Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?

[ant]

There is no molecule for time.

ummm, duh!! Really??

you missed the subtleness of the point entirely.

[ant]

Ant, you keep changing words and sentences and statements around to meet your needs.

I'm sorry, but saying the possible existence of an infinite being or conciousness is "ridiculous" is NOT demonstrating scientific agnosticism.

I have NEVER said this in my ENTIRE life!

So why the hell am I now forced to defend myself against it? Who is being dishonest here? Me or you?

Either you don't really comprehend what you read on these forums or you are deliberately twisting them around to suit your needs.

Since I don't make the argument that you claim I make what do I actually argue? I argue that the BELIEF in the existence of an infinite being or consciousness is ridiculous.

Note the difference between what you said and what I said?

I'm not arguing that an infinite being or consciousness is impossible or non-existent. I'm arguing that the BELIEF in an infinite being or consciousness is ridiculous.

Feel free to come back with something witty and off-topic but please demonstrate that you understand and appreciate the HUGE difference between what I just said and what you have said.

I'm sorry, I was referring to what Tulip stated, not you.

I'm arguing that the BELIEF in an infinite being or consciousness is ridiculous.

This seems like a total cop-out and something that is said in atheistic circles quite frequently.
It's toeing the line but not having the intestinal fortitude or the balls (sorry, can't think of a better word here) to finish the line of thinking here..., if the belief is ridiculous, then to consider the thing that you profess belief in as existing is ridiculous as well.

The belief in fairies is absurd because there are no fairies.

Why don't you own up to what you are concluding here? Let's stop this "I didn't exactly say it, now did I??!!" game.

I am not a believer in the traditional sense, but I've seen a lot of people here shy away from stating their beliefs because of the fallout they receive. It's ridicule that's wrapped up in statements like it's ridiculous to believe in a god, infinite consciousness, being, etc, etc.

The really hilarious thing about this whole science vs religion warfare is this; the far right (let's call that corner of the ring Materialists) screams - "That can't be true. It's not in line with science!" while the far left (Traditional Religion) screams, "That can't be true. It's not in line with scripture!"

It's all just ideology from BOTH SIDES.

[ant]

We're past the point where we need to evolve further.

This is such an inane statement, it took my breath away.

Unbelievable

What credentials do you possess to make such a definitive statement about life? I'm willing to wager that some of our most brilliant minds would not make such a grandiloquent proclamation.

Truly astonishing. And to be honest, quite disappointing.

[Penelope]

AK Phillips:-

Too many people have too much to lose by the removal of gods, but as we are conditioned to look out with ourselves instead of inside, society will simply replace one god with another.

Eastern religion has permeated society to some extent. Buddhism grew out of the Hindu faith. Buddhism is more a way of being than a set of beliefs. It is a philosophy more than a religion, but it supplies a hook upon which to hang our spirituality. Some of us need this hook to help us feel at home in the world. There are no 'fundamentalist' Buddhists. It is not a proselytising faith, and the aim is to attain inner peace at all costs. One cannot promote peace in the world unless it begins within you personally....so I suppose we condition ourselves to look inside, but to embrace the idea of non-separateness.



We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

Thich Nhat Hanh

and I believe this is what Albert Einstein was alluding to:-

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delu
sion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

― Albert Einstein

(So good, it's worth quoting twice. )

[Robert Tulip]

"Speaking of an infinite entity who has a conscious purpose is ridiculous"
This statement is the epitome of anthropocentric hubris. For starters you have (and everyone else) an infantile understanding of conciousness in all its forms. You are like a fish in a bowl. Secondly, your perception of time is just as poor as your perception of conciousness. Infinity? Please tell me you are not claiming expertise in this area as well. Gentlemen, gentlemen, we are a relatively young species in a very old universe. To make such definitive statements is clownish and oh so laughable.

Oh great ant, you who have the mature understanding of consciousness in all its forms, please accept my infantile atheist obeisance! Oh great ant, who understands the thought and feeling of rocks, and how the cosmic microwave background radiation solves equations, you who converse with aliens of high intelligence beyond our feeble capacity to grasp!

The problem here is that on the one hand we have religious people who say there definitely is an infinite entity with a conscious purpose (God). Such certainty for a claim that lacks any evidence in its favour is ridiculous. Strictly speaking, we cannot know, any more than we can know if other fantasies may be true. On the other hand there are extreme atheists (such as myself) who argue that such an entity is sufficiently disproved by science, and sufficiently explained as imaginary, to say God definitely does not exist. The extremism enters the picture with the faith that science is correct.

As I said in the paragraph ant quoted from, "There is no evidence for the existence of such an entity, and the principle of economy of reason (Ockham's Razor) suggests that imagining such a real God is delusional. Such speculation about God as an entity is better explained by psychological projection than by inspiration from something real."

ant calls my view "the epitome of anthropocentric hubris". At least my opinion is compatible with all scientific observation, unlike the far more hubristic idea that such an entity made man in his own image in some physical way.

