[Cooligan]

Dhampir, on Feb 6 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

...Must it have been created because you find it beautiful, or do you find it beautiful because it was created? No, it's not a stupid or trick question.

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created. Good question.

[Deva]

Quote

And through this process I managed to piss off an old man, which I feel bad about. Although, it sounds like he may be pissed off most of the time.

I am older than he is. He has a low tolerence level for stupidity, which I can fully appreciate.

Quote

it appears we have two options. One: we are born with a wonderment of nature, through evolution or whatever. Or two: there is something about nature that makes it beautiful, at its core. And not every part of nature to everyone, but something in it for everyone.

I just don't understand why you have to see it as two options. I never like situations set up as "two options". I don't understand why we can't just appreciate (or not) what is in "the world" without all the mental stuff, the speculations. Why, in this issue of aesthetics, does it interest you that atheists do or do not see beauty in nature?

If you are asking where the aesthetic sense originated, I would say it evolved like everything else on the planet. But who knows how far back it goes? Does my cat see a mouse or other object as beautiful? How would you know she didn't?

There isn't any surprise attack here. We just don't like Christianity and you must know that. And we don't like round about ways of bringing the Bible God into the conversation.

[Grandpa Harley]

Care to point out where ANYONE has said that 'it's intrinsically beautiful' on this thread, other than you? Really, god boy, you don't count since you arrived with that opinion...

and I'm pretty tolerant of most thing, but when someone is trying to corral agreement for a prejudice, I get pissy since it's an insult to our collective intelligence... some form of appreciation of the environment seems to be inherent in organisms, but that does not mean that, something is beautiful in of itself... Do I find the Hubble Deep Field picture 'beautiful' - yes... is it pretty to all oberservers? No... my wife thinks it's a dull image that would be much improved by application of non visible light filters... it's impressive, but not something she'd vare to have hung on the wall... both views are correct... but the image (and the reality) is not objectively beautiful... and that is pretty well what's been said to you, and then you're trying to worm it round so it agrees with your idea... well, thus far NO FUCKER HAS AGREED... and simply restating the question isn't going to change that...

and you're not telling the truth on the 'convince anyone of anything' since you're clearly trying to re-word the question for SOMEONE to agree...

[Grandpa Harley]

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Dhampir, on Feb 6 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

...Must it have been created because you find it beautiful, or do you find it beautiful because it was created? No, it's not a stupid or trick question.

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created. Good question.

and it is intrinsically beautiful HOW?

[Deva]

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created.

I would like to hear your explanation for this statement.

[Grandpa Harley]

Deva, on Feb 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created.

I would like to hear your explanation for this statement.

I just lost the will to live...

[Deva]

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

Deva, on Feb 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created.

I would like to hear your explanation for this statement.

I just lost the will to live...

Sorry Gramps, I just can't help it

[Grandpa Harley]

NO, when he said it, not when you asked... it meant he was going to explain it whether anyone asked or not... I mean... not one of us thinks it's going to be anything either convincing or original...

[Cooligan]

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Care to point out where ANYONE has said that 'it's intrinsically beautiful' on this thread, other than you?

No one, only me.

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

and I'm pretty tolerant of most thing, but when someone is trying to corral agreement for a prejudice, I get pissy since it's an insult to our collective intelligence... some form of appreciation of the environment seems to be inherent in organisms, but that does not mean that, something is beautiful in of itself... Do I find the Hubble Deep Field picture 'beautiful' - yes... is it pretty to all oberservers? No... my wife thinks it's a dull image that would be much improved by application of non visible light filters... it's impressive, but not something she'd vare to have hung on the wall... both views are correct... but the image (and the reality) is not objectively beautiful... and that is pretty well what's been said to you, and then you're trying to worm it round so it agrees with your idea... well, thus far NO FUCKER HAS AGREED... and simply restating the question isn't going to change that...

I restate the question because I'm in a constant state of understanding and changing my own stance, and I want to ask a question that better reflects what I believe.

