Why can’t we live in peace?

[Strat-itis]

But there's so much out of our control. Sometimes we have to accept things as they are.

I agree. It's just my personal viewpoint at what brings inner peace - aligning with what's right. Yes, the world is extremely imperfect, but bowing to it doesn't bring inner peace. Doing your best to improve your outward circumstances and inner environment is what brings inner peace.

As for right, people only choose "good." Some people just choose things that are only good for them, or good only in the short term.

Yes, this is true. In aggregate people ultimately choose benefit first and morality second, if at all. This is the nature of corruption in the world.

But there are a lot of people who understand that choosing greater good benefits more than just themselves.

This is a trait of smarter people.

Morality isn't a top-down rule, it's really a bottom up survival skill.

It's both in my opinion.

There doesn't need to be a higher power approving or judging, or a promise of anything after.

I know you like to use tropes to make sense of and characterize religious people, but I personally don't arrange my world view based on programming, I choose all my stances because I believe them to be correct.

What if there is no after? Why not just make the ride as nice as possible?

Pretty sure that's not a binary.

[Tal_175]

As if secularists have a monopoly on empiricism. How does nothingness create and maintain the universe again?

The only reasonable answer anyone can give is “I don’t know.” Anyone who says they know are lying to themselves. There’s no reason to assume that our intuitions about time and causality are correct or can be generalized to all of existence. Maybe things always existed. Saying that God created the universe just kicks the can down the road because then what created God? And if God doesn’t need a creator, then maybe the universe doesn’t need one either. Even if some kind of creator exists, you still have to show that it corresponds to the anthropomorphic being described in Christianity, or the human-with-an-elephant-head described in Hinduism.

Atheism is, at minimum, the absence of belief in a god, not a positive belief that no god exists. It’s simply the position that the evidence offered for any proposed deity or complete religious system doesn’t meet the standard of Occam’s razor. There may well be aspects of the universe that lie beyond our current conception of the “natural” world. But if such things exist, they are very likely to be nothing like the familiar religious notions we’ve inherited.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Since this thread has taken a turn toward a debate of theism , I’d say listen to the music I have posted and tell me if it comes from a relationship with god or from the soul of an atheist? Go on, I double dare you

[Strat-itis]

There may well be aspects of the universe that lie beyond our current conception of the “natural” world. But if such things exist, they are very likely to be nothing like the familiar religious notions we’ve inherited.

Oh absolutely. Saying that nothingness created the world is just as stupid as saying an anthropomorphic being created the world.

The only reasonable answer anyone can give is “I don’t know.”

I accept your deferment that secularism has authority on empiricism.

Even if some kind of creator exists, you still have to show that it corresponds to the anthropomorphic being described in Christianity.

Lmao, why would that be? That's just your trope that you use as a straw man. Christian principles can be congruent with a scientific explanation of God.

Anyone who positively says they know are full of it. There’s no reason to assume that our intuitions about time and causality are correct or can be generalized to all of existence. Maybe things always existed. Saying that God created the universe just kicks the can down the road because then what created God? And if God doesn’t need a creator, then maybe the universe doesn’t need one either. Atheism is, at minimum, the absence of belief in a god, not a positive belief that no god exists. It’s simply the position that the evidence offered for any proposed deity or complete religious system doesn’t meet the standard of Occam’s razor.

Agreed

[Tal_175]

Oh absolutely. Saying that nothingness created the world is just as stupid as saying an anthropomorphic being created the world.

I agree. Nobody I know says nothing created the world. Some people say an anthropomorphic being created the world, other people say they don't know.

I accept your deferment that secularism has authority on empiricism.

Then you didn't understand what I said.

Lmao, why would that be? That's just your trope that you use as a straw man. Christian principles can be congruent with a scientific explanation of God.

It sounds like your notion of Christianity is very different than most Christian traditions. Some traditions require that you must believe in Trinity to be a Christian, others say you must believe that Jesus is God and he rose from the dead. You seem to have a more flexible concept of Christianity that could encompass a lot of different things.

AI says: According to mainstream Christian theology, believing that Jesus is God and that he rose from the dead are the essential core requirements to be a Christian.

[Tal_175]

Since this thread has taken a turn toward a debate of theism , I’d say listen to the music I have posted and tell me if it comes from a relationship with god or from the soul of an atheist? Go on, I double dare you

It sounds Pagan to me Beautiful.

[Strat-itis]

I agree. Nobody I know says nothing created the world. Some people say an anthropomorphic being created the world, other people say they don't know.

As far as I know, there are several million atheists in the world. Like you said, atheism can include a positive belief that no God exists. Yet the universe exists, and is shown to have a beginning, so this implies that they believe the universe came from nothing, if they're not adopting irrationality as a coping mechanism.

Then you didn't understand what I said.

