Whether or not one believes in god is an article of faith either way. There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there is no god. There are no facts to back up either argument. Why does every religion thread degenerate into this debate?

Perhaps so, but I am sure the debate shall continue for a long time to come.

Whether or not one believes in god is an article of faith either way. There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there is no god. There are no facts to back up either argument.
While theism requires faith (firm belief without proof), atheism does not. There are facts that back up explicit belief that God does not exist (strong atheism), specifically that there is nothing to indicate that he does exist and many descriptions of God that have been offered are not logical and are even contradictory. While this is not irrefutable proof, it is sufficient to exclude the necessity of faith. As for weak atheism, this is mere absence of belief, which excludes faith completely.

Why does every religion thread degenerate into this debate?
I guess because humans love to argue.

I have trouble grasping the concept that an absence of proof that God exists is proof that God does not exist. There is no proof that we will wake up tomorrow either -- that doesn't mean we won't :)

Edit: I'll add that the reverse is true too -- An absence of proof that there is no god doesn't prove that there is one.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I have trouble grasping the concept that an absence of proof that God exists is proof that God does not exist.
I agree it is not definitive proof. But it is convincing enough to not require faith.

There is no proof that we will wake up tomorrow either -- that doesn't mean we won't :)
Exactly. We have no reason to believe that we won't, so it doesn't require faith. But if we did have reason to believe that we wouldn't wake up tomorrow (for example, we knew there was an asteroid on a collision course for Earth that is due to strike overnight), then it would require faith to believe that we would wake up the next day.

Edit: I'll add that the reverse is true too -- An absence of proof that there is no god doesn't prove that there is one.
Also agreed.

coolsoldier, are you equally ambivalent when it comes to Unicorns and the Daoine Sidhe?

No proof of presence is not proof of absense - even in the case of unicorns.

coolsoldier,

Here is the closest think I know of proof of a God. http://www.woodstockanddeadseascrolls.net/ As science learns how to juggle parts of the atom, and other parts within those, I believe proof of God and the spirit world will be there. Until, then lets all try to get along.

Originally posted by dan6989
Here is the closest think I know of proof of a God. You already tried to raise this silliness in its own thread without success. Efforts to inject it artificially into some other conversation are rather pitiful.

Quote from coolsoldier;


“I have trouble grasping the concept that an absence of proof that God exists is proof that God does not exist.”


This is a variant of that old saw “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In this particular case, I’d have to say yes, it is. Five thousand years of general theist claims and not a shred of evidence. Two thousand years of specific mono-theistic claims and not a shred of evidence. All the while, evidence of a natural universe which works fine without anything supernatural has amounted to a “preponderance of evidence” that the universe has no need of the supernatural. Self important, shaved apes may think they need the supernatural, but the universe quite clearly does not.


Every minute of every day humans make important and binding decisions with far less than 100% certainty. In most instances, true or false beyond reasonable doubt is more than enough. Here’s how I see the situation;


Proposal; “Supernatural things are real” False beyond reasonable doubt.


Observation; “Supernatural things are not real.” True beyond reasonable doubt.


Notice that the first is a claim while the second is not. No one has an obligation to prove a negative while everyone has an obligation to prove a positive claim. A supernatural being is the very epitome of “extraordinary claims”. And you know what that means. The burden of proof has gone unanswered for millennia and I got tired of waiting long ago. Should any actual evidence come along Ill give it serious consideration.



Regarding the concept “debate”…….well, there isn’t any debate, nor can there be. There are only the persistent and unreasonable attacks by believers against any who disagree with them. They attempt to invent their own rules for logic, reason and acceptable evidence which the various disciplines of science cannot indulge or agree with. If theists would stop trying to insinuate their peculiar beliefs into the secular world, I, for one, would be content.

Originally posted by AKA Heathen
Proposal; “Supernatural things are real” False beyond reasonable doubt.


Observation; “Supernatural things are not real.” True beyond reasonable doubt.


You can not scientifically make this claim because supernatural things are, by definition, unobservable. You can't say that anything regarding the supernatural is beyond reasonable doubt, because doubt is inherent in the very concept of the supernatural.

Coolsoldier,

You can not scientifically make this claim because supernatural things are, by definition, unobservable.If something is unobservable and undetectable then you have no basis to claim it exists or is real.

The claims for anything supernatural are therefore imaginative fictions. I.e. they are not real.

You can't say that anything regarding the supernatural is beyond reasonable doubt, because doubt is inherent in the very concept of the supernatural.Doubt for the supernatural has become inherent because it has never been observed. The significant (many millennia) continuing lack of observation combined with new discoveries by science that explains much that was once claimed as supernatural places the status of the supernatural well into a fallacy beyond any reasonable doubt.

You need proof? How about this:
e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0

Originally posted by python_kiss
You need proof? How about this:
e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0 No matter what you pick for i, e^(pi*i)+1 >= 1.

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
No matter what you pick for i, e^(pi*i)+1 >= 1.
"i" is an imaginary number in this case. i = sqrt(-1)

e^(pi*i) = -1

Originally posted by LaoTzu
"i" is an imaginary number in this case. i = sqrt(-1)

e^(pi*i) = -1 Duh! How could I forget the key word "imaginary" in this case. :D

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You already tried to raise this silliness in its own thread without success. Efforts to inject it artificially into some other conversation are rather pitiful.

What is most pitiful is people who dismiss argument too hastily without even reading it thoroughly. What is your reason for calling it silly. One thing that has been used as proof of God, is supernatural abilities and occurences. Those with real wisdom do not need these signs to lead a righteous and humble life. However, there are those who love themselves a bit too much and need to be humbled. If that ancient scroll writer saw into the future, words for the things he saw may not have existed. Words for conveying thoughts are like a painter using his backside to paint, as it is. Then add 2,000 years and language changes too. Maybe one day, what we commonly call God or the spiritual realm will be given a scientific term. That will not matter to me. Human nature as it is, needs a foundation in law and rule, which has been given to us in the form of the Ten Commandments(ten great ideas). Law and order would cease to exist, and thanks to such things as nuclear bombs, man would cease to exist also.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
You can not scientifically make this claim because supernatural things are, by definition, unobservable. Who made up that rule. You? By what special revelation did you come to understand the attributes of the supernatural.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
You can't say that anything regarding the supernatural is beyond reasonable doubt, because doubt is inherent in the very concept of the supernatural. You don't seem to doubt that the supernatural is unobservable.

Think more. Chatter less.

From American Heritage Dictionary:

Supernaturaln. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Because the senses we use for observation are limited to the natural world, we can only observe things that exist within it. Anything that exists outside of this natural world therefore cannot be observed by us. Consequently, we cannot observe the supernatural simply because of the meaning of the word.

Saying you can't observe the supernatural is like saying you can't see the invisible.

As for inherent doubt, there is doubt inherent in anything that cannot be observed. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Coolsoldier,

Because the senses we use for observation are limited to the natural world, we can only observe things that exist within it. OK.

Anything that exists outside of this natural world therefore cannot be observed by us.OK. But “observation” here must also mean any form of material detection and experience, right?

Consequently, we cannot observe the supernatural simply because of the meaning of the word.OK but also perhaps because it doesn’t exist

Saying you can't observe the supernatural is like saying you can't see the invisible.Or that the claimed invisible thing doesn’t exist.

As for inherent doubt, there is doubt inherent in anything that cannot be observed. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.OK but –

If we can’t observe or detect the supernatural then we have no way of knowing whether it exists or not. But this also seems to mean that if nothing material can connect to the supernatural then it seems irrelevant to us whether the supernatural exists or not, it may as well not exist.

Now you might argue that humans have a supernatural component (soul/spirit, etc) but then how can something outside of nature connect to nature? Also if the supernatural can connect to the natural then it must be natural, in which case the term supernatural is redundant, i.e. the supernatural doesn't exist.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Anything that exists outside of this natural world therefore cannot be observed by us. Consequently, we cannot observe the supernatural simply because of the meaning of the word. That is not the meaning of the word. There is no there in your therefore.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
That is not the meaning of the word. There is no there in your therefore.

Supernatural:

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.



Would Gravity, Dark Matter, fit this discriptio?

Originally posted by wayne_92587
Supernatural:

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.



Would Gravity, Dark Matter, fit this discriptio?

I consider gravity to be a natural law. You don't?

Re: Topic question Why does every religion thread degenerate into this debate? Once upon a time I took a gloating pleasure in pointing to the theistic side of the debate and tacking the blame squarely and specifically on Christians, at least in the American forum.

But that's not fair, as is demonstrated by Sciforums, at least; the topic question has much merit.

I'm inclined to think that it's merely a matter of priorities. To me, the question of God's existence and similar issues becomes important in terms of what we do about it.

Which brings us to questions to examine on the theistic side of the aisle: What happens when God's law operates countervalent to human progress? As we leap from issue to issue, view the interconnections present, we see an odd chain working against trends indicative of greater social and human progress. Some Christians in the US, for instance, make vocal opposition to sex ed, opting to "reserve such issues to family" while not acknowledging that in many families those issues don't get talked about. I learned reproduction not from my parents, but from the World Book encyclopedia. One day my father looked at me and realized that the "talk" had slipped by. And he wasn't and isn't a Christian unless there's one more family scandal I don't know about.

And sure, it took until I was 29 to reproduce without planning; I'm generally fortunate in that sense. But then I look to the younger.

When I was in high school, a student caused a minor scandal by inviting as guest speaker a local doctor who was also an advocate of a woman's right to choose an abortion. While the talk was permitted by the school, it enraged my bioethics teacher to the point that she was yelling at the guy. (For background, she had stubbornly carried a guaranteed miscarriage until it almost killed her. Why? Catholic faith. Even with no developing brain, she held out for the miracle that a brain would appear in the fetus magically--by the grace of god--in the next imaging session.) The doctor eventually closed the debate with a very calm: "I understand what you're saying but it's just not practical. I've seen girls from this school, an I've seen some of them more than once." There was a nearly-lethal silence; all the non-Catholics nodded as if to say, "Makes sense." All the Catholics sat in stunned silence; a Catholic getting an aboriton?

