skepticism

[lifegazer]

Hello.
I just wondered if people enjoyed being skeptical, apart from the humour to be had in a forum like this of course. I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma? The human heart shrieks at the thought. Admit it!

Deep down, all you skeptics are scared to death that this crackpot stuff will finally be put to death. For in a sense, a part of us will die with it. And nothing will be gained.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by lifegazer Hello.
I just wondered if people enjoyed being skeptical, apart from the humour to be had in a forum like this of course. I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma? The human heart shrieks at the thought. Admit it!


No mystique? No Enigma? Look into a telescope sometime, gaze at the beauty in a microscope. Look at the wonders of science and let your heart shriek with joy instead of fear, for a change.


Deep down, all you skeptics are scared to death that this crackpot stuff will finally be put to death. For in a sense, a part of us will die with it. And nothing will be gained. [/B]

I'm more afraid none of this crackpot stuff will ever die. Even the flatest, stalest junk gets recycled by the woowoo brigade year after year.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I just wondered if people enjoyed being skeptical, apart from the humour to be had in a forum like this of course. I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma? The human heart shrieks at the thought. Admit it!

I admit it. I wish I lived in a magical world with super powers and life after death. Who wouldn't?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Deep down, all you skeptics are scared to death that this crackpot stuff will finally be put to death. For in a sense, a part of us will die with it. And nothing will be gained.

I'm scared that when I die that's the end, but I'm not scared of much else being debunked.

The notion that nothing will be gained is absurd; knowledge of how the world actually works will be gained; knowledge that most of us have beeing kidding ourselves for thousands of years will also be gained.

[WanderingKnight]

No mystique? No enigma?

I stand in my yard at night and look at the universe, astounded by the stars and the sheer scale of the cosmos. I ponder how much there is we still have to understand about the universe, and how only science can light the way to that knowledge.

I move to my girls' room and watch them sleep, and know that I am responsible for creating the women they will grow to be. Not a higher power, not some cosmic force... ME. That is a humbling thought.

I watch my cats playing and chasing each other around the darkened room; no one who has tried to understand cats can believe there are no enigmas.

My point is that the world...the universe is filled with things I don't understand. Instead of pointing to the parts of the map I haven't seen and saying "there be dragons", instead of invoking a mysterious power, I believe that my world will make sense in a way human being can understand. That the universe is beautiful.

My world is open to me because I chose to be rational.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
No mystique? No Enigma? Look into a telescope sometime, gaze at the beauty in a microscope.

Beauty is beauty. Mystique is something else.

Look at the wonders of science and let your heart shriek with joy instead of fear, for a change.

What wonders of science would they be? The things science observes are not the creations of science. And a partial unveiling of the universes' order tells us nothing of universal origin nor purpose, if such things exist. The wonder of science is due to the wonder of the human faculty to reason. Therein lies the real wonder.

I'm more afraid none of this crackpot stuff will ever die. Even the flatest, stalest junk gets recycled by the woowoo brigade year after year.
Prove to me that the notion of God is to be instantly sneered at, and I will join your ranks. Otherwise, open up.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Prove to me that the notion of God is to be instantly sneered at, and I will join your ranks. Otherwise, open up.

That God exists is not our claim; it's yours.

We can't prove a negative for you. Can you prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist? No, you can't.

Prove that God does exist, then we'll talk.

[Bikewer]

If you do a bit of reading in science, it rapidly becomes clear that most scientists are extremely enthused over the amazing universe we live in, and the prospects of plumbing it's secrets.

Skepticism does not imply a blanket rejection of everything; as Paul Kurtz said, we just have higher standards of proof for the unlikely....
"extaordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

I consider it an enormous privledge to be a sentient being living in an amazing universe.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Most skeptics like feeling special knowing that they were that one sperm that beat millions of other sperm in order to develope into what they are now!


:crazy:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by WanderingKnight
No mystique? No enigma?

I stand in my yard at night and look at the universe, astounded by the stars and the sheer scale of the cosmos.

You're talking about scale and beauty. I'm talking about mystique and enigma.
At the end of the day, who wants to gaze-out towards the stars and know that nothing is truly important any more? Who truly wants to know that there is no God, no spirits, no spooky goings-on? Who wants to accept the morality that flows through our veins is actually worthless?
At least the mystique of God gives life to this existence. And I thank God that even in disbelief, no man has ever been able to kill God. For if and when they do, they will kill the spirit of man, also.

I ponder how much there is we still have to understand about the universe, and how only science can light the way to that knowledge.

The universe is what you perceive. No matter how much you delve into your perceptions, you will not perceive the origin of those perceptions, by default. Kinda like looking inside the fishbowl to see who's feeding the fish, if you get my drift.
Science cannot unravel the mysteries of existence. Only reason or divine intervention can do so.

I move to my girls' room and watch them sleep, and know that I am responsible for creating the women they will grow to be. Not a higher power, not some cosmic force... ME. That is a humbling thought.

It's also a mistaken thought. You have created no daughter by yourself. You have merely partaken of an action which has faciltated the creation of your daughter by other forces you have no control over.

I watch my cats playing and chasing each other around the darkened room; no one who has tried to understand cats can believe there are no enigmas.

I've got two cats. What enigmas are you talking about?

My point is that the world...the universe is filled with things I don't understand.

Ignorance of something does not necessarily give mystique to that thing.

Instead of pointing to the parts of the map I haven't seen and saying "there be dragons", instead of invoking a mysterious power, I believe that my world will make sense in a way human being can understand. That the universe is beautiful.

The universe is exceedingly beautiful. And no scientist will ever unveil her in her entirety.

My world is open to me because I chose to be rational. [/B]
If you choose to be rational, you should choose not to automatically believe that things live externally to your awareness. For you have no reason to do so.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN
That God exists is not our claim; it's yours.

Then what is your claim? Don't tell me that you don't have one - anybody who thinks he knows something about existence, has a claim about it.

We can't prove a negative for you. Can you prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist? No, you can't.

There are reasoned arguments for God's existence - throughout philosophical-history to the present-day. There can be no reasoned argument for Santa's existence. That's the difference between an entity like santa and an entity like 'God'.

Prove that God does exist, then we'll talk.
What is your requirement for proof? A rabbit out of the hat? A cloud that looks and sings like an angel? Or would 5 million dollars suffice, through prior-notice of this weeks lottery numbers?
I can offer you reason. That's it.

[roger]

lifegazer, you say you can offer reason, but your previous argument was based on what you want the universe to be like. It doesn't matter what you or I want, it is what it is, and there either is or isn't a God. So I'm failing to see the reasoning in your post.

As for reasoned arguments for God, you are starting out very pompously, assuming that we are unaware of the major philosophical and religious thoughts of the last 2000 years. Many of us have studied this in great detail. Of course, many will be happy to go over all those old arguments with you again. But please don't barge in and assume we haven't heard them before.

Do you have any new philosophers that have recently published new arguments? Because I am very interested in that, but not lecturing about how we are unaware of the last 2000 years of religious thought.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then what is your claim? Don't tell me that you don't have one - anybody who thinks he knows something about existence, has a claim about it.

I claim that existence is purely mechanical, subject to the laws of nature, requiring no God to run it. So far, science has supported that view.

There are reasoned arguments for God's existence - throughout philosophical-history to the present-day. There can be no reasoned argument for Santa's existence. That's the difference between an entity like santa and an entity like 'God'.

There is more evidence -- physical evidence, too -- for Santa Claus than there is for God.
- Santa often leaves presents signed, "From Santa"
- Santa often eats cookies and drinks milk left for him
- Santa can be seen at Christmas time. Many, many families have pictures of their children sitting on his lap.
- Letters addressed to Santa are delivered; in this case, a letter was delivered to "S. Claus" http://www.thedenverchannel.com/holidays/1849280/detail.html

What is your requirement for proof? A rabbit out of the hat? A cloud that looks and sings like an angel? Or would 5 million dollars suffice, through prior-notice of this weeks lottery numbers?
I can offer you reason. That's it.
How about God keeps some of the promises attributed to him? You know, things like punishing the wicked. I'd settle for that. Worldwide divine punishment of the wicked.

Reason? So far all you've offered are the most rudimentary logical fallacies.

[Mercutio]

Lifegazer, my 12-yr-old daughter laughs at you! You look at the grand canyon and see something that an omnipotent god could have sneezed in his spare time--she sees the product of water, rock, and eons of interaction that could have ended up a million different ways, but happened to give us this incredible masterpiece.

She knows that each of us was once part of a star. No, not because we wish it to be so, but because the evidence points that way.

She knows that there is no reason she must exist, that she is the product of literally countless accidents. Again, not wishful thinking, but just the way that it is.

Some see this life as a waiting room for some better future; my 12-yr-old daughter appreciates this life.

She knows the difference between santa and god. And she knows the similarities.


