Atheism, Agnosticism, Politics and Religion

truth
A good series of ideas, C.I., you're on a roll.
Frank, I sometimes think you maliciously try not to understand me, and by turning your misunderstandings on me to defend....agh. You ARE a bit high maintenance. That can be both a complement (you stimulate WORK from others) and a criticism (you stimulate WORK from others).

:wink:
Sumac, I referred to emotions? Good for me, but I don't recall.

You gotta problem wit string, Sum? You wanna go outside 'n' talk about it, huh?

Frank

I'm going to take one more crack at this--speaking only for myself, of course. Its a rehash of arguments I've made elsewhere, but maybe a little more cogent this time. Or, maybe not.

I agree that there is no way to know whether or not there are Gods, particularly when they are defined as beings whose existence is beyond verification.

About such Gods, I am an agnostic, as God Himself would have to be. What I do not understand is the relevance of these Gods, if they are beyond our knowing, and make no effort to interact with us, guide us, bend us to their will, or promise us rewards and punishments based on our conduct. Such Gods (if they exist), may be creators of the universe, perhaps, or superior beings, but NOT Gods as the term is commonly understood, since God, as defined by my dictionary, is "the principal object of faith and worship".

How can you worship a God who gives no sign of his presence, and, conversely, how can such a being or beings be called God, as the term is commonly understood?

I submit that the existence or non-existence of theoretical Gods who do not interact in any way with our plane of existence is irrelevent to the issue of atheism vs. theism; an unnecessary complication, a mere parlor game.

If you are agnostic about the God of the Bible or the Koran or any other God whose existence is asserted, that is certainly a valid point of view which I respect.

But if the main thrust of your argument is to introduce the possibility of Gods no one else has yet imagined, well, that just strikes me as perilously close to founding yet another religion based on faith, although the faith in this case is a particularly shallow one, mercifully free of dogma.

And, no, I don't KNOW any of this. I just suspect it.

Thank you Greyfan! Mercifully clear of petifoggery! Now please separate the basset and the bomb before I have bad dreams tonight... please...

Greyfan

Parlor game well spotted !

Unfortunately the central issue in this thread is that religions have serious social and political status whatever your own belief category may be.

In 1969 two countries went to war over a football (soccer) game !

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

Parlor game players take note !

i did.

"How can you worship a God who gives no sign of his presence, and, conversely, how can such a being or beings be called God?"


maybe you just can't read the signs?

others see god's manifestation in time and space all around them.

some see it in a blade of grass, in a sunset, and in a smile on a small child's face....some see it in the elephant's tusk, others in its tail.

while objective reality, in, shall we say a newtonian, not quantum universe, is a social construct of meaning based upon what we have learned, there is another aspect of human sentience that can not be adequately related by language, and this is the problem with one discussing their own god. it is the aspect that is nestled in the space between thoughts, images, and rational meaning.

rational thought has attempted to identify, quantize, and bring meaning to that aspect of human sentience. people call this god. that the attempt falls from the mark does not lessen the effect on one of such recognition of something mere language refers to as god.

as to higher, or lower planes of existence: i am first and foremost, a incorrigable Flatlander of 5 dimensions, x,y,z, time, and human sentient thought......i could have used polar coordinates as well.

there is a quantum difference between the layers of the stuff of the universe. fundamental are gravity and electromagnetic radiation. in hindsight, it follows that matter would arise from gravity and EM radiation?

it follows that from simple matter life springs?

it follows that from mere life, sentience springs?

it follows that beyond human sentience, just what?

scientific method, observation, inquiry would lead one to wonder that if life arose from non-life, that if sentience arose from non-sentient life, that perhaps the line from gravity and electromagnetic radiation to human sentience can be extrapolated to that which is beyond sentience as we know it. that state or plane of existence could be as far removed from us as we are from an ameoba or lump of clay.

the echo one picks that is between thoughts could well be the reception by the sensory organ of the mind to pick up that which is not completely revealed to us by the 5 sense organs.

what i find quite amusing about atheists is their unmitigated. egotistical gall to think that they are the final step, the finite particle, the definite article of existence, not recognizing that they could be no more than an ameoba in the eyes of what could only be defined as higher sentience.

i am happy that this lump of clay can think, i feel privileged to be sentient, and i, this happy, sentient lump of clay can imagine that i am not the final act in the universe.

and i can imagine that the final act is beyond me and all that i can ever possibly think of in my philosophy.

