Ethical Atheist vs believer in God

[juantoo3]

And the biggest truth of all is that we are all wrong. Especially me of course

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[juantoo3]

Not sure either - to be honest, not sure panentheists are sure either.

I think a key problem is that as humans we try and understand existence in human terms, when the universe is larger than that. It's kind of like an amoeba trying to explain existence in amoeboid terms - it may make sense ot other amoeba, but does it really understand anything fundamentally?

Yep. Of course, that's kinda hard to get this idea across to anybody who is certain they already have it figured out. In amoeboid terms they might have it figured out, but as for any actual understanding they are limited by their place in reality. Ego of course would never allow them to realize their limitations, even in those rare brief moments when they can be shown the factual limitations.

Alas, what's a philosopher to do?

 

[Postmaster]

I feel the same way. I just disagree that a meme has to have anything to do with 'faith' of any kind. But at the end of the day we are all going to live out our own realities regardless of what we say here.

I disagree with this. Something I've spent alot of time the past year is thinking about how we as humans interact socially. I knew there was interesting things going on with human interaction. So I started to read books by Derren Brown see if I could get any hints and later other (more informative) books. And started to try understand charisma, which later got thinking about Cassanova and Rasputin. Think I made a nice disocovery.

Here's an interesting concept for you.

calibrate - make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring; "calibrate an instrument"; "graduate a cylinder"

It’s not easy for people to make huge calibration (adjustments) to the way they think and behave but we are constantly micro-calibrating with the way we think and behave to our surroundings, our environment and social interactions. To speed up and make larger calibrations we need to throw and push ourselves there where the adjustments need. Here's an example I remember when I first joined this forum, my spellings were terrible, my writing and explanations were even worse, my ideas were standard, the way I debated was aggressive. But a couple of years down the line with persistence and effort I fine tuned myself or better calibrated myself for this forum and thus my value in the forum has increased. And I think even if people are not making huge calibrations whether they like it or not they are still micro calibrating. To make huge calibrations you need to learn off someone who has more value then you and for this to happen they need to be quite open with you and attempt to teach you, or even as something as spending time effort with you. If you are then teaching or giving value to help someone calibrate more you hold the charisma.

I like to think that truth is shattered into countless pieces and that each person holds a piece of this truth. Through your social interactions you slowly discover these pieces of truth either through effort or simply circumstances.

For example a beautiful lady is more likely to get more approaches by people then your average guy. And people will be more willing to help her and teach her then say your average looking bloke. Therefore by time she is 30 her social intuition/calibration is more likely to be higher then the average bloke who is 30.


I probably haven't explained this properly but it makes sense to me

 

[Tao_Equus]

I disagree with this. Something I've spent alot of time the past year is thinking about how we as humans interact socially. I knew there was interesting things going on with human interaction. So I started to read books by Derren Brown see if I could get any hints and later other (more informative) books. And started to try understand charisma, which later got thinking about Cassanova and Rasputin. Think I made a nice disocovery.

Here's an interesting concept for you.

calibrate - make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring; "calibrate an instrument"; "graduate a cylinder"

It’s not easy for people to make huge calibration (adjustments) to the way they think and behave but we are constantly micro-calibrating with the way we think and behave to our surroundings, our environment and social interactions. To speed up and make larger calibrations we need to throw and push ourselves there where the adjustments need. Here's an example I remember when I first joined this forum, my spellings were terrible, my writing and explanations were even worse, my ideas were standard, the way I debated was aggressive. But a couple of years down the line with persistence and effort I fine tuned myself or better calibrated myself for this forum and thus my value in the forum has increased. And I think even if people are not making huge calibrations whether they like it or not they are still micro calibrating. To make huge calibrations you need to learn off someone who has more value then you and for this to happen they need to be quite open with you and attempt to teach you, or even as something as spending time effort with you. If you are then teaching or giving value to help someone calibrate more you hold the charisma.

I like to think that truth is shattered into countless pieces and that each person holds a piece of this truth. Through your social interactions you slowly discover these pieces of truth either through effort or simply circumstances.

For example a beautiful lady is more likely to get more approaches by people then your average guy. And people will be more willing to help her and teach her then say your average looking bloke. Therefore by time she is 30 her social intuition/calibration is more likely to be higher then the average bloke who is 30.


