maadmax 0 #1501 January 15, 2014 Quote I would prefer to avoid using the ambiguous term 'God' for most of its common definitions or interpretations, since that covers a lot of ground. One could be referring to anything from some vague notion of an unspecified presence ('God is love!') to an anthropomorphic prime mover of the universe. The idea that said universe is the brainchild of a cognizant entity of infinitely greater scope and complexity than the known universe - one that knows when we're sleeping, knows when we're awake, knows when we've been bad or good - and is revealed only to isolated desert dwellers, may be dismissed out of hand. Trying to postulate some definition that will supplant the model born of consummate ignorance is a fool's errand. Indeed, the atavistic hard-wiring for superstition may well be the downfall of our species. The reluctance to call bullshit in the face of popular delusions has resulted in disaster throughout history, and there is no reason to think we're out of the woods. What the hell, "Live for a while, die and be forgotten. So it goes" K. Vonnegut BSBD, Winsor I grappled with those same issues for quite a while. It will be a shame if you get stuck there in your journey. The realization that God, and reality for that matter, are unaffected by my arbitrary value judgments of what I think they should be, was liberating. We were made to know God. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #1502 January 15, 2014 QuoteWe were made to know God. Actually, that was addressed in the post to which you replied: the atavistic hard-wiring for superstition. Labeling a superstition "knowledge of God" does not make it any less a superstition. Beleave it or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #1503 January 15, 2014 Andy9o8Labeling a superstition "knowledge of God" does not make it any less a superstition. Beleave it or not. I 'beeleeve' that the more colorful people talk about their beleifs, the more ridiculous their beleaf structure must be. (i.e., if you have to dress it up, then the truth of it must be irrational - for that individual. For religion, the most convincing believer is the one that is quietly confident in it and who can speak plainly about it when he has to.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #1504 January 15, 2014 In the words of the philosopher Cher, "Do u beleave in life after love?"I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1505 January 15, 2014 after love after love Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #1506 January 15, 2014 maadmax We were made to know God. ... um, no.. not at all proven. Man is man made... and, I believe, so are the gods. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #1507 January 15, 2014 shropshire*** We were made to know God. ... um, no.. not at all proven. Man is man made... and, I believe, so are the gods. "In the beginning, God created Man. Man, being a gentleman, returned the favor." Clarence Darrow Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #1508 January 16, 2014 "He was a wise man who invented God" - Plato Of course, you can argue the point. Since God / gods are part of every cutlure I've ever heard of, there is an argument that we were created by a divine being and instilled with an innate knowledge of and desire for him / her.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #1509 January 16, 2014 davjohns"He was a wise man who invented God" - Plato Of course, you can argue the point. Since God / gods are part of every cutlure I've ever heard of, there is an argument that we were created by a divine being and instilled with an innate knowledge of and desire for him / her. It does not wash. When I first had a ferret as a pet decades ago, I was amazed at some of the stuff he did. I then wound up with four of them, and found out that much of what I thought was unique they ALL did (some things were, in fact, unique to the individual). An evolutionary basis for the tendency to accept the divine has been suggested by Dawkins, and it makes sense as an atavistic throwback survival mechanism. It is actually much simpler to accept perceived reality as extant without causal basis or motive than to postulate an invisible, omnipotent, infinitely powerful, complex and capricious prime mover - also extant without causal basis or motive. That, unfortunately, flies in the face of the wiring of most of us. Unfortunately, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not a king, he's a pariah. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #1510 January 16, 2014 Quote It does not wash. When I first had a ferret as a pet decades ago, I was amazed at some of the stuff he did. I then wound up with four of them, and found out that much of what I thought was unique they ALL did (some things were, in fact, unique to the individual). An evolutionary basis for the tendency to accept the divine has been suggested by Dawkins, and it makes sense as an atavistic throwback survival mechanism. It is actually much simpler to accept perceived reality as extant without causal basis or motive than to postulate an invisible, omnipotent, infinitely powerful, complex and capricious prime mover - also extant without causal basis or motive. That, unfortunately, flies in the face of the wiring of most of us. Unfortunately, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not a king, he's a pariah. BSBD, Winsor By your same criteria, He would have evolved out of our consciousness long ago. Only that which is true persists. You obviously know to much about the subject to have not once searched for Him. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #1511 January 16, 2014 maadmaxQuote It does not wash. When I first had a ferret as a pet decades ago, I was amazed at some of the stuff he did. I then wound up with four of them, and found out that much of what I thought was unique they ALL did (some things were, in fact, unique to the individual). An evolutionary basis for the tendency to accept the divine has been suggested by Dawkins, and it makes sense as an atavistic throwback survival mechanism. It is actually much simpler to accept perceived reality as extant without causal basis or motive than to postulate an invisible, omnipotent, infinitely powerful, complex and capricious prime mover - also extant without causal basis or motive. That, unfortunately, flies in the face of the wiring of most of us. Unfortunately, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not a king, he's a pariah. BSBD, Winsor By your same criteria, He would have evolved out of our consciousness long ago. Only that which is true persists. You obviously know to much about the subject to have not once searched for Him. ... A+ for cluelessness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1512 January 16, 2014 I'll give bonus points to go with that. Take some away for improper grammar. "He" has evolved out of intelligent consciousness. LONG time ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #1513 January 16, 2014 maadmax By your same criteria, He would have evolved out of our consciousness long ago. Only that which is true persists. ... Maybe not .. otherwise our Appendix would have gone (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #1514 January 16, 2014 normiss I'll give bonus points to go with that. Take some away for improper grammar. "He" has evolved out of intelligent consciousness. LONG time ago. Wait, wait, wait.... are you saying you are intelligent? Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1515 January 16, 2014 I'm not sure I could make such a claim. Without a silly giggle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #1516 January 16, 2014 QuoteOf course, you can argue the point. Since God / gods are part of every cutlure I've ever heard of, there is an argument that we were created by a divine being and instilled with an innate knowledge of and desire for him / her. There is. The other argument is that the tendency towards religious belief is an atavistic trait that arises from a combination of our ancient instincts and relatively newfound intelligence.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #1517 January 16, 2014 QuoteBy your same criteria, He would have evolved out of our consciousness long ago. Only that which is true persists. Nope, that's not how it works, for several reasons. Evolution selects for utility, not for truth. Cast your mind back 5,000 years and ask yourself how well the only non-believer in a tribe of believers would be likely to fare. Well, or not well? Next, if the tendency towards belief is a byproduct of other useful traits, belief alone is not being selected for. Pattern recognition, curiosity and the ability to think complex thoughts are all useful in their own right, they're not going to be selected against just because belief isn't useful. Then, even if belief isn't useful but isn't detrimental either then it won't be selected against. Like our tailbone, or the vestigial legs of a sea mammal it could continue on, neither helping nor hindering. Finally, humans are brand new. We are an evolutionary eye blink. We've only just learned how to think, don't be surprised if we haven't ironed out all of the kinks yet.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #1518 January 16, 2014 normiss I'm not sure I could make such a claim. Without a silly giggle. Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #1519 January 16, 2014 Quote Nope, that's not how it works, for several reasons. Evolution selects for utility, not for truth. Cast your mind back 5,000 years and ask yourself how well the only non-believer in a tribe of believers would be likely to fare. Well, or not well? Next, if the tendency towards belief is a byproduct of other useful traits, belief alone is not being selected for. Pattern recognition, curiosity and the ability to think complex thoughts are all useful in their own right, they're not going to be selected against just because belief isn't useful. Then, even if belief isn't useful but isn't detrimental either then it won't be selected against. Like our tailbone, or the vestigial legs of a sea mammal it could continue on, neither helping nor hindering. Finally, humans are brand new. We are an evolutionary eye blink. We've only just learned how to think, don't be surprised if we haven't ironed out all of the kinks yet. The way I see it, Truth is the ultimate utility. Belief is only the door, it is nothing without the correct information. Evolutionary speaking, God-consciousness appears to convey greater survivability. As a species , the majority of us are still consumed with that issue. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1520 January 16, 2014 WTF does that mean??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #1521 January 16, 2014 QuoteThe way I see it, Truth is the ultimate utility. Why? QuoteEvolutionary speaking, God-consciousness appears to convey greater survivability. Maybe so, maybe not. I kinda just covered that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #1522 January 17, 2014 QuoteThe way I see it, Truth is the ultimate utility Why? It is the dimension of reality that atheists fail to recognize, that people of faith hold most dear. I love science and study it intently, but spiritual Truth gives an insight into reality that science is incapable of addressing. QuoteEvolutionary speaking, God-consciousness appears to convey greater survivability. Maybe so, maybe not. I kinda just covered that. no surprise, we will just have to disagree on this point ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #1523 January 17, 2014 maadmax***The way I see it, Truth is the ultimate utility Why? It is the dimension of reality that atheists fail to recognize, that people of faith hold most dear. I love science and study it intently, but spiritual Truth gives an insight into reality that science is incapable of addressing. Please do not confuse faith with reality. They are not the same thing, hence all the different religions around the world ALL of whom are convinced they, and only they, are correct.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #1524 January 17, 2014 Did you know that epilepsy, especially frontal lobe epilepsy, increases the likelihood of religious hallucinations?Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #1525 January 17, 2014 That's because god touched them! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
