The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 82
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    You can find inconsistencies everywhere but that doesn't mean by definition atheism is the only possible view that could be true. It's possible God could exist even though our understanding so far isn't accurate.
    Saint Peter is greeting the new arrivals at The Pearly Gates. He says to the atheist, "Well done! The universe is constructed in such a way that there is no reason to assume the existence of a deity. Come in, come in!". Then he says to the faithful, "You dunderheads..."

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    I used to be agnost, then militant agnost and now probably qualify as atheist. There's just no way I can see being a scientist and believing in god(s).

    Oh, I do believe beings can exist that have god-like capabilities (imagine how are far ancestors would view us when they saw us turning on the lights automatically using some bluetooth/NFC technology). Thing is, once we get to know them we'll end up realising they're no gods (with or without capital G) at all. And no, I didn't get that idea from watching too much StarGate and similar scifi; it is, as Christian notes, the only rational position.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by RJVB
    I used to be agnost, then militant agnost and now probably qualify as atheist. There's just no way I can see being a scientist and believing in god(s).

    Oh, I do believe beings can exist that have god-like capabilities (imagine how are far ancestors would view us when they saw us turning on the lights automatically using some bluetooth/NFC technology). Thing is, once we get to know them we'll end up realising they're no gods (with or without capital G) at all. And no, I didn't get that idea from watching too much StarGate and similar scifi; it is, as Christian notes, the only rational position.
    I like the idea that we are living in a simulation. Would you call whatever created the simulation a god? Just how much to they care about us?

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    There are about 20,000 religions in the world. Believing in any of them means that you have a 1 in 20,000 chance in being correct (having millions of others making the same choice you did does not increase your odds, though it might put you at ease considering safety in numbers).

    Would you go to a casino and make a substantial bet in a game where your odds of winning are 1 in 20,000?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    I like the idea that we are living in a simulation. Would you call whatever created the simulation a god? Just how much to they care about us?
    Heh, as somebody who spent 4 years modelling hypothetical animals for my PhD I can assure you they didn't view me as a god (and not even because it was my PhD directory who invented them) ... and I certainly didn't care about pulling the plug on a simulation. I cared a bit more about a simulation crashing though

    @stringswinger: there's the idea that the power or even existence of a god depends on the number of believers, so your analogy may have to take that into account
    What's certain is that the power of the demigods "serving" between the fidels and alleged object(s) of their fidelity is highly dependent on those numbers too. So one could wonder just how much "mana" they absorb and leave for their master(s).
    Then there's the big question what the point is in being right in your example - what do you stand to gain? Please let it be better than some sort of afterlife, I don't want any of that

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Religions and atheism are only opposite on a superficial level. In the core of all religions lies the belief that everything is connected, and we can choose to consider it important, even sacred, changing the way we see ourselves in the process..

    Just substitute the word God or Allah or Tao or Great Spirit etc. with nature or energy, or matter, and you have most alternative theories of the 19th and 20th century.. They all are talking about the same things with different words, questions bound to the spirituality of mankind ever since we became self aware..
    Last edited by Alter; 08-16-2022 at 03:41 PM.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Alter
    Religions and atheism are only opposite on a superficial level.
    Best not say that out loud in a room full of vocal religious and/or ditto scientists...

    You're right that there's something similar to them, but the difference is anything but superficial - religion is a belief system, science (not including math) is something you can decide NOT to believe in - IMHO. As in, someone shows you how one thing follows from another and you refuse to believe that is so.

    Of course one could say that the all-powerful beings tasked with explaining the unexplainable are the superficial difference

    Meanwhile, this was fun but I'm out

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Alter
    Religions and atheism are only opposite on a superficial level. In the core of all religions lies the belief that everything is connected, and we can choose to consider it important, even sacred, changing the way we see ourselves in the process..

    Just substitute the word God or Allah or Tao or Great Spirit etc. with nature or energy, or matter, and you have most alternative theories or the 19th and 20th century.. They all are talking about the same things with different words, questions bound to the spirituality of mankind ever since we became self aware..
    I'm fine with people believing in gods or fairies at the bottom of the garden. I'd trace my concern to ideology. Atheists can get strung up in ideology -- look at Stalin. What drove someone to stab Rushdie -- ideology. It's just easy to get there with religion.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by RJVB
    @stringswinger: there's the idea that the power or even existence of a god depends on the number of believers, so your analogy may have to take that into account
    What's certain is that the power of the demigods "serving" between the fidels and alleged object(s) of their fidelity is highly dependent on those numbers too. So one could wonder just how much "mana" they absorb and leave for their master(s).
    Then there's the big question what the point is in being right in your example - what do you stand to gain? Please let it be better than some sort of afterlife, I don't want any of that
    Perhaps the deterrent of a Hell (Hades etc.) is a useful tool to keep people from following their base instincts? And the promise of an afterlife may be equally useful in controlling human behavior.

