Creation >> DNA Code

August · 03-29-12, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

testimony without concrete evidence is worthless.

Worthless maybe to you Steve. People have been convicted of crimes on eye witness testimony alone many times.

Quote:

Maybe some are lying, maybe to themselves. More likely is that people assign motives to happenings that are really random chance. Without any real evidence it's kind of hard to tell

and

Quote:

Believing is fine for you, but I need some real evidence.

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

Sailor Steve · 03-29-12, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Then why bother asking believers to try and explain their beliefs to you at all? If you're really not going to accept anything but hard evidence of Gods existence anyways then you're just toying with us and wasting our time. So you go ahead and believe what you want and we'll go ahead and believe what we want and then we'll all see who was closer to being right when we die.

Toying? I only ask this of those who ask me to believe. I still have Christian friends, and I don't talk to them about it at all, unless they bring it up first. And I don't bring it up here, unless someone else brings it up first. Nicolas started this thread with a very strange claim, and anyone is welcome to answer.

Toying with us? I thought you weren't a believer. As to your last comment, it's not about seeing who is right. I've also said that I wish I could believe. That's not a challenge. All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

August · 03-29-12, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I thought you weren't a believer.

Oh I am a believer in God, i'm just not religious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All I'm asking for is a concrete reason to. You seem to believe that I want to prove someone's faith wrong. I don't. I just want some real answers, and no one seems to have them.

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

Sailor Steve · 03-29-12, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Answers to questions that man has pondered since the dawn of time? That's what makes me wonder about your questions. You could hardly have expected an answer here at Subsim of all places.

As I've said ad infinitum, I only say that to people who claim to have answers. If they truly know something is factual, then they should be able to provide the evidence requested. I don't claim to know the answers, and I don't think they do either. It's only when they claim they do that I start asking.

Skybird · 03-29-12, 06:59 PM

"Variablenkontrolle" is a term repeatedly coming to my mind when reading this thread.

"Intermittierende Variable" and "Falsification of alternate explanations" were two more.

Platapus · 03-29-12, 07:57 PM

Theists and non-theists will always have a hard time discussing this issue because they approach it from different viewpoints.

The theist has an apriori belief that there is a god and asks for proof that there is no god. Lacking any proof that there is no god, leads the theist to believe that their original position (there is a god) is true.

The non-theist has an apriori belief that there is no god and asks for proof that there is a god. Lacking any proof that there is a god, leads the non-theist to believe that their original position (there is no god) is true.

Each side treats the lack of contrary proof as evidence that supports their belief position. And that is simply not logical. But it does illustrate some of the difficulty that theists and non-theists have in discussing this issue.

Skybird · 03-30-12, 06:06 AM

I think atheism is more precisely described not as an existing quality (believing that there are no deities), but a simple absence of something (namely the absence of the belief in theistic conceptions). This may sound like just a small and unimportant difference, but it isn't - it is paramount. Seeing atheism as just another belief like any theistic belief, always was absurd to me. The people I learned to be atheists in my life all aimed at saying something like I do: believing in deities does not compensate for lacking knowledge on the origin and essence of things, since it is just a belief, making it a "joker" that is played when one lacks the correct card and thast claims to represent knowledge that in fact is not there. Thus, theistic belief has no explanatory value. From all people I knew in my life being atheists, this describes best their - and mine - attitude. And thus we do not like to be seen as believers of atheist-something. What characterises us is that we accept to not know everything, and that we refuse to simply believe something in place. What we do hope, though, is that with time moving on we - and man - step by step learn a little bit more. What we just believe to know, is not knowledge but is still just this: belief.

Maybe even a theistic believer can see by this explanation why to us there is no need to believe in deities. It would do nothing for us, give no credible answers, does not increase our proven knowledge, gives us no peace of mind, no contented heart.

Most atheists simply do not actively care for existential questions (though I am sure this is only possible to a certain, individual degree), or they learn to accept and live with the existential uncertainty and possible discomfort that results from that we do not know everything.

