|
|
Post by Sigh on Oct 26, 2005 14:59:56 GMT -5
I don't know....
I'm agnostic lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2005 14:59:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by airburst on Oct 28, 2005 6:41:17 GMT -5
IMO, no there's no god. I find it hard to believe that there's someone who lives in the sky or in another dimension who's able to control every single person's actions, thoughts, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by faeire on Oct 28, 2005 7:35:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wonkothesane on Oct 28, 2005 11:42:44 GMT -5
If there is an infinite god, and since we are mortal I do not think we have the capacity to understand 'it' in the first place- bit of a paradox really! IMO there certainly isn't a persona or constantly interventionist being messing about with things- time is relative so any concept of a plan or a concrete series of event would be a logical impossibility- if you believe in logic!!!!!! See it's just messed up- we are on an insignificant yet beautiful rock floating arround the universe, for me we just have to try and do something beautiful in the tiny bit of time we have, us and everthing we do will be forgotten eventually, doesn't mean we have to be assholes about it!
Anyway god whatever/if she/it/he is, has/is still having had so many terrible things done in her/its/his name by people who have never actually meet her/it/him - visions and lunatics don't count, well maybe lunatics do-and base their actions on texts written by mortal men and women who may well have been inspired by god, but it does not follow that because you where inspired by some divine force that you recieved the message correctly. There is no religious text in the world that actually has God's signiature or "copyright- God, year 0" on it. At best we are god's signiature.
Can't remember who said it but religious wars are basically people arguing over who has the better imaginary friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paulinus on Oct 28, 2005 14:45:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Oct 28, 2005 15:32:48 GMT -5
George Carlin rocks! Flying Spaghetti Monster rules!  |
|
|
|
Post by pansy on Oct 28, 2005 17:43:23 GMT -5
damn, next thing you people will be telling me there's no santy claus!
so for those who don't believe in God, do you believe there's such a thing as 'the human spirit'?
|
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Oct 28, 2005 18:03:52 GMT -5
so for those who don't believe in God, do you believe there's such a thing as 'the human spirit'? If the term is used to describe something natural and biological, then sure. If it is mystical, then no. |
|
|
|
Post by pansy on Oct 28, 2005 19:01:03 GMT -5
so for those who don't believe in God, do you believe there's such a thing as 'the human spirit'? If the term is used to describe something natural and biological, then sure. If it is mystical, then no. so you're just a piece of meat basically? |
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Oct 28, 2005 21:41:45 GMT -5
damn, next thing you people will be telling me there's no santy claus! so for those who don't believe in God, do you believe there's such a thing as 'the human spirit'? Of course there's a santa clause!!!!  I don't wrap up and deliver presents for my nephew as myself.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Oct 28, 2005 21:51:53 GMT -5
If the term is used to describe something natural and biological, then sure. If it is mystical, then no. so you're just a piece of meat basically? Thats a question I often ask myself, whether there is any type of spiritual life beyond biology and science, not just God but any type of supernatural reality. There is no external proof of it, yet it seems like in our minds we can sometimes feel things that seem like they are not just electrons flying around in our heads. When you feel intense emotions for another person, it seems like it means more, like there is some secret reality you are tapping into that science has no access to. When you see something beautiful, it seems like it means more than just a grouping of particles. Yet besides those feelings there is no proof that it isn't just one's mind tricking them into thinking there is more. So I'm conflicted into the logical thinking that there is no tangible proof of a spiritual reality, and the fact I can feel it in my mind. I don't know what to make of that, I guess it is a question man has always asked and will always ask. |
|
|
|
Post by pansy on Oct 28, 2005 22:44:20 GMT -5
so you're just a piece of meat basically? Thats a question I often ask myself, whether there is any type of spiritual life beyond biology and science, not just God but any type of supernatural reality. There is no external proof of it, yet it seems like in our minds we can sometimes feel things that seem like they are not just electrons flying around in our heads. When you feel intense emotions for another person, it seems like it means more, like there is some secret reality you are tapping into that science has no access to. When you see something beautiful, it seems like it means more than just a grouping of particles. Yet besides those feelings there is no proof that it isn't just one's mind tricking them into thinking there is more. So I'm conflicted into the logical thinking that there is no tangible proof of a spiritual reality, and the fact I can feel it in my mind. I don't know what to make of that, I guess it is a question man has always asked and will always ask. I hear what you're saying, and I've had all those thoughts myself. But what it comes down to for me is what makes sense to me. I've heard all the theories about how everything in human experience can be reduced down to some mechanical explanation. Of course, they can't actually do it, but I'm supposed to accept on faith that one day it can and will be done. If humankind as a whole ever does accept this premise as truth then employing logic would mean in the end that there would be no reason to ever care about another human being, or make any sacrifice for another, or to have any concept of right or wrong behavior. No biological explanation you could produce for altruism would hold any sway. It would be every person for themselves and we would have a world none of us would want to live in. In such a world Jeffrey Dahmer would be right, if you feel like eating another human go ahead! They're just a piece of meat anyway. The reason I asked the question I did is because I think alot of people do operate on certain assumptions that humans are more than their biology without realizing it. Then when they ask themselves 'am I really just a piece of meat?' they realize that they don't actually believe that. I realize that I cannot 'prove' that there is more to human life than biological mechanics. But I don't accept that everything important about life can be reduced to the application of the scientific method. I am an agnostic because to say I know anything with certainty would be a pretence. Of course I don't. None of us does. But science has yet to prove with certainty that everything in the universe can be known scientifically either. So for now, I build my castles in the air. I care about people, I make sacrifices for them out of love (which I also can't prove exists), I believe in right and wrong (although I think alot of people get carried away with that one), I believe in the existence of a human spirit that cannot be reduced to a merely biological entity, and I believe in various and sundry other spiritual things that I won't go into. But religious? No. Religion is another matter altogether. I do not subscribe to any of the millions of thought constructions humans have created to try to account for and get comfortable with the unknown. And that includes the religion of 'science'. |
