|
|
|
|
Hopefully, this will cause nothing but a rueful smile and a bit of pondering.
http://www.bozzetto.com/Flash/Life.htm
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That does make you think
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.
The message I see there is that God treats us as an experiment, and when his experiments go wrong he throws us on the scrap heap. As I see it, that so many of his experiments have gone wrong already reflects badly on the designer, not on us.
Am I trying to read too much into this? I appreciate that the animation is technically very clever, but it seems to me that the message is a bit facile. It doesn't go along with the message of religion (that God has given us free will; if all his worlds have failed then he has made the odds so terrible that no-one can succeed -- in that case, why make humans in the first place if they are incapable of being good, unless he is sadistic?) or atheism (that there is no higher purpose to life, and that life is what we make of it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How interesting! We both see the same cartoon and interpret it differently. I thought that the cartoon was based on the very fact that man does have free will. I thought that the cartoonist was saying that God created a beautiful world and because God has no control over man's behaviour man had ruined everything. Therefore the best thing to do was to "delete". I don't share the cartoonist's pessimism not do I share Deeeej's atheism. Maybe "I'm just a cockeyed optimist".
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR said,
>I thought that the cartoonist was saying that God created a beautiful world and because God has no control over man's behaviour man had ruined everything.
But assuming that God created man in his own image, instead of leaving him on the planet to evolve (that is indeed what is depicted in this cartoon, at least) one has to ask: why would he create such a self-destructive and essentially evil animal in the first place? If he knows what the outcome is (and he does -- in the cartoon, because he's tried so many times before, and in Christianity because he is omniscient) why would he put people through so much suffering?
I don't personally think that there is such a thing as free will; the human brain is just a vastly complicated computer, and ultimately it is possible to explain every human thought and emotion as the result of a chemical process. Hence the whole concept of a god "judging" a person entirely on the basis of the chemical interactions in his brain, which he had no control over, seems absurd to me. Presumably, when he creates a person (or allows a person to be created), God (being omniscient) already knows whether he is condemned to heaven or hell, and nothing that person does can change it. Fair? No.
That is not to say that I think that there is no such thing as personal morality. We are far from the stage where we can even begin to understand how the human brain works, and may well never get there. Hence we human beings have to treat it as a "black box", and accept the outputs as the result of conscious decisions, even though they technically aren't. Where someone's actions are beneficial to other people we can define that as "good", and where they are detrimental we define that as "bad". Religion often likes to claim that if it were not for God's law that society would descend into anarchy; this is false. We are pre-programmed with a universal sense of morality, and this has most probably come about through millions of generations of evolution: the best way for society to function, and for the species to propagate. Look at other mammals. Most have evolved an innate and highly organised social structure to ensure the survival of their young. Human society, and morality, is just a more advanced form of that.
Sorry, I've drifted from the point a bit. Please don't take my remarks personally. I'm simply stating my viewpoint on life.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Is there any god?
Or was the concept origionally concieved by a manbeing that eons stood erect and reached for something (say a star) which he could not grasp, thus thinking it must be for something greater than himself?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't say, "There is no God."
I simply say, "I have not seen any evidence for a God. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, it is most likely that there is no God."
A lot of people assume that an atheist will automatically refute all possibility of there being a "higher being" (whatever that is), but in fact most scientists who are also atheists don't say that at all. They simply think it is so unlikely that without any evidence it is not useful to assume one exists. Especially as there is no theory by which a God could fit in with existing science.
There are some atheists that do say, "There is no God", but that is not a scientific viewpoint. In a way, that is just as bad as saying, "There is a God", as there isn't any proof that God does not exist either. It's a sort of religious atheism and one that is best avoided, as it relies on just the same sort of belief that religion does.
What were we talking about, again? Ah, yes. Marc, I should think you're right. God was most probably created by primitive man to explain things that did not make sense to him. Both the moon and the sun have been worshipped as gods in the past. Now that we know what they are, we laugh at the cultures that thought they were deities. Yet now that we have run out of visible or tangible things that we don't understand, we now have a God that is by definition invisible, inaudible, intangible and inexplicable.
