Knowing we age/die: "Cruel and unusual punishment"?

[Iamme]

This question begs an answer from God. Or...does the question itSELF cause you to wonder about God...his existance, or purpose... or, where man fits into the scheme of things?

I was sweeping a basement a couple days ago and my broom came close to a spider. He ran for his life! Even a spider knows that it doesn't want to die. But perhaps the spider is limited in it's capacity to actually 'worry' about it.

Man, on the other hand, can get into a real lather over not just death...but the entire process that leads up to it: The aging process. We KNOW what is coming. We KNOW that once we leave behind the prime of our life, it's going to be all down hill.

We know that we could drop over dead, get cancer, have teeth fall out, lose hair, watch family members suffer and die before us, get wrinkled up like a prune, lose our mental faculties, get liver spots, get big ears , women can grow beards, become incontinent, need to use a walker, wind up in a Nursing Home?....well, it's an endless list of things one can toss around in your head. And those things you choose might have to do with realistic fears based on your family history.

IF man evolved this brain that is so capable of deep thought beyond that of any animal...we have also inherited something very bad, out of the good, and that is the knowledge of the law of entropy...when it comes to us. It's aknowledge that is...a curse. Or...did GOD do this to us? Was it intended? Part of the 'great sin' deal?

Or, don't you really think so? Do you think, instead, that our knowledge of this, can better prepare us for the trevails that lie ahead, better than that of some lowly animal that can't think such thoughts?

[KAREENA]

Hiya Iamme,
My mother used to worry over getting old. She often asked the question: Why did God make us this way? meaning: why did God make us in such a way as to have to get all wrinkled up when we grow old? She had quite a time with this question.

It is the case that He created beauty by creating the human body, so why does it have to get spoiled at some point? It does seem rather cruel that we have to come to an acceptance of those irreversible signs of aging. One possible explanation would be that if (IF) one believes in heaven, then before getting to that paradise, we need to go through a place called 'the humble road'. Our characters, which are regulated by pride, power, materialistic gain, invicible prowess, etc...when we are young (teens, early twenties, thirties, forties....) need to shed those extraneous components of personalities in order to get to the real and only worthy traits. It was said that in order to reach heaven we must become like little children. How much more unassuming and humble can one be than to be like a young child. My point? After a certain age, when one starts or gets all wrinkled up, wouldn't that reality and having to accept it, be a section of the 'road to humility', the way towards eventually being ready to face St. Peter?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Hiya Iamme,
My mother used to worry over getting old. She often asked the question: Why did God make us this way? meaning: why did God make us in such a way as to have to get all wrinkled up when we grow old? She had quite a time with this question.

It is the case that He created beauty by creating the human body, so why does it have to get spoiled at some point? It does seem rather cruel that we have to come to an acceptance of those irreversible signs of aging. One possible explanation would be that if (IF) one believes in heaven, then before getting to that paradise, we need to go through a place called 'the humble road'. Our characters, which are regulated by pride, power, materialistic gain, invicible prowess, etc...when we are young (teens, early twenties, thirties, forties....) need to shed those extraneous components of personalities in order to get to the real and only worthy traits. It was said that in order to reach heaven we must become like little children. How much more unassuming and humble can one be than to be like a young child. My point? After a certain age, when one starts or gets all wrinkled up, wouldn't that reality and having to accept it, be a section of the 'road to humility', the way towards eventually being ready to face St. Peter?
Kareena,

Welcome to the forum.

Do you have any evidence for this paradise, this god, this St. Peter or this claim that this god created us? I thought all the evidence from the past century and a half clearly pointed to an evolution from ape-like creatures. What evidence do you have that this is not so? If your god didn't directly create us, then did your god create our slime-like ancestors?

[KAREENA]

(BillHoyt) What evidence do you have that this is not so? If your god didn't directly create us, then did your god create our slime-like ancestors?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Bill and thank you for welcoming me. :)

To answer your question, according to my view, there was also Noah, his ark and all the creatures he saved. It's a matter of one's belief, I guess. I prefer hoping for an afterlife than to think of rotting 6 feet under. What drives me is also a belief in one's soul as being connected to the Universal Spirit, the 'Holy Spirit" part of the Holy Trinity. Please don't ask me to analyse this in detail. When I was younger I had quite a time to get around the idea of Three in One. I finally decided to live this life as best I could not knowing when it would end nor where I would end up! I accepted what my religion was teaching. It made sense to believe that as a rational human being with a sense of right and wrong, also called one's conscience, I was following the precepts of the church, along with the ten commandments. The Church preached God's words. God's words bring us back to Adam and Eve and Noah, and the gang! :) I have definitely looked at, studied, taken in consideration Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It left so much of mankind's dignity unspoken for. I was not prepared to argue, I accepted. A matter of choice and upbringing. (The subject of the soul is discussed somewhere else on this board.) Iamme was probably thinking more in terms of our biological make-up when he began this thread? KN

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
(BillHoyt) What evidence do you have that this is not so? If your god didn't directly create us, then did your god create our slime-like ancestors?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Bill and thank you for welcoming me. :)

To answer your question, according to my view, there was also Noah, his ark and all the creatures he saved. It's a matter of one's belief, I guess. I prefer hoping for an afterlife than to think of rotting 6 feet under. What drives me is also a belief in one's soul as being connected to the Universal Spirit, the 'Holy Spirit" part of the Holy Trinity. Please don't ask me to analyse this in detail. When I was younger I had quite a time to get around the idea of Three in One. I finally decided to live this life as best I could not knowing when it would end nor where I would end up! I accepted what my religion was teaching. It made sense to believe that as a rational human being with a sense of right and wrong, also called one's conscience, I was following the precepts of the church, along with the ten commandments. The Church preached God's words. God's words bring us back to Adam and Eve and Noah, and the gang! :) I have definitely looked at, studied, taken in consideration Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It left so much of mankind's dignity unspoken for. I was not prepared to argue, I accepted. A matter of choice and upbringing. (The subject of the soul is discussed somewhere else on this board.) Iamme was probably thinking more in terms of our biological make-up when he began this thread? KN
I'm afraid you're at the wrong board if you hope nobody will "ask [you] to analyze this in detail." This is a skeptics board, and you will be asked exactly those kinds of questions. Repeatedly.

The first that come to mind for me, for instance: have you ever calculated the amount of space needed for two of all known types of animals? Have you ever compared that against the biblical account of the ark's size? They don't fit? Have you ever calculated the amount of rain that must have fallen to have covered the terrain and the heights claimed by the bible? The rate of rain fall needed would have sunk the ark. And what do you mean to compare scientific evidence with your private sense of dignity? Do you really mean to claim that a fundamentalist interpretation of one book weighs more heavily in your mind than the mountains of evidence for evolution?

[Scott Wheeler]

I think there is a sort of conflict between our biological instinct for survival and our abstract understanding of our own mortality. I think we are unique amoung animals in this conflict. I think this may very well be a powerful force in the invention of afterlife myths. I understand the urge to resolve the conflict through the adoption of such myths. Rational thought is not always the most comforting thing.

[John Bentley]

Hello lamme,

To answer your question from my point of view: No, the ability to anticipate our future senescence is not a curse from a deity, but simply a byproduct of our ability to perform inductive reasoning. However, on the up side, this same ability allows us to prepare for our own senescence, if we are wise. We can also delay the onset of many of the symptoms through exercise and a healthy diet, but in the end, "life stinks, and then you die".

As to why we are made that way, the truth is that nothing was "made" any way at all. At least not purposefully. I would guess that the species best able to replace the old with the new were the ones that best adapted to their niches and survive today. The old have to go for the individuals of a species to adapt to changing conditions.

As to why ageing is so darned pathetic, its because the ageing process is due to cells no longer being able to divide or repair damage. There are probably two components to ageing. One is the damage to your DNA from outside sources such as cosmic rays, background radiation, free radicals, etc. If the damage becomes too severe, the cell is no longer able to divide, or no longer able to sustain the mechanisms necessary to keep it alive. The other problem is a sort of built in clock having to do with things called telomeres on the end of your chromosomes. A telomere is chopped off every time a cell divides. When all the telomeres are gone, the cell is no longer capable of dividing, and dies due to the above cellular damage. A built in timebomb for every cell. Wonderful.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Do you really mean to claim that a fundamentalist interpretation of one book weighs more heavily in your mind than the mountains of evidence for evolution?

What is at issue here is not "a fundamentalist interpretation of one book"--although that is a good place to start: "...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rather, it is the life experiences of myself and of others I believe and trust who have committed their lives to knowing the Author and living by the precepts of that book. From my own experience, I can attest that doing so has brought comfort, wisdom, and peace during troubled and uncertain times. It has resulted in guidance and provision at the points when help was most needed. Rarer, but correspondingly more precious have been those few times when I have experienced what I am convinced was a direct connection with or special message from God or one of his angels.

It is from that basis in my own personal experience and in the experiences of others whom I trust that I am convinced that the Bible is, in fact, our written record of the revelation of God to this world. It does not, of course, tell us all we want to know about God and his plan, but I believe that it tells us all we need to know in order to get us through this life and to the point where the rest of our questions can be answered.

The Bible does not go into great technical detail about the origin of life, but it does clearly attest that this world is the result of the special, purposeful, creative work of God. That is a data point which I would be foolish beyond words to throw out, regardless of the volume or mass of evidence which you might be able to amass to contradict it. What would it take to change my mind? Well, if you could go back and replay the last thirty-four years of my life with no answered prayer, no special "touches" from God, no guidance or counsel or comfort from his word, and no instances of special protection or provision when most needed--if, in other words, you could remove every instance of divine help or encouragement--then I might be persuaded to look at the Bible as just another purely human book. I do not think that you can do that. But you are welcome to try.

Now, while I regard the Genesis account as a reliable "data point," that does not mean that I will automatically throw out any other data point which, initially, seems to be opposed to it. The overriding question in my mind and, I would hope, in yours is that of, "What is the truth? The questions you bring up are valid, and I believe that any truly successful theory will in fact connect ALL the data points, on both your side and mine. I don't think I'm there yet--although I do believe I am on the right track. What I have so far is purely speculative; I do not say it is the way things are--although I do believe it is the way things could be. What I need--and what I believe I will get--is more data. Not from the scientific side, but from God. I believe events are poised for an era of new--and perhaps, at long last, complete--revelation from God. High time.

--------Eric H. Bowen

[John Bentley]

Whew, Eric!

It takes at least some fortitude to witness like that on this forum, where you know you will be taken to task for your beliefs. However, I think you may be straying off the main topic and into the Religion and Philosophy forum. I suppose we can all view your post as vaguely related to lamme's original question as to whether the ability to contemplate your own mortality is a curse from God, or simply a necessary tradeoff we endure for the ability to think ahead. In other words, you seem to be saying that it is not a curse, but simply part of God's plan, which will become clear to us after we die. Am I correct in assuming your position?

Personally, I think Scott Wheeler is on the right track. Afterlife mythologies are very comforting, and they go a long way in explaining the obvious inequities and unresolvable injustice present in life. However, he left out the cynical side of it. You'll notice that in the history of every major religion, you got to the afterlife through the power of the priesthood. So the shaman/priest didn't have to fight in the wars, didn't have to toil in the fields, and wasn't thrown out on his ear when he became old and decrepit. Someone who couldn't throw a spear, couldn't hunt, was unable or unwilling to support himself-- in other words, was a parasite on the rest of the society, could always become a priest. In addition, even the king/chief had to treat the shaman with great care and respect no matter what kind of miscreant the shaman happened to be because religion holds the keys to the afterlife. What a scam!

[ehbowen]

You're right, my earlier post somewhat, ah, derailed the thread. You'd think a train nut would know better....

To try to get back on track: Is >knowing< that we age and die "cruel and unusual punishment?" I would first argue that the "knowing" bit is secondary to the actual fact itself. If aging and death happen, and if we have the cognitive capacity to observe events and make inferences, we can hardly >help< but know that, some day, something similar to that is going to happen to us.

So the basic question remains, is aging and death cruel and unusual punishment? For those of us who live in prosperous and tolerant Western societies, it might seem so; we see no reason why the current state of affairs should not extend indefinitely. But if we were to live in another place and time, our viewpoint might change. Imagine what it might be like to live forever under Josef Stalin, for example. Under circumstances like that, one could easily view death as a release and a blessing, both for the individual and for the society at large.

My gut-level view is that God hates death. He has expended a great deal of effort and taken on a huge personal burden in order to make it possible for some of us to be forever freed from the curse of death. But under the circumstances, in a world which refuses to acknowledge the authority or observe the principles of God, I believe that he sees it as a necessary and even merciful evil. So, therefore, I do not think that our knowledge of approaching death constitutes any kind of punishment, let alone a cruel and unusual one.

--------Eric H. Bowen

[John Bentley]

Maybe it would help if lamme were to speak for himself at this point, but I'm going to stick my neck out and try to re-state his original question.

I'm going to disagree with you Eric, that the basic question is whether death itself is cruel and unusual. The basic question is whether we would be better off if we couldn't brood about our own mortality. From his story about the spider running away from him, lamme seems to accept the fact that all things die and seek to avoid injury. But as far as we know, only humans can anticipate their own demise. Even though all things die, all other animals appear to live completely in the present. They enjoy life as it comes. Man, on the other hand, is able to suck the joy out of just about any occasion because he knows joy is fleeting, and that death is coming to us all. To me, the basic question was whether the ability to infer our own death from evidence around us is a curse from God as punishment for some transgression (original sin, etc.) or whether it is an unavoidable consequence of our reasoning powers.

Personally, I think lamme was anthropomorphizing a bit with the behavior of the spider. What he saw as the spider recognizing a threat to its life and running to avoid the threat, I would characterize as an avoidance behavior that would be incited by any large moving object nearby, whether it was actually threatening the spider or not. It is most likely hardwired into the spider's nervous system, and does not rely on any cognitive abilities on the spider's part whatsoever.

