| Blogs > lugggy |
|
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:04 nA.Inky wrote: I think it is important for theists and non-theists to be open minded and continually seek wisdom and truth. No shit. This seems to me to me the biggest problem with beliefs of any kind, people are too close-minded. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
I'll state my thoughts positively: I believe all issues of truth boil down to perception. But we know that different people have different perceptions. I suspect other life and other awarenesses have very different perceptions from humans. What determines how we perceive the world? Our hardware, for one, and our culture and preconceptions, secondly. We can assume (whether it is wise to do so or not) that our hardware is roughly uniform, but it seems very unreliable to assume that people's culture and preconceptions are uniform. So, again, perception differs. In dealing with perception of the universe, you have to deal with your own preconceptions and culture. What I am getting at is that you will tend to see what you expect to see. If you take it for granted that fairies are probably an impossibility, then you probably wouldn't see a fairy even if it was in your environment. On a somewhat related issue, people are far more likely to shoot a black man reaching for a cell phone than they are to shoot a white man in the same case (psychological studies have been done on this.) Why is this true? Because people have a preconception that black men are more likely to be thugs and to be reaching for a gun. What we expect to see is what we see. The implications of this are very important. You expect the universe to be meaningless and devoid of magic and the like, and it is very likely that this will be your experience. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
I consider myself a realist Christian. That being, I believe there is a god, I believe in jesus. However, I believe that the bible over the course of 2000 years has been warped and misconstrued through translation and through a period of about 500 years where Christianity had more political power than we have ever known. I think it is ridiculous that many Christians lock themselves to the bible and can't see beyond it - Evolution and Creationism can coexist and i believe in both. I guess i associate a lot more logic to my beliefs despite being Christian (that probably sounds like an oxymoron..oh well). The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years. It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do. No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will. | ||
|
Diggity
United States806 Posts
Really consciousness is just unfathomable. Otherwise the argument boils down to either the eternal nature of a creator being, the eternal nature of material matter or the cyclical pattern of time. In more simplified terms, either there is a God that created everything outside of time, matter jumbles together to create everything in the infinite spans of time or time itself just repeats so we were never really created to begin with, things just are and always were. | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
As pointed out before in this thread, seeking to know if God exists of not will always fail. First because our human nature is not objective enough to consider all aspects of the case and secondly because we need God to exist. We need to have a higher level to evolve to, we need to feel we're not alone, that we are important in our own way. And that's why I see myself embracing a religion later on my lifetime, mostly because I'm not psychically strong enough to accept life might just end when I die. So the only thing one can strongly affirm is the WE DON'T KNOW and probably we never will. | ||
|
obloquy
United States265 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote: No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will. This sentence sums up my views quite nicely. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:16 nA.Inky wrote: Luggy, I appreciate that you do not agree with me. I do not mind hearing statements of other people's positions. But to act as if someone else is crazy for their position, or to act as if they are silly for not embracing your position is disrespectful. I could be wrong, but I felt that is how you responded to me. I am sorry if I was wrong. It was not personal, I just felt like you were putting out a position that you actually wouldn't agree with if you saw it applied in more cases. I thought if you thought about someone who seriously can't say "There is no Santa", you would have the same reaction I had, and that everyone else (presumably) would have. The question with God is no different. We can say in the same way, that they are all made up. It doesn't have to be positively provable. It's more basic than that. There are no squared circles, magic staplers, etc. I'll state my thoughts positively: I believe all issues of truth boil down to perception. But we know that different people have different perceptions. I suspect other life and other awarenesses have very different perceptions from humans. Not really. If you want to get technical and strict about it, we don't know that there even are different people, and especially that they even have perceptions. That anyone, or any thing "has" a perception. We don't have access to that. All we have are the perceptions. The ones we call "ours." That's it. And I can only speak for myself. I'm seeing this monitor, this text, maybe hearing some of these words as I think of them, maybe feeling my keyboard. But I do not know that you are parallel to this, that your monitor is seen in a similar way that mine is seen, or any of that. You are an object, an imagined thing, a grouping, a perception that is part of my making sense of perceptions, just as the monitor is a thing, I think of you as an identity tied to your name, tied to the idea of personhood, a source of your text, which correspond to thoughts etc. But in your super strict sense, I don't know any of