An unexpected religious conversation...

09/25/2009 07:46:20 AM · #251

Originally posted by scalvert:

Jason cannot grasp this because he equates gods with immaterial, so disbelieving gods must mean disbelieving all immaterial things. There is no other possibility.

That's a fairly common misconception amongst the faithful.....that black-and-white, no middle-of-the-road perception.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Note that these traditional perceptions are not limited to "others" either. The word of a priest or nun will be believed over the word of a plumber, when neither should have any bearing on truth. A devoted Christian is automatically assumed to be moral, so people will actually look for that "trait" in political candidates and caregivers even though there's really no correlation. How many admired politicians or conservative talk show hosts have been associated with drugs, adultery, corruption or worse? How many convicted felons "find God" in prison? King Charlemagne, a paragon of Christian decency, would be considered a savage dictator and convicted for crimes against humanity in modern times. I'm not trying to illustrate all Christians as bad, and that's precisely the point: the only thing you can say about a theist or atheist is that they believe and do not believe in gods, respectively. Nothing else may be assumed of their character or beliefs.

It makes it lonely out here if you don't fit into a category, too.

I have *SO* many questions and wonder about so many things, yet as I understand what I believe, that's part of it.

I believe in God, but then I go right over the edge with that 'cause I have a way different perception of *HER* than most, and I think that for the most part we're way overimpressed with our importance in the big picture.

I don't really have some place that I can go and speak to a religious scholar just for the purposes of wondering how various religions feel about this or that 'cause most have an agenda for whatever they believe. It's very hard to fimnd someone comfortable enough in their own beliefs who is also knowledgeable, and comfortable enough to be open-minded in their understanding of others' religions.

I don't belive for one second that Jesus was any more than just an amazing human being and I don't see the bible as any more than allegorical teachings.

Yet as soon as I unearth that little jewel, no Christian wants to talk to me about their understanding of both.

AQnd I almost have never come across any Christian with a decent understanding that there very well *IS* issues with the recording of what's written in a bible that you or I can pick up off a bookshelf.

The whole concept that this book is "The Literal Word" is laughable to me......2000 years old, written in a dead language, by multiple authors, started over two decades after Jesus's death, translated and updated in the translations who knows how many times.....how can anything under those circumstances POSSIBLY be accurate?

There is NO way!

That doesn't mena that the basic concepts aren't there, and that there are not many good points, but life is also much different these few years later, and it's damned iorresponsible to take it as a literal concept. There is much that is NOT applicable, and I don't care how many people say that it's 'cause we're becoming an immoral society......that's just THEIR take on it.

I'm scared to death of fervent Christians, 'cause I see them as being pretty darn nasty when they confront things that they perceive as a threat to their views, and they have a scary lot of influence within the society I share with them.

And that whole thing of perceived threat is so scary because I never know which Christians are going to get pissed off about what threat!

I know that to a certain extent it's because of where I have lived my whole life, but it's the Christians where I live that do all the bad deeds in the name of "right" and that's sad, 'cause just like Shannon talked about with the plumber, their influence on society gives them a leg up on the credibility scale all the while doing their little intimidation dance, i.e., do as we do, or suffer "The Wrath".

I didn't mean to ramble; I just get so frustrated about that whole "right" way to do things, but this way is "righter" than that way.

My own pet theory is that God let us have free will and invent all these different ways to get to the same place just to test how we'd sort it out and live together in peace.......and we f*cked it ALL up.

09/25/2009 07:47:31 AM · #252

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What if you're an atheist with compassion? Does that mean you're NOT an atheist?????

Originally posted by david_c:

Not necessarily, they're just saying that you have no rational basis for this emotion, since it does you no good.

So.....compassion is irrational?

Does it HAVE to do you good?

I would think that compassion as part of its definition would be that it's subjectively pointless.

Can't it just be a wondrous, mysterious, character aberration?.....8>)

Message edited by author 2009-09-25 07:48:34.

09/25/2009 08:36:03 AM · #253

As ive already said above, all human action is self serving on some level. I help a stranger in need...and it makes me feel good or accomplished. I donate money to charity...because its one that may benefit me or again it makes me feel good. I become a police officer to protect peoples lives...and to get paid and have that sense of accomplishment. I join a religion...so I can feel a sense of belonging and remove the burden of unknowing.

EVERYTHING IS SELF SERVING.

09/25/2009 09:29:04 AM · #254

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

EVERYTHING IS SELF SERVING.

Dude.....you are *such* a cynic!

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/25/2009 09:34:37 AM · #255

Or honest?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/25/2009 09:37:09 AM · #256

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

... My own pet theory is that God let us have free will and invent all these different ways to get to the same place just to test how we'd sort it out and live together in peace.......and we f*cked it ALL up.