I probably haven't explained this properly but it makes sense to me

There has been a lot of research into what types of men different types of women are attracted to. Beautiful women seem to choose handsome men who are displaying similar or greater affluence than themselves. A good looking self-successful women is very unlikely to date a acne covered unemployed guy with low intelligence. Mostly people choose a partner that is more or less like them. Unless you want to get into the small percentage of women who are highly promiscuous or those searching for genetic variety women almost always choose someone from their own social background or slightly above.
Women have clearly been demonstrated to be more receptive to prospective partners when they are ovulating and such women are quite easy to spot. In fact many women unconsciously time their nights out to coincide with their peek points of fertility. I have also found women especially receptive as they approach menopause, though I presume this to be a psychological as much as a chemical causation at work.
But all women are different. I have had opportunistic encounters where hardly a word was exchanged, chat is not always required. Indeed just listening and prompting is a highly successful strategy. Casanova and Rasputin also carefully nurtured their reputation which in extended social groups is an excellent, if sometimes dangerous, strategy. Women hate to feel they are missing out on something and reputation alone can give you access to women that are not naturally promiscuous. But what works best of all is persistence. Riding the law of averages the more you try the more you get. Many men fear the rejection of a "no" or a "get lost" as though it would somehow terminate their lives. Where in truth even the no's become fun. It is all a big game really. And if you can laugh at the no maybe next time you ask the no will not be so firm, and the next might be a smile....
A lot depends on what you are looking for. I am basing this all on the promiscuous characters you mention. Looking for a long term relationship can be quite different. But if sex is important to you being as promiscuous as possible between them will soon show you the type of woman that suits you. I know I could not endure a faithful long term relationship with a woman I did not have a naturally electric sex life with. But after 19 years in comitted relationships I have now enjoyed 6 years of uncommitted bachelorhood... and I am enjoying it far too much to give it up

 

[c0de]

I'd like to hear this reasoning if you care to explain, please.

It's actually pretty simple, and I have
already outlined the thesis itself.

Step#1

"Knowledge=Objectivity vs Man=Subjectivity
Therefore: Knowledge > Philosophy"

This much is almost undisputed ever since Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason. However, Kierkegaard
takes this one step further but this is only
applicable to some who want to take this step.
However, those that do take this step can easily
defend it based on the reasoning from Step#1
and just following it along to its conclusion.

Step #2

"God=Objectivity vs Philosophy=Subjectivity
Therefore: Revelation > Human Morality"

 

[Postmaster]

Casanova and Rasputin also carefully nurtured their reputation which in extended social groups is an excellent, if sometimes dangerous, strategy. Women hate to feel they are missing out on something and reputation alone can give you access to women that are not naturally promiscuous.

Women like alot of other animals even many kinds of birds, have a pre-selection attraction switch hardwired into there brains. You could probably get there neurons shooting on a scare crow if there was another women interested in it. Body language gives away lack of or full of expereince of women too so that could alter there attraction for you aswell.

 

[Postmaster]

It's actually pretty simple, and I have
already outlined the thesis itself.

Step#1

"Knowledge=Objectivity vs Man=Subjectivity
Therefore: Knowledge > Philosophy"

This much is almost undisputed ever since Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason. However, Kierkegaard
takes this one step further but this is only
applicable to some who want to take this step.
However, those that do take this step can easily
defend it based on the reasoning from Step#1
and just following it along to its conclusion.

Step #2

"God=Objectivity vs Philosophy=Subjectivity
Therefore: Revelation > Human Morality"

Thanks, this line of thought I'm still considering to be fair. I got things like evolution blocking my full faith in Abrehamic faiths. I think the wonders of logical thought for medicine that is then used to cure millions of people and relief there suffering is miraculous. Evolution is used to understand why we behave the way we do and is an important part of biology. But evolution contradicts the way people of Abrehamic faiths are suppose to believe how creation happened. You can thank people like Leonardo Di Vinci for being the brainchild of some medical advancements we even use till today, an Atheist.

 

[c0de]

Thanks, this line of thought I'm still considering to be fair. I got things like evolution blocking my full faith in Abrehamic faiths. I think the wonders of logical thought for medicine that is then used to cure millions of people and relief there suffering is miraculous. Evolution is used to understand why we behave the way we do and is an important part of biology. But evolution contradicts the way people of Abrehamic faiths are suppose to believe how creation happened. You can thank people like Leonardo Di Vinci for being the brainchild of some medical advancements we even use till today, an Atheist.

Well, as far as evolution goes, it only contradicts a literal reading
of the Biblical scriptures, and does not contradict the Quran at all.

and Da Vinci was Catholic btw

 

[Quahom1]

Well, as far as evolution goes, it only contradicts a literal reading
of the Biblical scriptures, and does not contradict the Quran at all.

and Da Vinci was Catholic btw

Not from a Catholic perspective, it doesn't. You see, one can not expect the first book to be literal, yet allow the last book to be symbolic in its representation (e.g. the world was made in six- 24 hour days as noted from an earthly perspective in the book of Genesis, yet the statue of Daniel is a symbol of eras of kingdoms, as is the seven headed beast of Revelation).

