Imagine No Religion- Page 10

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:55pm

"there's a big difference between being able to look on your desk and determining whether or not a chicken is there and looking out into the universe and being able to put it into perspective."

But you're not looking out into the universe and putting it into perspective. Reason and science are tools to do those things. You're talking about "believing" in something there is no proof of. To me, might as well be a chicken.

Guitar girl, those are not concluded using reasoning. They are concluded using faith.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:56pm

"- if the greatest minds we've known so far have barely been able to scratch the surface of what exists (forget agreeing on the determinations,) then who are you or anybody to say definitively what CAN'T be."

Scientific fact?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:56pm

Well, Diva, I'm not sure our DG trusts that form of communication.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:57pm

I don't really miss God, but I sure miss Santa Clause.

Um, you can't PROVE there's no Santa Claus!

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:57pm

You're right, Namo, I DO keep repeating that "I don't know." You know why? Because I don't - and I refuse to take a position in which it seems that I do - especially concerning this.

Here's what I DO know. The Hubble telescope has pointed itself in the direction of the 'darkest' point in space available and taken a time-elapsed photograph. The result? A picture of HUNDREDS of GALAXIES. And that's in the 'darkest' portion of observable space.

When I look at what information is gathered on this rock - and see the bickering and descension that occurs between people who study this for a living, I certainly have NO basis to feel that ANYONE here has the ability to put anything into context regarding all that 'is'.

If you do, by all means, go for it. But I see no difference in your adherence to things unknowable than that of those who choose to have a 'faith' in something else.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:59pm

The more complicated things reveal themselves to be, DG, the less likely there is one megabeing behind it all.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:01pm

They are using reason, and faith. The Arguments look at the facts of our world, or how we feel, and come to a conclusion concerning where it all began. The thought process is reason. Attributing it to God is a combination of reason and faith.

Namo, science has found that the universe came into existence around 15 billion years ago, so that is why cells are not given the all-clear to have existed eternally. The point is, there had to be something already existing to allow everything else to exist. If something did not exist eternally to allow that to happen (because something cannot suddenly be made into existence from nothing) then nothing would exist.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:01pm

Evolved from what? Life evolved from cells. Biology doesn't answer the question of where the first cell came from.

This is what we get for not adequately teaching evolution in schools. Seriously.

Argument from Goodness: Something had to set the standards of what we (physically) see as "good" and "bad" things. Otherwise, nothing could be truly good or bad if we did not have a set standard. God, who is truly Good, is the ultimate standard.

I'm sorry, but this is almost laughably flawed logic. If there is a God, how would you know what it thinks and therefore what was truly good? Is it not more likely that humans have intrinsic or socially-dictated sets of moral standards? And maybe there isn't an "ultimate standard." Are people with religious beliefs that differ from yours automatically morally inferior because they aren't living up to the "standard" set by your God? The idea that humans are incapable of knowing good from bad if not for God is, honestly, insulting to me as a human being.

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:02pm

Not once have I argued for the existence of a 'mega-being'. All I have said is, "I don't know" - and that I have difficulty wrapping my head around the thought processes that argue one way or another definitively.

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:05pm

"Argument from Goodness: Something had to set the standards of what we (physically) see as "good" and "bad" things. Otherwise, nothing could be truly good or bad if we did not have a set standard. God, who is truly Good, is the ultimate standard."

Okay, how about: we naturally realize that what hurts us and others is bad and what doesn't hurt us and others is good. Look! No god, or faith needed! Only reason.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:06pm

"Is it not more likely that humans have intrinsic or socially-dictated sets of moral standards? And maybe there isn't an "ultimate standard." Are people with religious beliefs that differ from yours automatically morally inferior because they aren't living up to the "standard" set by your God?"

The first humans did not have socially dictated sets to fall back on. They just knew what was right and wrong. They didn't kill each other because they knew it was wrong. I'm not saying that people with different beliefs are inferior. All people have the same general moral values: it is wrong to kill, wrong to steal, right to be nice to others, right to help others, ect. Those are not religion based, yet they are universal.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:08pm

That's because you process it all through the "oh it's just too hard for me to understand" lens and then factor in your usual patina of mawkish Shirley MacLaineisms and want to reserve judgement until such time as all of the evidence is in while at the same time setting it up so that such a time can never be arrived at because, as you keep pointing out, THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH OUT THERE FOR ME TO SAY!

