Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends

[Avocado]

I dont really share the view of the scriptures you do, although I was suggesting that getting hung up on the literalism and solo scripture is deeply mistaken.

If you consider some significant atheists from long ago Marx, Fuerbach or other more contemporary ones Fromm, Vernon they rightly love the text, it is a foundation text of western civilisation, influencing language, thinking, conceptualisation and mind but none of that is important to the people who belittle and dismiss it for their own reasons, usually to do with very contemporaneous experiences with very contemporaneous, and contemptably ignorant, individuals.

The struggle between bad religion and bad atheism is a perfect example of ignorant change facing off against ignorant opposition.

I agree that our world would be unrecognizable without the influence of Christianity. We would not have the same metaphors, religion would be almost completely polytheistic, and we would likely have not salvaged the treasure of knowledge from Rome, as the church did its part to hold on to ancient wisdom until science got back on its feet.

 

[Lark]

I agree that our world would be unrecognizable without the influence of Christianity. We would not have the same metaphors, religion would be almost completely polytheistic, and we would likely have not salvaged the treasure of knowledge from Rome, as the church did its part to hold on to ancient wisdom until science got back on its feet.

I think its a mistake to see science as a rival or antagonistic to roman catholicism, there are prominant jesuits in lots of research roles

 

[Luke O]

I dont really share the view of the scriptures you do, although I was suggesting that getting hung up on the literalism and solo scripture is deeply mistaken.

If you consider some significant atheists from long ago Marx, Fuerbach or other more contemporary ones Fromm, Vernon they rightly love the text, it is a foundation text of western civilisation, influencing language, thinking, conceptualisation and mind but none of that is important to the people who belittle and dismiss it for their own reasons, usually to do with very contemporaneous experiences with very contemporaneous, and contemptably ignorant, individuals.

The struggle between bad religion and bad atheism is a perfect example of ignorant change facing off against ignorant opposition.

It has been a while since I read the Bible, and yes I do accept that it is a significant part of Western civilisation, from both a cultural and legal point of view.

When I decided to become Atheist, it wasn't due to me deciding the Bible wasn't the truth I was taught, but a variety of factors - also, reading any Atheist literature came afterwards (even then, I haven't read a lot - I've still to read anything by Richard Dawkins for example).

As for bad Atheism, my principles don't fit with Marx, I used to hang out with Marxists for a while and felt completely out of place. The insurgence of Right Wing Atheism recently leaves a bitter taste in my mouth also. I don't hesitate to correct other Atheists where necessary...

 

[Jaguar]

How many times are you going to ask that? YOU define God, you nutty cat!

1. As many times as it needs to be asked to gain clarity in a post.
2. I don't need to define a term for clarity that I did not use in my post.

If someone posts: "What has God given you?" from my perspective, there's nothing nutty about asking what the heck they're referring to.

 

[Lark]

It has been a while since I read the Bible, and yes I do accept that it is a significant part of Western civilisation, from both a cultural and legal point of view.

When I decided to become Atheist, it wasn't due to me deciding the Bible wasn't the truth I was taught, but a variety of factors - also, reading any Atheist literature came afterwards (even then, I haven't read a lot - I've still to read anything by Richard Dawkins for example).

As for bad Atheism, my principles don't fit with Marx, I used to hang out with Marxists for a while and felt completely out of place. The insurgence of Right Wing Atheism recently leaves a bitter taste in my mouth also. I don't hesitate to correct other Atheists where necessary...

I dont know why you'd consider Marx or Marxism bad atheism.

I'm not sure about right wing atheism, I'd assume that's objectivism like Ayn Rand's thinking.

 

[Luke O]

I dont know why you'd consider Marx or Marxism bad atheism.

I'm not sure about right wing atheism, I'd assume that's objectivism like Ayn Rand's thinking.

Atheism with added extras is sometimes marred by those added extras...

 

[Lark]

Atheism with added extras is sometimes marred by those added extras...

To be honest, whether its religion or irreligion, to my mind its the supposed added extras which really matter.

How you gonna act? You know?

 

[Luke O]

To be honest, whether its religion or irreligion, to my mind its the supposed added extras which really matter.

How you gonna act? You know?

It's difficult to avoid the added extras with religion. I tend to keep away from the added stuff, essentially it's more rules to follow, and I don't like extra rules to follow anyway.

 

[Lark]

It's difficult to avoid the added extras with religion. I tend to keep away from the added stuff, essentially it's more rules to follow, and I don't like extra rules to follow anyway.

Yeah, no one seems to place any values upon rules or rule bound behaviour anymore, a lot of those rules are the product of centuries of experience and learning, wanting to do without them is like wanting society to descend to something like the disorders featured in movies like 50 first dates or Memento, constantly reinventing the wheel, locked constant, painful relearning each generation or even more frequently than that, failing to learn from history because there's no history to learn from or none which doesnt feel like a betrayal of principle for scrutinising for direction in the first place.

