Philosophically many atheists do not deny the possibility of the existence of a God, however they view it as unattainable knowledge which belief in corrupts the mind.
This is the part, coming from you that keeps you battling your disagreement with god. And it is a disagreement with god, not the concept, not the religion, not the philosphy of "some" atheists. It is a fight that suits you because god challenges your ego. In this debate, and in many of these debates, ego is the primary subject, yet psychology is something you rarely google into.
I'd like to recommend a good book on this subject, its called "is belief in god good, bad or irrelevant", its basically a series of correspondences between Greg Graffin (a Ph.d in zoology who also happens to be a member of the band Bad Religion) and Preston Jones who is a history professor at a Christian college.
I find myself to be a naturalist/atheist, basically all things can be explained through natural phenomenon.
there is something strangely peaceful about knowing that this is the only life you get, one shot, when you're done you're done.
Take time to see the sky,
Find shapes in the clouds.
Hear the murmur of the wind
and touch the cool water.
Walk softly,
we are intruders,
tolerated briefly
In an infinite universe.
there is something strangely peaceful about knowing that this is the only life you get, one shot, when you're done you're done.
There is, i'll concur with that. On the other hand, I'll have to disagree with the presumption God is there for everlasting afterlife through the mercy of whatever fantasy comes down the pike.
i just thought i'd give you something to think on before i bow out of here for at least the next 24.
(sometimes) god=mindful hypothesis
I don't think God can really be defined. Everyone has their own concept of God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. The argument for the single substance runs as follows:
• Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
• No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]
• A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
• Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
• Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
• Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm tired worked the overnight with another to come, have to go to bed....this is the best I can do for now:
You're overemphasizing God, as if you could wish to be a god yourself, (not that there's anything wrong with that). If you are a true realist/atheist then this whole notion of that kingdom is out the window, right?
So, where does God come in? Think evolution and biology. You know, we are all programmed to procreate (there's your determinism), so...throw the fairy tales out and what do you have? It's still a race trying to succeed in getting its gene passed down to the next generation, isn't it? Forget the vernacular in which it is given, if it is successful then why not go with it? It isn't all that complex. You want to call bullshit every time you see God or Religion but the thing is, if you are so sure of your biological predeterminations, then why does God preoccupy you so?
as for the "god is a mathematical certainty" . that's a riddle. and nobody has solved it but me.
I've been too kind. You probably see some sort of philosophical deference to my viewpoint, and that is possible since I'm probably at least 20 years older than you. Then again, I have a 72 IQ.
Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. The argument for the single substance runs as follows:
• Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
• No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]
• A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
• Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
• Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
• Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
I mostly just don't understand what you are saying gue_barium.
I know you don't really mean to imply that age makes a huge difference in awareness or knowledge. I don't think that is true at all, and in-fact I know some children that have more wisdom in some areas than most adults.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I mostly just don't understand what you are saying gue_barium.
I know you don't really mean to imply that age makes a huge difference in awareness or knowledge. I don't think that is true at all, and in-fact I know some children that have more wisdom in some areas than most adults.
You're biting on the IQ?
sheesh.
Can I ask, and I mean this nicely, I know you have a good brain. How old are you? Honestly. I've been thinking 25-30.
Can I ask, and I mean this nicely, I know you have a good brain. How old are you? Honestly. I've been thinking 25-30.
I'm sorry, what's the relevance of IQ?
I'm 25 years old. But again that shouldn't mean anything.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm wondering if you understand how involved your ego is in this continual debate you have with god.
I don't have a debate with God. I have debates about the various concepts of God. My primary focus is society and culture, or the whole of humanity. I could care less about God if he/she didn't impact what I do care about.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'd like to recommend a good book on this subject, its called "is belief in god good, bad or irrelevant", its basically a series of correspondences between Greg Graffin (a Ph.d in zoology who also happens to be a member of the band Bad Religion) and Preston Jones who is a history professor at a Christian college.
I find myself to be a naturalist/atheist, basically all things can be explained through natural phenomenon.
there is something strangely peaceful about knowing that this is the only life you get, one shot, when you're done you're done.