And GG, sorry, if "god" can have existed before the universe, so could the primordial glob from which the first cell evolved. It's ALL an accident. That's the point.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:10pm

So you believe that everything came from a glob? A glob of what?

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:10pm

But why do you think those MUST have been instilled in people by a higher power? And even the first humans were socialized, even in the crudest sense of the word. Following that logic, do you then reject the idea of original sin?

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:12pm

"The first humans did not have socially dictated sets to fall back on. They just knew what was right and wrong. They didn't kill each other because they knew it was wrong."

How do you know this. I'm not an expert in anthropology. But why isn't it likely that the first humans did, in fact kill each other. Maybe they gradually came to understand through experience that killing was bad. Maybe it took thousands of years for them to even come to that conclusion.

Or is this something else we are required to prove isn't true because you think it might be?

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 10:12 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:14pm

Sorry, GG, you can not continue with your argument of infinite regression unless you are willing to state where God came from. It's more likely that carbon based mud could have just existed forever than some incredibly complex being that could create everything we see here and in whatever else might exist in DG's myriad other galaxies.

Saying "It's FAITH" doesn't count. You're using an argument you won't use to prove your assertion.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:14pm

I'm going to ATTEMPT to end on this note, I'll continue to read, but it's impossible to argue with anyone who's convinced they know the unknowable.

I don't doubt that Namo is an extremely intelligent man, but NO ONE regardless of religion can be sure or think that something is obvious, because you'll never really know until you die if Namo is right or not, which I think there's a chance he might be. I think it's a little odd for anyone; those who believe in a higher power v.s those who don't. To feel that they know or that it is obvious that they're right. There's no proof. There's evidence, but there all kinds of evidence that supports all types of things.

People have been falsely placed in prison because of "evidence". Why? Because of human error in interpreting this evidence. Namo may be older. He may be more intelligent than I'll ever hope to be, but I'm certain he's capable of human error.

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 10:14 PM

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:15pm

If the first humans killed each other than how would they have reproduced?

The first humans, assuming there was more than one, were only exposed to each other, and one could not possibly know more about anything, morality included, than the other.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:17pm

If the first humans killed each other than how would they have reproduced?

The first humans, assuming there was more than one, were only exposed to each other, and one could not possibly know more about anything, morality included, than the other

Oh wow. Just wow.

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:18pm

Ok, Namo, you're right. I am more willing to stand back in the face of what I consider incomprehensible. If you're not, and are willing to forge ahead with completely unsupportable assertions, be my guest. I still maintain that you (or anyone else) claiming 'there CAN'T be' is no different than someone claiming 'there IS'. And if that's what's seen here as my 'schtick,' so be it. I've embraced worse.

In the end, it really isn't going to effect that which 'is', now is it?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:18pm

No, dear, SOME of the first humans killed the last of the Neanderthals.

However, genetically speaking, not killing others likely to carry on the strongest genes is where the cultural norms against killing came from.

"He may be more intelligent than I'll ever hope to be, but I'm certain he's capable of humor error."

I'll say! I once did a gay Holocaust victims joke that totally sucked the air out of the room.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:22pm

The degree to which a proper course in introductory biology (or better yet, evolutionary biology) would answer a lot of your questions, GG, makes my head swim.

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:22pm

"in DG's myriad other galaxies."

Oh, that's rich. Now they're MY galaxies?

If I could claim them, I would - they're infinitely more interesting and complex than what can be seen here - and that includes you, Namo.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:24pm

I know at this point I bristle when I see a post by you addressing me, DG, so maybe the same thing happens vice versa.

If so, please see sweetsiren's post above and maybe consider such a course. You know, after things settle down in your life.

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:24pm

"If the first humans killed each other than how would they have reproduced?"

Maybe killing only happened now and then for reasons. Probably they didn't have a reason to automatically kill everyone they met until there was only one left.

"The first humans, assuming there was more than one, were only exposed to each other, and one could not possibly know more about anything, morality included, than the other

Are you saying they could not have developed individually? That one had to be the morality teacher of the rest? What?