Damn, I am proud of her.

edited to add...I am sorry if this sounds rude... it is the literal truth; my daughter was here with me and laughed at your post. This is the way I, and we, think...it is a beautiful world without making stuff up.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello.
I just wondered if people enjoyed being skeptical, apart from the humour to be had in a forum like this of course. I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma? The human heart shrieks at the thought. Admit it!

There's mystique and enigma enough in the universe without having to make stuff up.

Deep down, all you skeptics are scared to death that this crackpot stuff will finally be put to death. For in a sense, a part of us will die with it. And nothing will be gained.

Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. Parents tend to tell their children the truth eventually. Why? Because it's necessary to face the truth in order to function in the real world.

And as everyone else here has already stated, the universe is a pretty amazing place to be as it is. That's good enough for me.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Prove to me that the notion of God is to be instantly sneered at, ...

Well, if all you can offer is a "notion", the conversation has pretty much ended.

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh jeez, another "God/The Supernatural/Whatever must exist because life would be so empty without it" argument.

Whether I or anyone else likes the consequences of a fact has no bearing on whether or not that fact is true. The evidence points to a "mechanical existance", that's just the way things are. What anyone desires will not change that. Once you realize that fact, you realize that it is up to you to find beauty and "mystique" in whatever appeals to you, it isn't up to the universe to serve it up to you ready made.

[SquishyDave]

Welcome to the forum lifegazer.

Originally posted by lifegazer
At the end of the day, who wants to gaze-out towards the stars and know that nothing is truly important any more? Who truly wants to know that there is no God, no spirits, no spooky goings-on? Who wants to accept the morality that flows through our veins is actually worthless?
Good question, the answer is of course no one wants that, but the evidence seems to point to that there are no spirits, no spookiness. I like to think it's better to accept life on it's truths, than make up stuff because it makes me feel better. You obviously prefer to have comforting lies, more power to you I say, just try not to push your beliefs on others, show them your reasons then let them make up their own mind.

Of course the instant there is some proper proof for life after death or god, I will be the first to literally jump for joy, but alas, there is no evidence that supports these things in any way at all.

Still the universe is actually accelerating apart, and absolutely no one on the entire earth knows why. That may not meet your requirements for "mystique and enigma" but it sure does mine. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by roger
lifegazer, you say you can offer reason, but your previous argument was based on what you want the universe to be like. It doesn't matter what you or I want, it is what it is, and there either is or isn't a God. So I'm failing to see the reasoning in your post.

I never intended this thread to be about proving God's existence or lack thereof. I was pondering the effects on the human psyche of absolutely knowing that there is no God... or any other similar-kind of mystique. It cannot be a nice feeling. In fact, I would argue that such absolute news would destroy the spirit of mankind.

As for reasoned arguments for God, you are starting out very pompously, assuming that we are unaware of the major philosophical and religious thoughts of the last 2000 years. Many of us have studied this in great detail. Of course, many will be happy to go over all those old arguments with you again. But please don't barge in and assume we haven't heard them before.

Somebody asked that I prove God's existence. In other threads, I shall present my case. But I'm of the opinion that reason will not suffice for any skeptic... and that such people would require miracles before they could accept such a conclusion.

Do you have any new philosophers that have recently published new arguments? Because I am very interested in that, but not lecturing about how we are unaware of the last 2000 years of religious thought.
I never said you were. It appears you have quite an imagination too, when it matters.

[thaiboxerken]

I'd rather enjoy the real world than live in a fantasy world. I'd rather live free than under the rule of some mythical god.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Lifegazer, my 12-yr-old daughter laughs at you!

That would be due to the kind of brainwashing she has received.

You look at the grand canyon and see something that an omnipotent god could have sneezed in his spare time--she sees the product of water, rock, and eons of interaction that could have ended up a million different ways, but happened to give us this incredible masterpiece.

What is the essential source/origin of the substance that has been shaped into that canyon, and what is the essential source/origin of the orderly-forces that have moulded that substance?
The grand-canyon is not merely a product of rock & water and physical-laws. Indeed, earth's substances and the laws which have moulded them are products themselves. You conveniently overlook this.

She knows that each of us was once part of a star. No, not because we wish it to be so, but because the evidence points that way.

And does she know where the stars came from?

She knows that there is no reason she must exist, that she is the product of literally countless accidents. Again, not wishful thinking, but just the way that it is.

This is completely incorrect reasoning. She does not know that at all, except through blind acceptance of the fact.

Some see this life as a waiting room for some better future; my 12-yr-old daughter appreciates this life.

Good for her. Tell me how much she appreciates it when she reaches her fifties.

Damn, I am proud of her.

You're proud because she obediently follows in your beliefs? If you want my honest opinion, I think it's a crime that a 12-yr-old girl should have a closed-mind before it had become fully-developed.

edited to add...I am sorry if this sounds rude... it is the literal truth; my daughter was here with me and laughed at your post. This is the way I, and we, think...it is a beautiful world without making stuff up.
In Nazi Germany, they brainwashed children to laugh at the jews.
The point of this comment is to show you how easily most children's minds can be manipulated. Hence, forgive me if I don't suffer too much embarrassment from your daughter's laughter.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That would be due to the kind of brainwashing she has received.


Maybe Mercutio can help CSICOP brainwash me because if I think for myself I might get irrational.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Oh jeez, another "God/The Supernatural/Whatever must exist because life would be so empty without it" argument.

Actually, that wasn't my argument at all. I merely enquired as to how the human psyche is affected by absolute disbelief. Very few people have had the sincerity to address this issue, as of yet.

Whether I or anyone else likes the consequences of a fact has no bearing on whether or not that fact is true. The evidence points to a "mechanical existance", that's just the way things are.

That is an assumption, squire. And a brief discussion about quantum-mechanics would discredit such a notion.

[thaiboxerken]

Yet again, the believers want to assert that skeptics are missing out on something wonderful. Crack-addicts might make the same arguement. You can keep your drugs/gods/beliefs, I'm happy just living in the real world. I don't need to believe in pixies to enjoy the flowers.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That is an assumption, squire. And a brief discussion about quantum-mechanics would discredit such a notion.

Ahh.. yet again, the believers go into little known sciences in order to justify their beliefs. Nothing in quantum mechanics supports the supernatural, gods or other paranormal BS.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ahh.. yet again, the believers go into little known sciences in order to justify their beliefs. Nothing in quantum mechanics supports the supernatural, gods or other paranormal BS.
Rudimentary knowledge of quantum-mechanics will suffice to show that this existence is far from "mechanical".

I'm happy just living in the real world.

Prove to this forum that what you see within your own awareness, is real unto itself.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Crack-addicts love my arguments. I will keep my drugs and arrogence, I'm happy just living in my own little ego****ingtistical world where only I am right and where what I say is BS is wrong. I am a frickin flower.

OMG! I knew it.

*decoded by the conscious thought to actual thought translator*

[thaiboxerken]

Rudimentary knowledge of quantum-mechanics will suffice to show that this existence is far from "mechanical".

If not mechanical, then what is it?


Prove to this forum that what you see within your own awareness, is real unto itself.

I never made such an arguement. I'll not defend this strawman you build for me.

[MRC_Hans]

Lifegazer: Your primary fallacy is that you somehow assume that it matters to the universe what we believe. You and I live in exactly the same universe. If this universe is somehow less valuable without God, then that is the way things are. You do not add one bit of value to your universe by imagining God.

Incidentially, I do not think the universe is less valuable without an irrational and unjust god.

I do not lament the lack of mystery and magic, because I would only be lamenting a dream. And I have not lost my dreams; I can dream all I want, I just don't confuse my dreams with reality.

Hans

[Dragon]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, that wasn't my argument at all. I merely enquired as to how the human psyche is affected by absolute disbelief. Very few people have had the sincerity to address this issue, as of yet.

I am a sceptic and an atheist but I do not have an "absolute disbelief" in anything. However thare are some things, like gods, tooth fairies and pixies whose existence is so unlikely that, in the absence of credible evidence, I choose not to believe in. Also what do you mean by "pysche"? If you mean spirit or soul separate from the body then I don't believe I have one. If you mean the mind functioning as the centre of thought, reason and emotion then that's what led me to my current beliefs.

That is an assumption, squire. And a brief discussion about quantum-mechanics would discredit such a notion.

Yes, the materialist position (if that's what you mean here) does make assumptions about the observed nature of the universe. What do you think it is about QM that invalidates those assumptions?

Oh and thanks - this thread has prompted me to change my sig.

[Dragon]

lifegazer,

On "brainwashing" - Mercutio will no doubt speak for himself but as the father of two teenage children I want to say this:-

My kids are free to believe whatever they want. I like to think that I have helped give them some critical thinking skills which will be of use to them, time will tell.
I leave brainwashing to Imams, Jesuit priests, evangelising fundies and other Christians, oh, and Moonies.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Rudimentary knowledge of quantum-mechanics will suffice to show that this existence is far from "mechanical".

