Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Vigile]

Gramps, you forgot Saint Frank's "I can imagine perfection, ala it must exist." Compelling argument that one.

[Ouroboros]

AAargh! I'm undone!

Ah, sweet victory.

 

OK, I concede! You win. I was ok as long as we only had one planet, but now I'm screwed. Aliens!

As long as they'r not like the one in the movie with the same name.

 

I've always been partial (emotionally, at least) to life on other planets. It seems like such a waste of real estate otherwise.

Agree. There are more black holes in the Universe than there have been humanoids on this planet, so one might thing that this universe isn't fine tuned for life, but rather for black holes and stars.

 

I was a sci fi reader as a kid, and always hoped at least some of it would eventually come true. It has, obviously, thanks to Al Gore's invention of the internet , but I'm still waiting for the aliens.

Coffee, then work.

Buddy

I'm just hoping I live long enough for the first public space transportations. I'd like to step my feet on another planet before I die.

[Ouroboros]

Hans,

Talk about the roll of the "cosmic" dice!

If you roll billions of galaxies (with god (pun intended Buddy) knows how many solar systems and planets), chances are that organisms somewhere would have made the correct sequences of mutations and evolved into "higher" life forms.

If (just to be sure I don't sound too certain here) there are other universes, and if there is an infinite number of them, then the chances are almost 1:1, regarless of the rate of mutations on this local finite space.

 

Freeman,

That's how God created the Borg; thought you knew.

Buddy

With the emerging singularity and transhumanism... we are becoming the borgs. (And we're not talking about the Swedish tennis player.)

 

 

Well, Christians say about Atheists that 'you can't prove a negative' The Atheist doesn't have to prove a negative since what he/she wants is the Theist/Deist/Westboro member to prove a positive... and the concept of an all powerful, all knowing, extrinsic, objective God should be like pretty easy to prove as a positive... which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened save by a-priori assumptions like 'It's all TOO complex to have happened by an accident or happy chance' which usually means 'I failed maths and physics at school, and biology was mostly about abstinence'...

Right. "We don't know, therefore God." Which is the famous "goddidit" argument. But it would work to say "We don't know, therefore another God", or "We don't know, therefore no God." But unfortunately most theists can't see that. It's just words and non sequitor logic, so the thought process behind it is nil.

 

So now to more important arguments ... "I don't know, therefore I need coffee"....

[Grandpa Harley]

Gramps, you forgot Saint Frank's "I can imagine perfection, ala it must exist." Compelling argument that one.

 

It that's true... then what one can imagine is true... then we're in REAL shit... Ia, Ia Azathoth!

[Kuroikaze]

I assume your remark was intended as just rhetorical, Dan, but yes God has answered prayers. I don't have any easy answers for why we suffer the things we do, nor for why some suffer and others don't. I take it your own experience was frustrating; much of my early experience was frustrating for me including some personally painful times. Both peace and clarity eluded me for years. I'm afraid I don't have much to offer on the painful questions.

Buddy

 

 

I guess, in a nut shell, this explains why you are still a Christian and I am not. I am the type of person who HAS to know the answers, I'm just not comfortable believing something if I can't even make sense of what I believe. I mean, to me these are the most important questions, and a religion that doesn't have any answers for them is impotent anyway.

 

Take a person who survives a flood like the one in Louisiana and come out praising god that he survived, on the other hand lots of other people prayed to be saved who died in the flood, but we don't hear about them of course, because they are dead.

 

You see, when a flood happens some people die and some people live...which would have happened even if no one prayed...its almost as if god did nothing...or doesn't exist. It is the logical conclusion, even if it isn't the comfortable one and I'd much rather have truth in the long run.

[freeman]

Now, this is why I love Dave the WM... He gets to the crux of the matter...

 

 

I always like to think of him as Web Master Dave or WMD - Weapon of Mass Destruction to the Fundies that is!

[dano]

I guess, in a nut shell, this explains why you are still a Christian and I am not. I am the type of person who HAS to know the answers, I'm just not comfortable believing something if I can't even make sense of what I believe. I mean, to me these are the most important questions, and a religion that doesn't have any answers for them is impotent anyway.

 

Take a person who survives a flood like the one in Louisiana and come out praising god that he survived, on the other hand lots of other people prayed to be saved who died in the flood, but we don't hear about them of course, because they are dead.

