Creationists

[jonesthecurl]

what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?

I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.

[jonesthecurl]

For starters, which seems more logical;
something came from nothing
something came from something

which is more logical, something came from god, but god came from nothing -
or something came from nothing with no god in the middle?

{Paging Mr Occam}

[nietzsche]

what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?

I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.

but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".

for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature. and there are religious people who think of god as a anthropomorphic figure, emotional and all, with our predjudices and pettiness.

there are spiritual teachers that identify god with all there is.

personally i think we could get rid of the problematic word, god, because it means so many different things.

but my question was because so many of the counter argumenting to religion is based on the rejectiin of an anthropomorphic god.

[jonesthecurl]

what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?

I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.

but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".

for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature. and there are religious people who think of god as a anthropomorphic figure, emotional and all, with our predjudices and pettiness.

there are spiritual teachers that identify god with all there is.

personally i think we could get rid of the problematic word, god, because it means so many different things.

but my question was because so many of the counter argumenting to religion is based on the rejectiin of an anthropomorphic god.

A fair point. The "old man with a beard living above the clouds" is a different concept to "thou art god".

[TA1LGUNN3R]

what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?

I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.

but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".

for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature. and there are religious people who think of god as a anthropomorphic figure, emotional and all, with our predjudices and pettiness.

there are spiritual teachers that identify god with all there is.

personally i think we could get rid of the problematic word, god, because it means so many different things.

but my question was because so many of the counter argumenting to religion is based on the rejectiin of an anthropomorphic god.

That was pretty much gonna be my reply to Phats. I've mentioned before how his assertion that a creator is "rational" (rationalism being a human construct) is valid, but that rationism itself has no power over the laws of the universe, and therefore applying pure rationalism to the question of a creator is null. I think only empiricism can settle that.

That being said, I think the Christian god can be easily disproved and so I would agree with you that an anthropomorphic god is silly. Consideration of a watchmaker god or Einstein's belief about god being the laws of the universe themselves are better but ultimately useless.

^Cut out too many quotes:

You've painted yourself into a corner.

Can shadow exist without light? No. The very fact that people choose to interpret and change "source" writings of a supposed supreme source proves its mutability. Would anyone say a mountain is anything other than a mountain? Religion wouldn't exist without people.

The U.S. Constitution has been around for a tenth of the time of Christianity, and who knows how long of Judeism, and hasn't spread through nearly the same cultural filters and political landscapes. I guarantee if the U.S. is around in 2000 years its Constitution will have vastly changed.

-TG

No, not really. The only thing i made the differentiation to was that the foundation/tenements of the religion didn't change, people decided to modify it to suit them. As people always will. For example during the Time of Jesus, how the Rabbis viewed and practiced the Law, was much different than lets say King David. However, The Law in and of itself didn't change. The point with the constitution is that People changed it to suit themselves, not the other way around. The basis of our Constitution is still the same, the random laws and other things work within its framework. The difference between lets say, the Constitution and the Bible is that the original texts for the Bible is done, finished. It no longer will change. However how people decide to translate it from the original Hebrew and Greek may cause different translations a/o paired with our interpretations of what it says causes the difference in opinions and viewpoints. The Constitution on the other hand, as part of a government that still rules and has need to modify it occasionally will not be a "Finished" document until the U.S. forms a new system of government based on a new document. When that happens there will no longer be any more changes to the Constitution because they have no purpose.

okay...All I can say is maybe it'll sink in eventually.

"It no longer will change"...? C'mon, guy, try studying a little history. If you think the bible you have now is in any way, shape, or form an actual account of history, then I don't know what to tell you. The selection process of what went into the bible and what was tossed alone should convince you, not to mention the accounts of stuff that never happened (e.g. mass slavery of Hebrew people in Egypt).

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?

I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.

but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".

for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature.

I have recently been reading Paine's The Age of Reason. I notice that he does argue forcefully that the evidence of God is all around us, that it is the very sublime beauty of nature itself that is the true and immutable word of God. However, his actual justification for the existence of a creator is a commonly used argument which almost approaches sophistry -- that everything has a cause, and therefore God is the first cause and the Creator of everything in the universe. He is far closer to modern atheism than I would have believed anyone was at the time. Amusingly, it seems that a large part of why he wrote the text (from what I understand) is in opposition to atheism that he was afraid was spreading at the time, in particular he thought that Christianity was kind of a denial of God and therefore a kind of atheism. Interesting stuff.

[mrswdk]

And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:

You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?

and

What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.

and finally

I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.

Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.

I don't understand why you don't understand it.