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

and you're not telling the truth on the 'convince anyone of anything' since you're clearly trying to re-word the question for SOMEONE to agree...

I'm not, and I can't, prove anything I'm saying, mostly because beauty is subjective. I guess I would like someone to agree with me, but just because they agree with me, not because I made them.

[Deva]

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

NO, when he said it, not when you asked... it meant he was going to explain it whether anyone asked or not... I mean... not one of us thinks it's going to be anything either convincing or original...

OK, Yes I am sure you are right. I know I am going to hear it and really I can hardly wait.

[Cooligan]

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Dhampir, on Feb 6 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

...Must it have been created because you find it beautiful, or do you find it beautiful because it was created? No, it's not a stupid or trick question.

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created. Good question.

and it is intrinsically beautiful HOW?

I think it is intrinsically beautiful because I would bet every human has found at least one part of nature to be beautiful.

I didn't write this with the intent to be convincing or original, as I didn't know that was a requirement for this forum. I wanted to engage people in conversation. Feel free to not read anything more I have to say.

[Deva]

Quote

I think it is intrinsically beautiful because I would bet every human has found at least one part of nature to be beautiful.

There is so much variation in humans that I wouldn't use the term "every human". You say you are here not to prove anything, but why get on a website for ex-christians and start promoting a creator? You are very well aware there are atheists here. You should be prepared to back up your statements with some facts or face some fire. This is common sense.

[Dhampir]

Cooligan said:

QUOTE (Grandpa Harley @ Feb 6 2008, 02:56 PM) *
QUOTE (Cooligan @ Feb 6 2008, 06:51 PM) *
QUOTE (Dhampir @ Feb 6 2008, 02:48 PM) *
...Must it have been created because you find it beautiful, or do you find it beautiful because it was created? No, it's not a stupid or trick question.



Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created. Good question.


and it is intrinsically beautiful HOW?


I think it is intrinsically beautiful because I would bet every human has found at least one part of nature to be beautiful.

I didn't write this with the intent to be convincing or original, as I didn't know that was a requirement for this forum. I wanted to engage people in conversation. Feel free to not read anything more I have to say.

So essentially your inference that nature is beautiful because god created it, and us to appreciate it, is only that, an inference? Not evidence at all, and certainly not proof of your claim.

I have a better question then: If god created nature, and he created us, is nature even beautiful at all? Or do we say it is because we have been created (in part) to marvel at god's work? That is, were we created to think it is beautiful, rather than it was created to BE what we think it is?

This post has been edited by Dhampir: 06 February 2008 - 07:30 PM

[Ouroboros]

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

So, when I look at a snowcapped mountain or a forest of redwoods, it isn't actually beautiful, I just think it is?

Kind of correct, but not completely. Think about it.

If you could travel to another planet with some alien life form. They have some art that just doesn't make sense to you. They claim it is perfect and beautiful beyond comprehension, but you think it stinks. Who is right? Your emotions, or their emotions? In either case it is subjective and not a universal beauty.

Do you think or feel a burnt forest is beautiful or is it ugly? If either or, why?

Another thing, I don't say: "I think it is beautiful", emotions are a part of human nature. You (as many Christians) want to remove emotions as a possible construct for people who don't feel belief in a fantasy God. That is not the same thing. To not to believe in imaginary friends does not automatically means that emotions are gone. We feel, we bleed, and have emotions just as much as people with religious delusions. It's part of human nature.

So when you say "I don't feel but think it is beautiful" it already show that you don't understand the difference. To feel that something is beautiful does not necessitate a rational argument, or fact based, to why we feel such and such is beautiful. I don't know if you understand this. The human is composed by more things than just rational thought and basic needs for food and drink. Biological responses and chemicals in our body do happen, that's a fact, so we do feel, even without thinking about it.

[Ouroboros]

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

The question, on an objective level, is like asking what does blue taste of...

And what color is sweet?

[The-Captain]

HanSolo, on Feb 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

The question, on an objective level, is like asking what does blue taste of...

And what color is sweet?

Fuzzy...