My view on the basic question is that lamme's premise is backwards. The question should be: Is mankind's predilection for religion an unavoidable consequence of his ability to apprehend his ephemeral nature? Would we be better off if we couldn't conceive of our own death, or is that ability the driving force behind our desire to strive for something better?

[LucyR]

Originally posted by KAREENA
It left so much of mankind's dignity unspoken for.

I think "vanity" is the word you're stuggling for.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by ehbowen
What is at issue here is not "a fundamentalist interpretation of one book"--although that is a good place to start: "...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rather, it is the life experiences of myself and of others I believe and trust who have committed their lives to knowing the Author and living by the precepts of that book.
Eric,

I presume your are talking about one of the many and different versions of the Bible. Not the Old Testament that, to the Jews, is where the Author stopped. Nor the Koran that the Muslims claim to be by the same Author. Not the Upanishads, again by the same Author. Or the Ramayana. Or any of a number of books reputed to be from the same Author. That lengthy list of books, their great variety of claims, commandments and descriptions of reality, however, should be the first clue that you incorrectly ascribe authorship.

The Bible does not go into great technical detail about the origin of life, but it does clearly attest that this world is the result of the special, purposeful, creative work of God.
The Bible quite clearly goes into detail about the origin of life. In fact, it gives two, back-to-back, contradictory accounts.

Now, while I regard the Genesis account as a reliable "data point," that does not mean that I will automatically throw out any other data point which, initially, seems to be opposed to it. The overriding question in my mind and, I would hope, in yours is that of, "What is the truth? The questions you bring up are valid, and I believe that any truly successful theory will in fact connect ALL the data points, on both your side and mine. I don't think I'm there yet--although I do believe I am on the right track. What I have so far is purely speculative; I do not say it is the way things are--although I do believe it is the way things could be. What I need--and what I believe I will get--is more data. Not from the scientific side, but from God. I believe events are poised for an era of new--and perhaps, at long last, complete--revelation from God. High time.

You describe a very unusual system for your truth. Given even the most prodigious evidence, you say you won't ignore it. Yet neither will you accept it until your God (for whom you have no proof) speaks (for which you have no evidence) to you (for which you will have no external touchstone). Meanwhile, you choose to utterly ignore the fact that your own understanding of the Bible is already wrong, and self-contradictory. Genesis does give a technical account, despite your first claim. It also gives contradictory accounts. There are two distinct tales of how life came to be and which forms of life came when.

[Dancing David]

Welcome to Kareen and John Bently.
------------------------------------


Hmm,

The question I would ask is this:

Should we search for meaning behind the truth that we are organic creatures?

There are a host of questions that a e based upon this trap: Life is what it is, if there are parts of it that are painful, why do they exist?

The answer to the OP is simple: we get old and die because we are alive. The river moves downstream, you can go with the flow and the journey and enjoy it. Death and ageing are the price of admission to life.

[Eos of the Eons]

A telomere is chopped off every time a cell divides. When all the telomeres are gone, the cell is no longer capable of dividing, and dies due to the above cellular damage. A built in timebomb for every cell. Wonderful.

Did you know that fat cells only divide when they get too full of fat and need to make new fat cells? Do all cells have telomeres?
That would be the cruelest joke. Our skin cells have to divide a lot in order to keep up with the ones sloughing off and other ways they get lost. Gravity isn't nice for the skin or fat on the body.

Life is life. We reproduce in order to make up for getting old and dying. Not only that, but resources need constant recycling to keep a balance.

I just don't know how the anything would operate otherwise. Even buildings, cars, etc (that aren't even alive) need constant maintenance in order to keep working-and even then it may be just easier and more cost efficient to get a new building/car/etc.

Even planets and stars don't last forever.

The only constant is change. Our lives end. Just be grateful that you were ever even alive.

That's what gets me. People are so darn worried about idtiotic things and kill/torture/maim each other during stupid fights. You only get one life (yeah that's my opinion, so kill me :P), and most people spend them hating each other for reasons that really don't matter in the entire universe.

[Chaos]

What Eos said...

I once read a saying - I can´t remember by whom - that went:

"For life, as for a stage play, it does not matter how long it lasts, but how well it is played."

[KAREENA]

(Lucy R)
Originally posted by KAREENA
It left so much of mankind's dignity unspoken for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think "vanity" is the word you're stuggling for

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Lucy R.,
Truly, Lucy, for me 'vanity' connotes pride in one's self. One is vain when one considers him/herself above and beyond the common traits of mankind. A sort of unhealthy look upon the commonality of man, a disdain for the common. A belief in one's superiority in this design.

When I used the word "dignity" - I meant the divine in human beings. To be able to walk among humanity with a sense of love, humility, peace and compassion is, in my view, to be dignified. Dignity was exemplified by Jesus, and Mother Theresa? To be dignified is to be a true disciple and a follower of Jesus who was able to walk among the kings, the princes as well as the leprous and exude the same feelings of regard to all. I don't recall Darwin going into this direction.

[KAREENA]

(Dancing David)
Illuminator

Welcome to Kareen and John Bently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:) Thank you Dancing David. Happy to be on board. KN

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
I don't recall Darwin going into this direction.
Pardon me, but Darwin went much further. Rather than the presumptuous limitation of "walking amongst humanity," etc, he pointed us clearly to the evidence that all the plants and animals share a common ancestry. Darwin walked further in this direction than most of those who preceded him.

So exactly how does recognizing our commonality debase this dignity? How does sharing it with the ancestors of chimpanzees lessen it?

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt
So exactly how does recognizing our commonality debase this dignity? How does sharing it with the ancestors of chimpanzees lessen it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have I given an indication to this effect? In a reply to LucyR who substituted 'vanity' for my use of the word dignity, I consider that to be vain is to 'look down' on many aspects of humanity. My point was that to have dignity is to appreciate the commonality and .....[rather than repeat myself, see my earlier post]. :)

By the way, what's YOUR position on the original ..sin.. oops..I mean posting? :))) KN

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Have I given an indication to this effect?
Quite clearly. To wit:

"I have definitely looked at, studied, taken in consideration Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It left so much of mankind's dignity unspoken for."

Then:

"My point was that to have dignity is to appreciate the commonality and ..."

How does knowing we descend from other animals somehow not speak to our dignity? How does it not appreciate our commonality?

Moreover, however, you claimed:

"When I used the word "dignity" - I meant the divine in human beings"

Where on earth did you get such a definition? Thisonline dictionary definition of dignity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dignity) makes zilch mention of "divine." It speaks of worthiness, rank, esteem, poise, and self-respect.

Please do not play Alice's Humpty Dumpty here. Words do not mean what you want them to mean. Please explain why you feel evolution debases humanity.

[gnome]

I am convinced that awareness of our own mortality is a good thing (a blessing, if you wish). What else could inspire us to actually do something with our life... temporary pleasures are the most sublime of all. We can enjoy our life more, by making the most of it, knowing that it will someday end.

Who's seen "Joe vs. The Volcano"?

[Z]

I tend to look at it this way:

Evolution suggests that the fittest genotype survives to reproduce and further its genotype. Apparently, for reasons not yet known, genotypes change from time to time - perhaps from exposure to previously unknown energies, or combinations of chemical exposures, or some other factor. Thus, new genes are introduced and tested by survival.

At some point, the genes of a creature were altered in such a way that some form of predictive thought was generated. This thinking process was radically different, and caused the being in question to look ahead to the possibility and probability of death, as well as thousands of other situations. The survival aspect began slowly to be transferred from those PHYSICALLY most able to survive, to those MENTALLY most able to survive. The human ancestor, unequipped with sharp teeth and claws, replaced them with spears and survived in spite of carrying a flawed trait. The next array of ancestors would similarly adapt by ignoring what genes had given them and instead grasping for survival tools of all sorts.

Ultimately, religion became a survival tool. Creating a mythology invoked a kind of reverence for the creator that ensured he or she could survive more easily than risking the dangers of hunting and warfare, while dictating a method of behaviour that benefitted the entire tribe by eliminating many potentially hazardous behaviours in favor of behaving 'as the Spirits want' to gain an 'afterlife'. We could argue that the entire development of society and science were the direct results of religion, and thus of a new species of survival instinct that favoured advanced thought to physical prowess.

Now, as Humans, we're living in a world where survival is being extended to the entire species in theory, where even the weakest genotypes thrive and flourish, and religion and philosophy are in such an array, that anyone can find something to believe in. So what is the next evolutionary survivor? Probably the one who can finally put religion aside and move ahead, past a system that has now become self-destructive rather than useful. Religion has become increasingly geared toward a future 'apocalypse', probably because those who follow faith are tired of waiting on gods who never materialize, and on an afterlife that no one has ever actually seen. So they push towards a final conflict that they hope will prove them ultimately right, thereby leading to all sorts of destructive tendancies.

The genetic survivor of the faithful might well be the skeptic, simply because enough knowledge abounds now to allow us to survive even without faith.

But back to the original question, the conditions of the elderly merely provide incentive to improve the quality of life of the elderly and discover means of extending lifespan to avoid the infirmaties of age and enjoy a longer period of optimal health. It's no divine joke, no punishment - simply a natural consequence that we fret over, because we think we might do something about it.

Personally, I think the evolutionary course might well lead to the near-immortal man - when we discover the exact workings of entropy, aging, etc, we may well learn how to neutralize it. I just hope we've reached the stars by then - otherwise, the world is gonna be one crowded little rock.

[Soapy Sam]

Zaayrdragon-"Now, as Humans, we're living in a world where survival is being extended to the entire species in theory, where even the weakest genotypes thrive and flourish, and religion and philosophy are in such an array, that anyone can find something to believe in. So what is the next evolutionary survivor? Probably the one who can finally put religion aside and move ahead, past a system that has now become self-destructive rather than useful. "

I rather feel you are mixing genes and memes here. A potentially confusing mix.
Genetically, natural selection continues to work on humans, our parasites and our disease susceptibilities. The shuffling of genes happens faster than ever, simply because there are more around to shufffle. (And bacteria, post antibiotics, are doing just fine, thanks).

It is often said that cultural / memetic evolution has a Lamarckian effect and moves far faster than genetic change. I'm not so sure. Compare Palestine / Judaea of 1000BC with the same area today for instance. The weaponry has improved, David has the gunships and Goliath the suicide bombers, but do you see any great social / moral / ideological leap forward?

[Z]

I apologize - I'm not up to snuff on the genes/memes issues. I use 'genes' as a blanket term for the little bits that arrange for our survival - 'memes' is an unknown term to me. Thanks.

[KAREENA]

my quote:
When I used the word "dignity" - I meant the divine in human beings. To be able to walk among humanity with a sense of love, humility, peace and compassion is, in my view, to be dignified.

---------------------------------------------------
BillHoyt

"Where on earth did you get such a definition? Thisonline dictionary definition of dignity makes zilch mention of "divine." It speaks of worthiness, rank, esteem, poise, and self-respect."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, in this context, I show dignity when I care for mankind, and its commonality. By doing so, I share in the divine qualities of the good, the worthy, the compassionate, the caring.
-------------------------------------------------

BillHoyt

"Please do not play Alice's Humpty Dumpty here. Words do not mean what you want them to mean."
--------------

Words mean what they mean. The trick is to be open-minded to their multiple functions according to the context.
---------------------------------------------------
BillHoyt

"You seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'?"
--------------
I think you're the one having trouble with that word.
---------------------------------------------------

BillHoyt

"Please explain why you feel evolution debases humanity."
---------------------------------------------------

These are your words, not mine.

And, enough said, already. KN

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
BillHoyt

"You seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'?"
--------------
I think you're the one having trouble with that word.
---------------------------------------------------


Foul. I never wrote that. Please correct this lie immediately.

[Dancing David]

posted by Zaaydragon

We could argue that the entire development of society and science were the direct results of religion, and thus of a new species of survival instinct that favoured advanced thought to physical prowess.




I could also argue that religion is puely superstision and that while it is a media of culture it is totaly unnessecary to the develpoement of society.

I will first present that I think that after walking upright and the developement of speech we have fire, string and glue. These fine inventions or discoveries have no need of religion. It is not the developement of a spear that makes humans so adaptable but the use of a digging stick.

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt:
Foul. I never wrote that. Please correct this lie immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sensitive are we? Whew! PARDON me for communicating with you and answering your questions.

--------------------------------------

Something happened where my comment was wrongly posted and posted twice. :( Guess things like that do happen now and then. We're only human beings afterall and misprints do happen.


My post should have read:

You, BillHoyt seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'.

[Z]

DD, I think this comes to a chicken-or-egg type of problem. Since we have no idea when mythology sprang up in humanity, it's an arbitrary point at best - but I think the human concept of mythology/religion (same thing, really) led to much of the advancement of science and knowledge. Fire was probably viewed superstitiously. Even digging tools may have had a mythological origin - "Hmmm... how can I get claws like the aardvark to reach food?" Believe it or not, this reverse-anthropomorphism is a form of mythos/religion/superstition, too. But then, I think maybe I'm reading tooooooooooooooooooo much into this...

Mongo want food. Mongo hunt now. Buh-bye.

[Soapy Sam]

Eggs preceded chickens by at least 90 million years.

Just thought we should clear that up.

[Iamme]

Originally posted by John Bentley
Maybe it would help if lamme were to speak for himself at this point, but I'm going to stick my neck out and try to re-state his original question.

I'm going to disagree with you Eric, that the basic question is whether death itself is cruel and unusual. The basic question is whether we would be better off if we couldn't brood about our own mortality. From his story about the spider running away from him, lamme seems to accept the fact that all things die and seek to avoid injury. But as far as we know, only humans can anticipate their own demise. Even though all things die, all other animals appear to live completely in the present. They enjoy life as it comes. Man, on the other hand, is able to suck the joy out of just about any occasion because he knows joy is fleeting, and that death is coming to us all. To me, the basic question was whether the ability to infer our own death from evidence around us is a curse from God as punishment for some transgression (original sin, etc.) or whether it is an unavoidable consequence of our reasoning powers.

