LEGERdeMAIN
New member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,516
intangible
Then what role does God play?
I consider the best appropriate title for me is ''humanist''. What is moral concerns you, your liberties and happiness, and what your actions' effects are on others' liberites and hapiness. I give credit to the human brain for being good and intelligent, and none to the supernatural.
Furhtermore, I fail to see the contemporary relevance of a ''God'' concept. Religion itself simply overrides your independant thought processes...
at least, that's how I explain it every time the question is asked... I use a similar wording as well.
I consider the best appropriate title for me is ''humanist''. What is moral concerns you, your liberties and happiness, and what your actions' effects are on others' liberites and hapiness. I give credit to the human brain for being good and intelligent, and none to the supernatural.
Furhtermore, I fail to see the contemporary relevance of a ''God'' concept. Religion itself simply overrides your independant thought processes...
at least, that's how I explain it every time the question is asked... I use a similar wording as well.
I am a humanist, I'm also a believer in God and the supernatural.
I dont believe in the dichotomy between God and Man which is perpetuated by most secular atheistic humanism, nor do I think that the "othering", with its consequence villification, demonisation or simple denial of God, the supernatural or ineffable, is useful or helpful, despite donning the guise of being open minded and scientific it is in the main the opposite and involves becoming closed off to possibilities and involves a kind of kill switch on creativity, imagination, wonder and awe.
Both a secular atheistic humanist and religious humanist could claim a reverence for life, for instance, although it would definitely not be the same thing, I dont believe that it is simple conceit or my own value judgement to suggest that the strength of the sentiment in a religious humanist would be greater, perhaps because it is less rational or logical, in the most positive sense or conception.
It is easy to say that there is no relevance of a "God" and attendent concepts, it is also pretty bold, and I think for both of these reasons it will remain a popular thing to do.
On the other hand I seriously do believe in Voltaire's maxim that if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him, I do not consider that theism is something which mankind will abandon in due course of its maturation, I actually think that way about atheism, mankind is at a sort of "difficult stage" like the "adventurous phase" in adolescence during which young people will reject parental authority, protection or values.
I'm less worried about the idea that God doesnt exist than the likelihood that God might simply give up upon humankind and decide it is unworthy of attention or "believing in" and the earth and humankind is left, a rock, peopled by cosmically insignificant beings, tumbling in space, without any meaning or point at all.
Canberra is designed from the God's eye view. So the design of Canberra makes sense from 7,000 feet.
This remind me that I should go again to the place where landscape urbanism was born. Victor, what do you think of Griffin's plan, by the way? -since you already mentioned it several times-
Rather than being designed totally for the pleasure of the birds or, as you said of the large Eye in the Sky, it is supposed to adapt its perspectives to every hill, to every stream and every possible topographical feature of the site. And this was rather new, especially in the 1911 historical and cultural context.
As a citizen of Canberra, what is your real opinion since this design seems so important for you?
Sorry, guys. The only True God is Candy-Unicorn. I dare any one of you to prove me wrong.
/totally logical
I agree with the highlighted, but "secular atheistic humanists" are not the only ones perpetuating the God/Man dichotomy. I also agree substantially with Pickledoctopus:I dont believe in the dichotomy between God and Man which is perpetuated by most secular atheistic humanism, nor do I think that the "othering", with its consequence villification, demonisation or simple denial of God, the supernatural or ineffable, is useful or helpful, despite donning the guise of being open minded and scientific it is in the main the opposite and involves becoming closed off to possibilities and involves a kind of kill switch on creativity, imagination, wonder and awe.
It would help greatly if believers would concentrate on practice rather than preaching. Setting an example goes far, and is far less intrusive and counterproductive.All the energy wasted on religion an the cult of a god could be turned towards helping humanity advance as a species, towards being good based on helping others and helping yourself... religion today has been deformed into a relentless, delusional cult for a part of the population. Not a belief in a god. I speak of the practice of religion itself, which presents itself as a human invention.
I don't feel hurt over it, but agree entirely, especially with the last paragraph. Humans think and feel, and make value judgments. These abilities should and do work together, resulting in better decisions than were any to be employed alone. Religion and spirituality are not exempt from the operation of any of them.However, I feel a bit hurt that you assume that belief in a god affects people's respect for life. You speak of humanism. Fundamentally, religious or not, all varieties of humanism are based on the same values: utmost respect for human life and liberty. I fail to see the connection between belief and value attributed to life. If anything, I could claim that secular humanism values life more, because it presumes that we are the ''only thing we've got'', and assumes that with no life after death, life on earth becomes even more precious.
Also, there is no positive way to attempt to degrade rationality. I don't think I am incapable of feeling strongly about an issue simply because I desire my conclusions to be logical. If anything, I could claim I feel even more strongly about these issues, because I find rational justifications to support my ''feelings'' on the subject, creating stronger connections.
The concept of a god is not irrelevant to me; in fact I have spiritual faith myself. I also see much wisdom and truth in your remarks. I feel the same way, but from a different perspective, if that even makes any sense. I will share my beliefs when the subject comes up, and sometimes enjoy discussions of religion (provided they remain civil). I just don't feel compelled to persuade others to accept them, or to make them into something they are not.Lastly, your assumption that without God, we would be but ''a rock, peopled by cosmically insignificant beings, tumbling in space, without any meaning or point at all'' implies humanity is insignificant and worthless from the get-go, without a superior power to guide it. Again, I feel hurt that you think of humanity in that way. For all humanity has done wrong, we've certainly been able to accomplish great things, and all the credit goes to the people responsible. Furthermore, from my point of view, the fact that we are just a small part of the whole Universe inspires me to work, it inspires awe, it inspires admiration, as much as your god would to you.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because the concept itself of a god is irrelevant to me, my life is devoid of meaning, or admiration, or feels insignificant. Humans are te most significant and meaningful thing I have ever witnessed.