1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Salanis wrote:GameboyRMH wrote:42 and 20 describe it for me.
Shouldn't Douglas Adams have been quoted for #42?
Yeah you'd figure they'd try to get one of his quotes to land on that number 
I've mentioned this before but there is actually someone at my office, sitting about 40 feet from me right now, who worships the sun. A very intelligent guy around 50 years old. He had a carved wooden sun talisman in his cubicle last time I was over there.
GameboyRMH wrote:I've mentioned this before but there is actually someone at my office, sitting about 40 feet from me right now, who worships the sun. A very intelligent guy around 50 years old. He had a carved wooden sun talisman in his cubicle last time I was over there.
Yeah, that was my inspiration. I'd say that guy has it right. When the cops try to arrest him for sunbathing nude he can claim 'religious expression'.
4 really cracked me up. What quality is more human?
Back on topic: is it possible to believe in some form of divinity but be an atheist? I actively disbelieve in any deity or theology. I suppose that would make me a-theistic. However, I do have a sense or mysticism about natural processes that could be called "spiritual". Can you be a mystical atheist?
GameboyRMH wrote:I've mentioned this before but there is actually someone at my office, sitting about 40 feet from me right now, who worships the sun. A very intelligent guy around 50 years old. He had a carved wooden sun talisman in his cubicle last time I was over there.
That makes absolutely as much sense as any other religion - in fact, it makes more than most, since the sun is demonstrably the source of energy for life on this planet.
[edit] Salanis: I would say that makes you more of a Deist than an atheist. That sounds very much like what Jefferson and many of the other Founding Fathers believed.
Again perfect reasoning for the Paved Church of the Holy Cone.
So sayeth the Lord.
It's quotes like 14 that gives athiests a bad name. I haven't found this to be true at all.
Salanis wrote:Back on topic: is it possible to believe in some form of divinity but be an atheist? I actively disbelieve in any deity or theology. I suppose that would make me a-theistic. However, I do have a sense or mysticism about natural processes that could be called "spiritual". Can you be a mystical atheist?
I think that's would be an agnostic.
My belief is that this thread will grow very large if it doesn't go down hill fast. (Given how cool everyone on this board is, I predict it growing large.)
For those of you atheists out there, my I recommend the "The Portable Atheist"? http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/030681608...
I'm slowing going through it. A very interesting read (although I think Hitchens is an egomaniac).
-Rob
Duke wrote:That makes absolutely as much sense as any other religion - in fact, it makes more than most, since the sun is demonstrably the source of energy for life on this planet.
[edit] Salanis: I would say that makes you more of a Deist than an atheist. That sounds very much like what Jefferson and many of the other Founding Fathers believed.
I think we've had this debate before. I wouldn't call myself a deist because I do not believe in any deity. To me, a deity is, by definition, personal. I do not believe in any personal deity. My understanding was that they believed in a higher power that set everything in motion and stepped back and let things run.
"Monist" is still the best term I've found to describe my beliefs. I see it more as a philosophy though. It reflects, and is influenced by, both my scientific and mystical views of the world. I do think that Science is moving towards an understanding and explanation of the interconnection of natural processes. I view a "unified theory" as the holy grail of science. I see mysticism as the opportunity to experience interconnectedness with all Life. I see science as being about understanding these processes and mysticism as the opportunity to directly experience them.
Edit: I wouldn't say I'm agnostic. My understanding is that agnosticism is a sort of "well, we can't really know for certain so I'll actively refuse to make up my mind."
75 and 81 pretty much sum it up for me, although 42 and 62 are right up there.
seann wrote:It's quotes like 14 that gives athiests a bad name. I haven't found this to be true at all.
Yep, I've met a good number of intelligent people who are religious.
GameboyRMH wrote:seann wrote:It's quotes like 14 that gives athiests a bad name. I haven't found this to be true at all.
Yep, I've met a good number of intelligent people who are religious.
And plenty of really stupid people who are atheists.
rob_lewis wrote: My belief is that this thread will grow very large if it doesn't go down hill fast. (Given how cool everyone on this board is, I predict it growing large.)
thread poisoned.
I'm an atheist. I am so because I was raised Catholic.
To me, somebody talking about how great God is, how they pray to him every night, and how he truly does exist is as silly as somebody else talking about how great Santa is, how they ask him for presents every night, and how HE truly does exist.
To a Christain, the Bible is evidence that God exists. He believes that the Bible has merit because God said so. This is all the reason I need not to believe it.
Humans by nature are not logical. A single car is logical. Living below one's means is logical. Most people; Americans, at least, do not subscribe to either of these ideas. There is an ant in Brazil whose bite is compared to a bullet-wound. Young men in one tribe stick their hands in mits with these ants sewn into them as a rite of passage. Twenty times. This is definitely not logical.