Personally, I think lamme was anthropomorphizing a bit with the behavior of the spider. What he saw as the spider recognizing a threat to its life and running to avoid the threat, I would characterize as an avoidance behavior that would be incited by any large moving object nearby, whether it was actually threatening the spider or not. It is most likely hardwired into the spider's nervous system, and does not rely on any cognitive abilities on the spider's part whatsoever.

My view on the basic question is that lamme's premise is backwards. The question should be: Is mankind's predilection for religion an unavoidable consequence of his ability to apprehend his ephemeral nature? Would we be better off if we couldn't conceive of our own death, or is that ability the driving force behind our desire to strive for something better?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is indeed what I had in mind. Your last paragraph is a thought provoking concept. A reciprocation of my own.

I have been enjoying reading the posts. Often times I start threads where I have this curiousity, and like to just see what other peoples views are. That is how one learns things.

To Kareena: Nice to have you on board. I actually thought I would get back here to read posts, on...Monday. :)

[Iamme]

Hi Bill. In one of your earlier posts, you led us to believe that the rain account for Noah's Flood was suspect. I just wanted to let you know that the Bible says that the waters also welled up from the deep. One would have to believe that that is from where most the flood waters came from, if you were to believe in this account, of the magnitude described, at all.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
DD, I think this comes to a chicken-or-egg type of problem. Since we have no idea when mythology sprang up in humanity, it's an arbitrary point at best - but I think the human concept of mythology/religion (same thing, really) led to much of the advancement of science and knowledge. Fire was probably viewed superstitiously. Even digging tools may have had a mythological origin - "Hmmm... how can I get claws like the aardvark to reach food?" Believe it or not, this reverse-anthropomorphism is a form of mythos/religion/superstition, too. But then, I think maybe I'm reading tooooooooooooooooooo much into this...

Mongo want food. Mongo hunt now. Buh-bye.

happy eating Mongo, put food on fire, protien denatures that way!

Uh, chimps discover tools all the time, I don't think that you need a mythology to develop tools.

I think that you are putting the cart before the horse. First came walking upright and tools, I think that speech came much much later.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by KAREENA

BillHoyt

"Please explain why you feel evolution debases humanity."
---------------------------------------------------

These are your words, not mine.



Perhaps, but I got the same impression he did.

Disingenuous - there's another word you might like to look up.

[KAREENA]

Thank you, Iamme. :)
[They are sometimes called blue Mondays.]
KN

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
BillHoyt:
Foul. I never wrote that. Please correct this lie immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sensitive are we? Whew! PARDON me for communicating with you and answering your questions.

--------------------------------------

Something happened where my comment was wrongly posted and posted twice. :( Guess things like that do happen now and then. We're only human beings afterall and misprints do happen.


My post should have read:

You, BillHoyt seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'.
KAREENA,

That was not the problem with your post. I still demand a correction or retraction.

I did not write: "You seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'?"

In fact, I can't find any post here with those words before you introduced them. You made up the quote. Then you attributed it to me, and responded to it. Now you try to explain that away as a technical problem or a little human error. No sale.

Retract it or correct it, immediately. As in, your next post.

[Z]

AHHH, but do chimps pass on tool-use to future generations of chimps? So far, the best I've seen is that some gorillas pass on sign language to other gorillas, but even this seems limited. I think even the idea of passing on knowledge to future generations has behind it limited basis of a mythos (that there is a future, or there is a reason to bother with anything beyond instinct). And I'm not solely attributing this to humans, by the way; I fully suspect mythology/religion exists to some minor extent elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Hive insects, I suspect, have very strong mythologies regarding their Goddess/Queen - notice the fanatical way they put their own lives at risk regularly to serve her!

Anyway, it still seems a bit of an evolutionary thing, this religion, this mythology, and what I suggest is, by developing this mental ability to wax poetic on the meaning of the future, we have adapted in new and unexpected ways not common to nature, thus ensuring our own mastery of the planet - provided we don't destroy said planet first.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iamme
Hi Bill. In one of your earlier posts, you led us to believe that the rain account for Noah's Flood was suspect. I just wanted to let you know that the Bible says that the waters also welled up from the deep. One would have to believe that that is from where most the flood waters came from, if you were to believe in this account, of the magnitude described, at all.
The rain fall was only part of the problem to which I alluded. I also prominently mentioned the terrain the Old Testament claims was covered by the water.

Let's use some current estimates of total earth water, all gleaned from hypertextbook. (Ocean water (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml), River, Lake, Groundwater (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/VanessaBallenas.shtml) )

Oceans 4.4 x 10+9 cubic km
Rivers 1.7 x 10+3 cubic km
Lakes 1.0 x 10+5 cubic km
Ground 8.2 x 10+6 cubic km

The grand total is about 1.4 x 10+9 cubic km

Unfortunately, to cover the peak of Mt. Everest would require about 4.4 x 10+9 cubic km

We're left missing about 3 billion cubic km of water. Where did it come from? We have to assume one of two scenarios:

o The earth used to have this much water, but it left the planet. the problem here is there is neither a place for that water to have been nor evidence it was ever there. We must construct apologetics for both the lack of evidence and the lack of a mechanism for the earth to have lost all that water in what must have been the world's largest prescription of diuretics.

o The earth acquired that much water from rain in those forty days. The ark, which could never have floated anyway (but that's another small problem), would surely have sunk. Of course, we also have to go through the same apologetics about how that 3 billion was sucked back off the planet.

Either way, the story doesn't hold water.

[BillHoyt]

By PM, somebody told me my figures didn't add up. The problem was my typing. The figure for Ocean water should have been 1.3 x 10+9.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
By PM, somebody told me my figures didn't add up. The problem was my typing. The figure for Ocean water should have been 1.3 x 10+9.

Whoa, my mind boggled at the stuff you posted, it's even more boggled somebody actually caught something to be corrected. Whoa. Math was never my strongpoint.

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt wrote:

I did not write: "You seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'?"
..........
Retract it or correct it, immediately. As in, your next post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeant?? Commander??
-----------------------------------
My last post made the correction: It happened that I posted the same thing twice and portions of what I had copied and a portion of what I had written came out as appearing to be a quote from you which it was not.
And this is the last about that non-issue.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
BillHoyt wrote:

I did not write: "You seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'?"
..........
Retract it or correct it, immediately. As in, your next post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeant?? Commander??
-----------------------------------
My last post made the correction: It happened that I posted the same thing twice and portions of what I had copied and a portion of what I had written came out as appearing to be a quote from you which it was not.
And this is the last about that non-issue.
I find your explanation less than wanting. This clearly is not an accidental, twice-posted comment as you attempt to represent.
The second line very very clearly refers to the first, and very very clearly is meant as a response to that first line.

"You seem to have trouble with the word 'divine'?"
--------------
I think you're the one having trouble with that word

You have made no correction, KAREENA. You have simply and lamely tried to paper over an abundantly clear attempt to put words in my mouth.

[sackett]

"All strength fails unto the grave.
Worms have fed on Hector brave.
Dust hath closéd Helen's eye;
I am sick; I must die.
Lord have mercy upon us."

Not quite an accurate quote, but enough to express a great deal of the sadness of mortality. Yes, we -will- perish someday, and we know it. Much too soon, we'll all have to say goodbye.

KAREENA said, "I prefer hoping for an afterlife than to think of rotting 6 feet under." Yes, of course that faint hope is attractive; we've all felt it - and doubted it, and cringed from the certainty that it's in vain.

Not all religions hold out the promise of an afterlife, but it's not surprising that the ones that do are hugged like a security blanket by so many people.

But still: the thinking mind can't evade the overwhelming certainty that existence is finite.

Let me tell you about a source of insight, and of some comfort, that I've found in a surprising place, a work of outright fiction. In The Lord of the Rings, men are mortal but elves live forever "within the life of the world." But, rather startlingly, the elves call death "the gift of men." Tolkien reflected more deeply on the idea of immortality than most of us, and he saw something in it that might persuade us to reject it: The undying elves watch beautiful things arise in the world, and flourish, and decline, and finally vanish, leaving them bereft. His elves' lives are filled more with melancholy than with happiness; or so I read the tale, and it's led me to think about human existence.

Would you really and genuinely want to live - FOREVER? With no respite? No relief? No escape? The thought is oppressive. We aren't made for infinite, eternal things; we need our sleep at last. In The Lord of the Rings, in time men grow envious of the elves; they call death "the bane of men," and thoughtlessly try to gain immortality for themselves. I say thoughtlessly because, I believe, a pining for eternal life is an immature longing; the unsophisticated minds of antiquity wanted it because they didn't reflect on what it -really- means, and they concocted a heaven where they could enjoy it. How long would they enjoy it? How long would you?

[Soapy Sam]

I once read something along these lines-
"Millions hope for eternal life who are bored on a wet Sunday afternoon".

What does one do for entertainment after the first billion years of praising the Lord?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I once read something along these lines-
"Millions hope for eternal life who are bored on a wet Sunday afternoon".

What does one do for entertainment after the first billion years of praising the Lord?
Second prize: two billion years of praise...

[Soapy Sam]

Hallelujah!

[Iamme]

Bill Hoyt---Thanks for your water volume info.

But how do geophysicists know what is deep inside the earth? Sound testing only goes so deep . They have gone pretty deep with core samples, but I don't think they've managed 4,000 miles. The only information I have gleaned about the inards of the earth is crust (earth , water, oil, coal, minerals, gems), mantle (rock and magma), core (nickle-iron) ...which I've wondered: how did they know THAT?

I have never taken the time to really research this. But if you or some other poster has more information on this, it be great to share it with us all.

Regarding Everest: Well, we already know there is a conflict between timelines that scientists ascribe for creation, and that which Creationists ascribe to. The difference is extreme. We are talking comparing 6,008 years to millions or billions of years, depending on exactly what we are talking regarding creation. That said, if there is a conflict with creation time, perhaps there also is error in when Noah existed and this great flood. Maybe some geological event caused the mountains to rise out of the sea, at some greater rate than what they do now, AFTER Noah's time.

One theory about the religious flood account even coming into being is based on the notion that some sheep herders started finding sea shells way up in the mountains... unbeknownst to them that the mountains literally pushed up out of the sea, taking fossils with them. They would have NEVER thought of this. Far more obvious to believe that there was a great flood that caused this.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iamme
Bill Hoyt---Thanks for your water volume info.

But how do geophysicists know what is deep inside the earth? Sound testing only goes so deep . They have gone pretty deep with core samples, but I don't think they've managed 4,000 miles. The only information I have gleaned about the inards of the earth is crust (earth , water, oil, coal, minerals, gems), mantle (rock and magma), core (nickle-iron) ...which I've wondered: how did they know THAT?

I have never taken the time to really research this. But if you or some other poster has more information on this, it be great to share it with us all.

Regarding Everest: Well, we already know there is a conflict between timelines that scientists ascribe for creation, and that which Creationists ascribe to. The difference is extreme. We are talking comparing 6,008 years to millions or billions of years, depending on exactly what we are talking regarding creation. That said, if there is a conflict with creation time, perhaps there also is error in when Noah existed and this great flood. Maybe some geological event caused the mountains to rise out of the sea, at some greater rate than what they do now, AFTER Noah's time.

One theory about the religious flood account even coming into being is based on the notion that some sheep herders started finding sea shells way up in the mountains... unbeknownst to them that the mountains literally pushed up out of the sea, taking fossils with them. They would have NEVER thought of this. Far more obvious to believe that there was a great flood that caused this.
lamme,

I'm afraid scientists actually have nothing to say about creation time, because it didn't happen. There are estimates of the Big Bang, as well as estimates of the time life originated on earth.

The maximum well depth to date is a bit over 12 Km. Indirect methods are used to determine the Earth's structure below that point.

[KAREENA]

sackett said:

Would you really and genuinely want to live - FOREVER? With no respite? No relief? No escape? The thought is oppressive. We aren't made for infinite, eternal things; we need our sleep at last

----------------------------------------

Hello sackett,

I may not be reading the above as you meant it. You were talking about elves and humans, and I didn't see Lord of the Rings. However, as you quoted me on 'an afterlife', I must say that I don't imagine that life to be similar to our earthly life with all its woes and tribulations. A sense of being 'souls' or spirits (angels?) immersed in the good, the holy, the love, the peace was more what I had in mind. My view, a limited view yes, is an eclectic blend of religion, readings, hearings, viewings, and so on, plus life experiences. By no means am I an expert on this subject but that is how I see things.

In addition, I see the word 'Forever' as being a concept of 'time' in the physical world. Therefore, 'time' would have no relevance once you're dead, (dead being the end of our physical form). It is difficult even inconceivable for us, earthlings, to not think of eternity as a span of time. This being said, is eternity an appropriate term for the afterlife? And,

if there is no afterlife, what is the point of all the suffering that goes on everyday in this world? Surely there is more to it than this earthly passage.

Your comments lead me to some of those ever-occurring mystical questions! :) KRN

[gnome]

Originally posted by KAREENA

if there is no afterlife, what is the point of all the suffering that goes on everyday in this world? Surely there is more to it than this earthly passage.


Why does it have to have a point... ? It may be disappointing to you if it doesn't, but that's not the same thing...

Personally I think struggling against suffering enhances human character, helps us thrive and progress as a species.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that.

[SGT]

Originally posted by KAREENA

Hi Lucy R.,
Truly, Lucy, for me 'vanity' connotes pride in one's self. One is vain when one considers him/herself above and beyond the common traits of mankind. A sort of unhealthy look upon the commonality of man, a disdain for the common. A belief in one's superiority in this design.

The argument people use for believing in an afterlife is always something like:
It is not possible that our selves be finished with death! If so, what is the purpose of life?
What lies behind this thinking is: How can a marvelous person like me end to exist someday?
This is vanity to me.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by KAREENA
sackett said:


if there is no afterlife, what is the point of all the suffering that goes on everyday in this world? Surely there is more to it than this earthly passage.


