|
Post by Lee on Oct 9, 2014 21:27:22 GMT -5
I'm glad to meet you God. I'm glad to know (though it makes me sad) that you know that nothing happens for any particular reason. Actually, not me or anyone else (including you) are a "god". -
It is humbling to realize that we are NOT so important in great scheme of things of life, because there simply ISN'T any "great scheme of things!" No. It's humbling to know with regard to our temporal constitution that we are insignificant. If indeed there were no assurance of things eternal and our relationship to it, our humbling would be a humiliation, to the point we should welcome annihilation. Indeed many youth of modernity are hastening this through their dysfunction and drug use.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 9, 2014 21:41:16 GMT -5
You don't 'believe' in myths, per se, and they don't provide explanations. I like Plato's description of our lives being lived as if we were shackled in a cave. Behind us is a light and our chains prevent us from looking at and analyzing it. But on the wall, we can see the shadows made as the light plays against the figures of our lives. It's not unlike the Bible verse "Now we see through a glass darkly ... " explaining the limits of our understanding. A metaphor has two parts, a tenor and a vehicle. For example, we might say, "life is a journey". The vehicle of the metaphor is "journey" and the tenor is "life". The reason it's called a vehicle, is because one idea is being driven or carried across to another in order to say something about the tenor. We take a known thing, "a journey", and throw some light on an unknown thing, "life". This is how metaphor works in the religious realm. In one common metaphor, we take a known thing, say, "marriage" and use it to shed light on an unknown thing, "the union of Christ and his church". People often think of metaphor (and myth) as strictly a product of the imagination. But I believe that when they work, they're explaining something that is very real, but also .. unknowable in its literal sense. Think of metaphor as the shadow on the cave wall; it doesn't exist unless the light also exists. Of course, you can reject the metaphor, which means rejecting what it stands for. But the Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believers. Regarding Plato's shadows and chains - just yesterday for the first time I heard of Edwin Abbot's Flatland, a social satire. In Flatland, which is a two-dimensional world, if a sphere touches it, it will be perceived as a dot. As the sphere passes through the two-dimensional world, it is perceived as a circle. The 3 dimensions of a sphere cannot be perceived and the true meaning of what is perceived cannot be understood by an entity with only 2 dimensions living in a 2-dimensional world, unless the entity is willing to consider that there can be more dimensions and is willing to explore and learn about them. Even then, an entity inhabiting a 2-D world can only have a limited understanding of the 3-D world. I have experienced some things that cannot be explained with my 'flatland' rules, and what I did perceive is probably only a dimension that is observable in my 'flat' state. There was probably much more to it that I wasn't able to perceive. This morning, driving my daughter to school, I noticed that the Moon was brighter on the way back than driving away from home. The sunlight was stronger, and more light was reflecting against the Moon, which made the Moon look brighter. It made me think of light in space - unless you are looking directly at the source, you can't see the light except as it reflects against another object. Isn't it so with God's light - it is only visible in this world as it is reflected in someone? There is nature too, it speaks of God, but nothing speaks as strongly as a person reflecting God's love. Flatland is a classic book illustrating the tension between conventional and unconventional interpretations of phenomena. Some of us remain open to theoretical interpretation, while others relegate "knowing" to quantitative proofs afforded from creature senses.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 9, 2014 21:51:07 GMT -5
Atheism does not need any kind of leap. We shouldn't even need a word for it because it just is. No god can be demonstrated as existing, so atheism is just the natural state of being.
