MAN: to blame? GOD: benign and caring? What is the whole truth? (page 2)

robhic

Terry:

I enjoy each and every post you make. Hell, if you are this much fun on the internet I'd bet you'd be a real blast after a few beers!

Your posts all make such complete sense to me. And I consider myself an atheist due to the overwhelming lack of concrete evidence for a god-being. Your post kinda changes my thinking.

I, too, would certainly be open to proof from a god-being that he existed. Just something simple (but proveable...) would do. Now I have to think about being the "lazy agnostic" I used to be or stay as an atheist. Ahh, decisons, decisions...

Thanks for sharing your insight and thoughts,

Robert

Terry

Robhic: Your posts all make such complete sense to me. And I consider myself an atheist due to the overwhelming lack of concrete evidence for a god-being. Your post kinda changes my thinking.

I, too, would certainly be open to proof from a god-being that he existed. Just something simple (but proveable...) would do. Now I have to think about being the "lazy agnostic" I used to be or stay as an atheist. Ahh, decisons, decisions...

I remember the story of Johnny Appleseed from when I was in grade school....

This fella travelled far and wide sewing seeds to grow appletrees with no thought that he'd ever taste a one of them. That is the only kind of God I can conceive of right now. I imagine this kind of god would simply provide possibility for some kind of life and move on (the universe is vast, after all) and not be the source of any superpowers at all! All the rest is mere legend and imagination.

But, like I say: I just don't know. If this galactic Johnny Appleseed wanted anything to do with his he'd surely do better than he has done.

I look at the major religions who have a source book and think to myself, "Hmmmm, funny how these books are so similar in lacking specifics and requiring so much interpretation, and yet, fostering so much certainty. It is almost as though people were inclined to create these things for themselves while those who follow after have a dandy time reading more and more significance into them.

Humans is funny creatures!

T.

Sunnygal41

Yep, that's what happens when you believe the WTBTS's version of Creation. I've since learned different ways of viewing life and earth and the whole creation myth concept.

Terri

trevor

Kid-A

What do you gain by believing in a 'pervading intelligence'? What evidence is there for this? Why does some "entity" need to be "responsible" for life, if, as you said,

I have nothing to gain by believing in a 'pervading intelligence.' I worded what I was trying to say badly.

The 'pervading intelligence' that I refer to is responsible for our world because IT is life. IT dwells in us and IS us. Without IT we would not be. No belief is actually required, just awareness of what IS.

Terry

The 'pervading intelligence' that I refer to is responsible for our world because IT is life. IT dwells in us and IS us. Without IT we would not be. No belief is actually required, just awareness of what IS

How are you defining "intelligence" then? Seems like you are making it a synonym to "life".

What am I missing here?

Terry

trevor

Terry

Perfect harmony already exists in the natural world. Nature accepts the pain along with the joy because the joy of existence outweighs the pain. It is not possible to have only joy in a physical world. Joy and pain are two sides of the same coin.

The natural world is already a wonderful and worthy expression of life on earth. It continues to do what it has always done, that is to improve and advance. It adapts and advances basing its progress on the experience it has accumulated. Not only humans do this but all living things.

Why? Because they are alive and they hold within themselves the intelligence that is contained in the life force.

( My last post tonight - meal out and all that)

Terry

Perfect harmony already exists in the natural world. Nature accepts the pain along with the joy because the joy of existence outweighs the pain. It is not possible to have only joy in a physical world. Joy and pain are two sides of the same coin.

Pain is a sensation as interpreted by a consciousness which identifies the sensation. Joy is a sensation likewise and an interpretation.

For there to be "perfect harmony" there must needs also be dissonance (else, how do we identify harmony and by what contrast?)

You don't mention the dissonace. Consequently, I think you may be a poet.

Nature is a concept inclusive of everything which exists. To state that "Nature accepts the pain.." is to play with a metaphor and little else.

Rocks and oxygen molecules don't experience pain and joy, surely. Yet, they too are a part of that Nature.

"The Joy of existence outweighs the pain" is a pretty broad statement and I'm not sure you are communicating an actual fact or conveying a poetic sense of contrast.

Further, "it is not possible to have only joy in a physical world" would be numerically correct, and yet, surely there is something more to be said about the alternative states of one's consciousness when identifying all the conditions of sensible experience in life.

So, in short, I have to confess I don't know what you are talking about and am less informed than when I asked my first question.

Dare I ask for more clarification? I seem to have missed your direct reply to the query at any rate. Here it is again:

The 'pervading intelligence' that I refer to is responsible for our world because IT is life. IT dwells in us and IS us. Without IT we would not be. No belief is actually required, just awareness of what IS

How are you defining "intelligence" then? Seems like you are making it a synonym to "life".

What am I missing here?

Terry

T.

tetrapod.sapien

Terry,

nice post!

I don't call myself atheist. I call myself agnostic. That means I DON'T KNOW. If I were atheist I'd KNOW there was no god. I DON'T KNOW.
Being an atheist, it seems to me, is an act of faith as well.

however, this surprises me. you work in the philosophy section of a book store, no? then you should know there is a difference between weak atheists and strong atheists. strong atheists assert there is no god. and there you are right. it's a type of faith. it's a positive assertion about the world around us.

weak atheists have a *lack of belief*. this is different. it is the negative position. and yet it differs from agnosticism in the sense that it relys on probability via parsimony to avoid having to say: "i don't know". since there is a greater probability that a god does not exist, then a weak atheist has a lack of belief.

i do not have faith in there being no god. i lack the belief. surely there is a difference in your world

trevor,

Nature accepts the pain along with the joy because the joy of existence outweighs the pain.

i disagree dear sir. "nature" (fauna for the sake if discussion) accepts pain because there is no other choice. not because joy out weighs it. if you want to measure, you'll find that the painful aspect of existence for fauna far out weighs the joy.

the amount of suffering in the "animal kingdom", far out weighs even the amount of suffering that humans experience, for that matter.

it doesn't mean there is no joy. but i think you perhaps over-rate it.

It adapts and advances basing its progress on the experience it has accumulated. Not only humans do this but all living things.

this i agree with except that in other fauna, it is not a conscious progresssion. natural selection is not conscious. but humans, for our part in hi-jacking biology via conscious culture and technology, do this consciously.

TS

kid-A

agnostic versus atheist: this is always an interesting semantic discussion!

I agree the denial of a god is a "positive assertion", but not so sure it requires an act of faith. I know the "idea" of a god was externally imposed upon me by society. With the absence of societal input, I strongly doubt I would have ever dreamed up this concept (of course I may have, just as ancient man did to explain the unexplainable) but for the sake of argument, lets say I would not have dreamed up this god concept without society implanting it in my brain. Ergo, to deny the concept of god is simply to deny an externally imposed social construct, or, an intrinsically "artificial" construct. So, I am not so certain that it requires any "faith" on my part to deny a concept I have determined a priori could not be a logical reality.

On the other hand to positively assert "there is a god" would clearly be an act of faith as the declarer of this belief has decided a priori that the premise upon which this assertion is based is a cold, hard "fact".

tetrapod.sapien

kid-A,

that is a really valid point, for sure. perhaps faith is too strong a word. or perhaps it is too much a blanket word.

to say that "there is no god" is truer in a statistical sense, than to say "there is a god". it is much more likely that there is no god, therefore the label of faith should really go to the one professing a belief in the less likely of the two. the parallel between santa and god is exact in this case. children who believe in him have faith. adults who do not, have probability and parsimony. can they prove the negative? no. but it's still not faith to say he doesn't exist.

TS

MAN: to blame? GOD: benign and caring? What is the whole truth?

Share this