Religious ideas make sense as symbols. Turning them into literal claims degrades their content.

[Penelope]

Robert:

Religious ideas make sense as symbols. Turning them into literal claims degrades their content.

If one views the bible as a book full of metaphores and allegory, it still depicts, in parts of the OT, God, as, at the best petulant and at the worst demonic.

I understand that in order to comprehend the concept of an almighty God, one would need to use metaphore, but really, if one views the OT stories as such, then the metaphores don't work.

The Bible has some beautiful and poetic books, but the central character of God as depicted there.....when analysed.....could not possibly be worthy of worship and for me, that scews the whole concept.

There are three World religions based on OT books......and all three have caused a lot of....what? Misconceptions....leading to fanaticism and bloodshed.

I wonder if the idea of not making graven images. Not making images of God that is, could also be a warning against making images of 'HIM' in ones mind. Much better the concept of Brahman:-

Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.

The phenominal universe is us....trying to comprehend ourselves.

[Robert Tulip]

the central character of God as depicted there.....when analysed.....could not possibly be worthy of worship... Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe. The phenomenal universe is us....trying to comprehend ourselves.

Yes, the Indian origins of the Abrahamic faiths become very apparent when you consider the linguistic connections of the Indo-European language family. The idea of God went through many versions.

These versions of the idea of God are known as covenants. So, the new covenant in Jesus Christ replaced the former covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. As modes of worship become obsolete, they are replaced by approaches that make sense to the new age.

Johnson noted earlier the practice of executing people for breaking the Sabbath. The rejection of this archaic custom is one of the specific features of the new covenant brought in the name of Jesus Christ. You can't blame Jesus for something that he specifically campaigned against, any more than you can blame Luke Skywalker for the excesses of the Empire in Star Wars.

What is needed now is a new covenant that respects the findings of science. It means that rather than building a castle in the air with the fantasy that God is real, the myth of Jesus should be placed within a rigorous scientific materialist framework. That is the way to formulate a transformative ethic. It is about respecting the moral content of myth while discarding its obsolete supernatural embroidery.

[Penelope]

Robert:

It is about respecting the moral content of myth while discarding its obsolete supernatural embroidery.

Well that's like respecting the moral content of fairy tales:

Red Riding Hood = Don't dawdle about on your way to Grandmother's House and admire the beautiful woodland - or the big
bad wolf will get you.

Goldilocks = Don't go poking about in the houses of strangers, however interesting, or you'll get a real scare.

Cinderella = Let your fairy godmother wave her wand and make you pretty so that the Prince will fall in love with you and take
care of you, 'cos you're a girl and you can't take care of yourself.

The moral contents seem to reflect the ethics of the times and are not appropriate for more enlightened times, I suppose.

Anyway, some of the myths are not worthy of respect, and should cease to be preached. What about Abraham and Isaac? That seems to condone child abuse. = Listen to God's voice in your head and do as it says, without mercy.

I think the problem lies in insisting that the book is the world of God. Even more so in the case of the Koran. Do we need a set of instructions about how to behave? Don't we have an inner conscience? Of course we do!

[Interbane]

This is such an inane statement, it took my breath away.

Unbelievable

What credentials do you possess to make such a definitive statement about life? I'm willing to wager that some of our most brilliant minds would not make such a grandiloquent proclamation.

Truly astonishing. And to be honest, quite disappointing.[/quote="ant"]

Out of my entire post, this is the sentence you felt most pertinent? Look around you, do you see a need to evolve further? Why was your breath taken away? We don't need to evolve fur in response to fluctuations in our environment. We make clothes. We don't need to evolve claws to grab on to ever more elusive prey. We have weapons.

Our minds create whatever phenotype or extended phenotype would normally be selected for through natural means. It is not necessary for us to evolve further. Perhaps at some point there may be an envionmental hurdle that we cannot overcome without further evolving. But I don't see what that could possibly be. We can even live out in space without further evolution.

Perhaps we may want to evolve at some point, but that does not equate to a need. If you see a problem with my reasoning, quote it exactly and respond to it directly.

For starters you have (and everyone else) an infantile understanding of conciousness in all its forms.

Can you give us a lesson in consciousness please? Or post links to some primer material? List the different forms of consciousness as well. Fuzzy language with no meaning.

[ant]

Can you give us a lesson in consciousness please?

I think it's only fair that the ownness be on the person that's proclaiming s/he knows it's foolishness to believe in a god and that we as a species have evolved enough to understand the nature of reality.

Since you've evolved enough for us all, I'll wait for your lecture on consciousness and its relationship with matter and time.