[R. S. Martin]

Madame M, on Feb 6 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Do you think humans are born with a natural inclination to enjoy their surroundings, or is nature really something special? Are some of you disappointed that nature isn't more beautiful?

Then what happened with the deserts, did god get bored. I absolutely detest the desert. I find it hot, ugly, dry and dull. So therefore, since I find no appreciation of the desert, god must no exist. Yet again, I think the ocean is marvelous even though it has the sand factor, so there must be a god. I don't know quite what you are asking, are you saying that the way nature looks and our ability to appreciate beauty proves there is a god? I can't ever remember looking around at a beautiful view and thinking, "wow there must be a god because this is awesome." Not even when I was a christian.

I've never seen a moutain or desert. I've lived all my life in a very fertile area of the country where the wild takes over any abandoned site in short order. Depending on the time of year and conditions, only a matter of weeks is required for the first greenery to appear. You can imagine what cultivated gardens and parks look like. Or conservation areas left to thrive at the natural pace.

Whenever I asked my mother how we know God is real she would insist all we have to do is look at nature. I did. I loved nature. I did not understand evolution and I assumed it's horrible and evil and ugly because that was all I ever heard. But never in my deepest heart of hearts could I convince myself that the natural beauty with which I found myself surrounded either in the lush green of spring or golden blue and white of winter that God was the reason for its existence.

This was in the 60s and 70s before powerfull electrical lights dimmed the stars out where we lived and I could see the stars in all their glory--what I could see with my very low vision. I loved the stars on a dark moonless night. I loved the naturally lighted moonlit nights just as much. I loved all the different moods and types of weather and seasons. But God wasn't in any of it. God just wasn't.

I went to church and learned all the right feelings that go along with the sermons, the singing, the prayers. I learned the Bible and other religious literature. But God did not manifest himself. The feelings did not bring God. Finally I read a book that told me the feelings were God.

Wow.

If that was true then I had known God for a very long time. But nobody had ever told me that God was a feeling. Somehow, it didn't really stick. Wasn't God supposed to be a literal Being who did things like smite the Egyptians' first-born of children and animals so they would let the Israelites go? Didn't he do material stuff for them like give bread in the wilderness and send hornets to drive their enemies out of the Promised Land?

And even in my own life, wasn't he supposedly responsible for stuff like making sure I saw that car zipping around the corner before I crossed the street? My mother said so. She was always saying "A higher hand must have been watching out for us." Or "This could not have been the doing of humans" when there was a fortunate coincidence. I made it my business to figure out whether or not she was correct about coincidences, but my point here is that she was talking about material real-life stuff--not just some mystical feeling.

Whether leading the Israelites out of Egypt or looking out for people today, or demanding the sacrifice of his own son, this God was more than a mystical feeling. And the beauties of nature somehow didn't cut it as evidence of his existence. Not that I ever thought it out in logical sequence like this but I "knew" that nature wasn't the evidence I needed.

Here is the story of that test. My younger siblings came home from school with a new song they had learned:

Some people say there is no God up in the heavens
They say he did not send his son for us to die
They mock his name and to their shame they live without him
But I believe in God and I can tell you why.

That's the first verse. I held my breath. Here was someone who could tell me why they believed in god! Oh how I longed for evidence! How I clung to every word of the chorus for dear life as they sung it out:

His hand created all the stars that light the heavens
His tender touch brought forth the beauty of the rose
His love so free he gave to us that's why I praise him
My God is real--is real to me all heaven knows.

My heart was crushed in bitter, bitter disappointment. I was devasted. Another broken promise. My siblings told me there were more verses. They would get them in the following weeks when the music teacher came again. I waited in suspence, not daring to tell anyone the intensity of my longing for an answer. Such deep, deep doubt about God's existence was simply not permissible. I had to bear it all alone, keep it all inside. And I pretended there was nothing wrong.

Time passed and they brought home the rest of the song. The other verses were more of the same. Just proclamations of God making the beauties of nature and the stupidity of anyone not believing it. Promise of explanation left devastatingly void and empty.