Suffering? What suffering? Life, death, torture, injury. Putting up with this needs reward? Your reward is that you were ever able to live at all. With living you have a nervous system that lets you know when the physical body is in trouble. That suffering is a sign to change your life, not look forward to death.

If you are suffering, then something is wrong...you stepped on a nail, somebody is oppressing you. It is up to you to stop that suffering.

We humans are so mean to each other for this non-existent afterlife. Some folks seem to think "westerners" are going to poison their chances of eternal paradise.

How crazy and small minded is that? People create their own hell instead valuing life. They put their ideals ahead of people's rights. To keep those people from causing hell to every person on the planet we fight back against their oppression. We put people in jail where they can mull in their selfish self pity (rarely do they think of how they could have avoided stealing, killing, etc). Thus it is important to have children grow up with consequences and empathy (nevermind the odd mutant that comes along and wants everbody but himself dead for no good reason).

What is the point to suffering? To tell your feeble mind to change what you are doing so that you may live better and have some peace in your life before you pass on. This peace is for reproduction, the chance to pass on your genes successfully before you die. It is not for you alone to not suffer.

How do we get life? By reproduction. We need to stop thinking of death as the prize to making each other miserable. That is what misery is. This life can be hell, and is for many people, but they prefer to think of the 'afterlife' rather than how to stop making each other miserable.

Earthly passage? What is that? Our simple job is to keep the life cycle going. We do so overcomplicate that to give our lives "meaning". What is more meaningful than making sure human life endures? Our deaths? Come on. I once asked myself "why am i here?". I came to conclusion that I am here for the same reason why all plants and animals are here. I'm not entitled to special rewards just because I'm a homo sapien, that would be arrogant to assume that I'm so darn special.

Focus on life-real life, reality. Be grateful you're not beat up everyday, or have some dread painful disease. Our reward for living is being alive at all. We need to stop being so selfish and keep people from torturing others for their selfish imaginary gains.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Iamme

But how do geophysicists know what is deep inside the earth? Sound testing only goes so deep . They have gone pretty deep with core samples, but I don't think they've managed 4,000 miles. The only information I have gleaned about the inards of the earth is crust (earth , water, oil, coal, minerals, gems), mantle (rock and magma), core (nickle-iron) ...which I've wondered: how did they know THAT?


Our current picture of the physical and chemical nature of the Earth's deep interior is based on fairly compelling arguments. Consider the core for example. Yes, it’s true that we cannot obtain samples directly. However, whatever is down there has to have properties that are at least consistent with the planet’s mass and gravitational field. We also expect it to be in line with known cosmological abundance; we don’t expect it to be for example, iridium or platinum. The Earth also has a measurable magnetic field; something in the planet must be responsible for this phenomenon. Iron meets all these requirements. As far as “sound testing” is concerned we can indeed probe the core. All we need to do is monitor the arrival times of seismic waves (i.e. generated by earthquakes) that have passed through the region of interest (see the preliminary reference Earth model, or PREM, for more information). We can then determine their velocities. Again, the elastic properties of any candidate material under core conditions (up to ~ 3.6 million atm, and ~ 6000 K) must be consistent with these velocities. Although it’s difficult to achieve these conditions in the lab, our current results obtained from dynamic shock wave measurements and also static diamond anvil cell measurements are not inconsistent with a composition that is mainly iron. More general seismic investigations also tell us that the core actually has at least two separate parts, a solid inner core, and a liquid outer core (it turns out that it’s convection in the outer core that’s responsible for our magnetic field). Again the phase diagram and equation-of-state (i.e. the relationship between pressure, volume and temperature) of any candidate material must be consistent.

Of course, it would be unreasonable to think that it is pure iron. Determining the precise composition is an active field of research. You may find many references that assume an iron inner core with some nickel - don’t take this too seriously: a number of recent papers claim an inner core that is actually lighter than pure iron. We can however say with some confidence that the outer core is lighter, and probably contains a fair amount of something like silicon.

In conclusion, scientists don’t claim to know in the way I think you mean it. They simply try to come up with a theory that is consistent with all the available evidence. As I said, in the case of core composition, there is still doubt, and new suggestions are always being made: e.g. the existence of a third core region, an “inner” inner core. A recent first-principles calculation even suggests that the crystal symmetry of iron under core conditions is not what we have assumed it to be for many years. If correct, this will require a significant modification of our current picture.

[sackett]

Originally posted by KAREENA
. . . I didn't see Lord of the Rings. . . . I don't imagine that life to be similar to our earthly life with all its woes and tribulations. A sense of being 'souls' or spirits (angels?) immersed in the good, the holy, the love, the peace was more what I had in mind. . . . . I see the word 'Forever' as being a concept of 'time' in the physical world. Therefore, 'time' would have no relevance once you're dead, (dead being the end of our physical form). It is difficult even inconceivable for us, earthlings, to not think of eternity as a span of time. This being said, is eternity an appropriate term for the afterlife? And, if there is no afterlife, what is the point of all the suffering that goes on everyday in this world? Surely there is more to it than this earthly passage.

Your comments lead me to some of those ever-occurring mystical questions! :) KRN

Hello, Kareena. Thank you for posting in such a healthy spirit.

First, don't hurry to see The Lord of the Rings movie. Read The Hobbit and then the three volumes of LTR. (Don't neglect the appendices, either. Some ripping good fun there.) They make up one of the greatest works of the imagination ever written.

"Imagination" is an important word in this context. Do you see how, in your post, you exercise that faculty? You say you don't ~imagine~ the afterlife to be like this life; then you speculate (rather ingeniously too) on what survival after death ~may~ be like. You hope, as anyone would, that eternity won't -feel- eternal.

I fear that you're piling things against the door to keep out a terrifying conclusion, specifically, the moral neutrality of the universe.

But why should that be terrifying? There's no need to be afraid; nothing is out to get us; we needn't imagine mystical, immaterial, ghostly things that can't protect us in any case.

Tolkien has his elves eventually leaving "the circles of this world" and voyaging across the sea into the Uttermost West, to the Undying Lands (his capitalization). Authors will do that when they have no further use for their characters. I think he reduces his elves to pretty uninteresting figures, and I think I'm content to leave them where he put them.

[KAREENA]

Sackett said:

I fear that you're piling things against the door to keep out a terrifying conclusion, specifically, the moral neutrality of the universe. But why should that be terrifying? There's no need to be afraid; nothing is out to get us;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hello Sackett,

I read you fairly well and enjoyed your reply. However...would you mind giving a few more explanatory details as to what you mean by. ..'the moral neutrality of the universe" .

I read that as meaning that religion is meaningless therefore the idea of an afterlife of reward and bliss is a stretch of the imagination. Nothing more. So stop hoping. Is that what you meant? :) KRN

[KAREENA]

Eos of the Eon wrote:
Suffering? What suffering? Life, death, torture, injury. Putting up with this needs reward? Your reward is that you were ever able to live at all. With living you have a nervous system that lets you know when the physical body is in trouble. That suffering is a sign to change your life, not look forward to death.

If you are suffering, then something is wrong...you stepped on a nail, somebody is oppressing you. It is up to you to stop that suffering.

- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Actually Eos of the Eon, personally, l am not suffering. I am, however, very empathic to the suffering of others wherever they may be....Iraq....U.S.A.....China....Italy....Spain. People everywhere are going through terrible pain, useless pain, pointless pain. And for what purpose? Kids being injured, mangled, left at the mercy of who knows what and who? Don't you think that this 'pain' must have a purpose? Or are you saying that all that is a normal part of having gained the right of passage here on earth? If so, this would then beg another lenghty expository text in support of this view. :) KRN

[Z]

No, it really has no point. That's life, that's nature. We don't think every protozoa or amoeba out there that 'suffers' is headed to the afterlife, too, do we? Or the billions of insects we regularly poison or step on, just because they annoy us? Why does Man count so high that his suffering is any different?

THat's the horror of it all - that there's really no point after all.

[KAREENA]

zaayrdragon:
THat's the horror of it all - that there's really no point after all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why grin and bear it then?

[Z]

Why not? What have we got to lose?

In fact, I find a lack of religion to be rather liberating... That is, I have faith, but not the sort that dictates my actions. Rather, since I conclude this is it for human life, that the best course of action is to make it as pleasant as possible.

With religion, it's all too easy to justify away harm by saying that the afterlife will fix things, or that God or Karma or whatever will settle the score - instead of just being responsible for yourself and making the world better by being a better person.

Religion causes more suffering than any atheism ever has.

[Dancing David]

posted by Kareena
...would you mind giving a few more explanatory details as to what you mean by. ..'the moral neutrality of the universe" .




I will respond from my own obsevation.

The rain falls on the just and the injust alike. The sun shines on the good and the wicked. people who commit evil are not hit by lightning any more frequently than those who commit not-evil.


While there are consequences to choices , it would not appear that the universe punishes the wicked. Otherwise I would be out of work, no need for a domestic violence shelter where the universe is moral.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by KAREENA

Actually Eos of the Eon, personally, l am not suffering. I am, however, very empathic to the suffering of others wherever they may be....Iraq....U.S.A.....China....Italy....Spain. People everywhere are going through terrible pain, useless pain, pointless pain. And for what purpose? Kids being injured, mangled, left at the mercy of who knows what and who? Don't you think that this 'pain' must have a purpose? Or are you saying that all that is a normal part of having gained the right of passage here on earth? If so, this would then beg another lenghty expository text in support of this view. :) KRN [/B]

Just read up on the thread about war.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38541

You'll see what I mean there. The causes of war, only the nards fighting for selfish reasons can stop that suffering, but the people are so caught up in "the cause" that they gladly suffer and die, and gladly watch their kids blow themselves up.

Saddam did pay thousands of dollars to palestinian families if a member blew themselves up. I think they got bonuses if they took a lot of other people with them.

This may not be "the normal part of having gained the right of passage here on earth", but those people have chosen their paths.

I recall a mother of a child who blew himself up. She was proud of him and glad he took a bunch of 'the enemy' with him.

The mindsets of others would boggle your brain.

So if you care so much, do you oppose the Iraq war and finally stopping Saddam from killing hundreds of thousands of his own people used as scapegoats to test his weapons?

The extremists who keep fighting aren't fighting to benefit anybody, they just want their ideals to win over the "evil americans". They don't care who they hurt in the process. Afterall, if they die killing others, they get a harem of beauties and rivers of honey when they go, doncha know.

These people do not know or care how to stop the suffering. They want to cause it. When anyone tries to do something about, then they get labelled as causing the strife when they are trying to end it.

In the USA and Canada there are resources available to stop your suffering. I know it, I have used some. You can choose to help yourself. Now, if you are stuck with some dread disease, then it's horrible, but hardly a cruel joke. We are working on making the suffering less, but people even oppose those efforts. Just look at the anti-vaccine fanatics.



Sure, a lengthy explanation, but I hardly think I will be misunderstood, I hope :P :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I will respond from my own obsevation.

The rain falls on the just and the injust alike. The sun shines on the good and the wicked. people who commit evil are not hit by lightning any more frequently than those who commit not-evil.


While there are consequences to choices , it would not appear that the universe punishes the wicked. Otherwise I would be out of work, no need for a domestic violence shelter where the universe is moral.

Another way to put the concept is: the universe does not conspire for the good.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Actually Eos of the Eon, personally, l am not suffering. I am, however, very empathic to the suffering of others wherever they may be....Iraq....U.S.A.....China....Italy....Spain. People everywhere are going through terrible pain, useless pain, pointless pain. And for what purpose? Kids being injured, mangled, left at the mercy of who knows what and who? Don't you think that this 'pain' must have a purpose? Or are you saying that all that is a normal part of having gained the right of passage here on earth? If so, this would then beg another lenghty expository text in support of this view. :) KRN
It seems to me the "begging" going on here is begging of questions. Before I get to that, though, I have to ask: "empathic?" Is this a mispelling or a paranormal claim? Did you mean "empathetic?"

The question of purpose, as asked by you, begs the question of some director (God). There is, of course, a purpose to pain, when purpose is used to mean "goal" in the more limited and rational sense. Its purpose is to tell the person something is wrong. They are sick or injured in some way.

[sackett]

"The moral neutrality of the universe" is just a highfalutin way of saying that there's nobody Out There pulling the strings; the sky is empty. That can be a disconcerting thought just at first, and many people pull back from it. Millions upon millions of them take refuge in wanting to believe that a Bronze Age Semitic sky deity made the universe. Strange but true.

Yes, it's appalling when we first realize that our great and wonderful selves are of no consequence to the universe, especially when we contemplate what looks like the moral wrongness of suffering, our own and others'. But after a while, it's possible to feel differently about the matter. That thing we call the universe has no mind; we don't have to give a hoot in hell what it thinks; it can't form even the simplest idea, something we can do effortlessly.

Joy and delight are just as morally neutral as suffering, and we never find anything wrong with that. Why should we?

Right and wrong are ~human~ constructions, with application only to ~human~ concerns. We can distinguish between wrong and right, and do it all the time - and aren't you glad that we have so much control over our brief lives?

Anyway, who says our lives are brief? Brief compared to God's? Give my aching epistemology a break!

I'm done with Tolkien, so here's a Zen story for you:

Once two monks were watching a pair of cranes fighting over a frog. The first monk asked, "Why must such things be?"

The second monk replied, "Just for you." The first monk experienced enlightenment.

Stout fellow, that monk; good for him; good for both of them. Where do we go from here? Nowhere! We're already right here!

[KAREENA]

Zaayrdragon: With religion, it's all too easy to justify away harm by saying that the afterlife will fix things, or that God or Karma or whatever will settle the score - instead of just being responsible for yourself and making the world better by being a better person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --

You know Zaayrdragon, I have to disagree with you. The last thing I would advance is that the afterlife will fix things. Actually I hold the opposite view: which is that one must work towards reaching a happy place, a peaceful place, a rewarding place before passing over. Some people go through hell on earth. Are they perhaps cleaning their slate before crossing the 'gates'?

