Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why does people only take some God(s) seriously?

I mean, if God(s) is so mysterious and our feeble minds cannot grasp how God(s) operate, then how come people think of Yahweh, Allah, heck, even Hindu gods, as a possibility (since nobody knows for sure).

But at the same time, would never offer that possibility to Odin and Zevs? I mean, it's not just a "well, I don't belive in such silly gods", but more of a "ANYBODY who concidure such gods are idiots" theme over it all.

Why is this? What happened to our mortal minds not understanding how God(s) operate? How can we then select and pick those likely and unlikely? It's not like Yahweh or Allah breaks less laws of physics or something like that.

At 6/12/08 02:22 AM, Drakim wrote: Why does people only take some God(s) seriously?

I mean, if God(s) is so mysterious and our feeble minds cannot grasp how God(s) operate, then how come people think of Yahweh, Allah, heck, even Hindu gods, as a possibility (since nobody knows for sure).

But at the same time, would never offer that possibility to Odin and Zevs? I mean, it's not just a "well, I don't belive in such silly gods", but more of a "ANYBODY who concidure such gods are idiots" theme over it all.

Why is this? What happened to our mortal minds not understanding how God(s) operate? How can we then select and pick those likely and unlikely? It's not like Yahweh or Allah breaks less laws of physics or something like that.

Hey, something i can respond intelligently to!

I'm an Omnitheist. That means I believe every religion is worshiping the same god, just in different ways. Even pagans are worshiping the same one God as everyone else, but they are worship different aspects of that one God separately. Now, there is no "proof" which is the right way to worship, or if there is even a right way to worship at all. So I see all religions as equally valid. Personally, I can't understand how someone can look at a whole list of religions and just pick out the "right" one, but to each his own.

At 6/5/08 07:30 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 6/5/08 04:25 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/4/08 09:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote: So the answer is no.

Unless God, and thus the universe, is not governed by logic...

Or not governed by logic 100% of the time.. which would be the same thing as not being governed by logic, really... but would that ever be observable>?

But then isn't that the bigquandary with an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal (read: un-caused) "god" figure. It must, be definition, break logic... and by doing so, it must break logic for the universe, as well, meaning anything, quite literally, is possible.

Agree.

In such a universe, faith becomes logic, because anything you have faith in, must be true because it can be true.

It has the possibility of becoming true. Unless the future is certain, indeed anything is possible.

Then the question becomes: Why does our universe seem to follow logic perfectly?

Foregone conclusions? In other threads the term perfect has caused problem in the past. I would say any perfect system has a fail-safe. Strict logic disallows 'imperfect' designs because logic requires reasoning. (Some events defy reasoning, or at least *reasons percievable by us*.)

very eloquent guys awesome... drunk im on your page man. Logic is termed to identify reason or to follow a cohesive progression of thought. but in the realm of the vast, unexplored infinity of space, logic cannot dictate the theory of design as there is no way to define the architecture of an unknown.

At 6/12/08 02:29 AM, LeadSnake wrote: Hey, something i can respond intelligently to!

I'm an Omnitheist. That means I believe every religion is worshiping the same god, just in different ways. Even pagans are worshiping the same one God as everyone else, but they are worship different aspects of that one God separately. Now, there is no "proof" which is the right way to worship, or if there is even a right way to worship at all. So I see all religions as equally valid. Personally, I can't understand how someone can look at a whole list of religions and just pick out the "right" one, but to each his own.

Two things,

First of all, there are lots of religious where they don't belive all Gods are just aspects of one God. See, in Nordic mytology, Loki, Thor and Odin aren't aspects of one great God or something like that. They are completely separate gods who often work for diffrent goals, sometimes even against each other. Your Omnitheism only really works for religions with one great God or at least one great head God.

Secondly, it still doesn't address my point properly. If as you say, all Gods are just aspects of the one true God, then how come so many Gods aren't taken seriously? if Zevs is just another "view" of the one true God as Allah is, then why would people laugh at you for beliving in Zevs?

At 6/12/08 03:46 AM, Drakim wrote: Two things,

First of all, there are lots of religious where they don't belive all Gods are just aspects of one God. See, in Nordic mytology, Loki, Thor and Odin aren't aspects of one great God or something like that. They are completely separate gods who often work for diffrent goals, sometimes even against each other. Your Omnitheism only really works for religions with one great God or at least one great head God.

That is true, however I don't ofter find myself in a position where I need to defend my belief system to a follower of Nordic mythology. And to give an example of something I know a little more about, the ancient roman Gods were all distinct and often worked against each other too, but they all had their own "areas" that they governed over. One was in charge of the sea, one the wind, one crops, on for war. I see that as instead of having one God that controls all these things you break it down into several Gods, which do the same thing that one great god would do.

Secondly, it still doesn't address my point properly. If as you say, all Gods are just aspects of the one true God, then how come so many Gods aren't taken seriously? if Zevs is just another "view" of the one true God as Allah is, then why would people laugh at you for beliving in Zevs?

Because not everyone is an Omnitheist. Ideally, all Gods and all religions would be just valid as any other, but the current situation is far from ideal.

That's kinda one of the principle questions of our day. We read the Metamorphosis as literature, but the Romans to some extend believed that stuff (although Ovid is a bad example).

Will the Bible one day be considered just "literature" in the same way?

I don't really have any sort of decent answer at this point, but I'll think of something.

At 6/12/08 11:52 PM, Imperator wrote: That's kinda one of the principle questions of our day. We read the Metamorphosis as literature, but the Romans to some extend believed that stuff (although Ovid is a bad example).

Will the Bible one day be considered just "literature" in the same way?

Hard to say, but if one looks at history, would it really be surprising? Truly, does anyone think that their truly heartfelt beliefs become simple stories? No, but with only a minor glance at history it is all but assured that every religion, including the three desert dogmas, will more likely than not take their place in history eventally as nothing but mythology.

I kind of wish I could see what the history of religion looks like at the end of humanity, not to see what did and did not make it to the end, but to see if there is a pattern to theism. I wonder if it will have a cycle where it alternates between monotheism and polytheism...

I don't really have any sort of decent answer at this point, but I'll think of something.

My answer is hardly decent, but I hope it will suffice, though I'm only running on about two hours of sleep in the last 48, so I could just be rambling in some incoherent fashion....

At 6/13/08 02:48 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: No, but with only a minor glance at history it is all but assured that every religion, including the three desert dogmas, will more likely than not take their place in history eventally as nothing but mythology.

the question is; what will replace them? for something to become myth as have the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and Romans something must surpass them as the dominant religions (and others must take the place of less popular religions). there seem to be few "legitimate" religions emerging and i highly doubt atheism or something like Scientology would render those beliefs obsolete.
but then again it may simply be the fact that we are living and witnessing these times that makes it seem that nothing is emerging and that our personal feelings towards certain beliefs is the onlly thing preventing us from being aware of the growing power of new religions.

At 6/5/08 03:29 PM, Imperator wrote: I mean, could we talk about god in math terms? The higher up you go in math, the fewer numbers you use anyways right?

Before any sort of mathematical analysis of God can commence, one would need a concrete definition of God and His components. As long as such a definition is lacking, no model can constructed to describe God or the workings of His components.

Ofcourse any sort of analysis of God also requires that God is placed within some logical frame. There must be some limitations, some laws that govern God or else God is entirely unlogical. Any analysis relies logic and without it no deductions or predictions can be made.

And if God is outside any logical frame, then what good is discussing Him? If God obeys no logic, then His reasons cannot be deducted and His behaviour cannot be predicted. No properties of God whatsoever can be derived if logic does not apply, only assumed.