Prove to this forum that what you see within your own awareness, is real unto itself.

Well, we have many people here who are very knowlegable in
QM, so go ahead. But a "rudimentary" knowledge is very vague.
QM relies very heavily on advanced math that over 99% of humanity is completely ignorant of and has no interest in learning.
Deepak Chopra and others have twisted QM to fit into their money making scams, so I am not surprised to see this type of statement connected to a quasi-religious beliefs like it proves God's existence. Your argument also denies or does not even mention the millenia of deception by religious leaders/cult gurus which has cost societies enormous amounts of money and lives. You also fail to mention that the belief in God has any value whatsoever, save that it makes a few old white men wealthy beyond imagination for doing no work. So, there are no physical, paranormal phenomena- or any connection to God as far as we have experienced, so the belief in God is circular. "I believe in God because I believe in God." Therefore that belief has no utility or value. The same holds true for psychics, astrology, homeopathy, acupuncture, christianity, etc. I think we are still waiting for your quantum answer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Lifegazer: Your primary fallacy is that you somehow assume that it matters to the universe what we believe. You and I live in exactly the same universe. If this universe is somehow less valuable without God, then that is the way things are. You do not add one bit of value to your universe by imagining God.

God offers purpose to human existence and value to its morality.
If God does not exist, my morality is meaningless. If God does not exist, there is no purpose to life.

[Pyrrho]

This post was reported:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870131166#post1870131166

While certainly rude and insulting, it doesn't violate any rules.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God offers purpose to human existence and value to its morality.
If God does not exist, my morality is meaningless. If God does not exist, there is no purpose to life.

You give up far too easily. I don't need God for my life to have purpose.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dragon
lifegazer,

On "brainwashing" - Mercutio will no doubt speak for himself but as the father of two teenage children I want to say this:-

My kids are free to believe whatever they want. I like to think that I have helped give them some critical thinking skills which will be of use to them, time will tell.
I leave brainwashing to Imams, Jesuit priests, evangelising fundies and other Christians, oh, and Moonies.
You see no brainwashing involved in telling a child that science can explain ~reality~?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
You give up far too easily. I don't need God for my life to have purpose.
Upon what do you found your purpose and morality?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God offers purpose to human existence and value to its morality.
If God does not exist, my morality is meaningless. If God does not exist, there is no purpose to life.

Then I'm sorry for you. My life has the meaning and purpose that I decide for it.

Still waiting for your reply to my question on QM.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I never intended this thread to be about proving God's existence or lack thereof. I was pondering the effects on the human psyche of [b]absolutely knowing that there is no God... or any other similar-kind of mystique. It cannot be a nice feeling. In fact, I would argue that such absolute news would destroy the spirit of mankind.
[B]
In my case, discarding belief in God was immensely beneficial. I feel more free now than at any other time in my life. With God went all the religious baggage and all the silly notions that some supreme being had control over my life. It was more than a nice feeling, it was a wonderful feeling.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Upon what do you found your purpose and morality?
Purpose? My family. Morality? Simple common courtesy.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You see no brainwashing involved in telling a child that science can explain ~reality~?

I see no brainwashing in telling a child that science is the best explanation we've got.
I do see brainwashing in telling a child that myths and fairy stories such as those in the Bible are actually true.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You see no brainwashing involved in telling a child that science can explain ~reality~?
Brainwashing is haranguing and/or torturing a person into believing and thinking a certain way. Telling a child that science could explain reality is simply education. Telling a child that God made it all is telling fairy tales.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Quasi
Well, we have many people here who are very knowlegable in
QM, so go ahead. But a "rudimentary" knowledge is very vague.
QM relies very heavily on advanced math that over 99% of humanity is completely ignorant of and has no interest in learning.
Deepak Chopra and others have twisted QM to fit into their money making scams, so I am not surprised to see this type of statement connected to a quasi-religious beliefs like it proves God's existence.

Energy which is potentially free to go wherever it wants, but which generally conforms to a specific order (probability), must be self-conforming to that order. I.e., Doing what it decides to do.
There are no mechanisms (no forces) acting upon the quanta of existence. They self-conform, generally, to exhibit the order we perceive within our awareness.
I will suggest - and explain in-depth at a later date - that the energy of existence exhibits the will of a primal-cause, in her effectual behaviour.

Your argument also denies or does not even mention the millenia of deception by religious leaders/cult gurus which has cost societies enormous amounts of money and lives.

True. I make no excuses for cranks.

You also fail to mention that the belief in God has any value whatsoever, save that it makes a few old white men wealthy beyond imagination for doing no work. So, there are no physical, paranormal phenomena- or any connection to God as far as we have experienced, so the belief in God is circular. "I believe in God because I believe in God." Therefore that belief has no utility or value. The same holds true for psychics, astrology, homeopathy, acupuncture, christianity, etc.

The value of God to humanity resides within the purpose that God would give to our lives and the value it would bestow upon our morality.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Brainwashing is haranguing and/or torturing a person into believing and thinking a certain way. Telling a child that science could explain reality is simply education. Telling a child that God made it all is telling fairy tales.
Science cannot explain the whole of reality - ever. Science is the study of effects in time/transformation/change. The explanation for effects in time, is, by default, a cause beyond time.
So, telling a child that science can explain existence is in fact a lie.

[Prester John]

Mystique : an air or attitude of mystery and reverence developing around something or someone.

Beauty : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit

Enigma : something hard to understand or explain

When i look at the clouds or the stars or a distant galaxy or a bacteria or flower (you get the idea) i find they usually contain an element of mystery, all is not known about them, that unknown fascinates me. They are beautiful in their form too, i like to look at them. (Enigma is close enough to Mystery for this point).

So where am i missing out ? Maybe you are the scared one ?

i like Thai's :

. I don't need to believe in pixies to enjoy the flowers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:Science cannot explain the whole of reality - ever. Science is the study of effects in time/transformation/change. The explanation for effects in time, is, by default, a cause beyond time.
So, telling a child that science can explain existence is in fact a lie.
Who tells a child that science can explain the reason or purpose for existence? No one I know. Do you know anyone that says that?

And while you're at it, do you think a young child can even understand the difference between explanation of function and purpose/reason?

~~ Paul

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science cannot explain the whole of reality - ever.

That is a totally unfounded statement. Neither you, I, nor anybody else can know how much of reality science will eventually be able to explain.

Science is the study of effects in time/transformation/change. The explanation for effects in time, is, by default, a cause beyond time.

Pure semantics, but even if correct, how does this make it unknowable?

So, telling a child that science can explain existence is in fact a lie.

Science can explain what we see.



Religion gives you a meaning of life. Good for you, but this gives you no right to claim that others do not have such meaning without religion.

Hans

[Dragon]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Energy which is potentially free to go wherever it wants, but which generally conforms to a specific order (probability), must be self-conforming to that order. I.e., Doing what it decides to do.
There are no mechanisms (no forces) acting upon the quanta of existence. They self-conform, generally, to exhibit the order we perceive within our awareness.
I will suggest - and explain in-depth at a later date - that the energy of existence exhibits the will of a primal-cause, in her effectual behaviour.

True. I make no excuses for cranks.

The value of God to humanity resides within the purpose that God would give to our lives and the value it would bestow upon our morality.

I'm sorry, I've read your first paragraph above several times and I still don't get it. I hope (but don't anticipate) that your in-depth explanation will be clearer.

I do not need a god to bestow purpose on my life, thank you very much. A morality imposed from above by your sky-fairy has no value for me.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
God offers purpose to human existence and value to its morality.
If God does not exist, my morality is meaningless. If God does not exist, there is no purpose to life.

Yes, if God doesn't exist, the believer's morality is indeed meaningless and very probably horribly false.

If God doesn't exist, that means you very probably have only this one life and nothing else. That makes you appreciate it. Your appreciation for this life and the craving to live it the best/most beautiful way possible is what morality comes from.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The value of God to humanity resides within the purpose that God would give to our lives and the value it would bestow upon our morality.

I'd argue that the belief in God is, has been, and will continue to be, a corrupting influence on humanity's morality. I disagree with the notion that having faith in a higher power automatically, or inevitably makes one a moral person. Crusades, and jihads... carried out by people who believe they have a God-given purpose. Where is the morality in a holy war? Holy war... the ultimate oxymoron. Show me where an atheistic critical thinker ever led the charge in a battle to slay the infidels, and I'll consider your notion that believers in God are somehow morally superior.

Some other relevant observations:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw

The will to believe is the cheapest commodity in the universe, the desire to understand is the most valuable.

[roger]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I never intended this thread to be about proving God's existence or lack thereof. I was pondering the effects on the human psyche of absolutely knowing that there is no God... or any other similar-kind of mystique. It cannot be a nice feeling. In fact, I would argue that such absolute news would destroy the spirit of mankind.
Sorry, but I have empirical evidence for the opposite. I do not entertain the remotest possibility that there is a God. Yet, this morning as I drove into work w/ my sun roof open, listening to some wonderful chamber music on my radio, I was filled with joy. I am not drawn to mystique, quite the opposite. I find great joy in learning about things, figuring things out, in knowledge, not mystery.