    I would argue that the number of people who believe that Trump won the last election in no way changes the fact that he lost. Whether it is two people (Donald and Rudy) or thirty million (an approximation of the number of people who believe this fiction) makes little difference. A billion Muslims makes the Koran no more accurate than the Book of Mormon with it's seventeen million believers. Numbers alone do not turn a fable into a fact.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by RJVB
    I used to be agnost, then militant agnost and now probably qualify as atheist. There's just no way I can see being a scientist and believing in god(s).

    Oh, I do believe beings can exist that have god-like capabilities (imagine how are far ancestors would view us when they saw us turning on the lights automatically using some bluetooth/NFC technology). Thing is, once we get to know them we'll end up realising they're no gods (with or without capital G) at all. And no, I didn't get that idea from watching too much StarGate and similar scifi; it is, as Christian notes, the only rational position.
    Yeah I mean agnosticism in the sense I mean it is in practical terms indistinguishable from atheism.

    The distinction is more a philosophical one, as opposed to the common understanding of an agnostic being someone simply undecided on matters of faith. I think atheists are probably right, but I don’t think their philosophical certainty is justified.

    Fuelling my tremendous confusion about everything; it appears to have a finite existence so far, be very finely tuned for life and the Fermi paradox remains very much an unanswered question.

    These are all inconvenient facts for atheists because they are in conflict with the copernican principle which is the very way of thinking that dethroned the human-centred narratives of the Church.

    Which is not to say I think God did it; but rather that this puts cosmology in a tricky position. If we postulate many universes and so on we are entering a realm (probably) beyond verifiable science in order to reinstate the Copernican principle.

    I find that quite interesting philosophically; the Principle becomes a matter of faith.

    (Cosmology in general is full of this kind of thing tbh.)

    While I don’t see this as evidence for the existence of the biblical God, I do see it as relating to a fundamental mystery and emotionally I feel that this may in fact be a unknowable facet of existence. This is no doubt an aspect of religious feeling. I would say theists and atheists respond to this fundamental mystery with their leaps of faith; the agnostic responds with doubt.

    Dawkinsian Atheists would attack this as a version of ‘the god of the gaps’ to which I would say ‘saying there’s some sort of ineffable mystery to creation is not the same as saying the abrahamic sky daddy did it you smug little tosspot.’
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 08-16-2022 at 02:59 PM.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    New Webb telescope just might find the Firecracker that started it all...

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Perhaps the deterrent of a Hell (Hades etc.) is a useful tool to keep people from following their base instincts? And the promise of an afterlife may be equally useful in controlling human behavior.

    I would argue that the number of people who believe that Trump won the last election in no way changes the fact that he lost. Whether it is two people (Donald and Rudy) or thirty million (an approximation of the number of people who believe this fiction) makes little difference. A billion Muslims makes the Koran no more accurate than the Book of Mormon with it's seventeen million believers. Numbers alone do not turn a fable into a fact.
    Well surely whoever has god on their side ought to be doing best right? ;-)

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Perhaps the deterrent of a Hell (Hades etc.) is a useful tool to keep people from following their base instincts? And the promise of an afterlife may be equally useful in controlling human behavior.

    I would argue that the number of people who believe that Trump won the last election in no way changes the fact that he lost. Whether it is two people (Donald and Rudy) or thirty million (an approximation of the number of people who believe this fiction) makes little difference. A billion Muslims makes the Koran no more accurate than the Book of Mormon with it's seventeen million believers. Numbers alone do not turn a fable into a fact.
    Now that's a challenge: finding a tract more fanciful than the Book of Mormon!

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by wzpgsr
    If none of those 20,000 religions is correct, you have exactly 0% chance of being correct if your choices are limited to those 20,000 religions.
    True. If 19,999 are wrong, why hold out hope for the last one?

    But maybe expecting correctness is a fool's errand. Of course we're all making this sh!t up! A better question is: is it better than nothing?