Ironic, that Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicolas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius, Marie Currie, Gregor Mendel, to name a few, were all Catholics, yet had no trouble embracing science, including for many that understood, the concept of evolution.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Not from a Catholic perspective, it doesn't. You see, one can not expect the first book to be literal, yet allow the last book to be symbolic in its representation (e.g. the world was made in six- 24 hour days as noted from an earthly perspective in the book of Genesis, yet the statue of Daniel is a symbol of eras of kingdoms, as is the seven headed beast of Revelation).

Ironic, that Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicolas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius, Marie Currie, Gregor Mendel, to name a few, were all Catholics, yet had no trouble embracing science, including for many that understood, the concept of evolution.

All born in geographically catholic regions making the claim meaningless.

 

[Postmaster]

Persoanlly I think that back in the day when Genisis was writen many people probably believed it in a litteral sense, considering its a text written afew thousand years ago its only quite recently people start justifing it as being symbolic.

I think Leonardo Di Vinci wasn't a practising one and his mindset was one that probably rejected alot of the theology of Catholism. Actually alot of the stuff he did could have got him in serious trouble in his day. Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for saying things like the earth revolved around the sun. Also both there sexuality's are very questionable.

Back in them days Christian scrpitures were taken more seriously by the state. Maybe because of them the state and people in general started to realise that taking Christian scpirtures literally maybe wasn't such a good idea. Which would lead one to ask how far can you bend and twsit Chrstianity before you should even be considering yourself one?


Did Leonardo Da Vinci believe in God? or was he an atheist? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[c0de]

Postmaster + Quahom






@ Postmaster

I think Leonardo Di Vinci wasn't a practising one and his mindset was one that probably rejected alot of the theology of Catholism. Actually alot of the stuff he did could have got him in serious trouble in his day. Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for saying things like the earth revolved around the sun. Also both there sexuality's are very questionable.

Rejecting official dogma doesn't make you an atheist though.

Back in them days Christian scrpitures were taken more seriously by the state. Maybe because of them the state and people in general started to realise that taking Christian scpirtures literally maybe wasn't such a good idea. Which would lead one to ask how far can you bend and twsit Chrstianity before you should even be considering yourself one?

Well, I'm a Muslim so I don't really want to comment much on Christianity.
But I do know that one should always draw a distinction between
established state/church/scholarly endorsed dogma and faith.

The point is that the idea that atheism/atheists are somehow
responsible for much of the scientific knowledge and creativity
in the world is not true at all. Its actually a recently generated myth.

Many hardcore atheists I have noticed, want to believe this.
I recently saw a poster on the front page of DIGG that was endorsing
atheism. It had pictures of all these famous historical figures who it
claimed were atheists... the funny thing is that not a single one of
them was actually an atheist. Most people do not know that even
Charles Darwin was not an atheist.





@ Quahom

Not from a Catholic perspective, it doesn't. You see, one can not expect the first book to be literal, yet allow the last book to be symbolic in its representation (e.g. the world was made in six- 24 hour days as noted from an earthly perspective in the book of Genesis, yet the statue of Daniel is a symbol of eras of kingdoms, as is the seven headed beast of Revelation).

Yea I have heard that surprisingly the Catholics are more apt to take a
metaphorical meaning of the scriptures. This I found really surprising
because I always expected them to be more dogmatic.

Ironic, that Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicolas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius, Marie Currie, Gregor Mendel, to name a few, were all Catholics, yet had no trouble embracing science, including for many that understood, the concept of evolution.

Well, Newton rejected the trinity, so I do not if he can be seen as
a Catholic at all. But many others, I am sure were still Catholics even
if they weren't all too happy about the Church itself. Galileo especially,
as Postmaster mentioned.

 

[Tao_Equus]

The point is that the idea that atheism/atheists are somehow
responsible for much of the scientific knowledge and creativity
in the world is not true at all. Its actually a recently generated myth.

There is some truth in that statement. However very many modern scientists are atheist or agnostic. And I think atheists do not really attempt to claim science, but the scientific method. Feeble or laughable attempts by religionists to claim science as there own are in vogue as can be seen in your first footsteps into this site. The perversions of truth, the stretching of verse to fit an argument are symptomatic of a lack of faith in my opinion. To have to descend to such fraudulent manipulations you can only be either very stupid or in denial or both. For example there is nothing in the muslimists arguments that are not to be found in ancient Chinese and Vedic writings, yet they say they were the direct words of God as revealed to an illiterate. Even then the tenuous threads that must be supported only by stretching credulity to the limit are claiming yesterdays physics which is already in serious question. I think it a slippery and stupid idea for a religion to try and claim science and knowledge but they are so paranoid about being seen to have a complete truth that they take the plunge anyway. Mostly sure in the knowledge that most of the faithful will remain faithful regardless of what bull they are fed.