Yes, we can and do construct moral codes. No, they are not objective. They are filtered through our particular set of biases. We say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then we clarify "But It's Okay To Kill Things That Taste Good." That's because evolution has made us a carnivorous hunter, so we construct a moral code that still allows us to murder little piglets. If we were a strictly herbivorous species, we would probably have a stricter rule about not killing any sentient being. If we were a scavenging species, we might have a moral code where it's good to eat meat, but only if it has died of natural causes.

So, I disagree with people who say "My code is based purely on Natural Law." No, I say. Your code is based on Natural Law as you see it from your vantage point at a particular nexus in the food chain. That doesn't make it any less valid. Just accept that you have restrictions and limitations to your viewpoint. Your code is valid, but only within the particular set of constraints that evolution has placed on you.

Just reread this and read the second paragraph (missed it last time). I don't say I have a code that is based on Natural Law. Wiki says: 'natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature'. No thanks.

I don't understand how you can state that there is no objective reason behind any of the morals people construct, and then continue to subscribe to a system of morality anyway. Why not just accept that there is no higher cause or purpose?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

MrsWDK,

You have yourself a set of moral rules, which I am presuming are based on the theory that you are more important than anything else.

Not judging you for that, merely pointing out that you have prescribed to an equally arbitrary morality system

[mrswdk]

MrsWDK,

You have yourself a set of moral rules, which I am presuming are based on the theory that you are more important than anything else.

Not judging you for that, merely pointing out that you have prescribed to an equally arbitrary morality system

How does being amoral mean that I follow a set of moral rules?

[Dukasaur]

And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:

You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?

and

What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.

and finally

I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.

Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.

I don't understand why you don't understand it.

Yes, we can and do construct moral codes. No, they are not objective. They are filtered through our particular set of biases. We say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then we clarify "But It's Okay To Kill Things That Taste Good." That's because evolution has made us a carnivorous hunter, so we construct a moral code that still allows us to murder little piglets. If we were a strictly herbivorous species, we would probably have a stricter rule about not killing any sentient being. If we were a scavenging species, we might have a moral code where it's good to eat meat, but only if it has died of natural causes.

So, I disagree with people who say "My code is based purely on Natural Law." No, I say. Your code is based on Natural Law as you see it from your vantage point at a particular nexus in the food chain. That doesn't make it any less valid. Just accept that you have restrictions and limitations to your viewpoint. Your code is valid, but only within the particular set of constraints that evolution has placed on you.

Just reread this and read the second paragraph (missed it last time). I don't say I have a code that is based on Natural Law. Wiki says: 'natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature'. No thanks.

I don't understand how you can state that there is no objective reason behind any of the morals people construct, and then continue to subscribe to a system of morality anyway. Why not just accept that there is no higher cause or purpose?

Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.

If you don't get it, you need to lock yourself in a room with Sartre and do some reading until you get it.

This is the much-misunderstood difference between Existentialists and Nihilists.

Stupid people, of course, can persuade themselves that god or the government has their best interest at heart and can lay out a plan for their life without their needing to give it much thought. Smarter people at some point realize that god is an imaginary phantasm and government is a criminal gang. At this point they have a critical decision to make.

The Nihilist takes the low road. "Yippee! There is no god! I can do whatever the f*ck I want! I can rape my sister, smash this wine bottle over that old lady's head, and take a big shit on my neighbour's poutine, and nobody can prove there's anything wrong with it."

The Existentialist takes the high road. "It's unfortunate that there is no god. It would be nice if life came with an established purpose. Oh well, since there's no god to give me an easy way out, I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness, to bring Order out of Chaos, to find the roads that lead onward and upward, to create beauty and meaning where there was none previously."

[nietzsche]

and you have to do that everyday, would say Kierkegaard.

[mrswdk]

Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.

Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.

I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness

I don't think the distinction is as big in reality as it is in your head.

[nietzsche]

perhaps Dukasaur went a little too far, and used "purpose" instead of "meaning".

meaning is a necesity, something we as human beings need. A purpose would be a step higher i think, a life with purpose would be a better life for the person. A loftier aspiration perhaps.

in any case, he's closer to the truth than you mrswdk.

you have showed a lack of understanding in these topics again and again mrs wdk, and instead of trying to learn you keep contradicting everyone.

i guess you're still young, and not much is expected of a whore like you, but still i think with time you'll learn a thing or two.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.

Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.

I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness

I don't think the distinction is as big in reality as it is in your head.

If you have no purpose then why bother to continue living? Self preservation is a purpose after all.

[mrswdk]

Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.

Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.

I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness

I don't think the distinction is as big in reality as it is in your head.

If you have no purpose then why bother to continue living? Self preservation is a purpose after all.

Because I enjoy living. Is that not a good enough reason for you?

[mrswdk]

meaning is a necesity, something we as human beings need. A purpose would be a step higher i think, a life with purpose would be a better life for the person. A loftier aspiration perhaps.