Which reminds me of another omnipotent question I've heard before:
"Can God divide by zero?"

So far the "best" answer I've heard to this has been:
"To solve the problem, God wouldn't even have to".

Sounds like dodging the question to me. No answer has been given as to whether God can or can not divide by zero. Furthermore, any solution or proof in which division by zero occurs is flawed because division by zero is undefined. So of course God, or any lesser being for that matter, would not have to divide by zero since doing so would render the solution/proof invalid.

Personally, I dislike those sort of questions and prefer not to define omnipotence as something that requires the ability to break blatant logical contradictions. It just leads to a big mess. Suppose God can 'divide by zero'. What does that mean? Why can God, but not we? Allowing God to divide by zero immediately makes God an entirely unlogical entity and if that's the case, then nothing useful can be said of God and the discussion ends, doesn't it?.

I'm afraid that, if only for purposes of practicality, we must define God as a logical entity if we want to discuss Him. If God is unlogical, then one could still assign all sorts of properties to Him, but one could go no further. After all, God is unlogical, and because of it nothing else can be derived from the assumed properties.

Tacitacial, you rule.

Finally someone who thinks intelligently -_-
I hope they read what you wrote, but I doubt they'll understand it.

Prepare for more "logic is invented by man so god doesn't follow it" type idiot answers.

Well at least I read it.
<3

At 6/13/08 02:48 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Hard to say, but if one looks at history, would it really be surprising? Truly, does anyone think that their truly heartfelt beliefs become simple stories? No, but with only a minor glance at history it is all but assured that every religion, including the three desert dogmas, will more likely than not take their place in history eventally as nothing but mythology.

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Indeed.

What's sort of curious to me is that this does not always apply though.

Homer has survived 2700 years now, and shows no signs of disappearance. Thucydides wrote "My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last forever", and has 2500 years of influence. The weird thing is although they become works of literature as time goes by, many surviving works strangely do not lose their influence.

I kind of wish I could see what the history of religion looks like at the end of humanity, not to see what did and did not make it to the end, but to see if there is a pattern to theism. I wonder if it will have a cycle where it alternates between monotheism and polytheism...

Well there's a study out there in psychology somewhere about the linguistic evolution of God. We went from many Gods talking to us, to one God encompassing all those characterizations talking to us, to one God who does not talk but communicates outside of speech. It's a theory of reduction, whereby we're obviously reducing the divine to, quite literally, a figment of our imagination. I remember it being a fairly decent theory, but I think there were quite a few problems with it, and if I could just remember the damn names of the researchers I could probably find a link for it.......damnit.....

I'd love to see the end too, although I think that "the end of religion" as it were must occur along evolutionary lines, which means the process might be too gradual to actually observe occurring, or may not be noticed when it does disappear.

The reason I say that is because if there is an evolution of religion, there has not been any significant movement in the evolution away from religion. It still seems to serve a purpose, and any particular religion by and large becomes simply "replaced". Today's a little different, in that there doesn't seem to be much in terms of replacing the major religions already out there, but pseudo-religious movements might be a new trend. Certain philosophies or "mystic" type branches, like New Age spirituality.

Religion still seems to fill certain gaps in Maslow's hierarchy, so I think religion will be around for quite some time.

What I find somewhat scary is the idea that science can be manipulated into a pseudo-religion. Your friendly neighborhood Scientologists or Creationists will attempt to use science as a type of spiritualism in and of itself. This is rather alarming to me, mainly because the history of science also shows that abuse can be disasterous. Ideas of "race" and genetic differences (name another species of homo sapiens if you think any "differences" in our genes amount to something), human experimentation, etc.

These people are geared towards accepting what they believe is a scientific perspective on spirituality. As freaky and counterintuitive as it sounds, for many out there; "science" has itself become the new religion.

And because it's ALWAYS a favorite topic of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40q4P-dyn 0o
Music and spirituality. The mixing of language and music, with the presence of a "divine" element?

If you watch it through (there are several parts), there might be some interesting things to discuss. Spirituality, emotion, and even ideas of illusion appear a few times, and there are more than a few comparisons I'd like to make....but don't have the time for......

Yay for retreats from your Dime a Dozen religion threads.

Well I guess reading Sol's post would have saved me time.....

At 6/21/08 06:31 PM, Tacitacial wrote:
Before any sort of mathematical analysis of God can commence, one would need a concrete definition of God and His components. As long as such a definition is lacking, no model can constructed to describe God or the workings of His components.

Right. And since math is much more precise in this regard, such a definition would be fairly difficult to formulate. Maybe this is what is mean when people say "God is unknown", but then again, given the rather shallow nature of some people I've met, I doubt they're thinking that deeply.....

And in the end, should we be able to create such a definition for God, we become greater than him in the process. Any god that has such a definition must be, by it's nature, limited by those parameters. Since most deities, and indeed, the idea of the divine itself, presumes no limits, mathematically defining god might prove the nonexistence of such a god......

Maybe? I dunno, I have a feeling I don't have the mathematical background for this line of discussion. The historical, musical, psychological, anthropological, sociological, linguistic, and philosophical background, but math.....not a whole not there.....

And if God is outside any logical frame, then what good is discussing Him? If God obeys no logic, then His reasons cannot be deducted and His behaviour cannot be predicted. No properties of God whatsoever can be derived if logic does not apply, only assumed.

This is one which with I tend to have issues. 9/10 times I hear of the "impracticality" of these lines of thinking, when that, for me, tends to be the cop out. It's a discussion for the sake of discussion, not to single you out or anything, but "practicality" is a hot button of mine.

Also, and more on the subject matter, while we cannot be definitive in god's behavior if he falls outside of logic, we can be presumptive about it, based on the evidence available. Psychology on some levels operates entirely on presumptions, which is why it's a soft science. The nature of the mind has in many cases been compared to a "black box" function (as in a math function, f(x)) problem. We don't know the function, but we know (and can constrain) the input, and we know the output for a great many stimuli.

This allows us to assume things about the mind with some significance, even though by and large the function of the mind is, and may forever remain, as a "black box" mystery. (yay for almost being a cognitive psych major).

Sounds like dodging the question to me. No answer has been given as to whether God can or can not divide by zero. Furthermore, any solution or proof in which division by zero occurs is flawed because division by zero is undefined. So of course God, or any lesser being for that matter, would not have to divide by zero since doing so would render the solution/proof invalid.

About 9/10 times I'd say it's dodging too, I'd say it's an attempt to show the omnipotence of a divinity, when in fact it's a lack of proper critical thinking on the question at hand: An answer designed to be clever that in practice looks like a cop out. S'why I put "best" in quotes, it's a terrible answer to the question, but wins some points on presumed cleverness. Really, questions like those assume so much that they're impractical to ask.

They do sort of stimulate some thinking on the subject though, as in discussing this with you I've actually thought of a new line of questioning. Would it be possible to compare or correlate the divine to a "Liar paradox", or any type of paradox?

For an example:
"This sentence is false" is a liar paradox. (there was a philosophy Ph.D student in my greek class, I learned a lot this summer! :) )

Personally, I dislike those sort of questions and prefer not to define omnipotence as something that requires the ability to break blatant logical contradictions. It just leads to a big mess. Suppose God can 'divide by zero'. What does that mean? Why can God, but not we? Allowing God to divide by zero immediately makes God an entirely unlogical entity and if that's the case, then nothing useful can be said of God and the discussion ends, doesn't it?.