I'm dubious that atheism is the natural state of being. If you say that atheism is simply not accepting any particular conception of God, then I agree; atheism is a natural state of being. What was your natural state of being as to beliefs & lacks of beliefs before you were indoctrinated into your present belief system?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 9, 2014 21:52:16 GMT -5
Sure! The more humans to size it up, the greater the collective consciousness. And more consciousness means more fecundity. You must mean "life on the planet". I don't see the planet itself reproducing itself -- or is that where the moon came from? But fecundity isn't dependent on consciousness, unless you believe fungi have a consciousness. Fecundity is dependent upon Trinitarian consciousness, if mankind historically or ultimately represents a constant in the universe. I could be wrong about my working assumption of the sustainability of our species. Its possible that all of our perceptions of reality are provisional if we we've been relegated to a temporal paradigm for the sake of our eternal prosperity. That is the most common view of Christianity, the view I was raised on in context of the 2x2. Last Sunday my Baptist preacher assured us "the earth and our new-eternal bodies, once-arrived, will be here to stay". What do I know? Nothing I must concede.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 9, 2014 21:54:17 GMT -5
I'm dubious that atheism is the natural state of being. If you say that atheism is simply not accepting any particular conception of God, then I agree; atheism is a natural state of being. What was your natural state of being as to beliefs & lacks of beliefs before you were indoctrinated into your present belief system?
I was indoctrinated at the very start and have been un-indoctrinating ever since.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 9, 2014 22:09:54 GMT -5
Actually, not me or anyone else (including you) are a "god". -
It is humbling to realize that we are NOT so important in great scheme of things of life, because there simply ISN'T any "great scheme of things!" No. It's humbling to know with regard to our temporal constitution we are insignificant. If indeed there were no assurance of things eternal and our relationship to it, our humbling would be a humiliation, to the point we should welcome our annihilation. Indeed many youth of modernity are hastening this through their dysfunction and drug use. Why should it be humiliating?
Why would that understanding lead us to "welcome our annihilation?"
Can't one just accept it as it is?
I feel just fine living without any need for assurance of anything eternal! Instead of "welcome annihilation," I would think that understanding that this life is all we have would cause us to tend to live it to the fullest.
(There is no indication that your idea is the reason for "youth" using drugs.)
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 9, 2014 22:19:22 GMT -5
No. It's humbling to know with regard to our temporal constitution we are insignificant. If indeed there were no assurance of things eternal and our relationship to it, our humbling would be a humiliation, to the point we should welcome our annihilation. Indeed many youth of modernity are hastening this through their dysfunction and drug use. Why should it be humiliating?
Why would that understanding lead us to "welcome our annihilation?"
Can't one just accept it as it is?
I feel just fine living without any need for assurance of anything eternal! Instead of "welcome annihilation," I would think that understanding that this life is all we have would cause us to tend to live it to the fullest.
(There is no indication that your idea is the reason for "youth" using drugs.)
You can't live life to the fullest if you're not cognizant or concerned with things eternal. I'm sorry, I find your mind lacking recognizance.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 9, 2014 22:30:19 GMT -5
Read a book recently. 'Ishi' was the last surviving member of the Yahi tribe. He was born 1861 and died 1916. The tribe "hid" in the foothills of Mt. Lassen 100 miles north of me, well after the decimating effects the gold rush brought upon their civilizations. I was struck by their concerns for "right and wrong" and "wrong thoughts" and terminology to do with "the way or their way" .... which reminded me of 2x2's.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 9, 2014 22:31:49 GMT -5
You must mean "life on the planet". I don't see the planet itself reproducing itself -- or is that where the moon came from? But fecundity isn't dependent on consciousness, unless you believe fungi have a consciousness. Fecundity is dependent upon Trinitarian consciousness, if mankind historically or ultimately represents a constant in the universe. I could be wrong about my working assumption of the sustainability of our species. Its possible that all of our perceptions of reality are provisional if we we've been relegated to a temporal paradigm for the sake of our eternal prosperity. That is the most common view of Christianity, the view I was raised on in context of the 2x2. Last Sunday my Baptist preacher assured us "the earth and our new-eternal bodies, once-arrived, will be here to stay". What do I know? Nothing I must concede. And I tried to figure all that out before I read the last line.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 9, 2014 23:07:52 GMT -5
I'm dubious that atheism is the natural state of being. If you say that atheism is simply not accepting any particular conception of God, then I agree; atheism is a natural state of being. If you say that atheism is the denial of any kind of First Cause whatsoever, then your atheism is a matter of belief. Why is this an issue? It has been demonstrated that all events do not require a cause.There is no way of proving there was a first cause. Why would you think it was an innate belief? Why would it have evolved to that conclusion in humans but not in flatworms? Because humans can ask the question? Wondering if there is a first cause does not create one.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 9, 2014 23:18:19 GMT -5
Why should it be humiliating?