 

[c0de]

Even then the tenuous threads that must be supported only by stretching credulity to the limit are claiming yesterdays physics which is already in serious question.

Neils Bohr founded Quantum Mechanics.
He was not an atheist. And QM is not
"yesterday's physics"

... but the scientific method.

The scientific method was created by a Muslim.

I think it a slippery and stupid idea for a religion to try and claim science and knowledge but they are so paranoid about being seen to have a complete truth that they take the plunge anyway.

No I think its a "slippery and stupid idea" for
some to claim that faith stifles creativity:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/an-unlikely-universe-10211-3.html

And I think atheists do not really attempt to claim science....

You did. (unsuccessfully)

For example there is nothing in the muslimists arguments that are not to be found in ancient Chinese and Vedic writings, yet they say they were the direct words of God as revealed to an illiterate.

"muslimists"... is not a word.

 

[Postmaster]

As for Charles Darwin, personally I think he came up with a better version of the creation of life then the best selling book in the world Bible (Genisis) and he didn't even claim to have been a divine the messenger from God. I wonder how many milions out there still hold Gensis to be a factual story.

I'm sitting here smirking cause I just thought that if he did claim to be a divine messenger and persisted with establishing a religion he probably would have had a very large following till today, he could have said God sent me to rewrite Genesis and I'm the latest Prophet.

"To Darwin, Natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[133] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[111] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[134][135]"

 

[c0de]

Tao + Postmaster



@ Tao

And since you have never had a free mind I dont debate with you to win

Actually Tao, you don't win because you don't know how to debate. Observe:

Both the greeks and vedics had outlined knowledge by systematic observation.

You know why that statement is not only false,
but ironically false?

Do you know what the Scientific Method actually is?
It is the attempt to separate Science, from Metaphysics.
You know metaphysics? Something the Greek and Vedic
"science" was full of? The modern Scientific Method was first
outlined in the Book of Optics by a Muslim named Ibn Haytam.
The 7 part volume was published between 1011-1021...

By the way, the Greeks and the Vedics, also not atheists...
This is why their science was riddled with metaphysics to begin with.

So yes, the Scientific Method you would like to claim for yourself...
actually created by a Muslim...

And you think we understand quantum physics now do you!! Changed your tune all of a sudden.

Did I say that? hmmm, lets see:

Neils Bohr founded Quantum Mechanics.
He was not an atheist. And QM is not
"yesterday's physics"

Nope...






@ Postmaster

I wonder how many milions out there still hold Gensis to be a factual story.

That makes 2 of us, cuz I dont know either.

 

[Postmaster]

He has a point here in the west we don't give Muslims (Arab traders, invaders) enough credit for there part in what the west has today. The times when Europe was sunk into the Dark Age, the Islamic empire was going through a golden age in philosophy, science, trade and architecture. They even bought the west numbers with the all important 0 (originally Indian, we can't programme computers without 0) when we were still using Roman numerals, eastern numbers were considered satanic. Islam unified the Middle East and beyond which opened up trade, probably stoped future tribal wars and bought to many people the very important concept of God which kind of shadowed Paganism with all its rituals and primitivity.

 

[Postmaster]

You should look into charaters like saladin who was trying to keep out the crusaders. He did not maim, kill or retaliate against those whom he defeated. Since Saladin had given most of his money away for charity when they opened his treasury, they found there was not enough money to pay for his funeral. Compare that to the way the crusaders battled, often rapping, looting and mass killing and getting orders from living it up popes.

 

[Quahom1]

All born in geographically catholic regions making the claim meaningless.

Hardly, more like there is room in the catholic faith to embrace science and evolution, and free thinking, which led to these people discovering things that make our world go 'round today.

You really should read up on Ecclesiastes Tao. Seems to suit your mood as of late.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Do you know what the Scientific Method actually is?
It is the attempt to separate Science, from Metaphysics.
You know metaphysics? Something the Greek and Vedic
"science" was full of? The modern Scientific Method was first
outlined in the Book of Optics by a Muslim named Ibn Haytam.
The 7 part volume was published between 1011-1021...

By the way, the Greeks and the Vedics, also not atheists...
This is why their science was riddled with metaphysics to begin with.

So yes, the Scientific Method you would like to claim for yourself...
actually created by a Muslim...

How do you know he was a Muslim?

Chris