In order to do that, one must be responsible now and become a better person in this world by striving to attain a level of compassion, a feeling of love for humanity, a true friend and companion and a stronghold on those traits of character that are less than desirable.

For me, one must attain a stage of humility and unselfishness before the big pass-over! That's what I think! The crinckles and the wrinkles (as expressed by Iamme) - aren't they a means to an end?

[KAREENA]

Dancing David,

I'm sorry. I still don't get what you mean! I'm trying. :(

[KAREENA]

Eos of the Eons: Afterall, if they die killing others, they get a harem of beauties and rivers of honey when they go, doncha know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No, I don't. When they die they have no awareness of anything! Beauties and rivers of honey? Come again. I'm not following you, Eos. :) KRN

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt said: Before I get to that, though, I have to ask: "empathic?" Is this a mispelling or a paranormal claim? Did you mean "empathetic?"
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Empathetic - that's what it was meant to be. :)

Wished it were a kind of paranormal claim. It might have been a lead on that 'road less travelled'.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Dancing David,

I'm sorry. I still don't get what you mean! I'm trying. :(
Come on, KAREENA, we are all saying essentially the same thing here about moral neutrality. The odds of harm are the odds of harm. Period. The distribution of harm and pain in the universe is random. Period. There are no incantations one can invoke to avert harm. No talismans. No prayers. No magic spells, whether Wiccan or Catholic, that will turn one's fortune one way or another.

The universe has no goal in a moral sense. It has no purpose in a moral sense. It does not conspire either to good or to evil. It is morally neutral. If you think otherwise, then please cite evidence of the efficacity of petitionary prayer or whatever you suggest will work to change the odds.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Eos of the Eons: Afterall, if they die killing others, they get a harem of beauties and rivers of honey when they go, doncha know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No, I don't. When they die they have no awareness of anything! Beauties and rivers of honey? Come again. I'm not following you, Eos. :) KRN

It's called sarcasm actually.

Hey, you need to look into what others say happens in their afterlives. Look at the muslim, hindu, Islamic, budha, etc.

Then look up what people tell their congregations when the people of the congregation kill others. If you kill the evil people in the world (anybody who is not your religion) then you get even more special privledges (sp?) like rivers of honey and virgins.

They justify blowing themselves up to get the most glorious afterlife. They will put up with the suffering of war to get paradise when they are dead.

It's so idiotic I can't even...ugh.

If you actually get anything I'm trying to point out, then I'll be impresed.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Hey, you need to look into what others say happens in their afterlives. Look at the muslim, hindu, Islamic, budha, etc.


Funny you should mention that, Eos, because when I read this thread, I thought, "This whole question is just so darned Buddhist." So, a little bit of Buddhist thought on the subject.

The central theme of Buddhism is how to deal with this suffering. Siddhartha was sheltered, and knew nothing of sickness, old age, and death. Then, he snuck out of the castle, and discovered all these things existed.

This bummed him out, miserably. What is the point of living, if it all ends in sickness, old age, and death, no matter what you do? How can you bear all of this suffering?

After years of meditation, he came up with an answer, and this answer was so great that he stopped being Siddhartha, and became the Buddha, "the awakened one" (or enlightend, or aware).

And his answer? Stuff happens, deal with it.

More specifically. Suffering (dukha) especially sickness, old age, and death, are inevitable. But in reality, it isn't the death that is the problem. True suffering arises not from death, but from the extreme attachment to life. You want to live forever, but you can't, and this causes suffering. Nothing lasts forever. But that includes suffering, which can fall away. If you give up your attachment to life, youth, and health, you will not suffer at the thought of sickness, old age, and death. And how can you do that? Lead a good, moral life. Be aware of the reality of the world. Understand that this thing called "you" is just a temporary collection of stuff, more like a process than an entity, that will one day be disassembled again and whose parts will go on to make other things. Meditate on this subject until you truly understand it.

The previous paragraph is a very quick explanation of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

So, to answer Eos, Buddhism doesn't promise eternal life Buddhism is a lifestyle meant to prepare you for the inevitability of death.

And to answer the original question, the suffering comes from your own mind, and it can be erased by the action of your own mind.

At least, that's what the Buddha taught.

[Eos of the Eons]

Wow, now I'm impressed Meadmaker. Each religion has some worthy messages, but that post just mirrored everything I've been trying to say, and more.

I will skip over the fasting and other 'leaving the body' stuff, and take the rest to heart.

Thank you,

Eos

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Wow, now I'm impressed Meadmaker. Each religion has some worthy messages, but that post just mirrored everything I've been trying to say, and more.

I will skip over the fasting and other 'leaving the body' stuff, and take the rest to heart.

Thank you,

Eos

My pleasure Eos.

And of course, like so many religions, the actual practice of Buddhists doesn't mirror always the teachings of the Buddha, and there are many different sects of Buddhism that teach lots of different things that I agree or disagree with. But that's the heart of it.

[Z]

You know Zaayrdragon, I have to disagree with you. The last thing I would advance is that the afterlife will fix things. Actually I hold the opposite view: which is that one must work towards reaching a happy place, a peaceful place, a rewarding place before passing over. Some people go through hell on earth. Are they perhaps cleaning their slate before crossing the 'gates'? In order to do that, one must be responsible now and become a better person in this world by striving to attain a level of compassion, a feeling of love for humanity, a true friend and companion and a stronghold on those traits of character that are less than desirable. For me, one must attain a stage of humility and unselfishness before the big pass-over! That's what I think! The crinckles and the wrinkles (as expressed by Iamme) - aren't they a means to an end?

In which case, the maker of said system is a psychopath.

Here, let me create a nice world - fill it with wonder - then insert people. I want people to join me in heaven, but first let me torture the little phuquetards to death a million ways and make them earn the right to be with me.

Why should humans have to clean their slate? If there is a creator, then he created every circumstance that generates what we term evil. He creates every opportunity for doing ill to each other, then expects us not to? That's like putting a donut on a child's plate at the child's table, then telling him not to eat it.

Bulldroppings.

MOST religions push the idea that those who behave properly in this life will advance to something better, while those who don't will be punished. The difference though, is that some religions offer one form of right behavior, while some offer another. IN one view, it's OK to say "I Believe" and ZAP! You're in heaven. Another view holds strict behavioural codes, while still another requires the killing of those who DON'T believe.

Hogwash. All of it.

There is no purpose. There is no afterlife. THIS life is all that matters - and it's short, so make it the very best you can.

[Z]

More specifically. Suffering (dukha) especially sickness, old age, and death, are inevitable. But in reality, it isn't the death that is the problem. True suffering arises not from death, but from the extreme attachment to life. You want to live forever, but you can't, and this causes suffering. Nothing lasts forever. But that includes suffering, which can fall away. If you give up your attachment to life, youth, and health, you will not suffer at the thought of sickness, old age, and death. And how can you do that? Lead a good, moral life. Be aware of the reality of the world. Understand that this thing called "you" is just a temporary collection of stuff, more like a process than an entity, that will one day be disassembled again and whose parts will go on to make other things. Meditate on this subject until you truly understand it.

Damn. Now I'm a buddhist, too.

Great.

Pagan-Christian-Shamanic-Shinto-Hindi-Wiccan-Buddhist.

My titles are too damned long.

(I'll offer 1000 happy points if someone can tell me how to do a roll-eyes smiley...)

[Darat]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
...snip...

(I'll offer 1000 happy points if someone can tell me how to do a roll-eyes smiley...)

You can't in critical thinking.

(Edited to add because I really want those 1000 happy points.)

You could use: 9_9

(From http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/smileys.html)

[Z]

Oh geez... 9_9

1000 HAPPY POINTS GRANTED TO DARAT

Happy points are for entertainment purposes only. Not valid in Vermont or where prohibited by law. Some restrictions may apply. Some assembly required. Item may be different from that shown on package. Batteries not included. Happy Points in no way reflect the attitudes, opinions, or sexual orientation of the poster. Statements not proven by the FDA. No preservattives. May condtain FD&C Red 40. Offer good for a limited time only. Call your mother.

[Darat]

Yippie! I'm so happ..

damn they don't last long do they?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Dancing David,

I'm sorry. I still don't get what you mean! I'm trying. :(

I am just suggesting that the universe is not a moral place.

a. a new male lion in a territory eats the cubs of the former male. Does the lioness reject him for his cruel behavior.

b. a farmer rapes his daughters on a regular basis and beats his male children on a daily basis. He lives next farm to another farmer who is gentle and sweet and does every thing a good person should do. If we study the rates of disease and health, or wealth and poverty. They will be roughly the same for the two farmers. (God unfortunately does not strike the abuser dead)

c. One young person works and goes to high school, they work and go to community college they they work and work and work. In thier lifetime they make about 1,000,000. And have a very high rate of heart diseasze from stress. Another individual drops out of scholl, steals cars for a while and then sets up a chop shop. They retire in thier 40s having made 5,000,000 . They live a long and healthy life.


If the universe was a moral place, there would be no need for human law, there would not be children starving to death.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


Damn. Now I'm a buddhist, too.

Great.

Pagan-Christian-Shamanic-Shinto-Hindi-Wiccan-Buddhist.

My titles are too damned long.

(I'll offer 1000 happy points if someone can tell me how to do a roll-eyes smiley...)

I always like to throw in nihilist!

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zaayrdragon


Damn. Now I'm a buddhist, too.

Great.

Pagan-Christian-Shamanic-Shinto-Hindi-Wiccan-Buddhist.
[QUOTE]

There was a period in my life where I described my religion as "I'd be a pagan if all the pagans I knew weren't so damned weird."

Then about six years ago I picked up a book, read it, and said, "Well what do you know? I'm Buddhist"

[DrMatt]

In sum:

"According to my view" or "from my experience" does not answer the question of evidence. As you'll find by reading elsewhere on this web site, views and experiences are prone to prejudices, errors, and deceptions.
A short list of demonstrably unreliable sources of information must include
Intuition (another name for revelation)
Authority (including ancient books)
Traditions


I suggest some of the folks who came to this thread to witness should read the commentary archive (http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html) to get an idea what sort of things are and what sorts are not likely to prove convincing here.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by DrMatt
I suggest some of the folks who came to this thread to witness should read the commentary archive (http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html) to get an idea what sort of things are and what sorts are not likely to prove convincing here.
I wonder what brand of "witnessing" permits false attribution of quotes to someone else? Doesn't that come under the category of "bearing false witness?' The mind boggles.

[KAREENA]

Zaayrdragon said: Hogwash. All of it.

There is no purpose. There is no afterlife. THIS life is all that matters - and it's short, so make it the very best you can.

____________________________________

So far, all I've heard are defeatist, pessimist and nihilist views of life as human beings. The universe is morally neutral, so why bother. We are no more no less than insects, so why bother?

Actually, there is a ranking order to all systems, but this huge system we call the universe has no system, meritorious or other, so why bother? Be good or be bad, we all end up as rot!

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
So far, all I've heard are defeatist, pessimist and nihilist views of life as human beings. The universe is morally neutral, so why bother. We are no more no less than insects, so why bother?

Actually, there is a ranking order to all systems, but this huge system we call the universe has no system, meritorious or other, so why bother? Be good or be bad, we all end up as rot!

Sorry, I don't buy it.
Nobody said anything defeatist. Nobody said anything pessimistic. Nobody said "so why bother." I think you will fare better here if you desist from misquoting people.

There are ranking orders to systems of ethics and systems of morals, not to universes. Please provide evidence otherwise.

[Z]

Kareena, you're only half-right on what I'm saying - I'm saying, yeah, we're no better than insects. We all end up as rot. So - it's up to us, in the span of our own lifetimes, to make things the best we possibly can. It's not up to some mysterious god, or future lifetimes, or endless series of elected politicians to make things better; it's not Man's birthright to have a better world, not God's favor to shew upon us; it's our personal, individual responsibility to make life what we will.

Suffering exists, but it's Man's responsibility to shorten, lessen, and/or end it - not God's. Time to stop shunting responsibility for heaven and a better world off on 'God' or future incarnations of our 'self' and time to start being responsible for ourselves and our own heaven.

I don't think that's pessimistic or defeatist at all.

[sackett]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Zaayrdragon said: . . . . Sorry, I don't buy it.

Then tell us what you -do- buy.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KAREENA
So far, all I've heard are defeatist, pessimist and nihilist views of life as human beings. The universe is morally neutral, so why bother. We are no more no less than insects, so why bother?

Actually, there is a ranking order to all systems, but this huge system we call the universe has no system, meritorious or other, so why bother? Be good or be bad, we all end up as rot!

Sorry, I don't buy it. [/B]

I've really been liking this thread, and this seems like a good time to jump in. I've heard this argument for far too long, that not believing in a god is a depressing way to go through life.

Being no more or less than an insect isn't pessimistic.

The other day as I was working on my computer, an ant crawled across my hand. I instinctively moved to crush it, but stopped. If I were a Christian, I could kill it without a thought, as animals were created by god for our use only. But I'm not a Christian, and that allowed me one achingly beautiful moment where I realized that all this ant has is one little life, same as me. Why should I treat it so casually?

Being an agnostic is like walking through the world with a new set of eyes. When you can look at something that you previously thought insignificant, like an ant, and see how it has such a clear connection to your own life, you gain a glimpse of how amazing this universe can be.

Death is a part of that, and it makes life all the sweeter.

[Eos of the Eons]

rebecca, that was profound. Strong message. I'm sitting here mulling it over. Good way to put that. This whole thread makes me proud to be a part of this forum.

Gratefully,

Eos

[Anders]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Did you know that fat cells only divide when they get too full of fat and need to make new fat cells? Do all cells have telomeres?
That would be the cruelest joke. Our skin cells have to divide a lot in order to keep up with the ones sloughing off and other ways they get lost. Gravity isn't nice for the skin or fat on the body.

No, not all cells have telomeres. Bacteria don’t and cancer cells neither. Stemcells don't either. So there are a few types of cells that survive as long as there are food.
Left to their on devices with enough food bacteria would multiply for ever.