Yup, that's basically what the Bible says too :-)

R.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/25/2009 09:43:05 AM · #257

Edgey statment: God is selfish and vain, and creation of man in his likeness is the ultimate display of it.

merchillio

Nikon D80

09/25/2009 11:24:24 AM · #258

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

Edgey statment: God is selfish and vain, and creation of man in his likeness is the ultimate display of it.

And He's pretty lazy too: He never started and will never end, He live for all eternity and all he ever did was to work for 6 days... If wish my union could get me a contract like that

09/25/2009 12:19:50 PM · #259

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Jason cannot grasp this because he equates gods with immaterial, so disbelieving gods must mean disbelieving all immaterial things. There is no other possibility.

That's a fairly common misconception amongst the faithful.....that black-and-white, no middle-of-the-road perception.

I enjoy how I get piled on for something and yet Shannon is speaking of something he doesn't adhere to. Point blank Shannon, do you believe in anything immaterial? Are there any phenomena that cannot ultimately be explained by the natural laws of the universe?

I will drop my jaw in complete awe if you say yes. I'll be much less surpised if you just remain silent which you tend to do when faced with a difficult question.

I admitted to Dahkota that there may be examples of non-material atheists, but none of them seem to be present. To my mind, being a non-material atheist would be to ignore the most appealing part of atheism, that is, it is the ultimate WYSIWYG worldview.

Message edited by author 2009-09-25 12:21:11.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/25/2009 12:38:50 PM · #260

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ivo made another funny. Faith, in this context, is literally the conviction that you know something defined as unknowable. An atheist or agnostic doesn't claim to believe what can never be known, so faith simply does not apply.

My crack at defining a reactionary atheism, one mildly contraposed to religion (by necessity, absent religion this would be a non-issue):

1. A belief that the world we live in isn't lying to us, and by studying it we can know it. That's the atheist's single point of 'faith'... that 1 + 1 = 2 and nothing's secretly screwing with us behind the scenes. One pebble plus one pebble is two pebbles. You can hardly even call that faith... it's more like trust.

2. An observation that people often are lying to us, in any number of ways. It's in human nature to be misinformed, misdirect, dissemble, mislead, and flat out falsify.

3. An observation that people will do crazy, even self-destructive stuff for any number of reasons, but particularly for power. People are capable of almost anything. You see this in children onward, we basically have to have civility trained into us to function properly as social animals, it often doesn't stick, and it can be trained back out.

4. An observation that all the things around us, like tires, food, cotton, and finches exist... and continuously interact with all the other stuff that exists, in predictable ways. This understanding is learned mainly from direct experience, but also from other sources of varying accuracy like photographs and the word of other people. It's impractical to distrust everything you haven't directly verified, so you have to cross your fingers and keep validating second-hand information as best you can. Conversely, how delightful it is when a good illusionist makes it appear he's violated physics. This deviation from material predictability causes literal shock and awe. It's very noticeable.

5. An observation that all the stuff we never ever see, like leprechauns, Zeuses, jackalopes, and resurrected trinity beings don't exist... and don't continuously interact with the stuff that does exist. There is never any tangible evidence in their favor, their supposed forms and methods are wildly implausible and contradictory, and to top it all off, there are tons and tons of embarrassing lunatics blaming hurricanes on homosexuals and other such absurdities... we know people are always coming up with all sorts of novel religions convictions.

6. A theory that religion itself is likely a rejection of item 1, and a conflation of items 2 and 3.

6a. Religion regularly declares the existence of things that violate the direct experience of item 1, and doesn't readily change based on new observations.

6b. Religion is the expression of an inherent human organizational structure, but one geared towards perpetuating item 6a instead of building cars or teaching college students. It's the plausible outcome of generations of people dissembling (or being mislead) for power, or at best an unintentional but dangerously runaway meme. After all, even a 'good' institution will often strive to perpetuate itself at the expense of ideological purity, and moral authority is still authority.

6c. We've had practically as many flavors of religion as a species as the geographic areas we inhabit. The almost absurd variation in what people believe to be true demands that almost all of it in detail be wrong because so much of it is mutually exclusive. Given the material world's particular predictability, and mankind's wild inconsistency, one must favor the material explanation, despite your gut.

Therefore, absent the direct (or I would posit, even indirect) evidence for the supernatural, compared to the amazing ability that careful observation of the material world has to explain practically any phenomenon we turn our minds to understanding... I just can't buy it. I can't buy that I was created by anything supernatural. I'm a supremely lucky, self-aware electrochemical process supported by meat and surrounded by explosive diversity, change, and beauty... literally everything in the world points to this. There is even beauty in roadkill, if you look correctly.