It's a circular and completely useless argument: one cannot understand God because God is everything we cannot understand.
Bizarre. One can imagine societies of the future laughing at us for just the same reason that we laugh at past cultures.
Deeeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read a paper somewhere (I really should write down all this stuff) about Einstien. Einstien said. that altho he didnt believe in any god in particlular, but that he did believe in a higher intelligence. the universe is just too complex and the math laws to constant to just have appeared.
I kinda look at it like this. I dont believe in a god who condemns his own creation. IM gay, I was born like this, had to be, who in thier right mind would choose to be gay. since god created me why should he hate me. I believe if someone is kind, never harms another, treats life with respect. then god whatever and whoever he or she is (or it) will be pleased.
Ok! ran my mouth long enough and almost positive Ive said the wrong thing ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian,
A lot of scientists believe in some sort of God, or at least accept the possibility of some sort of God. But almost without exception they also believe that the universe is self-consistent, and that science helps us to get closer to understanding the full enormity and wonder of his creation. Science never needs to be compromised by religion.
I've always been of the opinion that, if there is a God, there is no way that a few sheets of paper can even begin to describe him. The Bible was written by men, and as such is full of prejudices and errors. It is sheer arrogance on our part to assume we can know anything about him at all.
One thing I continue to believe, even though I am no longer a Christian, is that one can do no better than to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Provided you live your life according to those lines, what you do and whom you love is entirely irrelevant.
God doesn't play dice.
-- Albert Einstein
There's an interesting page of Einstein quotes here:
http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html
P.S. You didn't say the wrong thing at all! I enjoy reading your posts.
P.P.S. it's "Einstein"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I befor E except after C and whats his faces name::-)
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... so what's new, kiddo? I thought we had saying the wrong thing pretty well sewn up between us!
I guess I'm fairly close to Deeej on this. I, too, have drifted away from Christianity, but I'm agnostic, not athiest. I think I'd like there to be a God, but - for me - faith is not enough. Faith has been so grossly manipulated in history that I need something closer to evidence.
The Bible is OK as far as it goes. The Old Testament reflects life as it was when the books were written, but if we envisage the omnipotence of the God it portrays it seems to me impossible to accept that he did not wish humanity to progress and develop. Thus I cannot accept that any part of the Old Testament is intended to be swallowed whole; it cannot be more than a blueprint giving general guidance for the future. Otherwise, I'm irretrievably condemned for the King Prawn Curry I ate a couple of days ago!
The New Testament is a bit of a mish-mash. By and large, the Gospels offer a pattern for living which I don't think any other religion has bettered. I reckon that the parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the greatest moral statements in history, and the ultimate condemnation of racism. But, like the curate's egg, the Epistles of Paul are good in parts, and by the time we reach the Revelation of St. John the Divine - well, let's just say that the aforementioned John could have had a successful careeer as a director of horror films, had the genre been available in his day!
Curiously, despite the tast two paragraphs, I still enjoy the 'High' version of Anglican (=Episcopal) liturgy, especially the 'sung' service of the 1662 Prayer Book. It's an absolute antithesis to stress, and I always emerge feeling, in some sense, renewed and ready to tackle life.
In summary, I suppose that my creed is this: I'm not sure, but I'd like to believe. Everyone is entitled to adopt beliefs different from mine, but no-one is entitled to expect me to modify my beliefs to accomodate their own. And I believe that, if there IS a God, he has a sense of humour - otherwise, why would he have created the kangaroo? Indeed, why would he have created Australia?