And the connection here is simply expressed, once upon a time nearly ten years ago, by a supermodel (Nikki something?) on "Politically Incorrect", who noted that she came up on fashion and MTV to be sure, and people may think her stupid, but her best friend in high school was raised in the kind of household where the friend was "sheltered" by her faith. Straight out of high school the friend started churning out the babies. The first man she laid was the man she married and the relationship wasn't healthy for anyone involved. It was a minor but poignant testament.

And from there we move to fetal tissue research. We've almost reached a plateau where aborted fetal tissue no longer becomes an issue. Larry King, after Christopher Reeve's talk-show tour last year, challenged Dr. Dobson on the point that the research he was objecting to for the sake of an anti-abortion platform no longer had to do with aborted fetuses. Dr. Dobson, of course, managed a "stable" answer insofar as he didn't embarrass himself tremendously, but he was weak on the point. And guess what? Scientists have been able to take a social tragedy and reap some benefit from it.

In each of these cases, theists looked at "adherence to God's law" and chose that route despite the observable fact that such adherence created other challenges to faith: Where opposition to homosexuality has traditionally relied on the Old Testament and the Pauline Evangelization, more and more "liberal" Christians are looking directly at Christ: compassion, reconciliation, harmony ... leave the sinner to God to figure out. Apparently, as is demonstrated in recent debates surrounding the confirmation of Bishop Robinson to the Episcopalian Church of the USA, trusting in God to judge the sinners is an inappropriate method of faith.

I realize I'm picking on Christians here, and there is much to be said as well about Islam and the violence which currently headlines the Muslim presence in the world. I mean, when we get down to a more cooperative society, atheists and others are still going to have to argue about the kinds of points we in America argue with Christians.

And here we can start the transition to the atheist side of the aisle: Do you oppose the notion of God arbitrarily or as part of a larger association of ideas?

The superficial issue that strikes me is a certain amount of disorganization in the atheistic presentation of ideas. To the one we find the atheist complaining about the illogic of the religious assertion. And this is a valid point except that its counterpoint is arbitrary. I understand the idea that God is illogical; I don't hold out for the logic of God. But I do wonder why one counterpoints illogic with the illogical, irrationality with the irrational, unreason with the unreasonable.

To someone like me, looking at the two sides of this argument is a little like asking, "Would you prefer the boiler or the deep-fryer?" Of course, the redemptive theists are also thinking, "Or maybe into the fire?"

In the end, it seems to me that the only valid issue insofar as it can be given practical application is what the presence/lack of God brings.

I, too, dislike the illogic of religions. But that illogic is to a certain degree superficial. It has comparative substance because it tends to set the tone of the debate. It would be nice to say accommodating the slow kids has dragged down the whole class, but in a world where people tend to define things according to dualistic arguments, I'm not about to abandon the slow kids yet.

But What do people want?

Is it just a lack of illogical opposition to one's own irrationality that non-theistic people seek? To be irrational and selfish in peace? And why do the religious folk fear the logical? Admittedly, the Abramic notion of God transcends the necessity of logic, but ... I mean, come on ... at some point we just have to admit that Christians have been making it up as they went. And while that's part of any human endeavor to be sure, one thing that is as true today as it was during the Crusades is that God tells certain leaders to go to war. Jihad, the Bush Administration, and even to a certain degree my American, tax-rebel, second-son forefathers. The list goes on. At what point is "God legitimately giving a leader insight" compared to "he's just making it up as he goes"? It seems that, in practice, it's what side of the line you're on already that determines where your faith of credibility goes.

I admit, I'm not as up on the "God told me to" issues of the train shootings and so forth in India during the 1990s that seem, to these ill-informed American eyes, to have lessened in favor of India-Pakistan tensions. Yes, I'm digressing even further, but I'm also painfully conscious of how much I've restricted myself to Abramism and especially American Christianity.

But myself ... I could care less whether or not God exists insofar as that fact is concerned. Knowledge of that condition would obviously instruct my actions, but I cannot believe that in what seems a visible juxtaposition: Too often I see examples that if one hasn't God to aspire to, one aspires to an irrational degree of selfishness. And that, of course, invokes a wholly separate debate about self-preservation versus excessive selfishness, and that, of course invokes a wholly separate debate about virtue and vice and the foundations thereof.

I think that "every religion thread degenerates" into the god/no-god debate is that it represents a most fundamental difference which allows people to be opposed to one another without the necessity of inward scrutiny comparable to the attention given to criticizing the ideas of others. It's a way of voicing fundamental opposition while keeping issues of substance--which sometimes require effort to address--at arm's length.

Yes it's a lot of words to use for such a simple point, but sometimes that's just necessary.

But what do people want, and why is consideration of God in any way important to that? (If that seems an unfair question because one section of possible respondents get the "easy answer", also consider what "having the easy answer" signifies.)

Okay. Coolsoldier.

I have this invisible, unfeelable, noiseless, smell-less, massless, tasteless (lol), gigantic 20 meter she-dragon floating in my dorm room. She's pretty thin, we both get along.

*cuddles his cuddly dragon*

You can't touch her; your hand passes through her.
She has no mass, she does not affect any forces.

In short, she does not exert any force (none of the four forces of nature) on anything.

We communicate through soul talk. I meditate; I get in touch with her.



Now prove she doesn't exist. There is no physical proof she does exist; and I think according to your logic she WOULD exist?

Shall I introduce you to my little carrot man who is also similar?

Originally posted by Zero
Okay. Coolsoldier.

I have this invisible, unfeelable, noiseless, smell-less, massless, tasteless (lol), gigantic 20 meter she-dragon floating in my dorm room. She's pretty thin, we both get along.
**snip**
Now prove she doesn't exist. There is no physical proof she does exist; and I think according to your logic she WOULD exist?

Shall I introduce you to my little carrot man who is also similar?

First of all, read my original post -- I'm saying that because there is no scientific proof for or against the existence of God, arguments about whether or not God exists are POINTLESS. A scientific argument on the issue is impossible because there are no scientific facts to support either side. The case with your she-dragon :rolleyes: is similar -- A debate about whether it exists would be pointless because there is no physical proof either way. Only you, being the one who (according to your own claims) communicates with her, can ever possibly know whether she actually exists or not.

But you are overlooking that most theists seem to believe their own claims about the existence of God. You, judging from the sarcasm in the last few lines of the post, do not believe your claims about the she-draagon :)

Originally posted by Zero
Okay. Coolsoldier.

I have this invisible, unfeelable, noiseless, smell-less, massless, tasteless (lol), gigantic 20 meter she-dragon floating in my dorm room. She's pretty thin, we both get along.

*cuddles his cuddly dragon*

You can't touch her; your hand passes through her.
She has no mass, she does not affect any forces.

In short, she does not exert any force (none of the four forces of nature) on anything.

We communicate through soul talk. I meditate; I get in touch with her.



Now prove she doesn't exist. There is no physical proof she does exist; and I think according to your logic she WOULD exist?

Shall I introduce you to my little carrot man who is also similar?

Now prove she doesn't exist. There is no physical proof she does exist; and I think according to your logic she WOULD exist?

Shall I introduce you to my little carrot man who is also similar? [/B][/QUOTE]


The Real question is do you find enough evidence in your own mind to believe that she exists.

Wayne,

The Real question is do you find enough evidence in your own mind to believe that she exists.Based on this response and since the description of the dragon is identical in all essential respects to the Christian god then we can assume that the basis for Christian belief is simply that one must feel personally convinced that such a god exists and that no basis in reality is needed? I.e. it is not relevant that the god actually exists or not.

Originally posted by Cris
Wayne,

Based on this response and since the description of the dragon is identical in all essential respects to the Christian god then we can assume that the basis for Christian belief is simply that one must feel personally convinced that such a god exists and that no basis in reality is needed? I.e. it is not relevant that the god actually exists or not.

That no physical proof is necessary to believe that something exists does not necessarily mean that it's existence is irrelevant. Becoming aware of the existence of something intangible is perhaps enough evidence to believe in it's existence. That does not necessarily mean that it's existence is irrelevant (side note: irrelevant to what?) because "basis in reality" does not necessarily equate to "basis in unrefutable proof".

Oiginally posted by tiassa
And here we can start the transition to the atheist side of the aisle: Do you oppose the notion of God arbitrarily or as part of a larger association of ideas?
...
The superficial issue that strikes me is a certain amount of disorganization in the atheistic presentation of ideas. To the one we find the atheist complaining about the illogic of the religious assertion. And this is a valid point except that its counterpoint is arbitrary. I understand the idea that God is illogical; I don't hold out for the logic of God. But I do wonder why one counterpoints illogic with the illogical, irrationality with the irrational, unreason with the unreasonable.
...
I, too, dislike the illogic of religions. But that illogic is to a certain degree superficial. It has comparative substance because it tends to set the tone of the debate. It would be nice to say accommodating the slow kids has dragged down the whole class, but in a world where people tend to define things according to dualistic arguments, I'm not about to abandon the slow kids yet.While I don't disagree that at some point atheistic arguments also break down into unproven/unprovable assumptions I find that a large part of the problem is that the typical theistic argument breaks upon that rock far earlier. One then has the choice to either argue against the theistic premise or delve into theistic logic in order to refute the various conclusions from within.

The first option is easier and clearer. The problem with this method, as you have pointed out, is that the atheistic premise rests on equally shaky ground but there are several problems with the second method. The main one being that you're generally limited to an interpretative argument which falls to claims of greater authority or proper interpretation.

The theistic side sets the tone of the debate purely because they refuse to play on any field but their own with any rules but their own.

~Raithere

Coolsoldier,

You’ve missed the point I think. What Wayne is saying that a personal fantasy is all you need. If you are convinced your fantasy is true then your religion will be equally valid whether the super-object exists or not.

My unsaid point, which I assumed would be obvious, is that this is total gibberish.

The theistic side sets the tone of the debate purely because they refuse to play on any field but their own with any rules but their own. Indeed, and in part because they've never had to. Part of the challenge is to get people to abandon superstition. And why would they abandon one set of superstitions for another?

The problem that comes with examining the functional relevance of any degree of presumption is that the value judgments change. So we can demonstrate the living inefficiency of this or that religion until we're six feet under, but it doesn't change the fact that living inefficiency is not a problem to, oh, say, a redemptive theist.