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Oct 29, 2005 1:08:09 GMT -5
If humankind as a whole ever does accept this premise as truth then employing logic would mean in the end that there would be no reason to ever care about another human being, or make any sacrifice for another, or to have any concept of right or wrong behavior. No biological explanation you could produce for altruism would hold any sway. It would be every person for themselves and we would have a world none of us would want to live in. In such a world Jeffrey Dahmer would be right, if you feel like eating another human go ahead! They're just a piece of meat anyway. Just a piece of meat is your straw man representation. There are all kinds of subtleties in electrical and chemical patterns, which is why drugs like Zoloft and Paxil help many people. We're pieces of meat just like your computer is a slab of metal. No difference between your computer and a hunk of ore, right? As for people helping each other, humans are a social species. We have always lived in groups, and group living gives us tremendous advantages. If you think too much about it, you can fool yourself into thinking that you don't need other people. But that would be a miserable existence at best. Look at other social species and consider how much they rock compared to similar non-social species. What non-social insect can compare favorably to ants? Watch some nature shows. I suspect that your appreciation for life is an abstraction. The details are fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by pansy on Oct 29, 2005 2:34:42 GMT -5
If humankind as a whole ever does accept this premise as truth then employing logic would mean in the end that there would be no reason to ever care about another human being, or make any sacrifice for another, or to have any concept of right or wrong behavior. No biological explanation you could produce for altruism would hold any sway. It would be every person for themselves and we would have a world none of us would want to live in. In such a world Jeffrey Dahmer would be right, if you feel like eating another human go ahead! They're just a piece of meat anyway. Just a piece of meat is your straw man representation. There are all kinds of subtleties in electrical and chemical patterns, which is why drugs like Zoloft and Paxil help many people. We're pieces of meat just like your computer is a slab of metal. No difference between your computer and a hunk of ore, right? As for people helping each other, humans are a social species. We have always lived in groups, and group living gives us tremendous advantages. If you think too much about it, you can fool yourself into thinking that you don't need other people. But that would be a miserable existence at best. Look at other social species and consider how much they rock compared to similar non-social species. What non-social insect can compare favorably to ants? Watch some nature shows. I suspect that your appreciation for life is an abstraction. The details are fascinating. An example of what prompted the statements you quoted is the scientific discovery of genetically motivated altruism. It was discovered that the more genes you share with someone the more likely you are to behave towards that person altruistically. Once a person is aware of this biological mechanism, what is the logical outgrowth? One possible logical outgrowth from that awareness is resisting those internal mechanisms that motivate you to do things that are not in your own best interest. There is already an example of this very thing occurring in our society. Why do we procreate? Is it because we like dirty diapers? No, it's because of a genetically controlled motivational process designed to ensure the survival of our genes. Now that this knowledge is widespread, many people choose not to procreate. They resist the genetic imperative, live more lavishly and pursue their own selfish interests. If we see our fellow humans as biological entities alone, and we are aware of and resist genetically controlled motivations in order to pursue selfish interests, why would we continue to live in groups with others who are only pursuing their own genetically controlled selfishness? That wouldn't make any sense. They are simply our competitors, nothing more. Why would we continue to work for the continuation of our species? If once we're dead we simply end, who cares what happens after we're gone? Who cares if our habitat remains intact? After a few short years of pursuing our own selfish pleasure, because surely pleasure would be our only remaining motivation, we would end and what happens after that wouldn't matter. It's not a straw man representation to say that viewing humans as solely biological creatures without spirit is to view them as pieces of meat. We may be fascinatingly complex biological organisms, granted. But so are chickens. Yes, the details are very interesting. But how will that motivate us to do volunteer work to help the less fortunate? How will that motivate us to do a difficult job in public administration which is thankless at best? How will that motivate us to take care of old Aunt Bessie in her last years when she's too feeble to take care of herself? It won't. Our modern society has steadily pulled us away from our natural habitat and substituted other motivations for the biological motivations that guided our behavior for eons. We increasingly do the things we do for money, the universal reinforcer. The character of our 'social groups' have changed radically. People are increasingly isolated and alienated. Relationships that were once necessary for survival no longer are. And it's obvious that the trend will continue. If all of mankind comes to believe that we are solely biological creatures, if the great new religion of science takes hold in every mind, what motive will we have to continue to work for the betterment of mankind? My contention is that we wouldn't have one. |
|