Somebody asked that I prove God's existence. In other threads, I shall present my case. But I'm of the opinion that reason will not suffice for any skeptic... and that such people would require miracles before they could accept such a conclusion.I cannot argue for "any skeptic". I'm surprised that you feel you can. But no matter.

There is a phrase used in the math and sciences that is very powerful - "necessary and sufficient". When we are trying to prove something, we try to reduce both our axioms and arguments to what is necessary and sufficient. I'm sure you see why - if you don't have everything that is necessary, then you cannot prove what you want to prove, and if you have more than is sufficient, then your proof is either too convoluted (if you have too many theorems), or open to doubt (if based on too many axioms).

So, is reason "necessary and sufficient" for determing how reality is constructed? I say no. The history of science bears me out on this. Sometimes in science we can prove that something must be true, based on previous knowledge which was founded on empirical data. Theoretical physics is filled with theories that have not been experimentally verified. Until verified, they are not considered true, because, while (so far) the universe has been constrained by the rules of logic, it definitely does not contain everything that is allowable by logic. Reason is not enough to determine the nature of the world. Aristotle thought differently, and his physics is laughable.

Anyway, I am probably done with this thread, as I don't find it interesting or worth my while to discuss things with people who compare upright citizens to Nazi Germany, that we have no sincerity, that we must "admit" we are terrified by our world view.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by lifegazer


That is an assumption, squire. And a brief discussion about quantum-mechanics would discredit such a notion.

Uhm, sure....whatever. Quantum physics has to be the single most abused notion to come down the pike in a long time. People who don't really understand it tout it as "proof" of all sorts of things. I am sure I will be amused, erm..amazed at what you say on the subject. I am especially curious as to how you use it to explain how it makes what I want to be true have a bearing on what is true, since that is the argument you say it discredits.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yet again, the believers want to assert that skeptics are missing out on something wonderful. Crack-addicts might make the same arguement. You can keep your drugs/gods/beliefs, I'm happy just living in the real world. I don't need to believe in pixies to enjoy the flowers.

One of the best analogies I have heard in a while. I may even steal it for a sig some time, do you mind?

[voidx]

You make several false assumptions right of the bat Life-Gazer.

1.) Skeptics "absolute disbelief" in God. This is simply incorrect, and I think you'll have trouble finding any skeptic who will extoll that above view. We cannot know absolutely that God does not exist, we have an abundance of reasons to think he more than likely does not. What in your view makes you so certain that he does exist? Is there anything that makes you doubt the existence of God? Or is your belief 100% and concrete? If it is, this is not a rational belief. You must admit that there is some percentage of a will to believe as you cannot prove 100%, God's existence.

2.) Skeptics tell their children that science can explain reality completely. Again, no one is making this claim. Mercutio as I'm sure he'll mention himself has simply given his children the tool to think for themselves, to not believe things blindly. They have been given science as a tool for explaining things, and as a tool it must be used where it makes sense. You assume he's brainwashing them, when there's no proof at all that he is. Science is very willing to say, "these are the things I can explain and look, here is a description of how they work as we understand it today. Over here are many things that I cannot currently explain, but based on these other concepts that I have shown to be true, these unknown concepts MIGHT work like this, but I could always be wrong". I do not see this same sense of willingness to admit a lack of knowledge in religion, or in peoples belief in God. God knows all, and so I believe. Do you truly expect us to believe this is the more logical way to view the world?

Posted by lifegazer:
God offers purpose to human existence and value to its morality.
If God does not exist, my morality is meaningless. If God does not exist, there is no purpose to life.

Hmmm. Care to be specific on what purpose God offers? You say God offers purpose, and without him there is no purpose to life. So what is this purpose? If you don't know what it is, how can you say whether or not it disappears with God? Or better yet, how can you say it exists because of God? Simply you cannot.

The main issue here is that Mercutio for example explains the creation of the Grand Canyon in terms of science, erosion, natural process'. You perhaps accept that, but then tack on a mystical "earth substance" of what is being molded to his description. Guess which of the 2 is unnessary in order for the phenomena to be explained. For myself that is a large tenant of my skepticism. I see many examples that people give where I cannot see a necessity of a God entity in order to make said example work. I see many disbelievers being morale everyday, yet you might say that being creatures of God they have that morality whether they believe or not. However you cannot prove this, you cannot show this, and still the disbelievers are morale, if they choose to be. So for me, God in that example is unnecessary.

[Whomp]

QUOTE]Originally posted by lifegazer

who wants to gaze-out towards the stars and know that nothing is truly important any more?
Many things are important to me. My children, my family.... I don't need a god for that.

Who wants to accept the morality that flows through our veins is actually worthless?
Worthless how? My morality keeps me from uselessly harming others, gives my actions a framework, and controls how I interact with the world around me. It's actually pretty stinkin useful!

The universe is what you perceive.
No ... it's not. The universe is what it is, regardless of my perception.

Science cannot unravel the mysteries of existence. Only reason or divine intervention can do so.
I think I need your definition of reason. My dictionary says "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence."
Where is the logical, rational and analytical arguement for god?

Ignorance of something does not necessarily give mystique to that thing.
Thinking that the existance of god would make the universe a cooler place does not necessarily give creedence to that thought either.

The universe is exceedingly beautiful. And no scientist will ever unveil her in her entirety.
So the universe, all by its self, IS an enigmatic place full of mystique.

Rudimentary knowledge of quantum-mechanics will suffice to show that this existence is far from "mechanical".
Yet your original post wonders ."I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma?"
So once again, you have shown us (through your fine understanding of QM) that existance is far from mechanical all by itself, and filled with mistique and enigma.

You make many statements about the emptiness of life, or the meaningless-ness (is that a word?) of existance without god. You make the intimation that a 50 year old person is upset because they are going to die soon, and there is no god.

What is the meaning of life? Rather, ask "why should there be a meaning to life?". I am born, I die. In between, I do some things I am proud of, I do some things I am ashamed of. I love, (insert various other glurge here).
When I am dying, I will probably be upset by the thought of all the things I wanted to do but never got the chance.

But believing in god, although it may make me feel better because life after death gives me another chance to do those things, does me no more good than believing I'm immortal. I will still die.

[Suezoled]

Didn't this thread start off as "you skeptics don't believe in enigma or mystery" and then devolved into "you don't believe in god I believe in god you're all wrong for not believing in impractical ideas because it gives a sense of wonder and I'm going to accuse people of brainwashing and requiring proof for something to exist before they believe."

Or maybe I'm just being b*tchy today.

Either way, I applaud the folks here for being kind to someone who wants to assert, dismiss, avoid ("I'll post this in the future. And this in the future. And this on another thread..."), harangue, ignore, and apply prejudice and pseudoscience.

It seems Lifegazer wants to believe all skeptic's minds are closed, there is something wrong with looking in the world and finding mundane or wonderful explanation, or teaching the kids to think for themselves, and without adopting his values, a skeptic's life is meaningless.

Okay. Well. I'm converted. I now believe in god. I believe in ghosts, fairies, demons, the tooth fairy, kitsune, another dimension is hidden in my mirror, the toilet ghost, and m&m's will never melt in my hand (even though they have).
:rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


I'm scared that when I die that's the end

Don't be, I promise you it's not. It's all good, trust me and remember we are all made of stars.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Don't be, I promise you you it's not. It's all good, trust me and remember we are all made of stars.

Promise???

It wouldn't be the first that is not kept

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't need to believe in pixies to enjoy the flowers.

"Wow, now I don't need drugs to see these things. Just to enhance them." Otto the Bus Driver

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by lifegazer



There are reasoned arguments for God's existence - throughout philosophical-history to the present-day.



Perhaps you could share just one...:confused:


P.S. When you say ' God ', do you have a particular one in mind?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Don't be, I promise you it's not. It's all good, trust me and remember we are all made of stars.

If you were really a skeptic as you constantly claim, you'd know I can't take your word for this. And since you have no evidence, just be silent.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Prester John
When i look at the clouds or the stars or a distant galaxy or a bacteria or flower (you get the idea) i find they usually contain an element of mystery, all is not known about them, that unknown fascinates me.

True; but at the back of some skeptics' minds there resides a belief that the clouds, galaxies and stars, are all [going to be] explained by science. So there is no true mystery there in the sense that such skeptics believe that all phenomena - and existence itself - are ultimately explainable via the scientific method.

I suppose that my initial question was addressed towards the atheists out there, rather than the agnostics. I apologise for not making this clear, earlier.

They are beautiful in their form too, i like to look at them. (Enigma is close enough to Mystery for this point).