[Meadmaker]

I think believers look at non-believers as pessimists because they can't step "outside the box" and see the world from a different perspective. When I was young and Christian, I saw everything from a Christian perspective. The idea that I might die someday and that death was real and permanent was just unfathomable. Christianity was so much a part of my life that it colored everything I thought about.

But, as time went on, no matter how "important" Christianity was to me, I simply couldn't reconcile it with my rational mind. I concluded that it simply wasn't real, and that I couldn't continue to believe it.

That left a big gap inside me. It took a while to see that atheism wasn't inherently more pessimistic than belief in God. It's just attitude. A Christian might look at an atheist and say that's too depressing, believing that life will simply end, with no "true" purpose. An atheist might look at a Christian and say that their views are depressing, knowing that you are ultimately in the hands of some all-powerful being that might consign you to eternal damnation because he doesn't want you to eat cheeseburgers.

In the end, we all have our own ideas, and they shape what we think. It is difficult to imagine the possibility that the world might be different than what we expect it to be, and we find it depressing to imagine that the whole way we view the world might be wrong.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I think believers look at non-believers as pessimists because they can't step "outside the box" and see the world from a different perspective. When I was young and Christian, I saw everything from a Christian perspective. The idea that I might die someday and that death was real and permanent was just unfathomable. Christianity was so much a part of my life that it colored everything I thought about.

But, as time went on, no matter how "important" Christianity was to me, I simply couldn't reconcile it with my rational mind. I concluded that it simply wasn't real, and that I couldn't continue to believe it.

That left a big gap inside me. It took a while to see that atheism wasn't inherently more pessimistic than belief in God. It's just attitude. A Christian might look at an atheist and say that's too depressing, believing that life will simply end, with no "true" purpose. An atheist might look at a Christian and say that their views are depressing, knowing that you are ultimately in the hands of some all-powerful being that might consign you to eternal damnation because he doesn't want you to eat cheeseburgers.

In the end, we all have our own ideas, and they shape what we think. It is difficult to imagine the possibility that the world might be different than what we expect it to be, and we find it depressing to imagine that the whole way we view the world might be wrong.

When I sort through some of the arguments made (here and elsewhere), I get the refrain of a "without Him, nothing." And the extension, "anything contrary to His word denies Him." I think this links together the "Darwin denies human dignity," "naturalism is depressing," "if there is no God, why bother" things we've been reading.

[sackett]

"If there is no God, why bother?"

That's getting it backward. If there IS a god, why bother? The great big man somewhere up in the sky will take care of everything. Whether you like it or not.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I think believers look at non-believers as pessimists because they can't step "outside the box" and see the world from a different perspective.

I beg to differ. I take it from your post that you agree that this view is severely flawed, so I won't bother to argue it.

I would like to share my differing experience, though. When I was a Christian, I thought atheists were sad and wrong because they did too much "stepping outside the box." I assumed that everyone started from a position of loving a (my Christian) god, and from there began to over-philosophize and question god (which to my Baptist family was never allowed). By exploring other options, these poor, poor people were led away from god by evil. And then it's off to hell with them, of course.

Wanna get to heaven? Stay in your box! Now that's cruel and unusual punishment.

[Eos of the Eons]

By exploring other options, these poor, poor people were led away from god by evil. And then it's off to hell with them, of course.

That would be a big part of it. I just never believed, and then I explored the option of believing and I got pissed off at the - well you know. Every religion has something that makes me want smash my head into a wall.

I think that's one of the main points why people get so defensive of their religion. They don't want to be led astray by any sort of temptation and end up in hell. That means you donot befriend atheists because they will have this agenda to make you atheist. It's ridiculous, but I'm finding it is a common line of thinking. I was even taught that at bible camp. You can talk to atheists, just don't be their friends because they are evil and will taint you.
That was one of the things that pissed me off the most.

Then you have all those wars. Protestants vs Catholics. Extremists calling "Westerners" evil. Etc. etc.

I think people quibbling over their religions so much makes this place hell. It's quite ironic.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by rebecca


I beg to differ. I take it from your post that you agree that this view is severely flawed, so I won't bother to argue it.


All I meant was that if you have a philosophy, whether it is Christian, atheist, or whatever, and you think that this philosophy "gives your life meaning", then anyone without that philosophy looks very sad, because it is so meaningless.

They can't "step outside the box" to see that someone else's life might have meaning, even without their own philosophy.

A Christian might think an atheist view of life is depressing, because the atheist thinks it's all over at death. An atheist might think a Christian's life is depressing, because they waste their whole lives trying to be happy in the next life, and miss out on what the atheist thinks is the only life they have.

In reality, somehow people with all sorts of religions and philosophies manage to muddle by with a certain amount of happiness, coming to grips with the suffering of this world and enjoying the happiness of it, despite whatever philosophies they have.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Meadmaker


All I meant was that if you have a philosophy, whether it is Christian, atheist, or whatever, and you think that this philosophy "gives your life meaning", then anyone without that philosophy looks very sad, because it is so meaningless.


That makes sense. So, to the original question,


Knowing we age/die: "Cruel and unusual punishment"?

I guess it's the same as saying that it's cruel and unusual to lead people to believe that there's a god - it's all in your philosophy, and therefore never cruel if you don't want it to be.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I wonder what brand of "witnessing" permits false attribution of quotes to someone else? Doesn't that come under the category of "bearing false witness?' The mind boggles.

Indeed. Much worse than that however, is that not a single one of you has commented on my very informative and beautifully written exposition on core composition. That includes you Hoyt!

All I can say is that at least it does all end with death.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by LucyR

If correct, this will require a significant modification of our current picture.

FASCINATING!

:)

[KAREENA]

Hoyt: Nobody said "so why bother." I think you will fare better here if you desist from misquoting people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, who have I misquoted?

[KAREENA]

Sackett:
Then tell us what you -do- buy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do I buy?
I believe we are much more than just a physical form that 'crawls' on this earth for a number of years, then decays in a $10,000.00 + casket for the nourishments of worms and insects.

I have looked at both sides of this argument. Academia is strongly pragmatic and neutral where religious beliefs are concerned. This, of course, by necessity.

I prefer the teachings of John where love is the way to the holy city. You may say: what's 2000 years in comparison to a 650 million years old world? And where was John or his heaven back then? Cavemen may be an upright breed, a shoot upwards from the gorilla, the monkey or whatever, or, man may be a creation of God. You do not know. I do not know. Most of the posters here, so far, seem to accept the view of man as a physical being with mores meant to keep him content and happy while abiding by the law of right and wrong!

Your choice. My choice.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
I believe we are much more than just a physical form that 'crawls' on this earth for a number of years, then decays in a $10,000.00 + casket for the nourishments of worms and insects.
You keep espousing beliefs and offering no evidence. Do you have any?
I have looked at both sides of this argument.
You wrote something similar with regard to Darwin, and yet your comments on Darwin revealed a rather large deficit in your understandinf of Darwin, as again evidenced below:
I prefer the teachings of John where love is the way to the holy city. You may say: what's 2000 years in comparison to a 650 million years old world? And where was John or his heaven back then? Cavemen may be an upright breed, a shoot upwards from the gorilla, the monkey or whatever, or, man may be a creation of God. You do not know. I do not know. Most of the posters here, so far, seem to accept the view of man as a physical being with mores meant to keep him content and happy while abiding by the law of right and wrong!

Your choice. My choice.
No, KAREENA, beliefs may very well be choices, but facts are altogether different. The fact about humankind is we do know. We are quite clearly related to other simians. This is not a view to be accepted or rejected. This is based on a large body of established facts. Now should we discuss those facts you claim we do not know?

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KAREENA

I believe we are much more than just a physical form that 'crawls' on this earth for a number of years, then decays in a $10,000.00 + casket for the nourishments of worms and insects.


This is incredibly pessimistic. You must have read some of the posts on this thread in answer to the initial question - have you understood any of them, or attempted to see how the atheist viewpoint is not one of gloom?

I believe . . . I prefer . . . I don't know . . . My choice . . .

I'd rather hear about what you KNOW.

(Hmm, as does Bill, whose post I just now saw)

[sackett]

When I tell people about Rebecca and the ant, they are without exception moved and even exalted. Bravissima, Rebecca.

The New Testament has some beautiful parables; I like the one about the lily of the valley, and there's not a thing wrong with the lesson it teaches; I wish the modern world would pay more attention to it.

You could treat the story of Rebecca and the ant as a parable - but it's much, much better than that BECAUSE IT REALLY HAPPENED! Moments like it can occur for all of us, and sometimes do; I want to think that such moments are inevitable for persons of healthy mind who let themselves live in the universe. They are, I believe, religious moments.

Yes indeedy, sackett the atheist calls them religious, and isn't ashamed to describe his religious feelings. (This has come up before; somewhere in JREF-land is a thread about this that includes religious anecdotes written by unbelievers.) Maybe it's just my coarse materialist nature, but I find more transcendence in the unearthly beauties of Milford Sound or the Grand Canyon or the forests of Costa Rica than in any holy book anybody cares to write.

Rebecca and the ant are apropos here. No one can study entomology without being staggered by the complexity of insect evolution. Edward O. Wilson, the great ant specialist, says rightly that it's as close as we're ever likely to come to seeing life on another planet. Is anyone surprised that a feeling person would experience religious emotions when contemplating a single ant?

But I'm far from wanting to challenge Kareena, because I sympathize with her. The tragedy and sadness of life are profoundly mingled with its sweetness and beauty, and I'd be no better than a liar if I didn't admit that I've cried out Why? Why? at the quickness of our passage. The beauty of the universe is a merciless beauty.

All the same, Kareena: knowledge is a great healer. Try reading more deeply in the natural sciences. There are plenty of -ologies: geology, herpetology, marine biology, mineralogy, paleontology. Also, try if you can to visit the great places of the world. Somewhere you'll meet Rebecca's ant. That's my promise; because the village atheist means you well.

[Z]

That's it - the Savage Garden. Beautiful, mesmerizing, vibrant, alive - and deadly to a man. Better to live each day wondering at the beauty of the sky, breathing deep the fragrant air, warming our skin under golden sun, and die happy, than to spend our days in cramped, mouldy temples of forgotten saints and contradictory gods, breathing in rot and staleness, and fearing each day in the hopes of some future happiness.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Hoyt: Nobody said "so why bother." I think you will fare better here if you desist from misquoting people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, who have I misquoted?

The immediate referent was as my post outlined. Nobody said what you said they said.

[KAREENA]

Sackett: All the same, Kareena: knowledge is a great healer. Try reading more deeply in the natural sciences. There are plenty of -ologies: geology, herpetology, marine biology, mineralogy, paleontology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sackett, I like the way you respond :)

Know, that this thread is enlightning me as to the general outlook on life. It's so sad to read posters talk about the finite dimension of man!! I will not be influenced into a doctrine that totally ignores the human element of beings. This element is spiritual, extra-terrestrial, immaterial, psychic....whatever one chooses to call it. It's beyond the physical world.
Proof? I cannot prove that there are three persons in God. It is a mystery. One needs to believe as in the Creed.
I am however doing some inner reflection in order to perhaps come up with facts that can back up my beliefs.
I am not an innocent human being.
I am not a push-over.
I am not easily swayed.
I am grounded.
I have lived long enough to know a few things. CAll it pragmatism, it doesn't matter. I know what I know. Descartes said I think therefore I am. Well, you show me an insect that can cite such thought and I will show you an insect that cannot rationalize. What on earth is going onm with the human kind anyway?
That is probably the reason why the world is in such turmoil!!
It brings tears to my eyes to think that so many people are so inclined. :( Really, people. Wake up!

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt: The immediate referent was as my post outlined. Nobody said what you said they said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Come again, Hoyt!

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KAREENA
What on earth is going onm with the human kind anyway?
That is probably the reason why the world is in such turmoil!!
It brings tears to my eyes to think that so many people are so inclined. :( Really, people. Wake up!

Could you elaborate on this? What IS going on with human kind? Do you mean to imply that not believing in the paranormal (including a god) is the cause of some kind of sorrow in the world? I can't imagine that's what you mean, particularly in our most recent history during which so much pain has been the result of religious fanatacism.

So what, exactly, brings tears to your eyes, and to what should the rest of us "wake up?"

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Sackett: All the same, Kareena: knowledge is a great healer. Try reading more deeply in the natural sciences. There are plenty of -ologies: geology, herpetology, marine biology, mineralogy, paleontology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sackett, I like the way you respond :)

Know, that this thread is enlightning me as to the general outlook on life. It's so sad to read posters talk about the finite dimension of man!! I will not be influenced into a doctrine that totally ignores the human element of beings. This element is spiritual, extra-terrestrial, immaterial, psychic....whatever one chooses to call it. It's beyond the physical world.
Proof? I cannot prove that there are three persons in God. It is a mystery. One needs to believe as in the Creed.
I am however doing some inner reflection in order to perhaps come up with facts that can back up my beliefs.
I am not an innocent human being.
I am not a push-over.
I am not easily swayed.
I am grounded.
I have lived long enough to know a few things. CAll it pragmatism, it doesn't matter. I know what I know. Descartes said I think therefore I am. Well, you show me an insect that can cite such thought and I will show you an insect that cannot rationalize. What on earth is going onm with the human kind anyway?
That is probably the reason why the world is in such turmoil!!
It brings tears to my eyes to think that so many people are so inclined. :( Really, people. Wake up!
Kareena,

What are you on about? What are you railing against here? Science? Science causes world turmoil? What?

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KAREENA

I have lived long enough to know a few things. CAll it pragmatism, it doesn't matter.

And by the way, don't worry, nobody's calling your philosophy pragmatic.

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps Kareena is reacting to a common sense one gets from skeptics. (Kareena, pardon me for speculating on your behalf, but if you can't speculate about nearly anonymous text messagers, who can you speculate about.)