 

You see, when a flood happens some people die and some people live...which would have happened even if no one prayed...its almost as if god did nothing...or doesn't exist. It is the logical conclusion, even if it isn't the comfortable one and I'd much rather have truth in the long run.

 

Dan also:

Yea there is something deeply satisfying to see bullshit, no matter that the bullshitter be Bible God, Jesus, the pope, or any of the several billion religious cult members, and when it is totally lacking, in logic, and reasonableness, and supported by no evidence, and CALL IT BULLSHIT!

 

Very satisfying indeed!

Dan, Agnostic

[dano]

It seems funny to me, that after I know for certain that a person who says they talk to God and walks with Jesus, no matter how intelligent they sound in other discourse after that, they always look like damaged goods to me?

 

It becomes very difficult to take then seriously anymore.

 

I always wonder what they might have become, if they hadn't contracted the Christian MEME.

 

I WONDER WHY?

Dan, Agnostic

[Jun]

Ever notice how science always seems busy fixing many of "God's" blunders?

[BuddyFerris]

Well, Christians say about Atheists that 'you can't prove a negative' The Atheist doesn't have to prove a negative since what he/she wants is the Theist/Deist/Westboro member to prove a positive... and the concept of an all powerful, all knowing, extrinsic, objective God should be like pretty easy to prove as a positive... which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened save by a-priori assumptions like 'It's all TOO complex to have happened by an accident or happy chance' which usually means 'I failed maths and physics at school, and biology was mostly about abstinence'...

Hello, Grandpa.

Sorry for the delay in responding; quick trip to NC. Connectivity was worse than Africa.

 

Christians say about Atheists .... Perhaps they do, although you might be disappointed to know that the subject hasn't come up all that often in my experience. The issue of proof and proving is troublesome; the framer of the first question having defined the limits of the argument, the debate participants discussing the difficulty you propose share no common ground from which to pursue any particular direction in dialog. You might as well have a poet and a physicist debating the validity of poetic metaphor. Their world views have little if anything in common, although both are reasonably sound.

 

That's actually an interesting idea; to what does the pure rationalist attribute our response to music or art? I've heard love described by scientists as nothing more than the inevitable result (feelings and behavior) of chemical processes that have evolved over the centuries. It was a serious presentation by respected scientists. It was also an absolute strike out. Had it been presented as a side note to the larger issues, it might have been worthy of note, but as is common with science adherents, they presumed the physiological description warranted conclusions well beyond the scope of their inquiry and supporting evidence.

 

I've been asked why I believe, and I've answered with a few bits and pieces. A more relevant question might be regarding why I or anyone else continues to believe. And for that matter, why you or another former adherent has chosen not to. While much of our knowledge is based on direct experience and analysis (as evidenced by most of the dialogs here), I'll suggest that most is not but is instead an extrapolation from experience, subsequently formed by foundational presuppositions which are chosen, not discovered.

 

Buddy

[webmdave]

Editors perogative:

 

People have emotions, therefore a flying, un-dead-zombie, God-man exists.

 

People appreciate beauty, therefore hell exists.

 

People view things differently, therefore presuppositional theology is true.

 

Some questions in life remain unanswered, therefore Christianity is the answer.

 

See, Buddy? You could have said your piece much more concisely and gotten your sermonette across more clearly.

[Mankey]

... Before you make any other assumptions perhaps it is better to first come up with a ...er...hehe...."positive" ontology for God. hehe. Then build from there. I feel that you theists put the cart before the horse.

 

Food for thought...

Good morning, Mankey,

I have a few minutes before my 0900 mtg. I'm no philosopher, so the ontology questions (what's reality?) don't come readily to mind. What specifically did you have in mind that was lacking in traditional Christian thought. Dang, that's likely to provoke another firestorm, isn't it.

Buddy

Relax.....and stop making assumptions about provoking anybody......you sound like a crybaby.

 

I was just being an imp. I am no philosopher either I am just an immature wise ass who thinks he is on to something. I have no idea how well I would do in a debate with you. Ontology deals with a things identity as well......I do not believe that God or supernatural are coherent concepts really.

 

I still....think....that the only difference between you and a free thinker is your theism. I don't know why but I felt I had to state that again.