When the currency one values most--e.g. a soul--hinges on superstition and faith, what use has one for knowledge?

Such as Paul Hill (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030902/APN/309020913). The short excerpts from his discussion of his crime and punishment are fairly tame compared to what I saw on the news earlier tonight. He truly does believe that he will become one with his Lord God above. And, like Ignatius of Antioch, he looks forward to his execution because he can finally be with God.

The living inefficiency of murder? No matter to him. He's looking toward something much more important to him.

(Insert blue condemnation of various martyr-syndromes here.)

Koresh, suicide bombers, Eric Rudolph ... we need not stick with merely the murderous. Hosts of bigots across the country ... er ... can I spare the litany for the sake of space?

Once upon a time I decided that the word "God" sufficed for all the things people say about Universal Origins and other such ideas in the sense that even if we figure out what those things are, they are "God" in a certain way. My freshman physics professor in college made the point that "everything in the Universe that could be was determined within a few seconds of the bang itself, meaning that the range of possible elements and the ways in which they would interact, and all the symptoms that come from that were set in motion--determined--in those first few seconds. The "name of God" well could be a mathematical formula describing what happened at that moment. If we could see to the leading edge of the expanding Universe, what would we see? Would we see "creation" in the raw? Is there anything left to see? If we see that leading edge of the energy wave, will it tell us anything fundamental about Universal Origins?

Or the simple idea, mentioned somewhere in this forum, that, as Brian Wilson has it, "God only knows how much I love you." Even to a general atheist who uses colloquial phrases like "God damn it," or "God only knows," or, "Oh my God," there is still a condition in the Universe that the word "God" represents. And that's all God ever has to be. It doesn't threaten you, it doesn't claim dominion, it doesn't tell you what's moral. It simply is.

And so I repeat a common prescription of mine: the general solution is to ideologically disarm God. Redemption and condemnation myths are a massive and evil crock o'shite.

Above the pantheons of the gods in, say, ancient Greece and elsewhere, there existed the idea of a yet-supreme force. Unnamed, unmoving, unknowing. The first principle, and from there we descend into demiurges and such. But what kind of God cannot do a certain thing, and why? This constraint becomes the greater authority than the God; this constraint becomes the God.

If you disarm "God", then "God" becomes a simple rhetorical convenience.

Lysander Spooner noted that the people cannot consent to award their government what the people do not have. Insofar as we acknowledge that gods are of human creation, the same principle applies.

Disarming God becomes a fairly useful venture right there, I'd say. It is people who give God the right to judge. It is people who arm God with the power of fear. It is people who decide what God loves and hates. Disarming God becomes a fairly difficult social process.

And besides, the last time "atheists" set the tone of a vital theological debate, Christianity was the result. (Some pagans found early Christianity so bizarre that they considered it atheistic.)

Godel's theorem states that in any sufficiently complex system, there exist true statements that cannot be proven. I certainly consider reality to be a sufficiently complex system for that to be true, and it seems that whether or not God/gods exist and in what form is one of those unprovable statements.

Edit: The complete text of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is Available on the web at http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/godel3.htm

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Godel's theorem states that in any sufficiently complex system, there exist true statements that cannot be proven. I certainly consider reality to be a sufficiently complex systemBut is reality a formal system or axiomatic?

~Raithere

Originally posted by Cris
Coolsoldier,

You’ve missed the point I think. What Wayne is saying that a personal fantasy is all you need. If you are convinced your fantasy is true then your religion will be equally valid whether the super-object exists or not.

My unsaid point, which I assumed would be obvious, is that this is total gibberish.


Not what I said, an Illusion is a Reality to the person having the Illusion, a Graven Image of Reality.

A person's Illusion although they beileve it to be real does not make it a valid Reality, as you say, their Reality is total Gibberish.

Originally posted by Cris
Wayne,

Based on this response and since the description of the dragon is identical in all essential respects to the Christian god then we can assume that the basis for Christian belief is simply that one must feel personally convinced that such a god exists and that no basis in reality is needed? I.e. it is not relevant that the god actually exists or not.



:eek:


The Christian God is very relevant because some kill, many suffer, in the Name of God, a False God.

Anyone that submits to the Reality, Illusion, of a Named God summits to the Reality of a Graven Image, a False God.

God is not a Name, God is just a Word, God is Nameless and can not be spoken of, No One can Speak in the Name of, for, God, something that is No Name, that is Indefinable.


A Name give to a Non-material, Non-Physical, Reality, a Non-Be-ing, is a en-Graven Image of Reality deeply impressed into, fixed in, the Mind, an Illusion said to be, spoken of, named, defined, as being a Reality, a Non-BE-ing an Illusion, a lie, a deception.

Those that worship, that submit to, the Reality of a Material, Physical, God, a Named God, submit to a Non-BE-ing, a False God, a Graven Image of Reality, they are, Idolaters, the Adulterators of Reality, The Whores that Babel-on creating, a confused mixture of sounds or voices, a scene of noise and confusion, tumult, turmoil, uproar, bedlam, clamor, reeking havoc with the World of Reality, creating great suffering.

Wayne,

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I found it!".

Originally posted by Cris
Wayne,

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I found it!".




EXCELENT I Like that!!!!!!!

Originally posted by tiassa
Disarming God becomes a fairly useful venture right there, I'd say. It is people who give God the right to judge. It is people who arm God with the power of fear. It is people who decide what God loves and hates. Disarming God becomes a fairly difficult social process.But how to go about it? Most religion seems to be primarily about the reinforcement of particular cultural beliefs which becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. It seems to me that atheism is indeed part of the answer. No matter the foibles of any particular argument the existence of an opposing argument forces religion to react. As the atheistic meme spreads through the culture the myriad religious assumptions must be addressed as they can no longer be considered axiomatic.

And besides, the last time "atheists" set the tone of a vital theological debate, Christianity was the result. (Some pagans found early Christianity so bizarre that they considered it atheistic.)Well, the plain fact of it was that they were not atheists no matter the pantheistic reaction to monotheism. Only recently are we seeing the affect of a true atheistic meme into the culture. The theistic reaction seems to be either a regression towards inane fundamentalism which will eventually be self-defeating (I'm ever the optimist) or a broadening and generalization of the concept of God, which is the beginning of the disarmament we are looking for. Not that I don't see a role for progressive theistic philosophy but it seems to me that the main forces driving this progress are multiculturalism and atheism.

~Raithere

Originally posted by tiassa
Indeed, and in part because they've never had to. Part of the challenge .... "atheists" set the tone of a vital theological debate, Christianity was the result. (Some pagans found early Christianity so bizarre that they considered it atheistic.)

Man, IMO that is one of the your best posts ever. Nicely put.

Consider for a moment the homebound paraplegic. He has never seen the world. He has been outside a few times, but has never left his block. He cannot observe the outside world, but it certainly affects him. It is his source of food; It is his source of medicine; It is his source of water; It is his source of companionship. He cannot observe it -- He cannot see, hear, touch, or feel it, but he can believe in it's existence on no merit but the testimony of those who have experienced it. He cannot observe it, but at the end of each day, it does not exist any less for his not having observed it.

Our limited senses and limited ability of perception are unable to observe everything that exists. We have "natural laws" that, as scientists, we just accept to be true on no grounds other than the fact that they usually are. These postulates must be accepted without proof because they form the basis on which we draw conclusions from our other observations. I see no reason why these natural laws cannot be accepted as the product of a God -- something that we can only accept on the (written) testimony of the few throughout time who have experienced Him. We cannot observe Him, but at the end of the day, He does not exist any less for our not having observed Him.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
He cannot observe the outside world, but it certainly affects him. It is his source of food; It is his source of medicine; It is his source of water; It is his source of companionship. He cannot observe it -- He cannot see, hear, touch, or feel it, but he can believe in it's existence on no merit but the testimony of those who have experienced it. He cannot observe it, but at the end of each day, it does not exist any less for his not having observed it.Your analogy falters, this person experiences a real effect of this unknown outside world. He need not rely on the testimony of others but is able to infer its existence by the observable changes it causes in his world. No such inference can be drawn towards the 'supernatural' world that supposedly exists beside or beyond our own. Study after study shows nothing at all.

We have "natural laws" that, as scientists, we just accept to be true on no grounds other than the fact that they usually are. These postulates must be accepted without proof because they form the basis on which we draw conclusions from our other observations.Absolutely incorrect. Scientific laws are based purely upon observable phenomena. They are based upon proof and proof alone.

I see no reason why these natural laws cannot be accepted as the product of a GodThere is no reason to reject God as the source of natural laws but neither is there any reason to accept it.

something that we can only accept on the (written) testimony of the few throughout time who have experienced Him.There are many testimonies that claim many things. If we are to accept the existence of God on no other grounds than personal testimony why do we not equally accept the testimony of other claims? What makes the monotheist right and the pantheist wrong?

We cannot observe Him, but at the end of the day, He does not exist any less for our not having observed Him.Existence does not depend upon observation, this much is true. However, the argument that some specific thing exists which cannot be observed either directly or by its effects is an extremely weak argument and on no firmer ground than claims of pixies and gnomes.

~Raithere

RaithereBut how to go about it? Most religion seems to be primarily about the reinforcement of particular cultural beliefs which becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. It seems to me that atheism is indeed part of the answer. Atheism is a prescription for a symptom. But even when we do away with religion there are certain irrationalities that look religious save for the lack of a godhead that must necessarily be dealt with. Think of all the negative -isms that mark the boundaries of human conflicts. How many of these are actually rational positions? Racism? Sexism? Irrational egocentrism?° Ageism?°

The thing is that because of religion's relationship to ignorance, it may actually be impossible to eliminate religion entirely. At least, not until every human being knows everything in the Universe. As long as life seems larger than any one person, there will be religion.

In the meantime, I would go so far as to assert that the appearance of religions as self-reinforcement is a valid observation. While the Abramic religions provide too easy a target, well ... let's just work with it. Simply, these religions cannot keep up because of some silly and inflexible assertions about the nature of God. Knowledge is outpacing the religions' abilities to adapt. Religion will continue, the overt manifestation will continue to evolve; religious faith will become less significant especially as the focus of religion and the reasons people hold it change.

