manxy Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 It's a lot like a 50/50 world to me. Take from one and give to another. people born/people die population growth, the more bad incidents occur good/evil (or is it god/devil with a change of spelling over the years?) happy/sorrow synonyms and antonyms At the end of the day, it's a new day (I'm stopping before I get locked up) I do think however, that I will be reincarnated, but hopefully as a cat , as it's too risky being a dog these days Make something out of that! Must stop drinking.................hic..........hic........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 the questions ask about how you live your life - do you live your life under an assumption that a deity exists or not - that goes into questions of theology - how should you live your life if you assume a God exists - or not. Assuming one did believe that God existed, why would it change the way they lived their life? Unless they also believed in the religious stuff like heaven and hell and an afterlife. I'll happily take my chances that if there really is a God he doesn't really care what I get up to. Ten commandments included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Religion, for me, is all about a basic human need to have a higher authority; when we are children, it is our parents, that is easy. When we mature, we need something that replaces that guidance/authority. But it is worth pondering, at this point, that even 'mature' adults adopt a differing status depending on the situation they are in; in some situations each one of us is very definitely the ultimate authority, (the 'parent'), but in others we all need the guidance of, or deference to, a 'parent' figure; the situation we are facing is just beyond the tools we have to deal with, or explain, that situation. We are intelligent, so question, but if the question cannot be easily answered then some mystical influence is invoked to give it a logic. Animals are not religious because they do not have the intelligence to question why they are doing X, Y or Z, they just act on instinct. We are always looking for something to lead us in just about every aspect of our lives and a framework that can answer the ubiquitous question of 'why?'. Forgetting about religion, our whole society, and just about every society, has a hierarchy. So the man at the top then has to have a point of reference beyond him, hence the 'greater being' that we recognise as 'God'. It is for that reason that religion exists; to give credence to the hierarchy that is the social structure. I would like to think that we have developed sufficiently to understand that social order is an end in itself, without the need to recourse to what, we now must understand to be, mumbo jumbo. But that is just my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Assuming one did believe that God existed, why would it change the way they lived their life? Well that to me is the fascination of belief - what is the nature of the belief. Just going - yes I believe, or no I don't, or I don't know whether to believe or not - is that VinnieK's position - doesn't really say anything. I am an a-theist - in the same way I am a-foothfairyist - I find theism useless as a guide to my life and so I totally discount it, but I am agnostic about whether I am correct in this point of view or not; I do not think it is possible to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Ok - but I find it odd that you seem totally unwilling to debate the "form of deity". Meh. I'm not "unwilling", I'm "unconcerned". As I said before, we can't know, so I really don't care. Sure, in specific instances you can say this or that is incorrect about this or that religion, which may call into question the nature they ascribe to some proposed deity (although some of those of that particular religion would argue for their God by asserting a certain flexibility when it comes to doctrine and interpretation, an approach the CoE specializes in). But this is little more than a miserable drop in the ocean when it comes to the larger question of the existence/non-existence of deities in general. Questions of faith and religion are not as simple as exist not exist, Of course not, but that's what the subject of the poll was. the questions ask about how you live your life - do you live your life under an assumption that a deity exists or not - that goes into questions of theology - how should you live your life if you assume a God exists - or not. Yes. I know. But I'm less interested in the specific than I am the general. I'd be more interested in the human tendency towards self organization under some kind of ideological (religious or otherwise) banner, it's weakness for utopian promises and dystopian threats, inherent tribal impulse, and capacity for authoritarianism and wickedness in the persuit of reward (be it heavenly or Earthly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I don't know whether to believe or not - is that VinnieK's position Oh stop that this instant and behave. My position is that a firm belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity is an intellectual folly that lacks any decent foundations (However, if it's of benefit to a given person's emotions, ego, or what have you to believe in something, then good luck and fair play to them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I don't know whether to believe