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    There being a bunch of religions isn't proof that atheism is correct lol. It means the truth hasn't been proven scientifically so far, which is possible.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Since the subject of this thread has somewhat been obscured by the interesting - and as yet surprisingly civil - discussion, Salman Rushdie himself has to say some interesting things on the matter of religion:

    Is Nothing Sacred? | Salman Rushdie | Granta Magazine

    It is important that we understand how profoundly we all feel the needs that religion, down the ages, has satisfied. I would suggest that these needs are of three types: firstly, the need to be given an articulation of our half-glimpsed knowledge of exaltation, of awe, of wonder; life is an awesome experience, and religion helps us understand why life so often makes us feel small, by telling us what we are smaller than; and, contrariwise, because we also have a sense of being special, of being chosen, religion helps us by telling us what we have been chosen by, and what for. Secondly, we need answers to the unanswerable: how did we get here? How did ‘here’ get here in the first place? Is this, this brief life, all there is? How can it be? What would be the point of that? And, thirdly, we need codes to live by, ‘rules for every damn thing’. The idea of god is at once a repository for our awestruck wonderment at life and an answer to the great questions of existence, and a rulebook, too. The soul needs all these explanations – not simply rational explanations, but explanations of the heart.
    It is also important to understand how often the language of secular, rationalist materialism has failed to answer these needs. As we witness the death of Communism in Central Europe, we cannot fail to observe the deep religious spirit with which so many of the makers of these revolutions are imbued, and we must concede that it is not only a particular political ideology that has failed, but the idea that men and women could ever define themselves in terms that exclude their spiritual needs.
    Rushdie has some well thought-out things to say, even if you don't accept his claim that literature might step into the gap.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    It takes serious [fill in the blank] to deny/support the existence of someone/something you’ve never encountered. On the other hand, if you have encountered this someone/something, good luck trying to describe it to others who haven’t; let along convincing them you’re not [fill in the blank].

    AKA

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AKA
    It takes serious [fill in the blank] to deny/support the existence of someone/something you’ve never encountered.

    AKA
    so whether dinosaurs existed or not is a 50/50 for you?

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    many interesting thoughts.

    One for sure, a creator exists or existed. There is a creator of this device what I typing on, there is a Creator for C-3PO (Anakin), and there is a creator for this Universe (and Humanity as it is part of) because there was a time when those things did not exist, and once upon a time voila those things are existing This process is called "creation" by definition. The initiator and/or executor of the creation process is the Creator also by definition.

    More details about our (and other) universes lifecycle can be read from Stephen Hawking.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    many interesting thoughts.

    One for sure, a creator exists or existed. There is a creator of this device what I typing on, there is a Creator for C-3PO (Anakin), and there is a creator for this Universe (and Humanity as it is part of) because there was a time when those things did not exist, and once upon a time voila those things are existing This process is called "creation" by definition. The initiator and/or executor of the creation process is the Creator also by definition.

    More details about our (and other) universes lifecycle can be read from Stephen Hawking.
    Why does creation requires a creator? Think about the gradual creation of a new species -- there is no creator beyond evolution and natural selection, or do you call that concept, "the creator"? In that case, physics created the universe.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    There being a bunch of religions isn't proof that atheism is correct lol. It means the truth hasn't been proven scientifically so far, which is possible.
    I don't see how any useful conclusions from science about the supernatural are even possible.

    The supernatural by definition is outside of the natural world and thus outside the realm of science. You could look at things you claim are effects in the natural world of the supernatural, but the connection between them is still out of reach.

    For example, there was a famous experiment involving prayer. Dawkins writes about it in The God Delusion. The conclusion was that praying doesn't help the people you pray for.

    But suppose a proper scientific experiment shows that praying helps the people you pray for, helps them recover their health, say. Do you get to conclude that the god of the christian bible must exist because of this experiment? I can think of a dozen woo-woo explanations for prayer in this case, for example ghosts that exist in a godless universe and like to play tricks on us.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    ^ Because God isn't supposed to be magic, He's supposed to be a part of the natural world. If He made the world and all its physical laws, why would he go be in nonsense land? The supernatural idea is a notion made up by atheists to support their view.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    1 Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

    John MacArthur’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:21
    God wisely established that men could not come to know Him by human wisdom. That would exalt man, so God designed to save helpless sinners through the preaching of a message that was so simple the "worldly wise" deemed it nonsense.


  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ Because God isn't supposed to be magic, He's supposed to be a part of the natural world. If He made the world and all its physical laws, why would he go be in nonsense land? The supernatural idea is a notion made up by atheists to support their view.
    It seems odd to declare God a "he" when it is females that actually give birth.

    And if there must be a creator for the universe to exist, does that mean there must be a creator of the creator? IMO, some things are simply beyond human comprehension. If believing in fables answers the unanswerable for you, great. Absent proof, I shall remain a sceptic.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ Because God isn't supposed to be magic, He's supposed to be a part of the natural world. If He made the world and all its physical laws, why would he go be in nonsense land? The supernatural idea is a notion made up by atheists to support their view.
    I agree that the supernatural idea is illogical. Everything is part of the natural world, period.

    Thus I don't use the term supernatural for concepts like "god": I just use myths or untruths.

    Yea, I'm an atheist.