(Ducks below parapet to avoid high-speed wallaby!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not realy really sure, but I think thats basicly what I said. Im, I guess an agnostic. As far as saying the wrong thing? I was told that there are two things you dont discuss with people, Religion and politics. My mom has a friend, (supprising huh) and she was going on and on about how I shouldnt give my mom a hard time and why I should be a good boy, so God will be pleased with me. After several minutes of this, I finally told her, I dont believe in your christian god. since he doesnt exist I dont have to please him, just be true to my own ideals. She hasnt talked to me in let me see, three years I believe. If I remember right she told my mom I was a smart ass little bastard. For sure she got the last part right. ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... let's hear it for the smart-arsed little bastard! But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be proud of yourself, because - believe me! - you've earned that right!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again I didnt write down who said this. If someone knows just jump in or jump out, whichever is the easyest. He said that the earth was a living thing, and we were a cancer on it.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I posted the link to that cartoon because I thought that people here might find it amusing. It is very interesting that most of those who have posted here have used the cartoon to describe their own beliefs and opinions rather than to relate to the presumed beliefs and opinions of the cartoonist. I have no idea who he is, and I can only guess at his beliefs and opinions concerning man, God and creation from what I perceive him to be saying in his cartoon. But that is no longer the subject of this thread, which, as I said, has become a receptacle for our own thoughts. So it is to those that I address myself now.
Deeeej wrote:
But assuming that God created man in his own image, instead of leaving him on the planet to evolve (that is indeed what is depicted in this cartoon, at least) one has to ask: why would he create such a self-destructive and essentially evil animal in the first place? If he knows what the outcome is (and he does -- in the cartoon, because he's tried so many times before, and in Christianity because he is omniscient) why would he put people through so much suffering?
Deeeej describes himself as an atheist (although he sounds more like an agnostic). But the God that he rejects is the God that he was taught about in childhood and the God of the society in which he lives. Thus the God he denies is the Christian God. "I am not now and never have been" a Christian. So I see things differently. For me, God did not "create such a self-destructive and essentially evil animal"; God created a being with the capability of determining his own actions; therefore God created a being with the potential for evil, but did not create man evil. In different terms: God created a human being and not a pre-programmed automaton.
I don't personally think that there is such a thing as free will... Hence the whole concept of a god "judging" a person entirely on the basis of the chemical interactions in his brain, which he had no control over, seems absurd to me. Presumably, when he creates a person (or allows a person to be created), God (being omniscient) already knows whether he is condemned to heaven or hell, and nothing that person does can change it. Fair? No.
This is as near to Calvinism as one can get. In my religion, whether or not God knows what behaviour decisions I shall make is an irrelevant issue (over which theologians have spilled far too much ink over the ages): ultimately, I do what I want to do.
That is not to say that I think that there is no such thing as personal morality.
How can a person be moral or immoral if they are not possessed of free will? When the lion kills its prey it is not being immoral, it is just "doin' a what comes naturally". When a human being kills his prey is he also just "doin' a what comes naturally"? When a human being subjects another to unspeakable pain, fear, agony is he just"doin' a what comes naturally" or is he doing wrong?
Religion often likes to claim that if it were not for God's law that society would descend into anarchy; this is false. We are pre-programmed with a universal sense of morality...
In which case how do you explain what was done in Europe between 1933 and 1945 to Jews, gays, gipsies and all other "untermenschen"?
...and this has most probably come about through millions of generations of evolution...
Why is man the only animal to have evolved a moral code?
Please don't take my remarks personally. I'm simply stating my viewpoint on life.
Of course I don't! And the same goes for me. But if this thread is boring for others maybe we should take it offline?
A lot of scientists believe in some sort of God, or at least accept the possibility of some sort of God. But almost without exception they also believe that the universe is self-consistent, and that science helps us to get closer to understanding the full enormity and wonder of his creation. Science never needs to be compromised by religion.
Amen.
I've always been of the opinion that, if there is a God, there is no way that a few sheets of paper can even begin to describe him.
Amen, Amen.
One thing I continue to believe, even though I am no longer a Christian, is that one can do no better than to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Provided you live your life according to those lines, what you do and whom you love is entirely irrelevant.
Please, Deeeej do not relate to me according to that teaching. To me it is pernicious and has been the cause of enormous human suffering over the ages. If you follow that teaching to its logical conclusion (and in the middle ages many Christian clerics did) you will end up burning people at the stake in order to save their souls. The teaching you quote is attributed to Jesus. A rabbi who was an older contemporary of Jesus said it much better, in my opinion: "What is hateful to you do not do to anyone else: that is the whole of God's law." In modern times George Bernard Shaw said the same thing with more wit: "The golden rule is not 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you': your tastes may not be the same."
