Which is just exactly what I expect at the end of life anyway-- non-existence. So what would be the difference? And also-- why should an ETERNAL life be based on a mere double-handful of decades of earthly existance? tell me how that makes sense in cosmological terms. When peopple explain to me that an afterlife awaits those who live this life right, I like to ask them what happens if you live your afterlife wrong. Do you lose your chance at the after-after-life?
Like He doesn't already know what you thought about him? Is He omnipotent, or isn't He?I have no belief in the existence of god(s). But if I find myself in the presence of one, I'll try to keep my mouth shut.
The catch 22 of faith. If you require proof to back up a belief, it's not faith. The idea of faith is to believe in something in spite of lack of evidence.
Your definition Amicus is problematic. By making faith, belief and gods central, if only something to be negated as a denial of god(s) one is in danger of making them a first (and necessary) pre-requisite to the philosophy which you may propose to put in their place.
I prefer to think that atheism includes any system of thought that is without or absent any idea of god(s). I think it can include belief, for example you may argue for your contention about 'absolute values' suggesting that you have arrived at them through objective rationality but another individual might suggest they believe in exactly the same thing without a semblance of rational thought. (there you are - an easy target!)
I don't have time to say much more at the moment but I look forward to considering such ideas as:-
1 The substitution of the ego for god in much modern atheist thought particularly the essentially theist characterisation of the self in objectivism.
2 The religiosity of many atheist's methods of thinking (Dawkins et al).
All for now.[/QUOTE]
~~~
Point taken, Ishtat, and I too look forward to your commentary on 'ego', in Objectivism. One should note the difference between 'egotism' and 'egoism'. I do no agree on the 'essentially theist' characterization of 'self', as no rational person (except as a writer) sees oneself as omniscient.
The 'point taken' above refers to your first paragraph....I will 'tweak' my original Post to include the conclusion, that there is no God, fuctions as a logical deduction, that in the absence of any evidence supporting the concept, the concept does not exist.
I think that the astronomical discoveries of the past half century or so have pulled the veil back from the deep Universe, as we now know it, and exposed a complexity of natural laws so fantastically amazing as to challenge the ability of mere men to encompass the scope.
A flip side to that, absent any evidence of other life in the Universe, would be to acknowledge the greatness of God in creating man in the image of himself and that we truly are, but for God, alone in the Heavens....
ami
Tio_Narratore;36472371[I said:]I have some sympathy with Amicus' position, but have too often found Atheists "believing" in the non-existence of any form of deity. That does put them dangerously close to JBJ's perception of them.
I do not believe, nor do I disbelieve, the notion of a deity or deities, supreme or multifarious. I find no need to invoke such a notion in attempting to understand the universe nor do I find a need to disprove the notion. Essentially, I find the question of the existence of deities to be irrelevant. What I do need to address about it, as an anthropologist, is the apparent need of people to create their deities and then fight about it.
As a student in a parochial school I was taught that "God created man in his own image and likeness;" as an anthropologist who has studied comparative religion, I find that it would be far more accurate to declare that it is the other way around.[/[/I]QUOTE]
~~~
Thank you Tio...interesting...but I find I must question the assertion in your paragraph, that you find 'no need'...it is my contention that every rational person with the mental ability to question his existence must either pose the question or accept an existing belief concerning the meaning and purpose of his existence. That, I offer, is what makes us human, sentient, and full of questions.
Anthropology indeed! Yet even today we are witnessing a continuation of the Muslim/Christian conflict that is centuries old.
I did my bit on comparative religions also...long ago...education enlightens, so they say, and it lit up a path away from religion for me because of the triviality and general silliness of rituals and such.
But then...age, has made me more tolerant of my fellow man and his penchant for deities. I have said, on this forum, at least a dozen times, that the lower half of the Bell Curve of the human Intelligent quotient, a full one out of every two humans that ever lived, are mentally incapable of cognitive thought to the degree of dismissing a deity as a guiding force in life.
That satisfies my curiosity as to why, in this day and age, so many cling to faith when it is so evidently a false faith.
A pleasure.....
Amicus
That's your choice then. As well as mine.
Oh, Ami, isn't this just one of those times when we miss Colleen T?
To my mind, you ask the wrong question. For several millenia we, homus erectus (no pun intended), have been trying to rationalize the concepts of birth, life and death with infinity - and failing. Neither Darwin or Galileo answered the question of what happened "before".
Cats, dogs and the rest of the animal world are oblivious to the conundrum of why living beings are mortal but the universe is infinite. It started with a big bang? Then what was there before?
From Gaia through all the changing identies of deities we look to find an explanation of infinity. That is all religion is.
I have no belief that one day I will sit on a cloud looking down on my descendants but no-one has answered the questions of why the universe is there, what was there before it and what will be there after it.