But it's like that damn "dark room" comparison in this topic. Atheism, by that standard, is standing in a dark room claiming there is no cat there at all because one cannot see it while insisting on having no obligation to look. I do appreciate the people who look around for the cat, but let's not kid ourselves into pretending that most of Sciforums' atheists only want to find the cat for any better reason than to kick it around for not being smart enough.

Atheism as a condition can avoid this. Atheism as a cause to proselytize is just a kick in the twat.

Because humans are irrational. Who is the rash to tease the hacking, wheezing cough? Atheism only ducks the religion trap, and that's debatable according to the most visible manifestations of atheism. (And yes, that's the problem with squeaky wheels: they need repair.)

Perhaps people can become so logical on a general sense that they don't need to rely on any deviations of psychology from good hard logic in order to find a sense of security.

What is important to anybody? And why? Everybody's got their reasons, but juxtaposed against a fundamental argument that rejects an assertion for being unfounded and unsupportable, those reasons generally don't shine brightly under the lights of objective scrutiny.

Disarming God is a simple idea. My holy book, for instance, is Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree. Even at age four I had no need to believe that trees could talk like the one in the story. It was easy enough to get the point of the story without it. Now, if people choose to make some sort of formal code out of it, well ... it all depends on what that code works toward. Bearing in mind that people invent gods, and that people can only invest in gods what they themselves have to invest, changing the terms of what they invest is one of the highest priorities. Perhaps from such a plateau the elimination of theistic religion is possible, but I point on this occasion toward extraterrestrial theories (1 (http://archive.anomalies.net/archive/boylan/ettheo.html), 2 (http://tedwards.topcities.com/articles/divine/divine14.htm)). People are already looking to new expressions of godhead.As the atheistic meme spreads through the culture the myriad religious assumptions must be addressed as they can no longer be considered axiomatic.If I walk up to enough people and accuse them of being rapists, I'll eventually be right once or twice, or ten times or so.

The minor assertion that composes the whole of atheism is small and reactionary. That doesn't mean it's not vitally necessary. But atheism doesn't exist without brains to dwell on such considerations, e.g. atheists. And atheists, despite their use of a small and reactionary idea to reject what other people hold as a large idea for reasons of irrationality, are still irrational people.

Efforts to restrict atheism to its smallest possible implication--a small idea--are inherently myopic because they refuse the magnitude of what the idea compares to.

Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten. Or so the saying goes. On the other hand, I would hope that atheists have better reasons than killing kittens to isolate themselves in dark rooms.Well, the plain fact of it was that they were not atheists no matter the pantheistic reaction to monotheism.Does it occur to you that one thing the "Christian atheists" did was to redefine the working paradigm representing God? And yet I don't see that process accounted for in the most part of the modern atheistic rejection of Abramic traditions. "God" has not always been the same. The human idea of the Universe ruled by God has not always been the same. The human idea of God will not always be the same.Only recently are we seeing the affect of a true atheistic meme into the culture True:

- Memes, like genes, vary in their fitness to survive in the environment of human intellect. Some reproduce like bunnies, but are very short-lived (fashions), while others are slow to reproduce, but hang around for eons (religions, perhaps?). Note that the fitness of the meme is not necessarily related to the fitness that it confers upon the human being who holds it. The most obvious example of this is the "Smoking is Cool" meme, which does very well for itself while killing off its hosts at a great rate. (Lee Borkman (http://maxwell.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/what.is.html))

(Borkman also notes that among the most irresistible memes are "I exist", "You exist", and "I am the center of the universe". see alt.memetics: "What is the most irresistible meme?" (http://maxwell.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/irresist.html))

Unless the atheistic meme is as logical as the assertion itself, this meme might just condemn itself to occupying only three or four per cent of the minds on the planet. Of course, it depends also on which "version" of atheism one examines. Projections for "negative atheism" run as high as 20%,a regression towards inane fundamentalism which will eventually be self-defeating We can only hope for self-defeat ... I'm not sure they'll allow anyone else to defeat them.

But this regression comes because of how small the atheistic assertion is. There is no God. Woo-hoo. That's it. There is no other rational aspect to it. There is no greater logic to it. "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" is about what it comes down to. I have to admit that if I was comfortably ensconced in myth, I wouldn't come out of my shell for something so anemic, either.

This is part of what all of those arguments I've gotten myself into about atheism have been about. After that basic, tiny assertion, that there is no God, there is nothing else to consider ideologically or personally. Atheists are just as irrational as other people, so their rationality stops in many cases where their bigotry against religions stops. In many other cases it doesn't make it even that far. Atheists cannot lead by example because the example is impossible.

Logic and reason are good enough to fuel one's sentiment against religion, but unless many atheists around here want to do me the favor of eating a good many words, logic and reason stop there. The atheist has no obligation to logic and reason outside the tiny atheistic assertion.

Of course a paranoid, superstitious person is going to recoil from that kind of disjointed, false appeal to reason and logic.or a broadening and generalization of the concept of God, which is the beginning of the disarmament we are looking for And that rejection by the paranoid of the false is a major reason why I hold with the idea of disarming God.Not that I don't see a role for progressive theistic philosophy but it seems to me that the main forces driving this progress are multiculturalism and atheism.Which is what amuses me most about that dark room/black cat metaphor. Everybody takes their cues from mystics and metaphysicians. Why? They deal with the ultimate potential. They deal with theoretic purities. This allows an establishment of a baseline ideal against which reality can be compared and figured.

The mystics openly disarm god; the metaphysicians allow for the translation of God into simple myth for philosophical reflection. By accident, they are among the best friends the cat-killers can hope for ....

I know, I know, I know. I'm a little bit embittered about a few points we've covered before. It's actually not you, I promise. It's just something about the difference between "in theory" and "in reality".

In reality, we have to figure out how much signal is going in which direction between the psyche that demands religion and the religion that exploits a psyche. And that's just not a pleasing prospect. I keep coming back to the piss-all reality that I'm probably committing myself to a 15-page post (12 pt, 2x-space) in order to connect as many dots as I need to in order to be remotely clear on such issues. Maybe more.


Notes

° Irrational egocentrism - We are all aware that we must regard ourselves primarily when the circumstances call for it, but aside from splitting that hair, need I clarify to any greater detail?

° Ageism - A tenuous word at best merely because it's utterly unaesthetic. Nonetheless, it does include such prejudices as senior citizens being worthless and children being stupid. I have all the respect in the world for Maggie Kuhn, but I recall one time when I was about 11 or 12 that the only reason my friend and I didn't beat this insane guy to death after he attacked us was that hew was freaking old and it just wouldn't have been fair to haul off and hit him back. And, frankly, let's be honest--the Gray Panthers are one of the reasons that everybody with a problem has an interest group begging time on Oprah or Maury or whatever. Nonetheless, watching Maggie chide Johnny Carson ... and watching Carson's response over time ... was priceless, and I thank them both.

Tiassa,

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I found it!".So just how would atheism fit on this chart?

How about –

1. There’s a black cat?
2. I can’t see a cat in here.
3. I’ve felt every inch and every corner of this room and there is no black cat here. It probably moved out of your way as you were searching, idiot.
4. Show me this black cat then.
5. What’s a black cat?
6. There’s no black cat in here.

Cris

And I repeat: But it's like that damn "dark room" comparison in this topic. Atheism, by that standard, is standing in a dark room claiming there is no cat there at all because one cannot see it while insisting on having no obligation to look. I do appreciate the people who look around for the cat, but let's not kid ourselves into pretending that most of Sciforums' atheists ... want to find the cat for any better reason than to kick it around for not being smart enough.The ellipsus represents the word "only", removed from that passage because it didn't seem to belong in the sentence it was in.

Tiassa
Atheism is a prescription for a symptom. But even when we do away with religion there are certain irrationalities that look religious save for the lack of a godhead that must necessarily be dealt with. Think of all the negative -isms that mark the boundaries of human conflicts."It's not that I condone fascism, or any isms for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good." Ferris Bueller

From a certain perspective, I agree. However, I am prone to view atheism through my own approach which was a whittling away of contradictions and unnecessary assumptions in an attempt to discover the commonalities. While I acknowledge that despite this reduction I am left with certain unprovable assumptions and a scattering of inexplicable observations, my core assumptions are vastly reduced from the theological base I began with and are (as far as I can determine) irreducible. From such a standpoint I disagree with the scope of your conviction.

Given that one must accept a certain base set of assumptions in order to develop any working philosophy, I find that the minimalist approach is best. And herein is my main objection to God as a concept at all. For no matter the definition the word is overloaded with assertions that are assumptions in themselves. The term has so much conceptual baggage that it becomes almost meaningless.

Here I find that I applaud the mystical approach to God as defined by the tension that exists between opposites or contradictions. Or, as I found in "A History of God" (thank you BTW) "If we are to think positively of the One, there would be more truth in Silence." - Plotinus. As far as religion is concerned, I find this the only laudable approach. But again, I find the path problematic in that the terminology is terribly prone to literalist misinterpretation and tends to beget the very conceptualization that it is actually attempting to eliminate.

But it's like that damn "dark room" comparison in this topic. Atheism, by that standard, is standing in a dark room claiming there is no cat there at all because one cannot see it while insisting on having no obligation to look.The truth of the matter is the fable of the blind men investigating the elephant. Each man's hand touched the elephant, the mistake lies in naming what it is we think we perceive rather than simply describing our perception. I cannot refute an experience of God until you try to tell me what it is and what it means. This is science at its core; although I will agree that it is almost as prone to literalist misinterpretation as religion. This is the reason that theists sometimes confuse science with a religion.

Atheism as a cause to proselytize is just a kick in the twat.Attempts at conversion are always a kick in the twat. Instead: Confuse them, wreak havoc on their surety, destroy their convictions, make them rebuild and rebuild again until they construct something that cannot be knocked over. Sure it's violent. Beat me, bash me, assail my logic and beliefs because sooner or later life itself will do it (already has, actually) and when that happens I wish to be prepared. Sometimes people get mad at me here because I come off so cock-sure but that is exactly what I want.

Perhaps people can become so logical on a general sense that they don't need to rely on any deviations of psychology from good hard logic in order to find a sense of security.Security cannot be found or gifted, it must be earned through a trial of fire. Anything else is false. Anything else is the swaddling clothes of an infant. Whether through mysticism, philosophy, science, or religion if it comes easy it is false and won't protect you from shit.