Cooligan, I hope you understand by this story, along with everyone else's posts, that your argument carries absolutely no weight and no water.

Also, it is quite evident by your repeated questions to Grandpa Harley (after he fully and completely answered every last one of your questions) that you intend to keep after us till you trip and trap us in our words and get a confession out of us that yes God does exist because just look at his wonderful creation. Cooligan, get this straight, that won't happen. You'll get ripped to shreds and eaten alive before that happens.

[Ouroboros]

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

What if everyone in the world, past, present and future, agreed that sunsets are beautiful, then are they beautiful?

It's a limited objective truth, but not necessarily a universal truth.

Are sunsets on Alpha Prime-X also beautiful? They must be universally and objectively so or not, so tell me, since you somehow think you it can be known.

By the way, which one of the sunsets are you talking about? The one yesterday, last week when it was raining, or 20,000 years ago, or for the people on some exploding volcano? Is really, truly, every sunset, all the time, everywhere always beautiful? What about Los Angeles smog filled air with a yellow setting? Or when it is a storm and you can't see shit, but people are freezing to death? Sure, everyone will sit down, and imagine the sunset being really nice, while people die next to them. You see, it's no fixed point or fact based conclusion to say "sunsets are all beautiful, everywhere, and everytime."

[Grandpa Harley]

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Grandpa Harley, on Feb 6 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Cooligan, on Feb 6 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Dhampir, on Feb 6 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

...Must it have been created because you find it beautiful, or do you find it beautiful because it was created? No, it's not a stupid or trick question.

Because it is beautiful, I think it must have been created. Good question.

and it is intrinsically beautiful HOW?

I think it is intrinsically beautiful because I would bet every human has found at least one part of nature to be beautiful.

I didn't write this with the intent to be convincing or original, as I didn't know that was a requirement for this forum. I wanted to engage people in conversation. Feel free to not read anything more I have to say.

So, consensus is fact? So there there was a time the world was flat, or it was flat and rode on the back of four elephants on the back of a giant turtle... but which ever 'everyone' believed it to be so the sun did go round the earth that was at the centre of the universe, except when the sun was pushed across the sky by a giant dung beetle, or it was a flaming boat pursuing the moon... get the jist?

And as to 'original' if you don't want your arse handed to you on a plate with a side order of fries, anything much to do with the God of the bible, no matter how you read it, better be at least amusing... there is about 100 to 150 years of Christianity among the people posting on this thread, so, we've pretty much heard is all before...

[R. S. Martin]

Since we're on the topic of beauty, just to prove that it is totally subjective and in the eye of the beholder. No offense to anyone but I personally do not find the human body--any part of it--aesthetically appealing. I can tolerate face and hands but I want the other parts covered so I can concentrate on the person that lives inside. That, of course, would make the cooler months the better time of year for me aesthetically. However, I don't want to move north with winter. I value humans so much that I have disciplined myself to focus on what is meaningful for me regardless of how little or how much of their body people choose to cover.

I'm not sure if that adds or detracts from this discussion, but I think, Hans, you have an excellent point when you say: To feel that something is beautiful does not necessitate a rational argument, or fact based, to why we feel such and such is beautiful.

I think fundies have a serious problem in most areas of their lives to differentiate between feelings and thought. They rationalize everything, even their feelings. If they think their feelings don't measure up to a certain criteria they think they are sinning. Thus, they are so out of touch with their feelings that they have no idea who they really are. This is, I believe, why Cooligan has such a seriously difficult time understanding our answers. It seems he is trying to cross-examine us and see what we really believe because he can't believe that we really believe what we are saying; it just doesn't fit the template of atheists inside his head--the template his church passed down to him. And he can't--absolutely dare not--accept the plain truth as it appears to him. He has to keep prodding and seeking till he comes up with an alternative idea to explain away the plain truth so as to fit the inner template. That's just the way the fundy mind works.

So maybe he believes in evolution. It seems these days one can believe in evolution and still be fundy. Heck, you can be atheist and be fundy. Read up on Hans's post about the different types of atheism if you don't believe it.