 

[Mankey]

Editors perogative:

 

People have emotions, therefore a flying, un-dead-zombie, God-man exists.

 

People appreciate beauty, therefore hell exists.

 

People view things differently, therefore presuppositional theology is true.

 

Some questions in life remain unanswered, therefore Christianity is the answer.

 

See, Buddy? You could have said your piece much more concisely and gotten your sermonette across more clearly.

This is how I see things too.

 

I have blind spots and am a little soft on theists. I am harder on heathens....sometimes. I don't know shit and I have to remember that when dealing with heathens who rub me the wrong way.

 

I want to be a philosopher some day...

[Mankey]

Editors perogative:

 

People have emotions, therefore a flying, un-dead-zombie, God-man exists.

 

People appreciate beauty, therefore hell exists.

 

People view things differently, therefore presuppositional theology is true.

 

Some questions in life remain unanswered, therefore Christianity is the answer.

 

See, Buddy? You could have said your piece much more concisely and gotten your sermonette across more clearly.

This is how I see things too.

 

I have blind spots and am a little soft on theists. I am harder on heathens....sometimes. I don't know shit and I have to remember that when dealing with heathens who rub me the wrong way.

 

I want to be a philosopher some day...

He was very evasive in this thread. Thats for sure.

 

I hope he is unsatisfied with bare hope. Faith. Presuppositions have to be justified and not simply "I hope its true" "I have personal experiences that are axiomatic to me" ......

 

Presuppers are very silly.

[Mankey]

Oh, by the way. I have troubles reading people sometimes. I walk around on one foot while the other foot is in my mouth.

 

[Japedo]

Oh, by the way. I have troubles reading people sometimes. I walk around on one foot while the other foot is in my mouth.

 

 

 

Cute!

[Mankey]

Oh, by the way. I have troubles reading people sometimes. I walk around on one foot while the other foot is in my mouth.

 

 

 

Cute!

Thank you kindly lovely lady!

 

I don't mind that I am a silly mankey.

 

[BuddyFerris]

... I was just being an imp. I am no philosopher either I am just an immature wise ass who thinks he is on to something. I have no idea how well I would do in a debate with you. Ontology deals with a things identity as well......I do not believe that God or supernatural are coherent concepts really.

 

I still....think....that the only difference between you and a free thinker is your theism. I don't know why but I felt I had to state that again.

 

Mankey,

A wise ass is always welcome; a little levity is essential to keep the heavy-weight types from taking themselves too seriously. One of the great comedic memories I have is of two teenagers offering each other advice, as though either had the slightest clue what they were talking about or what to do about it. If God watches us doing these discussions, perhaps we looks equally silly to him.

 

Feel free to join in the debate; you'll do as well as the rest of us. You'll notice on review of the forum that the larger component of debate isn't the win/lose element so much as it is simply the exchange of ideas and perspectives. Debaters often think they put ideas and arguments out front like a weapon; what they really do is put themselves out front. Each argument is a brush stroke on the canvas where their image is portrayed. As is visible here, the more interesting and compelling artwork is not necessarily by the artist who wins the most debate points. Conflict, whether personal or corporate, reveals more than just firepower.

 

Consider this true story of an inner-city 7th grade kid. The social norm for her age requires major attitude and continuous disrespect for authority figures. Her school teacher, my daughter, is half her size and physically intimidated, but makes the attempt to develop a relationship with the surly kid. This kid never acknowledges her teacher's presence, never answers when called up, never appears to returns the respect and interest. Then comes the day; an angry young man disrupts the classroom with violence; he refuses to leave the classroom when the teacher orders him to do so. He gets right in the teacher's face and pushes her backwards. Our surly kid gets up, grabs the violent young man and slams him up against the wall (she's a fair sized girl, and strong). "Ms. _____ said get out the classroom!", says the surly kid, and summarily throws the violent young man out into the hallway and slams the door. Teacher is speechless as the girl returns to her seat without further ado or comment.

 

Of the three players in the conflict (the teacher, the surly girl, and the violent young man), which leaves you with the lasting impression? Which offers you the most persuasive or useful information?

 

On the free thinker vs. me and my theism, feel free to expound a little. How are you using the term 'free thinker'?

Buddy

[freeman]

How are you using the term 'free thinker'?