Efforts to restrict atheism to its smallest possible implication--a small idea--are inherently myopic because they refuse the magnitude of what the idea compares to.And we use a thresher to separate the wheat from the chaff; the wheat will fall through, the chaff will blow away. The reason they don't have a ready made philosophy to fill the gap is because they haven't figured it out for themselves. But this is often the point; Atheists don't have everything figured out but at least they generally aren't pretending that they have. Theists tend to abort any exploration towards finding solutions, the answer to them is simply, "God says". "Why is murder wrong?" "God says so." It's a bullshit answer, it means nothing. At least the atheist is open to the exploration. Until God starts whispering the answers into my ear everything else is hearsay so let's try actually exploring the issues.

Which is what amuses me most about that dark room/black cat metaphor. Everybody takes their cues from mystics and metaphysicians. Why? They deal with the ultimate potential. They deal with theoretic purities. This allows an establishment of a baseline ideal against which reality can be compared and figured.Science, properly understood, does the same. It just works from a different angle.

The mystics openly disarm god; the metaphysicians allow for the translation of God into simple myth for philosophical reflection. By accident, they are among the best friends the cat-killers can hope for....I don't want to kill the cat. I just want people to stop telling me that the cat is black when they're looking in the dark or telling me I'm wrong when I say, "Well, it's not in this corner of the room." But no; they tell me the cat is black, its name is felix, it's everywhere, and is responsible for everything. Sorry, but no it's not.

I know, I know, I know. I'm a little bit embittered about a few points we've covered before. It's actually not you, I promise. It's just something about the difference between "in theory" and "in reality".Ditto.

I keep coming back to the piss-all reality that I'm probably committing myself to a 15-page post (12 pt, 2x-space) in order to connect as many dots as I need to in order to be remotely clear on such issues. Maybe more.Don't worry, we'll take it bit by bit. It's easier to digest this way anyway.

~Raithere

From such a standpoint I disagree with the scope of your conviction.[quote]From such a standpoint, I'd have to say that your version of atheism is far more than the tiny assertion many insist it must remain.[quote]Given that one must accept a certain base set of assumptions in order to develop any working philosophy, Indeed. And I agree about minimalism as well.And herein is my main objection to God as a concept at all. For no matter the definition the word is overloaded with assertions that are assumptions in themselves. The term has so much conceptual baggage that it becomes almost meaningless.In other words, it's not so much the need to represent that totality in one word, but what people do with it?

Or is that too great a generalization?

Because that is the whole issue of disarming God.But again, I find the path problematic in that the terminology is terribly prone to literalist misinterpretation and tends to beget the very conceptualization that it is actually attempting to eliminate. This is easily explained in the general, not easily in the particular. It's a matter of priorities, of what is important to the examiner. Here we delve a little bit into Cris' issue in another topic about whether or not the paradigm proved detrimental to the thinker or whether the thinker would have had the opportunity to think on such issues at all without the paradigm (a gross simplification). The thing is that the priorities don't remain the same within mysticism, else it becomes a dead art. For instance, there are Christian mystics, but they are very gnostic and very few and far between. Why is this? Because it's not a particularly functional mysticism and without a heavy dose of gnosticism it has virtually zero potential for development. On the other hand, Sufism will endure because it eventually throws aside the holy books to a certain degree. Mystics of the different traditions have different priorities. Think of Buddhist priorities. They don't even need God in order to be mystical.

On a case-by-case basis, of course, this idea of priorities becomes a thick detail that serves neither of us at this time.

But getting a clear grasp of the implications of the past will dramatically affect the future.I cannot refute an experience of God until you try to tell me what it is and what it means. This is true.Attempts at conversion are always a kick in the twat.Not good enough. Two wrongs don't make a right. The general contemptuous tone of the atheist kick in the twat, while it may be deserved in an eye-for-an-eye arrangement, is unnecessary and inefficient. I'll get back to this shortly.Sure it's violent. Beat me, bash me, assail my logic and beliefs because sooner or later life itself will do it (already has, actually) and when that happens I wish to be prepared. Again we come to matters of efficiency.Security cannot be found or gifted, it must be earned through a trial of fire. So what to do about the fear of death? Make everybody so miserable that they don't care?The reason they don't have a ready made philosophy to fill the gap is because they haven't figured it out for themselves. This is part of the problem with attempting conversion. If you haven't anything to offer, there is no incentive to come away from the Valley.Atheists don't have everything figured out but at least they generally aren't pretending that they have. In theory.Theists tend to abort any exploration towards finding solutions, the answer to them is simply, "God says". "Why is murder wrong?" "God says so." It's a bullshit answer, it means nothing. The atheist variation on that line is, "I don't see how that's important", or "I don't see how that's relevant" or some variation thereof. Such as the question about why is murder wrong. I mean, really ... how long did I have to hammer away on that one before people started figuring out its functional relationship to the arguments at hand? And some of them still don't.At least the atheist is open to the exploration.It is a nice theory, isn't it?Until God starts whispering the answers into my ear everything else is hearsay so let's try actually exploring the issues. Well, to me that seems to be the hard part. Brought to mind are issues of whether or not an objective anchor for ethical or moral considerations can be found; of what God itself actually represents as compared to what people who are incapable of otherwise expressing themselves tell you it is; of whether atheism is merely an irrational bigotry exploiting a rational assertion, since that rationalism has no real obligation to tread elsewhere in the atheist's life (a matter of integrity, and therefore functional validity); &c., &c. Science, properly understood, does the same. It just works from a different angle.If everybody's out getting an interdisciplinary doctorate, who's pumping your gas?

Think about it this way: religious people often don't even have time for religion.

Or perhaps this: The reason I never entered a technology field for a job or career choice is that I saw tech devour people. In order to keep up with simple tech-support temporary assignments, friends of mine were buried so deeply in their work that they never stopped talking shop. They became two-dimensional at best. I looked at the things that were important to me and decided that I did not wish to devote that great a portion of my life to keeping up. When I make a webpage I am either using Apple's preset templates or else Netscape's composer feature. Why? Typically the writing is important to me, and there's no reason to have someone else do the markup. I can post a simple page without actually doing any real HTML authoring. Functional, sufficient for my purposes. When I need more, I'll do more.

But in a world of scientists, there's going to be a problem feeding everybody because it amazes me how few people know how to cook over a bunsen burner.

I agree that science, properly understood, works just fine. But it's not a realistic expectation of humanity. I just want people to stop telling me that the cat is black when they're looking in the dark or telling me I'm wrong when I say, "Well, it's not in this corner of the room." But no; they tell me the cat is black, its name is felix, it's everywhere, and is responsible for everything. Sorry, but no it's not.If that were the simple reality of the situation, I would agree with you. And what can I say? With you, individually, I can see and accept that general description of the situation. Of course, I would be foolish to pretend that exceptions don't exist.

They're great theories with great potential that are not reflected in general reality. On a particularly bitter day I would go so far as to say that there are few enough people in the world who are legitimately committed to the idea of making sense of it all (even if we don't know exactly how to do that yet), and unfortunately the most part of atheists simply aren't doing the situation any good. Of course, since there's no objective root for right and wrong per se, it's fair enough to say that objectively the situation cannot be said to exist. The situation itself, by whatever terms, is merely a subjective assertion of conditions. Of course, that brand of metaphysical horsepucky is downright useless, so there goes ... nothing?

From such a standpoint, I'd have to say that your version of atheism is far more than the tiny assertion many insist it must remain.I am one of those who so insist; limiting atheism forces one to identify the remainder positively. Not that this is necessarily easy but I find it important, for instance, to differentiate 'my standpoint' from atheism. Atheism, as far as I can be defined thusly, was part of the result, not the process itself.

In other words, it's not so much the need to represent that totality in one word, but what people do with it?When it comes right down to it, yes, but I think that the problem is intrinsic rather than deliberate. God is a label without an object. It takes a bit of work to develop the concept of God as a condition or abstract notion. Most people keep attempting to define the object or interpret other's definitions literally.

whether or not the paradigm proved detrimental to the thinker or whether the thinker would have had the opportunity to think on such issues at all without the paradigm And I've stayed away from that one as I don't find it particularly useful. The pertinent questions are where are we, how did we get here, and where are we going, not the infinitude of hypothetical alternatives.

The thing is that the priorities don't remain the same within mysticism, else it becomes a dead art.I was examining the method and the results rather than the internal priorities. The thing that I find most useful about mysticism is indeed its flexibility. However, I find that this is also a weakness as it sometimes becomes so flexible that it loses its utility and meaning. The other side of the problem is the potential for misunderstanding such an abstract system literally.

Not good enough. Two wrongs don't make a right. The general contemptuous tone of the atheist kick in the twat, while it may be deserved in an eye-for-an-eye arrangement, is unnecessary and inefficient.Agreed, which is why I generally make the effort to respond respectfully. But there are times when one needs to apply a good shock to the system. I find that the flat denial that so often attends the atheist perspective is precisely what much of society needs and deserves. Taking the longer view I agree with you that some compromise must be reached but first we need to get out of the rut.

Again we come to matters of efficiency.Frankly, personally, I find this supremely efficient. However it can be painful.

So what to do about the fear of death? Make everybody so miserable that they don't care?That's just what I don't understand. How often do we read about the positive changes in perspective, about how precious and vibrant life becomes after a near miss with mortality? Why should such a realization lead to depression, desperation, and ennui? I don't see how denial of the fact of death helps us in any way. Certainly I do not look forward to my dissolution but knowing that it is inevitable only energizes me to action and appreciation of the now. How many sit and suffer, longing for an afterlife that may not be? This to me is the real travesty.

This is part of the problem with attempting conversion. If you haven't anything to offer, there is no incentive to come away from the Valley.I agree. This is why I offer alternative considerations rather than simple denials.

The atheist variation on that line is, "I don't see how that's important", or "I don't see how that's relevant" or some variation thereof.True, it is equally disingenuous but at least it's obvious and is not pretending to be an answer.

It is a nice theory, isn't it?Generally, I find that atheists do indeed dig down a little deeper although I will grant you that there are those who fly off with a doctrinal response just as quickly as any theist and with just as little honest contemplation.