Why would that understanding lead us to "welcome our annihilation?"
Can't one just accept it as it is?
I feel just fine living without any need for assurance of anything eternal! Instead of "welcome annihilation," I would think that understanding that this life is all we have would cause us to tend to live it to the fullest.
(There is no indication that your idea is the reason for "youth" using drugs.)
You can't live life to the fullest if you're not cognizant or concerned with things eternal. I'm sorry, I find your mind lacking recognizance. recognizance.? Are you quite sure that you even know the meaning of "recognizance." recognizance Concise Encyclopedia)
"In law, obligation entered into before a court or magistrate requiring the performance of an act (e.g., appearance in court), usually under penalty of a money forfeiture. The most common use of recognizance is in connection with bail in criminal cases. The accused may also be released on his “own recognizance” when no bail is required." cognizant; adjective: cognisant
"having knowledge or being aware of."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 10, 2014 5:54:45 GMT -5
I'm dubious that atheism is the natural state of being. If you say that atheism is simply not accepting any particular conception of God, then I agree; atheism is a natural state of being. If you say that atheism is the denial of any kind of First Cause whatsoever, then your atheism is a matter of belief. Why is this an issue? It has been demonstrated that all events do not require a cause.There is no way of proving there was a first cause. Why would you think it was an innate belief? Why would it have evolved to that conclusion in humans but not in flatworms? Because humans can ask the question? Wondering if there is a first cause does not create one. My point is simply that you can't prove there is one, and you can't prove there isn't one. Thus, there is no default or background view on this question. The entire question here is not whether atheism is valid, but whether it is deducible, or even falsifiable.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 10, 2014 9:26:50 GMT -5
You can't live life to the fullest if you're not cognizant or concerned with things eternal. I'm sorry, I find your mind lacking recognizance. I am cognizant of things eternal. I have a fair understanding of the extremely short, but non-zero, time I have to live. I am also cognizant that when I depart things will continue pretty much as they did before I arrived. I am not concerned. And I live a pretty full life. True, I am not spending my time wondering about what will happen when I die and fretting over whether my actions here will somehow get me into "The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn No Traveler returns..." and will it be on the 'good' side or the 'bad' side of town. I am wondering how your life is more full than someone who does not share your concern regarding eternity. Why can you live your life to its fullest?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 10, 2014 14:30:02 GMT -5
What was your natural state of being as to beliefs & lacks of beliefs before you were indoctrinated into your present belief system?
I was indoctrinated at the very start and have been un-indoctrinating ever since. Good!
So you are becoming un-indoctrinated? Good luck!
Sometimes that can be a long journey.
I remember when I got to point where I could no longer believe in the religion in which I was raised.(2x2's)
Then after looking around I saw all Christianity was based on unbelievable tenets.
Then a took a look at all the religions of the world, past & present.
At that point, the questions begin to be, not just which religion was true, but what was the reason that people seemed to need to believe in something that had no rationality.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 10, 2014 14:38:08 GMT -5
I was indoctrinated at the very start and have been un-indoctrinating ever since. Good!
So you are becoming un-indoctrinated? Good luck!
Sometimes that can be a long journey.
I remember when I got to point where I could no longer believe in the religion in which I was raised.(2x2's)
Then after looking around I saw all Christianity was based on unbelievable tenets.
Then a took a look at all the religions of the world, past & present.
At that point, the questions begin to be, not just which religion was true, but what was the reason that people seemed to need to believe in something that had no rationality. Religion is more a question of enrichment through experience, than through knowledge. By experience, I refer to the rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 10, 2014 15:12:06 GMT -5
Good!
So you are becoming un-indoctrinated? Good luck!