It is possible, though, that there may be movements by atheists that actively campaign, pretty much the same like relgious extremists do, and that such "atheists" display their thoughts in a messiianic attitude. This seems to be more a probklem in the Us than in Germany or Europe, if I may trust the media. In Germany for example I am not even aware of any such movement. In America it may result from the fact that relgious groups press with much more furor into the public space and try to influence legislation and education curricula with their dogma. Just think of creationism versus evolution, abortion versus feminism, etc. Where there is pressure implied by the relgious groups, there forms counterpressure by those not wanting to be limited by the dogmas of the religious that they do not believe in.

It'S also worth to remind of that atheists must not be areligious. They can, but must not be uncaring for relgious questions, and also there are atheist religions as a matter of fact: Buddhism for example. Originally, Buddhism does not know of deities and gods, and it is kept like this in the essential traditions that base on the ancient Chinese schools that were called Ch'an. The Tibetans on the other hand implemented a whole Olymp of dhakas and dhakinis that should represent impersonifications of various abstract positive and negative qualities, whether that is symbolism only or not I never really figured out - what I do not like about it is that it made a whole people of simple farmers focussing on these personal realisations, comparable to Christian angels and Catholic saints, spending their time with rites and rituals then. This is not what Buddha's teaching is about, this is not the path to realise your mind. I'm very much with the ancient Ch'an patriarchs there. They were very clear about the value of such ritualised stuff, often finding extremely harsh words for it.

I think that any mind that has sufficient awareness to realise its own mortality, necessarily asks the exitential questions, in any form and way, depending on the quality and freedom it's own self-awareness and self-reflection is capable of: where do I come from, where do I go, how much time do I have, why is all this? This is what I call spirituality, where I use the term religion for petrified dogmas of institutionalised religious clubs mostly: that'S why I differ between the teaching of Jesus or Buddha (spirituality) and church/dogma (religion). Fundamentalism emerges where the dogma is being taken literally and is spread fanatically with missionary attitude. Thus, to me spirituality and religion are antagonistic concepts/terms. The more spiritual you are, the less religious you are, the less in line with the dogma you are. The more religious you are, the more you believe, the less spiritual you can be. Spirituality needs freedom. religion wants to take your freedom. Both Buddha and Jesus suffered a fate of that their followers for the most turned them into institutions, transforming a spiritual message into a religious dogma. This was to corrupt power for themselves and to reserve rights for their priviliges and their power over the masses.

Considering this all together, there is no contradiction in saying that I describe myself as a spiritual atheist. And the atheist people I knew in my life, all more or less went along this road, too. We do not actively believe in a special concept like "atheism" or "no-God". Leave it to say that we refuse to just believe theistic tales. That is what Steve means, I assume, when he says: give me evidence. And once there is evidence, you are not left to just needing to believe something anymore - if you have evidence, then you KNOW. The God you just believe in, is just an imagined God. He dies, when you die. In other words: he never was.

And when others claim to know and to be enlightened - of what value could their "success" be for you? Does it make yourself enlightened, too? More likely that it makes your purse lighter, and your will less free, and your mind less able to ask questions.