-----

My crack at a natural atheism, one not contraposed to religion (assuming it didn't exist):

1. God who? (short pause, continues about day)

-----

There's a difference between the supernatural and the unknowable or non-understandable, in my opinion. I think people confuse mankind's current lack of understanding on so many subjects as a repudiation of reason or as evidence of the divine. Heck, I doubt we'll ever really know what happened 'before' the beginning of the universe, or what (if anything) is beyond it (this last bit practically mandated by the laws of physics as we know them), but what matters to me is that we try to understand. Some things may be naturally beyond our ability to perceive them, like infrared light, and some things may even be beyond our ability to make tools to compensate for our own limitations. But still we try! That's what separates us from animals. We're so much better at this than them.

In a funny way, the faithful thinks we're more animal than the atheist, and that absent the authority of god we would revert to savagery. The atheist knows we're an animal, but knows we're inherently capable of more, and strives to do better without being told.

-----

There. How's that for a faith that I dare not name, Ivo? Looks like I DO dare. I hope I wasn't too... cryptic. I'm still eagerly awaiting your breakdown of my supposedly oblique former post so I can learn exactly where it was I was being unclear.

And I really just had to revisit that juicy little morsel... 'a faith I dare not name'. Jeeze, you make it sound like I'm a secret satanist or something. And you call me cryptic! You've spoken in platitudes and vague assertions, and disclaimed the obvious interpretation of your words without a care. You're quite a slippery fish, yes?

Also, wasn't it ignorance is bliss?

To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemned alike to groan;
The tender for another's pain,
The unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

Message edited by author 2009-09-25 12:44:27.

09/25/2009 12:47:42 PM · #261

Yo my brain is so next level I struggle to believe in math. Thats the nonsense that keeps me up at night. That and as I said in another thread...colors not being real.

Message edited by author 2009-09-25 12:47:52.

09/25/2009 12:51:04 PM · #262

Originally posted by Mousie:

In a funny way, the faithful thinks we're more animal than the atheist, and that absent the authority of god we would revert to savagery. The atheist knows we're an animal, but knows we're inherently capable of more, and strives to do better without being told.

Oh, YEAH!!!!

What he said!

09/25/2009 12:59:11 PM · #263

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Mousie:
In a funny way, the faithful thinks we're more animal than the atheist, and that absent the authority of god we would revert to savagery. The atheist knows we're an animal, but knows we're inherently capable of more, and strives to do better without being told.

Oh, YEAH!!!!

What he said!

How is this consistent with Mousie's #3? You can't have it both ways unless #3 is meant simply to demonize the opposition.

And talk to me about this "better". Better than what and what would "best" look like?

Message edited by author 2009-09-25 13:00:41.

09/25/2009 12:59:16 PM · #264

Originally posted by scalvert:

Jason cannot grasp this because he equates gods with immaterial, so disbelieving gods must mean disbelieving all immaterial things. There is no other possibility.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

That's a fairly common misconception amongst the faithful.....that black-and-white, no middle-of-the-road perception.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I enjoy how I get piled on for something I admitted to Dahkota that there may be examples of non-material atheists, but none of them seem to be present. To my mind, being a non-material atheist would be to ignore the most appealing part of atheism, that is, it is the ultimate WYSIWYG worldview.

I certainly don't mean to lump you in with most of the faithful that I've met, but the same way you haven't met a non-materialistic atheist, I've met very few Christians that don't have to slot those that don't see things their way into some sort of category so that they may refer to their system of dealing with them in the appropriate way.

In a regimented and rigid belief system, there's little or no room for wild cards, and it's extraordinarily inconvenient to have to deal with a freelance thinker.

09/25/2009 01:01:47 PM · #265

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Oh, YEAH!!!!

What he said!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How is this consistent with Mousie's #3? You can't have it both ways unless #3 is meant simply to demonize the opposition.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

You're going to have people that feel both ways.

What consistency? We're talkin' humanoids here......since when has there ever been consistency?

Once again, you say you can't have it both ways....I ask why not?

09/25/2009 01:02:21 PM · #266

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

In a regimented and rigid belief system, there's little or no room for wild cards, and it's extraordinarily inconvenient to have to deal with a freelance thinker.

Truthfully, most freelance thinkers don't have a worldview that is coherent beyond a superficial level...

09/25/2009 01:06:10 PM · #267

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And talk to me about this "better". Better than what and what would "best" look like?

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.....better in the same way you would mean, just with a different motivation.