Thanks toronado for the recommendation. Sounds like a very interesting read. I'll add it to my ever increasing PJ pit book list and attempt to get a copy and read it.
I don't have a debate with God. I have debates about the various concepts of God. My primary focus is society and culture, or the whole of humanity. I could care less about God if he/she didn't impact what I do care about.
Well, god is just a word. It's become part of the human psyche: you use it more than most church-goers I know. The bible is just a book. You and I both know this.
How does a word "impact" you?
Well, god is just a word. It's become part of the human psyche: you use it more than most church-goers I know. The bible is just a book. You and I both know this.
How does a word "impact" you?
It doesn't directly impact me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I guess what I've learned, and what I'm trying to share with you is that these people that have a belief in a sort of mindful hypothesis, instinct really, of what is good and bad aren't so different than you or I. There are the extremes like Falwell, but even if all the religions were to cease to exist, these people would still be among us, they are all around us.
Matter of fact, at least here on the board, you give Falwell a run for his money in the opposite extreme.
Now I must rest.
And you must goeth into the northwest rain forest, for 40 days and forty nights, in order to know me. You will reside by the river Skagit. Drink from it's waters, do not take of it's fish. If you do not obey, a great wheel will fall from from the sky and darken the day.
I guess what I've learned, and what I'm trying to share with you is that these people that have a belief in a sort of mindful hypothesis, instinct really, of what is good and bad aren't so different than you or I. There are the extremes like Falwell, but even if all the religions were to cease to exist, these people would still be among us.
It's not instinct to believe in Spirits or a God.
Children left to their own devices in a culture without God, don't believe in God. Wether or not a person has a "connection" with God is firstly dependent on wether or not they've ever heard of the concept of God and then all it takes is "faith". But instinctually, there is no God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Children left to their own devices in a culture without God, don't believe in God. Wether or not a person has a "connection" with God is firstly dependent on wether or not they've ever heard of the concept of God and then all it takes is "faith". But instinctually, there is no God.
You're hung up dude.
Humans believe in themselves. No matter what communication form it takes.
Children left to their own devices in a culture without God, don't believe in God. Wether or not a person has a "connection" with God is firstly dependent on wether or not they've ever heard of the concept of God and then all it takes is "faith". But instinctually, there is no God.
i dont think i buy that. the fact that every human culture since the dawn of human thought has had some sort of spiritual belief structure indicates that if god is not innate in humans, it is at least innate in the kind of thinking only humans have become capable of.
Humans believe in themselves. No matter what communication form it takes.
According to what?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i dont think i buy that. the fact that every human culture since the dawn of human thought has had some sort of spiritual belief structure indicates that if god is not innate in humans, it is innate in the kind of thinking only humans have become capable of.
It's a product of getting old and thinking about death.
Mead tells of Growing Up in New Guinea. "Margaret Mead told us how she came to the research problem on which she based her Growing Up in New Guinea. She reasoned as follows: If primitive adults think in an animistic way, as Piaget says our children do, how do primitive children think?
"In her research on Manus Island of New Guinea, she discovered that 'primitive' children think in a very practical way and begin to think in terms of spirits etc. as they get older. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's a product of getting old and thinking about death.
how does that not make spiritual system invalid? if it is no more than a human attempt to grapple and come to peace with death, how is one more valid than another? you take comfort in some scientific dying, turning to dirt, circle of life approach, others prefer a heaven approach. neither one really makes a difference and both are simply attempts to make sense of the confusing thought that one day our sentient selves will cease to exist.
Comments
From your first post, having looked at it again, I find a problem with this part:
This is the part, coming from you that keeps you battling your disagreement with god. And it is a disagreement with god, not the concept, not the religion, not the philosphy of "some" atheists. It is a fight that suits you because god challenges your ego. In this debate, and in many of these debates, ego is the primary subject, yet psychology is something you rarely google into.
That is all for now, grasshoppa.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I find myself to be a naturalist/atheist, basically all things can be explained through natural phenomenon.
there is something strangely peaceful about knowing that this is the only life you get, one shot, when you're done you're done.