"All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,"
William Shakespeare

Which is more elegant and impressive, a universe in which things are created, or a universe which by its very nature, creates?

We can't really know what we're dealing with because we're too much a part of it to step back. But *if* the dust at our feet really has become the thoughts we think, then it should be apparent to even the most rigid materialist, that the dusk contains miraculous, if not terrible powers. Impressive isn't it... you can aaaalmost.... feel it.

"...others see god's manifestation in time and space all around them.
some see it in a blade of grass, in a sunset, and in a smile on a small child's face....some see it in the elephant's tusk, others in its tail..."

But they get the idea of "god" from their culture first and then reach for it as an explanation of beauty or complexity or things they don't understand. The trick is to clear your mind to the greatest extent possible and THEN observe, notice, become aware. Because we all carry years of cultural baggage with us: our names for things, our idea of color and names for specific colors, our fear/love sense of the wild, etc. etc. "God" is not self-created but created by us. That's okay (eg, I ain't got no problem with dat) AS LONG AS we recognize it as yet another idea. That's one of the main reasons agnosticism is puzzling and irrelevant. "I reserve my judgment about the possible reality of an idea created by me."

Re: truth



Never. And I am not even sure what you are referencing here.

I like the way you think -- I like your contributions. I cannot even guess at what prompted this post. I thought we were having a reasonable conversation -- with each of us putting in a dig or two. But I thought it was friendly and completely reasonable.

Tell me exactly what I said that set this off -- and I promise I will give it a careful response.

I hate people who create straw-men, so I am very anxious to know what I did in the way of misunderstanding you -- and how I used it in the way you are inferring -- because I assure you I have never intentionally created a straw man!

Frank -- you're always so darn NICE about being disagreed with! Keep up the good work, bud.

I do not disagree with you on this, Greyfan, but keep in mind that I have differentiated the god of the Bible (the god of "holy books") from possible gods. And I have asked questions to see if the people I am discussing this with are saying "I think the god of the Bible does not exist" or "I think it is impossible for any gods to exist."

So while it may not make much difference in the long run, the issue certainly has some relevance to this thead.

I guess the god of the Bible to be a fictional character. I think any reasonable reading of the Bible would lead any intelligent, open-minded individual to the same conclusion. But I know people whom I consider intelligent and open-minded (in my personal life and here in the forums) who read the Bible and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

I also happen to think that religion in general presents a net negative to humanity -- and I think the negative is large enough to require thinking people to combat it at every opportunity -- and to mount as intense a combative effort as possible.

I do not think atheism can do the job. Atheism combats believers in gods -- by asserting a belief in no gods.

I think agnosticism is the far better avenue to defeat of religion -- and the negative consequences of much of religion.

So I am one determined son-of-a-bitch when discussing any aspect of it.

I ask for no quarter when I am debating theists; I ask for no quarter when I am debating atheists; and I give no quarter to either.




Please dissuade yourself of any doubts you have in this regard. This discussion is not about presenting new concepts of gods -- but is merely an exercise in logic -- and more specifically, logic in furtherance of the agnostic perspective.

I am trying -- albeit, rather unsuccessfully, to show that it is as ludicrous to "believe" there are no gods -- and/or no possibility of gods -- as to assert that there is a God.

I am agnostic about the god of the Bible, but I want to be sure you realize that I am willing to make a guess about that god. While I still assert that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about whether a God exist; gods exist; or no gods exist -- I certainly think there is enough reasonably unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess about the god of the Bible.

I guess it to be fictional -- and not especially inspired fiction at that.




We are brothers.

Frank, Actually we are all brothers. Most people just don't realize that. c.i.

Make that "brothers and sisters" and I'll sign on, ci. :wink:

Nice post, Frank

I don't know why some of these folks get so riled at you.

I'm sticking with atheism because for me at least it is a better platform for opposing religio-pomposity, which I may expound on in some other forum...but for now I'll just value the large areas in which our suspicions align.

Well, I admit absolute defeat in dealing with this in my head. Call it a failure of intelligence, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around the topic. I know that it is terrifically important to our existence, but.......beyond that, I know nothing.

Hmm, Sumac! Try the Homosexuality vs. Christianity thread!!