There is a tendency, and I have experienced this myself, for believers to be called naive, deluded, or sometimes even stupid. I don't think that's true about believers in any particular religion. I even give a pass to a lot of Biblical literalists. I think their belief is non-rational and easily demonstrated to be unsound, but it takes some effort, and I wouldn't fault anyone for choosing not to pursue the study required to show the irrationality of it. Their beliefs get them through their daily lives, and they manage to get along, so I don't have a problem with them.

And if I think the average fundamentalist is not necessarily irrational, then I wouldn't dream of calling all Catholics deluded, and I think anyone who does so is being foolish himself. I admire Mr. Randi, for example, but I think he ought to mellow out a bit. (And Buddhists, are of course obviously the ultimate in wise and rational beings.)

But I want to focus on a few things Kareena did say.

"It's so sad to read posters talk about the finite dimension of man!!"

What most people try to understand is the true nature of man. And if that true nature is finite, then what is sad about it?

" I will not be influenced into a doctrine that totally ignores the human element of beings. "

I think this deserves more exploration, and while I don't necessarily agree with exactly what Kareena meant, I think that many atheists have a sort of "nothing matters" attitude because they don't accept an absolute morality given by divine decree. Regardless of what you believe the nature of man is, we do have a nature, and we will be happier, both indidually and as a society, if we follow that true nature. Finding out what that is is quite another story.


"This element is spiritual, extra-terrestrial, immaterial, psychic....whatever one chooses to call it. It's beyond the physical world."

The idea that something is "beyond the physical world" is expressed commonly. I, for one, am not sure whether there is anything at all beyond the physical world, and I think many people who participate in James Randi's sponsored forum would hold that view.

The issue for many skeptics concerns the interaction with this...whatever it is... and the physical world. If it is indeed beyond the physical world, then we can't detect it or interact with it, at least in this life. Many religious people and psychics, however, assert that there are interactions between the physical and non-physical world. They say that they can see hidden objects, or that someone they heard of can walk on water. When you get to statements like that, you are talking about the interaction of this spiritual world with the physical world, and then we skeptics start asking questions.

And James Randi says, "No problem. If you can demonstrate it, here's a million bucks for you."

But, Kareena, yoiu should know that while you might feel sad for us, we don't feel sad for ourselves. I'm perfectly happy living my life, even though I believe that the final outcome of it will be sickness, old age, death, and oblivion.

[sackett]

Originally posted by KAREENA
1. Sackett, I like the way you respond :)

2. . . . This element is spiritual, extra-terrestrial, immaterial, psychic....

1. Thank you for liking my post.

2. Now: When I hear someone assert the existence of anything immaterial, psychic, etc., I ask them two questions:

How do I know that?
How do you know that?

The second question is, of course, much more important than the first.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I think that many atheists have a sort of "nothing matters" attitude because they don't accept an absolute morality given by divine decree.

Where does this come from? Are these people you know? Do they lie, cheat, and steal more than the average theist? Do they cry themselves to sleep every night due to a supernatural daddy complex?

Your statement showcases the reason why people like Kareena refuse to understand the atheist/agnostic viewpoint. They don't believe in the innate morality of man - man's ability to understand and strive for goodness with no possibility of ultimate reward.

So when a person comes along who appears to be an atheist and validates that idea, it sets us all back a long way.

It's a hurtful assumption, and I don't want it to go unchallenged regardless of whether it comes from a theist or an atheist.

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rebecca


Where does this come from? Are these people you know?

I know some people like this.

Do they lie, cheat, and steal more than the average theist?

I would say yes. I have also known some very moral and ethical atheists, and some despicable theists. But, on average, I would guess that in my experience, theists are slightly more likely to tell the truth and follow the rules than atheists are.

On the other hand, theists are more likely to commit truly heinous acts "in the name of God" than are atheists.

Note that I say things like "on average" "slightly" "in my experience". From that, I want you to take the fact that the correlation is weak, and I can't say with certainty that it even exists. But I think it exists. Is there any way to study this scientifically, and have sociologists published papers on the subject?

Do they cry themselves to sleep every night due to a supernatural daddy complex?

Not sure what you mean, but it sounds like a rather judgemental comment.

Let's relate this to the original topic. How does the stereotypical theist react to knowing about aging and death? Deny its reality, and say that there is another life afterwards, but only if you are good.How does a stereotypical atheist react? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Which one results in better behavior? Both can be abused, but on average I would have to believe the one who wants to try to be good will, on average, behave better.

Real behavior is more complex than stereotypes, but stereotypes exist for a reason.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Both can be abused, but on average I would have to believe the one who wants to try to be good will, on average, behave better.

Real behavior is more complex than stereotypes, but stereotypes exist for a reason.
If you have any evidence for this, please present it. Otherwise, in the above, we have simply an empty claim followed by argumentum ad populem.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by rebecca


Where does this come from? Are these people you know? Do they lie, cheat, and steal more than the average theist? Do they cry themselves to sleep every night due to a supernatural daddy complex?

While my profession has to do with repulsive crimes I cannot claim a specific knowledge regarding the percentages of atheists who commit crimes.As far as I know there is no such a survey that relates atheism to crime. Being a theist myself though this is what I think.

My engagement with this forum gave me the opportunity to interact with many people that declare their atheism so, my experience with the atheist way of thinking comes from discussions with intelligent skeptics.

I discovered that atheists seem to detaste any sort of morality that they suspect that it springs from a religious belief. For example, they seem more open to practices like cannibalism, bestiality, necrophilia etc not because they enjoy practicing such things--do not take me wrong- but they detaste the notion that it is immoral to get engaged into such practices just because a religions says so but yet who can separate morality from religion? Any attempt would resemble to the annoying sophistry of the origin of the egg and the hen.

So, given the fact that there is an absence of an atheist manifesto ( by defintion this is impossible probably) and observing the tendancy to dismiss morality I have come to the conclusion that atheist do not have or they do not wish to have any relationship with morality at least the way we know it for the last 2000 years.

Your statement showcases the reason why people like Kareena refuse to understand the atheist/agnostic viewpoint. They don't believe in the innate morality of man - man's ability to understand and strive for goodness with no possibility of ultimate reward.

I have to confess that Kareena is not the only one in this place who has difficulties in understanding the atheist viewpoint. I separate atheism from agnosticism and I invite you to do the same for reasons of precision and methodology.They are not the same thing.

The reason why I do not understand it is that the atheists fellow posters do not even agree in the definition of atheism. If those who claim to hold a non-belief or a stance towards deity cannot define it and they cannot agree on its definition how people expect me, to understand it?

Also, I beg to be distinguished from the generalization who wants theists expecting a reward for their behavior. I will have to use your argument as to how many religious persons you have met and to make a long story short where do you base this opinion. Don't reply to me hastily : to the scripts. Because in my dogma the scripts do not say such things,
It's a hurtful assumption, and I don't want it to go unchallenged regardless of whether it comes from a theist or an atheist. The truth is that I know very few people who can discuss about religious beliefs without being offended and without offending others and interestingly all of them just avoid to discuss the matter.

I think that you are new to the forum, welcome!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
...but yet who can separate morality from religion?

Errr, this guy. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075208/qid=1084031743/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-4674204-4034207?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[rebecca]

Hi Clepoatra, thanks for the welcome, it's good to be here.

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I discovered that atheists seem to detaste any sort of morality that they suspect that it springs from a religious belief. For example, they seem more open to practices like cannibalism, bestiality, necrophilia etc not because they enjoy practicing such things--do not take me wrong- but they detaste the notion that it is immoral to get engaged into such practices just because a religions says so but yet who can separate morality from religion?

I carefully consider matters of morality, and I decided whether something is "moral" based on the good it does for myself and others, or immoral based on how it hurts myself and others.

"Morals," or more frequently, dogmas, established by a religion are sometimes based on social and political undercurrents. Even today, people read and interpret the Bible according to their own agendas. Whole translations of the Bible are also affected by human bias (for instance, anti-homosexual behavior - see http://www.religioustolerance.com for some interesting articles on this).

Other suggestions for behavior offered by the Bible are just plain good ideas, like being kind to people. Looking at your own moral code and evaluating why you have chosen to lead the life you do should be a requirement for any intelligent person, theist or not.

Oh, and do check out TLN's link for the answer to that last question.


So, given the fact that there is an absence of an atheist manifesto ( by defintion this is impossible probably) and observing the tendancy to dismiss morality I have come to the conclusion that atheist do not have or they do not wish to have any relationship with morality at least the way we know it for the last 2000 years.


I've addressed this, but just to reiterate: just because someone doesn't follow every one of your religion's "morals" does not mean that that person has dismissed morality.


I have to cnfess that Kareena is not the only one in this place who has difficulties in understanding the atheist viewpoint. I separate atheism from agnosticism and I invite you to do the same for reasons of precision and methodology.They are not the same thing.


I hope by now you see that I've given my beliefs (or lack thereof) a lot of thought. Obviously, I understand the difference between atheists and agnostics. I invite you to re-read my statement so you can see that I included both as examples of non-believers. I was saying that I don't think Kareena understands atheists or agnostics. I'm sorry if the slash confused you, but it was meant to convey "atheists, agnostics, et. al."


The reason why I do not understand it is that the atheists fellow posters do not even agree in the definition of atheism. If those who claim to hold a non-belief or a stance towards deity cannot define it and they cannot agree on its definition how people expect me, to understand it?


There are hundreds of different takes on Christianity. Yet I still take the time to understand each Christian's viewpoint. To know what motivates people, why they choose to believe what they do, is the path to a better life for everyone. If not agreeing on the semantics renders a philosophy dead, Christianity wouldn't be alive today. So yes, I expect that an intelligent person can easily understand the few variations on the word "atheist." It's not that hard - I can explain it if you'd like, or 10 minutes of Googling should clear things up.


Also, I beg to be distinguished from the generalization who wants theists expecting a reward for their behavior. I will have to use your argument as to how many religious persons you have met and to make a long story short where do you base this opinion.


This opinion comes from my own experience as a Baptist for the first seventeen years of my life, as well as that of all three youth groups I belonged to, the Bible Camp that I both attended and later taught, and the six weekend getaways to Pennsylvania "Snow Camp" where we would rally around the word of god. As for the people I know, all but two of my high school and elementary school friends (if I had to venture a guess, I don't know, 80?), my close family, my extended family, three of the local preachers (they came over for dinner a lot), all my Sunday school teachers (hell was an easy way to keep kids in line), all those kids that were at the rallys at snow camp (500?), the kids in the youth group, and the kids in my morning prayer group that took place before school . Oh, and the Christian theater company I toured with in high school.


Don't reply to me hastily : to the scripts. Because in my dogma the scripts do not say such things,


Good! It's great to know that everything you do you do out of a personal sense of morality, and not because someone is watching. This is the atheist viewpoint.


The truth i that I know very few people who can discuss about religious beliefs without being offended and without offending others and interestingly all of them just avoid to discuss the matter.


Yep. That's why it's so great to have a forum like this. Thanks for replying - questions lead to answers, which lead to better understanding.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by TLN


Errr, this guy. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075208/qid=1084031743/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-4674204-4034207?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Ok. Is this an attempt to present an argument from authority? I am talking about an attempt because the guy you quoted was an expert in Physics.

[Dancing David]

What I would like to point out is that it is not a cruel joke that we die at the end of life.

The biological machinery that gives us our existance wears out and stops, without the machinery there is a good chance we would not have an existance.

Life is about living, it is about doing our thing in this great chaotic place.

If Kareena takes comfort in believing that there is something more to life, fine. I do not feel that she has said that hers is the only path , just hers.

Personaly I take comfort in the knowledge that my life will end. I am a fatalist and find comfort that at some point it does end.

If I die and awake to another life , oh well. new life, new joys, new mistakes.

[tim]

May I take a moment of your time to commend all of you - every single one - for the courteous and sensible way you have been carrying on this discussion? Yes, there is disagreement. Yes, hackles have been raised. But everyone has stayed polite and it's been a pleasure to read.
I know I bang on about this sometimes, but abuse never furthers an argument, IMHO.
Well done! Carry on!

[KAREENA]

Sacket wrote:
When I hear someone assert the existence of anything immaterial, psychic, etc., I ask them two questions:

How do I know that?
How do you know that?

The second question is, of course, much more important than the first.
_________________________

Just to answer your question, from my point of view, Sackett, and in a very short version (time being a factor).

I know from indoctrination into my Faith that the essence of man is more than that of a physical being. I believe in the afterlife. I recite the Creed. I go to church. I pray. I do not consider the afterlife a type of reward for my 'being good'. I try to be good for selfish as well as altruistic reasons. I like my peace of mind, that which comes from treating people properly and from abiding by the law of man. However, I follow the commandments as well I can and repent when need be. I guess the bottom line to your question is: I believe. St. Thomas needed to see and touch the gash in Jesus' side to believe. I have faith. I believe in having a soul, that spiritual element that differentiates us from the animal kindgom.

Now, I have a question: Why are there thousands of churches in the world (holy places to pray to higher powers) if all there is is what you see?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by KAREENA

Just to answer your question, from my point of view, Sackett, and in a very short version (time being a factor).

I know from indoctrination into my Faith that the essence of man is more than that of a physical being. I believe in the afterlife. I recite the Creed. I go to church. I pray. I do not consider the afterlife a type of reward for my 'being good'. I try to be good for selfish as well as altruistic reasons. I like my peace of mind, that which comes from treating people properly and from abiding by the law of man. However, I follow the commandments as well I can and repent when need be. I guess the bottom line to your question is: I believe. St. Thomas needed to see and touch the gash in Jesus' side to believe. I have faith. I believe in having a soul, that spiritual element that differentiates us from the animal kindgom.

Now, I have a question: Why are there thousands of churches in the world (holy places to pray to higher powers) if all there is is what you see?

As to why there are thousands of churches, gently, for the same reason there are thousands of casinos.
Do you accept witches and shamans as practicing religion? How about voodoo?

You have offered that you believe in an after life, but that is not evidence in the general term, that is personal belief.