My point is that if we see no 'supernatural' causality behind existence, then existence must lose all of its romance. This would definitely apply for me, to be honest, if I were to be converted to materialism and atheism.
A universe without purpose or intent = what's the point of anything, except self-gratification? I would be instantly depressed, and I have no idea whether I'd be able to shake that depression.

So where am i missing out ? Maybe you are the scared one ?

Scared of discovering there is no God? Not really, since I know it's impossible to prove that, by reason or observation.
What scares me is having those feelings I've just talked about. It
gives me the shivers knowing that some of you must have had them. I would feel special empathy towards those of you who once, maybe, did believe that there is a God... but now do not.

i like Thai's :
"I don't need to believe in pixies to enjoy the flowers."

I do believe I'd enjoy watching the flowers more, if there were pixies in them. Friendly pixies anyway.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I do believe I'd enjoy watching the flowers more, if there were pixies in them. Friendly pixies anyway.

I'd enjoy it if Bill Gates decide he had a spare couple of million and gave it to me. My fantasy isn't going to happen either. Like I said, what we want to be true and what actually is true do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Psiload
I'd argue that the belief in God is, has been, and will continue to be, a corrupting influence on humanity's morality. I disagree with the notion that having faith in a higher power automatically, or inevitably makes one a moral person. Crusades, and jihads... carried out by people who believe they have a God-given purpose. Where is the morality in a holy war? Holy war... the ultimate oxymoron.

Here, you are just pointing-out the ignorances of man in relation to the 'God' they think exists.
This does not detract from the generally-understood religious ideal for morality: To do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves. Etc..
Sure, not many individuals can claim to have attained that way of life on a consistent basis. But the ideal is there. The concept of God's existence gives morality a selfless and loving attitude towards everyone. Whereas imo, the absence of God kills any definite reason to be nice to anyone, except for self-reward.

Show me where an atheistic critical thinker ever led the charge in a battle to slay the infidels, and I'll consider your notion that believers in God are somehow morally superior.

Atheists have always been a minority. Even today, they are a minority. They have never had any real power, or any hope to gain it.
Although it might be argued that communism tries to destroy God through the use of force.

The will to believe is the cheapest commodity in the universe, the desire to understand is the most valuable.
That is why I give my trust to reason.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That is why I give my trust to reason.

Believing in invisible men living in the sky who watch everything you do every minute of every day is reasonable?

This post dedicated to Brown.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by roger
I do not entertain the remotest possibility that there is a God. Yet, this morning as I drove into work w/ my sun roof open, listening to some wonderful chamber music on my radio, I was filled with joy. I am not drawn to mystique, quite the opposite. I find great joy in learning about things, figuring things out, in knowledge, not mystery.

You squire, are the perfect example of the kind of skeptic I had on my mind.
Firstly, you proclaim that there is no God and that you refuse to entertain any argument to suggest that there is. Clearly, you are not open to philosophical debate. You are only interested in murdering 'God philosophy'. This is your hobby.
Secondly, there is more to "knowledge" than learning how things work. There is also the desire to know why things work at all.
The most basic philosophical fact has been overlooked by science: Science is the study of created effects in created spacetime. By default, the study of primal-causes beyond spacetime is something which reason alone can contemplate. No science required.

... while (so far) the universe has been constrained by the rules of logic, it definitely does not contain everything that is allowable by logic.

Such as?

Reason is not enough to determine the nature of the world. Aristotle thought differently, and his physics is laughable.

The nature of existence has nothing to do with physics. Physics dies in a singularity.

Anyway, I am probably done with this thread, as I don't find it interesting or worth my while to discuss things with people who compare upright citizens to Nazi Germany,

Whoa there. I cited that example to prove how easy it is to manipulate the mind of a child with whatever 'truth' you want to
perpetuate. I did not use that example to compare nazis with atheists. That squire, is your paranoi at work.

that we have no sincerity, that we must "admit" we are terrified by our world view.
Well, I told everyone how I'd feel two posts previous to this. I'd be utterly depressed. If you want to maintain that the world looks rosier with the absence of God, then sobeit.
For what it's worth, my 'female companion' is a staunch atheist and I love her to bits. You have misjudged me.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Whoa there. I cited that example to prove how easy it is to manipulate the mind of a child with whatever 'truth' you want to
perpetuate. I did not use that example to compare nazis with atheists. That squire, is your paranoi at work.

Including the "truth" of God.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN
Believing in invisible men living in the sky who watch everything you do every minute of every day is reasonable?

This post dedicated to Brown.
Rather, believing in a God wherein the countless perceptions of relative-being are occuring. God doesn't live in the sky. Rather, the sky lives in God's awareness.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My point is that if we see no 'supernatural' causality behind existence, then existence must lose all of its romance. This would definitely apply for me, to be honest, if I were to be converted to materialism and atheism.
A universe without purpose or intent = what's the point of anything, except self-gratification? I would be instantly depressed, and I have no idea whether I'd be able to shake that depression.

And what is your point of believing in God, if not self-gratification?

You say that without "'supernatural' causality behind existence, [...] existence must lose all of its romance" and you don't seem find pleasure in that. So you simply make up s.th. that is romantic. Fine. Now please tell me what (your) wishful thinking is other than self-gratification.


Originally posted by lifegazer
Scared of discovering there is no God? Not really, since I know it's impossible to prove that, by reason or observation.
What scares me is having those feelings I've just talked about. It
gives me the shivers knowing that some of you must have had them. I would feel special empathy towards those of you who once, maybe, did believe that there is a God... but now do not.

Thanks for your empathy. But I return it with my best wishes.

The loss of romance is easily made up for by the feeling that you've just escaped a major scam and by the newly-won freedom in realizing that there is no Big Brother in the sky reading your thoughts and punishing you for the 'bad' ones.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I do believe I'd enjoy watching the flowers more, if there were pixies in them. Friendly pixies anyway.

Why don't you start believing in it. It surely is an increase in romance.



Edited to correct syntax

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by voidx
You make several false assumptions right of the bat Life-Gazer.

1.) Skeptics "absolute disbelief" in God. This is simply incorrect, and I think you'll have trouble finding any skeptic who will extoll that above view. We cannot know absolutely that God does not exist, we have an abundance of reasons to think he more than likely does not.

Such as?

What in your view makes you so certain that he does exist?

Given a chance, I'll be presenting a few ideas in a couple of days. I'll have more time after the weekend.

Is there anything that makes you doubt the existence of God?

Nothing I can think of.

2.) Skeptics tell their children that science can explain reality completely. Again, no one is making this claim.

Perhaps you overlooked the trend towards materialism, particularly in the West?

[Dragon]

lifegazer,

This is becoming pointless - you are arguing against your own wilful misconception of scepticism , not with what people are actually saying to you.

And I suspect you well know the difference between the two meanings of "materialism" and you're just trolling with your last post.
Until you actually post your evidence for a god (why wait? you seem so sure), I'm done with you for now.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Dragon
This is becoming pointless - you are arguing against your own wilful misconception of scepticism , not with what people are actually saying to you.

Exactly. You've already made up your mind regarding skeptics and skepticism. You're not here to see if you're correct, but to inform us of such.

Let me know when you're ready to learn something instead of stereotyping a people you know nothing about.

[Phil]

Aw, man, it's over and I just got here.

Well, maybe I can hop into the discussion when Lifegazer presents his evidence for the existense of god. I can't wait. That'll be what . . . a couple of days? Three tops?

It's been 25 billion years in the making. I'm not going to miss this.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


One of the best analogies I have heard in a while. I may even steal it for a sig some time, do you mind?

Sure man, just pump my ego even bigger. :wink:

[lifegazer]

You guys are way too defensive. Please try to remember that my philosophy intends to challenge the integrity of your beliefs, and not the integrity of your being.
That you all have morals is not in question. Why you have them, is.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You guys are way too defensive.

Perhaps because you're on the offensive, stereotyping and insulting the folks here.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Please try to remember that my philosophy intends to challenge the integrity of your beliefs, and not the integrity of your being.

Pay attention: I have no beliefs. Science is not a belief. You just want it to be a belief so it'll be on equal footing with your fantasies. It isn't.

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You guys are way too defensive. Please try to remember that my philosophy intends to challenge the integrity of your beliefs, and not the integrity of your being.
That you all have morals is not in question. Why you have them, is.
Defensive? Nay prepared for your "challenge".

And may I ask what beliefs of our you're rerring to? The beliefs, so far mentioned, are yours.

And it seems you are the only one who is concerned about why we have morals. From what I've read in this thread, "we" all either seem to know why we have morals, or we are only concerned that we do, and it's not dependent on the existense of a god.

Incidentally, have you been knighted or something? I notice you referring to some posters as 'squire'. Just curious.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN
Perhaps because you're on the offensive, stereotyping and insulting the folks here.

You - just like roger earlier - are imagining those insults squire. I make no apologies for your own paranoi and misunderstanding of my philosophy.

Pay attention: I have no beliefs.