that. Issues of truth don't boil down to "other people's perceptions", because the idea of otherness, and of people, boil down as well. And probably even more can be boiled down. But this should not take away from the common speech that we have learned, or what it means. What determines how we perceive the world? Our hardware, for one, and our culture and preconceptions, secondly. Again, hardware is only part of that perception, a specific idea applied to some of the objects we are seeing. How can you separate whether the world is being shaped by something, or whether it really is that way? Only by making several leaps about what you perceive. So if you can do that, why can't you know what people mean by "know" in the sense that it is used in this sentence and not some super strict sense? What I am getting at is that you will tend to see what you expect to see. If you take it for granted that fairies are probably an impossibility, then you probably wouldn't see a fairy even if it was in your environment. Stand up man! Admit that fairies are make-believe, please. Have you seen one? Do you believe anyone ever has seen one? Spoke to one? Do you believe that sometimes miracles happen? That sometimes gravity changes, when no one is looking? On a somewhat related issue, people are far more likely to shoot a black man reaching for a cell phone than they are to shoot a white man in the same case (psychological studies have been done on this.) Why is this true? Because people have a preconception that black men are more likely to be thugs and to be reaching for a gun. What we expect to see is what we see. Um, it is probably true that it is more likely they are reaching for a gun. The perception isn't necessarily wrong. The implications of this are very important. You expect the universe to be meaningless and devoid of magic and the like, and it is very likely that this will be your experience. Placebo effect works both ways. Do we get to the truth by wishful thinking? When has that ever worked? Makes me think of "Christian science" | ||
|
ChkChk.Boom
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote: The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years. Genesis 1:3 - "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Evening and morning = the first day... it seems to me like the author was thinking of literal 24 hour days. It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do. That's a nice strawman that you've constructed. | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On December 11 2007 04:28 nA.Inky wrote: Also, a clarification: atheism is not necessarily the claim that there is NO God. It is, in its broadest form, a LACK of belief in gods. In its broadest form, atheism is synonymous with agnosticism. There are "strong position" atheists that deny the possibility of God. This is sometimes called "strong atheism." Your poll seems to assume strong atheism. As such, I cannot answer your question, as there is no "I don't know if there is a god" answer. It leaves no room for ignorance, just faith in God or faith that there is no God. You should add a 3rd option, at least. well of course, it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is no god, just as it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is a god. "yes" or "no" in the poll means simply "are you more than 50% sure there is a god or not". | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:40 Meta wrote: well of course, it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is no god, just as it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is a god. "yes" or "no" in the poll means simply "are you more than 50% sure there is a god or not". So what are your thoughts on the celestial teapot? | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:38 Mindcrime wrote: That's a nice strawman that you've constructed. It's how i roll. Also why i don't discuss religion | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote: I don't like discussing religion with my people IRL or teamliquid (...especially teamliquid lol). But i guess in the spirit of good conversation ill express my views here. I consider myself a realist Christian. That being, I believe there is a god, I believe in jesus. However, I believe that the bible over the course of 2000 years has been warped and misconstrued through translation and through a period of about 500 years where Christianity had more political power than we have ever known. I think it is ridiculous that many Christians lock themselves to the bible and can't see beyond it - Evolution and Creationism can coexist and i believe in both. I guess i associate a lot more logic to my beliefs despite being Christian (that probably sounds like an oxymoron..oh well). The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years. It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do. No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will. it's quite telling to sum up the big bang the way you did. the theory was derived from physics that we know through experiment to be possible. the earth being created in 7 days theory was derived from who knows where thousands of years ago. what seems more logical? it's nice that you can try to live peacefully in the turmoil of this fight between reason and religion, though. mindcrime: i'm what Richard Dawkins would describe as a 6th degree atheist, that is, I am very convinced that the idea of a god as humanity sees Him or It is very human in nature (with human emotions and image), and thus, is an impossibility. There indeed might be some great power that we've yet to discover that drives the universe, but, until we discover that power, I'd rather leave it up to speculation. That said, I don't think good speculation consists of suicide bombings and genocide, which is what this speculation has consisted of since the birth of religion as we know it. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Yes, quite literally I think gravity can change randomly, that there can be spirits and fairies and all kinds of alternate realities. I do not say this to be stubborn - I genuinely believe in these possibilities. I've heard PhD's in astronomy and physics say that they now think the laws of physics have seemingly spontaneously changed throughout the history of the universe. The Universe is full of radical possibility. The Universe is far stranger than you or I can imagine. I like to be open to the immense variety of possibility. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Science and technology are now very dominant in the world today, and look where humanity sits... we are on the brink of unprecedented collapse. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