If everybody's out getting an interdisciplinary doctorate, who's pumping your gas? One does not need to keep up on the cutting edge of every discipline, this would be impossible. But what we lack, almost completely, is a grounding in the philosophy and methods of science. Hell, I'm waiting to see one given below the college level and a basic understanding is critical in today's culture. Attending a class on the philosophy and methods of Science for an hour or two every Sunday would suffice I think.

Typically the writing is important to me, and there's no reason to have someone else do the markup. I can post a simple page without actually doing any real HTML authoring. Functional, sufficient for my purposes. When I need more, I'll do more.You have a basic understanding of the topic which is enough to make good use of the tools the experts have made available. Without this understanding an authoring program would be as useless to you as a cell-phone to a monkey. This is all that is required, and is being sorely neglected, with science.

Of course, since there's no objective root for right and wrong per se, it's fair enough to say that objectively the situation cannot be said to exist.Absolute objectivity is impossible so that cannot be the goal. The question is whether it's objective and flexible enough to provide us with a useful tool. Too ridged and the tool will snap off in our hand, wounding or killing many in the process. Too flexible and we have nothing to work with. We need something flexible but not unpredictable or unwieldy. A tall order indeed.

They're great theories with great potential that are not reflected in general reality.And so, like you, I labor to bring some of that potential to light and it seems to me that the number of people involved in this effort is growing. I am constantly delighted to see a new post, article, or book that brings a broader understanding. What is needed is more publicity, more in your face media that breaks down our presumptions, more people willing to stand up and publicly question mainstream doctrine and dogma. We need more people to help push this damn thing out of the rut it's in.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
But how to go about it? Most religion seems to be primarily about the reinforcement of particular cultural beliefs which becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. It seems to me that atheism is indeed part of the answer. No matter the foibles of any particular argument the existence of an opposing argument forces religion to react. As the atheistic meme spreads through the culture the myriad religious assumptions must be addressed as they can no longer be considered axiomatic.

Well, the plain fact of it was that they were not atheists no matter the pantheistic reaction to monotheism. Only recently are we seeing the affect of a true atheistic meme into the culture. The theistic reaction seems to be either a regression towards inane fundamentalism which will eventually be self-defeating (I'm ever the optimist) or a broadening and generalization of the concept of God, which is the beginning of the disarmament we are looking for. Not that I don't see a role for progressive theistic philosophy but it seems to me that the main forces driving this progress are multiculturalism and atheism.

~Raithere


"The theistic reaction seems to be either a regression towards inane fundamentalism which will eventually be self-defeating (I'm ever the optimist) or a broadening and generalization of the concept of God, which is the beginning of the disarmament we are looking for."

You can only disarm, make impotent a Graven Image, an Illusion of Reality, the Reality of a False God, the Illusion of a named, defined, God.

You can not disarm the Single True Nature of the Universe, the Reality of First Cause, the Law, the Word that governs the Freedom of Motion, Singularity.

Narrow the concept, the mental image, definition, of God not broaden it.

Fundamentalists summit to, prostrate themselves before, Worship, a False God, an en-Graven Image of the Reality of God, a Named God; Fundamentalism is Idolatry.

The God of the Fundamentalist is a mistaken image, Identity, a False Name of the Reality of the Single True Nature of the Universe, the Word of God, God’s Law, God’s Will, the Reality of First Cause, Freedom the Nature of Singularity.

The understanding of Myth is lost is Space-Time.

To speak in the Spirit, the Nature, of a No Name God is to speak of the Truth of Reality without the intent to deceive, to act, to speak in all honesty, simply speaking the Truth for Truths sake.

To speak in the Spirit, the Nature, of a Name of God, is to speak of the Truth of Reality with intent to deceive, Duplicity, Guilefulness; simply put anyone that speaks of, in, the Name of a God that has form, shape, definition, that speaks of a Material, Physical, God is a Liar.

God is hidden secret, Nameless; simply meaning that God is not a Material Physical Reality, God is not readily apparent to the senses.

The only God that is relative to the Five senses would be a Physical, Material World of Reality is, a Graven Image.

The Problem is that Man has a sense of, an intuitive sense of something that is more important than the Material.

Man has an intuitive sense of Single True Nature of the Universe, a Reality that is not Readily apparent, known only by the effect that is has upon the Hearts and Minds of Man, a persons Mortal and Immortal Soul, BE-ing.

I am!

I am who?

I am I, an Atheist that believes in, a hidden, secret, unseen, in a No Name, God.

:eek:

Riiiight!

Are there any Wayne translators available?

Originally posted by Cris
Riiiight!

Are there any Wayne translators available?


Have you never heard it said that the purpose of Science is to find the Single True Nature of the Universe?

Originally posted by wayne_92587
You can only disarm, make impotent a Graven Image, an Illusion of Reality, the Reality of a False God, the Illusion of a named, defined, God.Indeed this is what we were discussing.

You can not disarm the Single True Nature of the Universe, the Reality of First Cause, the Law, the Word that governs the Freedom of Motion, Singularity.Neither can you define it. Definitions are limitations. "Single", "true", "nature", "reality", "first", "cause", "law", "governs'", "freedom", "motion", you attempt to limit that which is without limit. You seek to 'express knowledge' of that which is ineffable and unknowable. All you are expressing is yourself. You talk about those things that are in your mind and not a word of it pertains to the unutterable.

Narrow the concept, the mental image, definition, of God not broaden it.Loose your images, they are the false idols you speak of.

The God of the Fundamentalist is a mistaken image, Identity, a False Name of the Reality of the Single True Nature of the Universe, the Word of God, God’s Law, God’s Will, the Reality of First Cause, Freedom the Nature of Singularity.Your expressions are just as mistaken as those you reject.

To speak in the Spirit, the Nature, of a No Name God is to speak of the Truth of Reality without the intent to deceive, to act, to speak in all honesty, simply speaking the Truth for Truths sake.To speak about god is to utter falsehood.

Name of a God that has form, shape, definition, that speaks of a Material, Physical, God is a Liar.Are you suggesting that god is not present in the material and physical?

Man has an intuitive sense of Single True Nature of the Universe, a Reality that is not Readily apparent, known only by the effect that is has upon the Hearts and Minds of Man, a persons Mortal and Immortal Soul, BE-ing.There is no need to step beyond apparent reality, one needs only realize that what one perceives is not the whole but only a particular perspective of a small part of the whole.

I am I, an Atheist that believes in, a hidden, secret, unseen, in a No Name, God.Then you are not an atheist.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
Atheism, as far as I can be defined thusly, was part of the result, not the process itself. i.e., a 'consequent atheism' ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
[B]

Indeed this is what we were discussing.

Neither can you define it. Definitions are limitations. "Single", "true", "nature", "reality", "first", "cause", "law", "governs'", "freedom", "motion", you attempt to limit that which is without limit. You seek to 'express knowledge' of that which is ineffable and unknowable. All you are expressing is yourself. You talk about those things that are in your mind and not a word of it pertains to the unutterable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wayne_92587
You can only disarm, make impotent a Graven Image, an Illusion of Reality, the Reality of a False God, the Illusion of a named, defined, God.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere: Indeed this is what we were discussing.

Wayne: The heading Disarming God is singular.

There are Two Gods, there is the One True God and second, the False, Graven Image, a Pseudo God, God in Name only, the False Face of God.

I am an atheist relative to the False God, I am not an idolater that summits to the Reality of an Illusion, a Graven Image.

A Graven Image, an Illusion, is thought to be, to exist, to live, has the appearance of a Physical, Material Reality, is a Reality that exists in Name, by definition, only.

God is a name only, is a perfect example of Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle.

To speak of, meaning to Name, to give form, shape, value, design, definition, any attempt to measure the Value of a Reality that is not readily apparent results in a distortion, a perversion, an adulteration of the Reality that is being spoken of.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wayne quote:
You can not disarm the Single True Nature of the Universe, the Reality of First

Cause, the Law, the Word that governs the Freedom of Motion, Singularity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere: Neither can you define it. Definitions are limitations. "Single", "true", "nature", "reality", "first", "cause", "law", "governs'", "freedom", "motion", you attempt to limit that which is without limit. You seek to 'express knowledge' of that which is ineffable and unknowable. All you are expressing is yourself. You talk about those things that are in your mind and not a word of it pertains to the unutterable.

Wayne: The statement, The goal of Science is discover the single true nature of the Universe is taken the Internet site, http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s2.htm
Newton’s Law of Motion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Wayne quote:

Name of a God that has form, shape, definition, that speaks of a Material, Physical, God is a Liar.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raithere: Are you suggesting that god is not present in the material and physical?

Wayne: Yes. Not as a Reality as we understand Reality to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne quote:

Man has an intuitive sense of Single True Nature of the Universe, a Reality that is not Readily apparent, known only by the effect that is has upon the Hearts and Minds of Man, a persons Mortal and Immortal Soul, BE-ing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere: There is no need to step beyond apparent reality, one needs only realize that what one perceives is not the whole but only a particular perspective of a small part of the whole.

Wayne: That is the goal of Science, to step beyond apparent Reality.
-----------------------------------------------------
Wayne quote:

I am I, an Atheist that believes in, a hidden, secret, unseen, in a No Name, God.
-------------------------------------------------
Raithere: Then you are not an atheist.

Wayne: I am, as far as the theist that believes in the Material, Physical Reality of God is concerned, an Infidel, a heathen atheist.
----------------------------------------------------
~Raithere
I come here to combat the fraud and illusion of your conventional, institutionalized religion. As with all such religions, your institution moves toward cowardice, it moves toward mediocrity, inertia, and self-satisfaction. ... You, priest, you are a chaplain to the self-satisfied. I come to challenge you! Is religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk? Is your religion real when you fatten upon it? Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its name? Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation? - "Children of Dune" by Frank Herbert

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its NAME?
Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?"


"Oh, the perils of leadership in a species so anxious to be told what to do. How little they knew of what they created by their demands. Leaders made mistakes. And those mistakes, amplified by the numbers who followed without questioning, moved inevitably toward great disasters."


Wayne: The Christ is born of Woman and not to Man.

Why is it in Dune that Only Women, No Man, are able to the Water of Life, except the savior, the Dunn messiah.