No, people are not logical.
When faced with a really big question like: where did we come from? Where did the universe come from? many people decide that since they see no quick and easy answer to these questions, why then it must have been the work of a higher power. That decision saves the effort of finding the real truth and the terror of facing the unknown.
Some random thoughts:
-How do atheists view Love and other emotions?
Love is just synapses firing away in a logical sequence, right? Probably hard to explain that one to your parents, siblings, GF or wifey.
-Pascal was a pretty logical and smart religious person, among many others of course.
-I don't buy that there are/were millions of forgotten gods. A good many, yes, but we have a pretty good grasp of the gods of the past, and Judaism moving into Christianity has been around a good long time.
The others and their beginnings are fairly well know as well, alive and dead religions both.
-Salinas, I think you can be a mystical atheist. There is enough wonder in this world to do so.
-Some of the list was smart and funny, others were cheap shots or misrepresent what I believe to be real religion* HA!
-James
GlennS wrote:SVreX wrote:The something from nothing argument works against both Creationists and Evolutionists.
So where did the world come from? ("It evolved.") What did it evolve from? ("A primordial soup of enzymes, proteins, and chemicals.") But where did the enzymes, proteins, and chemicals come from? ("Nothing") But we already agreed you can't do that.
What existed at the beginning? ("Nothing- A Big Bang.") No, the ultra dense initial condition existed, as well as several presupposed assumptions, such as the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. Right? ("Well, yeah.") So what would have "banged" if there was nothing? ("...[mental cogs spin for 30 second]... But it's natural law, it can do anything it wants!")
btw, the theory of evolution does not explain the origin or life, the earth, or the universe for that matter nor does it try to. Why you would ask the theory of evolution to explain these things i dont know.
I didn't. Most of you seem to have missed that I simply plugged in a few quick word changes into someone else's example.
So, I guess I could put a little more effort into careful word choice, but I'm not going to.
The point stands. These comments no more disprove Creationism then they disprove Evolutionism. There nothing more than weak quasi-theological "gotchas" for targeting under-educated people unnecessarily.
Duke wrote:I'd guess that SVRex and other religious folks see this as belittling their faith, but (at least in my case) it's honestly not intended as such. It's certainly not intended as a personal attack.
But it simply boggles my mind how so many people can turn a willfully blind eye to the fundamental absurdity of picking a particular flavor of deity from among the literally infinite range of "not disproven" possibilities. I'm really just trying to demonstrate that.
Nope, I'm not the least bit offended.
But my mind is equally boggled at how many people bow down at the alter of intellectualism with just as much, if not more, blind faith. A faith which is often based in intellect that is not even their own, and of which they have very little understanding. Sounds a bit like religion to me.
I there was any offense, it was in calling me religious. I'm a long cry from a religious man. I am a Christian, but I'm not religious.
I realize that won't register with most of you.
SVreX wrote:The point stands. These comments no more disprove Creationism then they disprove Evolutionism. There nothing more than weak quasi-theological "gotchas" for targeting under-educated people unnecessarily.
I think I need to clarify my point again. I wasn't as trying to disproving creationism.
I was demonstrating the logic behind a Monist view of the universe and the illogic of a separate personal deity, by starting with the initial assumptions used in creationist logic. The logic is: if you can't get something from nothing, and the very first thing to exist was "God" than everything that exists now is that same "God" in a different form.
That does run counter to a normal creationist Paradigm, since that view generally hinges upon the existence of a personal deity.
This unified view of reality can be combined with a scientific model. You actually can substitute "fundamental cosmic energy" for "God" and have it make sense.
In essence, all that is now, is what there was before the initial existence of this universe (whether "Created" or formed in a "Big Bang") and we are all the same stuff.
Salanis wrote:In essence, all that is now, is what there was before the initial existence of this universe (whether "Created" or formed in a "Big Bang") and we are all the same stuff.
In other words:
"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
/walrus
billy3esq wrote:Salanis wrote:In essence, all that is now, is what there was before the initial existence of this universe (whether "Created" or formed in a "Big Bang") and we are all the same stuff.
In other words:
"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
/walrus
I'm cryin'.
Mitchell-1 car per person is logical? I disagree!
jamscal wrote:Some random thoughts:
-How do atheists view Love and other emotions? ....
I think you are over generalizing atheists here. Just because you do not believe in god does not mean you do not believe in other "intangibles". Not all atheists will be hard core science focused, just as all scientists will not be atheists.
Besides, does knowing or explaining the scientific source of emotions make them any less relevant or powerful? I am pretty certain that most people are aware that the heart is not the source or focus of emotions but it certainly does not stop people from using it in reference to it.