03-29-12, 06:59 PM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,655 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	"Variablenkontrolle" is a term repeatedly coming to my mind when reading this thread. "Intermittierende Variable" and "Falsification of alternate explanations" were two more. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-29-12, 07:57 PM	#6
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,379 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Theists and non-theists will always have a hard time discussing this issue because they approach it from different viewpoints. The theist has an apriori belief that there is a god and asks for proof that there is no god. Lacking any proof that there is no god, leads the theist to believe that their original position (there is a god) is true. The non-theist has an apriori belief that there is no god and asks for proof that there is a god. Lacking any proof that there is a god, leads the non-theist to believe that their original position (there is no god) is true. Each side treats the lack of contrary proof as evidence that supports their belief position. And that is simply not logical. But it does illustrate some of the difficulty that theists and non-theists have in discussing this issue. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-30-12, 06:06 AM	#7
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,655 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I think atheism is more precisely described not as an existing quality (believing that there are no deities), but a simple absence of something (namely the absence of the belief in theistic conceptions). This may sound like just a small and unimportant difference, but it isn't - it is paramount. Seeing atheism as just another belief like any theistic belief, always was absurd to me. The people I learned to be atheists in my life all aimed at saying something like I do: believing in deities does not compensate for lacking knowledge on the origin and essence of things, since it is just a belief, making it a "joker" that is played when one lacks the correct card and thast claims to represent knowledge that in fact is not there. Thus, theistic belief has no explanatory value. From all people I knew in my life being atheists, this describes best their - and mine - attitude. And thus we do not like to be seen as believers of atheist-something. What characterises us is that we accept to not know everything, and that we refuse to simply believe something in place. What we do hope, though, is that with time moving on we - and man - step by step learn a little bit more. What we just believe to know, is not knowledge but is still just this: belief. Maybe even a theistic believer can see by this explanation why to us there is no need to believe in deities. It would do nothing for us, give no credible answers, does not increase our proven knowledge, gives us no peace of mind, no contented heart. Most atheists simply do not actively care for existential questions (though I am sure this is only possible to a certain, individual degree), or they learn to accept and live with the existential uncertainty and possible discomfort that results from that we do not know everything. It is possible, though, that there may be movements by atheists that actively campaign, pretty much the same like relgious extremists do, and that such "atheists" display their thoughts in a messiianic attitude. This seems to be more a probklem in the Us than in Germany or Europe, if I may trust the media. In Germany for example I am not even aware of any such movement. In America it may result from the fact that relgious groups press with much more furor into the public space and try to influence legislation and education curricula with their dogma. Just think of creationism versus evolution, abortion versus feminism, etc. Where there is pressure implied by the relgious groups, there forms counterpressure by those not wanting to be limited by the dogmas of the religious that they do not believe in. It'S also worth to remind of that atheists must not be areligious. They can, but must not be uncaring for relgious questions, and also there are atheist religions as a matter of fact: Buddhism for example. Originally, Buddhism does not know of deities and gods, and it is kept like this in the essential traditions that base on the ancient Chinese schools that were called Ch'an. The Tibetans on the other hand implemented a whole Olymp of dhakas and dhakinis that should represent impersonifications of various abstract positive and negative qualities, whether that is symbolism only or not I never really figured out - what I do not like about it is that it made a whole people of simple farmers focussing on these personal realisations, comparable to Christian angels and Catholic saints, spending their time with rites and rituals then. This is not what Buddha's teaching is about, this is not the path to realise your mind. I'm very much with the ancient Ch'an patriarchs there. They were very clear about the value of such ritualised stuff, often finding extremely harsh words for it. I think that any mind that has sufficient awareness to realise its own mortality, necessarily asks the exitential questions, in any form and way, depending on the quality and freedom it's own self-awareness and self-reflection is capable of: where do I come from, where do I go, how much time do I have, why is all this? This is what I call spirituality, where I use the term religion for petrified dogmas of institutionalised religious clubs mostly: that'S why I differ between the teaching of Jesus or Buddha (spirituality) and church/dogma (religion). Fundamentalism emerges where the dogma is being taken literally and is spread fanatically with missionary attitude. Thus, to me spirituality and religion are antagonistic concepts/terms. The more spiritual you are, the less religious you are, the less in line with the dogma you are. The more religious you are, the more you believe, the less spiritual you can be. Spirituality needs freedom. religion wants to take your freedom. Both Buddha and Jesus suffered a fate of that their followers for the most turned them into institutions, transforming a spiritual message into a religious dogma. This was to corrupt power for themselves and to reserve rights for their priviliges and their power over the masses. Considering this all together, there is no contradiction in saying that I describe myself as a spiritual atheist. And the atheist people I knew in my life, all more or less went along this road, too. We do not actively believe in a special concept like "atheism" or "no-God". Leave it to say that we refuse to just believe theistic tales. That is what Steve means, I assume, when he says: give me evidence. And once there is evidence, you are not left to just needing to believe something anymore - if you have evidence, then you KNOW. The God you just believe in, is just an imagined God. He dies, when you die. In other words: he never was. And when others claim to know and to be enlightened - of what value could their "success" be for you? Does it make yourself enlightened, too? More likely that it makes your purse lighter, and your will less free, and your mind less able to ask questions. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 03-30-12 at 06:43 AM.