Find shapes in the clouds.
Hear the murmur of the wind
and touch the cool water.
Walk softly,
we are intruders,
tolerated briefly
In an infinite universe.
There is, i'll concur with that. On the other hand, I'll have to disagree with the presumption God is there for everlasting afterlife through the mercy of whatever fantasy comes down the pike.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
(sometimes) god=mindful hypothesis
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't think God can really be defined. Everyone has their own concept of God.
i've come to wonder sometimes, maybe it's god that believes in you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The most I'll buy into is Spinoza's God.
• Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
• No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]
• A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
• Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
• Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
• Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
You're overemphasizing God, as if you could wish to be a god yourself, (not that there's anything wrong with that). If you are a true realist/atheist then this whole notion of that kingdom is out the window, right?
So, where does God come in? Think evolution and biology. You know, we are all programmed to procreate (there's your determinism), so...throw the fairy tales out and what do you have? It's still a race trying to succeed in getting its gene passed down to the next generation, isn't it? Forget the vernacular in which it is given, if it is successful then why not go with it? It isn't all that complex. You want to call bullshit every time you see God or Religion but the thing is, if you are so sure of your biological predeterminations, then why does God preoccupy you so?
as for the "god is a mathematical certainty" . that's a riddle. and nobody has solved it but me.
I've been too kind. You probably see some sort of philosophical deference to my viewpoint, and that is possible since I'm probably at least 20 years older than you. Then again, I have a 72 IQ.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
cheers. from the man with a 72 IQ.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I know you don't really mean to imply that age makes a huge difference in awareness or knowledge. I don't think that is true at all, and in-fact I know some children that have more wisdom in some areas than most adults.
And he just posts what's in my head. Fuck Google.
lol.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
You're biting on the IQ?
sheesh.
Can I ask, and I mean this nicely, I know you have a good brain. How old are you? Honestly. I've been thinking 25-30.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm sorry, what's the relevance of IQ?
I'm 25 years old. But again that shouldn't mean anything.
god=mindful hypothesis
I'm wondering if you understand how involved your ego is in this continual debate you have with god.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm not questioning your right to be who you are, or anything like that. I am questioning the logic that you use.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't have a debate with God. I have debates about the various concepts of God. My primary focus is society and culture, or the whole of humanity. I could care less about God if he/she didn't impact what I do care about.
Thanks toronado for the recommendation. Sounds like a very interesting read. I'll add it to my ever increasing PJ pit book list and attempt to get a copy and read it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well, god is just a word. It's become part of the human psyche: you use it more than most church-goers I know. The bible is just a book. You and I both know this.
How does a word "impact" you?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It doesn't directly impact me.
Alright.
I guess what I've learned, and what I'm trying to share with you is that these people that have a belief in a sort of mindful hypothesis, instinct really, of what is good and bad aren't so different than you or I. There are the extremes like Falwell, but even if all the religions were to cease to exist, these people would still be among us, they are all around us.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Now I must rest.
And you must goeth into the northwest rain forest, for 40 days and forty nights, in order to know me. You will reside by the river Skagit. Drink from it's waters, do not take of it's fish. If you do not obey, a great wheel will fall from from the sky and darken the day.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's not instinct to believe in Spirits or a God.
Children left to their own devices in a culture without God, don't believe in God. Wether or not a person has a "connection" with God is firstly dependent on wether or not they've ever heard of the concept of God and then all it takes is "faith". But instinctually, there is no God.
You're hung up dude.
Humans believe in themselves. No matter what communication form it takes.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i dont think i buy that. the fact that every human culture since the dawn of human thought has had some sort of spiritual belief structure indicates that if god is not innate in humans, it is at least innate in the kind of thinking only humans have become capable of.
According to what?
It's a product of getting old and thinking about death.
how does that not make spiritual system invalid? if it is no more than a human attempt to grapple and come to peace with death, how is one more valid than another? you take comfort in some scientific dying, turning to dirt, circle of life approach, others prefer a heaven approach. neither one really makes a difference and both are simply attempts to make sense of the confusing thought that one day our sentient selves will cease to exist.