I dislike them as well, and actually this leads me back to my main point: Language might not be the best medium through which we can discuss the divine. Math may not be the best either. This is why I try to chose my words carefully here. I talk more about "the divine", spirituality, and philosophical matters, with the occasional "would this count as a 'religious experience?'" questions here rather than a discussion of God (capitalized in reference to the Judeo-Christian god).

At 6/22/08 01:28 AM, Imperator wrote: And in the end, should we be able to create such a definition for God, we become greater than him in the process. Any god that has such a definition must be, by it's nature, limited by those parameters. Since most deities, and indeed, the idea of the divine itself, presumes no limits, mathematically defining god might prove the nonexistence of such a god......

Would we become greater than God if we knew what He is and how He functions? Does understanding an object or a concept make one greater it? What exactly does it mean to be greater than something anyway? Assuming that God knows what we are and how we work, finding a model which describes God would only put us on the same level, since then we would then know just as much about Him as He does about us.

Even then, in the end we might be limited to finding only approximations of the truth rather than the absolute truth itself while God has no need for such approximations to understand us. In that case we would forever be 'less' than God since our knowledge of Him is always less then His knowledge of us.

Also, and more on the subject matter, while we cannot be definitive in god's behavior if he falls outside of logic, we can be presumptive about it, based on the evidence available. Psychology on some levels operates entirely on presumptions, which is why it's a soft science. The nature of the mind has in many cases been compared to a "black box" function (as in a math function, f(x)) problem. We don't know the function, but we know (and can constrain) the input, and we know the output for a great many stimuli.

If one can correlate the output to the input, then there is some logical system which governs the relation between the two. If you can say that if given input A there is a probability P of output B then you can make predictions as to what could happen. Because then, apparently, there's some sort of probability distribution telling us how likely a certain outcome is. If the evidence allows us to draw conclusions about God, then God must be obey some form of logic since we'd be able to say that God has property A with probability P. And then one can define a probability distribution and perhaps even add constraints if any of the properties have a probability of zero. Then there must be some physical model which can be used to describe God.

For an example:
"This sentence is false" is a liar paradox. (there was a philosophy Ph.D student in my greek class, I learned a lot this summer! :) )

The only solution I have to that problem is to say that any system which contains that statement is an unlogical and undefined system, since it contains an undefined statement. I may be taking the easy way out, but I can do no more than simply declare such a system invalid and throw it away.

I dislike them as well, and actually this leads me back to my main point: Language might not be the best medium through which we can discuss the divine. Math may not be the best either. This is why I try to chose my words carefully here. I talk more about "the divine", spirituality, and philosophical matters, with the occasional "would this count as a 'religious experience?'" questions here rather than a discussion of God (capitalized in reference to the Judeo-Christian god).

Well, what I said about God should also hold true for "the divine" and spirituality in general. If "the divine" has no concrete definition, no model can be constructed to describe "the divine". If "the divine" is entirely unlogical, then what could we possibly say about "the divine"? The logical system which applies to "the divine" need not be the same as our logical system, but if it's there we might be able to derive some properties of "the divine".

Well conversation here seems to be going the way it so often does so I shall ask a question (this is not a mere bump, honest).

We have all come across accounts of 'visionary' experiences in our time; often of a religious nature. Where someone truly claims to have witnessed the miracle of god in all its splendour (I might posit that one could do the same merely by looking out one's window but that is neither here nor there). Is this, to you, proof of the existance of some higher being? Alternatively would you say that these experiences are but hallucinations caused by an unbalanced mind pushed to the edge by enforced discomfort (even to the point of flagellance generally), starvation, dehydration and extremes of climate? Jesus meeting with the devil during his time in the desert for instance.

Furthermore, if we accept that they are caused by a chemical inbalance of the brain, does that cheapen the experience at all? For that matter if someone had the same experience because they had ingested a psychadelic psychoactive substance (DMT, LSD, 'shrooms etc.) would it be any less worthy for that?

My own opinion would be that these are mere delusions and should be accorded the same respect (that is, none), speaking objectively. It is therefore whether they lead to the betterment of the self or others that must denote their worth. Any and all revelations, however, must be understood to come from the individual as it is an internal process.

At 7/26/08 03:32 PM, Pontificate wrote: Well conversation here seems to be going the way it so often does so I shall ask a question (this is not a mere bump, honest).

We have all come across accounts of 'visionary' experiences in our time; often of a religious nature. Where someone truly claims to have witnessed the miracle of god in all its splendour (I might posit that one could do the same merely by looking out one's window but that is neither here nor there). Is this, to you, proof of the existance of some higher being? Alternatively would you say that these experiences are but hallucinations caused by an unbalanced mind pushed to the edge by enforced discomfort (even to the point of flagellance generally), starvation, dehydration and extremes of climate? Jesus meeting with the devil during his time in the desert for instance.

Something from Dogma comes to mind. "When they're talkin' God, they're talkin' to me... or they're talking to themselves."

Anyway, it can hardly be used as proof of a divine being for the simple reason that there is nothing that can be proven. It could be that some diety or another really did reach down and gave a guy a high five, but short of a limb regrowing or some other nigh impossible circumstance occuring, there is no proof of anything.

Furthermore, if we accept that they are caused by a chemical inbalance of the brain, does that cheapen the experience at all? For that matter if someone had the same experience because they had ingested a psychadelic psychoactive substance (DMT, LSD, 'shrooms etc.) would it be any less worthy for that?

Even if the words of a person normally could be trusted, and in my humble opinion for matters of religion they cannot, I fail to see how it could be credible to any degree. Once again, that isn't to say they are liars, as they may truly believe in what they are saying, but how they can be taken seriously is lost on me. If I had to give a yes or no answer, yes being that they are less credible, and no being that they are just as credible, I'd have to say yes.

My own opinion would be that these are mere delusions and should be accorded the same respect (that is, none), speaking objectively. It is therefore whether they lead to the betterment of the self or others that must denote their worth. Any and all revelations, however, must be understood to come from the individual as it is an internal process.

Basically my thoughts on the matter. I'd offer you a cookie for the bump but it seems I've run out so you'll have to settle for an e-cookie. It isn't as bad for you at any rate...

REALLY late response.

At 6/22/08 03:06 PM, Tacitacial wrote:
Would we become greater than God if we knew what He is and how He functions? Does understanding an object or a concept make one greater it? What exactly does it mean to be greater than something anyway? Assuming that God knows what we are and how we work, finding a model which describes God would only put us on the same level, since then we would then know just as much about Him as He does about us.

Even then, in the end we might be limited to finding only approximations of the truth rather than the absolute truth itself while God has no need for such approximations to understand us. In that case we would forever be 'less' than God since our knowledge of Him is always less then His knowledge of us.

Good questions actually. Dunno. I guess the cheater's way out here would be to say "knowledge is power" and therefore knowing God would put us on a level that is at least equal. But the entire supernatural realm assumes that there's always a level of difference, which I guess was the point.

If one can correlate the output to the input, cut for space.

Nice, I don't really have a response there, makes perfect sense to me.

The only solution I have to that problem is to say that any system which contains that statement is an unlogical and undefined system, since it contains an undefined statement. I may be taking the easy way out, but I can do no more than simply declare such a system invalid and throw it away.

I guess the only other way is to come up with an undefined answer, like "both statements are true and false simultaneously" or something.

Well....., cut for space

Works for me.

Well conversation here seems to be going the way it so often does so I shall ask a question (this is not a mere bump, honest).

Yay, Pontificate's back!

I think the question's interesting, because it brings up another question.

If proof of God was presented, would we even recognize it?

Most atheists I talk to demand proof of God. That's fair enough, but really, they don't know what they're looking for.