or not - is that VinnieK's position Oh stop that this instant and behave. My position is that a firm belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity is an intellectual folly that lacks any decent foundations (However, if it's of benefit to a given person's emotions, ego, or what have you to believe in something, then good luck and fair play to them). That's perfectly sound and sensible to me, and pretty much my outlook too - only I couldn't find the box to tick for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 My view too is that Dawkins abuses probability theory in his categories. IMO, Dawkins seems as hell-bent on selling atheism, as Jehovah witnesses are knocking on doors and selling us god. Personally,I am agnostic, which means 'seeing is believing' AFAIAC. This approach is based on what religion tries to sell/tell me, and what science tries to sell/tell me, especially in terms of superstring type theories and the ability of mathematicians to present the possibility of 10 dimensions. We live in and have experience of the 3rd dimension, and experience the 4th dimension as time. In the 5th we can follow any one of an infinite number of paths based on our own actions, the actions of others and chance.In the 6th dimension and onwards there is not just the possibility of our our universe existing, but others too, producing the possibility of an infinite number of infinite universes, with an infinite number of initial conditions and an infinite number of infinite endings etc. Mind boggling stuff, but it helps me put probability in perspective - demonstrating to me the futility of any human argument as to the existance or non existance of a god. Faith however is a different matter - it's committment too, and a belief in something. I have no firm faith in what I've seen/been told about so far - well at least not yet in this universe, hence my being agnostic. However, based on my own experiences, I do have faith that if I treat others how I would wish to be treated, I have a better chance of leading a happier life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 To quote my view from another thread, which is pretty much the same as above: Nobody knows. Nobody ever has, nobody ever will. Which is why spending too much time thinking about it or discussing it is pointless. Amen brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Technically agnostic ( ish ) IMPO there's far more to existence than we see, know or perhaps will ever understand. Man could be so much better as a race, regardless of God or not, but is too stupid. As for religion, each to his/her own providing it does no harm. And most do. Just don't try to impose it on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Animals are not religious because they do not have the intelligence to question why they are doing X, Y or Z, they just act on instinct. How do you know they are not religious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I can't PROVE that God doesn't exist, so me too - DFA Depends on your definition of prove. You can't prove that gravity exists, you've just got a fuckload of evidence to suggest it does, and a lack of evidence for anything else. Isn't it the same with God? I wish society would grow up faster and replace the good bits of religion with some modern alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 19, 2008 Author Share Posted September 19, 2008 My view too is that Dawkins abuses probability theory in his categories. IMO, Dawkins seems as hell-bent on selling atheism, as Jehovah witnesses are knocking on doors and selling us god. I'd agree with both points you've made, but I guess he's trying to be as scientific (he's a biologist) as possible when expressing a scale with absolute philosophical opposites at either end. It seems the scientific thing to do to signpost the mid-point with 'equally probable' but it's rather an unusual stand to take. People usually have a leaning, one side of it or another. He does cover in the book whether your personal concept of God is traditional theism - design, creation, scriptures, praise, prayer, redemption - type-stuff, or whether you're more pantheist - nature, cause rather than creation, the cosmos etc. Pantheists are not in line with holy books but regard God as metaphorical for something perhaps more complex. But this measurement is about 'God' rather than ideas like 'the spirit world' for example. Edit: 1000th post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I'm an Atheist - thank god.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thi Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 My faith lies completely in the human race. Sometimes it's rewarded, a lot of the time it gets its chips pissed on. I always said that if it were proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god then I would make it my mission to take him down because he obviously doesn't care enough what happens to his creation, but that now seems to me to be a bit of a risky proposition. What if our universe exists in a petri dish in a lab somewhere, having been created as a side-experiment by a pimply-faced lab assistant? What happens to his tray in the fridge when he gets hit by a bus on the way to work one Monday morning? All hail the pimply-faced lab assistant! Although surely we should be praying to his boss? Or maybe the owner of the facility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.