Then you don't understand the logic of the discussion.

It sounds like your notion of Christianity is very different than most Christian traditions. Some traditions require that you must believe in Trinity to be a Christian, others say you must believe that Jesus is God and he rose from the dead. You seem to have a more flexible concept of Christianity that could encompass a lot of different things.AI says: According to mainstream Christian theology, believing that Jesus is God and that he rose from the dead are the essential core requirements to be a Christian.

Yes, I believe in the Trinity. My personal belief is that Christianity is congruent with science. I don't see what's so outlandish about this. I don't believe in a literal bearded man in the sky. I'm currently writing a thesis revising General Relativity.

The list of Christian scientists throughout history is enormous: List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

[Tal_175]

As far as I know, there are several million atheists in the world. Like you said, atheism can include a positive belief that no God exists. Yet the universe exists, and is shown to have a beginning, so this implies that they believe the universe came from nothing, if they're not adopting irrationality as a coping mechanism.

I can't speak for the definitive belief that no God exists. But if you think they necessarily claim that this implies universe came from nothing, you are strawmanning them.

Then you don't understand the logic of the discussion.

I do. But discussion require that you also follow what I am saying.

Yes, I believe in the Trinity. My personal belief is that Christianity is congruent with science. I don't see what's so outlandish about this. I don't believe in a literal bearded man in the sky. I'm currently writing a thesis revising General Relativity.

So even if a God exist, you still have to show that Trinity is real and Jesus is God and it's an all loving God (not a lying psychopath), it has agency (it can love), there is after life, human soul etc. etc. What part do you not follow?

[Strat-itis]

I can't speak for the definitive belief that no God exists. But if you think they necessarily claim that this implies universe came from nothing, you are strawmanning them.

Okk. I'm not trying to straw man people. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean if their stance doesn't imply that they think the universe came from nothing. Are they saying that physics is wrong? and the universe isn't expanding outward from a single point?

I do. But discussion require that you also follow what I am saying.

Yep, sure. This goes both ways.

So even if a God exist, you still have to show that Trinity is real and Jesus is God and it's an all loving God (not a lying psychopath), it has agency (it can love), there is after life, human soul etc. etc.

So now I'm being held to the standard that everything must be proven up front or it's bs but atheism doesn't? I thought we were getting rid of double standards here?

What part do you not follow?

Pro tip: not everything is a binary.

Situation 1: The bible is 100% literal
Situation 2: The bible is 100% bs.
Situation 3: This is a tough one! Christianity is true but the bible must be interpreted with common sense since it was written by men.

[Tal_175]

So now I'm being held to the standard that everything must be proven up front or it's bs but atheism doesn't? I thought we were getting rid of double standards here?

Things have to be proven only if you claim they exist. I repeat again, the version of atheism that describes me is not a religion. It's not a belief. It is a position of not being convinced of any of the specific claims of God and religious systems. So there is no double standard. I am saying I don't know. You are the one who believes in after life, Jesus being God, God being all loving all that. You make specific metaphysical claims about existence as part of the Christian theology. You have the burden of proof, not me.

[Tal_175]

Okk. I'm not trying to straw man people. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean if their stance doesn't imply that they think the universe came from nothing. Are they saying that physics is wrong? and the universe isn't expanding outward from a single point?

Dude, I already explained this and you said you agreed.

[Tal_175]

A
Yes, I believe in the Trinity. My personal belief is that Christianity is congruent with science. I don't see what's so outlandish about this. I don't believe in a literal bearded man in the sky. I'm currently writing a thesis revising General Relativity.

Except that science doesn't need Christianity. You are just smuggling in superfluous, irrefutable beliefs when they add no meaningful explanatory power to science.

[mr. beaumont]

Since this thread has taken a turn toward a debate of theism , I’d say listen to the music I have posted and tell me if it comes from a relationship with god or from the soul of an atheist? Go on, I double dare you

I won't say because I've heard your thoughts on this before--id be cheating.

But I think the great part is that it doesn't matter. Beauty can be appreciated just because.

[pauln]

I can see how humans living 2,000 years ago, without the cognitive tools or scientific frameworks of the modern intellect, and guided by mystic intuitions about the world, would attribute the agency of an anthropomorphic deity to natural forces they couldn’t explain. That’s exactly what you’d predict. But those beliefs no longer have explanatory utility. We already understand morality, biodiversity, and the structure of the natural world in ways that don’t require suspending belief in verifiable physical reality. The metaphysical claims of religions are simply carried forward through cultural familiarity, not because they offer the best explanations.

Don't be fooled about explanatory power, the ancients assumed that the motions of the particles that make up the world were due to each type of particle having a kind of agency - "Earth" particles were not "dead" but actively sought to move to the local center of mass (in modern terms) to the extent that they weren't blocked by the particles ahead of them in their attempts at this movement. "Water" sought to do the same except it was slippery and assumed flat surfaces. "Air" particles sought to get away from each other resulting in approaching the least density. "Fire" was in some ways really more like light in modern terms, seeking to move independently without being disturbed...