What would constitute proof of God anyways? Something unexplained? Something theoretically impossible? Something that defies physics?

sort of an oddity about some atheists is that they can't define what they're looking for (if they're even looking).

I've tried using the "Look out the window" trick too. I think last time my "evidence" for some deity was Chopin and picture perfect sunsets.

I think a lot of people are atheist because they see no proof, but if proof was available, would they even recognize it?

Outside of NG I'm generally an Apathetic. Don't care about religion, and generally see it as irrelevant outside of one's own thoughts. Religion should be personal, it's always meant to be personal, it's not relevant to anything else, and people who make it so lose the point of it all.....

Inside NG I'm whatever religion I feel like debating at the time, and since I'm not as well versed in other religions, means I take on either a Catholic or Atheist persona (and every median inbetween).

See, I view things a little differently than most people. Most people seem to view atheism as the "smart" choice, and of course theists view their respective religions as the "smart" choice, evident by being saved, awakened, enlightened, etc.

I choose to remain in Limbo over religion, stating that I'm too stupid to make a choice. I maintain that if evidence of God or Jove were presented, I'd be too dumb to recognize it. While this may seem rather self-defeating and seem like I've got self-esteem issues, it's alright, because I seem to be in good company. Socrates was another self-proclaimed idiot, as "all I know is I know nothing" was one of his mottos, and any club with Socrates in it can't be all that bad.....

In terms of the question:
I think it's more a matter of asking whether or not "eyewitnesses" in general are reliable. Having studied psych experiments about it, and taken enough "Memory and History" themed courses to earn a fucking masters, I take a more "refined" approach in saying they're generally all total crap. Anyone who disagrees can read "Fragments" and "Remembering Satan" and then come back with a rebuttal.

But the question really boils down to:
What does one constitute will be proof of God?
And
If proof was offered, would you even recognize it?

I have a feeling most people believe that they'd "know it when they saw it", as is expected. But everyone also believed they would never give a fatal electric shock to another human being, and Milgram proved nearly 7 in 10 wrong.....

At 7/26/08 03:32 PM, Pontificate wrote: We have all come across accounts of 'visionary' experiences in our time; often of a religious nature. Where someone truly claims to have witnessed the miracle of god in all its splendour (I might posit that one could do the same merely by looking out one's window but that is neither here nor there). Is this, to you, proof of the existance of some higher being?

No. I consider most of them to be either personal moments of enlightenment or misunderstanding/misinterpreting of an event.

What I mean by that is this: Many people feel that when they have a great Eureka moment, when they suddenly gain a new knowledge of something, be it the motivations of other people or a basic understanding about themselves, that it is knowledge from God. It is this way because often the "revelations" come about outside of conscious thought and reason and seem to come in a flash of understanding. However, I believe instead, that they are the result of subconscious thought and reasoning... sometimes using observational data that the subject might not have consciously known they had.

The misunderstanding or misinterpreting part is more for physical miracles. Things like blood from a stone, the star that guided the people to Jesus' birthplace, times when something unexplained or unexpected happened. Many of these can be explained through non-miraculous (magical) means. Rust-tinged moisture oozing from a rock can look like blood, the star's sudden brightness being that of a coincidental supernova (or rather a self-fulfilling miracle, leading them to some kid who wasn't anything special until the wise men taught him all about this messiah he was supposed to be... but that's another discussion altogether).

SOmeone once told me of a personal miracle the experienced where they were falling off the back of a vehicle, but felt someone/something push them up long enough so that they could get their grip again... something apparently miraculous, but that can be explained through the physics of aerodynamics and the eddies behind moving vehicles.

Alternatively would you say that these experiences are but hallucinations caused by an unbalanced mind pushed to the edge by enforced discomfort (even to the point of flagellance generally), starvation, dehydration and extremes of climate?

Certainly possible... hallucinations are the by-product of many stresses to the body. I'd prefer to keep that as a last-resort explanation, though.

Furthermore, if we accept that they are caused by a chemical inbalance of the brain, does that cheapen the experience at all?

Does good art painted by a crazy person make the art bad? If not why would a good idea be bad if out of the mouth of a lunatic it came?

...My Yoda appears to be showing... but I think I'll keep the sentance like I originally typed it instead of fixing it...

I guess the question then becomes: how important is the observational state of the observer to the event described? Basically, everyone's brain works differently... they interpret things in different ways, they see things differently... how do we determine the veracity of an observer's story? Should we know how thye think first, to gain the right interpretational perspective? How much of a person's rendition of an experience is their own brain's unique way of storing/comprehending what they saw?

When is it that crazy doesn't matter? When is it that it does? And how can we tell the difference?

At 7/31/08 01:18 AM, Imperator wrote: I think the question's interesting, because it brings up another question.

If proof of God was presented, would we even recognize it?

Mustn't it? If we can't observe the proof, then it would be no better than any other statement about God. We might not immediately recognize the significance of such proof, but if it was repeatable and verifiable, we would eventually gain enough information to make the connection, I'm sure.

Most atheists I talk to demand proof of God. That's fair enough, but really, they don't know what they're looking for.

What would constitute proof of God anyways? Something unexplained? Something theoretically impossible? Something that defies physics?

Something that is LOGICALLY impossible. Which is different than defying physics, theory, or explanation. Theory is always evolving... so something theoretically impossible might only indicate the boundaries of our knowledge. If something can defy logic (say pi = 4.587 for a week, then it goes back to 3.14159)... then we're talking. Because god, especially as described in the bible, MUST be unbound by logic... and thus only something that was literally illogical could prove him to be existent.

At 7/31/08 01:18 AM, Imperator wrote:

Most atheists I talk to demand proof of God. That's fair enough, but really, they don't know what they're looking for.

Religious people don't know what they're looking for.
They don't understand how to even test for it. To them, "beauty" proves THEIR God. You can't reason with people who make dumb decisions like that.
The smarter ones usually explain all failures of testings by something along the lines of "God is mysterious" and "God doesn't always do it".

What would constitute proof of God anyways?

Well first off, there are a lot of religious claims:

1. Prayer

Easy test: get a group of people who pray for a group of people who doesn't know they're being prayed for, and a group of people who aren't being prayed for and who don't know it. Compare results.

What do we get? Prayer doesn't work at all.

Prayer's out.

2. Miracles

People claim to see miracles all the time, i.e. things that defy physics. Every time they are looked at by any scientists, they have an easy explanation.

Example: crying virgins. Scientists have looked at dozens and dozens of these, every time it's just the owner of the statue putting some pig's blood or some chicken fat on there or some other stupid trick.

Miracles are out.

3. Demonic possession.

If God / Satan exists, we'd expect to see people genuinely possessed ( that's what they claim ) and we'd expect only men of the cloth to be able to heal them.
What happens when we check? They're not doing a damn thing, in fact they more often than not cause harm to their "patients". They have never treated anything and there has never been a demonic possession that couldn't easily be explained by some mental disease or some self-deception.

4. After-life / near-death experiences

Religious people claim that this is proof of heave/ a world beyond, and that proves God ( whatever ).
What do we find? We can now replicate the effect by causing stress to the brain. The whole tunnel thing, the out-of-body experience and all that, we know how to induce it and we know roughly what parts of the brain activate it and why it does that.

===================

So it's really up to religious people to first define what their God can do. But every time they do define something that can be tested, the tests come out negative, i.e. the world is exactly as it would be if God didn't exist.

What more proof can you want?

At 7/31/08 01:18 AM, Imperator wrote: Yay, Pontificate's back!

I'm flattered; in truth I never went anywhere but I am rarely driven to post.

I think the question's interesting, because it brings up another question.