Sometimes that can be a long journey.
I remember when I got to point where I could no longer believe in the religion in which I was raised.(2x2's)
Then after looking around I saw all Christianity was based on unbelievable tenets.
Then a took a look at all the religions of the world, past & present.
At that point, the questions begin to be, not just which religion was true, but what was the reason that people seemed to need to believe in something that had no rationality. Religion is more a question of enrichment through experience, than through knowledge. By experience, I refer to the rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing. Exactly!
The "rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing" brings them joy & makes them feel more comfortable & thus enriches their life experiences.
If those people could understand that is the reason that they believe; maybe they can also understand there are some of us who don't need any religious belief in order to have equally enriched lives.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 10, 2014 22:21:19 GMT -5
Religion is more a question of enrichment through experience, than through knowledge. By experience, I refer to the rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing. Exactly!
The "rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing" brings them joy & makes them feel more comfortable & thus enriches their life experiences.
If those people could understand that is the reason that they believe; maybe they can also understand there are some of us who don't need any religious belief in order to have equally enriched lives. I do agree with you there. However, as a universalist Christian, I believe that being an atheist won't keep you out of heaven whether you want to go there or not. So you can be an atheist if you like, but it's rather pointless you see; we're all going to end up in the same place anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 11, 2014 10:40:54 GMT -5
Exactly!
The "rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing" brings them joy & makes them feel more comfortable & thus enriches their life experiences.
If those people could understand that is the reason that they believe; maybe they can also understand there are some of us who don't need any religious belief in order to have equally enriched lives. I do agree with you there. However, as a universalist Christian, I believe that being an atheist won't keep you out of heaven whether you want to go there or not. So you can be an atheist if you like, but it's rather pointless you see; we're all going to end up in the same place anyway. There is no expended effort in being an atheist. I do agree with you that we are all going to end up in the same situation, recycled. Given the right circumstances, material from my body could result in thin-film interference patterns that might be a delight for others!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 11, 2014 11:15:58 GMT -5
You can't live life to the fullest if you're not cognizant or concerned with things eternal. I'm sorry, I find your mind lacking recognizance. I am cognizant of things eternal. I have a fair understanding of the extremely short, but non-zero, time I have to live. I am also cognizant that when I depart things will continue pretty much as they did before I arrived. I am not concerned. And I live a pretty full life. True, I am not spending my time wondering about what will happen when I die and fretting over whether my actions here will somehow get me into "The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn No Traveler returns..." and will it be on the 'good' side or the 'bad' side of town. I am wondering how your life is more full than someone who does not share your concern regarding eternity. Why can you live your life to its fullest? You have no basis to speak of 'things eternal'. Your God's name is 'Arbitrary'. I hope you live long enough to know what 'inheriting the wind' means. Or repent and be saved.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 11, 2014 13:31:08 GMT -5
You have no basis to speak of 'things eternal'. Why not? Although I consider that the universe has a beginning the end is so distant as to be considered by some to be lasting or existing forever. In reality the death of the sun in less than 5 billion years is a more pressing danger!As an atheist I don't qualify to have a god to name. Me too. It is such an odd quote: He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.I didn't get it after reading Psalms nor understand it as the title of a play. This would be more difficult. To repent I would have to believe I have done something wrong that I need to repent. From the context of your use I think it would require a belief in a paranormal being. Saved from what? The sentence applied to all mankind for the original sin? Perhaps you missed my question: Why do you believe you can live your life to its fullest but do not believe I can?[/i]
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 13, 2014 8:47:59 GMT -5
Rational or DMG, might either of you be able to explain entropy vis a vis the evolution of consciousness? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 13, 2014 9:20:36 GMT -5