In the original revelation, God’s Name is No Name, God is Nameless, can not be spoken of.

/In the original revelation, God’s Name is No Name, God is Nameless, can not be spoken of.

Do you think that somehow renders "the revelation" relevant?

Originally posted by wayne_92587
God is a name only, is a perfect example of Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle.Um, no. That would have nothing whatsoever to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Unless you are proposing that God is a subatomic particle.

any attempt to measure the Value of a Reality that is not readily apparentThe reality that is readily apparent is not the whole story.

Wayne: The statement, The goal of Science is discover the single true nature of the Universe is taken the Internet site, Primarily science is a method for knowing and does not have any goals. But even so, taking into account such things as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the fact that we are bound to three dimensions this may not be possible.

Wayne: That is the goal of Science, to step beyond apparent Reality.No, science is wholly dependent upon observable phenomena.

Why is it in Dune that Only Women, No Man, are able to the Water of Life, except the savior, the Dunn messiah.Because Herbert wrote it that way.

In the original revelation, God’s Name is No Name, God is Nameless, can not be spoken of.Which revelation was that?

~Raithere

Atheism, as far as I can be defined thusly, was part of the result, not the process itself.As such, atheism is a result that is, by nature--it is, after all, an idea--ignorant of its effects. Atheists, however, need not maintain that particular lack of information.

It comes down, I suppose, to those intangible, irreducible standards. For me, it's hard to call anything irreducible, though such a comment may be unnecessary as I'm sure you know what I mean; we're always learning, our opinion of the irreducible changes occasionally for better or worse.

But questions of why are never far from my mind, and far be it for me to demand the biographical why of anybody. But still, there is the aspect of why which does not regard "from what circumstance," and asks instead, "toward what end?"

So here I'll drag out Thelema for another appearance: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

People often mistake this, as you well know, for a holy pronouncement when in reality it is intended as an enlightened observation. Lysander Spooner, in Vices Are Not Crimes notes that one cannot give to any institution what they do not have to give. Whether God or government, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. People can only invest in their rulers those ideas and needs which they have in the first place. And governments provide an interesting backdrop. People come together in collective associations for a number of reasons, but humanity is a socially dependent species. Do what we will? So we come together for our own benefit. Now if we look around our own society, "Do what I will?" A rape and murder spree? Hardly. One has a difficult time establishing the actual benefit. I suppose one is welcome to destroy themselves according to Thelema, and that's why the Rede come down from Gardnerian witchcraft looks ever-so-slightly different: An thou harm none, do what thou will.

Toward what end does one do what they will? Do they create their own enemies to fight against? Or do they seek reconciliation and progress? Can they take that progress individually, or must it come amid a larger evolution of the collective? Shall we end up huddling at our terminals in tiny flats with many guns behind doors locked and barred because we have done what we will until chaos engulfed us? Can we protect ourselves, as such, by giving ourselves less to protect against? Let's talk to the Unabomber about progress ....

All of which goes to offer an anemic explanation the attitude problem I can't seem to shake in this topic. It's like the title: Of course it's futile, because this is what people choose.

And I look to the atheists to bridge the gap because, frankly, atheists are allegedly what?!

Smarter.

Religion is allegedly a what?!

Neurosis; psychosis, memetic social disease; ideological cancer ....

Physicians! Heal thy selves, so that you may heal also the sick.

You can tell the poor, superstitious boy, "Yes, I'm going to chase the demons away," and give him the damn shot, or you can stand around arguing all day about there being no demons until his brain burns away.

And there's a measure of sympathy there, too. I know it hurts for many atheists, banging their heads against the theistic wall. It doesn't have to be this way. But by and large, if religion is a sickness, then the healthy folks either have to quarantine altogether--a losing proposition, as "normal" is statistically analogous to "sick"--or work to heal the sick. This is not like a cold or the flu; even in the first world, one cannot necessarily fight this sickness on their own.

I suppose I should invite you to look around, Raithere. I know you're in there trying, but I'm just not seeing you as common, or your brand as holding a comfortable market share.Most people keep attempting to define the object or interpret other's definitions literally.And here again is where I wish to put a burden to atheists. Always exempt here are the natural atheists who simply have never been infected by the merest hint of the religious idea, and truly they are a rare breed. But what if futuristic anthropologists, discovering a civilization on a planet somewhere, simply landed and shouted, "You're wrong!" The religious are bound by certain limitations to certain interpretive methods; while there is a certain amount of individual diversity, we can fairly say that all Christians have certain common traits whereas the same problematic limitation does not have to bind atheists. Does one despise the people in the cave? Does one attempt to rescue and free them? Can one convince them that the reality they come to, emerging from the cave, is really reality?

These are the issues I see limiting the atheistic contribution to the debate. While I don't regard theism as yet being hopeless in this situation, I tend to look at inherited religion as a cruelty, and those who suffer that brand of indoctrination as victims. Perhaps atheists don't generally share this idea, but I do think it is part of the result of .... The pertinent questions are where are we, how did we get here, and where are we going, not the infinitude of hypothetical alternatives.The hypothetical alternatives are useful against limiting one's possible answers to the pertinent questions. One of the unfortunate realities pertaining to the topic title, at least, is that many atheists are nearly superstitious in their limitations of perspective concerning the pertinent questions. You can spot these as the most viciously cruel and condemning indictments against religions in history, which seem to forget that they are, in fact, regarding in some cases medieval mass superstition. Look how easily pop culture convinces people in modern America that Britney Spears or N'Sync or Creed are the best of musical creation. I think many atheists forget this and similar realities when examining history, just as partisans tend to demonize the history of their political opponents without consideration of the reality of the humans who lived those histories. It's just that it gets too easy to compress and conform the historical and developmental issues to match existing prejudices. It's easy enough to see when it's religious folks doing this, but I've found it equally difficult--but not impossible--to explain to atheists when the subjectivity of the method and its result don't have to do with the focus of the anti-identification--e.g. God. It is as if the absence of God forgives the same faulty processes.I was examining the method and the results rather than the internal priorities.Fair enough, but the method and results change. One of the things about mysticism is that it maintains human dynamism within the religious paradigm.The thing that I find most useful about mysticism is indeed its flexibility. I treat that flexibility as I treat poetry. Mystical ideas either work or they don't. When they don't they either disappear or change. When they do, they must keep up with reality or else suddenly they don't.However, I find that this is also a weakness as it sometimes becomes so flexible that it loses its utility and meaning. Depends specifically on the foundation of the idea itself and the condition of the individual examining the idea. Kind of like responsible gun owners. In theory, accidents should never happen. Likewise, it is irresponsibility in the seeker which leads to that loss of utility and meaning. The problem remains human-level.The other side of the problem is the potential for misunderstanding such an abstract system literally.Somewhere in Armstrong is mention of one of the Arabic mystics ... I'm thinking al-Ghazzali: Some people possess a power that is higher than reason, however, which al-Ghazzali calls "the prophetic spirit." People who lack this faculty should not deny that it exists simply because they have no experience of it. THat would be as absurd as if somebody who was tone-deaf claimed that music was an illusion, simply because he himself could not appreciate it. We can learn something about God by means of our reasoning and imaginative powers, but the highest type of knowledge can be attained only by people like the prophets or the mystics who have this special God-enabling faculty. This sounds elitist, but mystics in other traditions have also claimed that the intuitive, receptive qualities demanded by a discipline like Zen or Buddhist meditation are a special gift, comparable to the gift of writing poetry. Not everybody has mystical talent. Al-Ghazzali describes this mystical knowledge as an awareness that the Creator alone exists or has being. This results in the fading away of self and an absorption in God. Mystics are able to rise above the world of metaphor, which has to satisfy less gifted mortals . . . . (pp. 189-190)Hmm .. might seem elitist? Actually, the only elitist thing about it is the idea of "higher" knowledge. I don't claim higher knowledge, for instance, when I make jokes about being an anti-prophet. I just look at factors differently from other people. I can't say that "awareness that the Creator alone exists or has being," is necessarily "higher" knowledge. But despite the Western tendency to anthropomorphize "the Creator"--and it's not just Westerners, but since we're ... oh, you know--the idea suffices. When I hear a religious or mystical person speak of awareness that the Creator alone exists or have being, it translates (for me) to support ideas I've floated around here like the Universe being a single event, and we are not so much individual beings as we are part of an ongoing single process. There are no multiple events in this Universe, only the one event of the Universe, and everything else we identify is merely a component. Yes, a murder or suicide or cancer death or whatever seems significant to the surviving family, but this "event" is no more independent than ... that spark right there coming off Krypton after it exploded. Whatever the Creator is--Universe, Big Bang, whatever, as it needs not be aware or alive or anything else, it simply has to be--it is the only real thing in reality. Horsepucky ideas of higher knowledge aside, I agree that mystical thought is something which is limited among people, whether by genes or social conditioning I do not know (though I tend toward the latter more directly and the former only in the fact genes are that important; there's no "mysticism" gene, but inasmuch as genetics affects perception, accommodation, and assimilation of information, yeah, genetics has an effect).

The potential for misunderstanding is inherent in human diversity.Agreed, which is why I generally make the effort to respond respectfully. I do not deny that.But there are times when one needs to apply a good shock to the system. I find that the flat denial that so often attends the atheist perspective is precisely what much of society needs and deservesI know the feeling. But the presumption to judge such a necessity is as severe as the presumption of God when you get right down to the result; that the process is different is incidental.Frankly, personally, I find this supremely efficient. However it can be painful. I'll leave you to your criteria, though my own observations of the world indicate that in general, the method is supremely inefficient:

- That atheism possesses a known 3 - 4% of the American culture, and by similar extrapolation as estimates of homosexuality as much as 20% total whispers insinuations against the efficiency of the general atheistic communication. But this is not an indictment in itself.
- That so many people with so many identifications and so many opinions employ such a method, why do we not see the results? Is the supreme efficacy of one cause balancing out another? (As such, I would expect more open conversions back and forth here at Sciforums. I think the score is just about tied between atheists and theists, though I stopped paying attention a while ago. Suffice to say, I would expect more, regardless of who was "winning" according to the score.)
- I do think the shock approach, both at Sciforums and in the American culture at least, has lost its value. People just get annoyed these days. It never occurs to most that you're just frustrated and you might have a point. Oh, no. Heavens, the rough approach means you're something terrible. It's hard for me to deny certain people are anti-Christian bigots, but who the hell cares? But we see around here at Sciforums at least that an affirming idea which does not take lives is just as evil as a condemning idea that does take lives since the affirming idea opposes and therefore does not tolerate the condemning idea.
- I don't see what the approach really accomplishes. Heck, in my own shock approach, I've been known to lay down a record of what someone said and ask them what the hell they were thinking. Apparently reality is so flexible that they never wrote the words that I picked out of their post in order to ask them why they wrote it.