Well, I'd rather pose a question that's interesting of its own accord but I'll take it.

If proof of God was presented, would we even recognize it?

Well that would depend; if he had always intervened we would not notice the difference and if he never did the point is moot.

I personally would be convinced by something that defies a long established law of nature though I understand the problems with thinking subjectively; others might well not feel the same.

I've tried using the "Look out the window" trick too. I think last time my "evidence" for some deity was Chopin and picture perfect sunsets.

Ah Chopin; he was long my favourite composer till I discovered Saint-Saëns the other week. If anything could convince a tired old cynic such as myself of a deity it would be those. Unfortunately as it stands it just drives me to wax poetic and smoke.

I think a lot of people are atheist because they see no proof, but if proof was available, would they even recognize it?

Personally I do not think it is so much the lack of proof that leads atheists to doubt; more the obvious inconsistencies of religion and the percieved lack of a loving god in the world. That is how it is for me, anyway. This and others can provide the initial disbelief; the lack of evidence simply justifies it.

It's not so much proof against a deity but a proof against the dogma of most religions; most equate the two anyway.

Inside NG I'm whatever religion I feel like debating at the time, and since I'm not as well versed in other religions, means I take on either a Catholic or Atheist persona (and every median inbetween).

Devil's advocate is one of the best ways to learn about a subject I find. The best musicians and the most learned scholars; for the incarnation of evil satan sure has a lot going for him.

I choose to remain in Limbo over religion, stating that I'm too stupid to make a choice. I maintain that if evidence of God or Jove were presented, I'd be too dumb to recognize it. While this may seem rather self-defeating and seem like I've got self-esteem issues, it's alright, because I seem to be in good company. Socrates was another self-proclaimed idiot, as "all I know is I know nothing" was one of his mottos, and any club with Socrates in it can't be all that bad.....

I don't know, I'd rather not join the 'Hemlock Appreciation Society' if I can help it. To me such statements are merely onanistic exercises in false-modesty however; the implication always being that phantom 'but I still know more than you.' missing from the end. Were it ever to be a genuine sentiment however it'd be a most wise one.

In terms of the question:
I think it's more a matter of asking whether or not "eyewitnesses" in general are reliable. Having studied psych experiments about it, and taken enough "Memory and History" themed courses to earn a fucking masters, I take a more "refined" approach in saying they're generally all total crap. Anyone who disagrees can read "Fragments" and "Remembering Satan" and then come back with a rebuttal.

Being omnipotent I imagine a god would be able to convince people if he so wished; if he does exist and these revelations are correct however he clearly wishes to influence either the individual or the few. I remain by the stance that the true worth of these lies not in the reliability (or lack thereof) of the visionary but what good it leads to.

But the question really boils down to:
What does one constitute will be proof of God?
And
If proof was offered, would you even recognize it?

I have a feeling most people believe that they'd "know it when they saw it", as is expected. But everyone also believed they would never give a fatal electric shock to another human being, and Milgram proved nearly 7 in 10 wrong.....

Point taken but the Milgram experiment was, I find, more about the power of authority figures and the implied societal pressures; evidence of a god would have to, by its very definition, be more personal than that or else why not simply acknowledge the many reports of miracles and direct messages from Him?

At 7/31/08 01:29 AM, Ravariel wrote: No. I consider most of them to be either personal moments of enlightenment or misunderstanding/misinterpreting of an event.

That is certainly a valid interpretation; as an atheist I am inclined towards agreeing in regards to miracles. It is the most likely explanation for the many reports of miracles when human understanding was less complete and the reduction of commonly accepted miracles today.

Let us not forget charlatanism however.

Certainly possible... hallucinations are the by-product of many stresses to the body. I'd prefer to keep that as a last-resort explanation, though.

Well in the case of an actual percieved visitation of a divine being to an otherwise mentally healthy person I would prefer it as the first explanation. You're discussing more miracles than visions however in which case I happily concede it becomes much more complicated.

Does good art painted by a crazy person make the art bad? If not why would a good idea be bad if out of the mouth of a lunatic it came?

...My Yoda appears to be showing... but I think I'll keep the sentance like I originally typed it instead of fixing it...

It seems more reminiscent of Milton than Yoda; very apt considering the topic matter. Well I'd say the analogy is flawed in that art does not require logic or a correct perception of reality (in fact, as it transcends these things it often benefits from their disappearance) whereas an idea must be rooted in reason. As a lunatic, or someone that is tripping, lacks these things for the most part (and all the other social stigmas etc. etc. ad nauseum) people are justifiably less inclined towards either believing or accepting any such idea. Therefore I remain convinced that in such cases it is only the good someone's 'personal enlightenment' does that gauges its worth.

I guess the question then becomes: how important is the observational state of the observer to the event described? Basically, everyone's brain works differently... they interpret things in different ways, they see things differently... how do we determine the veracity of an observer's story? Should we know how thye think first, to gain the right interpretational perspective? How much of a person's rendition of an experience is their own brain's unique way of storing/comprehending what they saw?

In a perfect world it would not matter and all ideas would be given fair appraisal; however this is not a perfect world and people are quite justified in their reluctance to trust the word of someone who is clearly delusional. Applying this to the gradiations between is a logical fallacy however; while it can be said each person contains his own universe of perception it will not differ wildly from another as we all share similar sensual stimuli except in, aha, exceptional circumstances (as in our hypothetical lunatic). Therefore one always looks for exceptional circumstances in regards to people's personal account and if they cannot be found then it becomes a matter of the belief of the listener; which is, to me, the more important factor in this.

When is it that crazy doesn't matter? When is it that it does? And how can we tell the difference?

Simple: when the crazy is speaking amiably to whomever is listening. With this in mind I assert once more that the worth of such a thing is not found in the reliability of the visionary but what good it does.

Im just gonna pop in and embarras my self yet again k?

I practice Ninjutsu, which is (Im probably gonna regret this as you all sureley will think of some black dressed ninja dood) the art of the ninja. Now obviousley we arent running around assasinating people and stuff. The thing is, that i allso live in Denmark, and as some might now, we were allso wikings once. You mentioned in the start that you wondered how the similarities could have reached out that far. Well heres a little something:
My sensai (9 dan) mentioned, during a conversation, that the viking war art had similarities to Ninjutsu. Some of the stances was allmost identicle. He told us that the art was called "Stav" which is the same word we use for staff in Denmark. Dunno if that has anything to do with it.
Anywho:
I went home to check it, and i was rather supriced to find, that their system was based on elements just like Ninjutsu, there were more similarities is cant remember.
Now this might be more interesting to me than you at the moment, since its combat and not religion. But heres the other part of the story.
When we had to do a project in history, about a subject we chose our selves. I chose Japan, since that obviousely interested me.
Now when i was researching on the timeline, i found that Japan had Tumulus at the same time we had here in Denmark ( they called em "Kofuns" )

Allso, some might think Budism was in Japan from the start, but they had their own religion called
"Shanto" where they belived in Ancestors as semigods. I hadnt researched alot about Shanto when i was doing the project, but i think that there were similarities to Heathenry there aswell.

Sry about the language

At 8/3/08 05:48 PM, Blasphemare wrote: Im just gonna pop in and embarras my self yet again k?

Doing better then some folks then if you figure you're going to embarrass yourself. Most people who do make asses of themselves are too full of themselves to admit the possibility so it's all good. Stay humble and you'll be fine, but I would suggest more study on your part little buddy.

I practice Ninjutsu, which is (Im probably gonna regret this as you all sureley will think of some black dressed ninja dood) the art of the ninja. Now obviousley we arent running around assasinating people and stuff.