Its not a matter of valuing those things because they are familiar, seem sensible, work or possess a more "concrete" or "practical" character either, I'm not even sure that its a matter of shared institutions as external to the self are a surer means of achieving adjustment, adaptation and happiness than the internal self, its logically superior to use the wheel than reinvent it daily, a matter of calculation and judgement.

To be honest where it not for the questions and answers which stem from conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God, which are the "added extras" or "rules", then I dont see why it would matter at all, I dont see why anyone would give it any thought what so ever, in fact it would be about as important as questions about what's your favourite Marvel or DC hero or what's your favourite colour.

Description for most people involves prescription and isnt a stand alone academic issue.

 

[Luke O]

Yeah, no one seems to place any values upon rules or rule bound behaviour anymore, a lot of those rules are the product of centuries of experience and learning, wanting to do without them is like wanting society to descend to something like the disorders featured in movies like 50 first dates or Memento, constantly reinventing the wheel, locked constant, painful relearning each generation or even more frequently than that, failing to learn from history because there's no history to learn from or none which doesnt feel like a betrayal of principle for scrutinising for direction in the first place.

Its not a matter of valuing those things because they are familiar, seem sensible, work or possess a more "concrete" or "practical" character either, I'm not even sure that its a matter of shared institutions as external to the self are a surer means of achieving adjustment, adaptation and happiness than the internal self, its logically superior to use the wheel than reinvent it daily, a matter of calculation and judgement.

To be honest where it not for the questions and answers which stem from conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God, which are the "added extras" or "rules", then I dont see why it would matter at all, I dont see why anyone would give it any thought what so ever, in fact it would be about as important as questions about what's your favourite Marvel or DC hero or what's your favourite colour.

Description for most people involves prescription and isnt a stand alone academic issue.

I agree, some rules are good, some rules are the props that keep civilisation going, anything else can be changed to help civilisation develop (e.g. things like allowing same-sex marriage). I'm not proposing to reinvent the wheel, merely to build upon it and make it better. As for knowledge, it should be preserved and improved (which may involve questioning that knowledge). After all, questioning knowledge got us away from things like the four humours, geocentrism et al.

 

[Lark]

I agree, some rules are good, some rules are the props that keep civilisation going, anything else can be changed to help civilisation develop (e.g. things like allowing same-sex marriage). I'm not proposing to reinvent the wheel, merely to build upon it and make it better. As for knowledge, it should be preserved and improved (which may involve questioning that knowledge). After all, questioning knowledge got us away from things like the four humours, geocentrism et al.

I tend towards tradition more than innovation these days, I think a reflective conservatism is good when it comes to the memory which rules reflect, call it preserving if conservatism seems too politically partisan.

I'm not sure that "allow" is the proper way to look at the topic of "same sex marriage", that's not permissable, its not within the gift of society or, properly understood, the state, to do that or it should not be. People are going to live as they always have, think as they always have, perhaps radical actions like this will provoke ill feeling which never existed before and will only serve to alienate or build antagonism towards those it is intended to benefit. Its not going to prove satisfactory to its advocates, it sure wont to its detractors and it will serve to deepen divisions not mend fences and build bridges or dispel bigotry, never mind more radical goals like social acceptance, spreading or popularising homosexuality or compensate for earlier familial rejection which I personally believe is the real, personal, driver behind that sort of political campaign.

I've no problem at all with anyone believing they can or will or should improve upon the past, who would? That's something no one would reject right?

Well, anything which seems like there's no reason at all to have second thoughts or caution about should be the exact thing to be cautious about, history is full of those sorts of "great ideas" and the suffering which they caused, hindsight is twenty, twenty but foresight isnt.

Questioning is fine but more often than not people are just dismissing anything which doesnt fit with what they imagine can only be a good thing. Avoidable suffering ensues. And that's the worst sort of suffering.

 

[Avocado]

I tend towards tradition more than innovation these days, I think a reflective conservatism is good when it comes to the memory which rules reflect, call it preserving if conservatism seems too politically partisan.

I'm not sure that "allow" is the proper way to look at the topic of "same sex marriage", that's not permissable, its not within the gift of society or, properly understood, the state, to do that or it should not be. People are going to live as they always have, think as they always have, perhaps radical actions like this will provoke ill feeling which never existed before and will only serve to alienate or build antagonism towards those it is intended to benefit. Its not going to prove satisfactory to its advocates, it sure wont to its detractors and it will serve to deepen divisions not mend fences and build bridges or dispel bigotry, never mind more radical goals like social acceptance, spreading or popularising homosexuality or compensate for earlier familial rejection which I personally believe is the real, personal, driver behind that sort of political campaign.

I've no problem at all with anyone believing they can or will or should improve upon the past, who would? That's something no one would reject right?

Well, anything which seems like there's no reason at all to have second thoughts or caution about should be the exact thing to be cautious about, history is full of those sorts of "great ideas" and the suffering which they caused, hindsight is twenty, twenty but foresight isnt.

Questioning is fine but more often than not people are just dismissing anything which doesnt fit with what they imagine can only be a good thing. Avoidable suffering ensues. And that's the worst sort of suffering.

