Interesting ariticle: There Is No God (and you know it)

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

I don't have more complex "needs" than a pack of animals. I need food, water, and sex.

and as we said, we're simply smarter than most of them and have used it to develop more complex ways to "stockpile" our needs... food production, shelter production, etc. it's not that abstract.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

I don't have more complex "needs" than a pack of animals. I need food, water, and sex.

The same thing can be said about cats, yet they still pass the time playing with random objects around the house (mine love those little tear strips from milk carton caps). Had they more complex brains, they'd probably spend time playing mouse-catching video games, carting around town in tiny cars, and frequenting their favorite cat-nip establishments to watch the latest Fuzzball Championship.

Much like the body, the mind also has needs.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

and as we said, we're simply smarter than most of them and have used it to develop more complex ways to "stockpile" our needs... food production, shelter production, etc. it's not that abstract.

But how come other animals have failed to generate these complex ways? Somehow I think that it was no accident that we have become self-aware and highly intelligent animals when we were confronted with such great opposition.

What gives us the right to say that jewelry and fashionable clothing (which are unnecessary for survival) are mere coincidences of our overdeveloped minds.

Additionally religion, which some might say is a coincidence of our overdeveloped minds, is very unusual. If God isn't real, why have we developed various ways of explaining his existence? Our "overdeveloped" minds have failed, even in the age of enlightenment, to prove that God is not real. As mankind became more developed, his explanations for God's existence have only increased in number.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

Had they more complex brains, they'd probably spend time playing mouse-catching video games, carting around town in tiny cars, and frequenting their favorite cat-nip establishments to watch the latest Fuzzball Championship.

Ah how I love the RainDog style.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

Additionally religion, which some might say is a coincidence of our overdeveloped minds, is very unusual. If God isn't real, why have we developed various ways of explaining his existence?

Additionally Middle Earth, which some might say is a coincidence of J. R. R. Tolkien's overdeveloped mind, is very unusual. If Ilúvatar isn't real, why has Tolkien developed various stories to explain his existence?

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

i was gonna say 'i see' but i dont, hehe. maybe i need to read the book. your whole levels and stages of developmental awareness has never sat well with me though...

Actually, I read about the stages independent of the book, and then 'encouraged' someone to buy me the book for Christmas. I didn't find that the book added much. Although, when I'm breaking this stuff up in pieces throughout these posts, I'm definitely removing it from it's original context. (edit: and therefore am distorting it)

The ironic part is that according to these developmental stages, 'liberal' types supposedly are incapable of seeing the 'stages' because they don't want to accept the natural hierarchical nature of development. So, you not 'getting' the whole concept might just be par for the course! The typical liberal, lateral based view is the last level of development before there is a large leap to the tiny minority of integrated awareness. I'd like to see you read the book, however, because along with your liberal leanings, I think you also do see some natural hierarchy in life. You seem to integrate many views and in terms of being practical, too.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

But how come other animals have failed to generate these complex ways? Somehow I think that it was no accident that we have become self-aware and highly intelligent animals when we were confronted with such great opposition.

What gives us the right to say that jewelry and fashionable clothing (which are unnecessary for survival) are mere coincidences of our overdeveloped minds.

Additionally religion, which some might say is a coincidence of our overdeveloped minds, is very unusual. If God isn't real, why have we developed various ways of explaining his existence? Our "overdeveloped" minds have failed, even in the age of enlightenment, to prove that God is not real. As mankind became more developed, his explanations for God's existence have only increased in number.

because we have larger brain capacities and got there first. monkeys are able to do pretty much everything we do, they're just a few thousand years behind us. plus, since we got there first and developed that wonderful christian notion that god told us to rule this earth with an iron fist and make all other animals our slaves, monkeys will never have a chance to develop the complex social constructs we have.

once we had our basic survival needs met, we became bored. suddenly we had TOO much time, so our minds turned to things like baubles and trinkets and games and socializing and eventually to pondering WHY we did what we did. voila, god.

your last point defeats itself. if you're operating from the hypothesis that god is real and the vast number of our religions are simply attempts to explain his nature, then you admit that there is no more validity to your view of god than a hindu's. it's just a guess that you subscribe to. they're both simply different expressions of the same phenomenon. this destroys your ability to say that human HAVE to accept YOUR jesus to be "saved." is that really what you're trying to argue?

Matt8townsend

CorporateWhore wrote:

But how come other animals have failed to generate these complex ways? Somehow I think that it was no accident that we have become self-aware and highly intelligent animals when we were confronted with such great opposition.