Buddy

 

You look at every aspect of life with your "christian blinders" on. Whether you realize it or not, everything you do, you do with your religious beliefs running in the background, filtering your everyday experiences.

 

We have dropped those shackles and see things from a whole new perspective, as humans!

[BuddyFerris]

You look at every aspect of life with your "christian blinders" on. Whether you realize it or not, everything you do, you do with your religious beliefs running in the background, filtering your everyday experiences.

 

We have dropped those shackles and see things from a whole new perspective, as humans!

Good morning Freeman.

I'll gladly concede my blinders if you'll do the same. The tenor of conversation suggests we have a range of biases represented here (besides my own) that range from desperate fear (of a converse reality being true; foundational security threats) up to a fairly liberal and open mindedness (not yet persuaded to a final answer, open to new information).

 

You're correct in stating that everything is seen in light of our background processing. Those foundational presuppositions cannot, by definition, be fully informed; they can be highly accurate. Or not.

 

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Now if I can just land this sucker without making a smoking crater in the runway.

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... I am the type of person who HAS to know the answers, I'm just not comfortable believing something if I can't even make sense of what I believe. I mean, to me these are the most important questions, and a religion that doesn't have any answers for them is impotent anyway.... I'd much rather have truth in the long run.

Kuroikaze, good morning,

Obviously, I'm goofing off this morning. I may even get a nap before going into the office; finished my 40 hrs by cob Wednesday, so a little comp time seems in order.

 

You and I share the insatiable desire for answers and understanding. Little in life compares to the pleasure of discovering truth. Religion offers little in the way of practical answers, and we lean away from religious platitudes and religious social structures. Interestingly, although not protected under the law as such, humanism is a religion in all of the same metrics as is any other. To abandon a theistic foundation is to default to the humanist's position unless you descend the whole way to an absolute determinism (no choice). If you truly have to know the answers, you'll be frustrated on several issues for a lifetime.

 

Buddy

[webmdave]

... I was just being an imp. I am no philosopher either I am just an immature wise ass who thinks he is on to something. I have no idea how well I would do in a debate with you. Ontology deals with a things identity as well......I do not believe that God or supernatural are coherent concepts really.

 

I still....think....that the only difference between you and a free thinker is your theism. I don't know why but I felt I had to state that again.

 

Mankey,

A wise ass is always welcome; a little levity is essential to keep the heavy-weight types from taking themselves too seriously. [...] Feel free to join in the debate; you'll do as well as the rest of us. You'll notice...

 

Consider this true story of an inner-city 7th grade kid...

 

On the free thinker vs. me and my theism, feel free to expound a little. How are you using the term 'free thinker'?

Buddy

 

Buddy, you just don't get it. You say you don't consider yourself superior in one response and then a day or two later you are right back coming off as superior. Just admit it. Admit you believe you know better than most of us and are here to evangelize or at least hone your witnessing skills. You simply can't help yourself in this regard, and you are deaf to the timbre in your written voice. You make dogmatic statement after dogmatic statement. You never premise a thing with "I believe," or "The way I see it." Every single statement is stated as absolute truth and fact.

 

Then, a question: Why is it so hard for Christians to admit failings without immediately pointing the finger right back in people's faces? As in, "You have blinders on too! You don't see yourself as others see you. Nanny nanny nanny!"

 

You are right that people reveal themselves in the way the express themselves. You reveal yourself as absolutely confident that your fables are the "real" reality, and those who engage you must NEED your guidance. Perhaps you think there is some ordained event going on on this board. And if you do believe that, then you really do have an inflated opinion of your opinions.

 

Jesus, H Christ, Buddy -- I was an enthusiastic bible teacher for 30 wasted years. I recognize the pietistic "have you considered this?" approach to leading the (quote, un-quote) "less informed." You however, seem oblivious to how condescending nearly every post of yours comes across to those who have heard it all a bazillion times. You loudly ignore the "rude" comments as NOT WORTHY OF RESPONSE, while only evasively addressing a point or two from the "sufficiently polite" comments. This behavior is also indicative of "I am here to lead the way" or however you want to describe it.