Only the dead have no beliefs.

Science is not a belief. You just want it to be a belief so it'll be on equal footing with your fantasies. It isn't.
Science explains the order existing in perceived universal behaviour. It does not deal with the origin of that order (the origin of forces), nor the essence of all perceived material.

Science is limited in what it can tell us. Those philosophers who have placed their faith in science, have taken a wrong turn.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Phil
From what I've read in this thread, "we" all either seem to know why we have morals, or we are only concerned that we do, and it's not dependent on the existense of a god.

Then perhaps you can explain what your morality is based upon. More importantly, perhaps you can explain why those reasons would have any real value in a universe without purpose or intent.

Incidentally, have you been knighted or something? I notice you referring to some posters as 'squire'. Just curious.
My old fella used to call people squire. Guess I was brainwashed too.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Only the dead have no beliefs.

Pay attention:

I have no beliefs.

Deal.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Those philosophers who have placed their faith in science, have taken a wrong turn.

Again, since you've already made up your mind, what are you doing here?

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then perhaps you can explain what your morality is based upon. More importantly, perhaps you can explain why those reasons would have any real value in a universe without purpose or intent.
Well mine is based upon not being a sh*theel to everyone. And whether the universe has purpose and intent is a moot question in this regard. Morality only has real value, if there are other people in the world, and I'm pretty sure there are.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello.
I just wondered if people enjoyed being skeptical, apart from the humour to be had in a forum like this of course. I mean, do you really want to live in a mechanical existence, with no mystique or enigma? The human heart shrieks at the thought. Admit it!

Deep down, all you skeptics are scared to death that this crackpot stuff will finally be put to death. For in a sense, a part of us will die with it. And nothing will be gained.


Yes, I want to live in a mechanical existance. The notion that my world is subject to certain laws and will not change is pretty comforting.

Plenty of mystique and enigma abounds, I'm just lucky that I don't have to create a god to enjoy it.

Why would we be scared that this crack pot stuff is put to death? People not getting scammed by religious leaders, mystics, quacks, and other charlatans is something to fear?

And which part of us will die when crackpot stuff is put to death?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then perhaps you can explain what your morality is based upon.I find morality often comes from feeling empathy for other people. The "Golden Rule" is a valid social rule. Nothing prevents atheists from recognizing this fact, even though it is most often associated with religion.
More importantly, perhaps you can explain why those reasons would have any real value in a universe without purpose or intent.I guess you're referring to universal purpose and intent? Many of the things I do in my life has a very specific purpose and intent.

Regardless, to answer your question. The above reason has a great deal of value because, when followed, it allows our race (that is, humanity. not ethnicity) to work together and progress rather than tear ourselves apart. This is beneficial to all of humanity. I am a member of humanity so, therefore, I value it.
My thread infers that atheism kills the spirit of morality and life, even if atheists are correct. I fail to see how your statement (made in another thread) is true.

Unless "spirit" is taken literally and you're refering to anthropomorphic supernatural representations of the abstract concepts "morality" and "life"? In which case, if atheism is true, then they were never really alive to be killed in the first place.

edited to fix an ugly grammer problem

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Phil
Well mine is based upon not being a sh*theel to everyone.

My question to you - in light of the fact that existence has no purpose or intent - is why bother? What is the real value of your concerns for everyone else in the light of such information?

And whether the universe has purpose and intent is a moot question in this regard.

Howso? What do 'feelings' really matter when the universe is without care or purpose? These are serious questions. I somehow feel you think I'm having a go at you, when in fact I'm asking you to examine the value of your own morality towards other 'objects' in a universe where nothing is worth caring about, except the well-being of yourself and others familiar to you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by dmarker
Yes, I want to live in a mechanical existance. The notion that my world is subject to certain laws and will not change is pretty comforting.

But change is at the heart of this existence. No thing which exists in time stays exactly the same for more than an instant. The world is constantly changing.

Why would we be scared that this crack pot stuff is put to death? People not getting scammed by religious leaders, mystics, quacks, and other charlatans is something to fear?

You guys do a good job of exposing the "scamsters". What frustrates me personally, is that some of you "will not even entertain the notion of a God". This has been said to me in this very thread. So some of you are just here to have fun murdering any argument that might be presented, regardless of the credibility of that argument. This is evident before I even post my ideas, so I know what to expect later... especially as I've experienced these attitudes before at other forums.

And which part of us will die when crackpot stuff is put to death?
The part of us that longs for eternity, meaning, purpose, and specialness. The part of us which realises that feelings are pointless in the scheme of things.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You guys do a good job of exposing the "scamsters". What frustrates me personally, is that some of you "will not even entertain the notion of a God". You should go hang out over on Religion and Philosophy. Even the atheists (well, some of them) are willing to entertain the notion of god for the sake of argument.

[Martin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Howso? What do 'feelings' really matter when the universe is without care or purpose? These are serious questions. I somehow feel you think I'm having a go at you, when in fact I'm asking you to examine the value of your own morality towards other 'objects' in a universe where nothing is worth caring about, except the well-being of yourself and others familiar to youI think you're conflating two separate issues. If I'm reading you right - and correct me if I'm not - you're asking the question 'why do we act in an emotional manner?'. You're suggesting that in a naturalistic, purposeless, uncaring Universe the optimal strategy is to act on reason alone, without regard to emotion.

OK, let's assume you're right. Then the obvious question becomes 'is this optimal strategy open to us?'. The answer, IMHO, is no. We have emotions whether we like it or not, whether they are useful or not. There are really two questions here:

One - why do we have emotions?
Two - why do we act upon them?

It's the second question we seem to be focussing on here. The answer, as I see it, is simple - our actions have emotional costs and benefits. Whether or not we think that having no emotions would be better, that option is not available to us. We can't just turn them off.

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My question to you - in light of the fact that existence has no purpose or intent - is why bother? What is the real value of your concerns for everyone else in the light of such information?

No, I understood you correctly, and I apologize if my response seemed terse and dismissive. But I was doing several things at once, and couldn't concentrate fully on my post.

The real value of my concerns for everyone else is the benefit they all receive from me not harming or otherwise purposefully adversely affecting there lives. They are afforded peace of mind, where I am concerned, and I am afforded peace of mind because I have been successful in my personal choice not to be a jerk. I value that highly.

. . .What do 'feelings' really matter when the universe is without care or purpose? These are serious questions . . . I'm asking you to examine the value of your own morality towards other 'objects' in a universe where nothing is worth caring about, except the well-being of yourself and others familiar to you.

I don't think I ever said 'nothing is worth caring about'. If I did, I respectfully retract the statement, as I don't agree with it.

Taking some liberties here, but I think you may have failed to examine the possibility that you apply a human bias to something that requires not one human being to exist in the first place. "Care and purpose" are conditions of being human. These are things that lower, carbon-based creatures feel they need, and are concepts that they obviously spend much time debating. The universe, and indeed existense, as we are discussing the concept here, should not be compared, or actually should not be relegated to the sometimes pathetic concepts and notions of a few of the animals that observe it. We search for meaning and purpose, because we are frightened, timid little beings who are confused by the overwhelming mass of unknowns that surround us. That is presicely the reasons our ancestors went in search of gods in the first place. But let's not assume the universe suffers the same foibles as we.

Having said that, so what, if the universe does not care or have any purpose. We should not be surprised if we discover this to be true. It doesn't change the fact that we have the ability find purpose in our own individual existenses, and this ability does not require the existense of a supreme being. It only requires the existense of the physical; the world, other people, the rest of the observable universe. Some people in this thread have already suggested ways that they do that; whether it be their families, the pursuit of expanding their knowledge, or simply looking at pretty flowers.

I personally seek the best wave in the world, and when I find it, I'm going to surf it. That is my life's purpose. It may seem frivilous to some, but that is exactly the point. These are individual choices, and they will not seem monumental or even worthwhile to everyone, but they are purposes nonetheless. We invented these basic concepts and if we're lucky, we're able to fulfill them or devine enjoyment in the pursuit thereof. And none of them are contingent on god or a caring universe.

Shucks, I done forgot what I was going to say before I started that. Oh well, I'll get back to you in another thread in a day or two.
:)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Martin
I think you're conflating two separate issues. If I'm reading you right - and correct me if I'm not - you're asking the question 'why do we act in an emotional manner?'. You're suggesting that in a naturalistic, purposeless, uncaring Universe the optimal strategy is to act on reason alone, without regard to emotion.

More or less what I'm saying, yes.

Whether or not we think that having no emotions would be better, that option is not available to us. We can't just turn them off.
That's not true. Our emotions change like the wind. A situation which might have upset/bored/scared me as a child, I might now find agreeable. More importantly, a human can decide to change his emotional reaction to a specific concept, and via renewed philosophy, he might achieve his aim.
Emotions are the slaves of the reason that calls for them. Therefore, if I reason that the universe is meaningless, I would expect to feel alot of indifference to things which once seemed important to me.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But change is at the heart of this existence. No thing which exists in time stays exactly the same for more than an instant. The world is constantly changing.

