quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles While there are lots of other options for belief, I think Enigmatik is just trying to see where people stand on the idea of a personal god who intervenes in the lives of humans and has a moral code and a plan for them. This is the only sort of god that Dawkins and his compatriots are really arguing against anyway.

well i think that this sort of narrow idea of the cosmos is part of the problem

What a positively droll discussion.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec well i think that this sort of narrow idea of the cosmos is part of the problem

ok

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec well i think that this sort of narrow idea of the cosmos is part of the problem

Yeah, so do I. This discussion is reminding me of something the philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote:

quote:

[I highlighted the most relevant bits.] Even without God, the idea of a natural sympathy between the deepest truths of nature and the deepest layers of the human mind, which can be exploited to allow gradual development of a truer and truer conception of reality, makes us more at home in the universe than is secularly comfortable. The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life. In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the nonteleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. There might still be thought to be a religious threat in the existence of the laws of physics themselves, and indeed the existence of anything at all -- but it seems to be less alarming to most atheists.

From The Last Word.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Yes, it shouldn't be a linear scale. That doesn't account for how much of a shit you give about whether god exist or not.

Amongst other things... for instance... I think the probability of God existing in any fashion in which any god is believed to exist in nil; however, I choose to believe that something we would classify as god does exist. Additionally, although I believe that the probability of any of the gods worshiped by any religion exists is extremely low I choose to practice a particular religion... so where does that put me on this scale? I have a friend who is absolutely convinced that there is no god but attends temple every Saturday, conversely, I have another friend that has an unquestioning belief in a god but does not attend any religious services of any type. My problem with the scale is that it links belief and practice, which I view as two separate things.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec what does that even mean? how can you live your life on the assumption that he is not there already you are creating an idea of god in your mind against which to live, which is hardly any different than creating an idea of god in your mind with which you live.

For the most part, you do it the same way that you walk down the street on the assumption that you're not about to impale yourself on an invisible spiked wall--without thinking about it.

It is only the existence of people who refuse to walk down the street for fear that they will impale themselves on such an invisible spiked wall that makes one pause for a moment and, despite the highly questionable nature of the claim, consider the possibility. In the process of considering the possibility one must of course imagine what this wall might be like. However, this consideration does not transform one's subsequent choice to reject belief in the wall and walk down the street into an act "against" the idea of the invisible spiked wall of doom. The only consequence--and it is of absolutely no practical effect--is that now the assumption upon which one proceeds to walk down the street is conscious rather than unconscious.

Likewise, to reject some idea of "god" and live one's life on the assumption that it does not exist is not to alter one's behavior so as to live "against" some particular notion of this "god." It is only to make an unconscious operative assumption a conscious one.

some one should post the south park ep with richard and the nintendo wii.

6

4

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think the probability of God existing in any fashion in which any god is believed to exist in nil;

exactly.


i think this is the ultimate conclusion of true mystics and good scientists alike



i also think the reason why most people are atheists is that they really can't fathom what 'god' might mean, or they have a twisted view of it because they never took the time to think deeply about it.

i called myself an atheist at one point in time, but then i realized how silly it was to simply jump to another dogma.

the mystics say that god is essentially ultimate truth, existence, creative consciousness itself.

if you say you don't believe in god, it's basically like saying you don't believe in existence or truth.

i doubt that few truly spiritual people conceive of god as the angry old man of the judeochristian old testament. religious texts are transient metaphors, theories for comprehending that which is inherently not comprehensible, and gradually they have become social codes and the tools of the wicked. mystics look beyond/within the theories (esotericism) simple people take the theories for face value (exotericism)

science/materialism/determinism/objectivism - all these isms are simply additional contemporary theories that can also be used in place of deep thought and appropriated by the wicked

Last edited by nefardec on May-11-2009 at 20:47

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec the mystics say that god is essentially ultimate truth, existence, creative consciousness itself. if you say you don't believe in god, it's basically like saying you don't believe in existence or truth.

Ohhh so the mystics said it. What makes them anymore correct than the christians, or jews, or what have you?

While I agree mostly with everything you've said, and I find myself siding with you, I just think that this particular statement is just another "stratifying" of belief that you protested initially in this thread. Your views are a little more open ended, but am I wrong in thinking that you're doing the exact same thing?

You're implying that people who are atheists (and people who are classified as religious for that matter) are essentially too dimwitted to understand what seems to have enlightened you. The whole idea that only a select group of people (esotericism) have gotten the idea of a "god" correct is exactly what makes up the different religious views of god, it's only being stated in a different way, or am I wrong?

I'm truly wondering if my opinion of what you said is close to what you actually meant.. I guess. I don't really ever engage in these discussions because I don't think I could actually argue at your level, I'll probably get shot down right now with you're reply post which will most likely be peppered with quotes from texts, etc. :P


I don't think I'm an atheist but I don't think I'm very religious either, at least in the true sense of the word. My views are basically that life, essence, creativity, whatever you want to call it, means something more than just what we perceive or feel. I think there are things out there we as human beings can't possibly understand. Whether that makes sense or not I don't know, I just like to think of it in that way. One thing I do not believe in is a god that follows anything remotely close to the constructs of most religion, so we seem to agree on that, or maybe not.

Maybe that's how a "simpleton" views the world, I'm sure you'll enlighten me.