Frank: just out of curiosity, if you do think that there is something superior to humanity...what do you think it might be? I've given my hypothesis; what's yours?
Taliesin181 wrote:Frank: just out of curiosity, if you do think that there is something superior to humanity...what do you think it might be? I've given my hypothesis; what's yours?
As I said earlier...I consider homo sapiens to be a fairly primative species...rather recently down out of the trees. It would be amazing to me if there are not species much, much, much, much, much more evolved in terms of distance from "primative."
Perhaps evolution along branches that have not even budded yet on Earth is the superior to humanity that I imagine.
Idle speculation, in any case, on my part.
Frank wrote:
Quote:Perhaps evolution along branches that have not even budded yet on Earth is the superior to humanity that I imagine.
Idle speculation, in any case, on my part.
Interesting. Is there any reason why concept of a "God" is lower on your probability string than another race? I'll admit that it makes more scientific sense than the "God" option, but most people usually lean towards a "god", and I'm curious as to why you haven't.
Thanks for the response.
Taliesin181 wrote:Frank wrote:
Quote:Perhaps evolution along branches that have not even budded yet on Earth is the superior to humanity that I imagine.
Idle speculation, in any case, on my part.
Interesting. Is there any reason why concept of a "God" is lower on your probability string than another race? I'll admit that it makes more scientific sense than the "God" option, but most people usually lean towards a "god", and I'm curious as to why you haven't.
Thanks for the response.
It is not lower on my probability string.
There may be a god. There may be superior "non-god" beings.
Who knows?
In any case, I certainly do not rule out the possibility of a god....even a creator god. I doubt very seriously that any god that might exist, however, would conduct itself in any way like the thing from the Bible.
As I have pointed out often...the worst insult to any god that exists....is supposing it is even near to being accurately descibed in the Bible.
Ooops...one last thought.
My estimate of the chances of ever finding out if there is a god....is damn near zero. If there is a god....and the god wanted us to know it exists....WE WOULD KNOW WITHOUT QUESTION.
My estimate of the chances of ever finding out if there are more advanced species is that they are quite good. Provided we do not destroy ourselves before we gain the technology necessary for deep space exploration.
Frank wrote:
Quote:My estimate of the chances of ever finding out if there is a god....is damn near zero. If there is a god....and the god wanted us to know it exists....WE WOULD KNOW WITHOUT QUESTION.
My estimate of the chances of ever finding out if there are more advanced species is that they are quite good. Provided we do not destroy ourselves before we gain the technology necessary for deep space exploration.
Heh. Your top comment actually gives me some insight into your philosophy...I don't think you've put it that succinctly before. Well done.
Quote:It is not lower on my probability string.
There may be a god. There may be superior "non-god" beings.
Who knows?
In any case, I certainly do not rule out the possibility of a god....even a creator god. I doubt very seriously that any god that might exist, however, would conduct itself in any way like the thing from the Bible.
My point wasn't that you don't think there could be a "God", but rather that, when asked what you thought there was as a "superior being", you went the route of (more)intelligent life elsewhere in the universe...instead of the "God" route.
My question was why you didn't answer something like "if there's a "higher being", it's might be a God like _____", instead of "Perhaps evolution along branches that have not even budded yet on Earth is the superior to humanity that I imagine", thereby indicating that you thought the "extra-terrestrial" option (for lack of a better phrase) was more likely.
I hope that clarifies what was probably a very muddled question.
Frank
Frank, if I had to choose an alternative to atheism, it probably would be Deism---except I doubt I would acceptance the existence of a God. I would be in good company. ---BBB
Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature. More specifically, it is a belief in God that created the universe and set it in motion to run by natural processes (laws), and is based on the observation of orderly nature (universe) and human reason (speculation), rather than on holy books. Generally, it's a rational belief in God without accepting the creeds of any particular traditional religion.
Deism is a philosophy that can be a thinking person's religion. It has the attractive features of:
Nature as revelation to God is universal without limits of language, location, or time.
Encouraging maximum use of science and individualistic rational thinking.
Affording personal freedom to seek spirituality and meaning.
Providing a fellowship for discussion and support.
Having no authoritarian creeds, rituals, or tithes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deism has its roots as far back as when people first instinctively pondered God as creator of the universe. It has flourished historically with support from Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Italian and English scientists such as Galileo and Newton, English and French Enlightenment writers such as Hume and Voltaire, American Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin, and modern scientists such as Einstein, but most consider Thomas Paine's The Age Of Reason as the definitive Deistic writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."
--- Thomas Paine
"Nothing contributes so much to tranquilizing the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye."
--- Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means given us knowledge which we can attain by them."
--- Galileo Galilei
"Life becomes religious whenever we make it so: when some new light is seen, when some deeper appreciation is felt, when some larger outlook is gained, when some nobler purpose is formed, when some task is well done."
--- Sophia Lyon Fahs
BBB
Thanks for all that information. I've read a lot about deism over the years....and the material you presented is right in line with what I've discovered.
Deism shares a negative with theism and atheism that I simply will not abide.
Theism involves guesses about the unknown....the nature of the Ultimate REALITY.
Atheism involves guesses about the unknown....the nature of the Ultimate REALITY.
Deism involves guesses about the unknown....the nature of the Ultimate REALITY.
The world would be a much better place if adherents of all three disciplines simply acknowledged that the unknown....is unknown. And that the information available to unravel the unknown is much, much, much too scant and ambiguous to allow for meaningful guesses of any kind.
Sorry that doesn't appeal to you.
But deism doesn't appeal to me any more than theism and atheism do.
Re: Okay...let's see...where was I...
Frank Apisa wrote: Blatham....Lola...are you of the opinion that agnosticism is inferior to atheism....and if "yes"...on what basis?
I don't know if they do. I don't know if Blatham and Lola even exist anymore. I don't know that they don't exist either. And I don't want to guess -- sometimes you have to acknowledge that you just don't know. Did you know that this is a sign of strength, not of weakness really?
we exist and you know it, mr. Thomas. Sometimes you have to recognize what you do know or that what you believe is so likely (given scientific facts, defined as so close to sure that it's considered to be a fact until proven otherwise) that you call it knowing. If we're talking about the ability to be absolutely sure, then of course we don't know, but as you point out, if that's the case, we actually know nothing. And if we know nothing, then how do we benefit from science in the first place? So yes, you don't know, but actually you do. See?
or stated another way, I know there is no God as well as I know that it's hot outside today (and it IS hot)
Well, Lola, my own opinion is that agnosticism is for sissies. Real men, those who can bring themselves to admit that being agnostic about god is as pointless as being agnostic about unicorns and fairies, don't need such a cowardly cop-out. But I would never say this to Frank, who might get himself exiled again if I did. So I thought I'd break the ice with some nice, civilized teasing. Anyway, Frank is a good fellow. He will eventually give up this decaf, aspartame, agnostic stuff and discover the one true path of atheism.
Re: Okay...let's see...where was I...
Thomas wrote:Frank Apisa wrote: Blatham....Lola...are you of the opinion that agnosticism is inferior to atheism....and if "yes"...on what basis?
I don't know if they do. I don't know if Blatham and Lola even exist anymore. I don't know that they don't exist either. And I don't want to guess -- sometimes you have to acknowledge that you just don't know. Did you know that this is a sign of strength, not of weakness really?
Very funny.
However....you and Blatham did meet in New York. You remember....the time I was excluded.
But I want you to know that I do not hold any of that against either you or Bernie....you dirty rotten rashenfrashens.
Lola wrote:or stated another way, I know there is no God as well as I know that it's hot outside today (and it IS hot)
Yeah! Sure you do!
Just like the theists claim they know there is a God as well as they know it is hot outside today. (and it is a scorcher!)
Ahhh...you theists and atheists are good for laughs, though.
Thomas wrote:Well, Lola, my own opinion is that agnosticism is for sissies. Real men, those who can bring themselves to admit that being agnostic about god is as pointless as being agnostic about unicorns and fairies, don't need such a cowardly cop-out. But I would never say this to Frank, who might get himself exiled again if I did. So I thought I'd break the ice with some nice, civilized teasing. Anyway, Frank is a good fellow. He will eventually give up this decaf, aspartame, agnostic stuff and discover the one true path of atheism.
Real men are not afraid of the truth. Real men are not afraid to say, "I do not know" when they do not know.
You seem to be a good guy, Thomas. But pretending you know stuff you don't....like the theists do....is beneath the dignity of real men.
And arguing that you are right...and the agnostic position is inferior....is ludicrous.
Perhaps that is why you folks never actually argue that position...but merely assert it.
Hey....once you start asserting stuff without substance....it becomes an addiction. Tough habit to break.
But if you work on it, you might make some progress.
I'm still waiting for Lola or Blatham to actually make any arguments that atheism....the guess that there are no gods....is superior to agnosticism...the acknowledgement that the answer to that question appears to be unknown....and that the evidence available for guessing about it is too ambiguous to be useful.
Will that happen sometime this century?
It's good to have you back, Frank!