While I disagree with the premise that we should not allow same-sex couples to marry, I agree that people will continue to live as they always have, possible cyborg invasions notwithstanding. Love takes individual effort, and that is why changes should be slow and gradual and not push people too hard, too fast to accept others.

 

[Luke O]

I tend towards tradition more than innovation these days, I think a reflective conservatism is good when it comes to the memory which rules reflect, call it preserving if conservatism seems too politically partisan.

I'm not sure that "allow" is the proper way to look at the topic of "same sex marriage", that's not permissable, its not within the gift of society or, properly understood, the state, to do that or it should not be. People are going to live as they always have, think as they always have, perhaps radical actions like this will provoke ill feeling which never existed before and will only serve to alienate or build antagonism towards those it is intended to benefit. Its not going to prove satisfactory to its advocates, it sure wont to its detractors and it will serve to deepen divisions not mend fences and build bridges or dispel bigotry, never mind more radical goals like social acceptance, spreading or popularising homosexuality or compensate for earlier familial rejection which I personally believe is the real, personal, driver behind that sort of political campaign.

I've no problem at all with anyone believing they can or will or should improve upon the past, who would? That's something no one would reject right?

Well, anything which seems like there's no reason at all to have second thoughts or caution about should be the exact thing to be cautious about, history is full of those sorts of "great ideas" and the suffering which they caused, hindsight is twenty, twenty but foresight isnt.

Questioning is fine but more often than not people are just dismissing anything which doesnt fit with what they imagine can only be a good thing. Avoidable suffering ensues. And that's the worst sort of suffering.

"Conservatism" as a term should be about keeping things the same, whereas modern Conservatism appears to be to be about rolling back previous changes to hark back to a previous era, so I see your point.

With regards to the speed of change, that's up to the political systems of our respective countries, changes usually take some time to get through and only if approved by filtering through how many series of bickering and filibustering politicians in the first place (and via your head of state, if applicable). To be honest, it does concern me when I hear about things like legislation being rushed through, as it doesn't seem like it has gone through the proper process. Other than that, I'm glad I live in a democracy than the systems the rest of the world have to put up with.

 

[á´…eparted]

I tend towards tradition more than innovation these days, I think a reflective conservatism is good when it comes to the memory which rules reflect, call it preserving if conservatism seems too politically partisan.

I'm not sure that "allow" is the proper way to look at the topic of "same sex marriage", that's not permissable, its not within the gift of society or, properly understood, the state, to do that or it should not be. People are going to live as they always have, think as they always have, perhaps radical actions like this will provoke ill feeling which never existed before and will only serve to alienate or build antagonism towards those it is intended to benefit. Its not going to prove satisfactory to its advocates, it sure wont to its detractors and it will serve to deepen divisions not mend fences and build bridges or dispel bigotry, never mind more radical goals like social acceptance, spreading or popularising homosexuality or compensate for earlier familial rejection which I personally believe is the real, personal, driver behind that sort of political campaign.

I've no problem at all with anyone believing they can or will or should improve upon the past, who would? That's something no one would reject right?

Well, anything which seems like there's no reason at all to have second thoughts or caution about should be the exact thing to be cautious about, history is full of those sorts of "great ideas" and the suffering which they caused, hindsight is twenty, twenty but foresight isnt.

Questioning is fine but more often than not people are just dismissing anything which doesnt fit with what they imagine can only be a good thing. Avoidable suffering ensues. And that's the worst sort of suffering.

[MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION], you're slacking.

 

[Lark]

"Conservatism" as a term should be about keeping things the same, whereas modern Conservatism appears to be to be about rolling back previous changes to hark back to a previous era, so I see your point.

With regards to the speed of change, that's up to the political systems of our respective countries, changes usually take some time to get through and only if approved by filtering through how many series of bickering and filibustering politicians in the first place (and via your head of state, if applicable). To be honest, it does concern me when I hear about things like legislation being rushed through, as it doesn't seem like it has gone through the proper process. Other than that, I'm glad I live in a democracy than the systems the rest of the world have to put up with.

What is referred to at political conservatism cant even claim to be methodologically conservative anymore, it is very, very radical and very, very ideological in character, its golden age did not exist for the most part and therefore return to the same is unfeasible, most of its economic and other policies are reflections of over simplistic value judgements and single minded resolve to defend without challenge its core constituency of the very rich. No real conservative I believe would recognise it.

Democracy is the worst system, until you consider all alternatives, as Churchill would say, to be honest I dont believe that any society and any political system has mastered dealing with change and dont expect any to, individuals are not good at it and systems are made up of individuals.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Democracy is the worst system, until you consider all alternatives, as Churchill would say, to be honest I dont believe that any society and any political system has mastered dealing with change and dont expect any to, individuals are not good at it and systems are made up of individuals.

IMO, individuals can be good at dealing with change. It is groups that are usually bad at it.

I shall leave you with a quote from an authority on the subject, the 1997 motion picture Men In Black:

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

 

[Lark]

Science & Religion: Beyond the Ham-Nye Rye Sandwich