Best? I know I don't have a best, and am unlikely to....I hope to constantly improve with time and experience. And though I'm not an atheist, I'm not looking for the reward later as I believe that being good, or better, is its own reward now.

What's your "best"?

You have a definitive standard? It's not the constant striving to be.....(Gasp!)....better????

09/25/2009 01:07:10 PM · #268

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

In a regimented and rigid belief system, there's little or no room for wild cards, and it's extraordinarily inconvenient to have to deal with a freelance thinker.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Truthfully, most freelance thinkers don't have a worldview that is coherent beyond a superficial level...

Says who?

And isn't that just a tad judgemental based on limited exposure, and acceptance level of same?

FireBird

09/25/2009 01:07:55 PM · #269

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To my mind, being a non-material atheist would be to ignore the most appealing part of atheism, that is, it is the ultimate WYSIWYG worldview.

WYSIWYG?????? You've got to be kidding me right? Science discovers something new just about every day. We've only begun to scratch the surface of new discoveries. Who's to say that God doesn't operate under the same rules humans do????? We just don't know all the rules!

Your last sentence suggests to me why you enjoy these religious threads in rant. Your mind points toward the logical conclusion that there is no God, no higher being. But your soul battles against that. You don't want to give up the fairy tale that you learned as a child. Posting in here exercises your intellect while keeping you in the religion game.

09/25/2009 01:14:22 PM · #270

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To my mind, being a non-material atheist would be to ignore the most appealing part of atheism, that is, it is the ultimate WYSIWYG worldview.

WYSIWYG?????? You've got to be kidding me right? Science discovers something new just about every day. We've only begun to scratch the surface of new discoveries. Who's to say that God doesn't operate under the same rules humans do????? We just don't know all the rules!

Your last sentence suggests to me why you enjoy these religious threads in rant. Your mind points toward the logical conclusion that there is no God, no higher being. But your soul battles against that. You don't want to give up the fairy tale that you learned as a child. Posting in here exercises your intellect while keeping you in the religion game.

What? You must be kidding. I was actually mentioning the part of atheism I find to be attractive and you twist it somehow? Obviously we don't know everything, but atheism (or I should more properly say material atheism) holds that everything is within our grasp. Toss the adjective if you want, but I thought WYSIWYG was apt.

And if you think my mind points me to the logical conclusion there is no God, you have certainly not been paying attention. God, in my view, is inescapable.

09/25/2009 01:17:02 PM · #271

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In a regimented and rigid belief system, there's little or no room for wild cards, and it's extraordinarily inconvenient to have to deal with a freelance thinker.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Truthfully, most freelance thinkers don't have a worldview that is coherent beyond a superficial level...

Says who?

And isn't that just a tad judgemental based on limited exposure, and acceptance level of same?

I have talked to many, many people over the years. I'm just giving you my opinion. You can take it or leave it. My statement was no more judgemental than the backhand of describing most people as being part of "a regimented and rigid belief system".

09/25/2009 01:22:19 PM · #272

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Best? I know I don't have a best, and am unlikely to....I hope to constantly improve with time and experience.

Here's an example of an incoherent statement Jeb. At least how I'm reading it. If you are trying to "constantly improve", what are you improving toward? What is your goal? Would that not qualify as a "best" (ie. you've reached the goal)? If you are just saying you know you will never be as good as you can but you will try anyway, then I agree with you. But if that is your meaning, then you misunderstood my statement.

If you drive a car, but have no destination, there is no such thing as "constantly improving" your position. Only if a destination exists can one say you are "better" (ie. closer) than you were before or that you are "striving toward" something. Does that make sense? I was curious as to what Mousie's destination looked like more than whether he was actually going to get there.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/25/2009 01:26:44 PM · #273

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How is this consistent with Mousie's #3? You can't have it both ways unless #3 is meant simply to demonize the opposition.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

You're going to have people that feel both ways.

What consistency? We're talkin' humanoids here......since when has there ever been consistency?

Once again, you say you can't have it both ways....I ask why not?

Because presumably the same process is working in everybody, ie. Darwinian evolution. On one hand Mousie seemed to say everybody is self-serving and it's hard to break that habit, but then he goes on to say we "strive to do better without being told". Those statements are obviously contradictory and I'm just pointing it out.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

09/25/2009 01:29:43 PM · #274

If I may paraphrase, I think what Jason is talking about is basically the same as Platonic Idealism. The idea that there exists some universal ideal that exists beyond the physical world. So when you are saying you are striving to be better, you are really saying that you are striving toward some universal idea of Best. Where this falls apart for me from a logical standpoint is the lack of agreement over what these universal ideals are. If they are universal, it would seem logical that we could arrive at some agreement about what they look like, and yet there is no such agreement.