What gives us the right to say that jewelry and fashionable clothing (which are unnecessary for survival) are mere coincidences of our overdeveloped minds.

Additionally religion, which some might say is a coincidence of our overdeveloped minds, is very unusual. If God isn't real, why have we developed various ways of explaining his existence? Our "overdeveloped" minds have failed, even in the age of enlightenment, to prove that God is not real. As mankind became more developed, his explanations for God's existence have only increased in number.

It was certainly no accident - it was natural selection.

Jewellry and unfashionable clothing are 'unnecessary' in one sense yes - but they are decorative embellishments (peacocks were fotunate enough to evolve their own) adorned to make us more sexually desirable. And sex is necessary for survival.

And I don't think its unusual for beings who evolved the intellectual capacity to be cursed with awareness of their own mortality to develop an emotional and psychological crutch to ease the resulting existential angst.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

Actually, I read about the stages independent of the book, and then 'encouraged' someone to buy me the book for Christmas. I didn't find that the book added much. Although, when I'm breaking this stuff up in pieces throughout these posts, I'm definitely removing it from it's original context. (edit: and therefore am distorting it)

The ironic part is that according to these developmental stages, 'liberal' types supposedly are incapable of seeing the 'stages' because they don't want to accept the natural hierarchical nature of development. So, you not 'getting' the whole concept might just be par for the course! The typical liberal, lateral based view is the last level of development before there is a large leap to the tiny minority of integrated awareness. I'd like to see you read the book, however, because along with your liberal leanings, I think you also do see some natural hierarchy in life. You seem to integrate many views and in terms of being practical, too.

im not sure id like it. it sounds like a self-serving way to see things. it's like setting up an aristocracy... im more developed than you! i am superior becos I am in touch with things that you are not. you are BLIND. i dont like that way of thinking.

in any case, my liberal leanings aren't very strong.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

im not sure id like it. it sounds like a self-serving way to see things. it's like setting up an aristocracy... im more developed than you! i am superior becos I am in touch with things that you are not. you are BLIND. i dont like that way of thinking.

in any case, my liberal leanings aren't very strong.

The point is that when someone is really 'seeing' and getting it, they truly embrace and understand the validity of all 'levels', having integrated the ones they've also travelled through. And within each day, we go in and out of aspects of each state, too. It's actually when people are stuck in their worldview and cannot see beyond it that they believe they are superior. This board provides ample examples of that.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

The point is that when someone is really 'seeing' and getting it, they truly embrace and understand the validity of all 'levels', having integrated the ones they've also travelled through. And within each day, we go in and out of aspects of each state, too. It's actually when people are stuck in their worldview and cannot see beyond it that they believe they are superior. This board provides ample examples of that.

i dont know, at times it has looked condescending to me. like pitying the pathetic people who can't see through their own biases like us higher developed folk.

i mean, i know i do it, but i do it becos im an arrogant prick and i know it

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

i dont know, at times it has looked condescending to me. like pitying the pathetic people who can't see through their own biases like us higher developed folk.

i mean, i know i do it, but i do it becos im an arrogant prick and i know it

All I've had to do is read the concept, myself, and like it or not, it definitely rings true against my experiences. Some people do predominantly view life through a good/bad fundamental religion world view. Many, for that matter. For others, science and science only is the "truth". It's about the person's centre of gravity being at one stage or another, even though it is much more complex than that. I see the 'proof' all over this board. And people can and do progress through these levels. It's not that we are stuck at any one stage--predestined to be there. Many people do get stuck in their progress, however, because they are unable to resolve some of the challenges each level provides.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

All I've had to do is read the concept, myself, and like it or not, it definitely rings true against my experiences. Some people do predominantly view life through a good/bad fundamental religion world view. Many, for that matter. For others, science and science only is the "truth". It's about the person's centre of gravity being at one stage or another, even though it is much more complex than that. I see the 'proof' all over this board. And people can and do progress through these levels. It's not that we are stuck at any one stage--predestined to be there. Many people do get stuck in their progress, however, because they are unable to resolve some of the challenges each level provides.

hmmm, illl have to read it. i got the impression it was more a hierarchical evolutionary thing... like the religious fundies are bottom rung, the science people are a bit better, the metaphysical philosophers are at the top... i dont know if im cool with that.

NMyTree

I honsetly believe there is a completely undiscovered science that encompasses the spiritual world....the after-life......our "soul's" energy force.