P.P.S. it's "Einstein"!
Deeeej, I thought I was the official pedant of this board! Are you presuming to usurp my office?  )
Hugs.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im going home and pout, I didnt even get an Amen.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen Amen.
There, Brian, do you feel better now?
Hugs for you as well.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Deeeej describes himself as an atheist (although he sounds more like an agnostic).
No, I am an atheist. Being an atheist does not mean that I can categorically state "there is no God" (though some atheists do, incorrectly in my opinion, as they have no evidence for that assertion), but that, given the evidence available to me, I see absolutely no evidence for one. (See "weak atheism".) As a scientist, when there is absolutely no evidence for a hypothesis I discard it. I'm aware that agnosticism has a number of possible definitions, but as the commonly accepted one is that one accepts the possibility that a God exists I would have to reject it. There is a remote possibility that the moon is made of cheese, and that NASA and the Russians have been lying to us -- but do I think it is? No. It is simply not useful to believe that it is, until further evidence comes to light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I'm aware that I may slip up in my language from time to time and appear to take an agnostic or even theistic position (and scientists do the same thing, in fact; they don't necessarily qualify every statement with "assuming the theories on which I am basing my research to be correct", but in fact they always mean that) but this does not prevent me from feeling that the evidence against the existence of God is so strong that it is far simpler for me to assume in all cases, including my personal beliefs, that he does not exist (with the exception of thought experiments, obviously).
>Thus the God he denies is the Christian God.
Well, yes, when I refer to God I do usually mean the Christian God. However, this is simply because he is the God I know best. I don't see any evidence for any other type of God or mystical being, or for that matter ghosts or telepathy or dowsing or curses or miracles. I'm an all-round skeptic, and when I refer only to one type of God I honestly do mean to include all the others too. I just sometimes forget.
>For me, God did not "create such a self-destructive and essentially evil animal"; God created a being with the capability of determining his own actions; therefore God created a being with the potential for evil, but did not create man evil. In different terms: God created a human being and not a pre-programmed automaton.
In that case, I was referring directly to the cartoon. Before I became an atheist it was far more wonderful to me to think of a God who created the seeds for evolution and let mankind develop on his own than as a rather dodgy sculptor who kept making mistakes.
>>That is not to say that I think that there is no such thing as personal morality.
>How can a person be moral or immoral if they are not possessed of free will?
Because the brain is so complicated that only (a hypothetical) God can know why a person behaves in a particular way. Because we don't have that knowledge, and can't even begin to understand how the brain works, we have no choice but to treat people as "black boxes" -- and if these black boxes behave like they have free will, then we have to accept it. I don't deny the existence of something that is so close to free will that we have to treat it as such; but I do think that free will is nothing more than an illusion; we are bound entirely by the chemical interactions in our brain.
Whether a mentally ill person is responsible for his or her actions -- or whether a person who does something horrible is by definition mentally ill -- are some of the major moral issues of our time, and I can't pretend to have an easy solution.
>Why is man the only animal to have evolved a moral code?
Is he? What exactly do you call a moral code? I would call the way that mammals care for and defend their own kind a "moral code". Just because it is instinctual doesn't mean it is not a moral code. In fact, a lot of mankind's morality stems directly from what comes naturally (even war).
>Please, Deeeej do not relate to me according to that teaching. To me it is pernicious and has been the cause of enormous human suffering over the ages. If you follow that teaching to its logical conclusion (and in the middle ages many Christian clerics did) you will end up burning people at the stake in order to save their souls.
Okay, I'm sorry. In retrospect I should avoid the teachings of a particular religion as there will always be examples of when they have been twisted out of shape. There have been people out there just itching to be burnt to death. But I don't see anything better about: "What is hateful to you do not do to anyone else: that is the whole of God's law." There's no way anyone can simplify the whole of human morality into a couple of sentences. "Respect the views of other people, except where they are causing another person harm"? That doesn't work either, because once someone starts talking about "harming a person's immortal soul" then anything goes. You can stone to death a homosexual to save his own life.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks JFR. I feel much better now. Thanks for the hugs too.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