Whatever makes you feel better.

If the above quote is your honest view then you suck at the whole nihilism thing though.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Because I enjoy living. Is that not a good enough reason for you?

Attacking every point anyone ever makes in a discussion makes it extremely difficult to have a discussion. Enjoyment of life is a purpose!

[nietzsche]

meaning is a necesity, something we as human beings need. A purpose would be a step higher i think, a life with purpose would be a better life for the person. A loftier aspiration perhaps.

Whatever makes you feel better.

If the above quote is your honest view then you suck at the whole nihilism thing though.

dude, seriously, dukasaur explanation was a good one, pay attention.

what makes you think i'm a nihilist?

when nietzsche declared the death of the gods, he quickly went ahead to create a new meaning, most famously with his thus spake zarathustra.

the problem here is that you don't understand some of the concepts, but only because you're not familiar with them. you could use some reading, not saying that you're dumb or anything, i dont read much myself anymore.

meaning is a necessity not because it sounds pretty or because i think im morally superior to you and i tell you so, but because its a basic human need. we crave it, we need something, it's embeded in us.

if you pay attention to yourself, you will find what you assign meaning to.

[mrswdk]

Because I enjoy living. Is that not a good enough reason for you?

Attacking every point anyone ever makes in a discussion makes it extremely difficult to have a discussion. Enjoyment of life is a purpose!

I thought this was a discussion of higher purposes and/or giving deeper meaning to life.

I stay alive because I enjoy living, but I was not born for the purpose of enjoying myself.

[mrswdk]

dude, seriously, dukasaur explanation was a good one, pay attention.

I can see flaws in what he said, and if you guys can't address those flaws then I'm not going to change my mind.

if you pay attention to yourself, you will find what you assign meaning to.

You mean, like, if I value certain things then that shows I give meaning to them?

[nietzsche]

dude, seriously, dukasaur explanation was a good one, pay attention.

I can see flaws in what he said, and if you guys can't address those flaws then I'm not going to change my mind.

if you pay attention to yourself, you will find what you assign meaning to.

You mean, like, if I value certain things then that shows I give meaning to them?

it's easy to see flaws everywhere. what dukasaur is trying to convey is an idea, the language is just the medium.

being critical is important, but you gotta pass that critical step next, and see the big picture.

meaning correlate to your values and viceversa.

f*ck, it's something i've understood for so long that i can't define it now. meaning is like your answer to why you do what you do. like the biggest and deepest of your beliefs. it can change, it can evolve. it sort of defines you.

in an existentialist context, when you find that what you had to do because of a religious belief is no longer valid, you find yourself in a crisis of meaninglessness, and you have to decide your own meaning. deciding your own meaning is authentic living, being responsible for yourself and your life.

[nietzsche]

it's important to understand too that this need of meaning has to do a lot with the fact that you will die.

when you really consider your death, not death as a concept, but your own death, you feel the need of meaning. to live life your way.

it's also important to note that when you make your decision, you're basing it on what you desire, on your beliefs. but as you know yourself better, you can change your own meaning and beliefs, leaving behind things that were not exactly yours but you picked up from others in your growing up. but even when you want all those things you dont really want but only think you want, even then you can feel your real you all the time, all you need to do is pay attention.

[mrswdk]

It gets really boring on all these OT threads when people start talking about one thing and then half way through the conversation they're suddenly talking about something completely different and saying 'oh you're being too literal about my earlier posts'.

You guys were originally talking about moral rules, moral systems, the purpose and meaning of life (universal concepts) and now you seem to just be saying 'what you personally want = the meaning of your life'. So now all you're trying to say is that everyone wants something? Because obviously everyone has things that they want, but that is totally unrelated to the ideas of morality and the purpose of life that were being thrown around earlier in this thread.

[mrswdk]

it's important to understand too that this need of meaning has to do a lot with the fact that you will die.

when you really consider your death, not death as a concept, but your own death, you feel the need of meaning. to live life your way.

it's also important to note that when you make your decision, you're basing it on what you desire, on your beliefs. but as you know yourself better, you can change your own meaning and beliefs, leaving behind things that were not exactly yours but you picked up from others in your growing up. but even when you want all those things you dont really want but only think you want, even then you can feel your real you all the time, all you need to do is pay attention.

When I think about my own death, it just makes everything that happens in life seem irrelevant.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

The discussion hasnt changed.

Our moral systems are based on what we perceive to be our meaning/purpose. In a religious scenario this is easy, one lives to serve their particular god/scripture etc. Aetheists/Agnostics have no such driver and have to define their meaning/purpose for themselves to then determine what morality is.

Were not talking about superficial needs here. Its the top level of Maslow's hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27 ... y_of_needs