
To use the dimensional example to explain god, if 2D beings existed, they would not be able to understand or conceptualize a 3D being, as their brain only thinks in 2D. Our human brains think in what I call 3.5D as we can only truely conceptualize time as moving foward. Our human brains cannot conceptualize anything beyond this, and this is why so many people try to say that God requires an origin as well.
God does not require an origin... Science does. In my initial post I mentioned that science is stuck in a self contained paradox. For the rules of relativistic science to hold true, then the universe itself must be contained within this rules. If these rules do hold true (without a god), we should not exist at all as there is no way for the origin to occur. ---> Matter cannot be created without energy. Energy cannot be created... simply change forms. <------
Lets talk reason for a second though. In your belief, god is unprovable, and controls all, so nothing is constant and nothing is provable. How does this help you live your life? How would this help our race get to where we are today if everyone believed it? If your view is true, than your free will is an illusion created by this God. If your God controls all, than he'd control you doing these things, and thus be part of his plan, correct? I just don't see this good in your view from a ration stand point. God has the wheel, so just let him drive?
Again, this is all covered in Antirealism, but I'd like to pick your brain to understand why you live by these views.
This is why I lean towards some sort of divine being rather than being an Atheist. It's a fact I feel like a lot of people ignore when going on religious tirades.
There is no such thing as strong or weak atheists. It all has to do with humility.
Given the current circumstances and evidence available, one can conclude that at this point in time there is no God (as described by most major religions) but in the event of surfacing evidence/tangible proof, one is willing to reconsider their position.
Atheism bases itself on scientific methodology whereby all hypotheses are evaluated within a certain confidence interval and a given estimated error margin.
Science can thus offer itself the luxury of constantly improving its knowledge of the world. A steadfast position cannot yield such a progressive attitude- which is why science cannot be considered a religion since very little to nothing is definitive, absolute or beyond challenge.
Yes and no... you are again conceptualizing god as a single self aware being. As I have stated, in my opinion god is outside of our universe and therefore not the same as us. As someone else on this thread stated... god could be the universe itself.
Anyways, I'm going to split the answer to your question in three.
First, it is extremely simple/ close minded to deny the existence of anything metaphysical. If something lies outside of physics then the term exist does not even apply to it? Humanity... while it has conceptualized theories such as the multiverse and M-Theory... will never be able to prove these. However, alot of mainstream science believes and often lives by these theories?
Second, if you do not believe in a higher power at all... then why do you believe in morals or ethics? If there is no extraworldly punishment for what we conceptualize as evil... why do YOU not live a hedonistic selfish life? Why do YOU conform to the rules of society when they do not personally benefit you? Theoretically, if there is no such thing as sin... then there is no reason to not commit these acts. Lying, Stealing, Cheating, Raping, Murder... they are all perfectly fine acts, as there is absolutely no reason to be an ethical person.
Third, I have personally witnessed what I consider miracles in my life. You non-believers will argue with me all day and try to tie a physical cause to what I consider a metaphysical result... and so, I will not even attempt to list them. However, no matter how much I try to explain these things with a worldly reason... I cannot (and trust me, my brain processes everything with logic rather than emotion).