Best to stay on the main topic of your statement, rambling tends to discredit you.

The thing is, that i allso live in Denmark, and as some might now, we were allso wikings once. You mentioned in the start that you wondered how the similarities could have reached out that far. Well heres a little something:
My sensai (9 dan) mentioned, during a conversation, that the viking war art had similarities to Ninjutsu. Some of the stances was allmost identicle. He told us that the art was called "Stav" which is the same word we use for staff in Denmark. Dunno if that has anything to do with it.

Alrighty, interesting, I didn't know the word for staff in Denmark, and I'll have to take your word for the various stances, as it is rarely covered in history texts.

Anywho:
I went home to check it, and i was rather supriced to find, that their system was based on elements just like Ninjutsu, there were more similarities is cant remember.

I'm not trying to be rude, but it helps a lot if you have more then one or two things to think about, as well as sources. No soucres and you leave yourself open to attack then from the less kind folk.

Now this might be more interesting to me than you at the moment, since its combat and not religion. But heres the other part of the story.

As before, staying with a set idea is very important, if you keep going off on tangents your idea may get lost.

When we had to do a project in history, about a subject we chose our selves. I chose Japan, since that obviousely interested me.
Now when i was researching on the timeline, i found that Japan had Tumulus at the same time we had here in Denmark ( they called em "Kofuns" )

They were also most commonly key hole shaped.

Allso, some might think Budism was in Japan from the start, but they had their own religion called
"Shanto" where they belived in Ancestors as semigods. I hadnt researched alot about Shanto when i was doing the project, but i think that there were similarities to Heathenry there aswell.

... Did you mean Shinto? If so, you are more or less in the right area, it could be argued that it is a form of heathenry, as it isn't part of Christianity. Shanto is quite different to say the least. I'm not sure how many people associate Buddhism with Japan outright, as I thought it was fairly well known that Gautama Buddha was from India, but mistakes do happen when it comes to knowledge of some people.

Sry about the language

That is perfectly fine. For future reference, assuming it is a possibility for you, what you could do is type out what you mean in your native tongue, assuming it isn't English, go to a free online translator, and crank it out. Either that or you could type it out in Microsoft Word, do the spell check in English (there are downloads for various language sets if I remember correctly), and post it all at once. People will tend to take your words a fair bit more seriously if you just work on those things.

No, I was not trying to be rude, merely point out possible ways to improve your posts. I'm really too tired right now to give great advice since I just got off work and I have to be in again in roughly ten hours.

Anyway, give us things to discuss, questions that you may have over various religious topics. Telling us some little factoids doesn't do much for us. Once again, sorry if I seem a bit rude, I'm just saying this for future reference.

At 7/31/08 09:28 PM, Pontificate wrote:

I think the question's interesting, because it brings up another question.

Well, I'd rather pose a question that's interesting of its own accord but I'll take it.

Question itself was interesting, but I equated it more to the idea of reliable eyewitnesses, which I had more of a defined answer for than anything that would promote conversation.

Well that would depend; if he had always intervened we would not notice the difference and if he never did the point is moot.

I personally would be convinced by something that defies a long established law of nature though I understand the problems with thinking subjectively; others might well not feel the same.

I think most people want to see that. I wanna see God divide by zero, because it'd flip logic completely on it's back. Of course, the cop out wanna be witty answer is "God wouldn't have to".

The problem comes in imagining a situation whereby something of such a nature would happen, and in imagining the recognition of such a situation. People have had world views flipped before, but I think what we're trying to imagine as proof is something that goes beyond that.

If Logic flipped, would it still be perceived the same, is I guess what I'm trying to wheedle at clumsily.

Ah Chopin; he was long my favourite composer till I discovered Saint-Saëns the other week. If anything could convince a tired old cynic such as myself of a deity it would be those. Unfortunately as it stands it just drives me to wax poetic and smoke.

It's one of those cases where maybe the lie becomes more meaningful than the truth. I'm not sure I like to live in a world where Chopin's magic can be carefully and rationally explained, it'd ruin the brilliance of it all.....

Personally I do not think it is so much the lack of proof that leads atheists to doubt; more the obvious inconsistencies of religion and the percieved lack of a loving god in the world. That is how it is for me, anyway. This and others can provide the initial disbelief; the lack of evidence simply justifies it.

Well I think there's two major groups of atheists, as it stands in the most simplistic terms possible. One's the group of simply put: Teenage dissenters, rebelling again all conformity and authority.

The other's the group that actually put some thought into it.

The problem with discussing religion, especially on NG, is that 9/10 times I'm not sure whether I'm talking to the former or the latter.

Same's true of Theists of course. The group who conform perfectly to Mommy's faith, and the other group that's actually put some thought into it.

I make up the 3rd and 4th groups: The group that doesn't have an answer. And the group that doesn't care enough to give an answer.

Devil's advocate is one of the best ways to learn about a subject I find. The best musicians and the most learned scholars; for the incarnation of evil satan sure has a lot going for him.

Indeed. In both cases I start to become wishy washy over simply the ideas of Good and Evil, and their presence in the world, or, from a very staunch atheist perspective, lack thereof.

For me, it becomes the question of whether or not Good and Evil are just terms to describe cognitive processes made from social pressures and basic human makeup, or if there's some other force operating on the world. It's a question of whether or not Love, Beauty, and Magic are simply electrical and chemical reactions, or if there's something more to them.

I don't know, I'd rather not join the 'Hemlock Appreciation Society' if I can help it. To me such statements are merely onanistic exercises in false-modesty however; the implication always being that phantom 'but I still know more than you.' missing from the end. Were it ever to be a genuine sentiment however it'd be a most wise one.

I used to think Socrates was an egocentric prick myself, but I realized he said what he did so he could bust the egos of people who really thought they were smarter than everyone else. And for me, anytime someone knocks someone else off their high horse in such a way, they're making the world a better place. Because Ego, Arrogance, and abuse of position seem to go hand in hand all too often.....

The more I age, the more I realize the paradox that EVERY pithy statement seems to hold true, even the ones that contradict.

In Socrates' case, I think he operated under the notion that Knowledge is Power, but Ignorance is Bliss. Why? Because the Truth Hurts......

Being omnipotent I imagine a god would be able to convince people if he so wished; if he does exist and these revelations are correct however he clearly wishes to influence either the individual or the few. I remain by the stance that the true worth of these lies not in the reliability (or lack thereof) of the visionary but what good it leads to.

Point taken but the Milgram experiment was, I find, more about the power of authority figures and the implied societal pressures; evidence of a god would have to, by its very definition, be more personal than that or else why not simply acknowledge the many reports of miracles and direct messages from Him?

That's just the kicker though. Some people do. Others dismiss them. Nowadays saying a divinity talks to you either gets you locked up, or a position in government.

If such were true evidence, then it shows God clearly CAN influence people towards belief. Does the problem then become human as it's their job to pass the message, and make good on it? Or is it God's "fault" for not informing people who actually have enough influence to make the message universally believed?

Thing is, I almost have to leave a little bit of leeway for another undiscovered force in the world, be it something simple or complex. Atheism seems to lend itself more towards the idea that there is no real human choice, no Free Will; man's decisions can be calculated, predicted, and fully controlled. Theism seems to lend itself more towards the idea that there is some human choice, some real control of Man over the decision of Man.

And that just leaves me with the question of whether or not other animals commit suicide......with the answer providing sound evidence one way or the other.

Whether "I think, therefore I am", or whether "I emit electrical and chemical charges, therefore I am".