No where in this thread is there a hint that these questions apply for potentially non-existing, potentially hypothetical "alternate realities." It is pretty clear what we are talking about, by where we are talking. In reality. If someone says they don't have any children, you don't go "oh my god, you might, in other realities, or in the future." So you can't say "I don't know if I have any children" as much as you may feel the need. Because what they mean is plain and clear and what else the words can be construed as, is irrelevant to the conversation. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:44 Kennigit wrote: It's how i roll. Also why i don't discuss religion You don't discuss religion because you like using strawman arguments? | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:00 Mindcrime wrote: You don't discuss religion because you like using strawman arguments? No because i dont like going into detail unless i can talk in person. Internet peoples are also very aggressive and snide. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On December 11 2007 04:53 ilovezil wrote: Well, I'll start by saying that I believe in an omnipotent and omniscient being that governs this universe. What led me to this belief? I'm sure my Christian upbringing had much to do with it, but that is not the sole reason why I believe. As I'd said before, I find it hard to come up with the proper words. In summary, the most damning evidence you can find to learn that God exists is by actually reaching for him, by actively seeking his presence. Too many times, I asked God "are you there?" and too many times, I failed. I suppose my faith can be best described as confused, but persistent. Even though I've been denied the truth I was seeking so many times when I tried to find God, I never quite gave up. I'm a stubborn guy, you see. Even now, I'm still searching for the whole truth; not just the question of "does God exist" anymore, but...the "big picture", if you will. Thank you for expanding this a bit for me to try to understand. Do you think your method for finding out if God is there, is a reliable one? You say you tried to reach for him very hard. I assume you did not try this for other deities, or fake ones. Do you think this method could lead someone to believe in something that was fake? For instance, take 30 children, have 10 of them reach for the real God, 10 reach for Shiva, and 10 reach for Spaghetti monster, etc. That is what I mean by a reliable method. Does the method produce only true believes, or true and false beliefs equally? If I can come up with better words later, I'll edit my post accordingly. But as I stated, the most convincing evidence that God exists is by a one-on-one relationship. I never considered myself an eloquent and quick-to-thought person, so that's the best I can do currently. I've come to respect both religious and non-religious people earnestly; we each have our own stories. Sure, we can try to convince each other of our beliefs, but as you can see, the result so far is the everlasting religion vs science war. Those who can carry out such a seemingly impossible task of understandingly and patiently coming to accept the other's belief is a virtue humans have yet to learn... As an atheist my question remains, not whether the one-on-one relationship is something real and valuable, but whether, it is what you think it is. For instance, if we experimented, could we equally cultivate one-on-one relationships with made-up beings? If so, then that is no evidence for a real God, is there? Maybe God is real but we can never know him in any realms subject to evidence and testing. What do you think about that? Or should we all know God because of the evidence? That's all I have to say for now. I'll edit with a more substantiating(?) post later if I can come up with it. Oh, and what exactly are your intentions with this blog post, if I may ask? I'm just a bored atheist, who wants to talk out some of the differences between himself and others. I know plenty of people smarter than me have different views, so I want to see whether the conversation can be fruitful for any of us, especially myself. It isn't exactly a planned out thing, just a blog. I have been very interested so far in the conversations that have come about. So I consider my intentions already accomplished. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
When we discuss conventional matters, I am more likely to use conventional language and ideas, and take things for granted. This thread is getting very much at deeper matters, and so I think a much more nuanced and simultaneously broad, open ended approach is called for. At least that is how I will approach this. It is not my intention to split hairs, but I do think my framework for considering these kinds of things is clearly a bit different from yours. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 SteadfastSC StarCraft: Brood War 558LamboSC2 302IndyStarCraft  302NeuroSwarm 166UpATreeSC  157ProTech82 JuggernautJason80 ForJumy   21Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby3565 FrodaN2020 shahzam415 B2W.Neo315 mouzStarbuck212 Hui .207 C9.Mang0181 KnowMe140 ZombieGrub78 Trikslyr59 Dewaltoss25 Chillindude23 |
|
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
OlimoLeague
Fire Grow Cup
OSC
Replay Cast
SOOP
Ryung vs SHIN
Master's Coliseum
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