 

This is one thing you don't or won't comprehend: We have worn your rosy glasses, some of us for decades. We know exactly what you are talking about, where you are coming from, and at one time in our lives would have completely agreed with every pseudo-salvific syllable. We are not the ignorant ones here -- you are. You have never seen things through any other lens but that of a religio-bot. You have NO CLUE what de-mythologized reality looks like. Your mind is filled with ancient magical fables that you are convinced reveal the "ultimate" reality. And as a result, you disallow any and all things that seem to contradict your lifelong indoctrination into mysticism. To top it off, you imagine you see angels and admit to voices in your head. Think about it Buddy. If an Islamic Imam came around with similar homilies, would you consider anything he had to say as valid? But Buddy, those guys, most of them, have been in their religions all their lives just like you. They are hopelessly mired in patterns of thought which confine them to the parameters of their myths.

 

I can hear it already: "You do the same thing -- your view is narrow."

 

Again, we have stood in your shoes. We admit that we were wrong. We admit we were wrong! We confess that we were and are prone to misinterpreting things, that our minds are NOT always absolutely reliable, that some things elude our grasp. You, however, only admit to limitations up to the wall of your religion. You are incapable of examining your religion or your hallucinations too closely. You cannot fathom that your religion may be nothing more than myth and a dream in your head. We have tried your myth and found it wanting.

 

Myths are for kids, silly rabbit.

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy, you just don't get it....

Again, we have stood in your shoes. We admit that we were wrong. We admit we were wrong! We confess that we were and are prone to misinterpreting things, that our minds are NOT always absolutely reliable, that some things elude our grasp. You, however, only admit to limitations up to the wall of your religion. You are incapable of examining your religion or your hallucinations too closely. You cannot fathom that your religion may be nothing more than myth and a dream in your head. We have tried your myth and found it wanting.

 

Myths are for kids, silly rabbit.

Webmaster,

You've heard it all before, but I haven't. Much of what's passed here is new to me, and I've appreciated the exposure. I apologize for my tone of superiority; it isn't intended as such. While it's true, I'm fairly settled in my personal philosophy and beliefs, I've paid the price to arrive there. My 'crisis of faith' events have been genuine and have been honestly dealt with, as have yours. I don't fault you for your conclusions, and I don't know that I would have done differently in your circumstances. It is worth noting, as you mention, that the counterpoint to your statement is that the ex-Christians here do the same. Each has arrived by sincere effort at a personal philosophy and belief system. Rejection of Christianity is part of that and justifiable according to each individual's standards of reason, evidence, and experience. Each therefore concludes that their position is superior, worthy of promulgation, and eminently persuasive. I've done my best not to be religious, both here on the forum and in my personal life. I have genuinely considered whether my belief system is myth and dream. My conclusion, honestly reached, is that it is not.

 

A question: Why is it so hard for Christians anti-Christians to admit failings irrational bias without immediately pointing the finger right back in people's faces? That was a little harsh, wasn't it; not offered with any emotion attached, though; just semi-objective observation.

 

You correctly point out that I might have some idea that this forum series is divinely appointed; it has crossed my mind, albeit with less much grandiose implications. You and I view human interaction differently, I think, and that will color our impression of things such as why someone like me might linger here. I'm inclined toward purposeful existence, the largest component of which is beneficial human interaction. The life events that separate us philosophically to the point where compassionate (that's the humanist term) interaction isn't possible are unfortunate failures which, if left to themselves, widen the gap of misunderstanding and animosity.

 

Do we need enemies? To what end?

Buddy

P.S. I haven't deliberately ignored anyone's comments; I've been hard pressed to keep up with the flow of ideas, plus sometimes it's difficult to discern the intent behind what's offered; I've not commented on many things because I thought perhaps they were offered as a bludgeon rather than a continuation of discussion. If there are elements which anyone would like to here my thoughts about, I'll do my best, though being the target du jour presents its' own set of challenges. BF

[Jun]

I have genuinely considered whether my belief system is myth and dream. My conclusion, honestly reached, is that it is not.

 

So; dragons, angels, unicorns, flying chariots, talking donkeys, are not mythical? It's all real? There is a "God" who created the world, the universe out of nothing? We have a "soul" hiding in our mortal bodies that travels up into a heaven, or down into a hell when we die?

 

Wow!

 

And your conclusion that all that is real was reached how?

[freeman]

Buddy, my point was not that none of us have blinders, but we have one less than you to look through. Just like you are an atheist to all the other gods in the world, we are just one less god than you! Were god-lite!