I have no doubt there is something before and after human life.

But I don't believe for one minute it has anything to do with any of what is taught, preached, fought-for and shoved down our throats by any of the human-created and human-practiced ........Religions.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

hmmm, illl have to read it. i got the impression it was more a hierarchical evolutionary thing... like the religious fundies are bottom rung, the science people are a bit better, the metaphysical philosophers are at the top... i dont know if im cool with that.

Yeah, it sounds like the actual purposes of the original article get distorted based on what context I'm using it in.

But for example, you and I have "evolved" out of a traditional religious view, at least that's my understanding of what you've said out here re religion--that you've been there and moved on like I have. It doesn't make us better than someone who holds a religious view. And if we act like it, it shows that we haven't exactly evolved past that--instead we would reveal that we are actually still emotionally attached to being there if we have 'issues' with it. Again it's about center of gravity. We all act stupid, arrogant and petty from time to time. This is not about there being a "right" stage and "wrong" ones.

As a matter of fact, you, like myself, might recognise people on this board who have "moved beyond" traditional religion, t and yet because they haven't resolved some of their issues with traditional religion, they are "beyond" and yet still just as crippled in their lack of balance in their new stage. It is not black and white. Imbalance and 'issues' are what they are at any phase.

And being integrated doesn't mean one is a philosopher. It means they can flow through any stage at will and when the situation calls for it--including using the validity of the "lower stages" for suitable purposes.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

Yeah, it sounds like the actual purposes of the original article get distorted based on what context I'm using it in.

But for example, you and I have "evolved" out of a traditional religious view, at least that's my understanding of what you've said out here re religion--that you've been there and moved on like I have. It doesn't make us better than someone who holds a religious view. And if we act like it, it shows that we haven't exactly evolved past that--instead we would reveal that we are actually still emotionally attached to being there if we have 'issues' with it. Again it's about center of gravity. We all act stupid, arrogant and petty from time to time. This is not about there being a "right" stage and "wrong" ones.

As a matter of fact, you, like myself, might recognise people on this board who have "moved beyond" traditional religion, t and yet because they haven't resolved some of their issues with traditional religion, they are "beyond" and yet still just as crippled in their lack of balance in their new stage. It is not black and white. Imbalance and 'issues' are what they are at any phase.

And being integrated doesn't mean one is a philosopher. It means they can flow through any stage at will and when the situation calls for it--including using the validity of the "lower stages" for suitable purposes.

ah, not a piecemeal kinda thing then. ill give it a look later.

CorporateWhore

RainDog wrote:

Additionally Middle Earth, which some might say is a coincidence of J. R. R. Tolkien's overdeveloped mind, is very unusual. If Ilúvatar isn't real, why has Tolkien developed various stories to explain his existence?

For apologetics.

Tolkien was a devout Catholic his entire life and his middle earth depictions served to represent his Catholic beliefs in a different way. They are full of Christian themes throughout.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2001/feature7.htm

Tolkien developed these stories to explain the beauty of God's love. God sacrificed his only son on the cross for humanity - Frodo's quest is incredibly similar to that sacrifice.

CorporateWhore

Matt8townsend wrote:

It was certainly no accident - it was natural selection.

Jewellry and unfashionable clothing are 'unnecessary' in one sense yes - but they are decorative embellishments (peacocks were fotunate enough to evolve their own) adorned to make us more sexually desirable. And sex is necessary for survival.

And I don't think its unusual for beings who evolved the intellectual capacity to be cursed with awareness of their own mortality to develop an emotional and psychological crutch to ease the resulting existential angst.

What made "natural selection?"

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

For apologetics.

Tolkien was a devout Catholic his entire life and his middle earth depictions served to represent his Catholic beliefs in a different way. They are full of Christian themes throughout.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2001/feature7.htm

Tolkien developed these stories to explain the beauty of God's love. God sacrificed his only son on the cross for humanity - Frodo's quest is incredibly similar to that sacrifice.

I'm very familiar with Tolkien's Christian beliefs; though, he openly disliked comparisons like the one you're making here. I'm just saying that humans have vivid and detailed imaginations. We've developed ways of explaining the existence of many different things - even ones that never existed at all.

Now, I'm not saying there is no God. I'm only saying that using the many different beliefs in many different Gods argument isn't going to prove anything. In fact, it's quite easy to disregard.

Do you believe in vampires?

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

What made "natural selection?"

Death, and the advances the living can make from it.