At 8/4/08 01:48 AM, Imperator wrote: I think most people want to see that. I wanna see God divide by zero, because it'd flip logic completely on it's back. Of course, the cop out wanna be witty answer is "God wouldn't have to".

The problem comes in imagining a situation whereby something of such a nature would happen, and in imagining the recognition of such a situation. People have had world views flipped before, but I think what we're trying to imagine as proof is something that goes beyond that.

If Logic flipped, would it still be perceived the same, is I guess what I'm trying to wheedle at clumsily.

Well we're entering in to the uncertainty principal here; are things concrete and it is our observations that change or do our observations change what we're percieving? If we take the latter to be true then we would probably notice; unless it changed to the extent it would be physically impossible to contemplate the world in any other manner. In the case of the former... who's to say it hasn't already happened?

Ultimately, however, in the case of an omnipotent god if he wanted us to know we would. Omnipotence makes everything so very simple, does it not?

It's one of those cases where maybe the lie becomes more meaningful than the truth. I'm not sure I like to live in a world where Chopin's magic can be carefully and rationally explained, it'd ruin the brilliance of it all.....

Ah you see I view it from a different angle: it is the pure, brilliant truth of music, of poetry, of art that appeals. I revel in the knowlege that such simple concepts can culminate in an experience that draws emotion from me.

Well I think there's two major groups of atheists, as it stands in the most simplistic terms possible. One's the group of simply put: Teenage dissenters, rebelling again all conformity and authority.

The other's the group that actually put some thought into it.

Indeed; I think that what most atheists hate is ignorance and blind belief but miscontrue that as being essential to the religious experience. Sadly missing that such qualities can lead people to atheism just as easily.

The problem with discussing religion, especially on NG, is that 9/10 times I'm not sure whether I'm talking to the former or the latter.

If they write coherently, understand the simply joys of the period & the comma and can offer an informed response to the opposition I assume the latter. I see a disturbing obsession in the actions of some which is less than comforting; I can only hope it is due to frustration rather than zealotry.

I make up the 3rd and 4th groups: The group that doesn't have an answer. And the group that doesn't care enough to give an answer.

Frankly everyone belongs in the third group; it is merely the fourth that differentiates between us. I might posit a fifth who do not claim to know the answer but care to seek it but I fear membership would be depressingly small.

Indeed. In both cases I start to become wishy washy over simply the ideas of Good and Evil, and their presence in the world, or, from a very staunch atheist perspective, lack thereof.

For me, it becomes the question of whether or not Good and Evil are just terms to describe cognitive processes made from social pressures and basic human makeup, or if there's some other force operating on the world. It's a question of whether or not Love, Beauty, and Magic are simply electrical and chemical reactions, or if there's something more to them.

I embrace the electrical and chemical viewpoint personally and as I stated earlier I find my spirituality in the awe of life's pure simplicity: a specific combination of chemicals/electrical impulses creates in me a sensation of love, of joy or even sadness. I do not find it cheapens it or removes their importance: what is evil is what hurts the group, what is good is what benefits the group.

I used to think Socrates was an egocentric prick myself, but I realized he said what he did so he could bust the egos of people who really thought they were smarter than everyone else. And for me, anytime someone knocks someone else off their high horse in such a way, they're making the world a better place. Because Ego, Arrogance, and abuse of position seem to go hand in hand all too often.....

Very true; arrogance can act as a rationalisation for harming people. After all, if they're beneath you it is your right to abuse them for profit. Sadly it always seems to be evil men who are drawn to power whereas it is good men who are drawn to change and power is the greater motivator.

Anywho perhaps I'm just a cynic but I still see that position of 'you're so arrogant' is one of implied superiority. Again I just cannot rid myself of that ghoul 'I know this because I'm intelligent'.

The more I age, the more I realize the paradox that EVERY pithy statement seems to hold true, even the ones that contradict.

Well that's most likely because they're dependant upon the context; the only universal truth I've found thus far is death. Where one applies another won't and vice versa.

In Socrates' case, I think he operated under the notion that Knowledge is Power, but Ignorance is Bliss. Why? Because the Truth Hurts......

My word, if I read another platitude I fear I may turn in to one of those dreadful agony aunts.

If such were true evidence, then it shows God clearly CAN influence people towards belief. Does the problem then become human as it's their job to pass the message, and make good on it? Or is it God's "fault" for not informing people who actually have enough influence to make the message universally believed?

The responsibility must always lie with the human but the blame of failure depends upon the nature of god, really. If it is an arbitrary, capricious god then the human cannot be blamed and if it is a benevolent god it should know whom to trust.

Thing is, I almost have to leave a little bit of leeway for another undiscovered force in the world, be it something simple or complex. Atheism seems to lend itself more towards the idea that there is no real human choice, no Free Will; man's decisions can be calculated, predicted, and fully controlled. Theism seems to lend itself more towards the idea that there is some human choice, some real control of Man over the decision of Man.

I disagree; I feel a creator implies an ultimate lack of potency or choice. We were created and so therefore we have purpose but the purpose is not our own. If we are created through natural processes then our destiny is ours to carve: born from chance we are free of obligation and control. Our lives or our own; no matter how solitary, poor, nasty, brutish or short.

And that just leaves me with the question of whether or not other animals commit suicide......with the answer providing sound evidence one way or the other.

Suicide implies choice; without fully understanding the circumstances or consequence the choice is phantasmal. I do not believe the majority of animals understand the world around them, this predicament called life or themselves to consciously choose life or death.

Besides from what I see only humans take themselves seriously enough to contemplate ending it all.

Whether "I think, therefore I am", or whether "I emit electrical and chemical charges, therefore I am".

Ah, but you put too much importance on the beginning: it leads to the same conclusion. The integral, damning and liberating part is simply: I am.

Well we're entering in to the uncertainty principal here; are things concrete and it is our observations that change or do our observations change what we're percieving? If we take the latter to be true then we would probably notice; unless it changed to the extent it would be physically impossible to contemplate the world in any other manner. In the case of the former... who's to say it hasn't already happened?

It has. To pull a completely random justification out my ass ;], most people percieve cannibalism as bad. But if you were, for example, the Donner party, the need for survival trumps the need to feel civilized.

Ultimately, however, in the case of an omnipotent god if he wanted us to know we would. Omnipotence makes everything so very simple, does it not?

I tried to come up with a clever and witty opposition to that, and honestly I can't.

Ah you see I view it from a different angle: it is the pure, brilliant truth of music, of poetry, of art that appeals. I revel in the knowlege that such simple concepts can culminate in an experience that draws emotion from me.

I didn't know you people were musicians! I feel at one with my own now ^^.

Indeed; I think that what most atheists hate is ignorance and blind belief but miscontrue that as being essential to the religious experience. Sadly missing that such qualities can lead people to atheism just as easily.

I am agnostic, trying to find a religion that suits me. And I've noticed, the message that God (or his/her/it's equivalent) and/or his/her/it's followers spread, and the things he/her/it has allowed to happen are, sadly, all too often at odds with each other.

Frankly everyone belongs in the third group; it is merely the fourth that differentiates between us. I might posit a fifth who do not claim to know the answer but care to seek it but I fear membership would be depressingly small.

Ya know, that might just be thing that might be for me. I don't know. And I don't want to know. Leave me alone. Yeah...

I embrace the electrical and chemical viewpoint personally and as I stated earlier I find my spirituality in the awe of life's pure simplicity: a specific combination of chemicals/electrical impulses creates in me a sensation of love, of joy or even sadness. I do not find it cheapens it or removes their importance: what is evil is what hurts the group, what is good is what benefits the group.

Simplicity is beautiful.