You guys do a good job of exposing the "scamsters". What frustrates me personally, is that some of you "will not even entertain the notion of a God". This has been said to me in this very thread. So some of you are just here to have fun murdering any argument that might be presented, regardless of the credibility of that argument. This is evident before I even post my ideas, so I know what to expect later... especially as I've experienced these attitudes before at other forums.

The part of us that longs for eternity, meaning, purpose, and specialness. The part of us which realises that feelings are pointless in the scheme of things.

Everything does change because physics says they must. But they change in predictable, orderly ways.

I've entertained the notion of god many times. Each time I slip back into the comfort of my materialistic worldview. I've heard all the arguements before and don't find them credible.

But I am eternal. My body came from the stars themselves and my body will still be around albeit in unrecognizable chemical forms. I don't have any children but I have a niece and nephew, and I'm a great influence over my niece so my mind will not die for I have tranferred and will continue to transfer my memes to her. And she will transfer them to others and so on.

As for purpose, my purpose is to learn. No god gave me this purpose, I choose it for myself.

As for specialness, doesn't specialness lead to more harm than good? I'm sure suicide bombers feel very special. I'm sure that snipers who target doctors who provide abortions feel very special. Maybe they should look at the stars and realize that that there is no god, that this life is the only one they've got, and that their fellow humans are no less than they. Maybe if they didn't feel so special, they wouldn't be so eager to kill. You want "mystic" experience? Realize that you are just a speck of chemicals in a huge universe and be humbled. I've never felt that in any religion.

So feelings are not as important as you like them to be? So what?

[Suezoled]

I"m going to go out on a limb here.

Well, first of all, I am denouncing my earlier post on this thread about believing in M&M's not melting in my hand. And the belief in fairies, god, and that other dimension in my mirror. And that other stuff like the toilet ghost.

Let's face it, I'm just not consistent. :p

I'm guessing Lifegazer is insulting to skeptics because he/she is afraid. To him/her, a life with a safety net, the assurance of someone who's going to catch you if you mess up, is a comfort. Seeing people living their lives without that net, living with another perception of reality and humanity, is inconceivable and inviable with his/her beliefs. Lifegazer is definately wearing the earmarks of a social animal who believes in god for the sake of comfort, and wants only the sweetness and none of the whole truth when it comes to god and those philosophies of believing in a christian god or other type.

What does someone like Lifegazer want? Certainly not practical, rational, evidence based discussion. Does he/she want to "save us"? Convert without argument or presenation of evidence?

"why" asks Lifegazer. "Why," as if there were a higher meaning, as if to look for one implies a conscious higher power. As if that is enough to make a belief a fact.

I have to go shower now.

[mythusmage]

There are mysteries out there. In time we'll figure some of them out. Maybe even the age old question, what's with cats? But I don't put much hope in that last.:D

Questions that may get answered some day.

Did Einstein get everything right? If not, how much did he get wrong and what exactly?

Is gravity a force or a condition of space/time? If the latter, what are the implications for theories of everything?

Do (insert plural form of cryptid name here) exist?

What is the best way to get a True Believer (in whatever the subject is) to consider the possibility he might be wrong?

Why do otherwise rational people insist they know better about an incident than those who were there?

Why do journalists keep consulting 'experts' who can't tell their ass from their elbow with detailed instructions?

Just how do you mistake a bear for a yeti? (I had to do it.;))

Is there an effective medical treatment for extremism and fanaticism?

Are PETA members as dumb as they seem?

Will "He was a spammer" become a viable murder defense?

Are birds descended from dinosaurs, or from a line of thecodonts?

Can you recreate dinosaurs by altering bird DNA?

Are monotremes therapsids or mammals?

Will we find new species of large mammals?

How symbiotic is the relationship between dogs and people?

When will people get over the fact there is no life on Mars?

When will people acknowledge some diseases may require generations of adaptation because there is no effective treatment for them?

Feel free to add your own.

[plindboe]

lifegazer,

You might think it's sad that there are atheists. Personally I think it's sad that there are people like you who aren't satisfied with the world as it is, and therefore demand more, by inventing fantasies in order to get by. It's very telling that you say a world without God would be sad, since that's practically the same as admitting that you can't handle the Truth. What has the Truth have to do with what we want to believe in? Use logical and rational thinking, not emotions. Otherwise you will never reach the Truth.

[Whomp]

Originally posted by mythusmage
Will "He was a spammer" become a viable murder defense?

Best line in a long time!


Whomp!

[The Thrasher]

I can only share my own experince when it comes to theology within the human mind. I was raised in a very strict right wing "christian" home. As far back as I can remember I knew that the stories I was being told were wrong. I think I was born a skeptic. As a result I began reading at a very early age. I am and have always have been a bookworm.
After years of study and thought I came to the conclusion that there was no proof of god. My parents were liars, everything I had ever been taught about theology, morality, or the origins of life was fiction.
It was the most wonderful thing I have ever felt. I was free. I was no longer a slave to a vindictive, vengeful, and altogether absurd deity. I opened my eyes and realized that the chains didn't exsist.
I am far happier now than I ever was as a christian. The greatest joy comes from knowing that I am strong enough to accept life as it is, not as I would have it to be.
I for one have no desire to live in a world of spirits and gods. The world that I live in is more mysterious, facinating, and beautiful than any fairytale ever invented by man.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


If you were really a skeptic as you constantly claim, you'd know I can't take your word for this. And since you have no evidence, just be silent.

No thanks. I have had personal evidence. That does not stop me from being a skeptic. Far from it, it confirms my skepticism of much of what is written on it. You, for instance, as a skeptic, can take the evidence for there being a spiritual unity of all conscious being, or 'God', and see how it cuts against the razor. What's the simplest explanation?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No thanks. I have had personal evidence. That does not stop me from being a skeptic. Far from it, it confirms my skepticism of much of what is written on it. You, for instance, as a skeptic, can take the evidence for there being a spiritual unity of all conscious being, or 'God', and see how it cuts against the razor. What's the simplest explanation?
The simplest explanation is that everyone in the whole world is nuts.

[uruk]

A question I have for lifegazer is which view of god do you believe?
Is it a view based on established religious views or is it a hodgpodge of whatever you "feel" makes sense to you.

Why is your view of god more correct than what has been established by 10,000 years of establshed religion?

If you believe that the god of christianity is the correct view,
then how do you reconcile the moral hypocracy of the christian god? If you say they are wrong and that billions of people can be wrong in their assessment of god and his will, then how are you sure yours is the correct view?

I know your happier believeing in god and more power to you.
but you have face the fact that atheists are just as happy with
their view.

Also, when you offer the question of "why" things are and attribute the answer "god", are you making an extention of the "how"
issue or do you mean the state of god's mind during creation.

Example:
Q: Why is the universe here?
A: 'Cause god created it.
(extention of "how")

Q: why is the universe here?
A: 'Cause god wanted something nice to hang on the wall.
(state of god's mind)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
A question I have for lifegazer is which view of god do you believe?
Is it a view based on established religious views or is it a hodgpodge of whatever you "feel" makes sense to you.

I shall present a thread or two tomorrow, to link perceived existence to this state of being - 'God' - which is the true reality behind everything.

Why is your view of god more correct than what has been established by 10,000 years of establshed religion?

Reason... as opposed to belief.

If you believe that the god of christianity is the correct view,

I am not a Christian. They have misrepresented the scriptures, imo.

Also, when you offer the question of "why" things are and attribute the answer "god", are you making an extention of the "how"
issue or do you mean the state of god's mind during creation.

Example:
Q: Why is the universe here?
A: 'Cause god created it.
(extention of "how")

Q: why is the universe here?
A: 'Cause god wanted something nice to hang on the wall.
(state of god's mind)
God's mind. God is a singularity of being. An omnipresent entity is a singularity of being. Things that happen, can only happen in the mind when reality is a singularity. For at singularity, time and distance are meaningless. So are the terms 'beginning' and 'end'.
A singularity is without beginning or end, and is timeless. The God of the bible says this Itself, yet christians refuse to accept the absolutism of God. They blame the devil and/or man, and threaten us with the fires of hell. They point to other entities and abodes outside God. Outside 'God'? Are they insane?!

[thaiboxerken]

So, it's his own personal version of "God". That's ok, though, shedding off organized religion is the first step to enlightenment, the enlightenment that there are no gods.

[Suezoled]

Lifegazer keeps mentioning links. Did I miss them? I can't find them. Where are they? It's Sunday where I am now, in Upstate NY. It's 10:30pm now. Still nothing.

God's mind. God is a singularity of being. An omnipresent entity is a singularity of being. Things that happen, can only happen in the mind when reality is a singularity. For at singularity, time and distance are meaningless. So are the terms 'beginning' and 'end'.
A singularity is without beginning or end, and is timeless. The God of the bible says this Itself, yet christians refuse to accept the absolutism of God. They blame the devil and/or man, and threaten us with the fires of hell. They point to other entities and abodes outside God. Outside 'God'? Are they insane?!.