Why do you think that only humans have a soul? Did not god create the other animals?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Why are there thousands of churches in the world (holy places to pray to higher powers) if all there is is what you see?
Kareena,

This is fallacious reasoning. It is a mixture of the appeal to popularity fallacy and the formal affirming the consequent fallacy. The appeal to popularity fallacy is a claim that something must be true if so many people believe it. Any quick examination of history demonstrates how easily throngs of people can be convinced of things that aren't true.

The affirming the consequent fallacy looks like this:

if p, then q
q
therefore p.

In your particular case you are wrongly claiming:

If there is a God, people will build churches to worship him
I see churches
Therefore there is a God.

This is clearly wrong, as can be shown here:
If you get pushed, you will fall over
I see you fell
Therefore someone must have pushed you.

Unless you've never fallen over on your own nor seen someone else fall over on their own, I think you can see the backwardness of this reasoning.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Sacket wrote:
Now, I have a question: Why are there thousands of churches in the world (holy places to pray to higher powers) if all there is is what you see?

To further add to the previous responses to this statement, I just wanted to note that it's funny you bring this up, as this is probably the first thing that hit me over the head and made me realize I didn't believe in a god.

I looked around at all these different faiths, and saw that the differences between them were cultural. In other words, they had the clear stink of "man-made." There were just too many religions to count, and the only reason I believed in MY religion was because that's what I was told to believe as a child. Realizing that not only were there other beliefs out there that made just as much (or little) sense, but also there were religions that flourished well before there were any Baptists around, really made me see the light, so to speak.

[Z]

Well, don't you know, everyone born before Jesus is going straight to hell? After all, if the only way to Heaven is through Christ, even most of J.C.'s ancestors are goners.

[Meadmaker]

My experience is similar to Rebecca's. Early in life, I accepted the faith that I was taught, but as I grew older, I realized that people all over the world believed all sorts of things, and all with the same fervor. Eventually, it started to look like a creation of man, not of God.

Even more important to me was one specific case. As I read more of the Bible, I realized that the Old Testament and the New Testament taught very different things. The church explained it away by saying that God revealed his faith over time, and so the Old Testament wasn't quite right. For example, the Book of Ecclesiastes,taken literally, teaches that there is no afterlife. (Ecc. 9:5) The introduction in my Bible (New American Bible, Catholic Bible Publishers, 1972-1973 edition) says..."The moral teaching of the book is imperfect, like the Old Testament itself (Heb 7, 19)"

I asked myself how this revelation from God could be morally imperfect. And if it was, why would it be cited to prove that God wants this or that.

I eventually decided that if there was a God, how could you possibly know what he wants? This seemed to be in line with the spirit, if not the letter, of Ecclesiastes. Imagine my surprise when it was consistent with both spirit and letter of Buddhism.

And yet, I must admit something. Kareena "knows" that the essence of man is more than a physical being. I'm not so sure, but I have to wonder. In a different thread, I brought up the problem of consciousness as something that makes me doubt the central premise of materialism.

To relate this to the original question, several pages ago, sure we age and die, but this wouldn't be cruel if we didn't "know" that we existed. Not only do we exist and think, but we are aware of our own existence. I'm not sure how that happens, and it makes me wonder whether there might be something more.

But then, I turn back to my skeptical nature. It's all very well to talk about non-physical nature, but unless something actually happens in the world that would demonstrate that non-physical nature, then it might as well not exist. And since no one has demonstrated anything beyond the physical, I have to just leave it as a possibility, but one for which a case cannot be made.


Originally posted by KAREENA
Sacket wrote:
When I hear someone assert the existence of anything immaterial, psychic, etc., I ask them two questions:

How do I know that?
How do you know that?

The second question is, of course, much more important than the first.
_________________________

Just to answer your question, from my point of view, Sackett, and in a very short version (time being a factor).

I know from indoctrination into my Faith that the essence of man is more than that of a physical being. I believe in the afterlife. I recite the Creed. I go to church. I pray. I do not consider the afterlife a type of reward for my 'being good'. I try to be good for selfish as well as altruistic reasons. I like my peace of mind, that which comes from treating people properly and from abiding by the law of man. However, I follow the commandments as well I can and repent when need be. I guess the bottom line to your question is: I believe. St. Thomas needed to see and touch the gash in Jesus' side to believe. I have faith. I believe in having a soul, that spiritual element that differentiates us from the animal kindgom.

Now, I have a question: Why are there thousands of churches in the world (holy places to pray to higher powers) if all there is is what you see?

[KAREENA]

Meadmaker: Not only do we exist and think, but we are aware of our own existence. I'm not sure how that happens, and it makes me wonder whether there might be something more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Basically the foundation to my questions as well, Meadmaker, to which I try to answer through a wide variety of sources, going way back to my childhood. I always seem to come back to the idea that one does not always need proof to believe in something, especially something so fundamental as the essence of mankind.

Many have studied, taught or lectured about religion. Many are well versed in the Testaments. It has never been an objective of mine to question or study religion to the extent of becoming an expert on the subject. However...

From the above postings, it seems to me that atheism and agnoticism are prevalent views solidly dipped in the finite, materialistic, and physical basis of earthly life. Period.

Coincidentally, because it treats of this same matter, on Sunday I received a fairly lenghty e-mai from a long forgotten friend. I will paste and copy it on my next on-line visit.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Basically the foundation to my questions as well, Meadmaker, to which I try to answer through a wide variety of sources, going way back to my childhood. I always seem to come back to the idea that one does not always need proof to believe in something, especially something so fundamental as the essence of mankind.
Interesting viewpoint. Use the demonstrably more certain way of vetting ideas through the scientific process for the unimportant things, but reserve unverifiable nonsense for the really important ones. You don't smell something awfully wrong about this?
Many have studied, taught or lectured about religion. Many are well versed in the Testaments. It has never been an objective of mine to question or study religion to the extent of becoming an expert on the subject. However...
You're onto the fallacy of appeal to authority and the fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Coincidentally, because it treats of this same matter, on Sunday I received a fairly lenghty e-mai from a long forgotten friend. I will paste and copy it on my next on-line visit.
Unless you have specific, written permission from this person to post this here, it would be against both international law and this forum's rules.

[Iamme]

Trying to catch up on the posts.

There isn't hardly a day that goes by that I don't think about this cruelty concept.

What so amazes me are older people who don't seem to worry about their impending doom. It must be nice. Maybe if you live long enough and have enough brain cells die...this is natures way of causing you not to frett about the future for which you can't control.

[KAREENA]

(Iamme): What so amazes me are older people who don't seem to worry about their impending doom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or try to explain it away in scientific jargon? :)

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt: Unless you have specific, written permission from this person to post this here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, aren't we hot under the collar, and jumping to conclusions.
:( Find another poster to attack, will ya!

I never had the intention to copy and post an epistle!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
BillHoyt: Unless you have specific, written permission from this person to post this here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, aren't we hot under the collar, and jumping to conclusions.
:( Find another poster to attack, will ya!

I never had the intention to copy and post an epistle!
Kareena,

Please stop this disingenuous nonsense. You have pulled this several times here on this thread. Here, again, is what you wrote:
received a fairly lenghty e-mai from a long forgotten friend. I will paste and copy it on my next on-line visit.

It is quite clear. It is quite unambiguous. It says the email was lengthy. It says you plan to copy it into a post here on JREF. My response to you was quite clear. It was quite unambiguous. It is illegal to copy someone's writings without prior, written permission. It is, of course, against forum rules as well.

If you wish to view my pointing out matters of international law and forum rules as personal attacks, then I will cease posting such friendly warnings and simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors of the works you infringe.

If you wish to debate people here, then do so honestly, legally and within forum rules. That would be the Christian way, now, wouldn't it?

[T'ai Chi]

Bill tried the same 'copyright violation' stuff on me (even though after I confirmed permission he managed to come up with even more demands that he wanted me to satisfy before he even considered replying...)


If you wish to debate people here, then do so honestly,

Since you brought up that topic...:

You still haven't addressed my points from our discussion in the DAT thread even after I got permission, nor have you provided evidence for your statistical claim (see my sig below) even though you often ask others to provide evidence. In fact, you've just ignored providing evidence for, or retracting, your statistical claim.

Please don't hold me and others to standards you do not always hold yourself to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Science? Science causes world turmoil? What?

Only a-bombs, miscellaneous weapons, pollution from factories, and some other things that are science-derived (adverse reactions to medicines, vaccines, etc).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

If you have any evidence for this, please present it. Otherwise, in the above, we have simply an empty claim followed by argumentum ad populem.

Bill, if you read what he wrote a little closer, he said:

..."I would have to believe..."

He didn't claim anything, s'ir.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Only a-bombs, miscellaneous weapons, pollution from factories, and some other things that are science-derived (adverse reactions to medicines, vaccines, etc).

Off topic:

This begs the bullets kill people argument. It is not science that creates world turmoil but the humans apply-ing it.

Take storage technology along with agriculture this is one of the great inventions of all time(after string and glue). The abilty to store large amounts of surlus food is a great thing, pottery jars for storing oil and grain, or smoking meat for example. But it is alos this factor that the marxist archaeologist points to and says.
"When we have the combination of the productive capacity of agriculture and the accumulative capacity of storage technology we also find the shift of petty chieftan to robber-kings." It is the accumulation of large amounts of portable wealth that leads to the developement of economicaly productive warefare and the rise of the noble class.(Please understand this is just a theory)

So in this case we have the developement of a new science/tecnology that leads to two beneficial things, the production of food and the accumulation of food. But it has the unintended consequence of the robber-king and the need to have your own defender-king.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Only a-bombs, miscellaneous weapons, pollution from factories, and some other things that are science-derived (adverse reactions to medicines, vaccines, etc).

Junk.

If anything, "world turmoil" may be imputed in part to rapid population growth.

Is this what you mean by adverse reactions to medicines, vaccines etc.?

[KAREENA]

T'ai Chi wrote:
Bill tried the same 'copyright violation' stuff on me (even
though after I confirmed permission he managed to come up
with even more demands...
____________________________________

Thanks, T'ai Chi. To tell the truth, a sagacious cautionary but friendly advice would do wonders for posters, as opposed to being slapped with rigid warnings and threats. Bill comes on too strong.

I do hope the points of your previous discussion will be addressed to your satisfaction. :)

[KAREENA]

Bill Hoyt: ....simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors of the works you infringe.
____________________________

What's your point?
What's your authority?
Who are you?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Bill Hoyt: ....simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors of the works you infringe.
____________________________

What's your point?
What's your authority?
Who are you?
Unless you have specific written permission from the author, you may not post significant portions of his or her work. It is very simple. It is very clear. It is international law. It is part of the forum's rules.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
To tell the truth, a sagacious cautionary but friendly advice would do wonders for posters, as opposed to being slapped with rigid warnings and threats. Bill comes on too strong.

"Unless you have specific, written permission from this person to post this here, it would be against both international law and this forum's rules."

What threat? What slap? What rigid warning?

You are in a skeptic's forum and trying to get away with nonsense. If you can't take the heat, take your witnessing to another kitchen. If you'd like to engage in a discussion, then do so within the rules.

[KAREENA]

BillHoyt wrote:
If you wish to view my pointing out matters of international law and forum rules as personal attacks, then I will cease posting such friendly warnings and simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors of the works you infringe.
************************

Your warnings are not friendly but cold and dry.

"and simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors ...." this is a threat.

I did write I would copy and paste an e-mail. By 'lenghty' I did not mean a entire book!

And you speak of 'nonsense'. Know that your hurry to jump on my case is nonsense. And, finally, you advise me to get out of your kitchen. I am doing so gladly. Your kitchen is too chilly and unfriendly.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KAREENA
Your warnings are not friendly but cold and dry.

"and simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors ...." this is a threat.

I did write I would copy and paste an e-mail. By 'lenghty' I did not mean a entire book!

And you speak of 'nonsense'. Know that your hurry to jump on my case is nonsense. And, finally, you advise me to get out of your kitchen. I am doing so gladly. Your kitchen is too chilly and unfriendly.
Part of thinking critically, Kareena, is actually reading people's words. In the above post, you are smearing the timeline to try to justify your own unreasonable response to my earlier posts. Here are the facts, Kareena:

o You wrote: "I received a fairly lenghty e-mai from a long forgotten friend. I will paste and copy it on my next on-line visit. "
o I responded: "Unless you have specific, written permission from this person to post this here, it would be against both international law and this forum's rules."
o To which you then responded: "Hey, aren't we hot under the collar, and jumping to conclusions. :( Find another poster to attack, will ya! I never had the intention to copy and post an epistle!"

There was no attack there. There was no threat there. But already you are reacting as if there was. And already you are either trying to deny what you earlier wrote or displaying a lack of understanding of either the law or JREF rules. "Lengthy" = "Against JREF rules" = "Against international copyright law." Not necessarily a whole book. Not necessarily an epistle.

o Next I responded: "If you wish to view my pointing out matters of international law and forum rules as personal attacks, then I will cease posting such friendly warnings and simply report you to forum management and send notices to the authors of the works you infringe."
o To which you wrote: "What's your point? What's your authority?
Who are you? "

I don't know if you are deliberately trying to misunderstand or not. But calls for my identity or my authority are simply examples of an attempt to set up an argument from authority. This is fallacious reasoning. Who I am is immaterial. My "authority" is immaterial. The rules of the forum are quite clear and easily found here.
o Finally you whine about me threatening you. Sorry, Kareena, no dice. This forum's management requests such reports. The moderators do not have the time to track down copyright infiringements or to read every post for rules violations. It is not a threat. It is a promise. I am dedicated to making this forum work and I will not let anybody jeopardize JREF with nonsense such as copyright infringements.

Kareena, if you came to JREF expecting to be able freely to witness, you were misinformed by someone. This is a skeptic's forum which will welcome you here to discuss things rationally. We are not here to nod our heads and say "that's nice" when nonsense is spouted on the forum.