Very true; arrogance can act as a rationalisation for harming people. After all, if they're beneath you it is your right to abuse them for profit. Sadly it always seems to be evil men who are drawn to power whereas it is good men who are drawn to change and power is the greater motivator.

So basically, humans love power, evil people are just more direct about it?

Anywho perhaps I'm just a cynic but I still see that position of 'you're so arrogant' is one of implied superiority. Again I just cannot rid myself of that ghoul 'I know this because I'm intelligent'.

You will eventually. I know this because I'm intelligent.

Well that's most likely because they're dependant upon the context; the only universal truth I've found thus far is death. Where one applies another won't and vice versa.

Erm... existence? Something either exists or it doesn't. Right?

My word, if I read another platitude I fear I may turn in to one of those dreadful agony aunts.

:D

The responsibility must always lie with the human but the blame of failure depends upon the nature of god, really. If it is an arbitrary, capricious god then the human cannot be blamed and if it is a benevolent god it should know whom to trust.

God, being omnipotent, would have presumably worked this kink out himself.

I disagree; I feel a creator implies an ultimate lack of potency or choice. We were created and so therefore we have purpose but the purpose is not our own. If we are created through natural processes then our destiny is ours to carve: born from chance we are free of obligation and control. Our lives or our own; no matter how solitary, poor, nasty, brutish or short.

Suicide implies choice; without fully understanding the circumstances or consequence the choice is phantasmal. I do not believe the majority of animals understand the world around them, this predicament called life or themselves to consciously choose life or death.

I don't know, I think self-awareness in animals exists to some degree. However, I do believe animal suicide is unlikely.

Ah, but you put too much importance on the beginning: it leads to the same conclusion. The integral, damning and liberating part is simply: I am.

The beginning is important. Reasons matter just as much as results.

At 8/6/08 06:16 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote: It has. To pull a completely random justification out my ass ;], most people percieve cannibalism as bad. But if you were, for example, the Donner party, the need for survival trumps the need to feel civilized.

Well I'm speaking more about the fundamental nature of reality than societal norms but that said it raises an interesting point: given that the universe (or rather our perception of the universe, which is all we can really know) is subjective could it be possible, on society's part, to alter this through sheer pressure to conform?

I tried to come up with a clever and witty opposition to that, and honestly I can't.

Omipotence is, ironically, God's most searing indictment.

I didn't know you people were musicians! I feel at one with my own now ^^.

I dabble but would call myself an appreciator more than a participant.

I am agnostic, trying to find a religion that suits me. And I've noticed, the message that God (or his/her/it's equivalent) and/or his/her/it's followers spread, and the things he/her/it has allowed to happen are, sadly, all too often at odds with each other.

The real tragedy lies not so much in the doctrine but in the human element; we're flawed, vain creatures at times.

Ya know, that might just be thing that might be for me. I don't know. And I don't want to know. Leave me alone. Yeah...

Well I'm afraid I meant people who do not know but actually want to; though I have to say your version does appeal to the pragmatist inside me. I can't seem to rid myself of the fellow.

So basically, humans love power, evil people are just more direct about it?

Well, yes, really. The difference is that good people seek power in order to change the world whereas evil seeks power for power's sake. This is in no way a liberal/conservative analogy by the way before someone accuses me of bias.

You will eventually. I know this because I'm intelligent.

Aha, touché. I suppose the sentiment is a noble one regardless of cynically-percieved motivations.

Erm... existence? Something either exists or it doesn't. Right?

It depends upon the definition of existance reall. Life? No. Something? Probably. In fact if we take my logic to its correct conclusion even death is not a constant as once life ends so, to, must death. You know the more I think of it the more I become aware of the possibility there might not be any true constants, if we take constants as meaning somethign that is always there anyway. From an inevitability perspective I think it safe to say death is, and because death implies ecistance, so must existance.

In short: good point, I didn't consider that fully.

God, being omnipotent, would have presumably worked this kink out himself.

Tell that to the masses who don't believe despite his apparent want for us to believe; either it trusts far too much in human nature or is just a complete arse. I incline towards the latter.

That said the more obvious conclusion is that one doesn't exist at all but I'm speaking hypothetically.

I don't know, I think self-awareness in animals exists to some degree. However, I do believe animal suicide is unlikely.

In certain animals, agreed. The question, then, becomes whether they truly understand the difference between life and death and I agree with you that this is most likely not the case.

The beginning is important. Reasons matter just as much as results.

Speaketh the man who earlier stated he didn't care to know? I believe Descartes was fond of tautologies: 'I am therefore I am'. Everything else is implied through that wonderfully complex state of being. I agree that reasons matter but ultimately, in this case, one is saying the same thing twice and in doing so missing the point I feel.

This thread kicks ass.

I'll have some response posts tomorrow or Friday methinks, I got studyin to do right now.....

At 8/7/08 12:14 AM, Imperator wrote: This thread kicks ass.

Inbeeb.

I'll have some response posts tomorrow or Friday methinks, I got studyin to do right now.....

I got work tomorrow... but I think I'll post this here, too.

I meant dance music more in the sense of ballroom dancing.. though simpler lyrical-based stuff like the electric slide certainly qualifies, too. The same song played 100 times can have 100 different meanings, or just one (like a couple's love song). There's really isn't a scientific way to examine what's going through the head's of two dancers while waltzing or grooving.. but a good dance will reflect an expression and an understanding between those involved.. almost always undetectable by others immersed in the dance.

Facial expressions, a slight variance in a hip-twist, avoiding eye-contact.. can all be interpretted different ways. What makes epic music isn't Lil Jon telling the audience to shake it's ass and having them do it (though it DOES have it's purpose) it's being beautiful and appealing to as large and diverse a crowd as possible.

I've always thought music is the best analogy for existance as a whole, simply because of it's qualities of inter-personal variance, a song's melodic consistancy from the first time it's played through every time thereafter. There can even be simplified forms that are recognized as the same song to a trained ear. The complexities and interpretations, however, are NOT the same for everyone though, and that's what makes existance great! The consistancy paired with the variation, creating something to be remembered.

At 7/26/08 03:32 PM, Pontificate wrote:

Furthermore, if we accept that they are caused by a chemical inbalance of the brain, does that cheapen the experience at all? For that matter if someone had the same experience because they had ingested a psychadelic psychoactive substance (DMT, LSD, 'shrooms etc.) would it be any less worthy for that?

My own opinion would be that these are mere delusions and should be accorded the same respect (that is, none), speaking objectively. It is therefore whether they lead to the betterment of the self or others that must denote their worth. Any and all revelations, however, must be understood to come from the individual as it is an internal process.

im of the same opinion. we can only ever experience our own existence, conciousness etc. and therefore experiences which benefit and enhance this personal unique reality (and to the altruist or otherwise moral human beings the realities of others around us) are the only things which are truly valid, not someone whining "oh its just in your head" or whatever. if it helps you personally, go for it- psychedelic drugs, religion whatever.
and even then there are certain things which we assume to be purely mystic actually have scientific basis. to reference something i know a little about take meditation for example; meditation on 'chakras' or energy points isnt purely a placebo thing, you are actually making your subconcious aware of your own body, as the chakras relate to important glands like the pituitary and hypothalamus that regulate hormones for balance in health and mood. of course this isnt 100% science but it has its basis in truth which is the important thing. same acid and the like; whilst some think the psychedelic experience is almost laughable and that the revelations arnt truly valid in reality, its helped people overcome alchoholism, depression and all sorts of other personal problems.

also wow, this thread has come a long way. i remember posting here a coupla years ago when it actually was just about heathens!