The point is that they ascribed agency to the particles themselves. The modern view is that the particles are "dead" and their motions are the result of invisible fields, undetectable except by the placement of a test particle to observe the field's effect on the motion of the particle. The agency has just been transferred to the fields, as many as needed to account for everything The agency is still something that is fundamentally completely unexplained, but now there are many more unknown things instead of just just a few. Now days we call this progress.

(For all the questions about everything else in this thread, I recommend Leibniz's Discourse On Metaphysics.)

"Being at a place lately for several days with nothing to do, I wrote out a short discourse on Metaphysics..."

On questions in regard to:
- grace
- the relations of God with created things
- the nature of miracles
- the cause of sin
- the origin of evil
- the immortality of the soul

[Mick-7]

Things have to be proven only if you claim they exist. I repeat again, the version of atheism that describes me is not a religion. It's not a belief. It is a position of not being convinced of any of the specific claims of God and religious systems. So there is no double standard. I am saying I don't know. You are the one who believes in after life, Jesus being God, God being all loving all that. You make specific metaphysical claims about existence as part of the Christian theology. You have the burden of proof, not me.

Actually, that's called agnosticism, i.e., "I don't know if there is a Supreme Being," atheism is asserting there is none. It is illogical to believe in a Supreme Being, that is to say, one cannot logically prove that God exists - or does not exist - so your position is perfectly rational.

Belief can be founded on mystical experience, which is the goal of traditions such as yoga, zen buddhism, sufism, etc. Sri Aurobindo called this suprarational knowledge. It is the subject of Aldous Huxley's book, the Perennial Philosophy, although it's an academic treatment of it. My mother's faith was founded on direct experience, as was that of a few other people I've met such as Jack Schwarz ( Amazon.com: Jack Schwarz: books, biography ) and Doug Boyd ( Amazon.com: Doug Boyd: books, biography ).

[Mick-7]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean if their stance doesn't imply that they think the universe came from nothing. Are they saying that physics is wrong? and the universe isn't expanding outward from a single point?

Something has always existed, what preceded the so-called big bang?

[Stevebol]

Something has always existed, what preceded the so-called big bang?

Nothing is impossible. It's absolutely mind boggling.

[Mick-7]

Nothing is impossible. It's absolutely mind boggling.

The current scientific label for "nothing" is dark matter which is invisible and yet supposedly comprises about 60% of the matter in the universe, but maybe it's the scientists version of God, it's invisible but they need to believe in it for their cosmological theories to make sense.

[kris]

Peace Waiting. Peace is not tomorrow’s problem. Air, food, water by the minute, day and hour. Peace is the next most constant need, yet deprived for so long for so many. We must demand it every day of our leaders. Or ourselves. peace can not wait.

If all the people living on earth played the guitar as beautifully as you do, there would be peace on earth. I'm sure of that.
Best
kris

[Mick-7]

If all the people living on earth played the guitar as beautifully as you do, there would be peace on earth. I'm sure of that.

Then we'd probably have wars over tone wood.

[Strat-itis]

The current scientific label for "nothing" is dark matter which is invisible and yet supposedly comprises about 60% of the matter in the universe, but maybe it's the scientists version of God, it's invisible but they need to believe in it for their cosmological theories to make sense.

Yep. As we see, secularism doesn't exactly have a monopoly on rigor. My incoming space time thesis explains gravity without the need to make up inobservable dark matter.

[kris]

Then we'd probably have wars over tone wood.

Don't like Mark's beautiful tone wood?
Mercy.
Beauty in art is indisputable.

[ruger9]

As vehemently rabid as some religious people can be...

...atheists are just as bad LOL. It really smacks of "me dost think thou protest too much".

And trying to use the "science" definition doesn't mean much these days, considering what has been called "science" in the name of the almighty dollar in recent times...(and has been proven as faulty science since, and rather quickly.)

Arguing matters of faith is pointless. And "faith" doesn't necessarily mean only religion, as politics is also much a matter of faith these days... you have faith the people you vote for will actually do what they say they are going to do... but that, as well, hasn't been working out too well LOL.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I won't say because I've heard your thoughts on this before--id be cheating.

But I think the great part is that it doesn't matter. Beauty can be appreciated just because.

yes, I may have proselytized my views on this somewhere up the line. It’s often tied in with the “gift” of musicality

[Mark Kleinhaut]

If all the people living on earth played the guitar as beautifully as you do, there would be peace on earth. I'm sure of that.
Best
kris

. I’ve been trying to sell that idea for a long time, but buyers are few and far between. Thanks