From mystic belief to the creationists we have tried to analyze things against a cradle to grave reality - and failed.
Given all our scientific advances, we haven't intellectually understood infinity.[/QUOTE]
~~~
Can't and won't argue with a single thing you said, Elfin, and thank you. However....
I would suggest that the reason there is such a word as, 'infinity', and beneath that, the 'concept' of infinity, is the reason we are human and curious. Had we not such a word, we would invent it....
Infinity can mean something as simple as a circle; without beginning or end, or as complex as the Universe and multiple 'big bangs'.
I do not think we have failed; quite the opposite, I think we have succeeded magnificently and are still taking giant steps for mankind each time we solve and comprehend another aspect of existence.
I am going to dwell on your Post for a moment longer; not for something you said, but for something you did not.
Each and every human is and will be subject to tragedy in life. There will be the sadness when our parents age and pass on; there is pain when illness disables or takes a child or a loved one. The horrors of war and senseless crime bring agony to countless millions.
I have watched the birth of five of my children, I was out to sea when the first one arrived. The 'miracle of birth', the coming together and conception of an unique human being, different from all the billions before and after, the long, painful and dangerous time of growth in the womb and the final arrival of a perfect little human being, is an emotional event of the first magnitude for all involved.
I have held my wife's hand and soothed the perspiration from her brow as she labored to deliver a child and therein are lessons learned about love, bonding, understanding, and yes, faith of a sorts, that all will end well.
Intellectually, we are helpless to alter or influence those natural events of life; it is how we deal with good fortune and bad that determines who we are, what our character is and how we address our fellow humans who are all in the same circumstances.
We cannot analyze tragedy, but we have progressed far beyond the early days of man when half of all children born did not survive their first year and a woman's lifespan was under 30 years, on the average, due in part to repeated pregnancies.
The medical science of man has so extended human life that we are now faced with the problem of an aging society and how to deal with the seniors in our mix. But we will figure that out and we will reach a humane answer that addresses the many issues involved.
I think a psychologically healthy human being must have a 'sense of life' that overlooks the frailty and failures of man and cherishes, even worships, the successes we, as a species, have enjoyed.
See there, ya got me to wax poetic for a moment....shame on you!
ami
That's what I keep on saying. I DO NOT have a capacity for belief in gods.
If people who did believe in god would keep that to themselves, we would all get along just fine.
Tio_Narratore;36472371[I said:]I have some sympathy with Amicus' position, but have too often found Atheists "believing" in the non-existence of any form of deity. That does put them dangerously close to JBJ's perception of them.
I do not believe, nor do I disbelieve, the notion of a deity or deities, supreme or multifarious. I find no need to invoke such a notion in attempting to understand the universe nor do I find a need to disprove the notion. Essentially, I find the question of the existence of deities to be irrelevant. What I do need to address about it, as an anthropologist, is the apparent need of people to create their deities and then fight about it.
As a student in a parochial school I was taught that "God created man in his own image and likeness;" as an anthropologist who has studied comparative religion, I find that it would be far more accurate to declare that it is the other way around.[/[/I]QUOTE]
~~~
Thank you Tio...interesting...but I find I must question the assertion in your paragraph, that you find 'no need'...it is my contention that every rational person with the mental ability to question his existence must either pose the question or accept an existing belief concerning the meaning and purpose of his existence. That, I offer, is what makes us human, sentient, and full of questions.
Anthropology indeed! Yet even today we are witnessing a continuation of the Muslim/Christian conflict that is centuries old.
I did my bit on comparative religions also...long ago...education enlightens, so they say, and it lit up a path away from religion for me because of the triviality and general silliness of rituals and such.
But then...age, has made me more tolerant of my fellow man and his penchant for deities. I have said, on this forum, at least a dozen times, that the lower half of the Bell Curve of the human Intelligent quotient, a full one out of every two humans that ever lived, are mentally incapable of cognitive thought to the degree of dismissing a deity as a guiding force in life.
That satisfies my curiosity as to why, in this day and age, so many cling to faith when it is so evidently a false faith.
A pleasure.....
Amicus
We may all wonder about the reason of our existence, but to wonder about the purpose is to accept, a priori, a teleological approach to the whole of the universe. At that point you have already accepted the notion of some form of 'divine' plan. I'm afraid, Amicus, that I have no need of a purpose for my existence, and, as for a reason, I accept for myself the same reason as for anything else: because it could and does.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "Anthropology, indeed!." I am even more confused by the apparent non sequitur about the continuing Muslim/Christian conflict. I can only conclude from this paragraph that I have no idea of what you think Anthropology is. I can assure you, however, that it isn't a discipline at a loss to address the question of continuing religious conflict.