Suffice to say I still question the efficiency. Of course, there are aspects that you're accounting for that I'm probably missing. How many sit and suffer, longing for an afterlife that may not be? This to me is the real travesty.Is the travesty to be eradicated or healed? That's a vital question to me, because it is the essential difference between the surgeon's knife and a dagger in the heart.This is why I offer alternative considerations rather than simple denials.To back it up a couple of posts ... this I understand, but I do think that many atheists who don't have it all figured out are, in fact, pretending they have. It may not be a lack of ideas, but a lack of the ability to communicate those ideas. How important is the idea, then? Obviously, not very, or else they would learn to communicate it. If God whispered the answers in your ear, how would you or any atheist--or anybody--know?True, it is equally disingenuous but at least it's obvious and is not pretending to be an answer.Small comfort .... ;) Generally, I find that atheists do indeed dig down a little deeper although I will grant you that there are those who fly off with a doctrinal response just as quickly as any theist and with just as little honest contemplation.If I go a million light years out, and you go two million light years out, did either one of us reach the end of the Universe? I find atheism is generally more practical in certain aspects, seeking reality instead of relying on illusion. But compared to the mere idea of the absolute, the difference is almost inapplicable.One does not need to keep up on the cutting edge of every discipline, this would be impossible.Agreed, but .... But what we lack, almost completely, is a grounding in the philosophy and methods of science.While I agree that I would like to see a certain foundation laid--whether one's opinion moves them to say, "much earlier", or "as a mandatory cornerstone", or even "at all"--I do think that this will prove, especially as we move into practical applications of that information, more difficult than most are prepared to imagine. Why not make kids bilingual from the start? Teach them English and machine code.Attending a class on the philosophy and methods of Science for an hour or two every Sunday would suffice I thinkI say the same about psychology, anthropology, and the philosophy of history. Not necessarily about Sunday, though ... I'm a fan of a 4/3 week instead of a 5/2.This is all that is required, and is being sorely neglected, with science.True. Try teaching Emma's maternal grandparents to use a computer. Judgment Day will occur before that happens. And yes, they're insanely religious, but they're also old and old-fashioned and incapable of thinking of certain basic concepts about a computer. A friend of mine, a Mac tech, while really high one night, said, "But that's the thing. How long did it take you to pick up two separate platforms on a Mac?" I looked at him and said, "But I knew the old OS from high school, and the new one is that easy." Then he hit the pipe, looked at the screen thoughtfully, and said, "Tell me, do you answer phones for the nationwide OSX tech support office?" I said, "No." He nodded. "Then trust me," he said. When I emailed him about a small problem once, he posted the email around the office, smirking. People envied that easy of a tech issue, even though there was no immediate solution to offer. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not flexing my prowess here. Operating a mouse-driven GUI and being able to tell someone what my computer's doing to annoy me don't seem all that impressive.

So yes, it's a sad state when people tell me this paltry sum is sufficient or daresay deviant toward the positive. The new generation, though, born amid a sea of information, adapts. They shouldn't smirk, though. I'd love to put any one of the snot-nosed comedians in a room with a Royal or an Underwood and say, "Type your humor there." When I was at the University of Oregon, honors students out of the local public schools were coming to me to write their papers for them. The younger generation may be taking in and organizing more information, and more useful information, but in addition to the philosophy of science, something people seem to lack more and more of these days is the ability to communicate. Sadly, it has a strange amount to do with issues pertaining to conformity. (If I have to endure another episode of Whoopi's current TV series ....)

(Insert sarcastic netspeak here for example; yes, that's how removed I'm getting from the culture around me; I can barely write netspeak.)

Maybe we should stop teaching vocations in high schools and start teaching people how to think soundly.

Ah, what ever happened to the idea of "well-rounded" education? A tall order indeed. A tall order calls for a tall glass. Drink up, dreamers, we're running dry.We need more people to help push this damn thing out of the rut it's in.I'll drink to that.

In the meantime ... I'm compelled to comment somehow about the discussion with Wayne, but ... yeah. It's an unfamiliar layer of accretions I see in that. I want to tell you to draw a loop from the end of one of his sentences to come around to the beginning, though I beg your pardon if God only knows what good that would do. ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
[B

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wayne_92587
God is a name only, is a perfect example of Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, no. That would have nothing whatsoever to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Unless you are proposing that God is a subatomic particle.




Wayne:
Would the Heisenberg Principal of Uncertainty apply to any attempt to measure gravity, what of Joy, what of Happiness.

The Heisenberg Principal of Uncertainty would apply to any Reality that is not readily apparent.

Dark Matter, Gravity.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
any attempt to measure the Value of a Reality that is not readily apparent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reality that is readily apparent is not the whole story.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne: The statement, The goal of Science is discover the single true nature of the Universe is taken the Internet site,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primarily science is a method for knowing and does not have any goals. But even so, taking into account such things as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the fact that we are bound to three dimensions this may not be possible.

Wayne: I think that I will go along with the statement below.

The statement, The goal of Science is discover the single true nature of the Universe is taken the Internet site, http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s2.htm
Newton’s Law of Motion.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne: That is the goal of Science, to step beyond apparent Reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, science is wholly dependent upon observable phenomena.

Wayne: Science does not observe Gravity, Dark Matter.

Science makes observation of phenomena out of which they create
Theories which may or may not be valid.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it in Dune that Only Women, No Man, are able to the Water of Life, except the savior, the Dune messiah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because Herbert wrote it that way.


Wayne: If you believe that Dune was created solely out of Herbert's Imagination you are mistaken.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the original revelation, God’s Name is No Name, God is Nameless, can not be spoken of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which revelation was that?

The God of Moses, Judaism, Islam, Christianity.

"Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?" "Children of Dune" by Frank Herbert

Originally posted by wesmorris
/In the original revelation, God’s Name is No Name, God is Nameless, can not be spoken of.

Do you think that somehow renders "the revelation" relevant?


Sure Do. The Fact that a Named God is a Graven Image and those that worship, he, she or it are Idolaters is very relavant.

Originally posted by tiassa
So here I'll drag out Thelema for another appearance: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.




Do as you will shall be the Whole of the Law.

Freedom is the Law, the whole of the Law, the Single true nature if the Universe.

Free will, to act without cause.

Your examples of Rape and Murder are not acts of Free will.


It is do as you will, not do as you want, as you are compelled to do, as you need to do.

Acting out a compulsive desire is not an act of Free Will.

In order to be Free, you must be Free even from Self.

Wayne, while I have an appreciation for the dreaminess with which you seem to toss off this or that idea, there are some practical considerations.Your examples of Rape and Murder are not acts of Free will.Insofar as the idea is practical, yes, a rapist or a murderer chooses to rape or murder.

However, you do point out an essential consideration of Thelema.Acting out a compulsive desire is not an act of Free Will.This is why Thelema is dangerous. Most Thelemic people I meet are very arrogant and don't realize the implications of the Law. To the other, the last time I was anywhere near the OTO, they dealt with Harm none, do what thou will. True, it's a corruption of the Law, but it's an important one to remind the earthsick and selfbound.

I won't go so far as to say you're missing the point, but you're taking it so far to the metaphysical that the Law ceases to have any constructive practical effect. It will be a while before people choose to debate the Freedom of the Law as the Single True Nature of the Universe. But even in such a context, Will and Self are far too important to be separated and escaped. Of course, this is what Eastern thinkers find limiting about Thelema and its implications: where some would erase the Self, Thelema would bring Union to the Self and the Will. The Self serves the Will, and the Will kneels before the Self; together they become one. And then you can take it up with the Buddhists or the Sufis.

Originally posted by wayne_92587
Sure Do. The Fact that a Named God is a Graven Image and those that worship, he, she or it are Idolaters is very relavant.

LOL. Really? My question points toward the objective relevance of scripture, not the content therein.

Originally posted by wesmorris
LOL. Really? My question points toward the objective relevance of scripture, not the content therein.




The Burning bush is relevant.
Fire, which is symbolic of what?

The bush is transformed, transfigured, changed from a Material Reality to a Non-material Reality, a Spiritual Reality.

The Jews were forbidden to speak of, Give a Name to whatever, for what reason?

A Word, that was not a Name, was created in order to talk about
Whatever.

Those that Know do not say, speak of, give a Name to whatever.
Those that say, speak of, give a Name to whatever do not know.


The Tao that is spoken of is not Tao.

There are Realities that exist beyond the Material World of Reality.


The Reality of Fist Cause, The Unborn, the Uncreated, First motion, the Motion of a singularity alone in the Emptiness is without meaning, without effect, without Cause, a Cloud of uncertainty.

The Single True Nature of the Universe, the boundlessness, the Infinite Freedom of Singularity.

Singularity, One, the undifferentiated, the reality
of Everything, the Whole of a Single Reality = Mass Energy--->O=ME.

Freedom of Motion, Mass in Motion, ME=O, Singularity, the Reality of First Cause is without cause, the unborn, the uncreated.

Singularity is a Duality, the Two that are one, the same Reality,
The Reality of First Cause, spontaneity.

The Reality of First Cause made manifest, Free Will.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


Man is to be set Free, Free from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, the Chaos of Evolution, kill or be killed, the survival of the Fittest.------>:eek:

/The Burning bush is relevant.
Fire, which is symbolic of what?

Whatever I want it to symbolize.

/The bush is transformed, transfigured, changed from a Material Reality to a Non-material Reality, a Spiritual Reality.

What bush? The one in the scripture? So I bitch about the relevance of the content and you quote the content for relevance? That doesn't work as presented.

/The Jews were forbidden to speak of, Give a Name to whatever, for what