Yes sir/ ma'am teacher all-knowing wise guy. Whatever you say when you say it, right? Throw off the parts of the God that are inconvenient, keep the parts you like. Just like any God-fearing/loving nut who only takes it for the comfort but not any of the hard truth that the bible has decreed.

Would being without God take away your morals, your reason for being, your purpose in life? Would being without God allow you go answer the questions people pose instead of saying "I'll post a link/thread/article in a few days" and then you don't even stand and deliver? Do you know what this says about your morals and the god you represent when you don't do what you say you will. Ah, well, the godless such as myself will have to suffer I suppose.

Oh, and Thaiboxerken, why Baki the Grappler as your avatar? It's really cool though! (Even if it's not from a country that predominately believes in Lifegazer's God.) ;)

[thaiboxerken]

I didn't realize it was Baki, a friend gave it to me. They look like Thai boxers to me.

Baki isn't a good series, IMO. Naruto all the way!

[Suezoled]

November 13, 2002, 12:09pm. Still no sign of threads, links, or proof of Lifegazer's god.
Am I the only one waiting? Is this a joke after all!? Oh d#mn! I'm so hurt! This was a hoax? Another liar? This only makes god look bad, you know, if you're speaking for any god,Lifegazer. If god is reading this, I would get another representative. My faith in your speaker... okay, well, it never existed, so maybe you should have gotten a better mouthpiece anyway.

Dear God: next time you send someone to prove you exist, please make sure he is better prepared. Or at least not an outright liar.


I'm more of a Gensoumaden Saiyuki fan... pretty boys, gay innuendo, magic, massive psychological trauma. Same goes for Tokyo Babylon.

[uruk]

Posted by lifegazer
God's mind. God is a singularity of being. An omnipresent entity is a singularity of being. Things that happen, can only happen in the mind when reality is a singularity. For at singularity, time and distance are meaningless. So are the terms 'beginning' and 'end'.

posted by thaiboxerken
So, it's his own personal version of "God". That's ok, though, shedding off organized religion is the first step to enlightenment, the enlightenment that there are no gods.

I thought as much.

I consider myself an agnostic because I recognize that there might actually be a small possibility. I mean, after all there is no such thing as 100%. (call me a bet hedger) But I don't pretend to know what that god might be. I have my own ideas what it might be, but I don't presume those ideas to be anything more than just guesses based on personal observations and assumptions.

The one belief I will allow myself is: If there is a god, and inspite of what I posted in other threads, I think science will find it.
And no, I don't have anything to back it up with. But at least I'm willing to admit that. And to any wag that sez "well why believe then?" read the above paragraph again.:p

Oh, I forgot. The reason I asked about the "why" thingy is
every time I get acosted by the "faithfull" The argument invariably
breaks down to: "Science only tries to answer "How" the universe came into being, not "why". So I ask, "Why, then?"
Then they say" 'cause god created it!" Which is really just an extention of the "how". Pondering "why" the universe is created
implies knowing the reasons god has for creating the universe or knowing the mind of god. Heck!, I don't even know why I do some of the stupid things I do. How can I possibly hope to know
the mind of the almighty, omnipotent, singularity, omniverse or whatever? Franko, Lifegazer, and Interesting Ian must be better men than I.

[athon]

I know I've missed most of this discussion, but I thought I'd jump in and give my money's worth, mostly because I have heard this sort of thing all too often and while I'm no easily offended, it does raise my hackles because it smacks of pompous arrogance.

Have you ever felt butterflies in your stomach when you discover for yourself something that a scientist worked out a long time ago?

Have you ever been brought close to tears by how perfect a biochemical pathway can look, how hormones and the complexity of biochemistry can account for every emotion, every thought, every hope and dream?

Have you ever sensed the pure adrenalin at having a peek into the machinery of the universe?

I hate being told that I have no emotion towards the universe because I do not 'appreciate its mystery'.

If there is intelligent design, I feel a closeness with god (of whatever dogma) just for being allowed to appreciate His majesty at a deeper level than most.

Athon

[LFTKBS]

Hey, lifegazer, I have some questions about QM if you have a moment. If you don't know or don't understand, please ask God to answer them, because it gets a little complicated. Please outline a complete and accurate theory of quantum gravity. If you are learned enough to have a knowledge of QM, and God is on your side, please enlighten we mere non-theist mortals.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Hey, lifegazer, I have some questions about QM if you have a moment. If you don't know or don't understand, please ask God to answer them, because it gets a little complicated. Please outline a complete and accurate theory of quantum gravity. If you are learned enough to have a knowledge of QM, and God is on your side, please enlighten we mere non-theist mortals.
Gravity is a force. All forces emanate from origins. God is that origin, essentially.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Gravity is a force. All forces emanate from origins.
A force is "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application", that makes gravity a force.

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of matter.

God is that origin, essentially.
*sigh* Incorrect.

I was actually following alont up until that last line....

Making up your own facts doesnt constitute as a very strong arguement.

To explain the way things work in terms of God is to explain exactly the NOTHING.

All things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, all things obey the laws of the physics, anything that fails to meet those two criteria cannot and does not exist. From there, you can extrapolate that god(s) do not exist (nor is there any need for them). Welcome to reality.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Gravity is a force. All forces emanate from origins. God is that origin, essentially.

So if I wanted to use your explanation of classical gravity, I could say:

F1,2 = Whatever God decides.

Are you stupid? I asked for a coherent theory of quantum gravitation and you give me that? What a disgusting, lazy, idiotic way of explaning something. Do you know anything about math or physics or science, or did you get through school by making up that nonsense? Why not say "Gosh, LFTKBS, I can't give you that theory because I don't know. Nobody knows. Even my advanced mystic knowledge of the universe has failed."

Go read a book.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Gravity is a force. All forces emanate from origins. God is that origin, essentially.

Prove it. And not with rambling pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

[Loki]

lifegazer,

The best way to comprehend what is being said to you :

Start here : You *know* that you experience the "mystery" and "spirituality" of life, and that "morality" has value to you.

Now : If you're right about a god, then how you feel doesn't change, right?

But : If I'm right about god/the universe, then how you feel doesn't change!

In other words, how you *feel*, right now about spirituality and morality isn't dependant upon the truth value of your beliefs. The "joy" or "happiness" or "oneness" that you currently experience in your spiritual life is true for you, but the truth value of your beliefs is indeterminate. Therefore, the 'morality' and 'spirituality' of your life right now *can't* be dependant on the existence of a god - they are dependant purely upon you. So of course you can "let go" of god and still retain the spirituality - it changes shape, it doesn't (have to) disappear.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
A force is "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application", that makes gravity a force.

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of matter.

Sure, I won't argue with any of that. But note that your definition tells us what gravity does. It doesn't tell us where gravity comes from, ultimately.

*sigh* Incorrect.

I respect your opinion. But I know that you do not know for sure that my statement is incorrect. It's simply impossible - using any sort of rationale - to actually refute God's existence.

I was actually following alont up until that last line....

Making up your own facts doesnt constitute as a very strong arguement.

Well I have arguments for stating that God exists. With time, I hope to present them. I clearly cannot present them all here, in one post. I have lots of ideas. My main thread will deal with actually deriving the conclusion that "God exists" from the scientific knowledge we have come to glean. I'll be specifically trying to show that quantum mechanics and relativity are both evidence of the ultimate-reality that is in awareness. I.e., I aim to show that scientific-knowledge is leading us back to God.

To explain the way things work in terms of God is to explain exactly the NOTHING.

LFTKBS asked me to produce something only a quantum-physicist could produce. I make no claims to be such. But what does that matter? There is not a quantum-physicist in the whole world who knows the absolute-essence of gravity or of any other force that exists.
And I'd also like to make another comment: a particle is the resultant effect of forces/charges acting upon energy. Therefore, no particle is the cause of the forces that exist in the universe. Consequently, no matter (no object) is the absolute-cause of any force, since all matter is effected by those forces.
Physics is doomed never to find the absolute-cause of any force, for she keeps looking into matter to find it. The very-matter that has been effected by the forces that exist within this realm.

All things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, all things obey the laws of the physics,

What is the origin of those laws? Know that, and you can know the origin of their forces.

anything that fails to meet those two criteria cannot and does not exist.

That's an assumption. Actually I think it's wrong, since there must be an existence which gave birth to these laws. Forces require an 'enforcing agent', wouldn't you agree?

From there, you can extrapolate that god(s) do not exist (nor is there any need for them). Welcome to reality.
Sure, "from there" you no-doubt can. The problem is that your start-point is definitely assumed and is arguably incorrect anyway.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The problem is that your start-point is definitely assumed and is arguably incorrect anyway.

As is yours.