I do agree with you there. However, as a universalist Christian, I believe that being an atheist won't keep you out of heaven whether you want to go there or not. So you can be an atheist if you like, but it's rather pointless you see; we're all going to end up in the same place anyway. There is no expended effort in being an atheist. I do agree with you that we are all going to end up in the same situation, recycled. Given the right circumstances, material from my body could result in thin-film interference patterns that might be a delight for others! It happens so seldom that we agree on these kinds of threads, perhaps we should leave it there without digging too much into it.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 13, 2014 9:43:11 GMT -5
Rational or DMG, might either of you be able to explain entropy vis a vis the evolution of consciousness? Thanks. I know I am not rational or DMG, but I am interested in your question. It seems, at first reading, a question about the evolution of the human brain vis-a-vis The Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is nothing about the Second Law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered. I suspect you already know this....is there more to the question that I have missed?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 13, 2014 10:45:49 GMT -5
Rational or DMG, might either of you be able to explain entropy vis a vis the evolution of consciousness? Thanks. I know I am not rational or DMG, but I am interested in your question. It seems, at first reading, a question about the evolution of the human brain vis-a-vis The Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is nothing about the Second Law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered. I suspect you already know this....is there more to the question that I have missed? Matisse, my sincerest apologies, no slight intended. I had been away from the thread for several days and the question came to mind as I reflected on some of their recent posts. I do apologize to you and others for the unnecessarily restrictive structure of my post. Yes, I have a passing familiarity with the 2nd law but admit to great confusion as to precisely what would constitute the "system", I guess the entire universe, but just this universe or all universes, my mind turns to mush. I also find my perception of directionality, from primordial soup to contemplation of bosons and 11-dimensional space, truly tests my comprehension of the 2nd law. Any evidence based analysis is most welcome. I'm pretty sure Maxwell's Demon has been disposed of, so I am interested in learning more about recent insights.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 13, 2014 10:53:49 GMT -5
What Hat, I finished Lee Harmon's last book a couple of days ago. I really enjoyed it. His perspective makes sense on several levels. Have you considered his monograph for the TMB book club? Might be interesting if we all could stay on topic. Would be fun to have the author's participation.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 14, 2014 5:53:19 GMT -5
Religion is more a question of enrichment through experience, than through knowledge. By experience, I refer to the rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing. Exactly!
The "rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing" brings them joy & makes them feel more comfortable & thus enriches their life experiences.
If those people could understand that is the reason that they believe; maybe they can also understand there are some of us who don't need any religious belief in order to have equally enriched lives. Dmmichgood You are incorrect. Worship praise came after recieving the lord. In fact it happened for me as a child those things came later. When I look back standing in a mission to profess was really just informing others what I had done yrs before. As a small child. Looking back the reasoning for children not to 'make their choice' is nonsence. Children are far more asute than we give them credit for.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 14, 2014 13:35:53 GMT -5
Exactly!
The "rituals of worship, prayer, contemplation and singing" brings them joy & makes them feel more comfortable & thus enriches their life experiences.
If those people could understand that is the reason that they believe; maybe they can also understand there are some of us who don't need any religious belief in order to have equally enriched lives. Dmmichgood You are incorrect. Worship praise came after recieving the lord.In fact it happened for me as a child those things came later. When I look back standing in a mission to profess was really just informing others what I had done yrs before. As a small child. Looking back the reasoning for children not to 'make their choice' is nonsence. Children are far more asute than we give them credit for. That is only your own take on the subject & not what I meant.
Those "rituals of worship" in any religion is a psychological factor that makes people feel good. The being in a group where everyone believes the same thing, whether true or not, gives people a sense of community & gives them a sense of well being.
If people could only understand that it is a psychological factor that causes them to feel good, maybe, just maybe they can also understand there are some of us who don't need any religious belief in order to have equally enriched lives.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 14, 2014 13:40:05 GMT -5
What Hat, I finished Lee Harmon's last book a couple of days ago. I really enjoyed it. His perspective makes sense on several levels. Have you considered his monograph for the TMB book club? Might be interesting if we all could stay on topic. Would be fun to have the author's participation. Yes, I have 'yknot'. I am also intending to write a review. I'll PM you when I start the thread so you don't miss it. The task has an expected half-life to initiation of about 1 month.
|
|